Politics in 2018

[Loachman]

Some enlightenment from two lawyers in two letters in today's Globe and Mail:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/letters/feb-13-justice-system-under-microscope-plus-other-letters-to-the-editor/article37947644/

The Stanley verdict

The purpose of a criminal trial is to determine if each essential element of the offence has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Murder contains two essential elements: actus reus and mens rea. Actus reus is the commission of the act, killing the victim, and mens rea is the accused having intended to do so. In the Gerald Stanley case, the actus reus was clearly proven and not denied by the accused. The problem was the mens rea – did the accused intend to kill the victim or was it an accident?

To secure a conviction, the Crown had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Stanley intended to kill Colten Boushie (Stanley Acquitted In Shooting Death Of Boushie, Feb. 10). The jury wrestled with this issue for 15 hours before deciding unanimously that the Crown had failed to do so.

The length of deliberation suggests there was some evidence that he had an intention but not enough to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is how the system is supposed to work. The English legal system of criminal justice, which is the law in Canada, is the only system that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is intended to ensure that no innocent person is ever convicted of an offence. I sympathize with the victim's family and understand that it is difficult for them to accept the verdict but they must try to understand what has happened here. The jury was called upon to decide, based only on the evidence presented to them, whether the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Stanley intended to kill Mr. Boushie. After deliberating for 15 hours, it decided that the Crown had failed to do so, and as a result Mr. Stanley was found not guilty.

Garth M. Evans, Q.C., Vancouver

.......................................

Before we throw trial by jury under the bus in favour of some other system, three considerations:

We already have a robust mechanism for determining if the jury is biased. The challenge for cause procedure results in questioning jurors before they are sworn. It is often used when racial prejudices might influence the jury. The Crown chose not to use it here. The fact the Crown did not engage that procedure does not mean the rest of the system is wrong or needs to be changed.

Second, context matters: If media reports are accurate, protesters greeted the jury pool before they were selected, calling on them to find Mr. Stanley guilty regardless of what the evidence demonstrated. The identity of jury members is public information. It would be perceived by the accused that it would be much harder for someone who lived on reserve with the demonstrators to resist that call than it would be for someone unknown to the demonstrators.

When we politicize the outcome of a trial by protests, we make it much harder for the accused to feel comfortable that a particular juror will decide based on the evidence instead of his or her ethnic identification.

The underlying problem is that there are few Indigenous people in the jury pool. Justice Frank Iacobucci commented on that problem and made recommendations to fix it. That is the urgent reform needed.

Brian Casey, Q.C., Dartmouth, N.S.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I myself find it hard to believe there were few indigenous people in the jury pool. That there were no or few indigenous people on the actual jury is another matter.

 

[Loachman]

From something that I came across yesterday - and cannot remember where - initial selection was/is done (in that area/province at least) from the provincial health card database, as it was considered to be the most universal/inclusive single database. Those living on-reserve, however, are covered federally rather than provincially and are therefore not included in the invitation process - and were probably quite happy about that situation until now.

Few reserve residents pay income tax and many otherwise-eligible jurors may not have driver's licences. What other provincially-accessible databases exist that could be added?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Why do you find it hard to believe, Whiskey601?

The First Nation community from which the victim came is a little more than 50 Km from the site of the event that gave rise to the trial.

Now, I don't know about Saskatchewan, but around here, that would mean that there is a very high likelihood that the two communities are located in different judicial districts. Now, when jury panels (the group of potential jurors called out for selection) are created, they are usually selected at random from a list of sort for the judicial district where the trial takes place. You don't get people from all over the province, save in very specific types of cases where you know that finding local people without involvement or bias is near impossible for some reason or other.

So it is perfectly possible, I would almost say probable, that there were few First Nation communities or member from First Nations in the district where the trial was held, and therefore few to be on the randomly selected panel.

And Loachman: In Quebec, we use the electoral list. While many members of the various First Nations make the conscious decision not to vote - for political reasons - they are nevertheless usually entered on the electoral list.
 

 

[George Wallace]

Whiskey601

I think this may have been a part of why there were no First Nations on that jury:

Second, context matters: If media reports are accurate, protesters greeted the jury pool before they were selected, calling on them to find Mr. Stanley guilty regardless of what the evidence demonstrated. The identity of jury members is public information. It would be perceived by the accused that it would be much harder for someone who lived on reserve with the demonstrators to resist that call than it would be for someone unknown to the demonstrators.

Meanwhile, here is another perspective:

http://thepoliceinsider.com/boushie-case-exposes-cracks-in-leadership/

Boushie Case Exposes Cracks in Leadership
February 12, 2018 7:35 am
by James G Jewell

I like a good murder mystery.
The Colten Boushie case was anything but.
There was never a question regarding who killed Mr. Boushie.
Gerald Stanley was the shooter, he admitted it and his defence attorney acknowledged the fact in court.
The justification for the killing was, however, in dispute.
Was it an intentional killing, as the second degree murder charge laid by police seemed to suggest, or was it an accidental killing as Mr. Stanley described during his sworn testimony in his defence.
The purported facts are also in dispute.
Some suggest Boushie was a criminal intent on committing criminal acts on Mr. Stanley’s farm while others portray him as an innocent victim simply looking for assistance in a time of need.
I won’t delve into the minutia of the case because I prefer to rely on facts when I conduct analysis and form opinions.
The required facts are contained in the transcripts of the criminal proceedings in the Gerald Stanley murder trial and are not available to the public just yet.
As such, the only people who can argue they have a truly “informed” opinion would be the people who attended or participated in the trial.
People  like the jurors who rendered a not guilty verdict in the matter.
A verdict that has sparked anger, outrage and protest across the Country.
Indigenous people blamed the all white jury and cited racism as the prevailing impediment to achieving justice for Colten.
Was racism to blame for the verdict?
Do we need to examine the manner in which juries are selected in our Country?
Do Canadian juries need to more diverse?
These will be topics of much debate moving forward.
As I watched main stream and social media accounts it dawned on me I haven’t seen this kind of societal racial divide since the OJ Simpson case.
In that case, African-Americans celebrated OJ’s acquital while white America gasped in horror, disgusted that a killer of two innocent people had been set free.
Set free by a predominately African-American jury.
The parallels to the Boushie case are obvious.
The public reaction in both cases are strongly divided on racial lines.
Indigenous Canadians largely believe a miscarriage of justice took place by Stanley’s acquittal while Caucasian Canadians express the sentiment it was Colten Boushie’s choice to engage in criminal activity that ultimately caused his demise.
The racial divide may be unprecedented in our Country.
”We’re in a very troubled place, not only as First Nations, not only as Indigenous peoples, but Canadians as a whole,” said Sheldon Wuttunee former Chief of the Red Pheasant First Nation.

Justin Trudeau (Twitter)
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau seized the opportunity to express his condolences to the Boushie family via Twitter.
He took it further in a press conference held in the United States…
“I’m not going to comment on the process that led to this point today, but I am going to say we have come to this point as a country far too many times. I know Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians alike know that we have to do better.”
It was an interesting choice of words…
”We have to do better.”
The inference was clear.
The Canadian Justice Minister  Jody Wilson-Raybould took it a step further;

Jody Wilson-Raybould (Twitter)
”As a country we can and must do better, I am committed to working everyday to ensure justice for all Canadians.”
If you take her comments in context, Wilson-Raybould is committed to seeking justice for all Canadians….well, all Canadians with the obvious exception of Gerald Stanley.
There you have it.
The Canadian Prime Minister and the Canadian Justice Minister both posting comments on social media that clearly undermine the verdict and the entire Canadian Justice system.
It might be another unprecedented angle to the story.
We’ve seen enough controversial killings in recent history to know the families mourning the losses ultimately demand justice.
Justice to them often means conviction and jail, nothing less.
The evidence, the truth, the facts don’t always matter.
The pre-incident conduct of the decedent, criminal or not, compliant or not (in cases of police deadly force), often don’t matter.
Unfortunately, a person’s perception of justice is entirely dependent on which side of the fence they stand on…
We witnessed that phenomena in the Michael Brown, Terrence Crutcher and countless other cases in the United States.
It’s completely understandable.
I can sympathize to an extent.
What I struggle with is the lack of discretion Canadian Government officials of the highest office have when it comes to their ability to refrain from rushing to judgement in a controversial case such as this.
I don’t believe either of these high-ranking officials were equipped with enough factual information to condemn the Canadian Justice system in the manner they did.
They didn’t sit through days of court proceedings hearing the evidence.
They weren’t able to assess the credibility of the witnesses who testified on behalf of the Crown.
They weren’t able to assess the credibility of Mr. Stanley when he provided his testimony.
They weren’t present in the jury room when guilt or innocence was debated.
The jurors who acquitted Mr. Stanley were.
That’s was their job.
They did their job.
They heard the evidence and acquitted Mr. Stanley.
The comments made by Justin Trudeau and Jody Raybould-Wilson not only undermined the criminal justice system, they sewed the seeds of intense anger, hatred and division.
That was not their job.
Their job was to promote reconciliation and healing.
Nothing more.
Nothing less.

 

[Remius]

I believe there were a few FN persons called to the jury pool but that the defense used peremptory challenges to dismiss them.

I think we have two situations that are unfortunately linked because of this trial.

1) A verdict that some people didn't like.  The problem is that most people don't understand the justice system.  Like in the Gomeshi trial.  Non credible witness can raise reasonable doubt.

2) A system that is perceived as not properly or fairly serving a segment of society

Both issues are being mixed in together when really they should be looked at separately.

On one side I accept the verdict from a legal perspective.  I have no doubt that Mr. Stanley felt threatened and feared for himself.  Those kids were up to no good and lost all credibility at trial with changing stories or things that didn't add up.  I also don't believe Mr. Stanley wanted to kill anyone but I don't believe for a second his pistol was for scaring animals and I have a hard time believing that his gun just went off with his finger off the trigger.  But that's just a biased non informed opinion on my part. 

The other side about how we pick juries and how the justice system deal with FN is something that does need addressing but in the proper context and without specific cases like this entering the political debate.  The government says they have to do better.  then stop saying that and do it.  They've had years now to deal with this sort of thing.

 

[Loachman]

Ref your first line, from my Reply 520: "The challenge for cause procedure results in questioning jurors before they are sworn. It is often used when racial prejudices might influence the jury. The Crown chose not to use it here. The fact the Crown did not engage that procedure does not mean the rest of the system is wrong or needs to be changed."

No questions were asked, as I understand, but anybody who appeared to be indigenous was rejected anyway - undoubtedly because "racial prejudices might influence the jury".

A bulged spent casing from Mr Stanley's pistol was found. That was used to explain his claim that the weapon fired while the slide was to the rear. The ammunition was around sixty years old and likely stored for some, or all of that, in less-than-ideal conditions, which could explain a hangfire (possible, but almost impossible to prove or disprove).

 

[mariomike]

Reply #516

National Post

Yet, the polling evidence is convincing – the Conservatives need to attract younger, urban, ethnically diverse voters or they will lose again in 2019.

Any opinions on if they will be able to?

 

[Retired AF Guy]

From something that I came across yesterday - and cannot remember where - initial selection was/is done (in that area/province at least) from the provincial health card database, as it was considered to be the most universal/inclusive single database. Those living on-reserve, however, are covered federally rather than provincially and are therefore not included in the invitation process - and were probably quite happy about that situation until now.

Few reserve residents pay income tax and many otherwise-eligible jurors may not have driver's licences. What other provincially-accessible databases exist that could be added?

How juries are selected in Saskatchewan:

A jury is a group of impartial people who listen to the evidence in a court case and render a verdict.  In Saskatchewan, jury trials are only held at Court of Queen's Bench.

In a criminal trial, 12 jurors hear the evidence and decide if the accused person is guilty or not guilty. Before the jury makes their decision, the judge explains the law that they must consider when deciding the verdict. If there is a guilty verdict, the judge will decide what the sentence should be. Criminal jury trials are only held for indictable offences (more serious offences).

In a civil trial, six jurors hear the evidence and determine the issues involved. In civil cases, jury trials are held when one of the parties requests and pays for a jury.

The Jury Regulations, 2000 set out the fees paid to jurors. In criminal matters, jurors are paid $80.00 for each day or part of a day that they sit. In civil matters, jurors are paid $15.00 for each day or part of day that they attend court for the jury selection process. Once a person is sworn in as a juror, they receive $25.00 for each day they sit on the jury.

The Jury Act, 1998 and The Jury Regulations, 2000 are the legislative authority for Saskatchewan's jury selection process.

The Jury Selection Process

First Step: The Summons

When the court needs to assemble a jury, the Sheriff in that judicial district asks the Ministry of Health to provide the required number of names. The names are selected randomly, by computer, from health records. Anyone who is over 18 years of age with a health services number and who lives within that judicial district may be called for jury service. The name and address of the potential juror is the only information provided to the Sheriff.

A document called a "summons" is prepared for each potential juror. It tells the person when to attend court and contains information about the selection process. Once the summons is received, it must be completed and returned within 5 days of receiving it. Failure to return this information and failure to attend court can result in a serious fine.

Second Step: The Judge and Lawyers

People who receive a summons in the mail must attend court for a process called jury selection.

The selection of the jury takes place before the start of the trial. The presiding judge describes the nature of the case to be tried and then makes certain inquires of the jury panel to determine if they are able to act as impartial judges of the facts. The names of the prospective jurors are written on cards that are placed in a box. The court clerk draws the cards from the box and those prospective jurors are asked to come forward.

The lawyers for the parties at trial have the right to challenge prospective jurors without giving any reasons. If this occurs, that person is then asked to return to the body of the courtroom. If the prospective juror is not challenged, he or she is then sworn as a juror. This process continues until all the jurors are chosen. Those members of the jury panel who are not selected are excused from further attendance. Those who are selected will serve as judges of the facts at the trial.

Eligibility for Jury Service

Any Saskatchewan resident who is over the age of 18 and is a Canadian citizen may serve as a juror.  Health records are considered to be the best database available in this province. Every person in Saskatchewan has a health services number which has been randomly assigned by computer. This ensures that everyone is given an equal chance at being called for jury service.

However, some people are excluded from being jurors because of the work they do or their legal status. This includes:

people who are now, or in the past have been, judges, justices of the peace, coroners, lawyers or police officers;
employees of the Ministry of Justice (Saskatchewan), the Department of Justice (Canada) or the Department of the Solicitor General (Canada);
people who work in the administration of justice;
a reeve, councillor or mayor;
a member of a board of education, the Counseil Scolaire Fransaskois, a board of trustees of a school district or a counseil d'ecole;
a member or officer of the Legislative Assembly;
a member of the Privy Council, the Senate or the House of Commons;
a spouse of any of the above people people who are legally confined to an institution; and
people who are certified incompetent.

As well, individuals over age 65 or who have been on a jury within the last two years will be excused. These individuals are not automatically excluded.

The only information considered by the jury selection program is whether the person is over the age of 18 years and whether they have a residential address within the boundaries of the judicial district. There is no information provided to the Sheriff that could enable him or her to judge the age or health of an individual. A person over age 65 can serve on a jury if they wish. However, if they are unable or unwilling, seniors will be automatically excused from jury service upon request. All that is required is a phone call to the Sheriff's office or filling out and returning the form enclosed with the summons.

Requests to be excused from jury service can also be made if:

    serving on a jury would cause personal or financial hardship;
    a person is suffering from illness;
    a person is not capable of performing the duties of a juror; or
    a person is a practicing member of a religious group with which jury service is incompatible.

Article Link

 

[pbi]

A more realistic goal for The Tories for next year is to play a long game and aim to become kingmakers to a Liberal minority government. Avoid courting the social extremists, focus on the economy and jobs, produce a workable and credible program to protect the environment without wrecking the economy, and they have a very good chance. I very much doubt the NDP will ever repeat their last performance.

For the record, after a life of voting Tory, I voted Liberal last time. But, like a goodly number  of Canadians, I could go back to the Big Blue Tent.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=pbi]
For the record, after a life of voting Tory, I voted Liberal last time.
[/quote]

Genuinely curious, mind if I ask what motivated you to vote Liberal?
[I found this Conservatives were getting cocky, all but abandoned the CAF and firearm owners (two biggies for me) but their stance on refugees was what sealed the blue deal for me this go.]

 

[Cloud Cover]

Why do you find it hard to believe, Whiskey601?

The First Nation community from which the victim came is a little more than 50 Km from the site of the event that gave rise to the trial.

Now, I don't know about Saskatchewan, but around here, that would mean that there is a very high likelihood that the two communities are located in different judicial districts. Now, when jury panels (the group of potential jurors called out for selection) are created, they are usually selected at random from a list of sort for the judicial district where the trial takes place. You don't get people from all over the province, save in very specific types of cases where you know that finding local people without involvement or bias is near impossible for some reason or other.

So it is perfectly possible, I would almost say probable, that there were few First Nation communities or member from First Nations in the district where the trial was held, and therefore few to be on the randomly selected panel.

This, among other things, is why I find it hard to believe: http://aptnnews.ca/2018/02/12/justice-minister-examine-jury-selection-saskatchewan-verdict/

"Now let us read about the jury selection, from the Globe and Mail
“More than 700 people from across the massive Battlefords district were issued summons to appear as part of the jury panel.
Approximately 200 showed up in person on Monday morning.
When Chief Justice Martel Popescul asked whether anyone needed to be excused as potential jurors, a long line quickly formed.
About 70 people, roughly a third of those present, pleaded to be let go,
Nearly 50, including about a “dozen people who appeared Indigenous ”, were excused.”
Those “dozen people who appeared Indigenous ” were 4.9% of the 200 and more that showed up Monday for jury duty but asked to be excused.


Now, I do not like the 'appeared to be indigenous" part of that, and I cannot source the Globe and Mail article. But it does suggest but not prove that the stories about this are not lining up with the many narratives on the jury pool. The Battleford judicial district is apparently "massive" whatever that means.  op: 

The federal government is responsible for paying the NIHB benefits for health care costs of FN, but does that mean they are excluded from provincial health care system registration and by extension the jury selection system? Is that known as fact or a supposition? I'm just asking.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Some information from Stats Canada on the Aboriginal population in Saskatchewan:

One in ten Aboriginal people in Canada live in Saskatchewan

    Numbering 157,740,Note 1 11% of the Aboriginal identity population in Canada lived in Saskatchewan in 2011. They made up 16% of the total population of that province.

    Almost four in ten Aboriginal people in Saskatchewan resided in Saskatoon (15%), Regina (13%) and Prince Albert (10%). While they represented nearly 10% of the total populations living in each of Saskatoon and Regina, they made up 39% of the total population of Prince Albert and 22% of the population of North Battleford.

    Saskatchewan was home to 103,205 First Nations people, 52,450 Métis, and 290 Inuit,Note 2 with the rest reporting otherNote 3 Aboriginal identities (1,120) or more than one Aboriginal identity (670). From 2006 to 2011, the First Nations population in Saskatchewan increased by 13%, while the Métis population rose by 9%, and the Inuit population increased by 37%.Note 4

    Of those who identified as First Nations people in 2011, nine in ten (91% or 94,155) reported being a Treaty Indian or a Registered Indian as defined by the Indian Act of Canada. Over half (53% or 54,950) of all First Nations people (57% of First Nations people who were Treaty or Registered Indians, or 53,940 individuals) lived on a reserve.

Full article can be found here.

And for those not familiar with the area, there is the city of North Battleford and the town of Battleford (aka "the Old Town"), two very different urban areas. Collectively, they are known as "the Battlefords". Populations (2011) of 13,888 and 4,065 respectively.

 

[George Wallace]

A pause for thought and reflection.

On the Saskatchewan Legal front, this is escaping the MSM:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/drunk-driver-who-killed-family-of-4-moved-to-healing-lodge-after-serving-1-month-1.3300680

Drunk driver who killed family of 4 moved to 'healing lodge' after serving 1 month
Josh Dehaas, CTVNews.ca Writer
@JoshDehaas
Published Friday, February 24, 2017 7:44PM EST
Last Updated Saturday, February 25, 2017 1:01PM EST

A man who lost his son, daughter-in-law and two grandchildren to a drunk driver says he was disappointed to learn that the woman sentenced to 10 years in prison for their deaths was moved to a minimum-security “healing lodge” just one month after her sentencing.

Jordan and Chanda Van de Vorst, along with their children Kamryn and Miguire, were killed last January when Catherine McKay ran a stoplight and crashed her SUV into their vehicle on Highway 11 north of Saskatoon.

McKay pleaded guilty last summer to four counts of impaired driving causing death. A joint submission by the Crown and defence stated she had consumed at least seven drinks and had been driving at 120 km/h.

McKay is living at the Okimaw Ohci healing lodge, a minimum-security facility that incorporates Aboriginal teachings into its rehabilitation programs. It has residential houses instead of cellblocks and inmates, including McKay, are allowed supervised day release.

Jordan Van de Vorst’s father Lou Van de Vorst says he is shocked that someone who killed four people could be transferred from prison so quickly, adding that the punishment should reflect the severity of the crime.

“We miss our kids every day,” Van de Vorst said. “More than once a day, my wife and I think of our children and our grandchildren and my daughter in law."

Corrections Canada would not comment on McKay’s specific case, but said that each offender gets assessed at intake and an individual rehabilitation program is made.

“Indigenous programs target offenders’ needs in the context of indigenous history, culture and spirituality while at the same time addressing the factors related to criminal behaviour,” Corrections Canada said.

McKay’s lawyer Leslie Sullivan said that she believes healing lodges make a positive impact.

Regina mental health councillor and residential school survivor Grant Severight also defended the use of a healing lodge for McKay.

“She didn’t get up that morning to say, ‘I’m going to go onto a highway in a drunken stupor, I’m going to run into this car and I’m going to kill people,’” he said. “She never planned that.”

Prisoner advocate John Hutton, who leads the John Howard Society of Manitoba, said that prison is not the right place for someone who suffers from addiction issues and does not present a danger to society.

He said McKay will likely be eligible for parole within a few years whether she’s at a healing lodge or not, and “she’s going to make a better use of that (time) in the healing lodge.”

Van de Vorst said he believes in rehabilitation but wants to see more consideration for victims. He also said he hopes McKay’s rehabilitation includes speaking out against impaired driving.

With reports from CTV’s Jill Macyshon and CTV Saskatoon’s Mark Villani

Two Legal Standards (three if you want to include the "elite") for Canadians is not just. 

Here we have a First Nations person basically getting off scot free after killing four people.  If one wants to question why tensions exist, then look at how our Legal SYSTEMS do not match and treat ALL Canadians equally. 

I would say that this, although well intended, is not working:

“Indigenous programs target offenders’ needs in the context of indigenous history, culture and spirituality while at the same time addressing the factors related to criminal behaviour,” Corrections Canada said.

The problem(s) is being treated "reactively" and not "proactively".

 

[ModlrMike]

The federal government is responsible for paying the NIHB benefits for health care costs of FN, but does that mean they are excluded from provincial health care system registration and by extension the jury selection system? Is that known as fact or a supposition? I'm just asking.

I can't speak for elsewhere, but not in MB, and not in ON. Both provinces issue health numbers for both FN and non-FN residents.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Hangfire.


https://youtu.be/_9umwdE8VoY

 

[jollyjacktar]

On the CBC Ottawa afternoon radio drive home show today at about 1710hrs, l listened to a Criminal Defence Lawyer from Toronto being interviewed.

The subject was on the Justice Minister and PM weighing in on the trial, meeting the Bouchie family members today and the controversy of the trial, verdict and justice system and how these two individuals actions will have ramifications.

This lawyer absolutely savaged both Ministers, in particular the PM.  I know this radio segment will be available to listen to on the shows website in a day or so if one was so inclined.  It was interesting to hear this man break things down in a clear, concise and understandable manner.

 

[ModlrMike]

Unfortunately, Parliament seems to be full of cloth ears regarding this subject.

 

[Loachman]

Meanwhile, in the Province at the Centre of the Universe:

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/02/12/dropping-brown-has-helped-ontario-tories-poll.html

Dropping Brown has helped Ontario Tories: poll

PC leadership hopefuls Christine Elliott, Caroline Mulroney and Doug Ford are all more popular than Premier Kathleen Wynne, a new poll suggests.

"Elliott, a former MPP, was the most popular – 46 per cent of respondents would cast a ballot for a PC party led by her compared to 23 per cent for Andrea Horwath’s New Democrats, 20 per cent for Wynne’s Liberals, and 7 per cent for Mike Schreiner’s Greens.

"Rookie PC candidate Mulroney’s Tories were at 41 per cent compared to 25 per cent for Horwath’s NDP, 22 per cent for Wynne’s Liberals, and 8 per cent for Schreiner’s Greens.

"Former Toronto councillor Ford’s PC party was at 39 per cent compared to 24 per cent apiece for Horwath’s NDP and Wynne’s Liberals, and 7 per cent for Schreiner’s Greens."

By comparison:

"When no leaders’ names are surveyed, the Tories are at 43 per cent, the Liberals at 28 per cent, the NDP at 20 per cent, and the Greens are at 8 per cent."

"In January, the company’s monthly tracking survey found Brown’s Tories at 35 per cent, Wynne’s Liberals at 34 per cent, Horwath’s New Democrats at 23 per cent, and Schreiner’s Greens at six per cent."

I was already leaning towards Mrs Elliott, but Mr Ford would be more entertaining.

 

[mariomike]

I was already leaning towards Mrs Elliott, but Mr Ford would be more entertaining.

When Doug was Councillor for Ward 2, people were ( mostly ) able to work around him and his equally entertaining brother the mayor.

It will be even more entertaining watching Doug lead negotiations with teacher's unions, doctors, correctional officers etc.