Angry in the Great White North

As an incumbent Liberal MP, Blair Wilson is protected.  That is to say, he is not subject to nomination challenges.  Both the Liberals and Conservatives have, in the past, protected incumbents, and in the past, both parties have declared no protection for incumbents.  Sometimes when a new leader takes over, as when Paul Martin took over the Liberal Party in 2004, protection is lifted as a way of clearing out some of the old guard.  At other times, protection is maintained in order to keep the election slate filled in the event of a quick election.  The Liberals are protecting nominations in this cycle.

Now consider what the Liberals are maintaining as the reason Blair Wilson cannot stand for the Liberal Party in the next election:

The federal Liberal party has dumped West Vancouver MP Blair Wilson over his failure to disclose "significant" information about past court proceedings and election spending.

Party spokeswoman Elizabeth Whiting said Sunday that Wilson failed to reveal the information on his nomination forms three times - in 2004, 2006 and during the current nomination process.

The party has sent Wilson a letter, saying an internal review of the matter means he can't run as a candidate.

An incumbent completes Form 1A, the short form.  It includes an attestation that the information on previous forms was accurate.  Then the riding skips doing a nominee search, ignores any challenges, and calls a meeting to confirm the nominee as a meeting.  On November 25, 2006, Blair Wilson was declared the riding nominee at the riding meeting.

What about the lies of omission, if there were any, on previous forms?  The Liberal Party can declare Wilson's nomination on November 25 void:

12. Sanctions

12.1 In the event that a Nomination Contestant fails to comply with the Act or these Rules, or the Provincial or Territorial Rules, the disciplinary measures, if any, to be imposed will be, subject to applicable laws, at the sole and absolute discretion of the Provincial or Territorial Campaign Chair, in consultation with the National Campaign Chair and shall take into consideration both the severity of the apparent violation and the best interests of the LPC.

12.2 Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing, the disciplinary measures may include the disqualification of a successful Qualified Nomination Contestant, a declaration that another Qualified Nomination Contestant is to be the Candidate, the conduct of a new Nomination Meeting, and a prohibition against a person found to have been in violation of these Rules being permitted to contest such new Nomination Meeting or a future Nomination Meeting in any Electoral District.

But under what circumstances can the Liberal Party declare that a candidate has lied on his forms?  The means is the background check:

5.3 It is a continuing condition of status as an Qualified Nomination Contestant that a Nomination Contestant, either before or subsequent to approval, consent to any and all background check(s) that the Provincial or Territorial Campaign Chair considers to be appropriate to have undertaken, in the best political interests of the Liberal Party of Canada. Such background checks may include, but are not limited to, the release of criminal and military service records. The results of such background checks shall be kept confidential by the Provincial or Territorial Campaign Chair and their designates, unless, based upon information contained therein, he or she concludes that it is not in the interest of the Liberal Party of Canada that the candidacy be approved, and upon disallowance of such candidacy, the disallowed candidate claims to have been disallowed without good reason. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Provincial or Territorial Campaign Chair may, upon receiving potentially negative or questionable information as a result of such a background check, disclose such information to the National Campaign Chair and to the Leader in order to consult upon a decision, but those individuals shall not make further disclosure of such information, except in accordance with the foregoing.

Remember Farhan Chak?  He passed his background checks.  Nevertheless, his nomination as the Liberal nominee in the riding of Edmonton-Mill Woods-Beaumont in Alberta was squashed when it was revealed that, among other things, he had been calling himself a PhD when, in fact, he had not been granted that degree.

That information was not revealed in a background check, but on this blog.  Farhan Chak withdrew his nomination, no doubt told that if he did not withdraw, his nomination would be revoked.

Farhan Chak did not fight that decision.  The question of Chak's degree was straightforward.  Either he had the degree or he did not.

Blair Wilson's problems are still under review, at least according to his lawyer, Jay Straith:

Straith speculated the matter may be linked to an anonymous letter sent to Elections Canada.

"This is the wackiness of this whole thing," he said. "The matter with Elections Canada is alleging some financial irregularities. We have the documentation that shows that there were no financial irregularities but we haven't even had a discussion with Elections Canada about those financial allegations because there is no investigation."

You can see that letter and the evidence that was sent to Elections Canada on this blog as well, starting with this post that displays the letter in question.

The subsequent posts document the evidence that Jay Straith says is refuted by documentation that Blair Wilson can provide.

But according to Straith, Blair Wilson has not discussed this documentation with either the Liberal Party or Elections Canada.

Moreover, the information that hurts Wilson was not revealed through a background check, but sent anonymously to Elections Canada and to a conservative blogger. 

If Blair Wilson conceded the veracity of the allegations as presumably Farhan Chak did, then the Liberal Party could bring down the hammer.  But the Liberal Party did not dig up the information on its own through its own checks.  It's depending on anonymous tips and me.  The background checks said all was fine, and Blair Wilson is standing firm by that conclusion.

There is a critical difference between information revealed by a background check and everything else.  A person seeking a nomination signs a form that allows the Liberal Party to conduct background checks.  The result of those checks can kill a nomination.  But what about rumours and allegations that are not revealed through a background check?  Wilson didn't give permission for that information to be used.  With the background checks, all nominees undergo equivalent check and the playing field is level.  Not all nominees face anonymously delivered allegations.

The Liberal Party seems willing to give credence to information that was not revealed through the background check process, information that Blair Wilson is contesting, information that was brought forward via a means that Blair Wilson did not sign off on.

I think Blair Wilson can fight this.  I don't think he will win (that's just an opinion, but then I haven't seen Wilson's documentation, so my opinion isn't worth much), but I think he can make the case that the Liberal Party is killing his November 25 nomination in a way that is not covered by the nomination rules.

It'll be interesting to see where this goes.

Check out other entries from the Blair Wilson category
Results will open in a new window.

Check out other entries from the Farhan Chak category
Results will open in a new window.