After the earthquake in China earlier this year Wolong National Natural Reserve used infrared-triggered camera-traps to monitor the wild giant panda and got this picture of a wild panda on November 5th.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Memories of Prosperous Hamilton
Thinking of the death of JFK reminded me of Hamilton in the 1960's.
The City was not perfect. There was nasty racism (although Lincoln Alexander was soon to be elected) and forget about gender equality. Pollution was not so great either.
But the City was prosperous and everyone who wanted work could have it. The steel mills produced steel; and all the factories that clustered around the mills churned out screws and nails and frames and everything made of metal. Rich people were rich but not so much richer than steel workers that they lived in different worlds. We all shopped at Eatons, went to the same public high schools and a Caddy was different in degree but not in kind from a Chev.
Now Hamilton has a lovely waterfront (really) and clean air (well, often) but shuttered stores and high unemployment. The economic meltdown came to my hometown a long time ago.
What happened?
I see two big issues.
First, Canada stopped making stuff and became (or regressed to) being a nation of natural resources and services. I am a lawyer -- I don't actually make anything. At the end of a long day (and I do work hard) I have created nothing tangible, nothing that anyone can use. What's more, I don't know many people who do make things. When I was growing up most kids had dads (mom stayed at home) who made doors or screws or cars or pillowcases or something. Now that's done in China. What Canada does produce is oil and minerals -- that other nations use to make stuff.
Second, and my Blue Liberal heart pauses as I say this, the unions were more solid in the 1960's. Unions, when they are industry based and there to get a decent shake for their members -- job security, fair wages, respectful treatment -- act to stabilise industry. A good union is a partner in industry. Today the unions are weak and, what's worse, are centred in non-industrial sectors like education. Such unions don't add to stability; they weaken it. And where industrial unions do have some power they use it oddly; auto workers and their unions may be destroyed by their very success.
So what do we need to do? Reunionize the nation? No -- I'm not driving at that.
But we do need an industrial policy that says Canada ought to make things. Services are not enough. If everyone is a waiter who will cook the food? And how will patrons pay for dinner? And that new industrial policy, a policy that says Canada ought to produce stuff for the world, ought to recognise the legitimate place unions have in industrial manufacturing.
Last year I read the Conscience of a Liberal -- an American book -- that argued unions are essential to a prosperous society and that inequality in income (if extreme) destroys the fabric of the nation. At the time I dismissed it as socialist cant. Now I'm not so sure.
JFK shot
45 years ago today in 1963 President Kennedy was shot in Dallas.
One of my earliest memories is of the funeral. I kept expecting the President to come back to life; my father seemed troubled by that childish thought; at the time it seemed sensible but now I can see why it upset him. I remember suggesting they open the coffin to make sure he was really dead.
Since JFK was hit in the head and throat when three shots were fired at his open-topped car opening the coffin was probably not a good idea.
A sad memory; I only hope I see no further Presidents (or Prime Ministers or other leaders) killed in my lifetime. I fear my hope is unlikely to be met.
Wilbär
Wilbär is a polar bear who was born at the Wilhelma Zoo in Stuttgart, Germany -- here's a swimming shot.
Failure of General Motors?
My thoughts?
A total disaster.
Yes, the market does have a discpline but the failure of GM will end a way of life across North America and is a symbol of an economic meltdown that makes that of the early 1990's look tame.
It's easy to compare the current crisis to the Great Depression, and that's overkill, but we look to be facing a crisis worse than any seen since the 1930's.
The Great Depression ended largely because of the Second World War; while we do not have men like Hitler in charge of great states today we certainly have the potential for great wars. We are presently in a small but nasty war in Afghanistan, and America, of course, is tangled up in Iraq.
President Obama has a tough road ahead. Prime Minister Harper, though I disagree with much of what he has done, seems to be approaching the economy as well as could be done. Yes, the deficit was unnecessary, but we are where we are and any reasonable government would recognize a deficit may be needed now. A bailout in Canada is pointless unless the US goes along -- so absent movement in America Canada might as well not provide funding.
GM failing seems almost beyond belief -- but I never thought Eaton's would fall... .
GM bankruptcy likely imminent, expert warns
Kristine Owram
THE CANADIAN PRESS
It's highly likely General Motors will be forced to seek bankruptcy protection if the U.S. and Canadian governments don't reach a decision soon on a multibillion-dollar bailout package for the auto sector, a move which could put thousands of Canadian GM employees out of work, plus thousands more in spinoff industries, analysts say.
Joe D'Cruz, a professor at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management, said there's a "high likelihood" the auto giant – which reported a US$2.5 billion loss in the third quarter – will run out of cash before January, leaving the automaker with few choices.
Legal provisions in both Canada and the U.S. protect large insolvent companies from going out of business – under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act in Canada. But using those laws will force a massive restructuring to make the company viable again.
Story here: http://www.wheels.ca/article/473810
A total disaster.
Yes, the market does have a discpline but the failure of GM will end a way of life across North America and is a symbol of an economic meltdown that makes that of the early 1990's look tame.
It's easy to compare the current crisis to the Great Depression, and that's overkill, but we look to be facing a crisis worse than any seen since the 1930's.
The Great Depression ended largely because of the Second World War; while we do not have men like Hitler in charge of great states today we certainly have the potential for great wars. We are presently in a small but nasty war in Afghanistan, and America, of course, is tangled up in Iraq.
President Obama has a tough road ahead. Prime Minister Harper, though I disagree with much of what he has done, seems to be approaching the economy as well as could be done. Yes, the deficit was unnecessary, but we are where we are and any reasonable government would recognize a deficit may be needed now. A bailout in Canada is pointless unless the US goes along -- so absent movement in America Canada might as well not provide funding.
GM failing seems almost beyond belief -- but I never thought Eaton's would fall... .
GM bankruptcy likely imminent, expert warns
Kristine Owram
THE CANADIAN PRESS
It's highly likely General Motors will be forced to seek bankruptcy protection if the U.S. and Canadian governments don't reach a decision soon on a multibillion-dollar bailout package for the auto sector, a move which could put thousands of Canadian GM employees out of work, plus thousands more in spinoff industries, analysts say.
Joe D'Cruz, a professor at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management, said there's a "high likelihood" the auto giant – which reported a US$2.5 billion loss in the third quarter – will run out of cash before January, leaving the automaker with few choices.
Legal provisions in both Canada and the U.S. protect large insolvent companies from going out of business – under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act in Canada. But using those laws will force a massive restructuring to make the company viable again.
Story here: http://www.wheels.ca/article/473810
Friday, November 21, 2008
Ottawa Prof alleged to blow up synagogue but the real reason to keep him in jail is ... he cheats on his wife???
Hassan Diab, a professor in Ottawa, has been arrested in connection with a vicious bombing of a Paris synangogue. This is a brutal hate crime where people died and is worthy of vigorous prosecution. Extradition to France for trial, if the case is shown to be genuine, is a must.
But what happened at Professor Diab's bail hearing? (And usually we never hear about what happens in a bail hearing because of publication bans but here the ban was lifted).
The Federal Crown attempted to discredit Professor Diab because he went to Cuba with a woman who was not his wife. Professor Diab said his wife and he were on strained terms (yup) when he took the trip.
Why do we have bail hearings? To see if someone is a flight risk, will commit more crimes or is so notorious that releasing them would be a scandal. How does a trip to Cuba with a girlfriend (or boyfriend for that matter) come into this calculation?
Seriously, this appears to be little more than a character attack.
The crime is horrific -- if there is a real risk of flight bail ought to be denied -- but the trip to Cuba is hardly a basis to keep Professor Diab locked up.
But what happened at Professor Diab's bail hearing? (And usually we never hear about what happens in a bail hearing because of publication bans but here the ban was lifted).
The Federal Crown attempted to discredit Professor Diab because he went to Cuba with a woman who was not his wife. Professor Diab said his wife and he were on strained terms (yup) when he took the trip.
Why do we have bail hearings? To see if someone is a flight risk, will commit more crimes or is so notorious that releasing them would be a scandal. How does a trip to Cuba with a girlfriend (or boyfriend for that matter) come into this calculation?
Seriously, this appears to be little more than a character attack.
The crime is horrific -- if there is a real risk of flight bail ought to be denied -- but the trip to Cuba is hardly a basis to keep Professor Diab locked up.
Economic mismanagement and a needless deficit
Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised Canadians during the recent election campaign that his government would not run a deficit. Last month, Mr Harper said that he would never run a deficit; that talk of a deficit was "ridiculous".
Now he is hinting at a deficit and it is his government that looks ridiculous.
This deficit is the responsibility of this Conservative government, of this Finance Minister, of this Prime Minister.
Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, confirmed this in his November 20th report on the economy: "The weak fiscal performance to date is largely attributable to previous policy decisions as opposed to weakened economic conditions," he wrote.
Mr. Page is predicting a deficit next year of as much as $13.8 billion, with further deficits being racked up for years to come. But it is not the result of global economic conditions – rather, it is due to Conservative decisions to impose tax reductions that did not stimulate the economy, while becoming the highest spending government in Canadian history.
The fact is Conservatives are bad fiscal managers who simply cannot be trusted with your money. Every decision they have made has brought us closer to deficit.
Let's look at the financial position his Conservative government inherited from the previous Liberal governments: the strongest economy in all the G-8 group of world-leading nations, a $13-billion surplus, a $3-billion "contingency reserve" set up for emergencies, the best job creation in 30 years and no deficit.
Before Mr. Harper came to power, living standards were rising. Consumer and business confidence was high. The Government of Canada was working on its 10th consecutive balanced budget. And taxes – especially income taxes – were declining more than ever before.
Fast-forward to today and quite a different picture emerges.
It has taken Mr. Harper three short years to wipe out this progress and obliterate Canada's fiscal security. For the first time in more than a decade, we are on the brink of deficit – and that was even before there was talk of a recession.
It is true that virtually all countries across the globe are facing some very tough economic choices. But make no mistake: the looming deficit has not been the result of external factors beyond domestic control. The decisions taken by Prime Minister Harper and his Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, have made the situation much more difficult for us than it needs to be.
It didn't have to be this way. It was all so avoidable – and Liberals warned as much. But Mr. Harper's preference for short-term electioneering over what's best for Canada has seen his government's budgets swell by more than $40 billion in just two years. But what have Canadians gained from that spending? Can you name anything?
His decision to cut the GST instead of focusing on improving tax fairness, disposable incomes, household savings, productivity or competitiveness was one of his most ill-advised decisions. It costs the Treasury about $13 billion per year, while saving the average Canadian less than a dollar a day.
Analysts are saying a recession is imminent.
During the election, Mr. Harper mislead Canadians that his government would never go into deficit. Now, with this throne speech the government is misleading Canadians about its cause.
Try as he might to convince us he can be trusted to safely navigate these turbulent economic times, Canadians will think twice about taking the Prime Minister at his word.
Now he is hinting at a deficit and it is his government that looks ridiculous.
This deficit is the responsibility of this Conservative government, of this Finance Minister, of this Prime Minister.
Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, confirmed this in his November 20th report on the economy: "The weak fiscal performance to date is largely attributable to previous policy decisions as opposed to weakened economic conditions," he wrote.
Mr. Page is predicting a deficit next year of as much as $13.8 billion, with further deficits being racked up for years to come. But it is not the result of global economic conditions – rather, it is due to Conservative decisions to impose tax reductions that did not stimulate the economy, while becoming the highest spending government in Canadian history.
The fact is Conservatives are bad fiscal managers who simply cannot be trusted with your money. Every decision they have made has brought us closer to deficit.
Let's look at the financial position his Conservative government inherited from the previous Liberal governments: the strongest economy in all the G-8 group of world-leading nations, a $13-billion surplus, a $3-billion "contingency reserve" set up for emergencies, the best job creation in 30 years and no deficit.
Before Mr. Harper came to power, living standards were rising. Consumer and business confidence was high. The Government of Canada was working on its 10th consecutive balanced budget. And taxes – especially income taxes – were declining more than ever before.
Fast-forward to today and quite a different picture emerges.
It has taken Mr. Harper three short years to wipe out this progress and obliterate Canada's fiscal security. For the first time in more than a decade, we are on the brink of deficit – and that was even before there was talk of a recession.
It is true that virtually all countries across the globe are facing some very tough economic choices. But make no mistake: the looming deficit has not been the result of external factors beyond domestic control. The decisions taken by Prime Minister Harper and his Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, have made the situation much more difficult for us than it needs to be.
It didn't have to be this way. It was all so avoidable – and Liberals warned as much. But Mr. Harper's preference for short-term electioneering over what's best for Canada has seen his government's budgets swell by more than $40 billion in just two years. But what have Canadians gained from that spending? Can you name anything?
His decision to cut the GST instead of focusing on improving tax fairness, disposable incomes, household savings, productivity or competitiveness was one of his most ill-advised decisions. It costs the Treasury about $13 billion per year, while saving the average Canadian less than a dollar a day.
Analysts are saying a recession is imminent.
During the election, Mr. Harper mislead Canadians that his government would never go into deficit. Now, with this throne speech the government is misleading Canadians about its cause.
Try as he might to convince us he can be trusted to safely navigate these turbulent economic times, Canadians will think twice about taking the Prime Minister at his word.
How Harper could (and should) have ducked a deficit
National Post Fri 21 Nov 2008
Byline: Ralph Goodale
Not long ago, as Canadians were about to vote in the federal election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was emphatic about his Conservative government not running a budgetary deficit.
Now, barely a month later, he wants us to believe that he's being driven toward unavoidable red ink by sudden international circumstances beyond his control.
It's all the fault of a collapsing U. S. housing market, bank failures, a global credit crunch and continuing turmoil in financial markets world-wide. That's the Conservative spin.
So now, the Canadian government has no choice but to sell off capital assets, or cancel programs and services, or run a federal deficit -- or a combination of all three -- if it's going to safeguard Canadian pensions, salvage jobs in the manufacturing, automotive and forestry sectors and kick-start economic growth.
But wait a minute. This Conservative story just doesn't add up.
Yes, the economic crisis that began in the United States is very real, and it will indeed inflict significant damage in Canada and around the world. But the fact that this country is not in a better position today to weather that storm is entirely Mr. Harper's domestic responsibility.
The best economic forecasters in the private sector and within government have been warning successive finance ministers since at least 2003 about the huge downside risks posed by the precarious American situation. Previous Liberal governments took those warnings seriously. Stephen Harper did not.
The fact that Canada is not in a position to weather the economic crisis is entirely his fault
position in all the G8 group of world-leading economies, including an annual surplus of more than $12-billion and projected financial flexibility of close to $100-billion over the coming five years.
But as soon as he came into office, and long before any U. S. crisis materialized, Mr. Harper began frittering all of that away.
He increased federal government spending to an unprecedented level. He eroded the federal tax base, without bolstering productivity or improving disposable incomes. And he eliminated the extra prudence and the contingency reserve that used to be built into federal budget-making as "fiscal shock absorbers" to protect against sudden nasty surprises.
You always hope those surprises will never actually happen, but inevitably they do. Until Mr. Harper arrived on the scene, Canada had the wherewithal to defend itself.
We withstood the consequences of major international currency crises in Mexico and Asia, the SARS pandemic, mad cow disease and the fallout from 9/11, while still cutting taxes, paying down debt, investing in health care, education, innovation and infrastructure and staying solidly in the black at the same time.
But no more. Mr. Harper has squandered Canada's fiscal capacity.
So the first external crisis to come along on his watch results in a deficit. And that's entirely his responsibility.
-Ralph Goodale is the Liberal MP for Wascana constituency in Saskatchewan and House Leader for the Official Opposition. He was Canada's finance minister from 2003 to 2006.
Byline: Ralph Goodale
Not long ago, as Canadians were about to vote in the federal election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was emphatic about his Conservative government not running a budgetary deficit.
Now, barely a month later, he wants us to believe that he's being driven toward unavoidable red ink by sudden international circumstances beyond his control.
It's all the fault of a collapsing U. S. housing market, bank failures, a global credit crunch and continuing turmoil in financial markets world-wide. That's the Conservative spin.
So now, the Canadian government has no choice but to sell off capital assets, or cancel programs and services, or run a federal deficit -- or a combination of all three -- if it's going to safeguard Canadian pensions, salvage jobs in the manufacturing, automotive and forestry sectors and kick-start economic growth.
But wait a minute. This Conservative story just doesn't add up.
Yes, the economic crisis that began in the United States is very real, and it will indeed inflict significant damage in Canada and around the world. But the fact that this country is not in a better position today to weather that storm is entirely Mr. Harper's domestic responsibility.
The best economic forecasters in the private sector and within government have been warning successive finance ministers since at least 2003 about the huge downside risks posed by the precarious American situation. Previous Liberal governments took those warnings seriously. Stephen Harper did not.
The fact that Canada is not in a position to weather the economic crisis is entirely his fault
position in all the G8 group of world-leading economies, including an annual surplus of more than $12-billion and projected financial flexibility of close to $100-billion over the coming five years.
But as soon as he came into office, and long before any U. S. crisis materialized, Mr. Harper began frittering all of that away.
He increased federal government spending to an unprecedented level. He eroded the federal tax base, without bolstering productivity or improving disposable incomes. And he eliminated the extra prudence and the contingency reserve that used to be built into federal budget-making as "fiscal shock absorbers" to protect against sudden nasty surprises.
You always hope those surprises will never actually happen, but inevitably they do. Until Mr. Harper arrived on the scene, Canada had the wherewithal to defend itself.
We withstood the consequences of major international currency crises in Mexico and Asia, the SARS pandemic, mad cow disease and the fallout from 9/11, while still cutting taxes, paying down debt, investing in health care, education, innovation and infrastructure and staying solidly in the black at the same time.
But no more. Mr. Harper has squandered Canada's fiscal capacity.
So the first external crisis to come along on his watch results in a deficit. And that's entirely his responsibility.
-Ralph Goodale is the Liberal MP for Wascana constituency in Saskatchewan and House Leader for the Official Opposition. He was Canada's finance minister from 2003 to 2006.
Exemplary damages in employment law
Damages arising from bad faith during employment law are not the same as exemplary damages. Specifically, a Keays or Wallace claim can be dismissed while a claim for exemplary damages is allowed.
Today's decision in Boyd v. Wright Environmental Management Inc., 2008 ONCA 779 makes this clear:
[31] At the hearing, the appellants submitted that the trial judge's award of exemplary damages of $25,000 should be set aside. They argued that the appropriate remedy, if one were warranted, would be an award of Wallace damages against WEMI by increasing the notice period. They asserted that the trial judge, by awarding exemplary damages, was punishing them for the manner in which their counsel conducted the trial. In addition, they argued that the award of exemplary damages against Jim could not stand as there was no finding of an actionable wrong independent of Ed's employment.
[32] The trial judge stated he was not satisfied that the circumstances surrounding Ed's termination mandated the application of the Wallace principle. He made clear the exemplary damages he awarded were not compensatory in nature but punitive. He stated that he regarded the breach of the employment contract as "almost incidental" to the breach of the agreement to give shares in the business.
[33] The premise of the appellants' argument that Wallace damages and not punitive damages might have been appropriate is that there was but one contract – an employment contract, a term of which entitled the employee to shares in the business. However, the trial judge took the view there were two separate contracts—one for a share of the business and the other for employment. The fact that the agreement to give Ed a share of the business was made years before he was employed by WEMI makes the trial judge's analysis justifiable. The breach of the employment agreement was incidental to the breach of the prior agreement to give Ed a share of the business.
[34] The appellants are correct that exemplary damages are rarely awarded in a contract case and in any event, require an "actionable wrong" in addition to the breach sued upon. Here, this was the related breach of the employment contract. WEMI fired Ed just before the meeting arranged by his counsel to deal with his contract for shares in the business. The circumstances of the breach were egregious and rightly offended the conscience of the court. The trial judge made it clear that this award of damages was not compensatory, but was intended to indicate the court's displeasure with the heinousness of the defendants' conduct.
[35] I would not interfere with the award of exemplary damages against WEMI.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
Khadr -- my thoughts
I was asked my thoughts on Omar Khadr.
I am a bit conflicted here. I have friends in the Forces and am in the Reserves myself (albeit as a lawyer that doesn't really mean much beyond paper pushing). So my instinct is really quite negative about anyone fighting the allied forces; especially so where the person fighting is a Canadian.
That said, at the time Khadr was captured he was fighting in a real war where his unit was surrounded and attacked. That sounds like a soldier's job.
Moreover he was 15 and that, to my mind, makes him a child.
So, what do I think?
I think Khadr should have been held as a prisoner of war and treated as such. If there is some cogent evidence to suggest he breached generally accepted rules of war (say attacked civilians while out of uniform) he should be tried by a court martial for that. What I have heard about the charges he faces suggest that he may have killed an enemy combatant during combat -- I don't like the fact he was fighting -- I don't like the fact he is a Canadian fighting allied forces -- I think maybe he could be tried here for something akin to treason (but as a 15 y.o. I doubt that would work) -- but he should not be in an American holding facility in Cuba.
I am a bit conflicted here. I have friends in the Forces and am in the Reserves myself (albeit as a lawyer that doesn't really mean much beyond paper pushing). So my instinct is really quite negative about anyone fighting the allied forces; especially so where the person fighting is a Canadian.
That said, at the time Khadr was captured he was fighting in a real war where his unit was surrounded and attacked. That sounds like a soldier's job.
Moreover he was 15 and that, to my mind, makes him a child.
So, what do I think?
I think Khadr should have been held as a prisoner of war and treated as such. If there is some cogent evidence to suggest he breached generally accepted rules of war (say attacked civilians while out of uniform) he should be tried by a court martial for that. What I have heard about the charges he faces suggest that he may have killed an enemy combatant during combat -- I don't like the fact he was fighting -- I don't like the fact he is a Canadian fighting allied forces -- I think maybe he could be tried here for something akin to treason (but as a 15 y.o. I doubt that would work) -- but he should not be in an American holding facility in Cuba.
Bargain-hunters survey the rubble after massive stock-market carnage
The economic collapse is going to play a big a role come the next election whenever it may be... .
Bargain-hunters survey the rubble after massive stock-market carnage
TORONTO - New York stock index futures point to a positive open and overseas markets are modestly higher after two days of huge drops.
Commodity prices also are reversing massive declines, with the near-month crude oil contract up 87 cents at US$50.29 on the New York Mercantile Exchange after falling to $48.25 overnight. Copper is up 0.95 cent at US$1.5895 a pound.
The beaten-down Canadian dollar - which plunged 2.52 cents yesterday - opened at 78.04 cents US, up 0.73 cent after Statistics Canada reported the headline inflation rate eased last month to 2.6 per cent, from 3.4 per cent in September.
Story: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081121/business/dollar_markets
Bargain-hunters survey the rubble after massive stock-market carnage
TORONTO - New York stock index futures point to a positive open and overseas markets are modestly higher after two days of huge drops.
Commodity prices also are reversing massive declines, with the near-month crude oil contract up 87 cents at US$50.29 on the New York Mercantile Exchange after falling to $48.25 overnight. Copper is up 0.95 cent at US$1.5895 a pound.
The beaten-down Canadian dollar - which plunged 2.52 cents yesterday - opened at 78.04 cents US, up 0.73 cent after Statistics Canada reported the headline inflation rate eased last month to 2.6 per cent, from 3.4 per cent in September.
Story: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081121/business/dollar_markets
Past haunts Liberal hopeful
Past haunts Liberal hopeful
Calgary Herald
Friday, November 21, 2008
Page: A8
Section: News
Byline: Don Martin
Column: Calgary's Eye on National Politics
Dateline: OTTAWA
Source: Calgary Herald
The chutzpah of his campaign launch was breathtaking.
The way Liberal MP Bob Rae argues it, his spectacular botching of economic policy as Ontario's premier during the 1990s recession is an asset in his bid to become the next Liberal leader.
Electing someone inexperienced in the ways of worsening a recession, the Toronto MP warns in this odd lemonade-from-lemons squeeze play, would be risky lest they repeat his public-purse spending spree as the fast route to exacerbating the crisis.
In other words, Rae implies, the fact leadership rival Michael Ignatieff was lounging around London writing novels and airing lofty BBC documentaries during the last Ontario slump puts him at a competitive disadvantage.
As bizarre as it sounds, there was really no other survival strategy in a scenario lurching toward hopeless for Bob Rae, the third and likely final candidate for a Liberal leadership that will be decided next May.
This leadership contest is different from the 2006 prosperity-era showdown against Ignatieff. Now the all-consuming focus of debate is on anything economic. As the downturn edges closer to home, it brings Rae's notoriously lousy one-term performance as premier into sharp focus for easy attack by his opponents.
The best Rae can hope for now is that people will accept he publicly lived an ugly economics lesson and will avoid repeating the mistakes that quickly ballooned into a notorious $10-billion annual deficit.
The slightly unnerving angle is that Rae never actually admitted to making mistakes during his campaign launch news conference on Thursday.
When pressed, his bright blue eyes widened for a bit, almost as if he were reliving the horror of those awful days in his head. The speed was the big shock, he admitted. When the collapse came, it hit almost overnight and spiralled government revenue into a free fall.
The best person to appreciate the inconvenient truth of that statement is obviously Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the leader now frozen in wide-eyed surprise at his government's sudden reversal of fortunes.
So unprepared were the Conservatives for the onset of hard times, their own budgetary officer pins the looming deficit on the government's reckless tax cuts and recent spending boosts.
Yet press Rae on a fairly straightforward point -- does he favour or oppose a bailout for the auto sector? -- and you get a five-minute rambling response that ducks a definitive position. Try it again and nouns, verbs and adjectives gush forth in a nice-sounding cascade that still stops short of a coherent answer.
Perhaps that illustrates Rae's reputation as the MP who says nothing better than anybody else.
When long shots from the 2006 race sounded him out to see if he was worth supporting should their candidacies falter, they were struck by his lack of a grand vision for the country and his party. At least one former candidate confided that Rae's chronic evasiveness was their reason for supporting Stephane Dion.
But all is not completely lost for Bob Rae, even though his modest caucus support suggests he's running in second place behind Ignatieff.
He's bang-on in scoping the multitude of problems confronting his adopted party. The Liberals are a mess -- starved of funds, hemorrhaging members, losing youth, shedding entire regions of support and technologically backward.
His idea of giving away memberships, now a token $20 fee, is interesting. I'd argue that's basically what they're worth, so long as the Liberals refuse to adopt a one-member, one-vote process for the party leadership. It also seems bizarre for a party mired in debt to give up the hefty chunk of annual membership cash. But at least it's a new way to recruit Liberals in a sleepy race already in rerun.
Bob Rae concludes he's "very popular in the province of Ontario," noting he's often summoned to raise funds or shake hands at local riding functions.
Yet despite dignified roles presiding over studies in tainted blood, post-secondary education and the merits of the Air India bombing inquiry, he is still best remembered as the man who was in charge when Ontario fell to its knees in the last great downturn.
For a party trying to fresh-face itself, he remains a disturbing optic from an experience people want to forget even as they now prepare to relive it.
dmartin@canwest.com
Calgary Herald
Friday, November 21, 2008
Page: A8
Section: News
Byline: Don Martin
Column: Calgary's Eye on National Politics
Dateline: OTTAWA
Source: Calgary Herald
The chutzpah of his campaign launch was breathtaking.
The way Liberal MP Bob Rae argues it, his spectacular botching of economic policy as Ontario's premier during the 1990s recession is an asset in his bid to become the next Liberal leader.
Electing someone inexperienced in the ways of worsening a recession, the Toronto MP warns in this odd lemonade-from-lemons squeeze play, would be risky lest they repeat his public-purse spending spree as the fast route to exacerbating the crisis.
In other words, Rae implies, the fact leadership rival Michael Ignatieff was lounging around London writing novels and airing lofty BBC documentaries during the last Ontario slump puts him at a competitive disadvantage.
As bizarre as it sounds, there was really no other survival strategy in a scenario lurching toward hopeless for Bob Rae, the third and likely final candidate for a Liberal leadership that will be decided next May.
This leadership contest is different from the 2006 prosperity-era showdown against Ignatieff. Now the all-consuming focus of debate is on anything economic. As the downturn edges closer to home, it brings Rae's notoriously lousy one-term performance as premier into sharp focus for easy attack by his opponents.
The best Rae can hope for now is that people will accept he publicly lived an ugly economics lesson and will avoid repeating the mistakes that quickly ballooned into a notorious $10-billion annual deficit.
The slightly unnerving angle is that Rae never actually admitted to making mistakes during his campaign launch news conference on Thursday.
When pressed, his bright blue eyes widened for a bit, almost as if he were reliving the horror of those awful days in his head. The speed was the big shock, he admitted. When the collapse came, it hit almost overnight and spiralled government revenue into a free fall.
The best person to appreciate the inconvenient truth of that statement is obviously Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the leader now frozen in wide-eyed surprise at his government's sudden reversal of fortunes.
So unprepared were the Conservatives for the onset of hard times, their own budgetary officer pins the looming deficit on the government's reckless tax cuts and recent spending boosts.
Yet press Rae on a fairly straightforward point -- does he favour or oppose a bailout for the auto sector? -- and you get a five-minute rambling response that ducks a definitive position. Try it again and nouns, verbs and adjectives gush forth in a nice-sounding cascade that still stops short of a coherent answer.
Perhaps that illustrates Rae's reputation as the MP who says nothing better than anybody else.
When long shots from the 2006 race sounded him out to see if he was worth supporting should their candidacies falter, they were struck by his lack of a grand vision for the country and his party. At least one former candidate confided that Rae's chronic evasiveness was their reason for supporting Stephane Dion.
But all is not completely lost for Bob Rae, even though his modest caucus support suggests he's running in second place behind Ignatieff.
He's bang-on in scoping the multitude of problems confronting his adopted party. The Liberals are a mess -- starved of funds, hemorrhaging members, losing youth, shedding entire regions of support and technologically backward.
His idea of giving away memberships, now a token $20 fee, is interesting. I'd argue that's basically what they're worth, so long as the Liberals refuse to adopt a one-member, one-vote process for the party leadership. It also seems bizarre for a party mired in debt to give up the hefty chunk of annual membership cash. But at least it's a new way to recruit Liberals in a sleepy race already in rerun.
Bob Rae concludes he's "very popular in the province of Ontario," noting he's often summoned to raise funds or shake hands at local riding functions.
Yet despite dignified roles presiding over studies in tainted blood, post-secondary education and the merits of the Air India bombing inquiry, he is still best remembered as the man who was in charge when Ontario fell to its knees in the last great downturn.
For a party trying to fresh-face itself, he remains a disturbing optic from an experience people want to forget even as they now prepare to relive it.
dmartin@canwest.com
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Your digital photos can be traced
Virtually all modern electronics leaves a trail. Just walking around town with a cell phone allows your movement to be tracked.
Here's a story that shows how even photos now leave an electronic ghost behind.
Scientists can now work out which specific camera make and model a photo was taken on. Researchers at the Polytechnic University in Brooklyn, New York, have discovered that digital cameras leave a fingerprint in the pixels of every image taken.
If this proves viable in further testing it could be used by forensic scientists in kidnap situations. Photos of the victim taken by the kidnapper could be traced back to the camera it was taken on and then this information could be used to find out where the camera was purchased and by who.
Story here: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Your-digital-photos-can-be-traced
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
"It looks like Stephen Harper is going to be the last defender of Guantanamo Bay"
OTTAWA -- Even though Barack Obama says he will close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Canada's new foreign affairs minister said Thursday the government is content to let Omar Khadr stay there.
That position was slammed by Mr. Khadr's U.S. military lawyer, human rights groups and political opponents of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who expressed surprise that Obama's election on Nov. 4 has not caused Canada to reconsider its position on the Toronto-born youth. Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said all questions regarding Canada's intention to seek Mr. Khadr's return from the Pentagon's Caribbean island prison are "premature" because the legal proceeding that has begun against him is still in progress.
"Mr. Khadr faces very serious charges," Mr. Cannon said Thursday from Lima, Peru, where he was attending APEC ministerial meetings.
"He is being held and it's our government's intention to follow and respect the process that's in place and, of course, to respect American sovereignty on this issue."
Mr. Cannon's comments on Mr. Khadr were the first by the Harper government since Mr. Obama's victory. Mr. Khadr, 22, is the last western national to be held in the controversial prison camp that was established in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Countries such as Britain and Australia have petitioned to have their detainees brought home but about 250 prisoners remain.
"It looks like Stephen Harper is going to be the last defender of Guantanamo Bay," Lt.-Cmdr. Bill Kuebler, Mr. Khadr's U.S. military lawyer, told Canwest News from Washington. "It is surprising to me, and it should be a surprise and embarrassing to Canadians."
Mr. Khadr is charged with killing a U.S. army medic in a firefight in Afghanistan in 2002 when he was 15. His trial has been repeatedly delayed and is now set for Jan. 26 -- six days after Mr. Obama is to be sworn in as president.
That has fuelled speculation that Mr. Khadr's trial will be cancelled as Mr. Obama is expected to scrap the Bush administration's military commission system upon taking office.
Full story: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=977747
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
Flocke to have a brother or sister?
Above see Vera protecting her denThe news from Germany seems solid; Flocke's wayward mother Vera seems to be pregnant.
The br blog (in translation) says:
Believing in a pregnancy
Quite a wave of information!
And here are the first facts:
The zoo strongly believes in Vera’s pregnancy: Probably the female bear is building a nest for a possible offspring. Theoretically she could also be preparing her cave for the winter for herself. But the zoo doesn’t believe it:
“We are quite sure”, this is Helmut Maegefraus standard answer.
The polar bear lady’s well being is the absolute priority at this moment:
As it has already been reported, the zoo closed the observation deck in front of Vera’s enclosure for the public to provide her calm and privacy for the expected birth. Helmut Maegdefrau is neither able nor willing to predict the date of birth. It seems that polar bears are able to control the date of birth. It is not possible to draw conclusions for the birthday from the rendezvous with Felix last April.Usually, polar bears are born between the beginning of November until the beginning of February.
Should Vera not have given birth until February 15th, she was probably not pregnant.To grant Vera the necessary calm the zoo will not inform the general public about the day X.
“We have to wait how the visitors will react and above all, how Vera will react” the zoo deputy explains.
Client not to be prejudiced by neglect of solicitor
Absent prejudice caused by delay, the errors of a solicitor will seldom be visited on a client. Thus, where a solicitor fails to move promptly and delay results the client can, to a degree, avoid the consequences of the delay by 'blaming' the lawyer.
Today's decision in HC Matcon Inc. v. Aspden Developments Inc., 2008 ONCA 776 extending the time to perfect an appeal is a good illustration. The Court held:
[2] While there has been a substantial delay in perfecting the appeal, none of the delay is directly attributable to the appellant. The great majority of the delay resulted from the failure of the appellant's previous solicitor to take the steps necessary to pursue the appeal in accordance with the Rules.
[3] I accept that the appellant has had a bona fide intention to proceed with the appeal throughout. In his affidavit, the president of the appellant testified that he instructed his previous solicitor to proceed with the appeal in a timely manner. He did not instruct the solicitor to delay ordering the transcript of the trial, nor was he aware until very recently that the solicitor had not ordered the transcript for several months after filing the notice of appeal.
[4] The respondent did not file an affidavit alleging specific prejudice caused by the delay.
Today's decision in HC Matcon Inc. v. Aspden Developments Inc., 2008 ONCA 776 extending the time to perfect an appeal is a good illustration. The Court held:
[2] While there has been a substantial delay in perfecting the appeal, none of the delay is directly attributable to the appellant. The great majority of the delay resulted from the failure of the appellant's previous solicitor to take the steps necessary to pursue the appeal in accordance with the Rules.
[3] I accept that the appellant has had a bona fide intention to proceed with the appeal throughout. In his affidavit, the president of the appellant testified that he instructed his previous solicitor to proceed with the appeal in a timely manner. He did not instruct the solicitor to delay ordering the transcript of the trial, nor was he aware until very recently that the solicitor had not ordered the transcript for several months after filing the notice of appeal.
[4] The respondent did not file an affidavit alleging specific prejudice caused by the delay.
Promissory note and limitation period
Below are proposed amendments to the Limitations Act to deal with the problem created by recent caselaw regarding interpretation of the Act as it relates to demand promissory notes. Please note it is not law yet.
Schedule l
Limitations Act, 2002
1. Section 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002 is amended by adding the following subsections:
Demand obligations
(3) For the purposes of subclause (1) (a) (i), the day on which injury, loss or damage occurs in relation to a demand obligation is the first day on which there is a failure to perform the obligation, once a demand for the performance is made.
Same
(4) Subsection (3) applies in respect of every demand obligation created on or after January 1, 2004.
2. (1) Clause 15 (6) (c) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:
(c) in the case of an act or omission in respect of a demand obligation, the first day on which there is a failure to perform the obligation, once a demand for the performance is made.
(2) Section 15 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:
Application, demand obligations
(7) Clause (6) (c) applies in respect of every demand obligation created on or after January 1, 2004.
3. Subclause 19 (1) (b) (i) of the Act is amended by striking out "the day this Act comes into force" and substituting "January 1, 2004".
4. (1) Subsections 22 (3), (4) and (5) of the Act are amended by striking out "the effective date" wherever it appears and substituting in each case "October 19, 2006".
(2) The definition of "effective date" in subsection 22 (6) of the Act is repealed.
5. (1) The definition of "effective date" in subsection 24 (1) of the Act is repealed.
(2) The definition of "former limitation period" in subsection 24 (1) of the Act is amended by striking out "the coming into force of this Act" at the end and substituting "January 1, 2004".
(3) The following provisions of section 24 of the Act are amended by striking out "the effective date" wherever it appears and substituting in each case "January 1, 2004":
1. Subsection 24 (3).
2. Paragraph 2 of subsection 24 (5).
3. Subsection 24 (6), in the portion before paragraph 1.
4. Paragraph 2 of subsection 24 (6).
5. Subsection 24 (7).
(4) Subsection 24 (2) of the Act is amended by striking out the first instance of "the effective date" and substituting "January 1, 2004" and by striking out the second instance of "the effective date" and substituting "that date".
(5) Subsection 24 (4) of the Act is amended by striking out the first instance of "the effective date" and substituting "January 1, 2004" and by striking out the second instance of "the effective date" and substituting "that date".
(6) Subsection 24 (5) of the Act is amended by striking out the first instance of "the effective date" in the portion before paragraph 1 and substituting "January 1, 2004" and by striking out the second instance of "the effective date" in the portion before paragraph 1 and substituting "that date".
(7) Paragraph 1 of subsection 24 (5) of the Act is amended by striking out the first instance of "the effective date" and substituting "January 1, 2004" and by striking out the second instance of "the effective date" and substituting "that date".
(8) Paragraph 1 of subsection 24 (6) of the Act is amended by striking out the first instance of "the effective date" and substituting "January 1, 2004" and by striking out the second instance of "the effective date" and substituting "that date".
(9) Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:
Claims re payments alleged to be ultra vires
(7.1) For the purposes of this section, clause 45 (1) (g) of the Limitations Act , as it read immediately before its repeal, applies to a claim respecting amounts paid to the Crown or to another public authority for which it is alleged that no valid legal authority existed at the time of payment.
(10) Subsection 24 (8) of the Act is amended by striking out "the day this Act comes into force" at the end and substituting "January 1, 2004".
Commencement
6. (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Schedule comes into force on the day the Budget Measures and Interim Appropriation Act, 2008 (No. 2) receives Royal Assent.
Same
(2) Subsection 5 (9) is deemed to have come into force on October 22, 2008.
Facing a crisis, Harper instructs MPs to be less confrontational
BRIAN LAGHI AND STEVEN CHASE
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
November 19, 2008 at 10:08 PM EST
OTTAWA — After three years of leading one of the most combative federal governments in recent memory, Stephen Harper is telling his MPs that it's time they take the high road.
MPs and officials across government were given marching orders by the Prime Minister recently and told to shelve the aggressive ways of the first term in favour of a kinder, gentler attitude. It was a message, say sources, that the PM himself delivered recently to his caucus.
"He has told cabinet and caucus to stay on the high road," a senior Tory told The Globe and Mail Wednesday. "However, we are not to be punching bags. We are advised to respond in a firm, fair, factual way."
The PM, according to one senior government member, told MPs that women in the caucus are particularly good at verbally sparring with opposition members without coming off as too combative.
Since being re-elected in October, the Tories have purposely adopted a new, less confrontational attitude toward opposition MPs in the Commons, in part, experts say, because they cannot afford to be seen fighting relatively inconsequential battles while the economy falters.
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
November 19, 2008 at 10:08 PM EST
OTTAWA — After three years of leading one of the most combative federal governments in recent memory, Stephen Harper is telling his MPs that it's time they take the high road.
MPs and officials across government were given marching orders by the Prime Minister recently and told to shelve the aggressive ways of the first term in favour of a kinder, gentler attitude. It was a message, say sources, that the PM himself delivered recently to his caucus.
"He has told cabinet and caucus to stay on the high road," a senior Tory told The Globe and Mail Wednesday. "However, we are not to be punching bags. We are advised to respond in a firm, fair, factual way."
The PM, according to one senior government member, told MPs that women in the caucus are particularly good at verbally sparring with opposition members without coming off as too combative.
Since being re-elected in October, the Tories have purposely adopted a new, less confrontational attitude toward opposition MPs in the Commons, in part, experts say, because they cannot afford to be seen fighting relatively inconsequential battles while the economy falters.
Very useful research tool
Here is a new online resource highlighting key Canadian Senate documents, many of which are available online for the first time at:
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Throne speech warns of deficit, government cutbacks
Unfortunately a deficit is likely needed right now. Whether that could have been avoided if the Conservatives had not cut taxes when times were good is moot -- we have to look at the reality now and that suggests a time for deficit spending.
Throne speech warns of deficit, government cutbacks
Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean unveiled the Harper government's five-point plan to protect Canada from the global economic meltdown in the speech from the throne.
The plan focused on cutting costs and didn't rule out a deficit -- a far cry from last year's throne speech, which was focused on using big surpluses for tax cuts.
Jean said it would be "misguided to commit to a balanced budget at any cost," a sign that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's budget may be headed for the red this year.
The speech repeatedly mentioned the importance of "prudence" and said the government would put department spending "under the microscope."
"Hard decisions will be needed to keep federal spending under control and focused on results," the speech says. "Departments will have the funding they need to deliver essential programs and services, and no more. Our government will engage Parliament and encourage members to take a more active role in scrutinizing spending and suggesting areas for restraint."
Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said his party is focused on making Parliament work and will not oppose the throne speech.
"As there is nothing new in this throne speech, it would be irresponsible to bring the government down on this," Dion told reporters.
But Dion criticized the Harper government, saying that they have overspent in their three years of office and have cut the wrong taxes.
Liberal MP Michael Ignatieff told CTV's Mike Duffy Live the Bloc and NDP don't have the burden of bringing down the government and said Canadians don't want the Liberals to trigger an election.
Ignatieff said the Liberals would fight any Tory cuts that affect the living standards of Canadians.
Full story here: http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20081119%2fthrone_speech_081119
Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean unveiled the Harper government's five-point plan to protect Canada from the global economic meltdown in the speech from the throne.
The plan focused on cutting costs and didn't rule out a deficit -- a far cry from last year's throne speech, which was focused on using big surpluses for tax cuts.
Jean said it would be "misguided to commit to a balanced budget at any cost," a sign that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's budget may be headed for the red this year.
The speech repeatedly mentioned the importance of "prudence" and said the government would put department spending "under the microscope."
"Hard decisions will be needed to keep federal spending under control and focused on results," the speech says. "Departments will have the funding they need to deliver essential programs and services, and no more. Our government will engage Parliament and encourage members to take a more active role in scrutinizing spending and suggesting areas for restraint."
Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said his party is focused on making Parliament work and will not oppose the throne speech.
"As there is nothing new in this throne speech, it would be irresponsible to bring the government down on this," Dion told reporters.
But Dion criticized the Harper government, saying that they have overspent in their three years of office and have cut the wrong taxes.
Liberal MP Michael Ignatieff told CTV's Mike Duffy Live the Bloc and NDP don't have the burden of bringing down the government and said Canadians don't want the Liberals to trigger an election.
Ignatieff said the Liberals would fight any Tory cuts that affect the living standards of Canadians.
Full story here: http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20081119%2fthrone_speech_081119
Maximum sentences not limited to worst offender and worst offence
Available sentences under the Criminal Code vary widely. For example, the punishment for theft of property over $5,000 ranges from an absolute discharge to a term of imprisonment not exceeding ten years.
One might think that the maximum sentence ought to be imposed for an offence only when the combination of worst offender and committing the offence in the worst way is met. That, simplistic, view has been put to rest by the Supreme Court of Canada in Friday's decision in R. v. Solowan, 2008 SCC 62. The maximum sentence may well be appropriate even where the offender is not the worst possible and the offence is not committed in the worst way. If a proper and fit sentence, as determined by the Court acting judicially, is at the maximum of the range set by Parliament, then the sentence is fit.
Specifically, the sentencing court must determine the appropriate punishment within the limits established by Parliament. Absent an error of principle, failure to consider a relevant factor, or overemphasis of the appropriate factors, any sentence within that range - including the maximum - should not be varied on appeal unless it is demonstrably inadequate or excessive. The "worst case, worst offender" principle no longer operates as a constraint on the imposition of a maximum sentence where a maximum sentence is otherwise appropriate
The Court held:
[3] The "worst offender, worst offence" principle invoked by the appellant in the Court of Appeal has been laid to rest. It no longer operates as a constraint on the imposition of a maximum sentence where a maximum sentence is otherwise appropriate, bearing in mind the principles of sentencing set out in Part XXIII of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46: R. v. Cheddesingh, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 433, 2004 SCC 16; R. v. L.M., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 163, 2008 SCC 31. Unwarranted resort to maximum sentences is adequately precluded by a proper application of those principles, notably the fundamental principle of proportionality set out in s. 718.1 of the Code, and Parliament's direction in s. 718.2(d) and (e) to impose the least restrictive sanction appropriate in the circumstances: see R. v.-Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688.
Be specific in throne speech: Liberals; Don't count on it: Tories
Ontario MP John McCallum says the country is facing its biggest economic crisis in decades and the Harper government has an obligation to provide clear answers to questions related to the auto sector and private-sector pensions.
Story: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081119/national/throne_speech
Story: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081119/national/throne_speech
Arabic calligraphy
Gouache and gold on vellum
Each page 11 l/2 x 15 3/4"
Riyadh, Rifaat Sheikh El-Ard collection
These pages come from one of the best known copies of the Qur'an in Kufic script. The script is gold, written along fifteen guidelines impressed on the vellum with a sharp point. Prior to the text having been written, the vellum was stained blue, probably with indigo. The manuscript was clearly produced for a special occasion, as the use of blue vellum was not at all common.
These pages come from one of the best known copies of the Qur'an in Kufic script. The script is gold, written along fifteen guidelines impressed on the vellum with a sharp point. Prior to the text having been written, the vellum was stained blue, probably with indigo. The manuscript was clearly produced for a special occasion, as the use of blue vellum was not at all common.
Each verse is indicated by a small silver rosette, now tarnished and hardly distinguishable. The text consists of Surah II, Al-Baqarah, The Cow, verses 197-201. The end of verse 200 is marked with a golden circle bearing the Arabic letter dal and also with a silver medallion in the lower left-hand margin.
Economy shifts Leadership odds - TheStar.Com
Interesting story -- of course the Leadership is still a long way off
Economic crisis shifts political odds
James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/538533
OTTAWA
Stephen Harper, Gordon Brown and Bob Rae are connected by more than the title of prime minister that two of them now hold and one hopes is still within reach. That oddball gang of three can only watch, less and more helplessly, as personal as well as national prospects are recast by the crushing weight of a financial crisis.
Considering them in reverse order, Rae is an obvious casualty. Arguably the most cerebral, seasoned and skilled Canadian politician not to currently occupy high elected office, Ontario's once and only NDP premier is in danger of becoming a Liberal leadership also-ran. Rae would have been a fine, even winning choice in Montreal two years ago. Now his economic record, and what Conservatives would do with it if he succeeds Stéphane Dion, makes him high risk in hard times.
No matter how justified, Rae's public bellyaching over a private Liberal weekend forum is a reminder of his diminished position. Bickering over process is a lame way to trip front-running Michael Ignatieff.
Like Brown, the British prime minister, Ignatieff is enjoying an unanticipated boost from the most worrying downturn since the Great Depression. Brown, thanks to his quick support for British banks, is back in the partisan thick of it at home while Ignatieff is benefiting from collateral damage suffered by his only serious rival.
Economic crisis shifts political odds
James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/538533
OTTAWA
Stephen Harper, Gordon Brown and Bob Rae are connected by more than the title of prime minister that two of them now hold and one hopes is still within reach. That oddball gang of three can only watch, less and more helplessly, as personal as well as national prospects are recast by the crushing weight of a financial crisis.
Considering them in reverse order, Rae is an obvious casualty. Arguably the most cerebral, seasoned and skilled Canadian politician not to currently occupy high elected office, Ontario's once and only NDP premier is in danger of becoming a Liberal leadership also-ran. Rae would have been a fine, even winning choice in Montreal two years ago. Now his economic record, and what Conservatives would do with it if he succeeds Stéphane Dion, makes him high risk in hard times.
No matter how justified, Rae's public bellyaching over a private Liberal weekend forum is a reminder of his diminished position. Bickering over process is a lame way to trip front-running Michael Ignatieff.
Like Brown, the British prime minister, Ignatieff is enjoying an unanticipated boost from the most worrying downturn since the Great Depression. Brown, thanks to his quick support for British banks, is back in the partisan thick of it at home while Ignatieff is benefiting from collateral damage suffered by his only serious rival.
Ahmed Hussen, President Canadian Somali Congress speaks out on CTV
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/pirate-problems/#clip113893 <http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/pirate-problems/#clip113893>
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
The trouble with bail
The Trouble With Bail
James Morton
The double-murder of Saramma Varughese, 65, and her daughter Susan John, 43, in their GTA home last month shocked Ontario. The accused was on bail while awaiting trial for two vicious attacks on strangers in a 12-hour rampage two years ago. Opposition Leader Bob Runciman has called for an inquiry and there was an uproar in the Legislature. But the focus of the uproar is misplaced; the problem with bail is not how it is implemented but rather with the criminal system itself.
A basic premise of Canadian law is that a person charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Bail is intended to recognize that presumption and allow people who are charged with an offence to continue in their daily lives until and unless they are convicted and sentenced. In fact, bail is so important that the Constitution provides: "Any person charged with an offence has the right ... not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause".
But the presumption of innocence does not require that bail must always be granted to every person charged with an offence. Bail is not allowed to people who are likely to run off, commit other crimes while on release, or whose crimes are so shocking as to make their release scandalous. Bail requires a balancing of the rights of an accused and the safety of society. And it is that balancing that is set awry by delays in the criminal system as a whole.
Bail was designed nearly 140 years ago to deal, in a summary fashion, with release of accused during the brief period between arrest and trial. Legislative amendment since 1869 has updated the law but not changed its fundamental premises. Justices of the peace considering bail do the best they can – but they consider bail in a context of the late 1860s.
The trouble is that bail is intended to be a brief interim step in the process leading to trial. But time between arrest and trial is no longer brief. It is common to see cases where the crimes alleged took place five years or more before the trial. As late as 1965, an Ontario capital murder involved a murder in January, full trial with jury in June and Court of Appeal decision in November. Less significant cases moved even faster and such records as remain suggest that minor matters often were disposed of within a month of the offence. Indeed, 1960s shoplifting cases in Toronto sometimes were tried the same week as the offence.
Today we have a completely different situation. The opening paragraph of a recent decision at the Ontario Court of Appeal, Walizadah, says it all:
"The appellant ... was tried before [a judge and jury] in Toronto for [first degree murder occurring] on December 30, 1999. The trial commenced on November 19, 2002. On April 4, 2003, he was convicted as charged."
The Decision of the Court of Appeal was granted July 12, 2007, about 6 ½ years after the murder. Note that the trial lasted about five months.
The enormous system delays make the decision to grant or deny bail vastly more important than ever before. Failure to grant bail can send an innocent accused to jail for years; granting bail wrongly puts society at terrible risk. The decision to grant bail, inevitably, is coloured by the realization that a refusal to grant bail can lead to a lengthy prison sentence for someone who has not been, and may not be, convicted of a crime. The only way to fix this problem is to make the system move faster.
The underlying federal legislation governing bail needs to be revised to protect society and the rights of accused. This will require ensuring that criminal trials really do take place promptly and that will require an overhaul to the system as a whole. More than mere tinkering is needed. We have to accept that a speedy trial is essential to having a fair justice system and the failure to move cases along puts everyone, not just the accused, at risk.
Changes can be made. Ontario's "Justice on Target" shows what can be done locally but we need federal leadership. The need to change our system is not a matter of being "tough on crime" or politics at all – it is a matter making the system work. We know what must be done; we now need the courage to do it.
James Morton, past president of the Ontario Bar Association, teaches at Osgoode Hall Law School and practises criminal law in the GTA.
James Morton
The double-murder of Saramma Varughese, 65, and her daughter Susan John, 43, in their GTA home last month shocked Ontario. The accused was on bail while awaiting trial for two vicious attacks on strangers in a 12-hour rampage two years ago. Opposition Leader Bob Runciman has called for an inquiry and there was an uproar in the Legislature. But the focus of the uproar is misplaced; the problem with bail is not how it is implemented but rather with the criminal system itself.
A basic premise of Canadian law is that a person charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Bail is intended to recognize that presumption and allow people who are charged with an offence to continue in their daily lives until and unless they are convicted and sentenced. In fact, bail is so important that the Constitution provides: "Any person charged with an offence has the right ... not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause".
But the presumption of innocence does not require that bail must always be granted to every person charged with an offence. Bail is not allowed to people who are likely to run off, commit other crimes while on release, or whose crimes are so shocking as to make their release scandalous. Bail requires a balancing of the rights of an accused and the safety of society. And it is that balancing that is set awry by delays in the criminal system as a whole.
Bail was designed nearly 140 years ago to deal, in a summary fashion, with release of accused during the brief period between arrest and trial. Legislative amendment since 1869 has updated the law but not changed its fundamental premises. Justices of the peace considering bail do the best they can – but they consider bail in a context of the late 1860s.
The trouble is that bail is intended to be a brief interim step in the process leading to trial. But time between arrest and trial is no longer brief. It is common to see cases where the crimes alleged took place five years or more before the trial. As late as 1965, an Ontario capital murder involved a murder in January, full trial with jury in June and Court of Appeal decision in November. Less significant cases moved even faster and such records as remain suggest that minor matters often were disposed of within a month of the offence. Indeed, 1960s shoplifting cases in Toronto sometimes were tried the same week as the offence.
Today we have a completely different situation. The opening paragraph of a recent decision at the Ontario Court of Appeal, Walizadah, says it all:
"The appellant ... was tried before [a judge and jury] in Toronto for [first degree murder occurring] on December 30, 1999. The trial commenced on November 19, 2002. On April 4, 2003, he was convicted as charged."
The Decision of the Court of Appeal was granted July 12, 2007, about 6 ½ years after the murder. Note that the trial lasted about five months.
The enormous system delays make the decision to grant or deny bail vastly more important than ever before. Failure to grant bail can send an innocent accused to jail for years; granting bail wrongly puts society at terrible risk. The decision to grant bail, inevitably, is coloured by the realization that a refusal to grant bail can lead to a lengthy prison sentence for someone who has not been, and may not be, convicted of a crime. The only way to fix this problem is to make the system move faster.
The underlying federal legislation governing bail needs to be revised to protect society and the rights of accused. This will require ensuring that criminal trials really do take place promptly and that will require an overhaul to the system as a whole. More than mere tinkering is needed. We have to accept that a speedy trial is essential to having a fair justice system and the failure to move cases along puts everyone, not just the accused, at risk.
Changes can be made. Ontario's "Justice on Target" shows what can be done locally but we need federal leadership. The need to change our system is not a matter of being "tough on crime" or politics at all – it is a matter making the system work. We know what must be done; we now need the courage to do it.
James Morton, past president of the Ontario Bar Association, teaches at Osgoode Hall Law School and practises criminal law in the GTA.
Bach's Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major
Above is the first page of a copy of the Bach's Cello Suite No.1 in G Major, BWV 1007, believed to have been made by Bach's second wife Anna Magdalena in the 1720's. Hers is one of four manuscript copies of the Suites. The depth and complexity of the piece can be seen on the manuscript itself; one marvels at the mind behind the text. Unfortunately, the original Anna Magdalena manuscript is full of errors. Her manuscript contains over 70 errors such as incorrect notes and measures.
Miley Cyrus not dead
It's weird how often stories of Miley Cyrus' death come out -- this is the third one I have seen in the last few months.
Miley Cyrus' best friend has been forced to deny claims the 'Hannah Montana' star is dead, after a bogus video claiming Miley had been hit by a drunk driver appeared on YouTube.
Miley Cyrus' best friend has been forced to deny claims the 'Hannah Montana' star is dead.
Mandy Jiroux - who creates videos with Miley as part of the 'Miley and Mandy Show' on video sharing website YouTube - insists the 15-year-old star is fit ad healthy, despite footage claiming she had been hit by a drunk driver appearing on the internet.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Life, liberty, security of person and welfare benefits
Section 7 of the Charter says:
Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
At first blush one might think the section related solely to criminal and quasi criminal process. Canadian courts have long seen the section as broader than that and Wareham v. Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services), 2008 ONCA 771, released today, deals with s. 7 in the context of welfare benefits.
The Court found a delay in granting benefits could infringe s. 7. The Court explained the analysis thusly:
[15] The motion judge, following well-established authority, approached the adequacy of the s. 7 claim in two stages. First, he asked whether the appellants had pleaded a deprivation of security of the person caused by state action. Second, he considered whether the appellants had pleaded that the deprivation was contrary to a recognized principle of fundamental justice.
...
[17] I agree with the motion judge that the appellants successfully cleared the first of the two s. 7 hurdles. There is a potential argument to be made that delay in processing applications for welfare benefits, essential for day-to-day existence and to which the applicants are statutorily entitled, could engage the right to security of the person where that delay has caused serious physical or psychological harm.
[18] Next, the motion judge turned to the second stage of the s. 7 analysis. Even where state action causes a deprivation of security of the person, it breaches s. 7 only if the deprivation is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The motion judge identified three features as essential components of a principle of fundamental justice. First, it must be a legal principle. Second, it must be widely accepted as an integral part of the due administration of justice. Third, the principle must be capable of being identified with sufficient precision to yield a manageable standard against which to measure the state conduct in issue.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
Community Colleges
When I was younger the idea of a Community College was faintly amusing. They were seen as places where the students not bright enough to get into a real school went; fair or not that was a widepread view in the 1970's.
I'm not sure what young people think now, but having done some work for Humber College I can attest to the clear fact that the students are serious, dedicated and are really learning. Compared to the (often intoxicated) students of my undergraduate days the students at Humber are models of academic excellence.
Times change and we learn what really matters; it sounds like an ad but Colleges teach students who want to learn things that will help them in real life.
Teens balk at proposed young driver law
Canadian Press
Toronto —
Proposed Ontario legislation to limit the driving privileges of people under age 22 is experiencing backlash from young drivers before the bill is even tabled. Premier Dalton McGuinty said Tuesday the "modest restrictions" will include a zero blood-alcohol limit for all Ontario drivers aged 21 and under and escalating sanctions for young drivers who speed, starting with a 30-day licence suspension. Drivers between 16 and 19 will also be limited to having only one teenage passenger in the vehicle, which Mr. McGuinty conceded will mean three 19-year-old adults could not go to a movie — or church — in the same car. "Perhaps the most precious thing we have in society is our children, and that includes our older children," Mr. McGuinty said. "We owe it to our kids to take the kinds of measures that ensure that they will grow up safe and sound and secure, and if that means a modest restriction on their freedoms until they reach the age of 22, then as a dad, I'm more than prepared to do that." The legislation is set to be tabled Tuesday afternoon, and already several online Facebook groups have sprung up protesting the proposed law. More than 1,000 people have joined the groups and while some are in favour of the legislation, many disagree, especially with the passenger rules. Teens are posting comments suggesting the law will discourage carpooling and having designated drivers. "How does it make sense to try and teach us about saving gas by carpooling and buying hybrids and things such as that when it is illegal for teenagers to carpool if this passes?" one person wrote. Another wrote that the law would "encourage drunk driving!" "We would need more cars which means more designated drivers. My friends already don't want this job!" Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory said he likes the idea of new rules for younger drivers, but worries the restrictions on teenage passengers could be unworkable, especially in rural Ontario.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
Toronto —
Proposed Ontario legislation to limit the driving privileges of people under age 22 is experiencing backlash from young drivers before the bill is even tabled. Premier Dalton McGuinty said Tuesday the "modest restrictions" will include a zero blood-alcohol limit for all Ontario drivers aged 21 and under and escalating sanctions for young drivers who speed, starting with a 30-day licence suspension. Drivers between 16 and 19 will also be limited to having only one teenage passenger in the vehicle, which Mr. McGuinty conceded will mean three 19-year-old adults could not go to a movie — or church — in the same car. "Perhaps the most precious thing we have in society is our children, and that includes our older children," Mr. McGuinty said. "We owe it to our kids to take the kinds of measures that ensure that they will grow up safe and sound and secure, and if that means a modest restriction on their freedoms until they reach the age of 22, then as a dad, I'm more than prepared to do that." The legislation is set to be tabled Tuesday afternoon, and already several online Facebook groups have sprung up protesting the proposed law. More than 1,000 people have joined the groups and while some are in favour of the legislation, many disagree, especially with the passenger rules. Teens are posting comments suggesting the law will discourage carpooling and having designated drivers. "How does it make sense to try and teach us about saving gas by carpooling and buying hybrids and things such as that when it is illegal for teenagers to carpool if this passes?" one person wrote. Another wrote that the law would "encourage drunk driving!" "We would need more cars which means more designated drivers. My friends already don't want this job!" Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory said he likes the idea of new rules for younger drivers, but worries the restrictions on teenage passengers could be unworkable, especially in rural Ontario.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
Gas down to 79.3 cents/litre at midnight, gas guru says
The price of gas is going down 1.9 cents at midnight to 79.3 cents/litre, according to gas guru Dan McTeague. It hasn't been this low since 2002.
A thoughtful reader from the Ottawa Valley sent me this piece from the Telegraph in 2002 -- it is a bit dated but still has a lot of truth.
The country the world forgot - again
By Kevin Myers
UNTIL the deaths last week of four Canadian soldiers accidentally killed by a US warplane in Afghanistan, probably almost no one outside their home country had been aware that Canadian troops were deployed in the region. And as always, Canada will now bury its dead, just as the rest of the world as always will forget its sacrifice, just as it always forgets nearly everything Canada ever does.
It seems that Canada's historic mission is to come to the selfless aid both of its friends and of complete strangers, and then, once the crisis is over, to be well and truly ignored. Canada is the perpetual wallflower that stands on the edge of the hall, waiting for someone to come and ask her for a dance. A fire breaks out, she risks life and limb to rescue her fellow dance-goers, and suffers serious injuries. But when the hall is repaired and the dancing resumes, there is Canada, the wallflower still, while those she once helped glamorously cavort across the floor, blithely neglecting her yet again.
That is the price which Canada pays for sharing the North American Continent with the US, and for being a selfless friend of Britain in two global conflicts. For much of the 20th century, Canada was torn in two different directions: it seemed to be a part of the old world, yet had an address in the new one, and that divided identity ensured that it never fully got the gratitude it deserved.
advertisement
Yet its purely voluntary contribution to the cause of freedom in two world wars was perhaps the greatest of any democracy. Almost 10 per cent of Canada's entire population of seven million people served in the armed forces during the First World War, and nearly 60,000 died. The great Allied victories of 1918 were spearheaded by Canadian troops, perhaps the most capable soldiers in the entire British order of battle.
Canada was repaid for its enormous sacrifice by downright neglect, its unique contribution to victory being absorbed into the popular memory as somehow or other the work of the "British". The Second World War provided a re-run. The Canadian navy began the war with a half dozen vessels, and ended up policing nearly half of the Atlantic against U-boat attack. More than 120 Canadian warships participated in the Normandy landings, during which 15,000 Canadian soldiers went ashore on D-Day alone. Canada finished the war with the third largest navy and the fourth largest air force in the world.
The world thanked Canada with the same sublime indifference as it had the previous time. Canadian participation in the war was acknowledged in film only if it was necessary to give an American actor a part in a campaign which the US had clearly not participated - a touching scrupulousness which, of course, Hollywood has since abandoned, as it has any notion of a separate Canadian identity.
So it is a general rule that actors and film-makers arriving in Hollywood keep their nationality - unless, that is, they are Canadian. Thus Mary Pickford, Walter Huston, Donald Sutherland, Michael J Fox, William Shatner, Norman Jewison, David Cronenberg and Dan Aykroyd have in the popular perception become American, and Christopher Plummer British. It is as if in the very act of becoming famous, a Canadian ceases to be Canadian, unless she is Margaret Atwood, who is as unshakeably Canadian as a moose, or Celine Dion, for whom Canada has proved quite unable to find any takers.
Moreover, Canada is every bit as querulously alert to the achievements of its sons and daughters as the rest of the world is completely unaware of them. The Canadians proudly say of themselves - and are unheard by anyone else - that 1 per cent of the world's population has provided 10 per cent of the world's peace-keeping forces. Canadian soldiers in the past half century have been the greatest peace-keepers on earth - in 39 missions on UN mandates, and six on non-UN peace-keeping duties, from Vietnam to East Timor, from Sinai to Bosnia.
Yet the only foreign engagement which has entered the popular non-Canadian imagination was the sorry affair in Somalia, in which out-of-control paratroopers murdered two Somali infiltrators. Their regiment was then disbanded in disgrace - a uniquely Canadian act of self-abasement for which, naturally, the Canadians received no international credit.
So who today in the US knows about the stoic and selfless friendship its northern neighbour has given it in Afghanistan? Rather like Cyrano de Bergerac, Canada repeatedly does honourable things for honourable motives, but instead of being thanked for it, it remains something of a figure of fun. It is the Canadian way, for which Canadians should be proud, yet such honour comes at a high cost.
This weekend four shrouds, red with blood and maple leaf, head homewards; and four more grieving Canadian families know that cost all too tragically well.
The country the world forgot - again
By Kevin Myers
UNTIL the deaths last week of four Canadian soldiers accidentally killed by a US warplane in Afghanistan, probably almost no one outside their home country had been aware that Canadian troops were deployed in the region. And as always, Canada will now bury its dead, just as the rest of the world as always will forget its sacrifice, just as it always forgets nearly everything Canada ever does.
It seems that Canada's historic mission is to come to the selfless aid both of its friends and of complete strangers, and then, once the crisis is over, to be well and truly ignored. Canada is the perpetual wallflower that stands on the edge of the hall, waiting for someone to come and ask her for a dance. A fire breaks out, she risks life and limb to rescue her fellow dance-goers, and suffers serious injuries. But when the hall is repaired and the dancing resumes, there is Canada, the wallflower still, while those she once helped glamorously cavort across the floor, blithely neglecting her yet again.
That is the price which Canada pays for sharing the North American Continent with the US, and for being a selfless friend of Britain in two global conflicts. For much of the 20th century, Canada was torn in two different directions: it seemed to be a part of the old world, yet had an address in the new one, and that divided identity ensured that it never fully got the gratitude it deserved.
advertisement
Yet its purely voluntary contribution to the cause of freedom in two world wars was perhaps the greatest of any democracy. Almost 10 per cent of Canada's entire population of seven million people served in the armed forces during the First World War, and nearly 60,000 died. The great Allied victories of 1918 were spearheaded by Canadian troops, perhaps the most capable soldiers in the entire British order of battle.
Canada was repaid for its enormous sacrifice by downright neglect, its unique contribution to victory being absorbed into the popular memory as somehow or other the work of the "British". The Second World War provided a re-run. The Canadian navy began the war with a half dozen vessels, and ended up policing nearly half of the Atlantic against U-boat attack. More than 120 Canadian warships participated in the Normandy landings, during which 15,000 Canadian soldiers went ashore on D-Day alone. Canada finished the war with the third largest navy and the fourth largest air force in the world.
The world thanked Canada with the same sublime indifference as it had the previous time. Canadian participation in the war was acknowledged in film only if it was necessary to give an American actor a part in a campaign which the US had clearly not participated - a touching scrupulousness which, of course, Hollywood has since abandoned, as it has any notion of a separate Canadian identity.
So it is a general rule that actors and film-makers arriving in Hollywood keep their nationality - unless, that is, they are Canadian. Thus Mary Pickford, Walter Huston, Donald Sutherland, Michael J Fox, William Shatner, Norman Jewison, David Cronenberg and Dan Aykroyd have in the popular perception become American, and Christopher Plummer British. It is as if in the very act of becoming famous, a Canadian ceases to be Canadian, unless she is Margaret Atwood, who is as unshakeably Canadian as a moose, or Celine Dion, for whom Canada has proved quite unable to find any takers.
Moreover, Canada is every bit as querulously alert to the achievements of its sons and daughters as the rest of the world is completely unaware of them. The Canadians proudly say of themselves - and are unheard by anyone else - that 1 per cent of the world's population has provided 10 per cent of the world's peace-keeping forces. Canadian soldiers in the past half century have been the greatest peace-keepers on earth - in 39 missions on UN mandates, and six on non-UN peace-keeping duties, from Vietnam to East Timor, from Sinai to Bosnia.
Yet the only foreign engagement which has entered the popular non-Canadian imagination was the sorry affair in Somalia, in which out-of-control paratroopers murdered two Somali infiltrators. Their regiment was then disbanded in disgrace - a uniquely Canadian act of self-abasement for which, naturally, the Canadians received no international credit.
So who today in the US knows about the stoic and selfless friendship its northern neighbour has given it in Afghanistan? Rather like Cyrano de Bergerac, Canada repeatedly does honourable things for honourable motives, but instead of being thanked for it, it remains something of a figure of fun. It is the Canadian way, for which Canadians should be proud, yet such honour comes at a high cost.
This weekend four shrouds, red with blood and maple leaf, head homewards; and four more grieving Canadian families know that cost all too tragically well.
Man admits killing Canadian model in Shanghai: state media
Man admits killing Canadian model in Shanghai: state media
Restaurant worker Chen Jun admitted to the court that he stabbed Diana O'Brien repeatedly in the chest on July 7 after she caught him trying to rob her apartment, the Shanghai Daily reported.
Restaurant worker Chen Jun admitted to the court that he stabbed Diana O'Brien repeatedly in the chest on July 7 after she caught him trying to rob her apartment, the Shanghai Daily reported.
Chen testified he entered the apartment O'Brien shared with another Canadian model because the door was open and the lights were on, after targeting their building because of lax security, the report said.
O'Brien caught him as he was stealing a laptop in the living room. He said he threatened her with a knife and forced her into her bedroom because she was "screaming in English."
Email down -- will the world end???
When I started practicing as a lawyer time sensitive communication was sent by telex.
From time to time I even got a telegraph message.
Faxes were a big deal when they became common.
Most materials were sent by runner or mail.
Yet somehow work got done.
I clearly remember the first time a document was emailed to me -- it wasn't even called email then. It took at least half an hour to receive and the sender had to try several times before a successful transmission.
Today almost everything important comes by email, usually with a demand for a reply NOW! And with Blackberry and other pda devices it is possible to respond almost immediately.
Indeed, I realized my main email system was down when I checked my Blackberry around midnight and saw ... no messages.
Leaving aside the issue of whether there really is a need to check a Blackberry at midnight, on coming in to work I realized there wasn't much I could do. I planned to review a draft contract, sent by email, and review an amended letter or two, coming by email and do a few other things -- by email.
I begin to see just how hard it will be for President Obama to give up his Blackberry.
In just a few years email has gone from science fiction, to cute romance ('You have mail') to a stern taskmaster!
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
From time to time I even got a telegraph message.
Faxes were a big deal when they became common.
Most materials were sent by runner or mail.
Yet somehow work got done.
I clearly remember the first time a document was emailed to me -- it wasn't even called email then. It took at least half an hour to receive and the sender had to try several times before a successful transmission.
Today almost everything important comes by email, usually with a demand for a reply NOW! And with Blackberry and other pda devices it is possible to respond almost immediately.
Indeed, I realized my main email system was down when I checked my Blackberry around midnight and saw ... no messages.
Leaving aside the issue of whether there really is a need to check a Blackberry at midnight, on coming in to work I realized there wasn't much I could do. I planned to review a draft contract, sent by email, and review an amended letter or two, coming by email and do a few other things -- by email.
I begin to see just how hard it will be for President Obama to give up his Blackberry.
In just a few years email has gone from science fiction, to cute romance ('You have mail') to a stern taskmaster!
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
Cadman -- the lawyer quits
This is very curious. Lawyers withdraw, as the story says, because they are not being paid, they get instructions that they cannot follow or because of a personal issue (getting sick etc). We don't know what the situation is here but it does seem unlikely that the Conservatives decided not to pay their lawyer. One can only hope the lawyer is not ill or has a personal issue; but if that's true what could be the instructions that cannot be followed? Stay tuned ...
Harper lawyer withdraws from Cadman case
Juliet O’Neill, Canwest News Service
OTTAWA -- Lawyer Richard Dearden withdrew Monday from representing Prime Minister Stephen Harper in his $3.5-million defamation case against the Liberals for alleging that he knew of an attempted bribe of the late Independent MP Chuck Cadman.
Dearden confirmed that he informed the court and Liberal party counsel, Chris Paliare, of his decision to withdraw from the case during a teleconference call Monday with Justice Charles Hackland.
Dearden, counsel with the Gowlings law firm, declined to cite his reasons, saying that is privileged information.
Paliare said Dearden did not state the reasons during the conference call. But he said there are generally two grounds on which lawyers withdraw from a case. One is if they are not paid, which is inconceivable in this case. The other is if there is a breakdown in the lawyer-client relationship which makes it inappropriate for the lawyer to continue the work.
A few hours after the morning call, both lawyers were notified that lawyer David Wingfield at Weir Foulds was hired to represent Harper.
Full story here: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=967490
Harper lawyer withdraws from Cadman case
Juliet O’Neill, Canwest News Service
OTTAWA -- Lawyer Richard Dearden withdrew Monday from representing Prime Minister Stephen Harper in his $3.5-million defamation case against the Liberals for alleging that he knew of an attempted bribe of the late Independent MP Chuck Cadman.
Dearden confirmed that he informed the court and Liberal party counsel, Chris Paliare, of his decision to withdraw from the case during a teleconference call Monday with Justice Charles Hackland.
Dearden, counsel with the Gowlings law firm, declined to cite his reasons, saying that is privileged information.
Paliare said Dearden did not state the reasons during the conference call. But he said there are generally two grounds on which lawyers withdraw from a case. One is if they are not paid, which is inconceivable in this case. The other is if there is a breakdown in the lawyer-client relationship which makes it inappropriate for the lawyer to continue the work.
A few hours after the morning call, both lawyers were notified that lawyer David Wingfield at Weir Foulds was hired to represent Harper.
Full story here: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=967490
Monday, November 17, 2008
Vegetarian prisons ... .
You have to grant PETA this, they are wizards at earned media.
Taking an absurd story -- the early release of a prisoner because he is obese -- and making it a pitch for a vegetarian diet is brilliant.
And it is true a balanced vegetarian diet is very healthy.
But would it make sense to impose it in a prison? One thing I learned in prisons is that food is a central focus of all prisoners. Bad food lead prison riots.
While vegetarian food is hardly 'bad' food it might well be perceived as such especially by prisoners who see meat as manly (and macho stuff is big in prison).
Enough, I am devoting too much though to a PETA publicity stunt ... .
PETA urges vegetarian diet for convicts
THE CANADIAN PRESS
MONTREAL –
An animal rights group says a vegetarian diet could be just the ticket to keeping obese cons behind bars.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has made the suggestion to the warden of Montreal's notorious Bordeaux jail after the facility gave early release to Michel Lapointe, a 450-pound drug dealer nicknamed "Big Mike."The institution declared it couldn't accommodate his large frame.
Lapointe, who served 25 months in jail for conspiracy, drug trafficking and gangsterism, was paroled last week, three months early.
A Quebec judge knocked six months off the 37-year-old's sentence in May after prison authorities could not provide him with a big enough chair or table.
Tracy Reiman, PETA's executive vice-president, said in a letter Monday to Bordeaux warden Michel Gagnon that a "healthy, slimming vegetarian diet" would improve convicts' health and lower costs, preventing "people who break the law from breaking beds."
Full story here: http://mobile.thestar.com/mobile/canada/article/538487
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
Taking an absurd story -- the early release of a prisoner because he is obese -- and making it a pitch for a vegetarian diet is brilliant.
And it is true a balanced vegetarian diet is very healthy.
But would it make sense to impose it in a prison? One thing I learned in prisons is that food is a central focus of all prisoners. Bad food lead prison riots.
While vegetarian food is hardly 'bad' food it might well be perceived as such especially by prisoners who see meat as manly (and macho stuff is big in prison).
Enough, I am devoting too much though to a PETA publicity stunt ... .
PETA urges vegetarian diet for convicts
THE CANADIAN PRESS
MONTREAL –
An animal rights group says a vegetarian diet could be just the ticket to keeping obese cons behind bars.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has made the suggestion to the warden of Montreal's notorious Bordeaux jail after the facility gave early release to Michel Lapointe, a 450-pound drug dealer nicknamed "Big Mike."The institution declared it couldn't accommodate his large frame.
Lapointe, who served 25 months in jail for conspiracy, drug trafficking and gangsterism, was paroled last week, three months early.
A Quebec judge knocked six months off the 37-year-old's sentence in May after prison authorities could not provide him with a big enough chair or table.
Tracy Reiman, PETA's executive vice-president, said in a letter Monday to Bordeaux warden Michel Gagnon that a "healthy, slimming vegetarian diet" would improve convicts' health and lower costs, preventing "people who break the law from breaking beds."
Full story here: http://mobile.thestar.com/mobile/canada/article/538487
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
ROBERT LORD LYTTON: 1877
IMPERFECTION
Much must be borne which it is hard to bear;
Much given away which it were sweet to keep.
The deed that never hath been done, the tear
That never hath been wept, who knows how deep
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
Issue estoppel is part of criminal law
The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v Mahalingan 2008 SCC 63, released last Friday, makes it clear that issue estoppel is part of Canadian criminal law playing an indispensable role in ensuring fairness to the accused, avoiding inconsistent verdicts and maintaining the principle of finality.
That said, issue estopple does not mean that every piece of evidence led in a first trial and leading to an acquittal is inadmissible in a subsequent trial on another matter. Only issues necessarily resolved in favour of the accused as part of the acquittal or on which findings were made, even if on the basis of reasonable doubt, are estopped.
An accused claiming the benefit of issue estoppel bears the burden of showing that a particular issue was decided in their favour in the previous proceeding.
The entire Mahalingan decision is worth close reading for counsel involved in matters where issue estoppel may apply.
Issue estoppel is, of course, an integral part of civil litigation preventing the same parties litigating the same issues once finally decided in different context. Last Friday's decision makes the two branches of law consistent -- as they should be.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
Diana O'Brien trial starts
The murder trial in the killing of Canadian model Diana O'Brien started today in China. Whatever the other flaws of their justice system, have a delayed trial is not an issue.
LEBANON: BUILDING A UNITED SOCIETY
VATICAN CITY, 17 NOV 2008 (VIS) - This morning in the Vatican, the Holy Father received the Letters of Credence of Georges Chakib El Khoury, the new ambassador of Lebanon to the Holy See, to whom he expressed the hope that the Lebanese people "may courageously continue their efforts to build a united and solidary society".
"The millennial history of the country, and the place it occupies at the centre of a complex region, give it a fundamental mission to contribute to peace and harmony among everyone", said the Holy Father.
After highlighting how "because of its experience of life and of inter-community and inter-cultural collaboration, Lebanon is a 'treasure' that has been entrusted to all the Lebanese people", the Pope expressed the hope that "the international community may protect and value the country and, through real commitment, may contribute to preventing it becoming a land in which regional and global conflicts are played out. Lebanon must, then, be a laboratory in which to seek effective solutions to the conflicts that have long troubled the Middle East".
"The election of the president of the Republic, the formation of a government of national unity and the approval of a new electoral law", he said, "will favour national cohesion and contribute to the true coexistence of the various components of the nation. ... I hope that, leaving particular interests to one side and healing the wounds of the past, everyone will make an effective commitment to the path of dialogue and reconciliation so that the country may progress in stability".
"The tensions that still exist demonstrate the need to continue down the path opened some months ago with the Doha Agreement, in order to build Lebanese institutions together", Pope Benedict noted. "In this commitment to the common good, people must be guided by an unshakeable certainty: each member of the Lebanese people must feel Lebanon as their home and know that their own concerns and legitimate expectations are effectively taken into consideration, while showing reciprocal respect for the rights of others".
"To this end", the Holy Father went on, "it is necessary to promote and develop true education for peace, reconciliation and dialogue, directed above all at the young generations. ... Lasting peace, which is the profound aspiration of all Lebanese, is possible only if everyone gives fundamental importance to the will to live together in the same land, and considers justice, reconciliation and dialogue as the appropriate context in which to resolve the problems of individuals and groups".
On this subject, Benedict XVI underlined how building a society "which ensures all its members a free and dignified life" calls for "increasingly tight co-operation between all sides of the nation, based on trusting relationships between individuals and communities".
"The Holy See", he said, "always follows events in Lebanon very closely and pays particular attention to the efforts made to find a definitive solution to the problems facing the country. Particularly sensitive to the sufferings undergone for so long by the people of the Middle East, the Holy See continues with determination its commitment to peace and reconciliation in Lebanon and throughout that region so beloved to all believers".
Finally the Holy Father, recalling the recent beatification of Fr. Jacques Ghazir Haddad, "apostle of mercy", greeted the Catholic community in Lebanon, inviting its members to become "architects of unity and fraternity".
"The millennial history of the country, and the place it occupies at the centre of a complex region, give it a fundamental mission to contribute to peace and harmony among everyone", said the Holy Father.
After highlighting how "because of its experience of life and of inter-community and inter-cultural collaboration, Lebanon is a 'treasure' that has been entrusted to all the Lebanese people", the Pope expressed the hope that "the international community may protect and value the country and, through real commitment, may contribute to preventing it becoming a land in which regional and global conflicts are played out. Lebanon must, then, be a laboratory in which to seek effective solutions to the conflicts that have long troubled the Middle East".
"The election of the president of the Republic, the formation of a government of national unity and the approval of a new electoral law", he said, "will favour national cohesion and contribute to the true coexistence of the various components of the nation. ... I hope that, leaving particular interests to one side and healing the wounds of the past, everyone will make an effective commitment to the path of dialogue and reconciliation so that the country may progress in stability".
"The tensions that still exist demonstrate the need to continue down the path opened some months ago with the Doha Agreement, in order to build Lebanese institutions together", Pope Benedict noted. "In this commitment to the common good, people must be guided by an unshakeable certainty: each member of the Lebanese people must feel Lebanon as their home and know that their own concerns and legitimate expectations are effectively taken into consideration, while showing reciprocal respect for the rights of others".
"To this end", the Holy Father went on, "it is necessary to promote and develop true education for peace, reconciliation and dialogue, directed above all at the young generations. ... Lasting peace, which is the profound aspiration of all Lebanese, is possible only if everyone gives fundamental importance to the will to live together in the same land, and considers justice, reconciliation and dialogue as the appropriate context in which to resolve the problems of individuals and groups".
On this subject, Benedict XVI underlined how building a society "which ensures all its members a free and dignified life" calls for "increasingly tight co-operation between all sides of the nation, based on trusting relationships between individuals and communities".
"The Holy See", he said, "always follows events in Lebanon very closely and pays particular attention to the efforts made to find a definitive solution to the problems facing the country. Particularly sensitive to the sufferings undergone for so long by the people of the Middle East, the Holy See continues with determination its commitment to peace and reconciliation in Lebanon and throughout that region so beloved to all believers".
Finally the Holy Father, recalling the recent beatification of Fr. Jacques Ghazir Haddad, "apostle of mercy", greeted the Catholic community in Lebanon, inviting its members to become "architects of unity and fraternity".
Unionizing farm workers
Today’s important Court of Appeal decision in Fraser v. Ontario 2008 ONCA 760 strikes down the current regime in Ontario for unionizing farm workers. The case is a careful consideration of the right of association under the Constitution and worth reading in full.
In deciding the case the Court reviewed the right to collective bargaining and when there is a positive duty on government to act to protect that right.
The Court holds:
[52] In summary, the combined effect of
[53] The test for determining whether a claimant making a positive rights claim under s. 2(d) is entitled to government action was initially laid down in Dunmore. The Supreme Court subsequently expanded the test for positive rights claims under s. 2 of the Charter in Baier v. Alberta, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 673, at para. 30 (“Baier”). Applying the Baier test in this context involves the following five inquiries:
1. Are the activities for which the appellants seek s. 2(d) protection associational activities?
2. Are the appellants seeking a positive entitlement to government action, or simply the right to be free from government interference? If the former, then the three so-called “
3. Are the claims grounded in a fundamental freedom protected by s. 2(d), rather than in access to a particular statutory regime?
4. Have the appellants demonstrated that exclusion from a statutory regime has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with the freedom to organize or the right to bargain collectively?
5. Is the government responsible for the inability to exercise the fundamental freedom?
A happy poem
I am happy because...
I rather die than not being an intellect
I have the power to make my life happy or sad
Right now I am happy
Happy because I am completely changed
Happy because now I won’t be humiliated
Happy because I have pledged to keep my dignity
Happy because I have chosen my wayof success, fame and money
Happy because I promised myself
Would not break my dear one’s heart
Happy because I have oathed to
Love my small familyFor that I have vowed
A heart full of love
That is how much I love myself now.
Mahfooz Ali
I rather die than not being an intellect
I have the power to make my life happy or sad
Right now I am happy
Happy because I am completely changed
Happy because now I won’t be humiliated
Happy because I have pledged to keep my dignity
Happy because I have chosen my wayof success, fame and money
Happy because I promised myself
Would not break my dear one’s heart
Happy because I have oathed to
Love my small familyFor that I have vowed
A heart full of love
That is how much I love myself now.
Mahfooz Ali
Afghanistan -- the "good" news isn't
This Sunday Afghan President Hamid Karzai offered safe passage for Taliban leaders who wanted to talk peace.
At first blush that sounds good -- and the Taliban's immediate rejection of the offer might be seen as more spin than a real response.
But that first glance would be superficial.
Karzai offered to talk because the situation on Afghanistan is rapidly getting worse. The Taliban is now operating in Kabul directly. If anything, Karzai might want an offer of safe passage.
Last night CBC had a story (and yes, CBC is not always impartial but the story reflects what my friends in the Forces tell me) saying Canadian (and allied) forces are grossly overstretched.
Here's the problem -- to defeat the Taliban (those people who throw acid in schoolgirls' faces) we need a major increase in forces. That increase might lead to a major uptick in Taliban strength; nationalism breeds anger at foreign troops. And so we might need even more troops.
President Obama is sending more forces to Afghanistan -- Iraq seems quieter -- but it's not a good situation.
At first blush that sounds good -- and the Taliban's immediate rejection of the offer might be seen as more spin than a real response.
But that first glance would be superficial.
Karzai offered to talk because the situation on Afghanistan is rapidly getting worse. The Taliban is now operating in Kabul directly. If anything, Karzai might want an offer of safe passage.
Last night CBC had a story (and yes, CBC is not always impartial but the story reflects what my friends in the Forces tell me) saying Canadian (and allied) forces are grossly overstretched.
Here's the problem -- to defeat the Taliban (those people who throw acid in schoolgirls' faces) we need a major increase in forces. That increase might lead to a major uptick in Taliban strength; nationalism breeds anger at foreign troops. And so we might need even more troops.
President Obama is sending more forces to Afghanistan -- Iraq seems quieter -- but it's not a good situation.
Harper charts Canada's shift to the right
Interesting piece from the Vancouver Sun -- there is some spin but it makes a good point -- the Conservatives are in pretty good shape. We have real work to do and cannot afford to fight amongst ourselves.
Harper charts Canada's shift to the right
Vancouver Sun
Monday, November 17, 2008
Page: B1 / FRONT
Section: Canada & World
Byline: Barbara Yaffe
Column: Barbara Yaffe
Source: Vancouver Sun
If the Harper Conservatives were a person rather than a party, it could fairly be described as fat and happy.
Two thousand delegates attending a party convention in frosty Winnipeg this past weekend left for home Sunday with a warm feeling in their tummies.
The words of Conservative president Don Plett -- "We are in the best shape that any political party has been in the history of Canada" -- were clearly reassuring.
Having won two successive elections, Conservatives are sufficiently confident to assert, as their leader did at the start of the three-day gathering, that Conservatism has replaced Liberalism as the country's mainstream political force.
The party now owns 143 seats -- just 12 shy of a majority, and boasts respectable strength in every last region of the country. It increased seat strength in the last election in B.C., P.E.I., New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Party members -- once fractious and undisciplined -- have a new-found consciousness about what it's going to take to keep power.
"We must never believe we're entitled to be in government, or that certain groups owe us their vote," Stephen Harper warned the delegates, conjuring up memories of the insufferable snootiness that ultimately topped both Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien.
The Conservative government has indeed found its way with an inclusive approach to Quebec, a strategy to court the ethnic vote and a slick fundraising machine that blitzes donors by phone, mail, direct contact and the Internet.
The party's fundraising chair Irving Gerstein got a standing ovation at the convention after advising that the party is running rings around Liberals on the financial front.
Liberals, in the first nine months of 2008, raised $3.6 million by way of 34,752 donations, compared to $14.8 million from 125,453 donations Conservatives collected.
Gerstein proudly declared: "We are ready to fight the next election whenever it may come."
The Conservative government, meanwhile, has done a good job of tempering its ideological biases, pursuing policies that are mostly mainstream.
That said, the right-leaning impulses of the membership were on display at the Winnipeg gathering through votes that approved a three-strikes provision for violent offenders, after which the party wants them designated dangerous offenders, and a measure that opens the door to legalizing fetal rights.
They also approved a policy that would eliminate the 'faint hope' of parole for those sentenced to 25-year sentences. But of course such policy resolutions are not binding on the government.
For all their success as an organization, Conservatives cannot count on continued political domination. Inevitably they will suffer for presiding in fiscally fraught times.
They are likely the party that will reintroduce deficit financing to Canada. Policies they've suggested pursuing, such as limiting civil service pay hikes, putting a cap on equalization to provinces and selling off Crown assets, will all be controversial.
And, as the impact of climate change becomes more salient, Conservatives increasingly could be blamed for their lax approach on the green front.
While the government will likely become more activist in order to keep up with a proposed U.S. cap-and-trade scheme to control greenhouse gas emissions, its environmental outlook consistently has been less aggressive than the other parties in the Commons.
And Harper pledged again this past weekend that he either will move ahead with Senate elections or, failing necessary provincial cooperation, appoint Conservatives to fill a raft of existing vacancies in the upper chamber. This would look a lot like patronage and could turn off many voters.
Then there is the Liberal party. Since 2006, the Conservatives' main opposition has been hobbled, discredited by the sponsorship scandal, damaged by weak leadership and incapable of adapting to current party financing laws.
But if the Grits can revitalize themselves after a leader is chosen at their own party convention next May, the political dynamic could change awfully fast.
By the time of the next election, in two years or so, the Harperites will have been in power six or seven years and might start to look stale.
Conservatives were wise on the weekend to savour their good times.
Harper charts Canada's shift to the right
Vancouver Sun
Monday, November 17, 2008
Page: B1 / FRONT
Section: Canada & World
Byline: Barbara Yaffe
Column: Barbara Yaffe
Source: Vancouver Sun
If the Harper Conservatives were a person rather than a party, it could fairly be described as fat and happy.
Two thousand delegates attending a party convention in frosty Winnipeg this past weekend left for home Sunday with a warm feeling in their tummies.
The words of Conservative president Don Plett -- "We are in the best shape that any political party has been in the history of Canada" -- were clearly reassuring.
Having won two successive elections, Conservatives are sufficiently confident to assert, as their leader did at the start of the three-day gathering, that Conservatism has replaced Liberalism as the country's mainstream political force.
The party now owns 143 seats -- just 12 shy of a majority, and boasts respectable strength in every last region of the country. It increased seat strength in the last election in B.C., P.E.I., New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Party members -- once fractious and undisciplined -- have a new-found consciousness about what it's going to take to keep power.
"We must never believe we're entitled to be in government, or that certain groups owe us their vote," Stephen Harper warned the delegates, conjuring up memories of the insufferable snootiness that ultimately topped both Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien.
The Conservative government has indeed found its way with an inclusive approach to Quebec, a strategy to court the ethnic vote and a slick fundraising machine that blitzes donors by phone, mail, direct contact and the Internet.
The party's fundraising chair Irving Gerstein got a standing ovation at the convention after advising that the party is running rings around Liberals on the financial front.
Liberals, in the first nine months of 2008, raised $3.6 million by way of 34,752 donations, compared to $14.8 million from 125,453 donations Conservatives collected.
Gerstein proudly declared: "We are ready to fight the next election whenever it may come."
The Conservative government, meanwhile, has done a good job of tempering its ideological biases, pursuing policies that are mostly mainstream.
That said, the right-leaning impulses of the membership were on display at the Winnipeg gathering through votes that approved a three-strikes provision for violent offenders, after which the party wants them designated dangerous offenders, and a measure that opens the door to legalizing fetal rights.
They also approved a policy that would eliminate the 'faint hope' of parole for those sentenced to 25-year sentences. But of course such policy resolutions are not binding on the government.
For all their success as an organization, Conservatives cannot count on continued political domination. Inevitably they will suffer for presiding in fiscally fraught times.
They are likely the party that will reintroduce deficit financing to Canada. Policies they've suggested pursuing, such as limiting civil service pay hikes, putting a cap on equalization to provinces and selling off Crown assets, will all be controversial.
And, as the impact of climate change becomes more salient, Conservatives increasingly could be blamed for their lax approach on the green front.
While the government will likely become more activist in order to keep up with a proposed U.S. cap-and-trade scheme to control greenhouse gas emissions, its environmental outlook consistently has been less aggressive than the other parties in the Commons.
And Harper pledged again this past weekend that he either will move ahead with Senate elections or, failing necessary provincial cooperation, appoint Conservatives to fill a raft of existing vacancies in the upper chamber. This would look a lot like patronage and could turn off many voters.
Then there is the Liberal party. Since 2006, the Conservatives' main opposition has been hobbled, discredited by the sponsorship scandal, damaged by weak leadership and incapable of adapting to current party financing laws.
But if the Grits can revitalize themselves after a leader is chosen at their own party convention next May, the political dynamic could change awfully fast.
By the time of the next election, in two years or so, the Harperites will have been in power six or seven years and might start to look stale.
Conservatives were wise on the weekend to savour their good times.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Kennedy supporters now backing Ignatieff
CTV News has learned that four key Liberals who had supported former Ontario education minister Gerard Kennedy during the last Liberal leadership race are now backing Michael Ignatieff.
Kennedy himself is remaining neutral. But MPs Navdeep Bains, Mark Holland and Mario Silva -- and former MP Omar Alghabra -- are now supporting Ignatieff, according to party insiders.
In the last leadership convention, Bains had influence over about 250 delegates, who backed Kennedy.
Sources told CTV News the four Liberals met with Ignatieff on Saturday.
Kennedy himself is remaining neutral. But MPs Navdeep Bains, Mark Holland and Mario Silva -- and former MP Omar Alghabra -- are now supporting Ignatieff, according to party insiders.
In the last leadership convention, Bains had influence over about 250 delegates, who backed Kennedy.
Sources told CTV News the four Liberals met with Ignatieff on Saturday.
LAS VEGAS CHURCHES ACCEPT GAMBLING CHIPS!!!
THIS MAY COME AS A SURPRISE TO THOSE OF YOU NOT LIVING IN LAS VEGAS , BUT THERE ARE MORE CATHOLIC CHURCHES THAN CASINOS.
NOT SURPRISINGLY, SOME WORSHIPERS AT SUNDAY SERVICES WILL GIVE CASINO CHIPS RATHER THAN CASH WHEN THE BASKET IS PASSED. SINCE THEY GET CHIPS FROM MANY DIFFERENT CASINOS, THE CHURCHES HAVE DEVISED A METHOD TO COLLECT THE OFFERINGS.
THE CHURCHES SEND ALL THEIR COLLECTED CHIPS TO A NEARBY FRANCISCAN MONASTERY FOR SORTING AND THEN THE CHIPS ARE TAKEN TO THE CASINOS OF ORIGIN AND CASHED IN.
THIS IS DONE BY THE CHIP MONKS.
You didn't see it coming???
NOT SURPRISINGLY, SOME WORSHIPERS AT SUNDAY SERVICES WILL GIVE CASINO CHIPS RATHER THAN CASH WHEN THE BASKET IS PASSED. SINCE THEY GET CHIPS FROM MANY DIFFERENT CASINOS, THE CHURCHES HAVE DEVISED A METHOD TO COLLECT THE OFFERINGS.
THE CHURCHES SEND ALL THEIR COLLECTED CHIPS TO A NEARBY FRANCISCAN MONASTERY FOR SORTING AND THEN THE CHIPS ARE TAKEN TO THE CASINOS OF ORIGIN AND CASHED IN.
THIS IS DONE BY THE CHIP MONKS.
You didn't see it coming???
Adding a party after the limitation period expires
Friday's decision in Spirito Estate v. Trillium Health Centre, 2008 ONCA 762 provides a useful summary of the current law regarding adding a party to an exisiting action after a limitation period expires. The simplistic summary is, once the limitation peiod has expired, subject to discoverability, you cannot add a party. The Court writes:
[7] This court has recently dealt with s. 21(1) in two cases. Meady v. Greyhound Canada Transportation Corp., 2008 ONCA 468 was a case where the transition provisions of s. 24 of the Act applied because the act or omission took place before the effective date of the new Act (January 1, 2004) but no proceeding against the person sought to be added as a party had been commenced before the effective date. As a result of the transition provisions, this court held that the former limitation period applied, consequently so did the common law of special circumstances. Section 21(1) of the new Act did not apply. In Joseph v. Paramount Canada’s Wonderland, 2008 ONCA 469, this court dealt with the application of s. 21 where the new Limitation Act did apply. Speaking for the court, Feldman J.A. held that the effect of s. 21(1) was to abolish the doctrine of special circumstances. As she held at para. 16, “s. 21 of the Act precludes the addition of parties to an existing action after the expiry of a limitation period”.
[7] This court has recently dealt with s. 21(1) in two cases. Meady v. Greyhound Canada Transportation Corp., 2008 ONCA 468 was a case where the transition provisions of s. 24 of the Act applied because the act or omission took place before the effective date of the new Act (January 1, 2004) but no proceeding against the person sought to be added as a party had been commenced before the effective date. As a result of the transition provisions, this court held that the former limitation period applied, consequently so did the common law of special circumstances. Section 21(1) of the new Act did not apply. In Joseph v. Paramount Canada’s Wonderland, 2008 ONCA 469, this court dealt with the application of s. 21 where the new Limitation Act did apply. Speaking for the court, Feldman J.A. held that the effect of s. 21(1) was to abolish the doctrine of special circumstances. As she held at para. 16, “s. 21 of the Act precludes the addition of parties to an existing action after the expiry of a limitation period”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)