Am I missing something here? We will oppose protectionism with protectionism? Perhaps it's like fighting forest fires with controlled fires? Or maybe it's political grandstanding ...
Canadian mayors pass anti-'Buy American' resolution
CBC News
In response to the 'Buy American' provisions of the U.S. stimulus package, Canada's mayors narrowly passed a resolution Saturday that could potentially block U.S. companies from bidding on city contracts.
The resolution was passed at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference in Whistler, B.C., by a vote of 189-175.
The resolution says the federation should support cities that adopt policies that allow them to buy only from companies whose home countries do not impose trade restrictions against Canadian goods.
"Today, Canada's cities and communities joined the federal and provincial governments in a common front to try and stop American protectionism," Jean Perrault, FCM president and mayor of Sherbrooke, Que., said in a statement.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Saturday, June 6, 2009
June 6, 1984
D-Day may loom large but it's worth remembering that June 6, 1984 was a critical date in history.
Twenty-five years ago today the Indian army stormed the Golden Temple in Amritsar, killing hundreds of Sikh separatists headquartered there.
New polls and attack ads
Yes, they are just a snapshot but they seem to be suggestive. Especially in light of the attack ads -- maybe no one is watching? Or maybe it's obvious they are bogus? In any event, one thing does seems clear -- there is little public support for an election right now.
New polls show federal Liberals with narrow lead
National Post
Saturday, Jun 6, 2009

The federal Liberals hold a narrow lead over the Conservatives, but neither party has a good chance of winning a majority government in a new election, according to two polls published on Saturday.
...
A Nanos poll showed the Liberals with 37% likely voter support, compared to 32% for the Conservatives, while an Ipsos Reid poll put the figures at 36% to 33% in favor of the Liberals. Both polls are accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 95% of the time.
"Support for the federal Liberals continues to incrementally trend upwards," Nanos said in a statement, noting that support for the Liberals was up from April's 36%, while support for the Conservatives was down from 33%.
...
The Ipsos poll showed a large majority of Canadians -- 68% -- saw no need for a new election at present and that just over half thought the nation was "headed in the right direction," despite a deep recession and political bickering on how fast to spend billions of dollars in economic stimulus.
The Nanos survey showed support for the left-wing New Democrats at 16%, up from 15% in April, while Ipsos Reid put support for the New Democrats at 12%, down from 14%.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
New polls show federal Liberals with narrow lead
National Post
Saturday, Jun 6, 2009

The federal Liberals hold a narrow lead over the Conservatives, but neither party has a good chance of winning a majority government in a new election, according to two polls published on Saturday.
...
A Nanos poll showed the Liberals with 37% likely voter support, compared to 32% for the Conservatives, while an Ipsos Reid poll put the figures at 36% to 33% in favor of the Liberals. Both polls are accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 95% of the time.
"Support for the federal Liberals continues to incrementally trend upwards," Nanos said in a statement, noting that support for the Liberals was up from April's 36%, while support for the Conservatives was down from 33%.
...
The Ipsos poll showed a large majority of Canadians -- 68% -- saw no need for a new election at present and that just over half thought the nation was "headed in the right direction," despite a deep recession and political bickering on how fast to spend billions of dollars in economic stimulus.
The Nanos survey showed support for the left-wing New Democrats at 16%, up from 15% in April, while Ipsos Reid put support for the New Democrats at 12%, down from 14%.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Waterboarding -- Legal. If so, so what?
Waterboarding may, or may not, be legal.
But legality and morality are not the same thing. In fact, legality and prudence are not the same thing either.
Waterboard is brutal and had not yielded significant intelligence. It has tarnished the reputation of the the United States and its allies. Legal or not it's a bad idea.
Look at it differently -- if waterboarding is so good, why don't we use it on suspects when dealing with, say, guns and gangs?
U.S. Lawyers Agreed on the Legality of Brutal Tactic
By SCOTT SHANE and DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: NY Times June 07, 2009
WASHINGTON - When Justice Department lawyers engaged in a sharp internal debate in 2005 over brutal interrogation techniques, even some who believed that using tough tactics was a serious mistake agreed on a basic point: the methods themselves were legal.
Previously undisclosed Justice Department e-mail messages, interviews and newly declassified documents show that some of the lawyers, including James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general who argued repeatedly that the United States would regret using harsh methods, went along with a 2005 legal opinion asserting that the techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency were lawful.
That opinion, giving the green light for the C.I.A. to use all 13 methods in interrogating terrorism suspects, including waterboarding and up to 180 hours of sleep deprivation, "was ready to go out and I concurred," Mr. Comey wrote to a colleague in an April 27, 2005, e-mail message obtained by The New York Times.
While signing off on the techniques, Mr. Comey in his e-mail provided a firsthand account of how he tried unsuccessfully to discourage use of the practices. He made a last-ditch effort to derail the interrogation program, urging Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to argue at a White House meeting in May 2005 that it was "wrong."
"In stark terms I explained to him what this would look like some day and what it would mean for the president and the government," Mr. Comey wrote in a May 31, 2005, e-mail message to his chief of staff, Chuck Rosenberg. He feared that a case could be made "that some of this stuff was simply awful."
The e-mail messages are now in the hands of investigators at the department's Office of Professional Responsibility, which is preparing a report expected to be released this summer on the Bush administration lawyers who approved waterboarding and other harsh methods. The inquiry, under way for nearly five years, will be the Justice Department's fullest public account of its role in the interrogation program, which President Obama has ended.
In years of bitter public debate, the department has sometimes seemed like a black-and-white moral battleground over torture. The main authors of memorandums authorizing the methods - John C. Yoo, Jay S. Bybee and Steven G. Bradbury - have been widely pilloried as facilitators of torture.
Others, including Mr. Comey, Jack Goldsmith and Daniel Levin, have largely escaped criticism because they raised questions about interrogation and the law
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Will the others join to bring down the government?
Perhaps not. Too many Bloc members await their pension.
Standard EI rate 'won't fly'
Tories won't bow to opposition's call to change the rules, Finley says
By Juliet O'Neill, Canwest News Service June 6, 2009
Human Resources Minister Diane Finley has indicated there will not be any government compromise on calls for a standardized employment insurance eligibility rule.
Finley said an opposition proposal to extend EI benefits to people who have worked 360 hours (nine weeks), regardless of the unemployment rate in the region where they live, "is not going to fly."
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
D-Day
Sixty-five years ago today Allied forces landed at Normandy.
The Normandy Landings were the first operations of the Allied invasion of Normandy, also known as Operation Neptune and Operation Overlord, during World War II. The landings commenced on June 6, 1944 (D-Day), beginning at 6:30 British Double Summer Time (H-Hour).
In planning, D-Day was the term used for the day of actual landing, which was dependent on final approval. The assault was conducted in two phases: an air assault landing of American, British and Canadian airborne troops shortly after midnight, and an amphibious landing of Allied infantry and armoured divisions on the coast of France commencing at 6:30.
The invasion required the transport of soldiers and materiel from the United Kingdom by troop carrying aircraft and ships, the assault landings, air support, naval interdiction of the English Channel and naval fire-support. There were also subsidiary 'attacks' mounted under the codenames Operation Glimmer and Operation Taxable to distract the Kriegsmarine and the German army from the real landing areas.
The operation was the largest single-day amphibious invasion of all time, with 160,000 troops landing on June 6, 1944.
195,700 Allied naval and merchant navy personnel in over 5,000 ships were involved. The landings took place along a 50-mile (80 km) stretch of the Normandy coast divided into five sectors: Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
The Normandy Landings were the first operations of the Allied invasion of Normandy, also known as Operation Neptune and Operation Overlord, during World War II. The landings commenced on June 6, 1944 (D-Day), beginning at 6:30 British Double Summer Time (H-Hour).
In planning, D-Day was the term used for the day of actual landing, which was dependent on final approval. The assault was conducted in two phases: an air assault landing of American, British and Canadian airborne troops shortly after midnight, and an amphibious landing of Allied infantry and armoured divisions on the coast of France commencing at 6:30.
The invasion required the transport of soldiers and materiel from the United Kingdom by troop carrying aircraft and ships, the assault landings, air support, naval interdiction of the English Channel and naval fire-support. There were also subsidiary 'attacks' mounted under the codenames Operation Glimmer and Operation Taxable to distract the Kriegsmarine and the German army from the real landing areas.
The operation was the largest single-day amphibious invasion of all time, with 160,000 troops landing on June 6, 1944.
195,700 Allied naval and merchant navy personnel in over 5,000 ships were involved. The landings took place along a 50-mile (80 km) stretch of the Normandy coast divided into five sectors: Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Friday, June 5, 2009
Signs of an election?
A truly pointless initiative -- denying even the prospect of release after 15 years -- and yes, I can hear the "tough on crime" noise now. But eliminating the "faint hope" clause will protect no one and merely panders to a vengeful mentality. Sad...
Announce plan to repeal criminal code 'faint hope' clause, tighten parole eligibility
OTTAWA–The Conservative Government is acting on a longstanding campaign promise to end convicted murderers' shot at early parole.
In the third "law and order" announcement this week, the government proposed to repeal the "faint hope" clause - a provision in the criminal code that allows first- and second-degree murderers to apply for parole after serving 15 years of a life sentence.
Although offenders are eligible for parole after 25 years in the case of first-degree murder, and anywhere from 10-25 in the case of second-degree murders, the current law provides a "faint hope" of early release at the 15-year point. The murderer must pass a two-step test and convince a judge and a jury to let him or her out early.
...
In all, there are about 4,000 killers in Canadian jails, with 1,001 current lifers potentially eligible to apply under the current faint hope scheme.
Officials said 459 have already served 15 years, while another 542 in the future would be eligible to apply.
...
Other figures show that of 125 offenders released since 1987, 15 have been returned to jail for various breaches. One is unlawfully at large, and three have been deported, while 11 are dead. The rest are out, abiding by their release conditions.
Baby Flocke
Thanks to Daria for sending this lovely link of Flocke as a baby -- my how she's grown!!!
http://gimundo.com/videos/view/baby-polar-bear/
http://gimundo.com/videos/view/baby-polar-bear/
Ontario Court of Justice Appointments
Congratulations to the new judges appointed as announced today. We need, and have, a vital and strong bench and these appointments will ensure that continues.
New ocj judges
OTTAWA - Heather Elizabeth Perkins-McVey
TORONTO - Mara Beth Greene
TORONTO (one of two vacancies) - Fergus Colm ODonnell
HAMILTON- Maria Speyer
BRAMPTON- Richard Hans Karl Schwarzl
LONDON- Wayne Gould Rabley
New ocj judges
OTTAWA - Heather Elizabeth Perkins-McVey
TORONTO - Mara Beth Greene
TORONTO (one of two vacancies) - Fergus Colm ODonnell
HAMILTON- Maria Speyer
BRAMPTON- Richard Hans Karl Schwarzl
LONDON- Wayne Gould Rabley
Rowbotham Applications
In light of the ongoing Legal Aid “strike” by criminal lawyers, today’s decision in R. v. Rushlow, 2009 ONCA 461 takes on added importance. Although it deals with Rowbotham applications – where the rate of payment is generally that of Legal Aid – it has implications for Fisher applications also (Fisher allows for a higher rate of remuneration than Legal Aid rates). The Court writes (note, the Court’s decision uses a variant spelling for Rowbotham):
The Rowbothom test
[17] In R. v. Rowbothom (1988), 41 C.C.C. (3d) 1 at 69, this court held that:
[A] trial judge confronted with an exceptional case where legal aid has been refused, and who is of the opinion that representation of the accused by counsel is essential to a fair trial, may, upon being satisfied that the accused lacks the means to employ counsel, stay the proceedings against the accused until the necessary funding of counsel is provided. [Emphasis added.]
[18] Whether the issue is financial ability or the necessity for counsel, the trial judge in considering whether to appoint counsel is not engaged in reviewing the decision of the legal aid authorities. As this court said in R. v. Peterman (2004), 70 O.R. (3d) 481 (
[W]hen a court makes a Rowbothom order, it is not conducting some kind of judicial review of decisions made by legal aid authorities. Rather, it is fulfilling its independent obligation to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial.
[19] In considering whether to appoint counsel the trial judge is required to consider the seriousness of the charges, the length and complexity of the proceedings and the accused’s ability to participate effectively and defend the case. Because of the pervasiveness of legal aid, it will be the rare and exceptional case that the court will find it necessary to appoint counsel. This does not mean that counsel is only required in exceptional cases. Rather, it is the fact that legal aid is available for accused who cannot afford a lawyer that Rowbothom orders are exceptional.
[20] Courts have considered a number of factors in determining whether appointing counsel is essential in view of the complexity and seriousness of the case. Generally, the courts look at the personal abilities of the accused such as their education and employment background, their ability to read and their facility with the language of the proceedings. The courts will also consider the complexity of the evidence; the procedural, evidentiary and substantive law that applies to the case; the likelihood of especially complex procedures such as a voir dire; the seriousness of the charges; the expected length of the trial; and the likelihood of imprisonment: see R. v. Wood (2001), 191 N.S.R. (2d) 201 (C.A.); R. v. Wilson (1997), 163 N.S.R. (2d) 206 (C.A.); R. v. Hayes (2002), 253 N.B.R. (2d) 299 (C.A.); R. v. Drury (2001), 150 Man. R. (2d) 64 ( C.A. ); R. v. Rain (1998), 223 A.R. 359 ( C.A. ) and R. v. Chemama, 2008 ONCJ 31.
[21] In considering whether counsel is essential, the court will also take into account the prosecution’s duty to make full disclosure and the trial judge’s obligation to assist the unrepresented accused: see R. v. Wilson and R. v. Keating (1997), 159 N.S.R. (2d) 357 (C.A.).
The test applied by the trial judge
[22] In my view, the trial judge did not apply the correct test. After noting that the threshold for appointing counsel is “very high”, she said the following:
As it was put in R. v. Rowbothom (1988), 41 C.C.C. (3d) 1, p. 61:
In an extreme case, that power [the power to appoint counsel for an indigent accused] may exist where a trial judge is satisfied that the decision by Legal Aid not to grant a counsel certificate is completely perverse, given the accused's financial situation, the complexity and length of the trial, and the substantial possibility of lengthy imprisonment.
[My emphasis]
[23] The trial judge then went on to describe a case where counsel should be appointed as one posing,
[U]nique challenges above and beyond those that would ordinarily be expected in a criminal trial. Were it otherwise, an enormous number of self-represented individuals might well be entitled to state funded counsel, thereby causing a serious interference with the administration of the state sponsored Legal Aid Plan. [Emphasis added.]
Ultimately, she was not satisfied that this was “one of those unique and extraordinary cases in which the presence of counsel is a prerequisite to a fair trial”. The trial judge concluded as follows:
In light of the stringent test that must be met to satisfy the first prong of Rowbothom, the role of the trial judge in rendering necessary assistance to Mr. Rushlow, and the extra added duty of fairness resting upon Crown counsel, I am not satisfied that the absence of legal counsel will have the effect of depriving Mr. Rushlow of a fair trial in this case.
[24] In my view, the trial judge applied too stringent a test. This court has never said that a Rowbothom order is limited to an extreme case where Legal Aid’s decision is completely perverse and there is a substantial possibility of lengthy imprisonment. The passage from Rowbothom quoted by the trial judge is from the reasons of the trial judge in that case. This court did not endorse that test. Nor need the case be one posing “unique challenges”. The authorities hold that the case must be of some complexity, but a requirement of unique challenges puts the threshold too high. It is enough that there is a probability of imprisonment and that the case is sufficiently complex that counsel is essential to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial.
Obama as seen by Al Jazeera
From Al Jazeera:Obama pushes for Middle East peace
Merkel, right, praised Obama's Cairo speech, asthe two met for talks in Dresden [EPA]
Barack Obama, the US president, has called for a redoubling of efforts towards a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, saying he is confident progress can be made this year.
The US leader was speaking on Friday in the east German city of Dresden, a day after delivering a much-anticipated speech in Egypt in which he vowed to forge a "new beginning" for Islam and America.
"The United States can't force peace upon the parties. But what we've tried to do is clear away some of the misunderstandings," he told reporters in Dresden.
"I am confident that if we stick to it, having started early, we can make some serious progress this year."
8.4 % Unemployment
Ontario hit hardest.
These numbers are slightly worse than expected.
While it would be easy to blame the government for these figure, and in a Parliamentary sense they are 'responsible', the real culprit is the world economy.
We're not out of the recession - depression yet.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes -- bad idea -- Drug addiction is a health issue
A fellow blogger, who is active in progressive blogging asked me what I thought about supporting mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes.
I replied:
I think it's a terrible idea.
More generally, as I have written elsewhere, drugs are not dealt with well by criminal law but as health issues.
Note Portugal, not exactly a wild eyed leftist nation, decriminalised ALL drugs, what, 7 years ago. The right claimed the world would end and ... it didn't.
Drug use in Portugal is down and even the right wing parties don't suggest re-criminalising drugs.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Supreme Court throws out sexual assault case over trial delays
This decision, blogged below as to the legal principles, is a bit surprising.
The Supreme Court, and the Courts of Appeal, had been moving away from dismissal for delay except where the prejudice was clear, obvious and proven. This decision will give new life to many claims to have cases stayed for excessive delay.
As a side point I note a critical factor in the Court's decision was that letters to the Crown went unanswered. I suspect the Court may not be aware that, unless a Crown is assigned (and there are not resources to do that in most cases), there is often no one there to answer letters. Perhaps there should be, and maybe that is a good reason to hold against the Crown, but the failure to reply was not high-handed -- it merely reflects a lack of staff.
Supreme Court throws out rape case over trial delays
Charges against a northern Ontario man accused of raping and threatening to kill his girlfriend four years ago were dismissed Thursday after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the accused didn't get a speedy trial.
In a unanimous 7-0 judgment, the high court concluded that the accused's Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated by a 30-month delay between the time Marcel Godin of Sudbury, Ont. was charged in May 2005 and his trial date.
The judgment overturns a 2008 ruling in the Ontario Court of Appeal.
The high court has previously established a reasonable timeline of 12 to 18 months between charges being laid and a trial commencing. The justices ruled this case far exceeded that, and blamed the delay on the Crown.
"This is a straightforward case and needed only modest amounts of court time, yet the delays far exceeded the guidelines," wrote Justice Thomas Cromwell.
"Virtually all of this delay was attributable to the Crown, and no explanation was offered for it."
In May, 2005, Godin was charged with sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and threatening to kill his ex-girlfriend. In mid-September, a trial date was set for mid-February, 2006.
"That delay would not have been unreasonable had the case proceeded as scheduled," Justice Cromwell said. "Unfortunately, it did not."
The delays began just before the original trial date. The Crown received a forensic report four days before the trial was to begin, indicating that a DNA sample taken from the complainant did not match the sperm of the accused.
The report led to a series of delays that culminated in a trial date set for November 2007.
Godin successfully challenged the time lapse as a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, but the ruling was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court ruling restores the original decision.
The Supreme Court, and the Courts of Appeal, had been moving away from dismissal for delay except where the prejudice was clear, obvious and proven. This decision will give new life to many claims to have cases stayed for excessive delay.
As a side point I note a critical factor in the Court's decision was that letters to the Crown went unanswered. I suspect the Court may not be aware that, unless a Crown is assigned (and there are not resources to do that in most cases), there is often no one there to answer letters. Perhaps there should be, and maybe that is a good reason to hold against the Crown, but the failure to reply was not high-handed -- it merely reflects a lack of staff.
Supreme Court throws out rape case over trial delays
Charges against a northern Ontario man accused of raping and threatening to kill his girlfriend four years ago were dismissed Thursday after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the accused didn't get a speedy trial.
In a unanimous 7-0 judgment, the high court concluded that the accused's Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated by a 30-month delay between the time Marcel Godin of Sudbury, Ont. was charged in May 2005 and his trial date.
The judgment overturns a 2008 ruling in the Ontario Court of Appeal.
The high court has previously established a reasonable timeline of 12 to 18 months between charges being laid and a trial commencing. The justices ruled this case far exceeded that, and blamed the delay on the Crown.
"This is a straightforward case and needed only modest amounts of court time, yet the delays far exceeded the guidelines," wrote Justice Thomas Cromwell.
"Virtually all of this delay was attributable to the Crown, and no explanation was offered for it."
In May, 2005, Godin was charged with sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and threatening to kill his ex-girlfriend. In mid-September, a trial date was set for mid-February, 2006.
"That delay would not have been unreasonable had the case proceeded as scheduled," Justice Cromwell said. "Unfortunately, it did not."
The delays began just before the original trial date. The Crown received a forensic report four days before the trial was to begin, indicating that a DNA sample taken from the complainant did not match the sperm of the accused.
The report led to a series of delays that culminated in a trial date set for November 2007.
Godin successfully challenged the time lapse as a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, but the ruling was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court ruling restores the original decision.
Caucus Breakfast
Today the Ontario Bar Association held a caucus breakfast -- here is the Attorney General, Louise Harris of the OBA and James Morton.
Important 11b decision released today by Supreme Court of Canada
R. v. Godin, 2009 SCC 26
In May 2005, the accused was charged with sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and threatening to kill his ex-girlfriend. The Crown elected to proceed summarily. In mid-September, the trial dates were fixed for mid-February 2006. Four days before the trial, the Crown received the forensic report indicating that the DNA profile of the spermatozoa swab obtained from the complainant did not match the accused. In response to this new evidence, the Crown and defence agreed that the Crown would re-elect to proceed by indictment in order to give the defence the opportunity to explore the complainant's evidence and the forensic report at a preliminary inquiry. The earliest day available was September 2006. Defence counsel wrote to the court and the Crown proposing several earlier alternative dates on which he would be available. The Crown did not respond. The September preliminary inquiry was adjourned for want of sufficient court time. It was re-scheduled to February 5, 2007 because defence counsel was unavailable at a December date proposed by the Crown. The trial was set for November 2007, 30 months after the charges were laid. In June 2007, the accused successfully brought an application for a stay of proceedings on the ground that his right to be tried within a reasonable time guaranteed by s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was violated. The majority of the Court of Appeal set aside the stay and remitted the matter to trial, holding that the trial judge had erred in his analysis of the conduct of the defence and of prejudice to the accused.
Held: The appeal should be allowed. The accused's s. 11(b) right was violated.
Although this was a straightforward case with few complexities and requiring very modest amounts of court time, the delays far exceeded the Morin guidelines. Virtually all of the delay, in particular the 9-month delay in obtaining and disclosing the forensic analysis and the delay resulting from the adjournment of the preliminary inquiry, was attributable to the Crown. These delays were unexplained, let alone justified. Furthermore, defence counsel tried unsuccessfully to move the case ahead faster; the Crown, however, failed to explain why his request for an earlier date for the preliminary inquiry was ignored and why more priority was not given to this case which, by then, was in obvious s. 11(b) difficulty.
Defence counsel did not significantly contribute to the delays. Although the defence agreed to the Crown re-election, had the Crown obtained the forensic evidence within a reasonable amount of time, the re-election to proceed by indictment and the subsequent preliminary inquiry could have happened much sooner. The accused was entitled to timely disclosure, and he did not receive it. There is also no suggestion that defence counsel was unreasonable in rejecting the earliest date offered to reschedule the preliminary inquiry. While scheduling requires reasonable availability and reasonable cooperation, it does not require defence counsel to hold themselves in a state of perpetual availability for s. 11(b) purposes.
In the absence of specific evidence of prejudice to the accused's liberty and security interests or his interest in a fair trial, prejudice may be inferred from the length of the delay. The longer the delay the more likely that such an inference will be drawn. Here, the charges had been hanging over the accused's head for a long time and it was reasonable to infer, as the trial judge did, that the prolonged exposure to criminal proceedings resulting from the delay gave rise to some prejudice. The accused had also been on judicial interim release for more than two years and, although bail conditions were relaxed as the delay lengthened, this consideration was properly taken into account as one relevant aspect of the trial judge's assessment of whether the long delay was unreasonable. Lastly, there was evidence of a risk of prejudice to the accused's defence because of the delay and weight should be accorded to this risk.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Conservative candidate calls for end to welfare 'lifestyle'
The idea of "welfare queens" is something of a myth. In truth, while there are welfare cheats (and they are prosecuted for fraud), virtually no one wants to be on welfare.
In an economy like the present getting those who can work jobs will be tough -- especially recognising subsidised jobs undercut the jobs of employed taxpayers. But the goal is worthy.
It is better for everyone for those on welfare to come off into decent jobs. But to say people who can't find a job today are 'lazy' -- here 'satisfied' -- is just not right. Recently I listened to someone who worked in the auto sector for years. She had high school and her job was good. She's not on welfare - yet - but she's working three part time jobs and still faces bankruptcy.
Friday's job figure do not look to be pretty.
Now, it may be politic to suggest lowering taxes by limiting welfare. But sometimes things that are politic are not right.
PC candidate calls for end to welfare 'lifestyle'
Rob Ferguson The Toronto Star, June 4, 2009
Ontario needs limits on how long people can collect welfare to stop families staying on it for "generations," says Progressive Conservative leadership candidate Randy Hillier.
"There are people who are satisfied with that lifestyle," the first-term MPP for Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington told the Star yesterday as he and three rivals continued campaigning for the June 27 vote at a convention in Markham - where the candidates will hold a debate tonight.
The problem is there are not enough "expectations" that people get off social assistance, which should be a temporary aid, Hillier said.
...
The average length of time recipients stay on welfare in Ontario is 18months, according to the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Ontario has no limit on how long recipients can remain on welfare, provided they meet eligibility criteria, although the program is designed as a temporary support that currently helps about 95,000 families.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
In an economy like the present getting those who can work jobs will be tough -- especially recognising subsidised jobs undercut the jobs of employed taxpayers. But the goal is worthy.
It is better for everyone for those on welfare to come off into decent jobs. But to say people who can't find a job today are 'lazy' -- here 'satisfied' -- is just not right. Recently I listened to someone who worked in the auto sector for years. She had high school and her job was good. She's not on welfare - yet - but she's working three part time jobs and still faces bankruptcy.
Friday's job figure do not look to be pretty.
Now, it may be politic to suggest lowering taxes by limiting welfare. But sometimes things that are politic are not right.
PC candidate calls for end to welfare 'lifestyle'
Rob Ferguson The Toronto Star, June 4, 2009
Ontario needs limits on how long people can collect welfare to stop families staying on it for "generations," says Progressive Conservative leadership candidate Randy Hillier.
"There are people who are satisfied with that lifestyle," the first-term MPP for Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington told the Star yesterday as he and three rivals continued campaigning for the June 27 vote at a convention in Markham - where the candidates will hold a debate tonight.
The problem is there are not enough "expectations" that people get off social assistance, which should be a temporary aid, Hillier said.
...
The average length of time recipients stay on welfare in Ontario is 18months, according to the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Ontario has no limit on how long recipients can remain on welfare, provided they meet eligibility criteria, although the program is designed as a temporary support that currently helps about 95,000 families.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Missing gold
This is a bizarre story. Was someone walking out with an ounce at a time? Were the security checks so lax as to allow it?
The Mint's gold has vanished (or has it?); Was it theft or just sloppy record-keeping? Auditors launch probe
The Toronto Star
Thu Jun 4 2009
Page: A03
Section: News
Byline: Les Whittington
Source: Toronto Star
The hunt for the gold is on. The missing gold, that is.
The world-renowned Royal Canadian Mint has called investigators to look into what could be the theft of a significant quantity of gold, silver and other precious metals.
"We're conducting a review. We've asked a third party to assist us with that and we should have the results within the next few weeks and by the end of month we'll be making them public," said mint spokeswoman Christine Aquino.
The mint won't say how much might be missing but the auditors are probing a discrepancy between the value of the precious metals on the mint's books and the stockpile on hand at its Ottawa headquarters. Aquino said the discrepancy could be the result of anything from a heist to sloppy record-keeping.
"We review our financial statements and we decided to conduct this review," she explained.
She said an unprecedented demand for gold in 2008 put pressure on the mint's internal control systems, which led to the "unreconciled difference" between the gold on hand and the value recorded in the mint's books.
The increase in demand was due to a 352 per cent rise in production of the mint's Gold Maple Leaf coins.
In the Commons, Liberal MP Joe Volpe said the mint's problem, coupled with the Conservative government's fiscal miscalculations, could undermine Canada's reputation.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
The Mint's gold has vanished (or has it?); Was it theft or just sloppy record-keeping? Auditors launch probe
The Toronto Star
Thu Jun 4 2009
Page: A03
Section: News
Byline: Les Whittington
Source: Toronto Star
The hunt for the gold is on. The missing gold, that is.
The world-renowned Royal Canadian Mint has called investigators to look into what could be the theft of a significant quantity of gold, silver and other precious metals.
"We're conducting a review. We've asked a third party to assist us with that and we should have the results within the next few weeks and by the end of month we'll be making them public," said mint spokeswoman Christine Aquino.
The mint won't say how much might be missing but the auditors are probing a discrepancy between the value of the precious metals on the mint's books and the stockpile on hand at its Ottawa headquarters. Aquino said the discrepancy could be the result of anything from a heist to sloppy record-keeping.
"We review our financial statements and we decided to conduct this review," she explained.
She said an unprecedented demand for gold in 2008 put pressure on the mint's internal control systems, which led to the "unreconciled difference" between the gold on hand and the value recorded in the mint's books.
The increase in demand was due to a 352 per cent rise in production of the mint's Gold Maple Leaf coins.
In the Commons, Liberal MP Joe Volpe said the mint's problem, coupled with the Conservative government's fiscal miscalculations, could undermine Canada's reputation.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
We were robbed
This story is a sad one. But note the fraud -- trumpeted widely in the Conservative blogosphere -- had nothing to do with sponsorship. And a major victim was ... The Liberal Party. We were robbed here.
Ex-Liberal organizer pleads guilty to fraud
Benoit Corbeil was also implicated in 'Adscam' sponsorship scandal
Jun 03, 2009 01:37 PM
Comments on this story  (29)
THE CANADIAN PRESS
MONTREAL – A former federal Liberal organizer has pleaded guilty to fraud and influence peddling charges.
...
"Neither charge before the courts has links to the events of the sponsorship scandal," Michel Grenier, Corbeil's lawyer, said outside the courtroom.
Corbeil, who served as director of the Liberals' Quebec wing from 1999 to 2000, was arrested and charged last April.
Corbeil was accused of bilking the Party and the federal government out of more than $117,000 between 1999 and 2000 by authorizing payment of six false invoices, money that went to a company called Art Tellier.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Ex-Liberal organizer pleads guilty to fraud
Benoit Corbeil was also implicated in 'Adscam' sponsorship scandal
Jun 03, 2009 01:37 PM
Comments on this story  (29)
THE CANADIAN PRESS
MONTREAL – A former federal Liberal organizer has pleaded guilty to fraud and influence peddling charges.
...
"Neither charge before the courts has links to the events of the sponsorship scandal," Michel Grenier, Corbeil's lawyer, said outside the courtroom.
Corbeil, who served as director of the Liberals' Quebec wing from 1999 to 2000, was arrested and charged last April.
Corbeil was accused of bilking the Party and the federal government out of more than $117,000 between 1999 and 2000 by authorizing payment of six false invoices, money that went to a company called Art Tellier.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Sexual Assault -- conviction rates
Watching the Michael Coren show tonight I saw a guest make the suggestion that about 2 in a hundred sexual assault charges result in a conviction (note, this was not 2 in a hundred assaults result in conviction -- it was said 2 in a hundred charges succeed).
These numbers seemed silly so I looked up the actual figures and was surprised to see how few charges do succeed. It's not two per cent but it's strikingly low.
According to Statistics Canada, just under 4 in 10 cases of sexual assault and sexual offences that came before adult courts in result in a conviction. So the conviction rate is twenty times higher than the guest on Coren suggested -- but to see a 40 % conviction rate is not very encouraging -- either charges are overlaid or the guilty are walking free.
Attempted murder and homicide are the only violent offences in adult court with a lower conviction rate than sexual offences.
About 6 in 10 of those convicted of sexual assault or other sexual offences in adult court were sentenced to a period of incarceration. This is similar to the percentage receiving prison terms for major assault but lower than that for homicide, attempted murder and robbery.
Perhaps these figures reflect charges being prosecuted that should not have gone ahead, perhaps they reflect a bias in the system (about 86% of complainants in sexual assault cases are women), perhaps they reflect something else.
Whatever they reflect they are surprising to me.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
These numbers seemed silly so I looked up the actual figures and was surprised to see how few charges do succeed. It's not two per cent but it's strikingly low.
According to Statistics Canada, just under 4 in 10 cases of sexual assault and sexual offences that came before adult courts in result in a conviction. So the conviction rate is twenty times higher than the guest on Coren suggested -- but to see a 40 % conviction rate is not very encouraging -- either charges are overlaid or the guilty are walking free.
Attempted murder and homicide are the only violent offences in adult court with a lower conviction rate than sexual offences.
About 6 in 10 of those convicted of sexual assault or other sexual offences in adult court were sentenced to a period of incarceration. This is similar to the percentage receiving prison terms for major assault but lower than that for homicide, attempted murder and robbery.
Perhaps these figures reflect charges being prosecuted that should not have gone ahead, perhaps they reflect a bias in the system (about 86% of complainants in sexual assault cases are women), perhaps they reflect something else.
Whatever they reflect they are surprising to me.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Bear in Aurora
A hungry bear wandered into a residential area in Aurora -- wildlife experts said the bear had likely just come out of hibernation and was hunting for food.
At this time of year, they are quite hungry after a winter spent sleeping and losing weight. But black bears are rarely aggressive, unless cornered.
Conservation officers captured the bear and said they planned to release it into the wild north of Newmarket, near Lake Simcoe.
What happened to the TTC?
For the last 3 days the Toronto subway has been out of service mid day.
I understand problems happen but these issues are such that it begins to make sense to drive downtown.
How reliable is the public transit in other cities? The Metro in Montreal seems pretty good as does Vancouver's Skytrain.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Labour on the way out in UK
It's clearly just a matter of time now, and not much time at that, before we will see a Conservative government in the UK.
(Perhaps they would like to take ours??? A "previously enjoyed" government??? OK, that's catty but hard to resist):
Hazel Blears' resignation leaves Gordon Brown's premiership in crisis
Communities secretary's surprise announcement emboldens Labour rebels collecting signatures for letter calling for PM to resign
Hazel Blears, who today became the fourth member of the government to declare they no longer want to serve under Gordon Brown. Photograph: Toby Melville/Reuters
Gordon Brown was fighting to save his premiership today after Hazel Blears emboldened Labour MPs demanding a leadership election with a resignation statement timed to inflict maximum damage on the prime minister.
Blears made her surprise announcement this morning – 90 minutes before prime minister's questions and only a day before the local and European elections – and she explained her decision in a statement virtually accusing Brown of being out of touch with the British people and their values.
Her departure will encourage Labour rebels who had already started collecting signatures for a round-robin letter calling for Brown to resign.The Guardian revealed today that some rebels believe they can persuade up to 80 MPs to sign the demand, which is crucial because 70 – or 20% of the parliamentary party – is the threshold needed to trigger a leadership election.
Labour's opinion poll ratings have recently hit a record low and the party is braced for disaster in tomorrow's elections. Brown was already planning a reshuffle, and now his hopes of survival could depend on his using the unveiling of a new team as an opportunity to stifle dissent.
Blears is the second cabinet minister in 24 hours – and the fourth member of the government in total – to declare they no longer want to serve under Brown. Her move suggests she is confident his leadership is plummeting.
A comment in reply to selling the National Arts Centre
I liked this comment:
Sell Parliament. Imagine, "the Condos on the Hill" ...
Flocke restored
For some time Flocke appears to have been depressed -- she has not been eating properly and she has paced and paced all day. In the last day she was moved to new quarters and it appears she regained at least some of her earlier joy. She stretched herself, jumped in the water and swam, played with her toys and was something of herself again... .
The Duty to Represent Even the Unpleasant Client
Imagine two potential civil litigation clients.
Both present you with problems well within your expertise and both satisfy your financial retainer requirements.
The first is a quiet, respectful person who appreciates the limits of the law and wants you to pursue a clearly valid claim. The other is an unpleasant extreme individual with a warped view of justice and a claim that is marginal.
You explain the law to both clients together with the likely results of litigation. Both ask you to go ahead and issue a claim. What do you do?
The proposed lawyer’s oath to be taken by lawyers in Ontario says: “I shall neglect no one’s interest and shall faithfully serve and diligently represent the
best interests of my client.” The new oath is, this regard, the same as the Barrister’s Oath and mandates that a lawyer accept any non-frivolous case. On the surface you are ethically obliged to assist the pleasant and the unpleasant client.
As Lord Pearce said in Rondel v. Worsley [1969] 1 AC 191:
"It is easier, pleasanter and more advantageous professionally for barristers to advise, represent or defend those who are decent and reasonable and likely to succeed in their action or their defence than those who are unpleasant, unreasonable, disreputable, and have an apparently hopeless case. Yet it would be tragic if our legal system came to provide no reputable defenders, representatives or advisers for the latter. And that would be the inevitable result of allowing barristers to pick and choose their clients. It not infrequently happens that the unpleasant, the unreasonable, the disreputable and those who have apparently hopeless cases turn out after a full hearing to be in the right."
Everyone is entitled to justice. It is easy to see that when representing, say, an accused charged with a brutal crime. Memories of To Kill a Mockingbird and Atticus Finch spring to mind. It is less obvious when dealing with a civil client who is claiming something that seems unjust or excess. But civil clients are entitled to access to the Courts as much as any other clients. Especially in a time when the self represented client is a commonplace, the need for a lawyer to represent that unpleasant civil litigant is even more important. The unpleasant litigant will go ahead and litigate whether represented or not – at least when a lawyer is involved there is some hope the case will be decided on its merits.
The lawyer’s job is not to judge but to advocate, and to advocate on behalf of all who properly seek the lawyer’s service. It is the client’s case and not the lawyer’s case. If all lawyers subscribed to the ethic that they would only represent “causes that contribute to the common good” (as some have said is the proper ethical position) our system would collapse. A judge is to judge; that is not the lawyer’s job.
All that said, the unpleasant client will bring you no glory. You will probably lose and you will probably be blamed for losing. Some will think you lack "common sense" for bringing a problematic claim. The money from fees will not redeem the heartache and sorrow.
But it is your duty. Being a lawyer comes with privileges but also responsibilities; the duty to take the unpleasant client is one of those duties.
Both present you with problems well within your expertise and both satisfy your financial retainer requirements.
The first is a quiet, respectful person who appreciates the limits of the law and wants you to pursue a clearly valid claim. The other is an unpleasant extreme individual with a warped view of justice and a claim that is marginal.
You explain the law to both clients together with the likely results of litigation. Both ask you to go ahead and issue a claim. What do you do?
The proposed lawyer’s oath to be taken by lawyers in Ontario says: “I shall neglect no one’s interest and shall faithfully serve and diligently represent the
best interests of my client.” The new oath is, this regard, the same as the Barrister’s Oath and mandates that a lawyer accept any non-frivolous case. On the surface you are ethically obliged to assist the pleasant and the unpleasant client.
As Lord Pearce said in Rondel v. Worsley [1969] 1 AC 191:
"It is easier, pleasanter and more advantageous professionally for barristers to advise, represent or defend those who are decent and reasonable and likely to succeed in their action or their defence than those who are unpleasant, unreasonable, disreputable, and have an apparently hopeless case. Yet it would be tragic if our legal system came to provide no reputable defenders, representatives or advisers for the latter. And that would be the inevitable result of allowing barristers to pick and choose their clients. It not infrequently happens that the unpleasant, the unreasonable, the disreputable and those who have apparently hopeless cases turn out after a full hearing to be in the right."
Everyone is entitled to justice. It is easy to see that when representing, say, an accused charged with a brutal crime. Memories of To Kill a Mockingbird and Atticus Finch spring to mind. It is less obvious when dealing with a civil client who is claiming something that seems unjust or excess. But civil clients are entitled to access to the Courts as much as any other clients. Especially in a time when the self represented client is a commonplace, the need for a lawyer to represent that unpleasant civil litigant is even more important. The unpleasant litigant will go ahead and litigate whether represented or not – at least when a lawyer is involved there is some hope the case will be decided on its merits.
The lawyer’s job is not to judge but to advocate, and to advocate on behalf of all who properly seek the lawyer’s service. It is the client’s case and not the lawyer’s case. If all lawyers subscribed to the ethic that they would only represent “causes that contribute to the common good” (as some have said is the proper ethical position) our system would collapse. A judge is to judge; that is not the lawyer’s job.
All that said, the unpleasant client will bring you no glory. You will probably lose and you will probably be blamed for losing. Some will think you lack "common sense" for bringing a problematic claim. The money from fees will not redeem the heartache and sorrow.
But it is your duty. Being a lawyer comes with privileges but also responsibilities; the duty to take the unpleasant client is one of those duties.
Selling the National Arts Centre?
This would be a funny parody of the worst of Conservative policy. But it appears to be no joke.
Critics appalled by idea of selling NAC; Move will incense
arts community, Dewar says; Flaherty insists Tories aren't planning
'fire sale'
The Ottawa Citizen
Wed Jun 3 2009
Page: A5
Section: News
Byline: Bruce Ward
Source: The Ottawa Citizen; with files from Canwest News Service
New Democrat MP *Paul Dewar* took pride in the National Arts
Centre when he was growing up in Ottawa during the 1970s.
Now Dewar is appalled that the Harper government may be considering selling the NAC, and other flagship Crown corporations.
"I have no idea what they're thinking and what, politically, they
could get out of this, except the ire of people who support the
arts," Dewar said Tuesday.
Dewar recalled the central role the NAC played in Canada's cultural
development, particularly in its first years.
"When my cousins came up from the States, first we took them to the Parliament buildings and then the NAC," said Dewar, who represents Ottawa Centre. "I remember going to a play and dinner in the restaurant and thinking this is like Buckingham Palace."
Finance Department documents obtained by Canwest News Service
contain a list of Crown corporations, including the NAC, the CBC and VIA Rail, that the government may put up for sale.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Critics appalled by idea of selling NAC; Move will incense
arts community, Dewar says; Flaherty insists Tories aren't planning
'fire sale'
The Ottawa Citizen
Wed Jun 3 2009
Page: A5
Section: News
Byline: Bruce Ward
Source: The Ottawa Citizen; with files from Canwest News Service
New Democrat MP *Paul Dewar* took pride in the National Arts
Centre when he was growing up in Ottawa during the 1970s.
Now Dewar is appalled that the Harper government may be considering selling the NAC, and other flagship Crown corporations.
"I have no idea what they're thinking and what, politically, they
could get out of this, except the ire of people who support the
arts," Dewar said Tuesday.
Dewar recalled the central role the NAC played in Canada's cultural
development, particularly in its first years.
"When my cousins came up from the States, first we took them to the Parliament buildings and then the NAC," said Dewar, who represents Ottawa Centre. "I remember going to a play and dinner in the restaurant and thinking this is like Buckingham Palace."
Finance Department documents obtained by Canwest News Service
contain a list of Crown corporations, including the NAC, the CBC and VIA Rail, that the government may put up for sale.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, friend of democracy ...
In the new stories today one from the New York Times caught my eye. It dealt broadly with President Obama going to Egypt.
What struck me was the American treatment of President Mubarak as just another allied leader -- say someone not too different from Stephen Harper (and Conservative readers I am not comparing the two -- my point is they aren't all that similar).
Before leaving Washington, Mr. Obama signaled that while he would mention American concerns about human rights in Egypt, he would not challenge Mr. Mubarak too sharply, calling him a "force for stability and good" in the Middle East.
In an interview with the BBC released by the White House on Tuesday, Mr. Obama said he did not regard Mr. Mubarak as an authoritarian leader. "No, I tend not to use labels for folks," Mr. Obama said.
The president noted that there had been criticism "of the manner in which politics operates in Egypt," but he also said that Mr. Mubarak had been "a stalwart ally, in many respects, to the United States."
Perhaps this is the right approach -- you don't get concessions from someone by insulting them but it is a striking example of realpolitik.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
What struck me was the American treatment of President Mubarak as just another allied leader -- say someone not too different from Stephen Harper (and Conservative readers I am not comparing the two -- my point is they aren't all that similar).
Before leaving Washington, Mr. Obama signaled that while he would mention American concerns about human rights in Egypt, he would not challenge Mr. Mubarak too sharply, calling him a "force for stability and good" in the Middle East.
In an interview with the BBC released by the White House on Tuesday, Mr. Obama said he did not regard Mr. Mubarak as an authoritarian leader. "No, I tend not to use labels for folks," Mr. Obama said.
The president noted that there had been criticism "of the manner in which politics operates in Egypt," but he also said that Mr. Mubarak had been "a stalwart ally, in many respects, to the United States."
Perhaps this is the right approach -- you don't get concessions from someone by insulting them but it is a striking example of realpolitik.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Documents "accidentially" left behind by Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt or her staff? I think not -- it's a leak...
Two possibilities here:
1. The Minister or staff is really sloppy -- that's possible, remember a Quebec Minister of this very government?; or, far more likely,
2. Someone on the Minister's staff wanted this document leaked.
Seriously, who takes a 'secret' document to a broadcast centre and 'forgets' it there?
It sounds more like "I have some papers you mustn't look at right here on my desk. I'm going to the restroom and then will have a smoke so I'll be back in not less than 20 minutes. While I'm away don't look at those documents, the ones in the green folder, right there, ok? And by the way don't use the photocopier I left on over there, ok?".
Someone somewhere in the Minister's office doesn't like privatising AECL and leaked the documents.
'Secret' government documents left behind at news bureau:
Documents related to the Canada's nuclear industry apparently accidentally left behind by Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt indicate the government has invested billions in Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. while cost overruns mount and projects fall behind schedule.
The documents, which were marked "secret," were left at CTV's Ottawa news bureau about a week ago by either Raitt or one of her aides, CTV reported.
The materials, which include handwritten notes, information regarding Conservative government strategy, background documents and reports regarding trying to sell AECL's Candu division, show the government has spent more money on the aging nuclear than has been publicly stated, said CTV.
According to a report among the documents, the federal government has provided AECL with $1.7 billion in funding since 2006.
A talking-point memo describes the spending as "cleaning up a Liberal mess."
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
1. The Minister or staff is really sloppy -- that's possible, remember a Quebec Minister of this very government?; or, far more likely,
2. Someone on the Minister's staff wanted this document leaked.
Seriously, who takes a 'secret' document to a broadcast centre and 'forgets' it there?
It sounds more like "I have some papers you mustn't look at right here on my desk. I'm going to the restroom and then will have a smoke so I'll be back in not less than 20 minutes. While I'm away don't look at those documents, the ones in the green folder, right there, ok? And by the way don't use the photocopier I left on over there, ok?".
Someone somewhere in the Minister's office doesn't like privatising AECL and leaked the documents.
'Secret' government documents left behind at news bureau:
Documents related to the Canada's nuclear industry apparently accidentally left behind by Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt indicate the government has invested billions in Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. while cost overruns mount and projects fall behind schedule.
The documents, which were marked "secret," were left at CTV's Ottawa news bureau about a week ago by either Raitt or one of her aides, CTV reported.
The materials, which include handwritten notes, information regarding Conservative government strategy, background documents and reports regarding trying to sell AECL's Candu division, show the government has spent more money on the aging nuclear than has been publicly stated, said CTV.
According to a report among the documents, the federal government has provided AECL with $1.7 billion in funding since 2006.
A talking-point memo describes the spending as "cleaning up a Liberal mess."
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Is it time for an election???
Is it time for an election?
I am not sure what is going to happen but, quite contrary to my recent thinking, we may be moving into an election in the next couple of months... .
What do you think?
I am not sure what is going to happen but, quite contrary to my recent thinking, we may be moving into an election in the next couple of months... .
What do you think?
Tough-on-crime agenda seen as swamping prisons
SUE BAILEY
Howard Sapers' stark warning yesterday comes amid concern that the Harper government's tough-on-crime agenda could swamp already-strained prisons.
Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan agreed policy changes will drive "a need for additional capacity" in custody.
"It's undoubtedly the case that we're going to be building new prisons in the future," he said in an interview.
But that need has more to do with crumbling buildings and overall population growth than Conservative plans to lock up more people, he said.
For now, Mr. Van Loan is confident that any increase will be gradual enough for the corrections service to handle.
Mr. Sapers said the country's 58 institutions are barely managing about 13,500 inmates. Another 8,000 prisoners are under varying degrees of supervision on the outside.
The majority, including sex offenders, never fully complete rehabilitation programs because of long waiting lists and frequent transfers, he said.
Adding to the pressure is a spike in the number of mentally unstable offenders in the last 10 years following the closure of residential institutions without the creation of adequate community supports.
Adding more inmates could tip the scales toward disaster, Mr. Sapers said.
"It would be dangerous to further burden the corrections system federally without additional capacity -- and dangerous in the sense of both institutional violence and the risk of re-offence upon release," he said after appearing before the Commons public safety committee.
"We know historically that the more repressive conditions become inside institutions, the more dangerous conditions become. And that's for inmates and staff.
"The system right now is working at its capacity. And if we find the Correctional Service of Canada faced with a rapid influx of inmates without additional capacity -- program capacity, accommodation capacity, human resource capacity -- then those are the dangers that I foresee."
Conservative legislation to set mandatory minimum sentences for various drug crimes, along with plans to nix extra credit for time served in overcrowded remand centres prior to trial, could swell prison ranks, critics warn.
It's Allen Ginsberg's birthday today
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)