Little Fish in a Giant pond

My 2010 Hockey Playoff Picks - Final Round

2010-05-24T19:01:00.000-07:00

Wow, what a round! It would appear that Montreal Canadiens have a thing for making me look bad! I predict them to win in five games, they squeak by in seven or lose completely! As a die hard leafs fan, a deep-seeded, loathing, pit-of-my-soul hatred of the Montreal Canadiens has been in my blood since the beginning... but now it's personal! Just the same, give Philly credit for killing a few Goliaths of their own!

Chicago vs. Philadelphia

I have to say that Chicago has surpassed my already high expectations! It will be a lot of fun to watch them play, but after watching Philly manhandle Montreal earlier tonight, I don't think even the Hawks speed and youth will be enough to overpower them. Philly in seven.

My 2010 Hockey Playoff Picks - Round 3

2010-05-14T19:30:00.000-07:00

Well, got my ass kicked AGAIN!!! The playoff Gods have not been kind to me this season! To make things worse, we are in serious danger of a Montreal vs. Chicago final for the cup, which means that we Leafs fans can look forward to a victory by either our arch rivals or the only other team in the NHL with a cup drought longer than ours! Brilliant.

Eastern Conference

Philadelphia vs. Montreal

Both teams have a lot of momentum behind them, but Halak's hot streak will be the difference. It pains me to say this, but the smart money is on the Habs this round (gasp). Canadiens in Six.

Wester Conference

San Jose vs. Chicago

I was a little reluctant to believe in the perennial chokers from the left coast, especially after their shaky first round performance, but the big guns did well against the wings. Just the same, the Hawks did manage to blow past the Luongo and the Canucks, which is a tall task to say the least. San Jose in Seven.

My 2010 Hockey Playoff Picks - Round 2

2010-04-29T11:27:00.000-07:00

Wow what a first round! The Habs totally surprised me for the third straight year, only this time they did so by NOT choking!

Eastern Conference

Pittsburgh vs. Montreal

The Habs are already punching above their weight class, but does this not sound familiar to anyone? Halak and a group of young upstarts surprising Ovechkin and an offensive juggernaut team is reminiscent of the Vancouver olympics. Anyone remember how Slovakia did in the next round when they ran up against Crosby? As I recall Crosby didn't have the best record during the olympics (Gold medal game notwithstanding!!!), and he's on fire in these playoffs, so I expect Malkin will be pleased to be on the delivering end of an ass kicking this time. Pens in Five.

Philadelphia vs. Boston

After barely squeaking into the playoffs the Flyers have shown some serious guts! Boston is tough, but Philly has the momentum. Flyers in Seven.

Western Conference

San Jose v. Detroit

If the big guns for the Sharks play like they can, this series is over before it even begins. Unfortunately, they have not been playing like they can and were lucky to make it this far. Wings in Five.

Chicago v. Vancouver

The Sedin brothers woke up in the last round and racked up some serious goals, but the young and fast Hawks will be too much for them. Blackhawks in Six.

My 2010 Hockey Playoff Picks

2010-04-11T17:43:00.000-07:00

All right everyone, because you've all been waiting for it, here are my picks for the upcoming NHL playoffs! I haven't been following the West too closely this season, so I'm looking forward to everyone's comments. Here goes:

Eastern Conference:

Washington vs. Montreal

Seriously? Last year, for the second year in a row, I gave the Habs too much credit by predicting they would lose to the Bruins in Five (the year before that I predicted they would beat the Bruins in Five, and they squeaked past them in seven). This will be a pretty sweet homecoming for Theodore, not that he will have to be too sharp. Halak has proven that he can steal a game or two, but the Habs have got to give Price some playoff experience if they are serious about him being the future of the club (in fairness I still say he is a first rate goaltender who just needs to find his confidence). Caps in Five.

New Jersey vs. Philadelphia

Acquiring Kovalchuk at the trade deadline has added a lot of offensive power to a team that was already a strong contender. The Flyers showed some guts this afternoon by coming from behind to knock off the Rangers, but they do not have what it takes to get past the Devils. New Jersey in Six.

Boston vs. Buffalo

Buffalo has a strong offence and Miller proved himself to be a worthy adversary during the olympics. Just the same I think the Bruins have shown some real gumption in the last run up to the playoffs, so the momentum is definitely in their favour. Bruins in Six. (They'll be an even greater threat next year with the draft pick my leafs traded to them! Dammit!!!)

Ottawa vs. Pittsburgh

This promises to be one hell of a series! As these two teams meet for the third year in a row, they have developed quite the rivalry. My unrelenting hate for the sens notwithstanding (surpassed only by my hatred for the Habs and Wings), the sens are looking good. Cousin Mike has had another good season, and Alfie will be giving it his all in what could be his last season. Now that Kovalev is out, they have one less disadvantage holding them back. On the other hand, there are these two guys called Sydney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin. Pens in Seven edge of your seat games.

Western Conference

San Jose vs. Colorado

Even with Thornton injured, the Sharks are a strong team. Statsny and the boys will be a handfull though! Sharks in Six.

Chicago vs. Nashville

Now that Chicago's young guns are starting to mature a little they will be dangerous! Nashville has nothing on them. Toronto is in serious danger of becoming the team with the longest cup drought. Hawks in Five.

Vancouver vs. Los Angeles

If the Sedin twins and Luongo play like they can the Kings do not have a prayer, but the Canucks have been struggling lately so I am predicting an upset. Kings in Six.

Detroit vs. Phoenix

Much as I hate them the wings have been on fire lately. Wings in Five.

Of Leafs and Liberals

2010-02-07T06:36:00.000-08:00

Have you ever heard someone say "I will be a Liberal (Conservative, New Democrat, etc.) until the day I die"? I'm sure most of us have.

I recently had the pleasure of watching one of my favourite bloggers give the scolding of a lifetime to a "loyal" Iggy supporter. Don't get me wrong, our party's leader is far better suited to lead this country than the whimpering coward who currently occupies 24 Sussex, and I have every confidence that Iggy will teach Harper a lesson or two about democracy come election time; but that's not the point.

My point is that unwavering loyalty is for dogs. Sure, I'll be the first person to say that you shouldn't abandon a party that otherwise suits you just fine because of one or two minor disagreements, but to unwaveringl support a party or person without question just because you always have in the past is lunacy! (my continuing support of the Toronto Maple Leafs notwithdstanding)

I am a member of the Liberal Party of Canada by choice, a choice that I am free to change at any moment of my choosing. I support my party, my local candidate (Julie Bourgeois) and Michael Ignatieff because I believe in social justice, the rule of law, government accountability, international peacekeeping, the rule of law, sound financial management, and putting the country's interests first!

To my Conservative friends, know that I have a lot of respect for you and what you believe in, no matter how much we may disagree, but the fact is that the party of Sir John A., Dief the chief, and Brian Mulroney (disgraced as he may be, he still did or at least attempted to do some good things for this country), is no more. Your party has been taken over by an ultra right wing band of demagogs who care nothing about this country and have become far more authoritarian than the Liberals you so loathed when you were in opposition.

Stephen Harper has completely abandoned any of the well intentioned (though possibly miguided) principles of the Reform movement for renewing Canadian Democracy and has instead gone in the complete opposite direction. For example:

As leader of the opposition, he criticized Paul Martin for not going far enough in bringing transparency to the Supreme Court nomination process, then once elected, reversed Martin's reforms and went back to the old process (though admittedly he did choose a fine jurist).
Despite being required to respect the Kyoto protocol by a parliamentary motion, and even legislation, he has refused, not simply failed, but openly and deliberately refused to follow Kyoto. Even if you're still clinging to the notion that all of this climate change "nonsense" (i.e. science and facts) is a made up conspiracy, does this not at least offend your sense of right and wrong? Do you honestly believe that any political party or person should be above the law? Do you not see that whether you like it or not, the opposition parties have been delegated by a majority of Canadian voters to speak for them in Ottawa?
Harper along with many of you criticized Jean Chretien and Paul Martin for calling elections at their whims simply because they believed the moment was ripe for them to win another term, but that did not stop the PM from stomping all over his own fixed date election legislation and declaring a snap election.
On the night of his reelection, he promised to work with the oppositon and then immediately proposed a budget that would bankrupt them. When that blew up in his face and the opposition threatened to form a coalition (which would have been the most democratic government Canada has ever had!), he declared it a "coup" as if his minority government somehow had more right to govern than a coalition with more than 60% of the population's votes, and prorogued parliament in order to avoid the vote of no confidence. Talk about a sense of entitlement!
I suppose that brings me to his latest attack on Canadian Democracy. With all kinds of questions lingering about how his governement may have exposed Canadian soldiers to war crimes prosecution (the very troops he purports to "stand by"), he ran and hid from our elected representatives. You cannot possibly believe that he is above reproach, can you? If not Parliament, then who is the Prime Minister accountable to?

I wish that was the end of the list, but I'm afraid it is only the Reader's Digest version. If we are going to save Canadian democracy, all Canadians (Conservatives, New Democrats, Sovereignists and Liberals alike) are going to have to draw a line in the sand when parliament eventually resumes.

To Michael Ignatieff and the other opposition leaders, I implore you, please bring down the Harper government as soon as possible! You may never get the ideal shot, and I can almost promise you that Harper will not simply give it to you. Winning an election is never an easy thing, especially against an opponent who will do anything to win, no matter what the cost to the country, but sometimes David has to take a stand against Goliath.

By the way, did anyone catch the Leafs/Sens game last night?

If hypocrisy were an olympic event...

2009-10-14T17:18:00.000-07:00

I can just picture it now, a cheering crowd full of adoring fans, the national anthem playing, and our illustrious Prime Minister, the great Stephen Harper steps up onto the podium to accept the gold medal in the hypocrisy olympics as other world leaders bashfully accept the silver and bronze. Who says Canada can't compete on an international level with the neo-cons at the helm?

Ladies and gentlemen, the coup de grace in Harper's medal winning performance has finally come. You guessed it, the man who rode to power with a mandate to clean up government and improve accountability has to answer for the fact that his MPs have been using public funds to promote their own party! That's right, Harper and his boys finally went so far that even Harper himself had to admit that they had crossed the line, by distributing public funds with large cheques emblazoned with their party's logo and the names of their MPs. Keep in mind that these are the people who think it's fine to use public funds to send mail outs bashing their political rivals (Sylvio Berlusconi eat your heart out!), and even they had to admit they had gone too far this time .

Believe it or not, I haven't even gotten to the best part yet! Not only are the Conservatives using public funds as their own private publicity fund, they're actually using these funds to take credit for the fact that they are making stimulus spending they never intended or wanted to spend! That's right folks, remember a few months ago when Harper only agreed to start spending to stimulate the economy after the opposition parties put a metaphorical gun to his head and threatened to blow his brains back to the opposition benches if he didn't do something about the economy? Well now it would appear that our glorious PM has been reborn as a socialist, because now he can't wait to tell you how much he's doing to get the money out that he never wanted to spend to fight the recession he refused to admit existed.

I love Canadian Politics.

An Open Letter to Pierre Lemieux MP for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Part II)

2009-09-15T13:37:00.001-07:00

At the risk of making a habit out of this, I could not resist the chance to reply to my local Conservative MP, for some comments he made in the September 11th, 2009 edition of our local English language newspaper, Tribune-Expresse. Apparently Mr. Lemieux feels that our newly selected candidate, Ms Julie Bourgeois owes him an apology for refusing to prop up his government. I'm not sure if they'll publish this or not, but at least it made me feel good. Enjoy:

Dear Mr. Lemieux,

I have just finished reading your comments in the September 11th, 2009 issue of Express. As a Liberal, I found your suggestion that an election would serve only our party's interests to be rather interesting. Was it perhaps an unconscious acknowledgement of the fact that your party stands a good chance of regaining its status as her majesty's loyal opposition? I also wonder if you would care to tell your constituents whose interests your party was looking out for in 2008, when you and Prime Minister Harper were wiping your boots with your own fixed election date law?

At the very least, if the opposition parties force an election this fall, it will be through a vote in Parliament, with the support of MPs, whose combined support from the last election amounts to more than 60% of all votes cast, rather than a unilateral decision by a prime minister, whose party had significantly less than 40% of all votes cast in the 2006 election.

I am pleased to read that you spent so much time visiting homes throughout the riding this summer, and that you have now realized how much Canadians want our government to tackle the economic crisis. My only question is... what economic crisis? It seems to me that just last year, during the election campaign, Prime Minister Harper (who would never mislead Canadians) told us all that things were going well, and would not even acknowledge that we were on the verge of a recession! Could it be that the PM had it wrong?

With respect sir, I very much doubt that your government ever had any intention of helping Canadians through these rough times. Your post-election economic update to Parliament stated as much. It was not until the opposition parties threatened to form a Liberal-NDP coalition with Bloc support and remove your party from power, that you caved to their demands, and started taking minimal action on the economy. Simply put, what little economic stimulus that has been provided since the last elections was thanks to the opposition parties.

I do not think anybody wants an election, but as your consituents told you when you visited their homes this summer, we all want a government that will take action to protect the economy. Since your minority government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the very verge of being cast back into opposition before it would lift a finger, I seriously doubt that yours is the party that should be entrusted to provide such aid. If Canadians want a government that will look out for them in tough economic times, they will have to go back to the polls and vote for one.

Sincerely

Brian Fisher

Conflicting Standards of Proof

2009-08-07T09:03:00.000-07:00

Like a lot people from Eastern Ontario, I have been following the influence peddling trial of Ottawa Mayor Larry O'Brian pretty closely, and I cannot say that the not guilty verdict came as any surprize to me. From the evidence I had read about, I just wasn't convinced that the charges had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I really enjoyed reading Mayor O'Brien's defense lawyer's interpretation of the verdict, which he called "as strong a vindication of a defendant as you'll ever see in a criminal trial". The defense lawyer is of course absolutely correct, but only because criminal trials do not usually declare the accused to be innocent, they are either "guilty" or "not guilty". As confusing as this might seem, "not guilty" just means that the accused has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Just because a judge has some reasonable doubt in his mind about his guilt, does not mean he or she the person to be innocent.

In civil cases, people are determined to be liable or not based on the "preponderence of evidence", which basically translates to "more likely than not". Remember how O.J. managed to escape criminal conviction for the murder of his ex wife and a man named Ron Goldman, but then wound up losing a wrongful death lawsuit to Goldman's family? Well that's one of the reasons for that happening.

But getting back to the case of Mayor O'Brien, I am interested to see how Mayor O'Brien does in that other forum, where the burden of proof is not so strict... I'm talking about of the Supreme Court of Public Opinion. I expect that for some, a not guilty verdict will be enough, and a miscarriage of justice for others. Some I expect will be angry at O'Brien for not putting the city first and resigning so that he can focus on the trial (can't say that I agree with them, but everyone has the right to their opinion). Only time will tell which group outnumbers the other.

Another shooting? How is this possible?

2009-07-16T05:16:00.000-07:00

Wasn't the gun registry supposed to prevent shootings? If an octogenarian can somehow manage to blast away at one of his caregivers, how are we protected from organized crime and disorganized psychopaths?

It's time we did away with the ineffective and wasteful long gun registry.

An Open Letter to Mr. Pierre Lemieux, MP for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell

2009-07-09T13:15:00.000-07:00

The following is a letter I sent to the editor of the Ottawa Citizen, and two local newspapers after I received yet another piece of Conservative propaganda from my Conservative Member of Parliament, Mr. Pierre Lemieux. I do not know yet if they will be published or not, but if nothing else at least it is out there on the world wide web.

Mr Lemieux,

I have recently received a copy of your “ten percenter”, in which you took it upon yourself to inform me and presumably, 10% of our riding about how long Michael Ignatieff has spent living abroad. You also declared that Mr. Ignatieff would surely return to the US if he is not elected… an interesting conclusion considering that he still stuck around after losing the Liberal leadership race in 2006.

Even though I find your party's constant use of attack ads to be a sad attempt to divert attention from your own inability to handle the economic crisis, that is your choice to make and I have no quarrel with it. Just the same, I must ask that you refrain from using my tax dollars to do so.

As a duly elected MP, you certainly have a right, if not a duty to keep me informed of what's going on in Ottawa; however, these ads are obviously partisan propaganda and have no informative value whatsoever. I want to know about what your government is doing to get E.I. checks issued to the thousands of Canadians that have lost their jobs due to the economic crisis, I want to know what you're doing to stimulate job creation, and what kind of strategy are you developing to help preserve the environment. That kind of information would be most useful.

If you want to spend your own money or your party's money to try and convince me that people such as Michael Ignatieff, Wayne Gretzky, Céline Dion and thousands of other Canadians are less Canadian than you and I because they spent time living abroad, then please be my guest.

Sincerely

Brian Fisher

Afficher son fierté – A Sign of Pride

2009-07-02T08:19:00.000-07:00

*** Une version française suit l’anglais. ***

I don’t usually blog in both languages at the same time, but after my last posting, I wanted to straighten up a few things about where I stand on the sign law issue. Since I am also writing about the need to protect official language minorities from assimilation, it just seemed appropriate to speak to both of our country’s official language communities.

I’ve been meaning to follow up on my earlier post about the Ontario Township of Russell’s newly adopted by-law, requiring all new signs posted by businesses to be bilingual (business names need not be translated). The by-law (which is actually, an amendment to another much older by-law) reads as follows:

BEING A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW NO . 29-1977.
Whereas Council of the Corporation of the Township of Russell did enact By-law No. 29-1977 to regulate and prohibit signs and other advertising devices;

AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Russell now deems it advisable to amend By-law No. 29-1977; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE COUNCAL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHP OF RUSSELL ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

1. That Section 4(2) of By-law No. 29-1977 is hereby amended by the addition of the following subsection:

Section 2 .1 - Message or content of any new exterior commercial signs

The message or content of any new exterior commercial signs shall be bilingual. The lettering of an exterior commercial sign (dimension and style) must be identical in French and in English . However, the name of a business can be unilingual for an exterior commercial sign.

(I’d like to thank Russell’s mayor, Mr. Ken Hill, for sending me a copy of this by-law)

I’ve never made any secret about the fact that I am very much against Section 58 of Québec’s Charter of the French Language (AKA Bill 101), which requires that all public signs and postings be in French and only allows for bilingual versions where the French text is “markedly predominant”. In fairness, I must acknowledge that in Entreprises W.F.H. Ltée c. Québec (Procureure Générale du) the Québec Court of Appeal has long since ruled that Québec’s sign law does not violate the Charter, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. While I have the utmost respect for the courts, I must say that I am disappointed in their decision.

Even though my first language is most definitely English, my Canada includes our French communities. I also have no problem with most of Bill 101, as I see no reason why the provinces should not have the right to take reasonable measures to preserve their unique cultural characteristics... subject to the requirement that they respect the rights of minorities. I do draw the line at belittling another language (official or otherwise). Whether it is the legislator’s intention or not, the implied message of forcing someone to print their mother tongue in smaller font is pretty clear.

The French language could be just as easily protected by requiring signs to printed in both official languages at approximately the same size (French and English versions of the same message are rarely the same size). That is exactly what they are doing in Russell.

Moreover, when Québec’s sign laws were adopted, signs that were already bilingual, but whose messages were printed in the same size were immediately outlawed. Russell’s by-law only applies to new signs.
I was hoping to take the time to perform a more in-depth legal analysis of Russell’s bilingual sign by-law, and its chances of surviving the impending Charter challenge, but frankly, I am just getting my legal practice off the ground and I haven’t had the time. Just the same, if Québec’s sign laws are good enough for the courts, my initial impression is that the much more restrained Russell by-law should have even less trouble passing the test.

As I mentioned earlier, the Russell by-law is facing a Charter challenge, so with any luck we might just have some more interesting new caselaw on this subject. We are also due for municipal elections in Ontario next year, and I would expect that the bilingual by-law issue will be front and centre in the Township of Russell. I am personally hoping that the next Township council will decide to keep the by-law, but that is for the people to decide.

As for the other levels of government, Russell is located in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (my riding), which is currently represented provincially by Liberal MPP Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde and federally by Conservative MP Mr. Pierre Lemieux. While Mr. Lalonde has expressed support for the by-law, Mr. Lemieux has attacked it, which is just one the positions he and his party have taken that have put him at odds with our riding’s francophone community. It may not be enough to take him down, but Mr. Lemieux can certainly expect to suffer politically for the position he has taken.

The Russell sign by-law will definitely be an ongoing story worth following in the months and possibly years to come. I look forward to seeing how it all plays out.

*** Version française ***

C’est rare que j’affiche des messages bilingues, mais vue que mon dernier message aurait peut être causé de la confusion par rapport à ma position sur les lois d’affichage. Vu que j’ai également l’intention d’écrire sur le besoin de protéger des communautés de langues officielles minoritaires contre l’assimilation, je l’ai jugé bon de m’adresser aux deux communautés de langues officielles de notre pays.

J’aimerais également faire suite à mon dernier message concernant le règlement municipal sur du Canton de Russell, Ontario, exigeant que toutes nouvelles affichages commerciaux soient bilingues. Le règlement (qui est en réalité un amendement d’un autre règlement) est reproduit ci-dessous :

REGLEMENT QUI MODIFIE LE REGLEMENT NO. 29-1977.

ATTENDU que le règlement no. 29-1977 adopté par le conseil de la Corporation du canton de Russell réglemente ou interdit l'usage des enseignes et autres affiches publicitaires;

ET ATTENDU que le conseil de la Corporation du canton de Russell considère qu'il est opportun de modifier le règlement no. 29-1977 par ce qui suit: QU'IL SOIT RESOLU QUE LE CONSEIL DE LA CORPORATION DU CANTON DE RUSSELL DONNE FORCE DE LOI A CE QUI SUIT

1. Que l'article 4(2) du règlement no. 29-1977 soit modifie par adjonction du paragraphe suivant:

ARTICLE 2.1 - La désignation ou le contenu des nouvelles enseignes commerciales extérieures

La désignation ou le contenu des nouvelles enseignes commerciales extérieures devra être bilingue. Le lettrage d'une enseigne commerciale extérieure (taille et style) devra être le même en anglais et en français. Toutefois, la raison sociale pourra être unilingue pour une enseigne commerciale extérieure.

(J’aimerais remercier M Ken Hill, Maire de Russell, pour m’avoir envoyé une copie du règlement)

Je n’ai jamais pu garder la langue dans mes poches, en ce qui concerne ma haine pour l’article 58 de la Charte de la langue française (la loi 101) du Québec, ce qui a pour effet d’interdire l’affichage en Anglais sauf lorsqu’elle est accompagnée d’une version française « nettement prédominant ». Certainement, il faut reconnaître que lors de l’affaire Entreprises W.F.H. Ltée c. Québec (Procureure Générale du), la Cour d’Appel du Québec a conclu que la disposition concernant l’affichage ne s’agit pas d’une violation de la Charte. J’en ai en masse du respect pour les tribunaux, mais j’avoue d’être déçu de leur décision.

Il n’y a aucune question que ma langue primaire c’est l’Anglais, mais mon Canada inclus les communautés francophones. À la même fois, je n’ai pas de problème avec la plupart des dispositions de la loi 101 car je ne voit aucune raison pourquoi les provinces ne devraient pas avoir le droit de protéger leurs identités culturelles distinctes… sujet au devoir de respecter les droits des communautés minoritaires. Il est donc inacceptable pour moi la notion d’abaisser une autre langue (officielle ou non). Que ce soit l’intention du législateur ou non, lorsqu’on oblige quelqu’un d’écrire dans sa langue maternelle en lettres plus petits, le message est clair.

Le gouvernement du Québec pourrait très facilement protéger la langue française en obligeant aux entreprises d’afficher des messages bilingues avec les deux langues d’environ le même grandeur (les versions françaises et anglaises du même message sont rarement de la même longueur), c’est exactement ça qu’ils font à Russell.

Je note également que lorsque le Québec a adopté son loi sur l’affichage, les affiches bilingues déjà en place se sont devenues immédiatement illégales. Le règlement à Russell n’affecte que les nouveaux affichages commerciaux.

J’aurais aimé pouvoir performer une analyse juridique plus approfondie sur le règlement municipal sur l’affichage bilingue de Russell, mais franchement, mes obligations professionnels le me laissent pas beaucoup de temps libre. Quand même, mon impression initiale c’est que si l’art 58 de la loi 101 ne constitue pas une infraction de la Charte, j’en doute fortement que le règlement municipal de Russell, moins sévère ne devrait pas avoir beaucoup de misère à passer.

Comme j’avais déjà mentionné, le règlement municipal de Russell est déjà le sujet d’une action pour infraction de la Charte, ce qui a une bonne chance de générer beaucoup de jurisprudence intéressante. Nous allons également avoir des élections municipales en Ontario dans environ un an, et on peut s’attendre à ce que la question du règlement sur l’affichage soit une question majeure à Russell. J’espère le prochaine conseil gardera le règlement sur l’affichage.

En ce qui concerne les autres paliers du gouvernement, Russell est situé dans la circonscription de Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (auquel j’habite). Nous sommes représentés au provincial parle député libéral M. Jean-Marc Lalonde, et au fédéral par le député conservateur M. Pierre Lemieux. Monsieur Lalonde s’est prononcé en faveur du règlement tandis que M. Lemieux s’est prononcé contre, ce n’est pas la première fois que ce dernier et son partie aient adopté une politique incompatible aux intérêts de la communauté francophone dans ce comté. Ce n’est peut être pas suffisant pour le faire perdre son siège, mais il risque fortement de souffrir politiquement pour son choix.

La question du règlement sur l’affichage à Russell sera surement une histoire intéressante à surveiller dans les mois, ou même les années à suivre. J’ai hâte d’entendre parler des nouveaux développements.

Gang de "redneck"

2009-06-27T11:40:00.000-07:00

La décision d'annuler la recréation du bataille des Plaines d'Abraham était pour le Québécois anglophones un autre exemple de preuve qu'il existe au Québec un mouvement d'oppression qui leur vise. Heureusement, il semble qu'au moins pour l'instant, le fédéral n'est pas prêt à devenir participant actif.

Lors des célébrations de la fête du St. Jean Batiste... oops, je veut dire la Fête National du Québec (il paraît que pour la plupart des souverainistes ce ne sont que les "Québécois de souche" qui ont le droit de fêter cette occasion), le chef du bloc ait traité Michael Ignatieff et Stephen Harper de "rednecks" en raison du fait que ces derniers refusent d'appuyer un projet de loi blociste qui aura pour effet d'obliger les institutions sous la juridiction fédérale situés au Québec de se soumettre à la Charte de la langue française (la loi 101) du Québec. Le projet de loi propose de soumettre non-seulement les organismes gouvernementaux, mais également les sociétés par action privés qui ont été incorporés sous le régime fédéral.

Je note que la loi 101 n'est pas complètement mauvaise. Elle comprend plusieurs dispositions positives, dont le droit de travailler en français, le droit de communiquer avec toute institution du gouvernement provincial en français, etc. Cependant, elle contient aussi l'art 58, le célèbre disposition sur l'affichage public, et l'art 73, qui a pour but de restreindre le droit à l'accès à l'éducation primaire et secondaire en anglais.

Le terme "redneck" est souvent employé pour la description d'une personne ignorante, et généralement en manque de sophistication. Pour moi c'est don très intéressant qu'un chef séparatiste, qui a pour but de créer un état homogène traitera de reaciste deux individus qui refusent de céder à ses demandes d'adhérer à une loi aussi injuste et discriminatoire que la loi 101.

J'applaudi le premier ministre et le chef de l'opposition officiel, pour avoir eu le courage de tenir tête à Duceppe. Il paraît que ça sera impossible d'interdire à l'Assemblée Nationale de continuer ses efforts discriminatrices, mais au moins le gouvernement fédéral est prêt à tracer une ligne dans le sable en refusant d'y participer.

My (belated) prediction for the Stanley Cup Finals

2009-06-05T12:00:00.000-07:00

OK, so I've been gone on a fishing trip in the middle of nowhere for the past week, so I haven't been able to follow the finals so far. I haven't seen any of the games in this series, so all I know is that Pittsburgh just evened up the series at 2-2, witha big win last night.

I'm cheering for the Pens, but I just don't think they have it in them this year (though I'd sure love to see the look on Hossa's face if Pittsburgh beats them!). Detroit in six.

The Reason I am against the Death Penalty

2009-05-21T11:24:00.000-07:00

Not surprisingly, the announcement that young Tori Stafford was almost certainly murdered the day she was taken, has spawned a facebook group (and probably many others that I am not aware of) whose goal it is to bring in tougher sentences for criminals. Some bloggers have even blogged about the death penalty, I rather enjoyed James Morton's posting on the matter.

Like Morton, I too am opposed to the death penalty, though not for all of the same reasons. I personally have absolutely no problem with the idea of a murder paying for his or her crimes with his or her life. I realize that it costs more to execute a convict than it does to keep one in prison for the rest of his or her natural life. Just the same, if that was the only argument against the death penalty, I personally would be quite content to write it off as the price of justice.

I am always amused by the notion that some people believe that the state should not have the right to put someone to death because it sets some sort of bad example (like a parent that tells their kids not to smoke, but lights up two packs a day). That is probably the most ridiculous argument against the death penalty of all. There are all kinds of powers vested in the sate that an individual citizen could and should never wield. If it's wrong to punish a murderer with death, is it not therefore wrong to punish a kidnapper with prison? Does an individual have the right to imprison another individual?

There is one Hell of a big difference between someone who commits a murder that is motivated by greed, anger, hatred, etc., and the act of putting someone to death for a crime they have committed. That is not a carte blanche for the state to go around killing anyone that gets in the way of course. Obviously, the punishment must fit the crime, and the accused must be given the benefit of a fair trial, competent counsel, and an Appeal process.

Having said that, I want to repeat that I am personally against the death penalty. My reason is simple. As hard as we might try, our legal system is far from perfect. Judges and juries make mistakes, and a death sentence for an innocent man/woman can never be corrected. If an innocent person spends 20 years in prison before receiving a favourable verdict, we can never restore the lost years, or erase the trauma, but at least the record can be set straight and some form of compensation can be paid. Most importantly, the innocent party is still alive. No matter how good our system is, innocent people WILL be convicted, and if we have the death penalty, the injustice will only be magnified.

At any rate, I've gotten a little off track here. The point I wanted to make is that it appears that people just want to feel safe. I've noticed that everytime a tragedy happens like a child's abduction, or some lunatic goes on a killing rampage, there is a call for tougher legislation, as if that would have done anything to stop the problem.

The horrifying fact is that lunatics and predators walk among us in society. The odds of actually being the victim of one are pretty slim, but they are going to do what they are going to do. Should we therefore abandon all laws intended to protect society? Of course not. And there is certainly no harm, in re-evaluating the system when something goes wrong to see if there was anything that could have been done to prevent it. I'm just saying that we cannot control our world, and there is no way of ensuring that "this will never happen again".

My Hockey Picks - Round 3

2009-05-15T05:24:00.000-07:00

Pittsburgh v. Carolina
This is a tough one. Carolina has already knocked off one of the toughest teams in the league, and both teams will be exhausted from grueling seven game series in the last round. I'll flip a coin and say Sid the Kid and Malkin will get another shot at the Cup. Penguins in seven.

Detroit v. Chicago
Yet another David and Goliath struggle. Chicago has already surprised me twice during these playoffs, but I suspect they've run out of gas. They're well rested, so they should be able to take a game or two from the Defending Champs, but that's it. It looks to me like we're heading to a rematch of last year's cup finals. Red Wings in five.

*** Interestingly enough, the last time the Penguins won the Cup, it was against Chicago!

In Defence of Miss California

2009-05-13T17:34:00.000-07:00

All right, I realize I'm opening a can of worms here, and frankly I think the issue is getting far more attention than it derserves, but I have to say that I feel bad for this 21 year old kid.

For those of you who haven't been following, Carrie Prejean, AKA "Miss California" stated on national television that she was opposed to gay marriage. Since then topless photos of the pageant contestant have since surfaced on the internet, in an apparent attempt to discredit her. After having considered the matter, Pageant owner Donald Trump has decided that Miss California can keep her crown, which prompted the pageant's co-director to resign in protest.

Before I go any further, I want to make one thing clear. I am in favour of same sex marriage. I believe very strongly that to deny gays the right to marry is a violation of their right to equal treatment under the law. In my opinion, Ms Prejean's views on marriage are completely void of logic, and should not be given a second thought... but that does not mean she does not have the right to express them.

Like most proponents of same sex marriage, I watched in horror as the people of California voted against gay marriage in a recent referendum. It is yet another example of why the rights of minorities should not be decided based solely on the whims of the majority. As horrific as this moment was, it shows that clearly there are a lot of people out there who feel the same way as Prejean. They were asked a question and they answered it. Should they all therefore be punished? Prime Minister Jean Chrétien once held the same position as Miss California. Parliament even passed a motion to that effect! (I am proud to say, that I used to work for one of the few Liberal MPs who did not follow the party lines and voted against that motion). It was only after an Ontario Court ruled that denying gays the right to marry violated the charter that the PM changed his mind. Should Jean Chrétien and all of the MPs be punished for the way they voted on that original motion? I think not. I hate to say it, but the Donald made the right call.

Hate speach is one thing, giving an honest opinion in response to a question is another. I have no problem with the sections of our Criminal Code that aim to protect society from the promotion of hatred; however, we on the left wing have to be more careful about the way we villify those who disagree with us. We have to stop attacking the individual, and focus on the idea, because anyone can humiliate someone into biting their tongue, but it takes a true intellectual to actually pursuade their opponents to agree with them.

As for the topless photos, I suppose Prejean only has herself to blame, as they probably would have surfaced on their own at some time, whether she had spoken out against gay marriage or not. I personally see nothing wrong with the photos (it's her body, it's her call!), but she had to have known that not everyone would feel that way and controversy would be inevitable.

My Playoff Picks - Round 2

2009-04-30T12:34:00.000-07:00

Eastern Conference

Carolina vs Boston

The Hurricanes have shown gumption, but Boston has a lot of talent. Just the same, Boston has had a long break, and the Habs never even bothered to show up for round 1, and there is such a thing as being too well rested! Canes in 7

Pittsburgh vs Washington

Finally Crosby and Ovechkin will meet in the playoffs! It's going to be a great series to watch. Capitals in seven.

Western Conference

Detroit vs Anaheim

Anaheim is a plucky little club and they've already shown they can punch above their weight by knocking off the Sharks, but the Defending champs will hardly be pushovers. Ducks in 7 hard fought games.

Vancouver vs Chicago
The Blackhawks showed some serious tenacity in making it to thsi round, but the more experienced Canucks team will dominate this time. Canucks in five.

My first round hockey playoff picks

2009-04-13T13:42:00.000-07:00

Eastern Conference

Montreal vs Boston
My how a things can change in just one year! The only thing that hasn't changed since last year, is that the Habs still don't have the heart to match their depth. They made a last heroic effort to cling to that last playoff spot this season, but it won't last. Bruins in five.

New York (R) vs Washington
Strangely enough, Avery's return actually seemed to help the Rangers this season, but ultimately, he and Richter will not be enough to overcome Ovechkin and Théodore. Capitals in six.

Carolina vs New Jersey
The Canes have been red hot toward the end of the season, maybe even enough to upset the most successful goaltender of all time. Hurricanes in seven.

Philadelphia vs Pittsburgh
The Flyers gave us one Hell of a show last year, but in the end they were not strong enough to overcome Sid and his crew. This year the Penguins are not quite the juggernaut they were last season so the Flyers actually have a chance of getting past them this year, but I still say the Pens have the advantage. Penguins in seven.

Western Conference

San Jose vs. Anaheim
It's nice to start writing about the Western Conference without having to begin with Detroit for a change! The sharks are so big, strong, and fast that they almost don't even need to have one of the best goaltenders in the league between the pipes. Unfortunately for their opponents, they also have that advantage. Sharks in five.

Detroit vs Columbus
I hate the wings with a passion, but I know a winner when I see one. Red Wings in six.

Vancouver vs St. Louis
What can I say? I have a soft spot for Sundin. Canucks in five.

Chicago vs. Calgary
With the late addition of Jokinen, the flames have been on a rampage, though they seem to have cooled toward the end of the season. Flames in seven.

Les jeux vidéos - un opportunité manqué pour le fédéral

2009-03-22T17:55:00.000-07:00

Le gouvernement du Québec viens d'annoncer qu'elle a conclu une entente avec l'industrie des jeux vidéos pour que tout les jeux vidéos vendus au Québec soient traduits en Français. Ce n'est pas encore clair si ceci veut également dire que la vente de la version anglaise des jeux sera interdit, mais je serais très surpris si c'était le cas.

Premièrement, je tiens à féliciter le Premier Ministre Charest d'avoir accomplit une geste positive pour maintenir la langue et culture française dans sa province. Pour moi c'est une bonne chose (tant que les droits des Anglophones soient également respectés). Monsieur Charest est loin d'être mon politicien préféré, mais il faut rendre à César ce qui appartiens à César.

Deuxièmement, j'aimerais exprimer ma déception à l'égard du gouvernement fédéral. Voici encore un opportunité manqué pour démontrer aux Francophones du Québec que le gouvernement fédéral est capable d'agir comme force protectrice de la langue française, non seulement au Québec, mais à travers du pays.

Comme la plupart des DVDs au Canada sont vendus dans les deux langues officielles, j'ai de la misère à croire que les producteurs de jeux vidéos risquent d'avoir beaucoup de difficulté à produire des versions bilingues de leurs produits.

À mon avis, il faut démontrer aux Québécois que le gouvernement fédéral a la volonté et la capacité de se battre pour sa population francophone. Les Francophones sont habitués à l'image d'un gouvernement fédéral qu'ils doivent pousser à agir, et non une force aggressive et pro-active. C'est le temps de leur montrer que le gouvernement du Québec et le Bloc Québécois ne sont pas les seuls voix capables d'agir en leur nom. Il faut démontrer au Québécois "de souche" que leurs cousins en communauté de minorités linguistiques ne sont pas une cause sans espoir. Si c'est le cas, ils penseront peut être deux fois avant de les abandonner en faveur de la rêve souverainiste.

Stephen Harper is Getting Desperate!

2009-03-04T12:52:00.000-08:00

Don't look now voters, Stephen Harper is once again threatening an election! Word has it he may also up the anti by threatening to hold his breath and stomp his feet until Parliament caves in to his demands.

What has him so upset this time? Well, our prime minister, captain accountability himself, is upset because Parliament has the nerve to refuse his demand for a $3 billion blank cheque... the nerve!

Clearly, the PM is still stinging from the embarassing about face he had to make over the whole economic update fiasco he blundered his way into, and is now desperate to prove that he can still bully his way through Parliament (he must maintain his image after all!).

I sincerely hope that Michael Ignatieff and the other opposition leaders show the same resolve that they showed earlier, and stop him dead in his tracks.

Now that the possibility of losing power to a coalition is no-longer there, the PM is getting arrogant again and will soon begin nursing his delusions of forming a majority government. I say that regardless of our financial situations, the Liberals and other Opposition parties should be ready to fight an election.

We Liberals are still flat broke. Unfotunately, we will be flat broke going into the next election, whenever it is called, whether we like it or not. The only thing we control is whether or not we have the momentum on our sides when it is called.

Don't get me wrong. The last thing this country needs right now is an election, but the PM is the one who controls that. The opposition parties have a duty to act as watch dogs for the government, especially in a minority government situation. Simply writing the governing party a blank cheque is a breach of that sacred duty, so if the PM does not back down, the opposition leaders must revoke his probation.

War and Justice

2009-01-22T11:03:00.000-08:00

It has been a pretty busy news week, what with the inauguration(s) of President Obama in the US, and the upcoming budget vote in Ottawa, but there is another story that has captured my interest as of late. I am referring to the upcoming court marshall of Captain Robert Semrau of the Canadian Army.

Semrau is accused of Murder in the second degree for having allegedly killed an unarmed Afghan enemy combatant. Interestingly enough, nobody actually saw him kill the combatant. All we know (from the media reports I have read) is that the enemy fighter was severely wounded by an American air strike and that he had been disarmed in front of witnesses and that he was alone with the accused at the time that witnesses claim to have heard two shots. We don't actually know that the enemy fighter was killed, and his body was left behind and never recovered. Apparently, the Crown also has one witness that saw Semrau fire toward the alleged victim.

As in any criminal proceeding, Captain Semrau is entitled to his day in court, which includes a presumption of innocence that requires the Crown to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. First and foremost, they will have to prove what is known in law as the actus reus, in this case they have to prove that he killed the insurgent. This is difficult to do (though not impossible) without the body being recovered. Moreover, it doesn't sound like anyone actually saw the body of the insurgent, so there is little more than circumstantial evidence to say that Semrau killed him (though admittedly the circumstantial evidence is still strong). People have been convicted based on circumstantial evidence before, but the question in this case is whether or not the evidence leaves room for reasonable doubt.

Given that the alleged victim is said to have been too badly injured for treatment in the field, it is doubtful that he could have gotten up and walked away on his own, so the question then becomes whether or not he simply expired from the wounds he received from the air strike, or if he was killed by the shots Semrau is alleged to have fired. Since it is unlikely a shot could have missed from close range, I suspect the Defence may want to try casting doubt as to whether or not the shots were ever actually fired.

From a legal point of view, I am interested to see how this case turns out. Hopefully, we will hear more details about the case as it progresses. For all we know, the alleged shooting (if it happened at all) may not even have been done in anger. After all, who's to say that we are not talking about a mercy killing?

Mr. Accountability strikes again!

2008-12-23T06:34:00.000-08:00

I watched the news with great interest yesterday as Prime Minister Harper's choices for Senate nominations were announced. I was even more interested to hear that the Prime Minister has chosen to name Thomas Cromwell, a former Nova Scotia Court of Appeal judge, to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Some of us Liberals are making more out of the senate appointments than they should. As much as I'd like to blast the PM for "abandoning" his pursuit of an elected senate, that is clearly not what has happened here. I think that all the appointments really mean is that for the time being, Harper has realized that Senate reform is not anywhere in the near future, and he must accept the senate as it is until it can be changed. In fact, an official senate reform would be impossible without the approval of the senate itself, so this may in fact be a means to an end.

I was one of the first people to criticize the PM when he named Fortier to the senate and then made him a cabinet minister, because that was about as hypocritical as he could have been, but in this particular case, I do not believe we can fairly accuse the PM of having betrayed his ideals (even if he has vowed never to name an unelected senator!).

What really bothers me is the nomination of Justice Chambers. From what I have read, he is an excellent choice, and is widely respected in the legal community, but my problem is not with the person Harper chose, merely the manner in which he was chosen. As I discussed in my May 4th 2008 post, Harper has had ample time to set up a selection process of his own to provide the accountability he has promised Canadians. At the very least, Harper could have done as he did for the nomination of Justice Rothstein, and simply kept the public hearing Paul Martin's government put in place. Instead, Harper has chosen to put the gears in reverse. His excuse is that the Supreme Court needed an Atlantic Canadian immediately, but as I mentioned before, he has had plenty of time.

So much to do, so little time...

2008-12-18T13:49:00.000-08:00

It's been a while since my last post.

As those of you who are more familiar with my blogging know, I am just getting my legal career off the ground right now, which makes it pretty hard to blog, but I haven't given up and don't plan on doing so anytime soon!

Unfortunately, my latest busy streak at work has come at a rather inopportune time, since things have been really hot in Ottawa lately!

I watched with great interest as Prime Minister Harper steered himself into the political crisis! I have to say that the most interesting part was watching each side try to justify itself. All sides seem pretty unanimous that the economic update didn't really seek to do much for Canadians, and in fact Harper's stance all throughout the elections was pretty much to stand around and wait for things to come crashing down around his ankles. Just the same, I'm pretty convinced that this had a lot more to do with Harper's attempt to cut off public funding of the parties than anything else.

The fact is that the public simply won't get behind the parties for fighting to save their own asses, but fighting to make sure the government protects Canadians during an economic crisis is a little more palatable to the public.

To be honest, I can't say that I blame the opposition parties for wanting to protect their public funding. As soon as the elections ended, the PM promised he would try to work with the other parties, and then immediately set about adopting measures that would bankrupt them! Our country has no one to blame for this political crisis, but the PM himself.

I can respect the PM for trying to get politicians to make cutbacks during these lean times, but if he really wanted to get the opposition parties to start surviving off of their grass roots donors, he could have chosen a more reasonable approach. At the very least, the government should have pledged to gradually phase out public funding by reducing it gradually over the years.

Sadly, by making a blatant attempt to cripple the opposition, the Tories proved that they simply couldn't be trusted, and the opposition parties had no choice but to take them down while they still can.

I was rather hoping that the Governor General would refuse to prorogue Parliament, but I can't say that I blame her for agreeing. I believe that even though Parliament had not had its chance to express it's lack of confidence in the Conservatives through a vote, it was still pretty clear that the PM was trying to avoid such a vote. Just the same, she is an unelected figurehead who has to be very careful about the APPEARANCE of illegitimacy. Let us not forget that she was named to her position by a Liberal PM, which may have prompted some to criticize her for being partisan. At least by granting the PM's request, she has given Canada's elected officials the time to work something out between themselves. I still disagree with her decision, but at least I can respect it.

It's a shame about Dion. I'll miss him as a leader, but at least the Liberal party will have some stability now that Ignatieff is both our interim and de facto new leader. I like Ignatieff, and I have to admit that we are already getting better press coverage with him as our leader. He deffinitely has no shortage of charisma. I look forward to him becoming PM!

Yes!!!

2008-11-05T05:50:00.000-08:00

A great victory was won last night south of the border!

Prime Minister Harper, you should consider yourself on notice... the world is ready for change. You can either wake up and start providing it, or prepare to be swept away!

Looking on the bright side

2008-10-19T19:29:00.000-07:00

Now that some of the dust has settled from the elections, I thought I'd take a minute to evaluate things.

Before I go any further, I want to make one thing perfectly clear. We Liberals lost these elections big time. It is our worse showing since Confederation. I am a strong believer that it never pays to quit when the going gets tough, but it is also equally important not to dillute one's self about the gravity of the situation.

Having said that, even though I have long since completed my studies at Ottawa U's History program, I remain a perpetual student of history, and I am particularly well acquainted with military history. As I examine the makeup of Canada's latest Parliament, I am reminded of the situation of the American Navy immediately following the attack on Pearl Harbor. History is cruel and ironic and Pearl Harbor was no exception. The irony of the situation was that even though the aerial attack had left most of the American fleet under water, with few casualties for the Imperial fleet, the venture had also been a disaster for the Japanese.

As fate would have it (some conspiracy minded historians have argued that fate had nothing to do with it), both of the American Aircraft Carriers were away from Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack. Far more valuable in modern warfare than the battleships that were sunk in Pearl Harbor, the Carriers led the Americans to the victory at Midway, which turned the tide of the Pacific War against the Empire of the Sun. The Japanese also missed several important submarines and an oil refinery at Pearl Harbor.

The paralel here is that like Admiral Yamamoto, Prime Minister Harper has failed to strike the killing blow that he needed to survive. For the third consecutive election, Mr. Harper has failed to win a majority government. He has come close, but his chances of going any further are limited at best.

If you add up the votes collected by each of the Liberals, NDP, BQ, and Green, you get 61% of Canadians who did not vote for the Prime Minister. Now this worked fine politically for Jean Chrétien, because he was a centrist who could win votes on either side of the political spectrum. Harper can only attract the right. Since the Liberals swung pretty hard to the left under Dion's leadership, there isn't much room for the PM to grow. If his party lets him have another election (and I suspect they will), it will be his last chance to win a majority.

Not quite convinced? Think of it this way: 61% of Canadian voters want the government to live up to its Kyoto obligations. 61% of Canadian voters want a socially minded government. Stephen Harper can't offer this.

Rumour has it that Stéphane Dion is set to resign as leader of the Liberal Party tomorrow afternoon. If that's his decision then so be it, but I remain more convinced than ever that it's the biggest favour he could possibly do for the Conservative Party at this juncture. The last thing we need right now is to go through another divisive and costly leadership debate. Even if we don't tear each other apart, the PM will just call a snap election before the new leader has even had a chance to move into his new office.

Prime Minister Harper called this election when he did because he knew that rough months were ahead. I can't say that I blame him for that. It is a trick used by Canadian politicians from all parties for a long time, but he was the one who introduced the fixed election date legislation under the guise that it was supposed to stabilize things. The least he could have done was engineer his own defeat on a confidence motion and at least show some respect for one of his own laws! (but I'm getting off track).

The Cadman affair, Schreibergate, and the Election Spending scandal are all issues that could blow up in the Prime Minister's face this fall. If anything is uncovered that could render it impossible for the House to have confidence in the government, then they should be removed from office. Unfortunately, it appears that the Liberal caucus will be too divided and unprepared to fight an election. My hat is off to the PM for some shrewd political movement, but if Dion is willing to tough it out and fight, the Conservatives could be in for a nasty surprise.

I've heard a lot of talk about what a catastrophe these elections were for the Liberals. As I said before, there is no escaping the fact that we came out the losers in this election, but it was no catastrophe. As Rocky Balboa would say "it's not how hard you hit that counts, but how hard you can get hit and still keep getting up". We should consider ourselves lucky that we did not get the same treatment Kim Campbell received in 1993, when she went into an election with a majority government and favourable polls, only to have her party blown clear out of existence. That is a catastrophe. We should not throw in the towel and sacrifice a good leader because of one loss. This is not the time to be fighting amongst ourselves. Canadians have elected Stéphane Dion to be their leader of the Official Opposition, a vital and important role in Canadian democracy. Our party owes it to Canadians to fulfill this role to the best of our ability, rather than to spend our time squabbling amongst ourselves.

The People Have Spoken

2008-10-15T05:50:00.000-07:00

Well, I can't say that I agree with their choice, but according to Elections Canada, the people of Canada have decided that the Conservative Party of Canada shall have 143 seats in Parliament, with 37.6% of the popular vote, just 12 seats shy of a majority government. The people have also decided that Stéphane Dion will remain as their leader of the Official Opposition with 26.2% of the popular vote and 76 seats in Parliament. The NDP have surged to 37 seats, with 12% of the popular vote, and the BQ managed to grab 50 seats with 16.2%.

Sadly Elizabeth May and the Green Party were shut out of Parliament completely, even though they managed to get 6.8% of the popular vote. Nearly a million Canadians voted for the Green party, but they will have no voice in Ottawa.

Interestingly enough, two independent MPs were elected, including Nova Scotia MP Bill Casey! It appears that Prime Minister Harper did at least pay a price for breaking the Atlantic Accord, since he was also completely booted out of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Liberals also managed to hold our ground in Québec, by winning 13 seats!

To all of my friends and fellow bloggers out there who belong to other parties, I would just like to say congratulations! You all worked very hard and the people of Canada have rewarded you. I look forward to seeing how well our respective leaders can work together.

As for us Liberals, we can take pride in having fought a hard fight to the bitter end, and most importantly to having held the Conservatives to a minority. I have heard a lot of panicky chatter about uniting the left, sacking Dion, etc. The bottom line is that we have lost an election. As much as we like to think that we have some control over our destiny, it is the voters who made their decision yesterday and we must respect it.

In particular, I think that a change in leadership at this point would be a sign of desperation more than anything else. Stéphane Dion is a solid leader, and I have every confidence that he will be a great prime minister. We would be unwise to abandon him over a single defeat. In all likelihood, another leadership race would simply divide the party even further, and Harper would easily pounce on us before we are ready for an election as Chrétien did on the newly elected Stockwell Day.

Leadership debates

2008-10-03T05:26:00.001-07:00

Well, I can't say that last night's debate was as much of a victory for the Liberals as it was during the French debates, but I still think Dion held his ground pretty well.

Duceppe was the most dangerous one out there as he usually is in the English debates, because of course he has little to lose. It was fun to watch him answer the question about the first thing he would do if he was elected Prime Minister.

Layton was pretty solid, but he brought the debate down on the intellectual levels every now and then by making personal attacks against Harper and his "sweater vest" (in fairness to Mr. Layton, some of them were funny).

Elizabeth May was marvelous! I can't say that I agreed with everything that she said, but I thought she did a good job of casting off the "left wing nut job" label. With a little luck, her party may actually pick up a seat or two! Unfortunately, Mrs. May is doomed to have her ass handed to her by Peter McKay, but I would be among the first to jump for joy if she managed to pull off a miracle and defeat him!

The PM did a much better job of defending himself last night than he did during the French debates, but usually the best he could do was attempt to make the Liberal plan look bad. In fairness, I have always believed that the best defence is a good offence, but in politics a good offence means having a something to propose (at least in my opinion). Prime Minister Harper had no such plan. At the best of times he relied on his record during office, and the rest of the time he was content to just make misleading attacks against Dion's plan.

In my view, at least Dion had something to offer Canadians, whereas Harper had little more than "more of the same".

Le débat des chefs

2008-10-02T05:24:00.000-07:00

C'est pas mal optimiste de ma part, mais je crois que Stéphane Dion vient de faire un gros coup hier soir lors du débat des chefs!

À mon avis, Dion était de loin le meilleur de tous les chefs. En observant les débats il était clair que seul les Libéraux ont une vision pour amener notre pays dans la bonne direction.

La première question par un membre du public a été posée sur l'économie, et seulement le Premier Ministre Stephen Harper et Stéphane Dion ont fournit des vraies réponses. Ce premier disait en effet que tout allait bien au Canada et qu'il n'y avait pas de besoin pour prendre des mesures proactives. Tout comme son idole George Bush, il préfère la stratégie "laissez faire". Stéphane Dion a répondu en donnant un plan aussi détaillé que possible dans le temps alloué sur la stratégie libéral.

Les autres parties de l'opposition ont quand même fait des bons coups, tel que Gilles Duceppe qui a réussi à faire connaître le bon record de sa partie face à l'environnement. Jack Layton en a fait des bons arguments concernant le crime et les jeunes contrevenants. Élizabeth May a bien fait en répondant à toutes les questions qu'on lui posait sans donner l'impression que sa partie n'est bonne que sur les questions de l'environnement.

Il faut quand même que j'avoue d'avoir remarqué qu'il y avait une certaine inégalité entre les deux parties principales hier soir. C'était clair que les parties de l'opposition s'entendaient pas mal entre eux. Ils attaquaient le Premier ministre sans pitié, et ce dernier avait beaucoup de difficulté à se défendre contre les quatre autres chefs.

Ce qui m'a surprit le plus, c'est que Duceppe est même venu à la quasi-défense de Dion lorsque Harper a attaqué le record libéral sur l'environnement. Selon Duceppe, pour Harper, les quelques efforts qui ont été rendus par les Libéraux de Jean Chrétien et Paul Martin ont été trop, et maintenant le PM leurs accusent de ne pas avoir fait assez. J'en croyais pas mes oreilles ni mes yeux! Mais il paraît que même les autres parties ont embarqué sur le mouvement ABC de Danny Williams("Anybody but Conservative").

Je sais très bien que les débats ont rarement un impact sur le résultat des élections et donc je refuse d'espérer pour des grands résultats, mais je suis prêt à souhaiter que ceci puisse remettre le vent en faveur des Libéraux.

Pour moi j'étais pas mal convaincu d'avance que Dion allait gagner les débats en français, car il est de loin plus intelligent que le Premier Ministre. Le vrai défi pour Monsieur Dion aura lieu lors des débats en anglais. Si Dion est capable de tenir tête contre Harper et les autres chefs, il pourrait réussir à vraiment changer la dynamique de cette campagne électorale.

People are dying... hahaha

2008-09-18T05:13:00.000-07:00

If you needed any more proof that the Conservative government of Canada is just a larger, more heartless version of the one that spent about 8 years in power here in Ontario, check out this story.

The Ontario PCs made drastic cuts to the province's water inspection safeguards and people died in the famous Walkerton tragedy. Not to be outdone, Prime Minister Harper, with only a minority government, slashed and burned Canada's Food Inspection Agency, and it comes as no shock that 17 Canadians have died as a result of the Listeria disaster.

It was interesting to read at the end of the article that even the Canadian Medical Association has "blasted the Harper government for undermining public health safeguards."

I'm sure that this will be on Canadians minds on October 14th.

WTF?

2008-09-17T10:03:00.000-07:00

Seriously! Who shoots a puppy?!

Like most Canadians that have heard about this story I was outraged when I read about how two hunters shot and killed a little boy's puppy. It turns out that the puppy had recently been bought to replace another one that had comforted the little boy throughout his ordeal with brain cancer.

Like anyone who knows what it's like to lose a loved pet, my heart goes out to that poor little boy.

From the story, it would appear that one of the hunters has turned himself in to police and is claiming that shooting the puppy was an accident. In fairness, I wasn't there, and I'm in no position to say whether it was an accident or not, but even if this individual is given the benefit of the doubt (to which he is entitled!) there are two crucial points that still make my blood boil:

I have been a hunter since I was 15 years old, a fact that I am damn proud of. We hunters are taught from the very beginning to always be certain of our game before we fire a shot, we are also taught various other important safety techniques, such as how to maintain proper control of a firearm in case of accidental discharge, making sure that the there is no one standing behind the game we are shooting at, etc. (in short a lot of common sense). I can see how it would be easy to mistake a small, white dog for a rabbit or other small game if you only saw it out of the corner of your eye, but that is why you are supposed to wait until you have clearly identified the animal rather than just blasting away at the first sign of movement! What if it had been the boy that had come running?!
In short, these guys did something really stupid. These things happen, even to smart people because nobody is perfect. I understand that, but after these two idiots realized their mistake, rather than owning up to it, they ran away. I have no respect for that.

Unless I'm missing some really important facts, I feel pretty safe in saying that it's people like this that give all hunters a bad name! I want everyone out there to know that the overwhelmeing majority of hunters are not like this! We are good, responsible people and we share your outrage.

The issues of guilt and sentencing are quite properly left up to the courts in this case, but most importantly, I hope that the two people who are responsible for the animal's death realize that what they have done is wrong and that they have a responsibility to pay for the damage they have caused (though sadly, experience tells me that is not terribly likely).

Canadian Democracy Takes Yet Another Hit

2008-09-09T09:32:00.000-07:00

I haven't been able to find much free time to blog lately, since life as a student-at-law has been keeping me pretty busy these days, but I absolutely have to speak out against the Consortium of Networks decision not to allow Elizabeth May to join the televised leadership debates.

I don't agree with everything the Green Party stands for, in fact I think it's pretty obvious that I am a strong supporter of the Liberal Party, but there is no escaping the fact that 4.5% of Canadians who voted in the 2006 General elections thought that the Green Party deserved their vote. In fact, in many of the by-elections that have occured throughout Stephen Harper's term in office, the Green Party's support seems to be growing quite steadily as they have managed to beat the NDP several times and have come quite close on other occasions. I think they have earned the right to be heard on the national level.

I truly and sincerely hope that Elizabeth May and the Green Party of Canada take this case to court! I'm not sure what grounds they will be choose to base their claim on, since I do no think that the Consortium of Networks is a government agency, so the Charter won't apply to it, but freedom of speach is guaranteed under Section 1d) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which applies to everyone, so perhaps the Greens may have a case! May they fight and win!

A Small Victory For Yours Truly

2008-08-02T07:20:00.000-07:00

Last year I made a post entitled "Linguistic discrimination in Ontario?" about my experience in attempting to submit a resume in French to the Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. I had originally decided that posting it on my blog was as far as I wanted to take things, but a friend of mine asked me to submit an article to Interpares, the student newspaper for Law Students at Ottawa U, and since I figured that my Francophone colleagues deserved to know about what had happened, I decided to base my article on the posting I made on my blog. Essentially, all I did was translate the posting I made on my blog into French (the paper prints articles in both official languages) and remove a few non-essential paragraphs so that it would fit the size limit required for the paper.

After a while had passed a few friends of mine, and even a member of the faculty suggested that I file a complaint with the office of the French Language Services Commissioner, so after having given it some thought, I did exactly that. My goal was never to get anyone in trouble, and I had no intention of forcing them to hire me, I just wanted to make sure that the Ministry knew that they had broken the law and that they needed to take steps in order to make sure this didn't happen again.

The Commissioner's office is brand new, so of course they did not yet have any protocols in place for dealing with complaints, so understandably it took them some time before any progress was made. Once things got rolling, there was some question as to whether or not the guarantee of the availability of French language services provided by the Ontario French Language Services Act applied for someone who was writing to the government in order to "solicit" for employment. Fortunately, I had saved a pdf copy of the document that the Ministry of the Attorney General produced, in both languages, informing students about the availability of articling positions. Once the commissioner's office had that document in hand, there was really nothing else left for the Ministry to do but admit defeat.

A few weeks ago I received an official letter of apology! Here is what the letter said:

M. Fisher:

Pour faire suite à la lettre que vous avez adressée au Commissaire aux services en français, nous tenons à vous présenter nos excuses pour tout inconvénient que nous vous avons occasionné en exigeant que vous présentiez une demande en anglais relativement à l'embauche d'un stagiaire en droit de notre bureau d'Orillia. Nous avons, depuis, instauré des procédures au sein de notre division pour nous assuré que cela ne se reproduise pas.

Je vous remercie d'avoir porté ce fait à notre attention et de votre intérêt à l'égard de la Direction des services juridiques.

Veuillez agréer mes meilleures salutations.

*I decided not to print the name and job title of the person who signed the letter, simply because I am not sure if it would be appropriate to publish that kind of information without their consent.

It's not much, just a simple letter acknowledging that they made a mistake and promising that they have taken measures to ensure that it will not re-occur. But then, that is all I was after in the first place.

In case any of you are wondering why I'm writing this post in English, rather than in French (as I did with the first post I wrote on this subject), I don't think it's necessary to convince Francophones (at least not those living outside of Québec) of the importance of bilingualism. I think it's important for Anglophones in this province to know that even though our province has only one official language, there are still certain linguistic rights that must be respected.

I'm looking forward to hearing from my fellow bloggers on this one.

A Big Victory for Franco-Albertans(?)

2008-07-29T12:58:00.000-07:00

As if the Russell Township debate in Ontario hadn't stirred up enough debate about linguistic rights in this country, the Queen's Bench of Alberta has decided that a Francophone truck driver's rights were violated by a speeding ticket that was issued to him in English only! (Click here for the Full Story) This battle of course, is far from over, because the Alberta government has announced that it will take the fight to the Alberta Court of Appeal.

From the article, it appears that the accused, Mr. Gilles Caron, was challenging the constitutionality of the Province's traffic and language legislation. I haven't got a lot of time, so at least for today, I'm not going to discuss the legal merits of the case, and instead I'm going to focus more on what seems fair to me.

I'm a strong believer in coast to coast to coast bilingualism in Canada. I think that if our country is bilingual, that means a Canadian should have the right to be served by his or her government in the official language of his or her choice no matter where they are in Canada. Having said that, like all rights we have to have reasonable limits. For example, it makes no sense that every single person behind the counter of a post office in Red Deer, Alberta should be bilingual, since there is probably not a lot of demand for French services in that part of the country.

The matter becomes even more tricky when it comes to provincial services, since with the exception of New Brunswick, there are no other officially bilingual provinces. Still, the provinces are constitutionally bound to provide certain services in both French and English.

Here in Ontario, the province is not officially bilingual, but the reality of the matter is that most services from the provincial government are available in French, and most of the province's laws are available online, and have been translated into French. Most of our Court decisions are only available in English, but French and English are both recognized as the official languages of the Ontario Courts, and people do have the right to require that trials and other matters be done in French.

But getting back to the traffic ticket in Alberta. Is it really that unreasonable to ask that the ticket be made out in both of Canada's official languages? I've never gotten a ticket in Ontario (or any other province for that matter), but I believe that they are bilingual here. I think it's pretty fair to say that it's unreasonable to expect police officers throughout the country to be able to speak and write in both languages, but there's no reason why they could not fill out a bilingual traffic ticket. If they have to write extra information on the ticket in the language of their choice, then so be it, that's fair, but the form itself can easily be produced in both languages.

On a side note, my father is a veteran of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), and unlike myself, he does not speak French. He tells me that whenever he is arresting someone and they demand that they be cautioned (the Canadian equivalent to reading them their rights) in French, that this too is not a problem, since the OPP issues them a standard card with the caution pre-written in French. After that, it's up to the accused to request a bilingual trial if he or she so desires.

It's little things like this can be done to ensure that bilingualism functions in Canada. Bilingualism does not mean that we all have to speak both languages (at least not for me anyways), it just means that all we have to do is treat each other with a little respect and show some effort to make sure that services are provided in both languages within reason. This should be applied as much to French outside of Québec as it should be to English inside Québec.

Race to the White House

2008-07-17T09:13:00.000-07:00

I don't often write posts that are exclusively about American politics because quite frankly, it's something I do not know a lot about. But I just can't help but join the discussion about this new, young senator for Illinois that has inspired so many people.

To be perfectly honest, I know very little about his political platform, other than the fact that he has announced that he intends to pull out of Iraq. What I do know is that race and religion, whether he likes it or not, are two major issues during this presidential campaign, because of course, Mr. Obama is black.

I think it's fair to say that Obama has done a pretty good job of handling criticism based on the fact that his former pastor has publicly made anti-American and anti-white comments. Obama has openly condemned such comments and then even left the church.

He has had a little more difficulty with cheap shots from some supporters of his opponents suggesting that he is not in fact a Christian, but a Muslim. First and foremost, it is absolutely shameful that his opponents would think that being a Muslim is a bad thing and that they could ever profit from this. Yes, the American voter has given us reasons to have our doubts in the past, but can't we give them just a little bit of credit?! I'm waiting for these same neanderthals to start suggesting that he is actually the love-child of Osama Ben Laden, because "Obama" rhymes with "Osama". It's ridiculous!

While the Obama camp has officially condemned the recent illustration on the cover of the New Yorker, I have to say that I rather enjoyed it, simply because you would have to be a lunatic to believe that Mr. Obama and his wife are terrorists. I'd say that the illustration did a pretty good job of ridiculing any such notion.

I'm also a little bit bothered by all of the references to his racial identity. For some people he's just "not black enough". If elected, Mr. Obama would be the first ever black president in the history of the United States, but of course, only his father was black, while his mother was white. Come on people! No one has the right to decide whether Barack Obama is white or black except for Barack Obama. I'm rather troubled by the notion that for many people of mixed race/cultures there seems to be an awful lot of pressure to "choose a side". Is it not possible for Mr. Obama (or anyone else for that matter) to be both 100% black AND 100% white if he wants to? It would be great of we could all just simplify and say "hey, that's the way it is in the U.S.", but somehow I doubt it is any different up here.

At any rate, I love watching the man speak and I just can't get over the fact that he seems to have electrified what was once the most powerful nation in the world (some would argue it still is). Our fiends to the south are in dire need of some fresh ideas and a new face in the oval office, and from what I've seen, Barack Obama will bring about the necessary changes. Hey a guy can hope!

A big win for "da liddle guy from Shawinigan"

2008-06-27T10:49:00.000-07:00

Former Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien has scored a major victory! Federal Court Judge, Max Tietelbaum has ruled that the Honourable Jean Gomery, was biased against Chrétien and his former chief-of-staff, Jean Pelletier, and as a result the portions of the report by the Gomery Commission on the sponsorship scandal that blamed Chrétien and Pelletier must be removed from the report. A just decision in my opinion, as Gomery's comments to reporters clearly demonstrated that he had already reached a conclusion.

I'll have to take a look at the ruling when I get the chance, because I believe that there was also a lot of conflict over the lack of procedural fairness during the Commission. For example, Chrétien, Pelletier, Gagliano, and company were all being accused of corruption, and stood to be publicly humiliated, possibly even charged with criminal offences, but were not allowed to call witnesses or present evidence in their defence. I'm interested to see how these arguments turned out, I know that they did achieve a few partial victories on motions to be allowed to examine documents, but the rest isn't quite clear to me yet.

Chrétien's supporters are quick to declare this a vindication of the former Prime Minister, and to be sure, this is without a doubt a big thing. There can be no question that the setting aside of Gomery's conclusions due to bias casts a serious doubt on just how well founded those conclusions were in the first place, but it does not amount to a declaration of his innocence. There is also still the possibility that the Crown may take its case to the Federal Court of Appeal, but that remains to be announced.

So what does all of this really mean? Well, since the Gomery report's conclusions have officially been thrown out, but all of the facts remain, Canadians will just have to make up their own minds.

The Best Laid Plans of Mice and Liberals

2008-06-27T08:42:00.001-07:00

I've been meaning to post about Stéphane Dion's ambitious new plan to fight climate change for about a week now, but I've been busy with the bar course and preparing a move to my new apartment, so life just keeps getting in the way!

Anyways, I've got to say that at least on paper, The Green Shift looks good so far. The gist of the Liberal plan is basically to introduce a carbon tax that will encourage private companies to cut their production of CO2 in order to save costs. It also includes a tariff on goods being imported from other countries that do not have a similar program, in order to encourage other countries to do their part for the environment, and also to ensure that Canadian goods remain competitive.

Inevitably, the implementation of such additional taxes on their own would basically amount to less money in all of our pockets and frankly, now that I'm no-longer in university and will soon be paying taxes, paying more taxes is not a good thing! Fortunately, the plan also includes a 10% tax cut, for the lowest income tax bracket (such as yours truly!), and a 3.8% tax cut for the middle class tax bracket. It also includes replacing the current $1000 emloyment credit with "a $1850 refundable refundable employment credit targeted at those Canadians who earn less than $50,000 per year". According to the plan, this will put up to $250 back in my pocket. The plan also contains additional goodies for Canadians living in rural and northern areas.

All in all, it's a pretty impressive plan. The problem? Frankly, the Leader of the Official Opposition is going to have a hard time selling this plan to Canadians. It's not that Canadians don't care about the environment, or that they run and hide everytime they hear the word "tax", as the Prime Minister would have us believe. The problem is that people have heard this before. Jean Chrétien's failure to get rid of the GST is still very fresh in the minds of Canadians, and even though Prime Minister Harper has done an about face on many of the positions he took as Leader of the Official Opposition and during the last election, he did make good on his promise to reduce the GST.

There's also the fact that Dion himself once opposed the introduction of a carbon tax. He said he would never introduce one, and that it was "bad policy". To be fair, if memory serves me, he was being questioned about a bare bones carbon tax on its own, and there was no discussion of offsetting the carbon tax with major income tax cuts. But still, most people aren't aware of these little details and the Tories can be counted upon to use their sound bites to chip away at Dion's credibility. I can't really say that I blame them.

There is some hope though. Here in Ontario, Premier Dalton McGuinty took a lot of heat for introducing a health tax, after promising that he would not raise taxes. McGuinty was able to defend himself with an independent auditor's report which found that the previous Conservative government had mistakenly calculated that it was running a surplus and that the province was in fact running a deficit. That, combined with some huge Tory blunders led to the Conservative defeat last fall.

Simply put, it's all a question of marketing. Dion is going to have to persuade Canadians that this is a good plan, that their taxes won't be affected, and most importantly, why he has changed his position. It is a tall task to be sure, but he has all summer to give it his all.

Something unpleasant is about to hit the fan in Ontario

2008-06-17T14:19:00.000-07:00

Language rights in Ontario haven't been this controversial in Ontario since the heated debate that occured over the closing of the Hôpital Montfort.

This time, the subject of debate is even edgier. According to the Ottawa Sun, the council for the Township of Russell has officially voted 3 to 2 in favour of a by-law that will require all new business that are established in the township to post signs and advertise in both of Canada's official languages, with the tie-breaking vote coming from the Mayor Mr. Ken Hill.

The reaction from some Russell residents and merchants has been a furious one. A lawyer by the name of Howard Galganov promptly served the mayor with legal papers indicating that he intended to challenge the by-law, which he considers to be a violation of the Charter.

The website for the Russell Chamber of Commerce was quick to denounce the by-law even before it was adopted. One look at their site and it is clear that the language being used is intended to stir up emotion, in what already promises to be an emotionally charged debate.

The Chamber of Commerce website is rife with venom for Mayor Hill, and just littered with rhetoric about the Charter. They go so far as to suggest that "...we will show that we will not trade our rights away so a few politicians can score political points with a small minority of discord makers". I wonder who they mean when they refer to this small minority. According to the 2006 Census results, 6160 (44.85%) Russell township residents considered French as their "mother tongue", compared to 6810 (49.58) who marked down English. So it's not exactly like we're talking about a small community where no one speaks French.

Galganov and the Chamber of Commerce seem pretty convinced that they have a strong case, I'm not so sure at least for the moment. The Chamber of Commerce website refers to Vann Niagara Ltd. vs. Oakville, but this was a case where the municipality was refusing to allow third party advertisers, it had nothing to do with the language of advertising.

Still, we should not forget that the Supreme Court did declare that Québec's language laws against advertising in English were declared unconstitutional and invalidated them. They only exist today because the Bourassa government elected to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the charter. Just the same, we are not talking about banning the use of English for advertising. In fact the right to express one's self in English would be restricted in no way. Unless I misunderstand the by-law in question (to be fair I have not read it yet), it simply means that businesses that only advertise in one language will now have to advertise in the other as well.

One thing's for sure, I am going to have to get my hands on a copy of this controversial by-law, and then I intend to do a little bit of legal research on my own, before I can decide whether or not it is likely to stand up to a Charter challenge.

Personally I'd say that Mayor Hill and his council are unnecessarily opening a can of worms, since French businesses are already free to advertise in the language of their choice, but if that is the way that he and the other elected representatives on the Township council feel is the best way of reflecting the township's bilingual characteristics, I personally don't see any harm in it. Needless to say, A LOT of people will feel differently.

We can only tolerate so much

2008-06-16T08:39:00.000-07:00

Here in Ottawa I have been paying attention to the local media's coverage of the case of Constable Kevin Hall of the Ottawa Police Service. Hall is currently appealing to the Divisional Court of Ontario to overturn the decision to dismiss him after he admitted that he is addicted to drugs, and that he has stolen them from the evidence lockup. He has plead guilty to an offence under Ontario's Police Services Act and was ordered dismissed. He is currently suspended with pay.

I think that most people that know me can attest that I am a very forgiving person, sometimes quick to anger, but never for very long. I am a strong believer in second chances, but somehow I just can't wrap my head around how allowing Constable Hall to continue to serve as a police officer could be a good decision.

According to what I have read, Hall's lawyer is arguing that the problem could simply be solved by submitting Hall to random drug testing. I respectfully disagree. There is no getting around the fact that the public is aware of this case. People deserve to be able to have confidence in their police officers, and they have to know that the people who are charged to uphold the law are every bit as accountable, if not more than civilians.

I understand that we can't expect police officers to be superhuman, and like anyone else, they too have the right to make mistakes, and while they are responsible for repairing the consequences of those mistakes, the punishment must fit the crime and destroying someone's career is not always the solution. I would not be so quick to demand a dismissal if the circumstances were a little more reasonable. For example, if an officer realized that he or she was addicted to narcotics and sought treatment on their own. This of course opens up a whole other can of worms, because the officer in question would still be terrified about coming forward for treatment out of fear of losing the respect of his or her colleagues. It is also very difficult for a person who is suffering from addiction to realize that they have a problem. So it's not always reasonable to expect someone to come forward, but frankly we have to draw the line somewhere, and for police officers that line must be more demanding than for other people because of the other powers we confide to them and because of the need to maintain trust with the public. Being a police officer is not easy.

For all I know, Constable Hall might have become addicted to drugs while working undercover, and if that is the case I would deffinately say that the man needs treatment, not necessarily discipline (depending on any other circumstances). But it is also entirely possible that he simply got in with a bad crowd and a got caught up in the wrong kind of life style. If that is the case, it was still his decision, and he will have to live with the consequences.

Finally, as is often the case with court cases being reported on by the media, a lot of important details could have been left out from what I've read, so it's entirely possible that the Constable has a perfectly justifiable reason for not being fired, I guess that's why everyone is entitled to his or her day in court.

Does anybody know when my anniversary is?

2008-06-10T11:10:00.000-07:00

Well folks, the hockey season is over (damn wings!) and I have somehow survived the process of writing my bar exams, so it looks like I'm going to have a little more blogging time on my hands for the next little while, or at least until articling begins, so it's back to politics as usual!

Not long ago, a good friend of mine blogged about the intellectual tug of war that is currently going on over Québec's 400th anniversary. Basically, a lot of people seem to be offended that the federal government is attaching national importance to the foundation of Québec by Samuel de Champlain some four centuries ago. Of particular importance seemed to be the fact that a federal government web page actually refered to the historic event as the founding of the Canadian state.

Personally, I can't really say that I object to this, except of course for the use of the word "state". As a historian, I have to say that this is a pretty flagrant inaccuracy, since the Canadian confederation was not formed until 1867. As strange as it may sound, I think the word "nation" would have worked far better here, since it is a historical fact that the first inhabitants of Canada to ever call themselves Canadians were the descendants of European settlers who came from France. I guess that word just generates far too much controversy now that Parliament has recognized the existence of a Québecois nation within a united Canada.

Frankly it's a big deal over one little word and hardly worth getting all worked up over, but it's not so much the web page itself that has peaked my interest here as the conflict that it has started. It kind of makes me wonder exactly what the Québec nationalists are fighting for here. Do they seriously want Canadians from other provinces to butt out of the festivities? Do they expect us all to just say that this event had absolutely no consequence for us? Whether they like it or not, Québec is very much a part of Canada, and the founding of Québec city represents an important event for us all.

Probably the most inescapable conclusion that one is confronted with when studying Canadian history is that it is nearly impossible to pinpoint one defining moment in which the Canadian nation was born. Apart from the founding of Québec/New France, there is absolutely a myriad of events that could be construed as the founding of Canada, such as the battle of Queenston Heights, the rebellions, the adoption of responsible government, Confederation, the battle of Vimy Ridge, the 1931 statute of Westminster, the adoption of the 1982 Constitution Act, etc.

I imagine it must be a very bitter pill for any Francophone in Canada to swallow, but even the British victory on the plains of Abraham in 1759 was a major step in Canadian political and national development, because without it, the "two solitudes" may never have met. Interestingly enough, next year will mark the 250th anniversary of this battle. Obviously, it would be in bad taste to start organizing a large scale celebration to mark the event, since there is no need to rub it in anyone's face, but the point I'm trying to make here is that historical events, like historic figures become symbols after a while that take on a life of their own and sometimes people attach too much importance to them.

The 400th anniversary of the founding of Québec is a great reason to party, but it's hardly worth fighting over.

And now for the showdown we've all been waiting for!!!

2008-05-20T07:48:00.001-07:00

Well folks it's finally happened! The wings managed to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and muscle their way past the Stars! One thing's for sure, Dallas can be proud of their season! The big news however, is that we will finally get to see the clash between the two titans that have dominated the 2008 Stanley Cup Playoffs!

As much as I would love to say that the Penguins are totally going to destroy the Wings (I've said so before), I've been giving it some additional thought lately and I can't say that the series is as clear cut as all that.

Pittsburgh is young and hungry for a cup, and even their third line can can go on a scoring spree, but there's not a lot of experience there. Detroit on the other hand, has a lot of experienced players, no shortage of scoring power, plus a tight defence, but they only have the one line that can score. On top of that I still say Marc-André Fleury is a better goaltender than Chris Osgood, who hasn't been really tested during these series.

When it all comes down to it, I think that Pittsburgh's offence will ultimately just be too much for Detroit to handle, and the superior goaltending will make a difference for the Pens, but this will still be a hard fought series. Pittsburgh in seven. (Expect a lot of OT)

Surprise!

2008-05-06T07:02:00.000-07:00

Well, it looks like I totally underestimated the Stars, and completely overestimated the Habs. At least the Sharks didn't go quietly. For a while there, it looked like they might just pull of a miracle! The Habs on the other hand played well in game 7 of the first round, and were pretty much useless for the rest of the playoffs. Price was brilliant enough in the first round to help them barely squeak past Boston (a team they should have destroyed), but was really not on his game against Philly, it almost makes me wonder if he was playing hurt. Even if he wasn't, he is an amazing goaltender, and I hope this series hasn't destroyed his confidence. Habs fans can take comfort in the fact that most critics didn't even expect their team to make the playoffs this year.

I can't say that Pittsburgh blasting past New York was much of a surprise, though I honestly thought Colorado would take at least one game from the wings.

Here are my predictions for the next round:

Pittsburgh vs. Philly.

Well it looks like Brière made the right decision about which team was more likely to win the Stanley Cup, unfortunately for him he will go no further. Martin Biron's performance against a team as deep as Montreal was quite the accomplishment, but there's no getting around the fact that Pittsburgh is not a hockey team, they're a firing squad! Now that Hossa appears to have shaken his playoff curse, he has added to a team that can easily be compared to the Edmonton Oilers of the 1980s. Pens in five.

Detroit vs Dallas.

Once again we have the perpetual underdogs from Dallas against yet another juggernaut team. Dallas has beaten the odds before, but the wings, like the Penguins, are positively monstrous. I don't think the stars can pull it off. I hate the wings, but they're just too strong. Unless Philly can pull off a miracle, Detroit will get a taste of their own medicine though in the finals. Wings in seven.

What kind of reforms are in our future?

2008-05-04T11:01:00.000-07:00

Well, it appears that exams and essays really kept me out of the loop for the last month, because it was only this morning that I picked up a copy the April 18th edition of The Lawyers weekly and learned that Justice Bastarache of the Supreme Court will be retiring on June 30th of this year.

The article by Cristin Schmitz also points out that this event is not just significant because it means the end of a very hard working Justice's time with the highest court in the land, but also because for the first time, Stephen Harper's government will be tested on its ability to keep its promise to reform the Supreme Court nomination process. It should be noted that Harper has already appointed one new justice to the Supreme Court, Justice Rothstein, but this was at a time when the reformed process brought about by Paul Martin was already well under way, and he was already under a lot of pressure to make an appointment, his critics were pretty forgiving at the time.

Now, as Schmitz points out, this announcement means that the PM will have a full six months before the next court session begins in order to hash out the changes he wants made to the nomination process. With a spring election looking to be pretty much out of the question at the moment, it is likely that he will either have to come through with some important changes, or have to deal with the political consequences of having broken yet another election promise.

It looks like we're in for some interesting debate, on what promises to be a highly emotional subject. This should be interesting!

On to the next round!

2008-04-23T06:31:00.000-07:00

OK, now that exams are over for me, I'm going to be working pretty hard on the very last essay of my academic career until I get back to blogging. For now though, here are my picks for the next round of the NHL playoffs!

I didn't do too bad in the last round, aside from having misjudged a few teams. I honestly expected Ottawa to put up more of a fight against Pittsburgh, and didn't expect Boston to last as long against the Habs as they did.

Montreal vs Philly

The Habs were looking pretty shaky throughout the first round, with the exception of game 7, but they're a young team and they have to have gotten back into the swing of things. Once again, a lot will depend on how well Carey Price is able to play. Habs in six.

New York vs Pittsburgh

New York was able to win the goaltending battle against Jersey, but with Pittsburgh's explosive offence, all they need is steady goaltending from Fleury to win this one. Pens in five.

Detroit vs Colorado

How do you beat a team whose most difficult choice is whether to start Dominik Hasek or Chris Osgood? Wings in five.

Dallas vs San Jose

Dalls is tough with a great offence, but I don't think it will be enough to get past the sharks who are also offensively powerful with stellar goaltending as well. Sharks in six.

NHL playoffs, round one.

2008-04-09T15:56:00.000-07:00

No political discussions today, I'd like to discuss something a little more important... my picks for the first round of this years NHL playoffs!!!

Eastern Conference

Montreal vs. Boston

As much as it pained me (I am a long sufering, die hard Leafs fan), I was actually one of the few people who predicted before the season began that the Habs would be cup contenders this year. I am genetically programed to hate this team, but the truth is the truth, and I am expecting them to go far this season. Carey Price is in the zone and does not seem to be having too much difficulty with his confidence. Add to that the fact that he has a realy deep team in front of him and you have a killer combination. Habs in five.

Pittsburgh vs. Ottawa

Well, I made the mistake of betting my hair on Pittsburgh last year, and wound up the sexiest bald guy on the blogosphere! Much as I may regret it, I'm sticking with Sid the kid this year. He and Malkin are a lethal combination. Marc-André Fleury has had a pretty solid season in net, and as much as I like Gerber, I don't think he'll stand up against the Penguin offence. Add to that the fact that Daniel Alfredson and Mike Fisher (no relation... as far as I know) will be out of the sens lineup for a while, and it does not look good for O-town this year. If Hossa can break his playoff hex, the penguins will be a force to be reckoned with. Pens in six.

Washington vs. Philadelphia

Ovechkin has had an amazing season, and now that the caps have Huet between the pipes they are looking good! They should make it past Philly without too much difficulty, but I don't think they will get much further, though they do have the potential to cause some serious upsets! Washington in six.

New York vs. New Jersey

Yawn. A goaltenders duel, and I think the teams are two evenly matched to be sure. I'll flip the coin and take New York in double OT of game seven.

Western Conference

I haven't been following the West too closely this year, but I'll give it my best shot!

Detroit vs. Nashville

Two of the league's top ten scorers, and two of the best goaltenders in the league are hard to compete against. This will be a tough series, but in the end I think Nashville will be outgunned, as much as I hate the wings. Detroit in six.

San Jose vs. Calgary

As much as I want to see any Canadian team (except for the damn Canadiens!) win the cup, I don't think Calgary has what it takes to get past Nobokov and Thornton. Sharks in seven.

Minnesota vs. Colorado

I have a few Minnesota players in my pool, Go wild! Minnesota in seven.

Anaheim vs. Dallas

I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the defending champ. Ducks in six.

Could Stephen Harper go to prison?

2008-03-28T15:16:00.000-07:00

Introduction:

I think my partisan affiliations are pretty well known by those in the blogging community that already know me, and are already posted on this blog, but given the important nature of what I want to write about in today’s post, I feel morally bound to declare that I am writing from a position of bias. I am a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, I have worked on Parliament Hill for a liberal MP, and have volunteered to help liberal candidates campaign at both the federal and provincial levels. I have also left comments on other people’s blogs in which I state that I believe Stephen Harper to be guilty of an offence under Section 119 of the Criminal Code. I think that sums it up pretty clearly.
Now that we have gotten that out of the way, I will do my best to perform an objective legal analysis of the case. Because I come from a position of bias, I have decided to write this post kind of as if I was writing a legal memo to the assistant crown attorney who was in charge of prosecuting this case. Just the same, I will also try to write this post so that anyone without a legal education can understand it.
Criminal law is one of my favourite domains of law. As a third year law student, I look forward to someday practicing in this area of law, and for this reason I’ve made a point of taking as many classes that relate to criminal law as possible. As such, I’d like to take the occasion to analyze the evidence and the facts that have come out during the whole Cadman scandal, to ultimately determine whether or not criminal charges could be brought against Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
It should be noted that any evidence or facts referred to in this post are drawn entirely from reports published by the media. We don’t know what other evidence for or against the Prime Minister may be in the hands of the RCMP officers that are currently investigating the matter, nor do we know what other evidence has yet to be uncovered.

*****************************************************

The facts:
A few weeks ago, a biography of the late Chuck Cadman, a former Reform, Canadian Alliance, and Independent MP was released. According to the book, shortly before he died, Cadman revealed to his wife Dona (who is a candidate for the Conservative party in her husband’s former riding of Surrey North, B.C.) that members of the Conservative Party had offered him a one million dollar life insurance policy, in exchange for voting to bring down the Martin government by voting against a budget bill on May 19th of 2005. These claims were later backed up by Cadman’s daughter and son-in-law. Cadman rejected the alleged offer and the Martin government survived for a few more months.
The whole thing would not likely have gone any further except that the book’s author, Tom Zytaruk, also produced a tape of a recorded conversation between himself and Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in which the PM admitted to having had knowledge of an offer for “financial considerations”. I found a portion of the transcript of the tape online here. Shortly after that, another tape surfaced, in which Chuck Cadman himself was giving an interview for a radio show and stated that the Conservatives made him a financial offer of some kind (See the full story here).

Admissibility of evidence:

Let’s start with the alleged statement made by Mr. Cadman to his wife. In order to determine that evidence is admissible, it must first be proven to be relevant to the matter at hand. There is no doubt that the alleged statement would be relevant in a trial against the two Conservative Party officials, who are accused of having delivered the offer to Mr. Cadman, but Prime Minister Harper is not directly implicated by this evidence, there may be some question as to whether or not it can be used against him because it does not prove that he had knowledge of the alleged offer. If all three are being tried at once, this won’t be a problem, but the defence is almost certain to request that the trials be severed for exactly this reason, and they are likely to get it, so I will assume as much. The Crown could counter the defence’s argument by reminding the court that the tape proves beyond a doubt that the PM knew of an offer, and the only purpose of the statements are to prove the details of that offer.
Assuming that the Crown is able to convince the court that this evidence is relevant, they will also have to overcome the fact that this is a textbook example of hearsay evidence. The general rule is that hearsay evidence must be excluded, but this is not a strict rule. Hearsay evidence can either be admitted through one of the existing exceptions that have been recognized by the courts over the years, or on a case-by-case basis according to necessity and reliability (See: R.v. Khan (1990), 59 C.C.C. (3d) 92 (S.C.C.)). The only existing exception that even comes close to this case is that of the dying declaration, but this is limited to statements made regarding the circumstances that lead to the person who allegedly made the declaration’s death (For example: If A tells B that he was shot in the chest by C, then B can testify to this in court). That is not the case in this matter.

So if the Crown wants to use the testimony of Mr Cadman’s family, they will have to satisfy the court that this evidence meets the necessity and reliability test. I think that the hearsay evidence in this case has a good chance of meeting the criteria for necessity. The Supreme Court, in R. v. Smith, listed the unavailability of the person who allegedly made the statement in question due to their having either gone missing or died as one of the possible factors that could be used in determining whether or not hearsay evidence is necessary. It is also important to take into account that a trial judge has a lot of discretion based on the facts of each individual case to determine whether or not the hearsay evidence is necessary (See: R. v. Parrott). In this case, the tape of Stephen Harper’s voice is a double edged sword, because the presence of other strong evidence means that the hearsay evidence may not be necessary, however the defence cannot really make this argument without conceding that the statements made by Harper put him on the hook.
As far as reliability of the hearsay evidence in this case is concerned, the court can consider just about anything, such as any factors that could negate the accuracy of the alleged statement, and whether there are any substitutes that might make up for the fact that it was not made under oath, and that the accused could not cross-examine the person who is alleged to have made the statement. This aspect of the test is going to be much trickier for the Crown. The defence may raise the argument that because the statements allegedly occurred shortly before Mr. Cadman died of cancer, a time in which he would very likely have been suffering a great deal, he may have been on heavy doses of painkillers. It’s not clear what kind of effect this might have had on his ability to recall the alleged bribery offer. If the Crown is to have any chance of introducing this evidence they will have to demonstrate that Mr. Cadman was of sound mind when he is alleged to have made these statements. As for the lack of oath or cross-examination, the Crown could argue that Mr. Cadman was near death when he is alleged to have made the statements in question, and had absolutely no reason to lie. Furthermore, as a candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada, Dona Cadman has every reason in the world not to want to make up stories that could incriminate members of her party. All in all, I think that the statements have about a 50/50 chance of passing the test for admissible hearsay evidence.
If the court chooses to exclude the testimony of Mr. Cadman’s family, all is not lost for the Crown, as they still have the tapes. Since Prime Minister Harper was caught on tape admitting that he had knowledge of an offer for “financial considerations” to encourage Cadman to vote against the budget bill, counsel for the defence will have a pretty tough time convincing the court that it is not relevant, so it will almost definitely be admissible.
The defence may attempt to exclude the tape based on the grounds that it violates Prime Minister Harper’s right against self-incrimination, which is recognized by the Supreme Court as a principle of fundamental justice for the purposes of Section 7 of the Charter. I don’t see much of an argument in this case, since the right against self-incrimination exists for two reasons: 1) to protect against unreliable confessions; and 2) to protect against abuses by the state (See: R.v. Fitzpatrick, para 43). Since there was no coercion here, it is doubtful the PM could claim that his “confession” is unreliable. And of course since he was being interviewed by a journalist, there is no concern of there being any kind of abuse by the state, unless the defence can show that Zytaruk was in some way acting on behalf of the state, which is doubtful. It looks to me like the tape will not be excluded.
I will now turn to the second tape, the one containing Mr. Cadman’s statements that the Conservatives made him an offer. This too is hearsay evidence because it is “an out of court statement that is offered to prove the truth of its contents”. That is to say, it is being introduced to prove that members of the Conservative party made an offer of a financial nature to Chuck Cadman in an attempt to buy his vote. The court will have to take into consideration that it does not allow the accused to confront his accuser by means of cross-examination. In this case, I think it is much more likely that it will be admitted under the general rule of flexibility. Like the statements made by Mr. Cadman to his wife and daughter, the tape of the radio show interview is necessary because Mr. Cadman is no-longer alive to testify in court, but the tape is also very likely to pass the reliability test as well, because there can be no doubt that he made the statements since they were captured on tape, and because once again, Mr. Cadman had no reason to lie.

Is there sufficient evidence for a conviction?

If this matter went to trial, Prime Minister Harper would be charged under Section 119 of the Criminal Code, which reads as follows:

119. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence
and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who
(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of
Parliament or of the
legislature of a province, directly or indirectly,
corruptly accepts, obtains,
agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for
themselves or another person, any
money, valuable consideration, office,
place or employment in respect of
anything done or omitted or to be done or
omitted by them in their official
capacity, or
(b) directly or
indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a
person mentioned in paragraph
(a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person,
any money, valuable
consideration, office, place or employment in respect of
anything done or
omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their
official capacity.

It would not matter if the defence was able to prove that the Prime Minister did not actively participate in the offence because he would still be considered a party to the offence under Section 21 of the Criminal Code, which states the following:

21. (1) Every one is a party to an offence who
(a) actually commits it;
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose
of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing
it.
Common intention
(2) Where two or more persons form an intention in common to
carry out an unlawful purpose and to assist each other therein and any one of
them, in carrying out the common purpose, commits an offence, each of them who
knew or ought to have known that the commission of the offence would be a
probable consequence of carrying out the common purpose is a party to that
offence.

Section 119 is very clear. It is illegal to offer money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment to a member of parliament in respect of anything done in their official capacity. The tapes in this case are pretty damning evidence.
It should be noted that under Section 11(d) of the Charter and S.6(1)a) of the Criminal Code, the accused in any criminal trial is entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. For almost every criminal offence, it is necessary to prove two elements, the Actus Reus (guilty act), and the Mens Rea (Guilty mind, or guilty spirit). For this case, the Crown must therefore prove that an offer to pay money or other valuable consideration was made to Chuck Cadman for the purpose of securing his vote against the budget bill, and that Prime Minister Harper was aware of this plan. The following is a portion of the Zytaruk interview, and in my opinion is the meat of the Crown’s case:

Zytaruk: "You said (inaudible) beforehand and stuff? It wasn't even a party guy,
or maybe some friends, if it was people actually in the party?"
Harper: "No,
no, they were legitimately representing the party. I said don't press him. I
mean, you have this theory that it's, you know, financial insecurity and, you
know, just, you know, if that's what you're saying, make that case but don't
press it. I don't think, my view was, my view had been for two or three weeks
preceding it, was that Chuck was not going to force an election. I just, we had
all kinds of our guys were calling him, and trying to persuade him, I mean, but
I just had concluded that's where he stood and respected that."
Zytaruk:
"Thank you for that. And when (inaudible)."
Harper: "But the, uh, the offer
to Chuck was that it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose
due to an election."

In the above statement, the Prime Minister makes it clear that he not only knew of an offer, but that he authorized it. While he denies having any knowledge of the exact details of the offer, he does state that the offer was to replace financial considerations that he might lose in the event of another federal election. It doesn’t really matter whether the PM intended to offer Cadman a life insurance policy or funds to cover his electoral expenses. The fact remains that he was aware that two of his representatives were trying to offer money to Cadman, a member of parliament, in order to get him to vote with them.
All of the other evidence just drives more nails into the defence’s coffin. The statements made to Dona Cadman, her daughter and son-in-law, all suggest that an offer was made, and that it included a million dollar life insurance policy. If their testimony is excluded it is no great loss to the Crown, but if it is not excluded, it will likely hurt the defence. Like the testimony of his family, the taped radio interview of Chuck Cadman will also likely hurt the defence, but it should be noted that during the interview Cadman himself seemed to trivialize the gravity of the offer, when he stated the following: "There was certainly some, you know, some offers made and some things along those lines about not opposing me and helping out with the finances of the campaign and that sort of thing. But, again, you know, that's all part of the deal that goes on. It's what happens, especially in a minority situation,". You never know what kind of impact a statement like this might have on a jury. The Crown may want to consider not introducing it.

Conclusion

In my humble opinion, and based solely on what I know about the laws of evidence, criminal procedure, and the facts of this case that have been published by the media, sufficient evidence exists for Stephen Harper to be convicted under Section 119 of the Criminal Code. I would like to remind anyone who reads this that the Prime Minister, like all Canadians is entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that it’s still early in the RCMP’s investigation, so it’s quite possible that additional evidence may exist that can either prove his innocence, or at least bring his guilt into doubt. Until I am made aware of any such evidence, I do believe that a guilty verdict is likely if he were to be tried in a court of law.

I hate to admit it but...

2008-03-20T21:12:00.000-07:00

Every now and then Prime Minister Stephen Harper does something I can support. This time it is his decision to recognize Kosovo.

Like a lot of Canadians, I have been really nervous about this issue for fear that recognizing a state that has unilaterally seceded from another state might set a precedent that would allow Québec to do the same in our country, but about a month ago, I decided to take a look at the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Reference Re Secession of Québec. It is a decision from 1998 that made reference to a number of interesting concepts from international law.

I won't get into too deep of a legal analysis of the subject, since I did that already in the posting I made on February 19th, but the gist of it is as follows. International law recognizes that a people has the right to self-determination, but every international agreement that recognizes this right also expressly states that it is not to be used to support the dismemberment of a state. An exception is made for colonized or oppressed peoples, when secession is the only way of realizing their right to self-determination.

Given the prominent positions attained by so many Québécois in Canadian society (i.e. chief justices of the Supreme Court, Ambassadors, cabinet representation, prime ministers, etc.), the fact that they have been recognized both as a distinct society and as a nation by the Canadian parliament, and the fact that on two previous occasions they voted in favour of remaining a part of our country would make it very difficult for a separatist government from Québec (even if a third referendum produced a clear majority in favour of secession) to make an argument before the international community that the Québécois are somehow oppressed or colonized. The Kosovars on the other hand, were the victims of a brutal genocide committed by the state they wish to secede from. The two situations are hardly parallel.

One other concept that the Supreme Court alluded to was the notion of a recognition of a factual reality. Simply put, when a state has no-longer any presence or control in a territory, the international community will eventually have to recognize the government that is in control. As it stands, the government of Canada still maintains a significant presence in Québec, with military bases, federal buildings, national parks, and even a part of its national capital region. Whereas Kosovo has been administered by the UN since a NATO led bombing campaign pushed Serbian forces out of there several years ago.

The only downside to recognizing Kosovo that I can see, is that other nations that don't wish to recognize Kosovo might recognize a separatist Québec in order to punish Canada for recognizing Kosovo. Even still, a lot of these nations have separatist movements of their own and may not want to broaden the standard for unilateral secession any further by recognizing a secessionist nation that has never been the victim of a genocide.

I do believe that the government has made the right call in this case. I would also like to extend my congratulations to the people of Kosovo.

Time to Pull the Trigger!

2008-03-02T11:40:00.000-08:00

Liberal leader, Stéphane Dion has taken a lot of flack over the last little while for not voting down the Conservative government on various confidence bills that have come up during the course of his leadership.

Most recently, Dion was attacked for choosing to support the latest budget. I have to say that I admire Dion for not allowing himself to be pushed around. Much to my displeasure, the Liberal party was ousted from power in January of 2005. Canadians elected a parliament of their choosing, which happened to have a weak Conservative majority. We Liberals do not have to like or agree with this choice, but we do have to respect it, and try to make parliament work, so that Canadians can have the benefit of the government they elected. Obviously, this is an obligation shared by all parties in the House of Commons, including the government.

Don't get me wrong, elections are not some kind of punishment, but the fact is that while they are an essential part of democracy, so is a government that governs well. During an election, everything stops. Not only does parliament cease to legislate for several weeks, but work within the civil service slows down significantly, since the public servants do not know whether or not a change in the county's leadership will take place or not, which can cause a change in policy, priorities, etc. I might also add that there have already been numerous provincial elections this year (Québec, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, etc.), in fact, they are in the middle of one right now in Alberta.

I can't say that I blame Prime Minister Harper for bringing forward some of his more controversial legislation at this point in his mandate. After all, his government is already more than two years old, which is a little more than the average duration of a minority government. But the fact is that if the government makes a budget and a compromise to the Afghanistan situation that are acceptable to the Liberals, it is irresponsible to trigger an election, because clearly parliament is working.

Sadly, things have changed. With the publication of "The Chuck Cadman Story", the wife of former Reform, Canadian Alliance and Independent MP, Chuck Cadman (may he rest in peace), new allegations of corruption have surfaced to once again bite the Tories, this time; it is Prime Minister Harper himself who stands accused of trying to bribe Cadman into voting against a budget bill that would have brought down the Martin government earlier than actually happened. Normally, even I would be pretty sceptical of such accusations, since Cadman himself denied them and he is no-longer alive, so he cannot even change his story. Unfortunately for the Conservatives, a tape has also surfaced, in which Prime Minister Harper can be heard admitting not only that he had knowledge of an offer being made to Cadman, but also that he gave it his blessing.

Now of course, Prime Minister Harper, like everyone else in Canada is entitled to a presumption of innocence, and admittedly I would like to hear the entire tape before deciding on his guilt or innocence, but as it stands, this looks REALLY BAD for him! The fact is that this is more than just an accusation coming from a political rival; it is the Prime Minister's own voice on tape! I say that if he does not order an investigation immediately, the opposition leaders should unite and propose a no-confidence motion at the first opportunity.

Blasting Tory Crime Policy

2008-02-29T11:22:00.000-08:00

Recently a friend of mine, Mr. David D'Intino, received a letter from his member of Conservative member of parliament and member of the standing committee on justice, Rick Dykstra, regarding their mutual interest in criminal justice. Dave is currently studying for his masters in criminology at Carleton University (AKA "Ottawa's OTHER university"), I rather enjoyed reading Dave's response, here it is:

Mr. Dykstra,

I recently received a mail correspondence from your office indicating that you’ve taken notice of my interest in criminal justice issues. I am humbled that my articles have caught your eye. Please understand however that your goals for criminal justice reform and those that I have advocated for are not the same. While your government continues to take cues from our neighbours to the south and you constantly introduce expensive, repressive criminal justice measures that serve the interests of the richest 10% of the country, I propose reforms that serve the forgotten 90% of society and have as their target true social justice.

You’ll notice Mr. Dykstra that I don’t pull any punches, therefore I will get straight to the point. If you want any support not only from myself, but from other criminal justice reformers and academics then you need to start listening to us and not to your colleagues to the south or the wealthy in the gated communities. The measures your government is proposing will quickly turn this country into the United States, where more than 25% of the country is incarcerated and social inequality has reached epidemic proportions. All of the literature from the 1920’s until now have demonstrated that mandatory minimum sentences, drug prohibition, more police, etc do not reduce crime and do more social harm than good. There is zero excuse for you to be introducing more of the same uninformed, ineffective, anti-scientific garbage you call legislation.

Your Age of Protection Legislation sounds nice, but is mere window dressing. Seeing as how individuals under the age of 18 cannot consent to sexual activity with an adult anyhow, the changes you are proposing will only affect teenagers who have sex with each other. Understand Mr. Dykstra that it is not the government’s place to dictate what constitutes appropriate behaviour among teenagers and the public will not stand for attempts to legislate teenage sexuality. Canada has sufficient laws to deal with adult sexual predators and your proposed legislation is nothing new.

While I agree in theory with stronger prohibitions against individuals possessing handguns (in fact I favour an outright ban on them) understand that a reverse-onus provision in this legislation is dangerous. Much research has been conducted on the equality of legal representation in Canada and needless to say, not all individuals have access to quality representation. Overtaxed public defenders are not paid enough and don’t care enough to properly defend these individuals and therefore very few individuals will have the resources necessary to put forth a cogent argument as to why they should be released from prison. It has long been a central tenet of the English Common Law that the government must prove its case against the accused. If you change this long-standing principle, it will set a dangerous precedent for legal reform

In regard to your drug crime reforms you no doubt read my article in the Ottawa Citizen in May 2006. I hope you liked it because it will be popping up again all over the country, including a 50 page version in a particularly influential academic journal. Urine, Saliva and Blood tests are unreliable in determining how or when a drug was ingested and furthermore whether or not an individual is actually impaired. Your proposed DRE training is disconcerting for many reasons, primarily due to its subjective nature. If you cannot conclusively and objectively demonstrate an individual willing took a substance that impaired his ability to operate a motor vehicle (which you cannot do at this time) then a politician cannot pass that legislation in good conscience. I do support stronger sentences against violent drug cartels and producers of drugs, but only if they are coupled with more relaxed attitudes toward recreational drug users, especially marijuana users and also increased funding and support to Harm Reduction strategies such as Needle Exchange Programs which have been demonstrated time and again to reduce HIV and Hepatitis transmission rates and drug related crime (See Switzerland, Germany and Liverpool, England 1990’s).

In reference to your Youth Criminal Justice Act reforms, your statement in the letter I received is a bit confounding. You say you have introduced Bill C-25 to allow judges to impose sentences that reflect the community’s disapproval of criminal acts, which will in turn deter them from committing serious crimes. If you truly believe this then you haven’t your homework. I don’t know how many times we academics need to say this – The Criminal Law is not a General Deterrent!!! There are volumes of literature that have proven this. This fact has been known for hundreds of years! Why do you keep repeating it, it is insulting! The YCJA was designed to rehabilitate youth to prevent them from landing in prison and now you want to add harsher sentences? Is that what you would want for your two daughters if they had mental disorders, or were abused and got in trouble with the law? I’m not sure what your thoughts are on the matter Mr. Dykstra, but children don’t freely choose to become murders or thieves, they don’t choose to be abused and raped. You might want to deny it, but physical, sexual and emotional abuse happen every day in every neighbourhood. Some children cope with it better than others, but most cannot. The school system does not have enough funds to have social workers and psychiatrists at every school every week (although I have advocated for this). I have friend who work in the social system and end with kids in group home who have been moved over 15-20 times in the past year because they haven’t had the counselling or love that they need. You and I have turned out great, but not every kid has a great family, a good education or even healthy food. Sending these kids to prison as opposed to getting them counselling or psychiatric care or a loving family will only breed monsters. No one is ever the same when they leave from prison. That is akin to prescribing more rape for a rape victim!

Lastly, Pre-Trial and Pre-Sentencing Custody Credits have limits. Usually they cannot exceed a credit of two years time. A ‘dangerous’ offender would likely get a life sentence and thus 25 years. This is not a pressing issue. It is up to the court to decide how much time an individual must spend in prison, not you. Your party frequently portrays the justice system as being soft and yet Canada has one of the highest incarceration rates per capita and crime rates do not change, Your focus should be on Crime Prevention Through Social Development and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design rather than repressive criminal law reform. Canadians aren’t stupid Mr. Dykstra, do not treat them as such.

In your upcoming budget, I would like to see mandatory crime prevention programs administered by the three levels of government and not the police. I would like to see 5 billion dollars in funding not a few million here and there. I would like to see permanent funding for Needle Exchange Programs. I would like to see a comprehensive Anti-Poverty Strategy combined with a National Job Creation Program, a National Day Care Program, reduced income tax for low and middle class families, higher tax burdens on the rich and more tax credits for college and university students. I would like to see the decriminalization of personal possession of marijuana, heroin and cocaine, increased funding for drug and alcohol treatment and education. I would like to see funding for all Canadian School Boards to be used to hire full-time social works and psychiatrists in all elementary and high schools. Lastly, I would like to see a multi-billion dollar community development fund that economically depressed cities such as St Catharines could use to revitalize themselves.

These are the kinds of changes that Canadians need to see. These are the substantive reforms that need to occur in order for our communities to be safer AND HEALTHIER for EVERYONE – not just your wealthy white constituents. Unless these types of changes occur, your government will continue to be assaulted in every newspaper, in every news report, in every journal until it falls.

Have a glorious day,

David J. D’Intino, B.Soc.Sci

L'indépendance du Kosovo: un précédent dangereux pour le Canada ou une mesure essentielle?

2008-02-19T08:05:00.000-08:00

Au cours des derniers trois ans que je viens de passer à la faculté de droit de l'Université d'Ottawa, la seule cours en domaine de droit international que j'ai suivie est celui de droit international public, qui traitait surtout le sujet des conflits de lois. Je ne suis donc VRAIMENT pas un expert en droit international. Cependant, tout comme bien d'autres citoyens du Canada et du monde, je ne suis pas capable d'observer le déroulement du mouvement indépendantiste au Kosovo sans me demander quel sorte de précédent en droit international que ceci risque de créer par rapport au droit d'une nation de faire une déclaration de sécession unilatérale et de former un organisme étatique qui est reconnu par le communauté internationale en général.

En 1998, le gouvernement fédéral du Canada a demandé à la Cour Suprême de trancher les trois questions qui suivent :

1. L’Assemblée nationale, la législature, ou le gouvernement du Québec peut-il, en vertu de la Constitution du Canada, procéder unilatéralement à la sécession du Québec du Canada? 2. L’Assemblée nationale, la législature, ou le gouvernement du Québec possède-t-il, en vertu du droit international, le droit de procéder unilatéralement à la sécession du Québec du Canada? À cet égard, en vertu du droit international, existe-t-il un droit à l’autodétermination qui procurerait à l’Assemblée nationale, la législature, ou le gouvernement du Québec le droit de procéder unilatéralement à la sécession du Québec du Canada? 3. Lequel du droit interne ou du droit international aurait préséance au Canada dans l’éventualité d’un conflit entre eux quant au droit de l’Assemblée nationale, de la législature ou du gouvernement du Québec de procéder unilatéralement à la sécession du Québec du Canada?

Dans un jugement unanime, la Cour Suprême a rendu son opinion. La réponse à la première question a été effectivement, "non". Cependant, la Cour Suprême a quand même noté qu'un vote en faveur de la sécession (ayant une majorité "clair") aurait quand même pour effet de créer une obligation POLITIQUE aux gouvernements provinciaux et fédéral de négocier en bonne foie une entente constitutionnelle avec le gouvernement du Québec (sans exclure les premières nations), l'entente pourrait inclure la sécession ou non. La cour a quand même choisi de ne pas spéculer sur les conséquences possibles de ne pas négocier.

Pour ma part, je suis d'accord avec la Cour Suprême, qu'un vote majoritaire en faveur d'une sécession crée une obligation de négocier en bonne foi. Si les diverses parties ne sont pas capables de se rendre à une entente qui est conforme avec la constitution, je crois qu'il y a quand même l'option de soumettre l'affaire à l'arbitration internationale.

Pourtant, ce qui m'intéresse vraiment dans la présente contexte, c'est la deuxième question qui a été tranchée dans cette décision, car la Cour Suprême du Canada a souligné plusieurs principes de droit international qui ont rapport au sujet de ce message.

La Cour Suprême a noté que le droit international attache une grande importance à l'intégrité des états-nations dans lequel se situe le mouvement sécessionniste, et en cas où l'acte de sécession est incompatible avec la constitution de l'état-nation, c'est la constitution qui triomphe. Comme toute règle de droit, il y a toujours des exceptions, une telle exception est celui de l'incompatibilité avec le principe du droit à l'autodétermination d'un peuple.

Le principe de droit d'un peuple à l'autodétermination est rendu plus qu'une convention en droit internationale, et trouve de l'appui dans plusieurs dispositions de la charte de l'ONU. Cependant la Cour Suprême a démontré que ce droit ne mène pas à la naissance d'un droit de sécession sauf pour dans des cas extrêmes. Les justices soulèvent que la Déclaration touchant les relations amicales, la Déclaration de Vienne, et la Déclaration du cinquantième anniversaire de l'Organisme des Nations Unies ont explicitement déclaré que ce droit ne doit pas être "interprété comme autorisant ou encourageant toute mesure de nature à démembrer ou compromettre, en totalité ou en partie, l'intégrité territoriale ou l'unité politique d'États souverains et indépendants respectueux du principe de l'égalité des droits et de l'autodétermination des peuples et, partant, dotés d'un gouvernement représentant la totalité de la population appartenant au territoire, sans distinction . . . "

La cour suprême a noté que le droit des peuples colonisés ou opprimés de se détacher découle du droit des peuples à l'autodétermination. Elle note également que ce droit est fermement établit en droit internationale. Mais, elle est également rapide à démontrer que cette exception ne s'applique vraiment pas à celui du Québec en vue du fait que le Québec se dote déjà d'une certaine degré de souveraineté et puisque les Québécois sont déjà très bien représenté dans les institutions fédérales (ex. à l'époque du jugement, "pendant près de 40 des 50 dernières années, le premier ministre du Canada a été un Québécois... le juge en chef ainsi que deux autres juges de la Cour Suprême, l'ambassadeur du Canada aux États-Unis, le chef d'état majeure des forces armées canadiennes, et la vice-secrétaire générale des Nations Unies étaient tous des Québécois")

Simplement dit, bien que la relation entre les deux groupes linguistiques principaux de notre pays n'ont pas toujours été chaleureux, la situation est très loin de ce qui serait nécessaire pour satisfaire à l'exigence qu'il existe une situation assez extrême pour mener à l'existence d'un droit de sécession unilatérale. C'est ici qu'on retrouve la différence essentielle entre la situation du Québec au sein de la confédération canadienne et celui du Kosovo avec la Serbie. Les habitants du Kosovo d'origine Albanais ont été victimes de la "purification ethnique", qui a nécessité l'intervention militaire de la part de l'OTAN. Ce n'est vraiment pas un cas parallèle avec nos difficultés nationalistes.

Finalement, la Cour Suprême a développé sur la notion de la reconnaissance de la réalité factuelle ou politique. C'est-à-dire que souvent lorsque c'est évident qu'un territoire est contrôlé exclusivement par un organisme étatique, la communauté internationale va souvent reconnaître ces états-nations afin de pouvoir reconnaître la situation réelle. Comme le gouvernement Canadien continue à maintenir une présence au Québec, et continue à incorporer des individus et des institutions Québécoises dans sa structure, je ne crois pas que ceci risque d'être un danger au moment.

Si jamais un jour un gouvernement séparatiste tente d'expulser la présence du gouvernement fédéral de la province, elle risque de perdre l'appuie de sa propre population, ainsi que celui de la communauté internationale pour avoir été le premier à faire recours à des mesures agressives.

Cela veut donc dire que d'après moi, si jamais il y a un vote en faveur de la sécession, la province séparatiste ne pourra pas procéder à la sécession unilatérale, mais le gouvernement fédéral et les autres provinces seront obligées de négocier une entente constitutionnelle en bonne foi. Mais à tout prix, il faut éviter que la situation détériore dans un attentat de restreindre la province par moyen de force.

En ce qui concerne le Kosovo, je ne crois pas que cette situation crée un précédent dangereux. À mon avis, nos deux situations se distinguent très facilement par le fait que le Québec n'a jamais été victime d'actes oppressifs semblables à ceux qui ont été infligés sur le Kosovo par la Serbie. Comme je viens d'exprimer au début de ce message, je ne suis vraiment pas un expert en domaine de droit internationale, donc ça se peut vraiment que j'ai manqué des informations sur lequel d'autres personnes mieux informés ont fondé leurs opinions au contraire. Mais pour l'instant mon opinion c'est que le Canada devrait se joindre aux autres nations qui ont reconnus l'indépendance de la "République du Kosova".

Is a Federal Election Looming?

2008-02-07T13:29:00.000-08:00

Ask just about any political junkie and most of them will tell you that a federal election was all but a sure thing for this spring, myself among them. After all, the Harper government has been in power for two years now, which is quite ripe by minority government standards. What caught me by surprise though, was the likely trigger. I always kind of figured that the Conservatives, who have a little more control over the matter, would rather fall on a budget bill that was laden with tax cuts and other goodies than on something as controversial as Afghanistan.

It seems to me that for the opposition parties, little could be of greater tactical importance than starting out on the offensive. The first thing that the opposition parties will have to do is justify their decision to bring Canadians back to the polls, and frankly it would be far easier to justify bringing down the government over a controversial issue than to do so because of popular tax cuts.

Even the Liberals, who have been through a change in leadership since first having sent troops to Afghanistan have begun to speak more and more with one voice. Dion seems quite steadfast that troops are to be pulled out of combat operations in the province of Kandahar by 2009. While Jack Layton is still demanding that troops be pulled out immediately, in spite of commitments that Canada has made to NATO. Gilles Duceppe is demanding a pullout by 2009.

Whatever you might think about the mission in Afghanistan, it is a controversial subject and it's not likely anyone is going to gain ground on this issue. Perhaps that is what the PM is counting on, but then again he knows that if he wants to gain power he needs to win seats in Québec, which has a reputation for being somewhat more pacifist than other provinces. At this point though, it's all just speculation because as far as I'm aware, the PM has not yet publicly declared that the motion will be one of confidence so they could well choose to engineer their own defeat over something completely different.

Who knows? I might be completely wrong, and the election may be stalled for a while longer. After all, there is a provincial election going on right now in Alberta. Just the same, these next few weeks promise to be interesting!

Black-Focused Schools in Ontario?

2008-01-31T16:58:00.000-08:00

Where the Hell did this idea come from? Whenever I hear about an idea that sounds a little bit crazy and off the wall at first glance, I like to make a point of thinking about it for a while and seeing if I might not be giving it a fair chance. However, a recent decision by a Toronto area school board to create an "Afrocentric" school to help combat the dropout rate among black students absolutely makes my skin crawl!

In the interest of being objective, it sounds like officials in Toronto are facing a crisis. If the statistics furnished in the above news article are acurate, they have a 40% dropout rate among black males! That is sickening! But how do we know that black-focused schools are the solution to the problem? Are there any independent studies that suggest this is the way to go?

It would be hypocritical of me not to mention that Ontario has already created entire schoolboards to protect the French speaking and Catholic minorities (I am a graduate of a French Catholic high school - I am neither Catholic, nor of French heritage). However, this is hardly the same thing since both were put in place to prevent the cultural assimilation of our French speaking population (who were almost exclusively Catholic at the time of Confederation).

I see absolutely no problem with offering black history lessons, after all, it's a terrible thing to grow up not knowing anything about your roots. Just the same, until I see some proof that shows otherwise, I have a hard time believing that black-focused schools aren't just a little too drastic. Like John Tory's "faith based schools", they separate people from one another, and since blacks do not face the same dangers of cultural assimilation that Francophones do, I don't see how the benefits could outweigh the disadvantages.

The day lawyers have been waiting for!

2008-01-09T12:42:00.000-08:00

Yes folks it's official, you can now sue just about anybody for just about anything, including your own criminal acts! It is a day that we in the legal profession have been waiting on for some time! In a recent decision, a Saskatchewan court decided that a young woman named Sandy Bergen, a self-confessed drug addict, was entitled to damages from her former drug dealer after an overdose of crystal meth put her into a coma and nearly killed her. I think I will follow the advice I received from a more experienced colleague a little while ago, and hold off on commenting on this particular case until I have read the actual decision, so for now I'm content to comment on some of the more general ramifications that this decision can have.

For starters, I think that the issue is far from decided. After all, this is a precedent setting case and it will almost definitely be appealed. As it makes its way up through the Canadian court system, it will doubtlessly create some interesting case law! It is really interesting to see how this will affect Canadian tort law.

We've all heard the urban legend of the burglar breaking into someone's home, slips on a toy, falling down the stairs and then successfully suing the homeowners. According to my first year tort law professor, this is a myth. You cannot sue someone for injuries sustained while trespassing on their property, unless of course the injuries occurred as a result of some kind of booby trap. At first glance, the decision in the Bergen case appears to fly in the face of this principle. After all, someone who buys drugs for the purpose of personal consumption knows or ought to know full well that drugs are bad for them. On the other hand, manufacturers and distributors of legal products are held responsible when their defective products cause physical harm to their consumers, why then should the same not be true for manufacturers and distributors of illegal products?

Obviously the situation is not that simple, after all, we as a society don't want to condone the drug user's illegal conduct. But even though I believe that abusing one's own body with drugs is wrong, I think that profiting off of the suffering of others who are too weak and sick to properly understand what they're doing to themselves is even worse, and drug dealers should not be allowed to get away with the harm that they do to their clients. So as crazy as this must sound, I think I actually agree with this decision! I can't say whether or not it was correctly applied in this case, but the idea of allowing a drug addict who has suffered damages as a result of his or her drug dealer's negligence does not sound so crazy to me. Certainly, the degree to which the addict was dependent on the narcotics in question should be something considered by the trial judge when determining the amount of damages that are owed, but I see no reason why the drug dealer should be completely absolved of all responsibility.

There are a few major problems though. For starters, there are a lot of drug addicts out there, and chances are a lot of them have suffered as a result of their drug dealer's actions. If we open the flood gates, who knows how many new cases will come forward? The courts may not be able to handle the deluge. This is definitely a matter that the courts will be considering as part of the Cooper/Ans criteria, which is used to determine whether a particular kind of act is considered negligence.

There is also the matter of figuring out where to draw the line. Can a drug addict sue only when they suffered because there was something "wrong" with the drugs that they bought? Or can they also sue for damages incurred as a result of having overdosed through their own error or carelessness? What about the other negative affects that are caused by drug abuse such as the breakdown of marriages, difficulties holding down a job, etc?

Another problem of course, is enforceability. When we are talking about hard core drug traffickers, with large bank accounts, it is not so hard to enforce judgments in favour of the plaintiff, since their assets are much easier to trace, but it's not so easy to get money out of someone who keeps all of their money in cash form, rolled up in a big wad under their mattress next to the big handgun.

When is a promise fulfilled?

2008-01-03T09:06:00.000-08:00

By now just about everyone is aware that the GST has officially been cut from 6% to 5%, thereby fulfilling Prime Minister Stephen Harper's election promise to cut the GST by 2% (it was at 7% when he was elected). There is considerable debate right now about the move, as many in the opposition have been suggesting that an income tax cut would have been more fair, but for the moment at least I don't really want to get into the soundness of this decision as I'm not exactly an expert on fiscal policy and it is without a doubt a very complicated subject. What really catches my attention is the notion of when a promise is kept. In politics, the failure to keep a promise can be lethal to a candidate or party's electoral success (though this is not always the case).

Whenever former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien was confronted about not eliminating the GST, he was always quick to reply that he never promised to eliminate the GST, only that he would replace it, which is what the first Red Book stated he would do. Of course by now, many of us are probably familiar with the famous clip from This Hour Has 22 Minutes, in which appeared various clips of Chrétien promising that the GST would be gone. To be fair, if something is replaced, it is gone, and in some cases, Chrétien actually managed to reduce the overall sales taxes that are paid in certain provinces by merging the GST with the provincial sales tax. Evidently Canadian voters either accepted the explanation or found it in their hearts to forgive Chrétien because they granted him a second majority in 1997 and a third in 2000.

More recently, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty faced heavy criticism during the fall 2007 elections (as well as throughout his mandate, which began in 2003) for having raised provincial income taxes via the reviled "health premium". McGuinty justified this reversal by referring to an independant audit of the province's finances, which revealed that Ontario was actually running a deficit of several billion dollars, even though the previous government under Conservatives Mike Harris and Ernie Eves had reported the budget to be balanced. Evidently, Ontario voters considered this to be an acceptable excuse, since they granted McGuinty another majority in October.

On the other hand, one of the major issues in the last Québec election, was premier Jean Charest's not having reduced income taxes as he had promised to do when elected with a majority government in 2003. As a result, his majority government was reduced to a minority government.

Now the current Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, has made good on one of his election promises by reducing the GST by 2%. Just the same, Harper has already come under heavy fire for having broken his promise not to tax income trusts, as well as for having broken his promise to honour the Atlantic Accord. Harper seems to have taken lessons from Chrétien, by claiming that neither act constitutes a breach of an election promise. He and his finance Minster, Jim Flaherty, are both denying that they are taxing income trusts, and that the funding formula they recently adopted constitues a breach of the Atlantic Accord. He even managed to talk Nova Scotia into a new agreement, but Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams is still slamming the federal government for having broken its promise.

Considering the enormous victory Williams recently won in his own provincial elections, the PM is in for one Hell of a fight if he intends to win any seats in Newfoundland. There is also some doubt that things will go over quite so smoothly in Nova Scotia as well, since despite being booted from the Conservative caucus for having voted against the budget that contained the disputed funding formula, Nova Scotia MP Bill Casey has since been re-nominated by his riding association, which of course was not accepted by the party. Casey will likely run as an independent, and may become the next Chuck Cadman (may he rest in peace). Right now it is hard to tell whether or not the entire province of Nova Scotia will punish Harper's Conservatives. In fact even Casey is not assured victory. With a possible federal elction due this Spring, it will be interesting to see whether or not Harper is able to appear as a man of his word, or if he is blasted for not keeping his promise. As with everything else in politics, perception is everything.

Menacé, mais à quel point?

2007-12-10T08:09:00.000-08:00

Il y a quelques jours, le gouvernement canadien publiait des statistiques par rapport à la langue qui on été recueillis lors du recensement de 2006. Bien sure que beaucoup de peur a été généré par la réalisation que pour la première fois dans l'histoire, moins de 50% des résidents de Montréal ont identifié le Français comme étant leur langue maternelle. Pour la communauté séparatiste, ceci doit apparaître comme la réalisation d'une prophétie. Les Québécois ont rejeté à deux reprises des initiatives de séparation et en conséquence ils sont en train de se faire assimiler.

Pourtant, une étude plus attentive aux détails soulève plusieurs révélations. Par exemple, le terme "langue maternelle" ne s'équivaut pas nécessairement au terme "langue primaire". La définition de langue maternelle utilisée pour les fins du recensement 2006 était "Première langue apprise à la maison dans l'enfance et encore comprise par le recensé au moment du recensement." Donc par exemple l'enfant de parents immigrés d'Italie qui aurait apprit l'Italien chez lui, mais qui a toujours parlé le Français à l'école et ensuite dans son milieu de travail sans jamais perdre sa capacité de s'exprimer en Italien aurait identifié cette langue comme étant sa langue maternelle. Les statistiques sont donc un peu vagues.

Entre 1996 et 2001, la population Anglophone du Québec a passé de 8.8% de la population Québécoise à 8.3! Selon le recensement de 2006, la population anglophone du Québec est 575,560 (environ 7% de la population du Québec). J'ai donc vraiment de la difficulté à voir comment la langue anglaise puisse menacer le Français au Québec.

Ça vaut aussi la peine de mentionner que même si on interprète les donnés dans leur sens stricte, il faut toujours en tenir compte des réalités de nos jours. Nous vivons dans une époque de taux d'immigration élevés, et un effet de ceci c'est que le Canada au complet doit accueillir des immigrants qui n'ont pas une de nos langues officielles comme langue maternelle. Selon le recensement de 2001 il y avait 709,420 personnes (quasiment 10% de la population du Québec) au Québec qui ont identifié des langues non-officielles comme étant leur langue maternelle. Mais en Ontario, 2,672,085 (environ 23% de la population ontarienne) ont identifié des langues non-officielles comme étant leur langue maternelle. Selon le recensement de 2006, les Allophones (personnes identifiant une langue non-officielle comme leur langue maternelle) sont rendus à 886,280 (11.9%) et en Ontario les Allophones sont rendus à 3,134,045 (26%), le taux de croissance de la population allophone en Ontario est donc environ plus qu'un tiers plus élevé qu'elle est au Québec.

L'inquiétude est alors un peu moins fort en Ontario grâce à la perception populaire que les Allophones vont adopter la langue anglaise comme langue seconde (ou primaire). En fait, les statistiques de 2006 ajoutent de la force à cette perception car en Ontario 131,285 personnes ont identifié l'Anglais et une langue non-officielle comme étant tout les deux leurs langues maternelles, et seulement 7790 ont identifié le Français et une langue non-officielle comme langues maternelles.

Au Québec, où sont obligés les immigrants d'envoyer leurs enfants à des écoles de langue française, le montant de personnes qui ont identifié l'Anglais et une langue non-officielle comme langues maternelles est beaucoup plus élevé que le montant de personnes en Ontario qui ont identifié le Français et une langue non-officielle comme langue officielle. Pourtant le montant de personnes au Québec qui ont identifié le Français et une langue non-officielle comme étant leurs langues maternelles est quand même à peu prêt le double de ceux au Québec qui ont identifié l'anglais et une langue non-officielle comme langue maternelle.

C'est aussi intéressant à noter qu'en 2006 le Québec avait parmi toutes les provinces et territoires canadiennes le montant le plus élevé de personnes qui identifiaient les deux langues officielles comme langue maternelle (43,335 - donc .58%) et le plus de personnes qui identifiaient les deux langues officielles et une langue non officielle comme langue maternelle (5520). Bien que ce soient des très petits pourcentages de la société québécoise je trouve que c'est quand même intéressant.

Donc quels conclusions peuvent-on retirer des ces données? Est-ce que la langue Française au Canada et au Québec est dans une position menacée? Selon moi, même si ces figures donnent beaucoup de cause pour l'optimisme, la réponse à cette dernière question c'est toujours "oui". Les Canadiens francophones vivent dans un état perpétuel de minorité, et pour ceux vivant hors du Québec ceci est une réalité encore plus cruelle.

Je crois que les statistiques démontrent assez clairement que ceux qui s'inquiètent qu'en 50 ans, le monde ne vont plus parler le Français au Québec sont en train de paniquer sans cause. En réalité, le Français au Québec est très bien en place, mais ceci ne veut pas dire qu’une menace potentielle n'existe pas. Les États-Unis et 9 autres provinces canadiennes dont la langue majoritaire est l'Anglais sont toujours à la porte du Québec. Il ne faut donc jamais que la population francophone de la belle province abandonne aux victoires qu'elle a réalisé au cours du dernier siècle.

Comme c'est le cas pour le Québec, où les Francophones représentent la forte majorité de la province, c'est encore plus le cas pour les Francophones hors Québec. En Ontario, la population Francophone a vécu une faible croissance depuis 2001, et éventuellement les chances sont fortes que le Français ne sera plus dans une position de deuxième langue le plus commun de la province. Je suis toujours convaincu que la présence francophone hors du Québec peut continuer, et je ne vois aucune raison d'abandonner la notion de bilinguisme de côte à côte, même si un jour une autre langue maternelle devient plus commun que le Français hors du Québec. J’attends avec beaucoup d'intérêt le rapport sur le bilinguisme que va fournir la commission menée par l'ancien premier ministre du Nouveau-Brunswick Bernard Lord.

Duty vs. Conscience

2007-11-15T15:33:00.000-08:00

The Supreme Court of Canada announced today that it has refused to hear an appeal of an immigration board's decision to refuse refugee status to American soldiers who deserted their army and fled to our side of the border (for details see the story here).

I have to admit that I felt a twinge of sympathy for at least one of the soldiers in question here. Jeremy Hinzman, has been in the news for a little while now, and from what I remember from having read about him before, he was a member of an Airborne division, and had already served a full tour of Afghanistan before he chose to desert rather than allow himself to be shipped off to Iraq, for fear that he would be forced to commit war crimes. Given that the man has already served a tour, I am having a hard time believing that he is a coward. At first glance it looks to me like the man really does have a moral objection against serving in the Iraq war.

Furthermore, even if he was simply scared for his life and did not want to go to war again, since I am not a veteran, I would have a hard time blaming him knowing that he has already endured war and has a better idea of what he is going back to than I do.

Canada has sheltered American war deserters before, most notably, those that did not want to serve in the Vietnam War. But there is a huge difference here. Jeremy Hinzman was a volunteer, not a draftee. He joined the army of his own free will and voluntarily submitted himself to a soldier’s way of life. You do not have to be a soldier to understand that being in the military means that you do not have much choice about which orders you will or will not follow. One of the few choices you can make is not to follow an illegal order.

If I'm not mistaken Hinzman's lawyer may have argued that his mere presence in Iraq would have been a war crime. I know that people have been convicted before for "crimes against peace" for engaging in aggressive wars but those are usually high ranking generals or statesmen, not regular soldiers. Regular soldiers are usually judged by the actions they perform once they are in foreign countries, as was the case in the Abu Graib prison scandal. From what I've read about Hinzman's situation, and about Irk in general, I see no reason to believe that his presence in Iraq would constitute a war crime. To be fair, I am by no means an expert on international law, so if any of my fellow bloggers out there can offer a more informed opinion about whether or not he would be committing a war crime, I would welcome it.

As I said before, when someone joins the army, they are volunteering to become a soldier and soldiers are subject to a much higher degree of discipline than normal citizens. It has to be this way, since soldiers are often called upon to do things that ordinary citizens would not choose to do, things that very often put their lives in danger, things that can be very unpleasant (such as having to kill). This is a necessary measure that is used to protect our societies, but it is highly vulnerable to abuse, and often leads governments to use well intentioned, patriotic soldiers as thugs. For this reason there are certain safeguards so that soldiers can use their own personal judgment to a certain degree. As I mentioned before, they have the right to refuse illegal orders. In the U.S., they have the right to ask for "conscientious objectors status".

In Hinzman's case, I believe he actually applied for conscientious objectors status it but was denied. Still, I don't think that the answer was to run away to Canada. In my opinion, Hinzman should have refused his orders to go to Iraq and face a court martial, where he could have plead not guilty and attempted to argue that he could not obey orders to go to Iraq on the grounds that doing so would amount to him committing a war crime. His guilt or innocence could be determined, first by a jury made up of his fellow soldiers, and if he is convicted he can still appeal to the American court system. He made a commitment to the U.S. Army and he has an obligation to them. Since the American courts are the competent jurisdiction to decide these matters, it is up to them to make this kind of decision.

I haven't been able to make up my mind as to whether or not Hinzman deserves to go to jail or not, after all, he is clearly not just some coward, but he has committed a crime, so it is a difficult question to answer. What I am certain of is that he needs to face a court martial in the U.S. and extraditing him would not endanger his life or health. Once he is home, he will face neither persecution, nor torture.

He Who Lives by the Sword...

2007-11-11T12:41:00.000-08:00

Even though he is ahead in the polls, Prime Minister Harper is not looking so cocky these days as he once was. It appears that the man who rode into power by crucifying Paul Martin for a scandal he had nothing to do with, is now about to see a little bit of the same storm blow back his way.

Yes it appears that after a week of attacks from the opposition, the Prime Minister has decided to commission an independent probe into the allegations that the former Progressive-Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney received payments from Karlheinz Schreiber. This of course comes only a week after the PM completely ruled out the possibility of declaring an inquiry. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what, if any differences exist between an "independent probe" and a "judicial inquiry", but this sounds like yet another dramatic reversal of position from the same man who criticizes Stéphane Dion because in his opinion, he is "not a leader".

Politically speaking, the big question that this raises is not so much whether or not Mulroney is guilty of any wrongdoing, but rather whether or not this will impact Harper in the polls. After all, the fact that he was not Prime Minister while all of the sponsorship scandal activities were occurring, did not seem to help Paul Martin very much (in fact being cleared by Gomery didn't even seem to help Martin out). So would it really matter that the alleged payments to Mulroney might have been made over a decade before Harper came to power matter? Only time will tell.

In Martin's case, there was also the question of proximity, as he had been a member of Chrétien's cabinet. But then, Prime Minister Mulroney is a former mentor of Harper's. In fact as the above article states, the latter has worked hard to reform the image of the former. Will this come into play at all?

When coupled with the election spending problems that the Conservatives are having with Elections Canada, this issue might have the power to have a seriously negative impact on the governing party in the polls. After all, given that they rose (barely) to power on the basis that they would end corruption, and now have to defend themselves from multiple allegations of corruption, they are particularly vulnerable.

The problem for us Liberals? Even if these allegations do stick to Prime Minister Harper, the electorate isn’t likely to vote for either party that they perceive to be corrupt. They will vote for other parties, or they will just plain stay home or at work on Election Day.

May He Rest in Peace

2007-10-31T13:00:00.000-07:00

Click the above picture to see one of my favourite memories of the star with strong canadian connections.

A Bad Decision or Bad Journalism?

2007-10-23T14:08:00.000-07:00

I was back home for a little while this weekend, and while I was there I couldn't help but noticing the following story in the local newspaper:

http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=743182&auth=ERICA+BAJER

It appears that Ontario Superior Court Justice, Jospeh Donahue, made the decision to acquit a man accused of posession of child pornography, based on the fact that he did not posess a large quantity of it and because he felt that the crown had failed to prove that the accused knew that it was there.

I hate to be critical of a judge for making any decision (particularly since I may find myself pleading in front of the man some day!). The fact is that judges have to make tough calls every day. All too often they hold someone's life in their hands. In this case, the judge had to decide whether or not to convict someone of one of the most despicable crimes to our society. Such a conviction carries with it a terrible social stigma. In fact, if he had been convicted, even his fellow prisoners would likely hold him in such a low estem that it may be necessary to keep him in isolation from the other inmates for his own protection.

Aside from my first year of law school, where we learned a few basic principles of criminal law, I haven't studied criminal law an awful lot. I am scheduled to take Advanced criminal law, and criminal procedure next semester. But for now, let me be the first to admit that my knowledge in this area is not the greatest. Still, I think I have been able to get the gist of things from the article. Now anyone who has ever seen an episode of law and order knows that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution in a criminal trial, though the burden can be reversed under certain circumstances, (such as when the accused does not deny having commited the criminal act, but wishes to present a defence, such as insanity, involuntary intoxication, etc.).

In the present case, it is difficult to tell from the article but it appears that the accused might have used a defense of called absence of mens rea. This basically means that there was no "guilty spirit", no intention to commit the crime. If this is the case, it means that the accused does not deny that the child pornography was in his possession, but denies having had any knowledge of it being in his posession. Effectively, it means that the defense must present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the evidence presented by the Crown does sufficiently prove that the accused knew about the incriminating materials being stored on his hard drive and CDs.

Now it stands to reason that the simple presence of child pornography on the accused's hard drive and CDs alone implies that he knew it was there unless it was put there by someone else. The question now becomes, how likely is it that someone else could have put it there? Any evidence that defense could have put forward to support that it is likely, would no doubt have been helpful. Evidently the facts and evidence in this case did not convince justice Donahue beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew that the criminal materials were in his possession.

The article does not mention anything about what kind of evidence was presented by the defence (if any), which kind of makes me uneasy. Were there any expert witnesses who could have testified that this material could have been accidentlaly downloaded? Was there any evidence to suggest that other people might have had access to his computer? I am willing to accept that it's entirely possible that perhaps the defence presented nothing of the kind and perhaps Justice Donahue simply wasn't satisfied anyways.

The reason I'm writing about this is just to illustrate the heavy responsability that lies on the shoulders of every journalist when reporting an event, but particularly in reporting decisions made in the courts. Decisions can sometimes be hundreds of pages long, and journalists have only a few paragraphs to summarize them in. It reminds me of my favourite legal quote from Lord Hewart "it is ... of fundamental importance, that justice should not only be done; but be manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." Journalists have the difficult task of bringing the essence of a decision to the public, so that they in turn can decide for themselves. It is a task I do not envy.

The author of this article does not appear to be deliberately biased, but at least on the surface it does appear to be missing something, though it is entirely possible that this could simply be because there was nothing more to add. I don't cast judgement on either Justice Donahue or the journalist in this case, but somewhere along the line, it appears to me that someone has made a mistake.

No good deed unpunished

2007-10-18T11:28:00.000-07:00

Maybe Green Day was right after all, perhaps nice guys really do finish last. That certainly seems to be the lesson some would take from some of the reactions I've seen to Stéphane Dion's decision to allow the Conservative government's throne speech to pass.

The general impression seems to be that Dion "blinked", or backed down in the face of Conservative toughness. From my point of view, nothing could be further from the truth. Dion is well aware that now is not the time for a third federal election in 4 years. Has everybody forgotten how many provincial elections have already occured this year? Is anybody else aware that there is currently a provincial election going on in Saskatchewan?

Some are suggesting that Dion's decision came as a result of our party's recent poor showing in Outremont, as well as unfavourable polls, but this strikes me as being rather unlikely. The last thing that the Liberal party needs right now is to be branded as the party that forced yet another expensive election.

Whether we Liberals like it or not, Canadians voted for change in 2006 and they want to see us give Prime Minister Harper a chance. If they don't see him getting that chance with a minority government, they might just decide to give him a majority government and see what he does with the country.

Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe are as hungry for an election as Harper is. Both declared their intentions to vote against the throne speech without even waiting to hear it, leaving the ball in Dion's court. Dion listened to what Prime Minister Harper had to say and ultimately decided not to throw the country into an election. Is that so bad? Let's try to remember that it was the throne speech and not an actual bill. Had the PM actually been trying to slip through a confidence bill that all three opposition parties absolutely could not support, then I would say it was time for an election. Perhaps, a new session of parliament might actually get some important bills passed, such as the amended Clean Air Act.

As it stands the Conservative agenda contains several matters that the PM intends to call matters of confidence. If the Prime Minster comes right out of the gates with a confidence bill that no opposition party can support, he may just find that is he who suffers the backlash for triggering an early election.

A great victory, now what?

2007-10-13T11:00:00.000-07:00

Well, the numbers are in, and the people have spoken. We Liberals are feeling pretty good about ourselves right about now. We managed to take 71 seats, compared to only 26 for the Conservatives and 10 for the NDP. In all, we managed to capture approximately 42% of the popular vote. Liberals across Ontario should be proud of the great work we've done, considering the strong campaign that was expected from John Tory we really managed to exceed expectations. While it's true that a poorly run Tory campaign was a big help, the October 10th results are a major endorsement of the McGuinty government.

Here at Ottawa U, we managed to hand a crushing defeat to the NDP, in spite of that party's best efforts to pass itself of as the party that best catered to student interests. Of the eight polls considered "campus polls" we managed to win every single one, and in several cases actually collected double the ballots cast for the NDP. While it should be noted that six of the 8 polls are actually for certain residents of the Sandy Hill neighbourhood, a large portion of these were students. The remaining two polls consisted entirely of students living on campus, and were both easily won by Liberal candidate Madeleine Meilleure.

Still, we Liberals should not be so quick to break our arms patting ourselves on the backs just yet, since this week's results actually reflect a small decrease in voter approval. Our majority at Queen's Park has been reduced from 72 seats won with 46% popular support in the 2003 elections. Still, governing a province is not easy, and when you actually have a record in office to defend, an opposition party is bound to steal away a seat or two. When you consider all of the hype that was created by the creation of the health tax, the results actually show that we have done a good job of getting our message across.

I cannot say that I am pleased to see that MMP was so handily defeated. I rather expected that it would not meet the formula required to pass, but was sort of holding out against hope that it might obtain a majority of votes so that the present government might be encouraged to continue searching for a more acceptable form of democratic renewal. Oh well, the people have spoken. Still, all that the results of the referendum really say is that at least for now, the people who voted prefer the First Past The Post (FPTP) system to MMP (or perhaps just didn't feel comfortable with MMP). I sincerely hope that Premier McGuinty will continue for ways to add proportionality to our system. As pleased as I am to see so many Liberals in office, it just doesn't seem fair that we should have 42% of the popular vote and 66% of the seats at Queen's Park.

No matter what, I am most displeased with the voter turnout. I am aware that there has been a growing trend of voter apathy throughout the western world, but somehow I just can't wrap my head around the lack of interest in this particular election, with a referendum to change the way we elect our MPPs one would think that voter turnout would be at least at a normal level. Oh well, I suppose there's only so much that can be done.

So I guess this means Hell has finally frozen over!

2007-10-07T12:38:00.000-07:00

Admittedly, I am not foremost among Bush-haters (or Bush-lovers), but this one had even me floored:

http://news.netster.com/story.asp?id=D8S4GA6O0

Est-ce que les principes du RPM sont incompatibles avec les intérêts des Franco-Ontariens?

2007-10-03T08:19:00.000-07:00

Plusieurs blogueurs ont déjà soulevé la question de l'impact sur la communauté franco-ontarienne qui pourrait avoir lieu si la province adopte le système de Représentation Proportionnelle Mixte (RPM).

Une de mes très chères amies qui se trouve dans le camp appuyant la préservation du système traditionnel a affiché sur son blogue une copie d'une annonce par rapport à la décision de l'Assemblée de la Francophonie de l'Ontario (AFO) de recommander le rejet du système RPM.

L'AFO semble avoir basé sa décision sur deux facteurs importants: 1) La diminution du montant de circonscriptions va mener à ce que les communautés francophones vont devenir encore plus minoritaire dans leurs circonscriptions; et 2) Puisque les moyens employés par les parties pour choisir quels personnes seront sur leurs listes de candidats pour les 39 sièges "proportionnels", sera pour les parties de choisir.

En ce qui concerne le premier point, je crois que bien que certaines communautés francophones risquent de devenir encore plus minoritaire dans leur circonscriptions, d'autres pourront devenir encore plus nombreux, cela pourra varier selon où sont tracés les lignes géographiques. Par exemple, si on a 3 circonscriptions ayant chacune une population composé de 50,000 personnes, dont 20,000 (40%) sont des Francophones. On pourrait retracer les lignes de ces circonscriptions pour créer 2 circonscriptions ayant chacun 75,000 personnes dont le premier aura 10,000 (20%) francophones et l'autre aura 50,000 (66.6%).

En ce qui concerne le deuxième point soulevé par l'AFO, les Francophones comptent toujours pour environ 5% de la population ontarienne. Lors d'un scrutin électoral, 5% peut facilement faire la différence entre quel partie va former le gouvernement et ceux qui siègeront en opposition. En Ontario, aucun autre groupe linguistique n’est aussi nombreux que les Francophones. Il me semble alors qu'une partie sensible cherchera à séduire ces votes, en s'assurant soit d’avoir beaucoup de Francophones qui se présentent comme candidats dans des circonscriptions où ils ont une forte chance à gagner, ou en plaçant des candidats francophones dans des positions élevés sur leur liste de 39 candidats.

Il est aussi à noter que les Référendums au Canada sont de nature "consultatifs". C'est-à-dire que le pouvoir ultime repose chez le législateur (le Parlement et les Assemblés législatifs provinciaux), mais les résultats d'un vote référendaire crée une forte obligation politique. Il est donc toujours possible que Queen's Park puisse modifier le système pour que la représentation des groupes minoritaires parmi les listes de 39 candidats soit obligatoire. Donc, si le vote réussit et les Franco-Ontariens craignent toujours une manque de représentation, ils pourront toujours faire recours à leur forte pouvoir politique et constitutionnel pour modifier le système.

En bref, je ne crois pas que les Franco-Ontariens seront nécessairement désavantagés par le système de RPM, pourvu que ce système soit introduit avec considération pour les voix francophones. Ceci veut dire que bien sure les Francophones vont devoir demeurer vigilants pour ne pas perdre leurs droits, mais ceci a toujours été le cas pour ce peuple, et rien ne pourra le changer. La communauté Franco-Ontarienne existe de nos jours car elle est forte et résistant à l'assimilation, tant que ceci ne changera pas, ils existeront pour toujours.

Ontario Referendum Question 2007

2007-09-25T06:27:00.000-07:00

After much thought I have finally decided to come out of the closet... and admit that I intend to vote for the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system being used to select the members of Ontario's Legislature.

MMP is a little more complicated than the traditional "first past the post" system we are used to in this province and federally, but you don't need a degree in political science to understand it either. Under the proposed system, the number of ridings in Ontario would be reduced to 90, however there would be an additional 39 "at large" Members of Provincial Parliament (MPPs). At election time, there will be a ballot with two columns on it, one where you vote for the person you want to be the MPP for your riding, and another for the party of your choice. Once all the votes have been counted, the number of seats each party won will be compared against the amount of votes they received in the second column of the voting cards. If the percentage of seats that the party has is less than the percentage of the overall amount of second column votes they received, then they will be given an appropriate amount of at large seats in order to help their numbers better reflect the percentage of the overall province-wide support they received. Before the elections, each party would have submitted a list of candidates for at large seats, and seats would be distributed according to the placement of each candidate on the list (i.e. the first person on the list would get the first at large seat won by his or her party, and so on).

To simplify even further, if party A has 40% of the overall votes (in the second column) but wins 60% of the ridings, at large seats will be distributed among the other parties until party A has only 40% of the seats in the legislature. Note: All 39 at large seats will be occupied, which means that in the example given it is possible that party A may receive at large seats as well, but not as many as the other parties, and its total numbers could not give it more than 40% of the seats in the legislature.

Make no mistake, this system has its shortcomings. For starters, it would mean that 39 MPPs in the legislature would not be directly accountable to the voters of any riding. But I don't think this is such a big deal as they are vastly outnumbered by the MPPs that do have ridings and of course they are still accountable to the voters of Ontario as a whole. The fact that the names of any would be at large MPPs are on the list before an election means that there is no chance of a party trying to sneak a bad candidate past the electorate. Simply put, if nobody likes the lead candidate for party B, nobody is going to vote for that party. More realistically speaking though, if unpopular or incompetent candidates are placed high up on the list, chances are strong that the bad choice of the party will be reflected in the number of second column votes they do, or rather do not receive.

Perhaps the biggest disadvantage to choosing MMP is the likelihood that it will lead to more minority governments. While a minority government is not in and of itself a bad thing; it means that elections will likely happen more often, which can be quite the burden on taxpayers. Still in countries such as Germany or Israel, where they have long since adopted a pure proportional government, parties often form coalitions with one another that can last for years. I'm not yet totally convinced that this will be the case here in Ontario, but I believe it can work. At least at the provincial level the parties are not so vastly different that they cannot bury the hatchet between elections in order to govern properly. All that is required is a little maturity.

Speaking of maturity, this brings me to one of the best parts about MMP. It has the potential to help curb the trend of negative advertising that has infected Canadian politics (no party is innocent). If parties know that they are likely to win a minority government they will have a strong incentive to treat their fellow candidates and party leaders with just a little bit more respect while campaigning. It would not likely put an end to negative advertising, but it might just force candidates to point out the flaws in one of their competitors platforms without totally slandering the individual.

Finally, I think that the most important advantage to MMP is the fact that it will give a voice to some of the smaller parties, which in turn will attract more voters to the polls. I think that when people know that their vote will at least give them a voice at Queen's Park, they are more likely to take the time to wait in line and then cast their ballot. And let's face it, if we really want to curb the declining trends in voter turnout that is sweeping throughout the western world we are going to have to do more than just hold "rock the vote" campaigns. Electoral reform is needed in this province.

Que Doivent-on Faire Maintenant?

2007-09-20T10:54:00.000-07:00

Ce lundi, l'électorat dans trois circonscriptions a envoyé un message au parti libéral. Aucun candidat libéral ne remporta une élection dans la belle province. En plus, la circonscription d'Outremont, une zone "Secure" pour les Libéraux tomba entre les mains du NPD.

Les questions de "comment" et "pourquoi" seront mieux répondus par des meilleurs stratégistes que moi même, donc je vais me limiter à l'analyse de la question le plus important: Que doivent-on faire maintenant?

Le parti libéral se trouve maintenant avec 12 sièges au Québec. Nous n'avons jamais eu un montant plus bas dans cette province dans l'histoire de la confédération.

Stéphane Dion a noté qu'au moins les séparatistes, n'ont pas réussit à augmenter leur montant de sièges dans la chambre des communes. Cependant, ces-derniers ont quand même beaucoup plus de sièges québécois que n'importe quelle autre partie.

Pour leur part, les Conservateurs se trouvent maintenant avec 11 sièges. Le rhythme ainsi que leur situation monétaire leur favorise énormément. Bien que leur position face à l'Afghanistan était censé de restreindre leur progrès au Québec, ils se retrouvent dans une bonne position pour faire des gains.

Le NPD pour leur part vient de gagner leur deuxième siège au Québec pendant toute l'histoire de leur partie.

Tout ça pour dire que la situation n'a pas l'air favorable aux Libéraux en ce moment. Mais il ne faut surtout pas abandonner à l'espoir. Si les élections provinciales au Québec nous ont appris une chose, c'est que les Québécois ne s'intéressent vraiment pas à un référendum au moins pour le moment. Bien que les Libéraux aient aussi perdu un bon nombre de sièges, le Premier Ministre Charest se retrouve beaucoup plus proche au Premier Ministre Harper qu'à Stéphane Dion. Il demeure donc un bon potentiel pour les Libéraux de gagner des sièges au Québec. C'est à nous d'en prendre avantage!

En ce qui concerne le NPD, une victoire en Outremont est une victoire majeure, mais pas la fin du monde. Ce n'est qu’un siège. Ca veut tout simplement dire que les Libéraux vont devoir prendre la menace du NPD au sérieux au Québec.

Finalement il y a les Conservateurs. Ces derniers semblent avoir apprit la leçon qu'il est impossible d'accéder au pouvoir sans l'appui du canada Central. Pourtant, le soutien des Conservateurs au Québec a toujours été un phénomène assez éphémère. Il me semble que même si les Conservateurs réussissent à augmenter leur nombre de sièges au Québec, ceci ne pourra pas durer longtemps.

Alors pour revenir à ma question principale, je ne sais pas quoi faire. Mais je peux vous dire ce qu'il ne faut absolument pas faire... paniquer.

Spinning out of control

2007-08-17T21:31:00.000-07:00

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion had best be careful. It appears that the Liberal position on the mission in Afghanistan is getting lost somewhere between the press and the public (just to be clear I am not blaming the press or anyone else for that matter).

One need only look at the recent article released by the Canadian Press to see what is happening. The article is entitled Tell Bush we're out of Afghanistan in '09, Dion tells Harper and it is not until one reads further along into the article that the reader is informed that Dion is only asking that Canadian troops no-longer occupy a combat role in the province of Kandahar after our commitment expires in 2009. While the article itself does tell the truth, the title is rather misleading, and after all, not everyone reads the entire article.

The Liberal Leader's position is not pefectly in line with my own, but at least it is not the "turn tale and run" position of the NDP. Unfortunately, that is exactly how the Liberal message is being spun.

We Liberals are going to have to do a better job of getting the message out as to exactly what the details of our position are. Otherwise, we risk losing the ever so Canadian game of brokerage politics.

Same Old Same Old

2007-08-15T15:42:00.000-07:00

Well, by the looks of things, Prime Minister Harper did not have a whole lot of surprises in store for the Canadian public with his latest cabinet shuffle. True to form, the PM was big on appearance, and short on substance.

Former Indian Affairs Minister, Jim Prentice, who has managed to establish for himself a reputation as Stephen Harper's most "trusted and competent minister", by repeatedly failing to show up to important Assembly of First Nations gatherings, and ignoring the Kelowna Accord (yes this is what passes for competency and trustworthiness in the Harper government), has now moved over to the Industry portfolio.

I know my old friend Marc-André will be happy about Diane Ablonczy being appointed to Cabinet as Secretary of State for Tourism and Small Business. That's right, there was actually another small position available in Prime Minister Harper's cabinet for a woman... naturally it was a relatively unimportant one, and of course she will not likely last long if it turns out that the public actually cares about this issue. At least that was what happened with the environment portfolio a few months back when the PM opted to replace Rona Ambrose with the much more macho John Baird.

Only Prime Minster Harper could think appointing Chuck Strahl, the Darth Vader of Canadian politics (and not in the cool way), to the position of Indian Affairs Minister is a good move. Native protesters at Caledonia are already calling his appointment a "stall tactic". Just wait until he starts "aggressive negotiations" with them!

Two of the higher profile positions in the Tory cabinet that were bestowed upon female ministers, Heritage and International co-operation, were occupied by Bev Oda and Josée Verner respectively, and now both ministers have swapped positions. At least now this means that the cabinet member who is responsible for Official Languages is actually bilingual (I assume).

But of course, the PM did extend another olive branch to the nation's Francophones. He appointed Maxime Bernier as Minister of Foreign Affairs. All in all, the nation has about 6 Francophone cabinet members (5 of whom were elected!), out of 26 total. Naturally, all of them are from Québec.

But don't fret everyone; “Canada's New Government” still has a few familiar faces. Evidently the PM just wasn't quite convinced that Jim Flaherty had caused quite enough damage as Finance Minister, so he has decided to give him a little more time to finish the job. Minister Flaherty has quite the task ahead of him though, if he is ever going to outdo himself he will somehow have to top eradicating the savings of elderly Canadians by breaking his election promise about taxing income trusts, as well as his brilliant initiative to end federal provincial squabbles by screwing the Maritime Provinces and Saskatchewan out of the equalization payments his party promised they would not do away with.

The most notable change in policy that can be construed from the shuffle was moving former General, Gordon O'Connor from the Minister of Defence position, and replacing him with former Foreign Affairs Minister, Peter McKay. Apparently this means that the Harper government has decided to cease its attack on bilingualism in the Canadian Forces in favour of attacking Mr. McKay's target of choice. My sympathies go out to the women of Canada's armed forces, who will all likely be assigned to "knitting" duty.

Now I realize that there might be a few alarmists out there who think that maybe this crack team of thinkers isn’t quite up to the job of running the country, but they need not worry. None of them will be making any of their own decisions.

Taking Aim at Gun Violence

2007-07-25T09:06:00.000-07:00

As most of Canada is now aware, eleven year old Ephraim Brown was struck and killed by a stray bullet from a gang shoot out in Toronto a few days ago, while at a barbecue for a friend's birthday party. I don't even want to imagine the kind of pain his family must be experiencing right now.

It is not my intention to use this post as an example of how effective or ineffective gun control is. I think at least my friends are pretty aware of my position on the matter, and I think I've posted about it before as well (not sure though).

I am posting because I am upset by the reaction of our country's political elite to this awful tragedy. It seems that whenever crimes like this occur, various legislators are quick to demand action, as if all of our problems can be magically legislated away.

I'm not saying that we should not learn lessons from tragedies such as that of young Ephraim Brown, or the Dawson College shootings, etc. If there are genuine flaws in our system then we should not hesitate to fix them, but perhaps we should actually examine the system that is in place a little bit before acting rashly and opting to reform the system. The police need to be allowed to conduct their investigation (I understand they already have a suspect in custody) and the courts need to have the chance to administer justice. I think a little time and thought is necessary before we adopt any major changes.

I'm going to stop here for now because as I said, I do not intend to get into a debate over gun control. At the very least, I don't want to use this poor boy's death to further my own political cause. I wish that a few of our country's leaders would take this same step.

NPD c. Black

2007-07-17T16:10:00.000-07:00

En voici encore un nouvel exemple de l'incapacité du NPD de bien réfléchir avant de passer à l'action.

M. Charlie Angus, le critique du patrimoine pour le NPD viens de soumettre une demande à faire enlever les honneurs de L'Ordre du Canada qui ont été accordés à Conrad Black en vertu du fait que ce-dernier viennent de se faire déclarer coupable d'avoir commis des actes criminels (fraude) par un tribunal fédéral des États-Unies.

Ne vous trompez pas. Si Black est coupable, l'enlèvement des honneurs est entièrement juste, mais il me semble que les avocats de Black viennent tout juste d'annoncer de porter appel à la déclaration de culpabilité. Évidement ça sera plus sage d'attendre la fin du processus judiciaire, comme le suggère M. Edward Greenspan l'avocat de M. Black. Dans le cas où le processus judiciaire se terminerait par l'annuellement de la déclaration de culpabilité après que les mesures proposées par le NPD seraient exécutées, Rideau Hall ainsi que la nation au complète, se trouvera dans une position humiliante!

Une fois que la déclaration de culpabilité est cimentée en place, je suis d'avis que Black ne devra plus être membre de l'Ordre du Canada, mais pour l'instant je le crois prudent d'y attendre.

2007-07-06T20:22:00.000-07:00

I hope I can be forgiven, but this cartoon (which I clipped from today's edition of the London Free Press) was just too good not to share. Like most political cartoons, I find it to be a rather obvious over-simplification of the matter, but to be honest, I don't think it is terribly far from the truth.

The recent news of Canada's six latest combat deaths has only increased the cries for Canada's withdrawal from Afghanistan. To be perfectly fair, Mr. Layton and the NDP are not alone however, as far as I can tell Layton is the only one calling for Canada's immediate withdrawal. The Liberals are simply demanding that Canada's mission not be extended past 2009, to which we have already committed (Click Here for details). But even then, the Liberal leader may still leave the door open for Canadian soldiers to continue serving in less volatile areas of Afghanistan and/or in more of a supportive role rather than the combat role they are now playing.

Let us not forget that just a few months ago, the NDP actually teamed up with the Conservatives to vote down a Liberal motion in the House of Commons urging the government to give notice to NATO that it would not be extending the mission past 2009. Why the unlikely alliance? Because it did not call for the immediate withdrawal of all troops.

Now don't get me wrong, if Jack Layton feels that Canadian soldiers are getting killed needlessly it is his duty to speak up, but it kind of bothers me that this may just be sending the wrong message to the enemy. Since Mr. Layton's cries seem to be loudest whenever there is a Canadian death in Afghanistan, the message he appears to be sending is that if enough Canadians are killed, sooner or later we will give in.

Mr. Layton is also quick to point out that "Students of history will know that all major conflicts are resolved, ultimately, through peace-oriented discussions. . . . And that's what needs to happen here." (click Here for details) Well as it just so happens I am somewhat of a student of history and I have news for him. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain held some rather interesting peace-oriented discussions with his German counterpart Adolph Hitler. It may surprise Mr. Layton to learn that although these negotiations appeared to assure that "there will be peace in our time" (according to Chamberlain's famously ironic words), ultimately they did not go so well, and the Munich Pact failed.

Mr. Layton was right about one thing though, ULTIMATELY the ensuing conflict between the Axis countries (Germany, Italy and Japan) and the Allies (the U.S.A., The Soviet Union, and the British Commonwealth countries) was ended through peace-oriented discussions. Unfortunately what he seems to have failed to realize is that the Axis did not seem too interested in peace until we started starving their populations by blockading their ports, carpeting their cities with firebombs, and slowly but surely defeating and eliminating their armies in the field. Japan did not surrender until the allies dropped not one but two atomic bombs on them! The Germans fought on even as Soviet troops and allied bombers leveled their capital city!

Need a more recent event? No problem. The 1973 Treaty of Paris was signed by the Americans and the North Vietnamese (among others) in an effort to end the Vietnam War. The idea was to effectively turn Vietnam into another Korea. A seemingly perpetually divided country, split between communists and capitalists. It seems that the Communists had other ideas, as they invaded yet again in 1974 (unsuccessfully) and then again in 1975, only this time the Americans had ultimately had enough. The Canadian navy was sent to South-Central Asia to mop up the humanitarian catastrophe and rescue the "Boat People" as they fled the new communist regime.

I am not trying to say that we need to resort to World War II tactics of bombing cities and starving countries. The only point I am trying to make here is that during any conflict, either side is likely to score a victory every now and then, or at the very least manage to inflict casualties. I can even see his point that if we are taking casualties in a war that we should not be fighting, we probably should withdraw immediately, but this country's elected body has already voted on staying until 2009. The fact that we have taken casualties since then has not changed this. It is not as if we are fighting against a group of innocent kittens here.

We should not be pulling out of Afghanistan because of the rising body count, and we should not be fooled into insincere negotiations. If World War II taught us anything, it is that the only negotiations for peace that can be counted upon, are those in which our enemies have a very strong interest vested in obtaining peace, and that a defeated enemy is much easier to negotiate with.

Linguistic discrimination in Ontario?

2007-06-24T08:49:00.000-07:00

Before I really dive into this post, I want to get one thing straight. I am an Anglophone. The first language I ever learned to speak was English, and neither one of my parents speak French, nor do either of them have the slightest trace of French-Canadian origins that we are aware of. Despite this fact, my siblings and I were all able to slip through the cracks and receive our educations in Ontario's French language schools (not to be mistaken for French immersion). It is for this reason that to this day I am fluent in French, and if I may be so bold, I dare say that I speak it more or less as well as I speak English.

Now that I've made this clear, a recent event has given me cause to reflect on the situation of Francophones living outside of Québec. I recently decided to apply for a number of articling student positions with the Ontario government. While I was aware that such positions are extremely difficult to obtain, I decided to give it a shot anyways since I really didn't have anything to lose, and because the fact that I am bilingual might just make me more attractive to them. In order to emphasize my bilingualism, I decided to send off my cover letters and CVs in French.

Slowly, various government offices began to acknowledge receipt of my applications either by mail or email, and I noticed that all of the correspondence I received was in English! To be perfectly honest, I hadn't given this a moment's thought (or even noticed for that matter!) until I received a response from the office of the ministry of community safety and correctional services by mail. In this letter, the person who received my application (who shall remain anonymous) very politely thanked me for my interest in the position and told me that they would soon be making a choice on who they wished to invite for interviews. Then, much to my surprise, I was asked to please send a copy of my application in English!

Now in my case, there was absolutely no harm done. I speak English, and already had copies of my cover letter and CV templates in English stored on my hard drive. So complying with this request was little more than a simple matter of loading up the files, making a few quick changes, and emailing the files to the address of the person who sent me the letter. I also promised to mail an English copy at the next opportunity. I do not consider myself to have been the victim of any form of injustice in this matter.

Still, I couldn't help but be troubled by all this just a little. According to the 2001 census, Ontario has a total population of 11,285,550 of whom 485,630 identified French as their mother tongue, and another 37,135 selected English and French. With the obvious exception of Québec, no other province has as many Francophones (though New Brunswick, Canada's only officially bilingual province, has a larger percentage of Francophones than Ontario). This makes me wonder what would have happened if someone else had sent their application in French, someone who was not as strong in English as I am.

Despite what some people may think, it is perfectly possible to live one's life in Ontario without ever mastering English. I have had the pleasure of getting to know a lot of Franco-Ontarians in my day, and while there can be no doubt that a good number of them speak English every bit as well as I do, I have also met a lot of them who struggle with the language. A lot of Franco-Ontarians grew up in places like Hearst, Hawkesbury, and Lafontaine, where Francophones are actually the majority of the community. Should one of these people have had to submit an English copy of their application? I don't think so. In my opinion, a Canadian should have the right to communicate with his or her government (yes even the provincial ones) in the official Canadian language of their choice.

Now I am willing to accept that reasonable limits must be set. After all, even the Charter of Rights has a reasonable limits clause. So one could argue that Ontario's overwhelmingly larger English-speaking population is justification for French language services not being provided in that province, but I for one, am not convinced. Ontario (to its much deserved credit) has already made great strides in accommodating its Francophone population. Every government form and web page for the Ontario government that I have seen has either been bilingual or has had an English equivalent and whenever I have called a government number there is always a French option. For the most part, the Ontario government is all but officially bilingual. Furthermore, as I already mentioned, Ontario does have the largest Francophone population outside of Quebec, and according to the 2001 census, French is also the largest minority language in the province and has at least twice as many people as any other language group (unless you count Chinese as one language, but even then the Francophone population is still larger). When these numbers are coupled with the fact that French is an official language of Canada, it seems to me that it is perfectly reasonable for a Franco-Ontarian to expect services from the government of Ontario in French.

Now it is also worth noting that the office of the ministry of community safety and correctional services, unlike almost all of the other positions I applied for, is not located in the province's capital city of Toronto. It is in fact located in the small town of Orillia, in the same building that serves as the Headquarters for the Ontario Provincial Police (O.P.P.). Should this serve as justification for them not being able to read my application in French? Once again, I don't think so. While Orillia itself is a VERY Anglophone community (I lived just outside of the town for about 8 years), it is just a stone's throw away from Penetanguishene, Midland, and of course, Lafontaine. All of which have very substantial French-speaking populations.

This begs the question, should all of the people responsible for hiring articling students in this particular branch of the government be made to learn to speak French? The answer of course, is no. However, it does not seem at all unreasonable to me that at least one member of the hiring committee could be a bilingual person. If such personnel are unavailable, I don't think it would be hard or unreasonable to have it translated. Now once again, in my case this is very unnecessary, since sending the application for me was almost no effort at all. My concern is for any Franco-Ontarian, who just wants a job with his or her government.

Now I realize that the person who sent me that letter was not some anti-French lunatic bent on pushing Franco-Ontarians into assimilation. It seems far more likely that they just did not have the resources available to understand the French documents in my application package, and they wanted to be able to understand enough about me to evaluate my ability to fit in with their organization. I can respect that. But I also think that the Ontario government should set aside the necessary resources for potential government employers to objectively evaluate Francophone applicants.

I also can’t help but wonder if I would have received the same request if my name were not Brian Fisher. Would my friends Léo Bourdon or Marc-André Mongeon have received the same request? Yet again, I am still not complaining, as having an Anglo/Irish name does tend to make one think that the person whose name it is will probably speak English. And in my case, it was perfectly true. Though I know my friend Patrick Kilfoil, a Francophone, would probably take issue with this.

By the way, for those among my Francophone friends who are wondering why I am making this particular posting in English, it is because I am essentially trying to make the case for a bilingual Ontario, and to do so in French would essentially amount to preaching to the choir.

R.I.P. Kelowna Accord November 2005 - June 2007

2007-06-21T14:46:00.000-07:00

Well, it's very nearly official. In a last minute bargain, the Liberal and Conservative members of the Senate have struck a deal that will have the Liberals allow the Budget Implementation Bill to get past the Senate in exchange for which, the government will allow all bills currently up for third reading to be voted upon. This means that several important bills, such as C-288, an act that will order the Conservative government to meet the standards set out by the Kyoto Accord (Click for the Full Story). Unfortunately, Bill C-292 an act ordering the Conservative government to respect the Kelowna Accord, has passed second reading in the Senate, but has not yet cleared the committee stage. As the vote is scheduled for tomorrow, it seems unlikely to me that there is any chance of having the bill passed in time.

I suppose that even if this bill does not die on the Agenda, it does not really mean much for Canada's native peoples. Prime Minister Harper has already indicated that he doesn't intend to abide by it even if it is passed, though I suppose it would have allowed for certain groups to sue (which would no doubt hae taken forever, and only led to further frustration). So I suppose that the only chance of seeing Kelowna implemented is to hope for a Liberal governement.

Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice showed his government's usual respect for our native peoples, by not showing up for the first national aboriginal women's summit, which was held in Cornerbrook Newfoundland (Click for the Full Story). Evidently the Kelowna accord was a hot topic at this gathering and the Minister decided to show his true colours and run away.

Oh well, it should be interesting to see what the consequences are for C-288 getting through!

A new native land claims dispute resolution mechanism?

2007-06-12T17:07:00.000-07:00

At the risk of speaking too soon, it appears that the Harper government may actually be doing right by Canada's native peoples for once. The Conservative government has recently announced that it plans to introduce legislation that would create a tribunal capable of making binding rulings on land claims. I'd like to see what the legislation looks like before I formulate an opinion on it but since the bill is supposedly going to be drafted in cooperation with the Assembly of First Nations I am feeling carefully optimistic.

Having said this, let us not forget that this is the same government that all but spat in the face of every province and native band in the country by abandoning the Kelowna accord.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/land_claims

More on Senate Reform

2007-06-07T19:02:00.000-07:00

Well the battle lines have long since been drawn and both sides are ready for a fight! According to the Canadian Press, the Conservative government is accusing the Liberal Senate majority of provoking a constitutional crisis by shelving the act that would impose a term limit of eight years on Canadian senators until the Supreme Court has had the chance to decide whether or not the bill is constitutional.

True to form, the Tories are attacking "the unelected Liberal senate" and accusing senators of trying to preserve their privileges.

While Government House leader, Peter Van Loan is right to point out that the Senate has no authority to compel the government to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court, but of course he is forgetting that the Senate has the absolute power to veto any bill, even ones that have already been passed by the elected House of Commons (though unless I am mistaken, this particular bill originated in the Senate). And of course, like any other bill before parliament it can be delayed indeffinately. So what is so wrong an elected body setting aside a piece of legislation until it has been examined by the Supreme Court? Especially with a bill that is as constitutionally sensitive as this one.

And if these dreadful Liberal Senators are only concerned about losing their privileges, then why are the Conservative Senators not opposing it? Almost all of them were appointed under the PC government of old, and stand to lose just as much. They are not at all beholden unto the PM. Are we really to believe that Conservative Senators are any more moral than Liberal Senators? Does morality really run solely along political lines? And finally is it really so difficult to believe that the Liberal Senators may actually have legitimate concerns that a rapid, "piece-meal" reform of the Senate may be bad for Canadian democracy? I don't think so. And quite frankly, I find Mr. Van Loan's suggestion to be rather intellectually insulting.

As the above article states, 4 provinces have already voiced strong concerns about the way the Prime Minister is going about reforming the senate. Two of those provinces, happen to be the two most populous provinces in the country. Being the great champion of democracy that he claims to be, does the Prime Minister not realize that under the current method of selecting senators, a Prime Minister with two consecutive majority terms (approximately eight years) could actually name the entire senate?! Of course the idea behind the PM's actions is that it would force other parties to support an elected senate, so that they too could have representation there. Crafty, yes, but ultimately this is just another way of getting around having to discuss the matter with the provinces.

Then of course, there is Bill C-43, which aims to allow for an elected senate. What the Prime Minister seems to fail to realize is that there is a reason why the 1982 Constitution Act does not allow for the method of selection of senators to be altered without passing a rigid constitutional amendment formula. One of the purposes of the senate is to ensure a regional balance, and the provinces have good reason to fear that if senators were elected, the newly “legitimized” senators could diminish provincial powers.

Now an elected senate is not necessarily a bad idea, if it were done properly I'm sure there's a chance it could work. But as difficult as it will be, this cannot be done without consultation from the provinces nor can it be done without the approval of the appropriate amount of legislatures. And it is here where we Liberals are weak. The problem is not that we support an unelected senate; the problem is that we have no coherent alternative! Some of us favour an elected senate, others one that remains appointed, but by the provincial premiers, etc. Now this is unlikely to change with time, but the least we need to do is pick a position as a party, and move forward with a more intelligent alternative to what the Conservatives are offering, if we are really going to stick it to the Conservatives on this issue. I'm not saying it'll be easy, but it has to be done.

Thanks to the Sens

2007-06-06T19:43:00.000-07:00

I don't think I've ever kept the fact that I am a tried and true, die-hard leaf fan a secret. Always have been, always will be. But as much as this is so, I found it hard not to cheer for the Sens in their quest for the cup this year. I guess it all started in the first round, when they made me eat my words (not to mention lose my hair!). They managed to beat a team, that in my opinion was better than them, and that if nothing else is deserving of respect. The fact that they got past Jersey was no surprise. The Devils were lucky to have gotten past Tampa Bay. They really won my respect when they blew past the President's Cup winning Buffalo Sabres in a mere five games.

While it is true that a few years of winning teams have made Sens fans pretty arrogant over the last few years, at least they would have appreciated a Stanley Cup. Yeah the Anaheim fans are cheering pretty loudly right now, but somehow I doubt that Lord Stanley's prize will truly be appreciated there. And true, hockey has been in California for decades now, and is relatively secure there, but I am certain that this cup will not be appreciated nearly as much as it would have been appreciated in Ottawa.

The heartache is compounded by the fact that the last three cups have been won by American teams from warm climates against Canadian teams.

I suppose an Anaheim victory is not quite as disgusting as it would have been if it had occured while they were The Mighty Ducks, owned by Disney, and I guess the Ducks also have more Canadian players, but Canada needs a cup.

Hopefully my boys in blue will be answering the call, but they have a lot of work to do in the meantime, right now I'd settle for making the playoffs.

But if nothing else the Sens were fun to watch, even as they lost in the finals. To them I say "thanks for a good season guys, you tried your best and in the end it just wasn't enough, but well done anyways".

Episode II: Attack of the ads

2007-06-02T11:02:00.000-07:00

As I pulled out of the Tim Horton's parking lot this morning, after making one of my multiple daily "Timmy's runs", what should come over the radio but one of the latest negative conservative adds against Leader of the Official Opposition, Stéphane Dion. This scathing attack features a very grim voiced narrator, who berates Dion for not being able to get liberal senators to vote in favour of eight year term limits for senators. At least this time, the tory adds are somewhat rooted in the truth, unlike the last round of ads that simply stated that the return of the liberal government under Dion would mean a return for corruption, and that Dion was not a leader. They even went so far as to attack Ralph Goodale, who had just been cleared of any wrongdoing.

These new ads at least had the general facts right, though they were badly twisted and may come back to bite the tories anyways. Now I can't speak for the liberal leader, but it seems to me that in an unelected senate, eight year term limits are a VERY bad idea! Simply put, a prime minister who is in office for eight years or more (as is often the case) could actually appoint the entire senate! Now I may be mistaken, but I believe that Stéphane Dion has merely suggested that Senators terms be limited to 12 years, so as to ensure at least a little bi-partisanism in the senate.

Now I know that Prime Minister Harper is an advocate of having an elected senate and has even appointed the very first elected senator since the Mulroney days however, the issue of senate reform is too important to be decided upon unilaterally by the Prime Minister. Many of the provinces fear that an elected senate would lead to their own powers being dilluted. Then of course there are equally credible fears that the senate could cease to be a place where minorities can voice their concerns. All of this is not to say that the senate cannot function if comprised solely of elected members but the constitutional amendment formula is in place for a reason. At any rate senate reform is an extremely complicated issue and I am digressing from the issue at hand.

The Young Liberals came out with some ads of their own recently. The ads are a parody of the "Mac vs. PC" ads we all see so regularly on television. While they are more cute and comical than anything else, there is deffinately a negative undertone. The ads highlight the conservative government's lousy record on the environment, their branding issues and also accuse the Conservatives of adopting liberal policies in order to be more appealing. Once again they are rooted in the truth (and in my opinion much more firmly than the conservative ads!), but a negative ad is a negative ad.

As I've said before, I don't see anything wrong per se with pointing out flaws in a political opponents belief system or policies but the problem lies with the fact that in the end both parites will get negative and both will wind up looking bad, which entirely discredits the system as a whole. So maybe it's better just to focus on the positive aspects of one's own platform rather than running down the other guy's. On the other hand, perhaps it's ok to use negative ads so long as they don't distort the truth, don't attack any individual and are done with some taste. Any thoughts?

Mais qu'est-ce qui ce passe dans la belle province?

2007-05-25T16:04:00.000-07:00

Avant d'aborder le sujet de la crise budgétaire au Québec, il me semble prudent d'avouer que je ne surveille pas de proche les politiques provinciaux québécois. Pourtant la situation actuelle me pousse à me questionner sur ce qui ce passe à l'assemblée nationale. La première solution évidente c'est que les Adéquistes et les Péquistes sont en train de se forcer pour que le gouvernement libéral doit concéder un peu. Ceci s'équivaut plus ou moins à un jeu de "Chicken".

Pourtant il me semble que la situation devient de plus en plus compliqué lorsqu'on tient en tête les positions stratégiques des trois grandes parties provinciales. Comme la dernière élection vient juste de se terminer en mars, tout le trois parties doivent sûrement être financièrement épuisés mais il n'y avait que les Adéquistes qui se sont ressortis avec un montant suffisamment d’élan pour peut être vouloir en provoquer une nouvelle élection.

Comme les Péquistes viennent juste de perdre leur chef, il me semble absolument impossible qu'ils voudraient en provoquer une élection avant d'en avoir choisi un nouveau.

Et les Libéraux? Bien sure que Charest doit avoir peur de perdre son gouvernement, mais il me semble qu'il doit également avoir hâte de regagner son statut majoritaire. Oserait-il de proposer un budget complètement inacceptable à l'opposition pour en pouvoir tenter de regagner des sièges? Il me semble que son manquement à sa promesse de campagne de baisser les impôts lors de son premier terme était une grande question lors des dernières élections et comme le manquement d'appui au budget par l'opposition semble axé surtout sur la décision des Libéraux de baisser les impôts, Charest pourrait regagner beaucoup de crédibilité chez son électorat. Mais il me semble plus probable que son gouvernement ne cherche qu'à remplir à ses promesses, sans devoir vraiment baisser les impôts.

En résumé, je n'ai aucune idée ce qui ce passe à l'assemblée nationale. J'ai hâte de lire des opinions plus éclairées que le mien.

La Langue de Stephen

2007-05-15T18:15:00.000-07:00

Encore une fois les faiblesses du très honorable Stephen Harper face aux langues officielles viennent de se faire exposer. Le nouveau commissionnaire des langues officielles, Graham Fraser, viens de déposer son premier rapport officiel dans lequel le gouvernement conservateur est fortement critiqué pour son inertie en ce qui concerne le développement des langues officielles.

Bien que le commissionnaire a pu féliciter Harper lui-même pour avoir débuter toutes ses discours en Français, il nota les compressions budgétaires et en particulier l'élimination de la programme de contestation judiciaire, et s'inquiétait du sort du plan d'action pour les langues officielles, adopté par le gouvernement libéral en 2003. Pour plus de détails voir le lien ci-dessous.

http://www.radio-canada.ca/radio/maisonneuve/15052007/87460.shtml

À mon avis, ceci est parfaitement typique du partie conservateur (je fait référence bien sure aux Conservateurs modernes). Ils ne s'inquiètent qu'à leur image et n'en veulent rien à faire avec le progrès. Les francophone ont sans doute commencé à se méfier de Harper depuis son premier assaut sur le bilinguisme canadien (L'annulation de l'obligation de bilinguisme pour les officiers dans les forces canadiennes).

Heureusement, les Canadiens auront bientôt l'occasion de faire apprendre aux Conservateurs l'importance du bilinguisme dans la politique canadienne!

Things are really getting interesting!

2007-05-13T15:55:00.000-07:00

Well, I suppose that's just my luck. Things start to get a little busy for me to the point where I don't get to write on my blog as much as usual, and wouldn't you know it, all Hell breaks loose in Canadian politics!

So far it looks like I've missed Justin Trudeau entry into Canadian politics (meh... we'll see where this leads us), the Tories took a nosedive in the polls, and Gilles Duceppe can't seem to make up his mind! And that's just naming a few of the important events I've missed out on. Oh well, such is life. Anyways, here's a "Reader's Digest Version" of my view on things right now.

I haven't really got a lot to say about Trudeau right now, but I'm willing to give him the chance to prove himself.

As for the Tories, this latest slump looks good on them, but we Liberals had better not get too optimistic just yet. After all, we haven't exactly been rising a whole lot in the polls lately, and there's no telling when the Tories could just explode in our faces! With an election looming, potentially this summer, Liberals had better be wary, and above all, ready to hit the pavement and work hard whether an election is called or not this summer.

I can't really say that I understand what is going on with Duceppe, but the whole thing smells a little funny to me. Why would a politician of Duceppe's calibre humiliate himself by waffling as he has over the last few days? It just doesn't make any sense! I mean, if he had been scared off or bought out, I'm sure he would have just waited at least a few weeks to bow out gracefully or something. Still, if he is truthfully backing out for the good of the separatist movement, it is an admirable act of self-sacrifice... if you're a separatist.

I particularly enjoyed watching André Boisclair get eaten alive and then make a pathetic remark about Québec's "liberation" (as if Québec hadn't freely chosen to remain a part of this country on two occasions!)

I don't follow French politics closely enough to know whether Sarkozy is the best choice or not, but one thing is certain, the Franco-American relations could certainly use a defrosting, and with a new American president incoming, things are looking a little more optimistic. And besides, I'm rather enjoying the fact that Royale suffered a defeat as she kind of got my blood boiling by supporting the separatist movement over here.

Well I guess that's it for now. I'll try to make my postings a little more regularly this summer!

Dion stands up for the Charter

2007-04-17T20:16:00.000-07:00

Canada is presently celebrating the 25th anniversary of one of the most important legal documents in the history of our nation.

I am pleased to announce that I had the privilege of seeing Liberal leader Stéphane Dion stand up in the alumni auditorium of Ottawa U this morning to pay tribute to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Former prime minister Jean Chrétien also attended later this afternoon however, I was unfortunately not able to attend as it was time to get down to studying for my exams (as I should be doing now).

The event itself was organized by the Canadian studies department here at the university and as such was not intended as a political rally (at least so they told us at the door) however, Dion did not waste the opportunity to absolutely blast Prime Minsister Stephen Harper for not showing up or even sending one of his ministers. He was also quick to condemn the PM for having canceled the Court Challenges Program and having meddled in the judicial appointment process, among other issues. A little inappropriate? Maybe, but certainly fun to watch, and if it gets the message out about Harper's abismal record regarding human rights in Canada it is probably worth it if you ask me. Anyways, back to studying for me!

Encore la constitution!

2007-04-16T07:58:00.000-07:00

Je savais bien que le débat constitutionnel ait loin d'être terminé, et voilà la preuve dans les nouvelles récentes que le chef de l'opposition officiel au Québec, M. Mario Dumont viens d'annoncer qu'il serait prêt à signer l'accord constitutionnel de 1982, si le gouvernement fédéral est prêt à limiter ses pouvoirs de dépenser. (Pour plus de détails voir l'article même)

De mon avis, il faut que j'avoue que je ne croyais pas qu'une telle question allait se présenter sans qu'un autre gouvernement péquiste ou un gouvernement adéquiste soit élu au Québec ou que Stephen Harper ait gagné sa majorité à la chambre des communes.

Ça se peut que je sois en train de réagir trop fort, d'après tout, Dumont n'est que le chef de l'opposition au Québec et a beaucoup de travail à faire avant qu'il puisse accéder au pouvoir dans la belle province. Mais ce n'est pas hors question que l'ADQ en retire au moins un gouvernement minoritaire lors des prochaines élections.

À mon avis, l'adhésion du Québec à la constitution de 1982 sera un grand coup pour n'importe quel Premier ministre. Mais à quel prix? Je ne veux pas dire que le prix demandé par Dumont me semble irraisonnable, il faudra qu'une entente détaillée soit conclue avant que je puisse en faire une décision à ces égards. Mais il me semble que le vrai tort dans ce que Dumont propose c'est que ceci risque de créer encore une autre échec constitutionnel ce qui pourrait accroître les sentiments d'isolation chez les québécois.

Par contre le fait que les conséquences d'un échec constitutionnel seront graves ne doit pas nous empêcher de corriger "l'erreur de 1982". On ne devrait pas permettre au phénomène "can of worms" de nous empêcher non plus. Il me semble qu'un accord face au pouvoir du gouvernement fédéral de dépenser pourrait se faire sans l'inclusion des autres provinces en vertu de l'art 44 de la loi constitutionnelle de 1982.

Même si je ne suis pas prêt à me fier au gouvernement Harper, la constitution est d'une importance suffisante qu'il ne faut pas permettre aux sentiments partisans de nuire à l'occasion d'enfin pouvoir régler la question constitutionnelle et même possiblement enfin écraser le mouvement séparatiste au Québec. Pourtant, on est encore très loin de pouvoir trancher cette question, car Jean Charest demeure toujours le Premier ministre du Québec, et Stephen Harper n'a pas encore sa majorité (et de mon avis il ne le mérite pas!).

Time to add my own two cents on freedom of speech

2007-04-12T16:50:00.001-07:00

A number of my blogger friends such as Vicky and Marc-André have both weighed in on the subject of what limits (if any) should be imposed on an individual's right to self-expression over the past few months, and with the latest "shock-jock" scandal just breaking south of the border (see link below), I thought I'd add my own two cents.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/don_imus

It seems that radio show host Don Imus has drawn the ire of a substantial portion of the American public by his repeated use of racial and sexist slurs.

As the above link demonstrates, this is nothing new for this individual. It appears that this time however, he has managed to step into a hornet's nest because the young black women he called "nappy-headed hos" are fighting back. It seems that the young ladies in question have actually rallied together and managed to attract the attention of such powerful activists as the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who lobbied the network and appear to have succeeded in convincing the network to throw Imus off the air.

The problem? Well, obviously this brings up the major issue of free speech. From a legal point of view, it's not as big of a problem here in Canada, where all of our most important rights are guaranteed by the charter, but are subject to the reasonable limits clause (section 1 of the charter). In the states however, rights take on a more absolute form. Already, presidential hopeful John McCain has reportedly come out in favour of Imus.

The obvious argument in favour of the remarks is that no matter what he may have said, what he said was just words, and that as a society the American people should not be picking and choosing what they want to hear. The second they start to forbid one form of speech, they are leaving all other forms of speech, such as political criticism, wide open.

As important as it is to protect free speech, I have to say that I am quite comfortable limiting what someone does and does not have the right to express on national television. So long as the limits imposed on someone's rights are "reasonable" as is the general standard here in Canada (there is a more detailed set of standards outlined by the Supreme Court in R. v. Oakes).

As I wrote before when commenting on Marc-André's blog, the courts have long since enforced the tort of slander, which essentially allows an individual to seek re-payment if someone has unjustly made disparaging remarks about them. I can therefore see no reason why a group of people should not have the right to protection under the law from hateful remarks being made about them for no reason. It is one thing to point out foul deeds committed by one person; it is completely another thing to randomly assign a bunch of negative traits to an entire group of people based simply on stereotypical beliefs.

In Imus' case, he has been lucky enough not to be prosecuted (I am not aware of what if any hate-speech legislation exists in the states). The fact that he has at least admitted that his comments were "stupid" has at least some sort of redeeming quality to, however given that this is not exactly a first strike for the man, I am willing to say that he has been punished fairly.

Belinda is leaving politics

2007-04-11T09:43:00.000-07:00

Well, as suddenly as she burst onto the political scene, it seems that Belinda Stronach is leaving politics just as quickly.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070411/national/magna_stronach

I don't think I've ever been shy about the fact that I am not exactly her biggest fan. I was really upset at how she left a high profile position in the official opposition party to become a cabinet minister in Paul Martin's government. I too would have felt far more comfortable if she had simply left the Conservative party to sit as an independant until she could be elected as a Liberal. To be fair though, she was re-elected in her riding in spite of the way her big switch happened. So if nothing else at least her riding forgave her. Which I seriously doubt will be the case for David Emerson or Wajid Kahn.

I don't think any of us will ever forget the infamous dog remark made by her former boyfriend Peter MacKay, Canada's current Foreign Affairs Minister. I must admit that I lost what little respect I had left for MacKay over this incident. Not simply because he let his feelings get the better of him, but because he was too cowardly to simply admit that he had made a mistake or at least to deny that he had said it, he was revealed for the weasel that he is.

If nothing else, Belinda made our lives interesting, as we never quite knew what to expect of her. She was, at least in appearance a strong advocate for the promotion of the status of women. As one of the author's of the Pink Book, she helped set forth some of the Liberal Party's most progressive women's policy.

In the word's of one of my best friends, and fellow bloggers, Vicky Plouffe:

"she showed women that they could become involved into politics...be both young and pretty, without being confined to the pretty face status in the house" (this quote is not from Vicky's blog, it is from an MSN conversation we had that I am reproducing here with her permission)

I can't say that I really agree with Vicky all that much, as I don't think that canadian women ever needed to be convinced of what they can and can't do. But one thing is undeniable, Belinda played in the big leagues and held her own in a male dominated arena. She refused to bve cast aside like the Helena Guergis and Rona Ambrose "types" of the Canadian political world. I'm sure Belindsa's vast family fortune didn't hurt in this regard, but there is certainly no shortage of men in Canada's parliament with this very same advantage.

Like I say, I'm not exactly her biggest fan, but I think I will miss her. If nothing else, Canadian politics will miss having such a strong female voice.

Huge news for the UOYL / Des nouvelles importantes pour la JLUO

2007-04-04T11:42:00.000-07:00

I just wanted to bring to everyone's attention that the president of the UOYL, Mr. David Taylor has resigned his position. He has been a tremendous asset to the club and he shall be missed. Best of luck Dave!

I am attaching his official letter of resignation with his permission.

Ceci est juste pour informer les membres du JLUO que notre président, M. David Taylor viens de démissionner. Il a très bien exécuté ses fonctions au cours des dernières quelques mois et il va beaucoup nous manquer. Bonne chance Dave

Avec sa permission, sa lettre de démission est ci-joint (en Anglais seulement) :

To the Executive of the University of Ottawa Young Liberals:

It has come to my attention that my holding and continuing to hold the position of President with our organization is in conflict with my duties in the Senate. As such, with this e-mail I am tendering my resignation as President effective immediately. Also effective immediately, Patrick Kilfoil will become President as per Article 7, Section 2(a) of our constitution. I regret that I am submitting this in e-mail form, but it is time-sensitive and my being in Edmonton makes it somewhat difficult to submit a signed letter at this time. Upon my return to Ottawa on April 10 I will tender the appropriate hard copy documents to Patrick at the earliest possible convenience.

I would also like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude for all the hard work we have done together over the past months - I have truly enjoyed my time with the club. I wish all of you the best in your future efforts and I know that the club is in good hands.

Best regards,

David Taylor

Liberals Strike back!

2007-04-04T08:02:00.000-07:00

Looks like the liberals are striking back against Stephen Harper's latest string of attack ads, Give 'em Hell guys!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTEdaySDCIM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EddC8uWChWk

Eastern Regional Policy Parliament 2007 - a major success!!!

2007-04-03T22:09:00.000-07:00

This past weekend was an important one for the UOYL and the Ottawa-Vanier Young Liberals, because on Saturday March 31st we played co-hosts to the 2007 Eastern Regional Policy Parliament. This was my second policy parliament as policy director of the UOYL, and my first time as part of the organizing team and I am pleased to say that it went off without a hitch!

The ERPP began with an interesting foreword from Ottawa-Vanier MP Mauril Bélanger. Naturally, he was his usual well-spoken self with much to say about the importance of engaging the grass roots of this party!

About midway through the day's activities we received a visit from local MPP and member of cabinet, Jim Watson. Mr. Watson had lots to say about the encouraging physical activity for youth.

Perhaps the most impassioned speaker of the afternoon was Ottawa-South MP David McGuinty, who gave made a strong argument as to just how imperative it is that Canada does something to address the issue of climate change... Al Gore would be proud!

We also had the privilege of welcoming Ottawa city councilor Clive Doucet who added some very interesting supplements to Mr. McGuinty's speech, and also gave a very well thought out talk on urban expansion.

Of course the real point of the meeting was for young liberal from across the Easter Region of the province to come together and discuss policies! I am pleased to report that we had members visit us from as far away as Queen's University and Kingston and the Islands. We got the chance to discuss such important issues as Canada's military presence in Afghanistan, designating certain zones of Ontario as bilingual, and the need to fight against the HPV virus. Ultimately, the group decided to send the two following policies to the Ontario Young Liberals Summer Fling. We hope they are adopted!

Ottawa-Vanier Young Liberal Association Policy on Skilled Labour Training in Secondary School

Whereas it has become difficult to fill necessary posts within the demands for skilled labour in Canada, but especially within the manufacturing heartland of Ontario...

Whereas the economic and academic demands of the 21st Century have led young people to attend College or University programs rather than pursue a career in manufacturing or the skilled trades...

Whereas secondary school institutions do not encourage the pursuit of skilled trades on the same level of College or University attendance...

Whereas training for these careers is, oftentimes, expensive, and time consuming; without, necessarily, obvious rewards or incentives...

Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Ontario, in an effort to incorporate the teaching of skilled trades into the realm of secondary education, teach introductory courses in a wide array of the skilled trades, hiring millwrights or other skilled persons with adequate College level instruction training in a variety of skilled occupations to serve as instructors; beginning in Grade 11 of secondary school and continuing into Grade 12...

Be it resolved that these ‘classes’ serve the same introductory and preparedness role as University, College, and/or Workplace level academic courses serve in Grade 11 and 12...

Be it further resolved that this will allow an alternative to University or College education, while allowing students with the talents of practical application or skilled labour to begin training at an earlier age; thereby establishing themselves as more qualified to re-commence and/or complete their skilled labour training afterwards at a reduced financial cost and shorter formal training period, as a result of the incorporation of their secondary school introduction to the skilled trade of their choice.

University of Ottawa Young Liberals’ Policy on Addiction Rehabilitation Programs

Whereas Canada does not offer high quality public addiction rehabilitation centres,

Whereas the addiction rehabilitation centres that do exist are of poor quality and have waiting time that are much too long,

Whereas there are an insufficient number of aftercare or counselling programs available to people who have just been through any addiction rehabilitation program,

Whereas people who complete their session at an addiction rehabilitation centre are left on their own to find support programs and counsellors so that they can follow a healthy lifestyle;

Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada and the Ontario Liberal Party urge the federal and provincial governments to provide sufficient funding to improve the quality of addiction rehabilitation program’s infrastructure and availability,

Be it further resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada and the Ontario Liberal Party urge the federal and provincial governments to improve post-addiction rehabilitation counselling services,

Be it further resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada and the Ontario Liberal Party encourage all parties involved to cooperate in order to establish linkages to reinforce a national association of addiction rehabilitation professionals to establish national standards for care,

Be it further resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada and the Ontario Liberal Party encourage all parties involved to act to improve the awareness of the existence of addiction rehabilitation programs,

And be it further resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada and the Ontario Liberal Party encourage all parties involved to foster linkages between short and long term addiction rehabilitation facilities.

One final side note...

One more little announcement, on Thursday March 29th, I had the privilege of representing the UOYL alongside our executive vice president Patrick Kilfoil in an all-party debate that was organized by PIDSSA (formerly the PSSA - Political Science Student Association). I am equally pleased to report that together with our Green Party and NDP counterparts we thoroughly embarrassed the conservatives! Unfortunately I can't take much of the credit for this, as the conservatives did most of the work themselves.

Jean Charest de retour au fédéral?

2007-03-21T10:10:00.000-07:00

Dans son blogue un de mes très bons amis a suggéré à plusieurs occasions la possibilité que le Premier Ministre libéral du Québec, Jean Charest, pourrait un jour se présenter à nouveau au niveau fédéral comme candidat (ou même chef) conservateur. L'idée me semble assez intéressante pour ajouter mon opinion.

Comme Charest est impliqué dans une élection provinciale serrée, je crois qu'on peut tous s'entendre qu'évidemment il ne va pas chercher à se volter sur la scène fédérale avant qu'il ait stabilisé la gestion de la Belle Province. Si Charest réussi à gagner un gouvernement majoritaire lors des élections de 2007 il serait peut être bien placé pour relancer sa carrière politique au niveau fédéral. Une victoire électorale lui permettrait de passer environ deux ou trois ans au pouvoir, sans trop provoquer la rage de l'électorat. Ensuite il n'aura qu'à démissionner en faveur d'un de ses collègues. Une fois que sa retraite de la scène provinciale aura lieu, Charest pourra démontrer à ses confrères conservateurs qu'il est capable de séduire l'électorat québécois, pour enfin leur rendre le gouvernement majoritaire qu'ils cherchent depuis longtemps.

Cependant, le retour de Charest sur la scène fédérale a bien des obstacles. Notamment, le très honorable Monsieur Stephen Harper. Comme ce-dernier n'a pas d'autres alliés fédéralistes au Québec, il n'a aucun choix que de s'aligner avec l'ancien chef PC. Il me semble peu probable que Harper va vouloir accueillir un autre rival potentiel dans son caucus et son cabinet. Si le Premier ministre réussi à s'en sortir des prochaines élections avec un gouvernement majoritaire (espérons que non!), il aura encore moins de besoin de l'assistance à séduire l'électorat québécois.

Si Harper sort des prochaines élections fédérales avec un autre gouvernement minoritaire, il aurait peut être besoin d'un lieutenant fort au Québec, Charest pourrait s'introduire tout comme Brian Tobin ou Ujjal Dosanjh l'ont fait sous le régime libéral. Mais ça fait longtemps que Monsieur Charest a été chef de partie depuis qu'il a succédé Kim Campbell comme chef de l'ancienne partie conservateur. Serait-il prêt à suivre un autre chef?
De toute façon, il y a aussi une autre avenue à explorer pour monsieur Charest. C'est-à-dire celui de la partie libérale fédérale. Si le Premier ministre québécois est prêt à servir sous la chefferie de Harper, pourquoi pas celui de monsieur Dion? Il ne faut pas oublier que Jean Charest est l'ancien chef PC, et non de la présente incarnation des conservateurs. Il est devenu chef de la partie conservateur lorsqu'elles n'avaient que deux sièges au parlement, et quand même il avait refusé de fusionner sa partie avec la Réforme de Preston Manning. Il est aussi à noter que Scott Brison a bien démontré que le partie libéral est très accueillent aux anciens membres PC.

Britain's Nuclear Teeth

2007-03-15T12:30:00.000-07:00

According to Reuters News Agency, British Prime Minister Tony Blair faced his largest caucus revolt yesterday since a 2003 vote over the Iraq war. This time the vote was over his proposal to replace Britain's nuclear submarine fleet, which is due to go out of service by the year 2024.

See: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/international_britain_nuclear_dc

I find this event to be rather thought provoking. It begs the question of whether or not Britain really needs a nuclear arsenal. Before I go any further, let me first say that I DO NOT HAVE THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION. Still, it is enough of an interesting topic that I think it deserves some attention, if only from a humble blogger such as myself. The M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine of the Cold War era was arguably just that... mad, insane, reckless, etc. But it is hard to argue with results, there was no nuclear war and humanity as we know it continues to survive. Whether or not this was actually due to the M.A.D. doctrine is also questionable, but at the very least it hasn't destroyed us all... yet (lest we forget those hundreds of poorly stored Soviet nukes just waiting to be stolen).

Of course, we no longer live in the Cold War era. The great threats in the world are no longer large nuclear-armed powers, with enormous conventional forces. Today's world is threatened by terrorist organizations that flatten buildings with concealed bombs and hijacked airplanes. Not exactly the kind of enemies that can be deterred by nuclear arsenals, as they are difficult to find and are multi-national. Then of course there are the so-called "Rogue states" (*cough* Iran *cough* North Korea, etc.). The Western World is faced with threats from upcoming nuclear powers whose governments are hostile to the it, and one power in particular (*cough* The U.S.). While the threat posed by an imminent nuclear counter-attack is bound to weigh heavily on the mind of any leader when considering an attack on another nuclear power, it is difficult to predict how a leader may act when under pressure, particularly in regimes where power is centered around one person.

The threat of "Rogue states" does give SOME credibility to the American idea of creating a missile shield. However, the global repercussions of doing so are as potentially catastrophic as the M.A.D. doctrine itself. Not only would this create an arm's race over who can build the best missile defense system and the missiles capable of penetrating such systems, but it would also be subject to intense scrutiny. In its current form, the missile defense program is so-so at best. It is bound to work eventually. However, when it will work, how well it will work, and whether or not it will be worthwhile are entirely different matters. I might feel a little more at ease about this proposal if it meant that the big powers of the world were trading nuclear disarmament for anti-missile defense systems, but that offer does not appear to be on the table at the moment. There are also some pretty strong advantages to disarmament.

For a power such as Britain, a wealth of credibility could be gained in their attempts to hold discussions with Iran over the latter’s own pursuit of nuclear weapons. I imagine the Iranian government would feel far more at ease if it were negotiating with a country that was clearly on an equal footing with them.

It should also be noted that many of the large nuclear powers also have substantial conventional armies as well. If ever one of them were attacked by a "Rogue State" they could just as easily level and then occupy such countries with conventional weapons and tactics, all without having to worry about the popularity of their wars.

Again I just want to say that these are just my thoughts and I am not really attempting to propose any kinds of solutions. I look forward to hearing from my blogger friends on this one.

Encore l'Afghanistan

2007-03-07T13:37:00.000-08:00

Mes chers amis, veuillez s'il vous plait excuser le retard de ce poste, mais comme je me suis trouvé occupé par plusieurs autres responsabilités ces derniers quelques semaines, je n'ai pas eu l'occasion de commenter sur les propos récents de Stéphane Dion face à la présence militaire canadienne en Afghanistan. Selon l'article ci-dessus, le chef du parti libéral veut que les troupes canadiennes soient retirées de la province du Kandahar en 2009.

Voir : http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070222/national/dion_4

Bien que je respect M. Dion, je ressens le besoin de me prononcer contre sa position. Il n'y a aucun doute que nos soldats ne peuvent demeurer dans ce pays en perpétuité, mais comme le pays est encore loin de stabiliser. Je crois qu'on est mieux de ne pas fixer une date précise de retraite.

Je suis, comme la plus part des Canadiens, habitué à percevoir le rôle de nos troupes sur la scène internationale comme étant un rôle centré vers le maintien de la paix. Pourtant, même si la mission de nos troupes en Kandahar en est une qui leurs entraîne dans le combat, je crois que la mission canadienne vise à supporter les principes du maintien de la paix. Il est évident que la paix ne peut exister dans ce pays avant que des autorités stables soient établies, et sans que l'infrastructure soit créée. Comme les forces « Talibans » semblent être déterminés à détruire ces deux éléments, il faut des troupes pour protéger le nouveau gouvernement démocratique en Afghanistan ainsi que les efforts de reconstruction. Moi je ne suis pas dérangé par la contribution canadienne à une initiative internationale de même, pourvu que ce soit sous la banière de l'ONU.
Est-ce que je crois que les forces de l'OTAN vont pouvoir écraser les forces talibans en Afghanistan? Non. Pourtant, bien que je ne sois pas un tacticien militaire, il me semble que le temps est de notre bord. Il nous faut seulement maintenir les troupes en Afghanistan jusqu'au temps où le gouvernement démocratique de l'Afghanistan va pouvoir s'établir suffisamment pour contrôler son propre territoire. Je crois que la retraite honorable de nos troupes sera possible à ce point.

Il est aussi important à noter que M. Dion reproche également le gouvernement Harper de ne pas avoir suffisamment fixé son attention sur les efforts de reconstruction. Réactionnaire comme d'habitude, le Premier Ministre répliqua en annonçant l'injection d'un autre 200 millions$ en aide financière pour les efforts de reconstruction. Je ne suis pas bien placé pour critiquer la suffisance de ce montant, alors je vais donc me satisfaire en disant que c'est un pas dans la bonne direction.

Une dette d'honneur

2007-02-19T19:32:00.000-08:00

Les annonces négatifs produites par le parti conservateur visant personellement le chef du parti libéral, Stéphane Dion ainsi que Ralph Goodale ("Canada's Best MP" selon la revue MacLean's du 4 décembre 2006) tentent de convaincre aux Québécois que le retour du parti libéral au pouvoir au fédéral signifie un retour à la corruption, et fait référence à l'enquête policière qui a été intenté à l'égard de Monsieur Goodale, sans faire référence au fait que ce dernier a été disculpé par la GRC. Les annonces ne font également pas référence au fait que ni Stéphane Dion, ni aucun autre député libéral a été impliqué par l'enquête Gomery par rapport au scandale de la commandite.

Monsieur Dion pour sa part viens de condamner les annonces en disant "He should do the honourable thing and withdraw these very, very negative ads that are so unfair". Le chef de l'opposition officiel ajouta ensuite qu'il allait permettre aux Canadiens d'évaluer les tactiques conservatrices. De mon avis c'est une position très intelligente, car tout comme leurs équivalents anglais, les annonces conservatrices ne sont pitoyables, et donnent plutôt l'impression que les Conservateurs ont peur de faire face à l'électorat.

Mais M. Dion avait plus à ajouter. En faisant référence aux tactiques d'employer de la publicité négative il annonça "I will never do that". Est-il sincère? Si le chef libéral est prêt à faire une campagne électorale sans faire recours à la publicité négative, je lui souhaite bonne chance. Pourtant il me semble que le record du gouvernement est son point faible le plus important. Ça risque d'être une opportunité manquée. De plus, si la campagne libérale choisit d'utiliser le record du gouvernement contre lui, on risque d'apparaître hypocrite. Seul le temps peut prouver s'il a fait le bon choix.

Who's dangerous now?

2007-02-15T10:40:00.000-08:00

Does anybody remember the pseudo-vote of confidence that was held during the last few months of Paul Martin's time as PM? The Bloc and the Conservatives ganged up and voted on a motion that stipulated that one of the house committees (I forget which) should change the recommendation of its report to recommend that the government resign because the house had lost confidence in it. The motion was intended to be a de facto Vote of non-confidence in Paul Martin's government, and of course the Liberals did not win the vote, even though it had the support of the NDP. There was absolutely no question that under Canada's constitution, this was not an official vote of no confidence however, it was argued that there was a strong moral obligation for Prime Minister Martin to ask the Governor General to dissolve parliament and declare a general election. It was for this reason, that when Prime Minister Martin refused to do so, our then leader of the opposition, Stephen Harper, announced to the entire nation that the PM had proven himself to be "dangerous". Our soon-to-be Prime Minister then reassured us all that he would not allow the Liberals to hijack democracy (this is not a quote, but I'm sure you get the gist of it).

Now it appears that the proverbial shoe is on the other foot. Bill C-288, which was proposed by liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez, sets a limit of 60 days for the government to draft legislation that brings our nation in line with the Kyoto protocol, has just passed the House of Commons and is awaiting senate approval. According to Alexander Panetta of the Canadian Press, the government is hinting strongly that it will simply ignore the legislation if it is made law.

See: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/kyoto_battle

There is also the matter of Bill C-292, which was proposed by the right honourable Paul Martin, who still holds his seat in the riding of Lasalle-Emard. This bill has already passed its second reading in the house and currently sits at the committee stage. The effect of this bill is to force the government to implement the Kelowna Accord, which is meant to improve the living conditions of Aboriginal-Canadians nation-wide. While I am unaware of what the Harper government plans to do if this act is passed, I'd say they are already setting a dangerous precedent with Kyoto. The Harper government has already declared that they have no intention of implementing the Kelowna Accord, so frankly I am not optimistic.

The extent to which Prime Minister Harper is willing to be hypocritical defies one's imagination. Unlike the non-binding vote that was intended to bring down the Martin government, the two bills mentioned above would actually have the effect of creating a legal obligation for the Harper government. And yet despite his big words as leader of the official opposition, our Prime Minister seems set on ignoring the will of our duly-elected representatives. A pretty bold move for someone whose party claims to "obey the law" (a phrase they frequently employ when justifying their decision to cut the court challenges program).

As alarming as the degree to which the PM is willing to reverse his stance is, it is not nearly as alarming as the speed that he is willing to do it in. First there was the Emerson appointment, then his failure to allow parliamentary committees to appoint their own chairs (in contradiction to promises he had made), and the list goes on.

According to the above-mentioned report from the Canadian Press, a high-ranking government official (who requested anonymity) actually dared the opposition to propose a vote of confidence over the matter. To do so now, would be playing into the Tories hands, as the law has not yet passed and they have not actually gone so far as to announce that they will ignore it. If I were one of the opposition party leaders, I would be waiting for the government to either come out and say they intended to ignore parliament or until AT LEAST one of its laws had been violated. It seems to me that the Prime Minister would have a very difficult time convincing Canadians that he is not dangerous by his own definition.

Back from a long hibernation

2007-02-15T10:31:00.000-08:00

Wow, it has been so long since the last time I updated my blog! Before I get started I think I owe my blogging friends an explanation for my prolonged absence from the blogging scene. By the looks of things, it was about mid-October 2006 when I dropped off the face of the earth. Right about the time when I was gearing up for exams. Ever since I've been really busy playing catch-up. But I suppose the biggest thing was that I just really didn't have anything to say for a while. It's not that there has been a shortage of issues to write about, certainly the Harper government's abandonment of the Kyoto accord and Native Rights, and of course the election of Stéphane Dion as the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, to name only a few. But I am pleased to announce that my winter lethargy seems to be wearing off, and I am ready to start blogging again.

One Hell of a Burn

2006-10-20T11:47:00.000-07:00

According to the Canadian Press, it has been alleged that while being questioned in the House of Commons about his party's environmental plan, Conservative Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay was asked "what about your dog?", to which the Nova Scotian MP allegedly replied "You already have her" and gestured toward his ex's vacant seat. MacKay is apparently denying that he referred to Stronach as a dog. I should also point out that there is no record in Hansard of the comment, and the audio-tape that captured the comment is not clear. Perhaps MacKay is innocent, but it does not look good for him. See article:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061020/national/mackay_stronach_slur

As funny as this comment was, it is not the kind of comment that should be tolerated from one of this country's elected officials about another. I should hope that whoever made the comment would at least have the intestinal fortitude to apologize.

Chances are we've all been hurt by someone at one point in our lives, and MacKay was betrayed and humiliated by Stronach on a very public level. It's more that understandable that he would have some pent up hostility. Just the same, he has a duty to put his personal life aside and conduct himself in a professional manner. If he is not able to do this, then he should not be able to keep his job.

What I fail to understand in the matter is how the whole thing is being made out to be a comment against women. I don't pretend to know what MacKay was thinking when he said what he said, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that he was comparing Ms Stronach as an individual (not women in general) to a dog. What he said was bad enough on it own merit because it was demeaning and unprofessional. I see no reason to go reaching and turn it into something it wasn't.

Three strikes legislation in Canada?

2006-10-13T12:07:00.000-07:00

Well I suppose we had to expect this. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Justice Minister Vic Toews have just announced that they will be introducing a Canadian form of “three strikes you're out” legislation. For details please see the link below:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061012/national/harper_dangerous_offenders

Apparently, the bill, which is supposed to be introduced to parliament next week, would reverse the burden of proof onto a defendant that has been convicted of three or more violent or sexual offences, for proving that he or she is not a dangerous offender. The consequence of such a label is that dangerous offenders have longer minimum sentences.

Naturally, this decision has drawn the wrath of criminal lawyers (in particular defense attorneys I would imagine!), and the praise of victim's advocates.

I can understand how this would please victim's groups. Their chief preoccupation is with retributive justice, and who's to say that they are not entitled to such justice so long as it is executed within reason? On the other hand, unless we are imprisoning someone for life (and even a life sentence doesn't usually mean life), it just makes sense to rehabilitate them so that they are less likely to re-offend when they are returned to society. By removing the possibility of early release, we are in effect removing an important incentive for them to engage in the rehabilitation process.

As the attached article suggests (along with many criminologists) three strikes legislation has been tried in other jurisdictions, in particular American ones, that are currently moving away from such tactics because they have been determined to be ineffective in deterring crime. I sense that if there can be any purpose in three strikes legislation, it is that it will provide some measure of justice to the victims of crime. At least people will be punished more severely for serious repeat offences. But at what cost to society as a whole?

Harper continues to flirt with the clergy

2006-10-04T08:42:00.000-07:00

Well folks, they're at it again. The Neo-cons have once again begun to resurrect the same-sex marriage issue. It's common knowledge that they have been planning to reopen debate on the issue for some time now, and even to hold another free vote on the subject. Apparently they are also preparing legislation to be enacted just in case that fails.

In an interview with the Globe, justice minister Vic Toews confirmed that the government has been working on the Defense of Religion Act. Apparently this bill would provide "protection" for officials, such as justices of the peace, and ministers, who refuse to perform civil marriages for religious reasons. Evidently this legislation will also provide protection against human rights actions for religious leaders who criticize the gay lifestyle.

This legislation is as poorly thought out as it is redundant. Let's start with the protection of ministers (priests, Rabbis, etc) who refuse to perform same-sex marriages. Section 3 of the Marriage for Civil Purposes Act (the very act that recognizes same-sex marriage) specifically states: "It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs." I don't know why Mr. Toews and Mr. Harper feel that additional legislation is required.

As for the protection of justices of the peace, these people are state officials. They have a duty to perform government services, in accordance with the Charter, which does not permit discrimination against homosexuals. I would imagine that the courts would strike down any such legislation. I would say this is an interesting move by a government that justifies the elimination of the Court Challenges Program, on the basis that it does not intend to violate the charter!

Finally, there is also the matter of protecting religious leaders, who speak out against the gay lifestyle against human rights complaints. While each province has its own code of human rights, the only section of Ontario's Human Rights Code, that I've read that could be remotely interpreted as relevant to religious leaders speech is that of Section 13 (1) which states:

"A right under Part I is infringed by a person who publishes or displays before the public or causes the publication or display before the public of any notice, sign, symbol, emblem, or other similar representation that indicates the intention of the person to infringe a right under Part I or that is intended by the person to incite the infringement of a right under Part I. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 13 (1)."

But then it must also be noted that section 13 (2) states:
"Subsection (1) shall not interfere with freedom of expression of opinion. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 13 (2)."

Simply put, the mere expression of disapproval in public over a certain choice of lifestyle, is unlikely to be interpreted as a human rights violation, unless it is encouraging hatred or discrimination against gays. Which is something that should be illegal. How can we honestly call ourselves a free and tolerant society, if we allow certain individuals to incite fear amongst minority communities?

Sorry Steve, I guess Canada’s minorities may still be in need of the Court Challenges Program after all!

La Force Canadienne

2006-09-18T12:18:00.001-07:00

D'habitude je ne fais pas deux affichages de fil sur le même sujet dans mon blogue, mais la situation dans notre pays vis-à-vis la présence de nos troupes en Afghanistan, m'inquiète toujours. Nous venons tous d'apprendre que notre armé vient de subir 4 nouveaux morts, et la question de l'Afghanistan va devenir un sujet contentieux dans la chambre des communes cet automne. Une des raisons chefs pour les inquiétudes, c'est le fait que des soldats canadiens soient en train de mourir. Selon la presse canadienne, l'ancien gouvernement libéral est accusé d'avoir sous-estimé la risque auquel faisait face nos soldats, et le gouvernement conservateur est accusé de pas avoir porté attention à ce risque. Il existe certains députés dans notre assemblée législative fédérale, qui croient que les troupes canadiennes doivent se retirer de l'Afghanistan, immédiatement.

Il me semble que la retraite des troupes canadiennes de l'Afghanistan serait une erreur immense. Peu importe si on anticipait de perdre tellement de vies canadiennes, nos troupes sont là, et leur présence est justifiée (voir ma dernière entrée). D'après un officiel du gouvernement de l'Afghanistan, les 4 morts les plus récentes ont eu lieu pendant que nos soldats distribuaient des bons bons et d'autres cadeaux à des enfants. Nous ne sommes pas une force envahissante (bien que la population Taliban ne soit peut être pas d'accord avec moi), mais plutôt une force de reconstruction, qui a aussi pour but d'éliminer ceux qui voudraient détruire et empêché nos efforts de reconstruction. Malheureusement, nous allons en subir des blessures et des morts en faisant ainsi.

Il faut considérer le fait que si les troupes des nations unies se retirent, on peut être pas mal certain qu'un nouveau gouvernement taliban serait ré-installé, et une nouvelle forteresse d'entraînement pour les terroristes sera établie. De plus, Al-Qaeda et le taliban sera devenu de plus en plus audacieux par leur "grande victoire". Dans cette instance, comment longtemps peuvent-on attendre avant que les terroristes se retrouvent chez nous?

Jusqu'à date nous avons perdu 36 soldats, et 1 diplomate. Si les troupes des Nations Unies se retirent de l'Afghanistan, bien que nous ne perdront sûrement plus de soldats, le sacrifice fait par ceux qui se sont déjà mort ou blessés sera en vain.

Time to leave Afghanistan?

2006-08-31T19:27:00.000-07:00

I must say that I am disappointed in NDP leader Jack Layton, for his most recent condemnation of the Canadian military's presence in Afghanistan.

Mr. Layton claims that Canada's current mission in the war torn country has no clear goals, no exit strategy, and no criteria to judge success.

I'm really not aware of any official standards that the Canadian army needs to achieve before it pulls out, by I can think of a few off the top of my head that should probably be self-evident:

1) The establishment of a functioning democratic government in Afghanistan, complete with its own army and police services, that would be able to protect its civilian populace and itself from terrorist attacks, kidnappings, etc.

2) The defeat of the Taliban guerillas, or the establishment of sufficient Afghani national forces that would be able to root out the insurgents on their own.

3) The reconstruction of Afghani infrastructure and an Afghani economy.

I realize that these are all pretty high level points, and that most of them are far more easily said than done, but I think we in the Western world are going to have to come to grips with the fact that this war (by which I mean the war between the different Western powers and Islamic extremists) is not going to be over in a few years. I'm afraid that it is going to take decades at the very least, and that Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnia, and Lebanon are merely battles. We should focus less on ending this war, and more on winning it. Because whether we like it or not, we are a part of it.

Whether Mr. Layton chooses to acknowledge it or not, the Taliban government failed to give up Osama Ben laden after September 11th, and so the U.S. had every right to assist in the overthrowing of that government. Now that it has occupied the nation, with a UN mandate to do so, it has the responsability of putting the nation back on its feet, which is something Canada should be proud to assist in.

Much as we'd like to, we can't always be building schools and digging wells in Afghanistan. There is a serious Taliban threat to democracy in that country, and our troops are doing good work to crush that threat, so that the wells and schools will not be destroyed.

I will not go so far as to accuse Jack Layton of not supporting out troops, or of being unpatriotic, but I think he is doing a huge disservice to the Afghani people, and to the international community.

Just so that I do not come off as being too partisan here, I am even more disappointed in those Liberal Members of Parliament, who voted against our army's continued presence in Afghanistan, after our own party sent them there!

Caledonia

2006-08-10T18:06:00.000-07:00

Well, after having made my last posting on a relatively minor subject, I think I'm warmed up enough to tackle something a little more important. And this time it's actually pretty near and dear to my heart.

I just received word, from my mom, who is a constable with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), that she is going to be heading to the closest thing this province has to a war zone (pretty pathetic compared to an actual war zone I'm sure, but a tense situation nonetheless).
I hope somebody will kindly set me straight if they know more about the situation than I do, but here is a little breakdown of it as I understand it to be, and frankly, I don't know very much about it.

I understand that the Six Nations aboriginals claim the land was ceded to them approximately 200 years ago in exchange for their assistance in repelling an American invasion. Evidently the government disputes this claim, and has taken their case to court, and won, which has prompted the natives in question to occupy the grounds, which were actually owned by a private developer at the time (though the government has since purchased them).

The courts have issued an order for the OPP to remove the natives from the land, by force if necessary, which they have attempted, and were not able to perform due to resistance. The local residents have repeatedly clashed violently with the natives, since they are not pleased with the blockade being erected in their town.

It seemed the situation had quieted down over the last couple of months, but recently there have been a few more violent meetings between the natives and local residents. To top things off, an Ontario judge has ordered the government to stop negotiating with the natives until they clear off of the land.

Once again, if I have gotten any of my facts wrong, or omitted anything, I hope someone will correct me. But here is how I see things, based on what I believe to be the facts of the matter. It seems to me that the natives in question here do not seem to believe that Canadian laws apply to them. But if the court decision had gone their way, would they not have expected the government to comply with it? It is Canada's supreme law, the constitution (via the charter) that guarantees aboriginal treaties. Was it not this very law that they were invoking in order to make their case in court? Could they not take their case to the Ontario Court of Appeals? Should that fail, could they not also appeal to the Supreme Court? I don't think that anyone should be able to pick and choose which laws they will obey.

I believe very strongly that if a treaty was signed that granted them this land, then it is rightfully theirs, and should be restored to them, but if this cannot be proven in court, then it seems unreasonable to me that it should be given to them now. Since they lost their case, it strikes me that this is probably not the case (though like I say, I may not have all the facts).

My first gut instinct is to say, "If aboriginal protesters are not prepared to obey the law, they must be prepared to face it". And as a matter of principal, it sounds like the right thing to do. But this is easier said than done.

Sure we could send in the OPP (and my 5'5", barely over one hundred pounds mother)... or possibly even the army if need be. But what next? After we have hauled them off and put them in jail, will there be room for them at Corrections Canada? And how long can we keep them there? And what's to stop them from coming back?

But we can't simply give in either. If we do, we're sending a clear message to aboriginal groups, "court battles take forever, and you might not win, but aggression is quicker and works every time".

I sure wouldn't want to be in David Peterson's shoes right now. He has a very tough job to do... if the court will let him resume negotiations.

The only thing I'm certain of, it that it will definitely take a wiser person than me to solve this one.

Canada's collective sneeze

2006-08-04T15:10:00.001-07:00

Well, after a prolonged absence, I am back to the blogging world by popular demand! (by which I mean, two or three people have suggested that they were slightly less than indifferent about whether or not I wished to continue blogging). At any rate, I'm back.

I have been meaning to start up again for a little while now, and found myself somewhat uninspired, since most of the important subjects are already being discussed on other blogs, but something caught my ear the other day that I found just a little disturbing.

I was watching the news and caught the tail end of a speach made by Prime Minister Steven Harper, it contained the usual rantings of a Prime Minister who is so used to being in the opposition that he did little more than attack the Liberals, but this isn't what vexed me. As he finished off his speech, the prime minister chose to look directly at the camera and say "God bless Canada".

Right off the bat, let's get a one thing straight. I have no problem with Canada being blessed by God, Visnu, Zoroastre, or Don Cherry for that matter.

What makes me just a little bit nervous is that our prime minister is our head of government, and he is supposed to be separate from the church. This kind of talk might mean a lot to the Sunday morning crowd, and any Canadian who happened to have been sneezing at the moment of the PM's speech, but what kind of message is he sending to Canadians that don't believe in the God whose blessing he is dispensing? Or to those who believe in no God at all? Was he only addressing a certain crowd of Canadians?

If he was any other person this would not have bothered me in the slightest. But this is our prime minister, and I don't think it's appropriate for him to be uttering blessings that mean something to one group of Canadians and nothing to others. If Mr. Harper wants to practice his own religion, he has every right to do so, as long as it does not interfere with his prime ministerial duties.

I'm not sure of whether or not Liberal PMs have done the same thing (though I'm sure if you go back far enough, it won't be hard to find), but if they have, I would still consider this to be inappropriate, particularly if it were to have occured within the modern setting.

I realize "Steve" seems to think that whatever happens down south, should be considered the ideal way of persuing democracy, but frankly I think the PM needs to take a step back and realize that he just does not quite have the spiritual muscle of a man that calls himself "dubya".

Résultats du PPRE 2006

2006-03-19T20:43:00.000-08:00

Salut tout le monde,

J'ai le plaisir de vous annoncer que le PPRE qui s'est déroulé ce samedi a très bien passé! Les deux politiques émises par le JLUO ont été adoptés par la région de l'est au complet. Ce fait est considérable en tenant compte du fait que nous étions seulement permises d'adopter deux au complet! Voici les politiques dans leur état du jour après avoir subi des modifications lors de ce réunion.

Politique du Parlement de la Région de l’Est – Politiques des JLUO

# 1 : Affaires autochtones :
i) Considérant les mauvaises conditions de vie dans les réserves autochtones canadiennes qui ont été mises en lumière par les reportages médiatiques sur la crise de l’eau potable de la Réserve Kasechewan au Nord de l’Ontario;
ii) Considérant que plusieurs communautés autochtones sont situées dans des régions éloignées du pays.
iii) Considérant que des réserves canadiennes connaissent un manque d’eau potable propre.

Se résoudre à prendre des moyens de pression auprès du gouvernement Conservateur afin qu’il s’entreprend à travailler avec les communautés aborigènes ainsi que les chefs de celles-ci afin d’améliorer les conditions de vie des peuples autochtones du Canada.

Se résoudre à prendre des moyens de pression afin que le gouvernement Conservateur fournisse les fonds nécessaires pour faciliter la façon dont les soins sont offerts aux canadiens vivant dans des régions éloignées du pays, y compris les réserves autochtones.

Se résoudre à ce que les normes qui sont les mêmes pour la majorité des canadiens soient mises en place pour les gens vivant sur les réserves canadiennes.

#2 : Gestion des déchets :
i) Considérant que plusieurs municipalités dans la province de l’Ontario possèdent des services obligatoires de recyclage et de compostage hebdomadaires et/ou des limites imposées sur le nombre de sacs de déchet alloué à chaque maison chaque semaine.
ii) Considérant que les programmes de gestion des déchets et de recyclage plus compréhensifs ont su réduire le nombre de sacs de déchet nécessaire pour chaque maison par semaine.
iii) Considérant que d’autres villes ne possèdent pas de quotas obligatoires hebdomadaires relatifs aux sacs de recyclage et que le système doit être évalué afin d’être en mesure de protéger l’environnement.

Se résoudre à ce que les JLO exige que des programmes obligatoires de ramassage des déchets au bord du trottoir soient graduellement introduits dans chacune des municipalités de la province de l’Ontario suite à des études de faisabilité. De tels programmes devraient comprendre :
a) Une boîte bleue pour les contenants en plastique.
b) Une boîte grise pour le papier
c) Une boîte verte pour les ordures ménagères, le compost
d) Maximum d’un sac à ramasser par maison, avec possibilité d’acheter des étiquettes
e) Le ramassage des déchets de cour sera inclus (branches, feuilles)
f) Ramassage mensuel des déchets chimiques et dangereux
g) Des exceptions seront accordées à certains moments de l’année pour ce qui est du nombre de sacs accordé pour le ramassage, y compris pendant la période du ménage de printemps et pendant les vacances, telles que la période des Fêtes.

Se résoudre à ce que les JLO exige une réduction de pourcentage des déchets municipaux selon les recherches menées par le biais des études de faisabilité.

Se résoudre à ce que les JLO exige que tous les emballages industriels et commerciaux soient fabriqués en matières recyclables.

Results of 2006 ERPP

2006-03-19T20:35:00.000-08:00

Hey Everyone,
I am pleased to report that the ERPP on Saturday went very well! Both policies put forward by the UOYL were adopted by the entire Eastern Region. This is considerable, since we were only allowed to adopt two to begin with! Here are the policies as they now exist after having been amended during the meeting.

OYL Eastern Region Policy Parliament 2006

Policies Presented by the University of Ottawa Young Liberals (UOYL)

#1: Aboriginal affairs:
i) Whereas there are poor living conditions throughout Canadian aboriginal reserves, which have been brought to light particularly by media coverage of the drinking water crisis at the Kasechewan reserve in Northern Ontario.
ii) Whereas many aboriginal communities are situated in remote areas of the country.
iii) Whereas many Canadian reserves have a lack of clean drinking water.

Be it resolved that action be taken to pressure the conservative government to work with Aboriginal communities and leaders to improve the living conditions of Canada’s aboriginal people.

Be it further resolved that the conservative government be pressured to provide the necessary funds that would facilitate the care of all Canadians that live in remote regions of the country including aboriginal reserves.

And be it further resolved that standards equal to those enjoyed by most Canadians should be set in place for people that live on Canadian reserves.

#2: Waste management:
i) Whereas many municipalities in the province of Ontario have mandatory recycling and composting services on a weekly basis, and/or weekly bag limits per household.
ii) Whereas the more comprehensive waste management and recycling programs have proven to reduce the number of garbage bags needed per household/per week.
iii) Whereas other cities do not have mandatory recycling weekly bag quotas, there is a need to evaluate this system in order to protect the environment.

Be it resolved that the OYL call for mandatory curb side waste pick-up programs to be phased in gradually within all municipalities in the province of Ontario following feasibility studies. Such programs should include:
a) A blue box for plastic cans
b) A grey box for paper
c) A green box for kitchen waste, compost
d) Maximum one bag pick-up per household, with ability to purchase tags
e) Yard waste pick-ups will be included
f) Monthly chemical and dangerous goods waste pick-ups
g) There will be exceptions at certain times of the year for increased garbage pick-up including: spring cleaning week and holidays such as Christmas.

Be it further resolved that the OYL call for a % reduction in municipal waste based on research conducted through vis-à-vis feasibility studies.

Be it further resolved that the OYL call for all commercial and industrial packaging to be made out of recyclable materials.