Half of Canadians unhappy with PM, Ignatieff: poll... WOW!

Half of Canadians unhappy with PM, Ignatieff: poll
Last Updated: Thursday, February 25, 2010 7:22 PM ET (EKOS)
More than half of Canadians disapprove of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s job performance, but nearly as many feel the same way about Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, a new EKOS poll suggests.
The poll, released exclusively to CBC News on Thursday, asked Canadians if they approve of the way Harper, Ignatieff and NDP Leader Jack Layton are handling their respective jobs.
Around 52 per cent of Canadians surveyed said they disapprove of the way Harper is handling his job, and 48 per cent said they disapprove of Ignatieff’s job performance.
But more people in the survey approved of Harper’s performance than Ignatieff's (33 per cent to 22 per cent).
Thirty per cent had no opinion about Ignatieff's job abilities, while 15 per cent had no opinion of Harper's.
Layton was the only leader with a positive job-approval rating, with 40 per cent of those polled saying they approve of the job he is doing and 29 per cent disapproving.
Despite Harper's slightly higher disapproval rating, the Conservatives have opened up a small three-point lead over the Liberals after weeks of being in a virtual tie, another EKOS poll suggests.
Asked which party they would support if an election were held tomorrow, 33.4 per cent of those polled chose the Conservatives and 30.3 per cent backed the Liberals.
While Layton has the highest approval ratings, his party remains in third place with 15.8 per cent support and lags considerably behind the other two parties, the poll indicates.
Harper gets overwhelming approval among Conservatives who were surveyed, but his disapproval rating is almost as high among supporters of each of the other parties.
Disapproval of Harper is about the same among men (51.8 per cent) and women (51.5 per cent) who were surveyed and among similar among age groups, with the exception of Canadians 65 and over, who are more split on whether they approve or disapprove.
Disapproval of Ignatieff is highest in the survey among Conservative supporters (71 per cent), men (52 per cent) and older Canadians (45 to 64 at 50.5 per cent, and 65 and older at 50.8 per cent).The random survey of 6,553 Canadians aged 18 and over was conducted between Feb. 10 and Feb. 23 and claims a margin of error of plus or minus 1.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/02/25/ekos-poll.html#ixzz0gcLfYd44


Related
Internal Links
DOCUMENT: EKOS graphs
DOCUMENT: EKOS tables Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/02/25/ekos-poll.html#ixzz0gcMaMtzm

Tom Brokaw Explains Canada To Americans its nice

pre-recorded short film that aired on NBC, prior to the Opening Ceremonies of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada on Feb. 12th, 2010.

Danny Williams surgery more of a self image saver

Surgery Williams had in U.S. available here
Last Updated: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 8:53 PM ET CBC News
Danny Williams has made no apologies for following what he said was doctors' orders in flying to Miami to have a leaky heart valve repaired. (Canadian Press)
Canadian cardiac surgeons say there was no need for the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador to cross the border for world-class health care.
The treatment Danny Williams received in the United States is available in at least four Canadian centres including hospitals in Vancouver, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto, doctors told CBC News.
Williams has made no apologies for following what he said was doctors' orders in flying to Miami to have "minimally invasive" surgery earlier this month to repair a leaky heart valve.
However, Montreal cardiac surgeon Dr. Hugues Jeanmart finds that medical advice puzzling.
"I was very surprised, especially for the reason he [Williams] advanced, saying that we didn't have this kind of expertise in Canada, which I completely disagree with," he said.
Jeanmart repairs heart valves using the latest in robotic technology. Instead of open-heart surgery, the operation is performed through an incision under the arm, so there is no large chest scar and there are other benefits as well, Jeanmart said.
"There's less pain, less bleeding, less chance of infection and the main point is faster recovery after these kinds of surgery."
There are also risks, such as stroke, so some cardiac specialists are reluctant to recommend the procedure. But the procedure is still available.
There is a waitlist in Montreal of up to three months, but urgent cases can get the surgery right away, Jeanmart said.
Dr. Alan Menkis, a Winnipeg cardiac surgeon, was a pioneer in using the technology.
Canada can be slow to adopt technology that is expensive when cheaper options are just as effective, Menkis said.
"If you look at the number one centres all over the world, not every single centre in every country does these sorts of procedures. So I would think that the distribution across Canada is not bad. We could do more of that I think."Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/02/23/williams-surgery023.html#ixzz0gQdqNHPL

Conservative Party of Canada has eroded equality over the past five years.

Women lose ground in push for equality: report
Last Updated: Monday, February 22, 2010 7:16 PM ET
CBC News
Women's status in Canada has eroded over the past five years, despite Ottawa's "unduly rosy picture of achievements in this country," say labour and women's groups.
"Women in Canada have lost ground in many areas," Barbara Byers, executive vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress, said in a statement as the report was released in Ottawa on Monday. Barbara Byers, right, executive vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress, announces a campaign regarding issues of women's equality in Ottawa on Feb. 11, 2009. (Tom Hanson/Canadian Press)
"So we decided to write our own report, and it provides a reality check on what the government is saying."
The CLC, along with the Canadian Teachers' Federation, the Feminist Alliance for International Action and others, will present the report to the United Nations' World Conference on Women in New York next month. It takes issue with the federal government's report to the UN on women's equality.
The March meeting is expected to outline progress made since the last large-scale UN-sponsored conference on women 15 years ago.
"Canada no longer compares favourably against other nations in assessments of gender equality and the gender gap," the report says.
In 2004, the World Economic Forum gender gap index ranked Canada seventh. In 2009, Canada fell to 25th.
The coalition's report points out the government's decision to eliminate the phrase "gender equality" from the mandate of Status of Women Canada, the country's primary institution responsible for gender equality. It also highlights the closing of 12 of 16 Status of Women offices and the elimination of funding to a program for court challenges related to equality rights.
The report says that while women in Canada have made significant gains in education — with women making up more than half of all undergraduate students — hiring and promotion in academic institutions has not kept pace.
Men with PhDs are still twice as likely to be named full professors than women with PhDs, the report said. And female academics earn 79 cents for every dollar their male counterparts earn, which is only slightly better than the overall wage gap of 70.5 per cent.
"Although Canada has made commitments to implement equal pay for work of equal value, the federal government hasn't lived up to its commitments," Patty Ducharme, vice-president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, said in a release.
"A case in point is the federal government's removal of the right to pay equity for federal public sector workers in 2009."
As for women's representation in politics, the report points out that Canada's ranking in the world has slid to 49th from 47th, behind a significant number of developing countries.
Women currently account for 22.1 per cent of members of Parliament, even though they make up just over 50 per cent of the population. And while that's the highest political participation rate for women in Canadian history, it's inched up only marginally over the past dozen years.
The report also slams the government for scrapping a nascent $5 billion over five years national child care program and contends that "senior advisers within the office of the prime minister [have] strong links to anti-feminist organizations."
Queens University law and gender studies professor Kathy Lahey calls the report "devastating."
'Women continue to be treated as the invisible careworkers for the country," Lahey said in a release.Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/02/22/women-gender-equality-un.html#ixzz0gKWI1mIv

I will be looking at this to!

The CCLA has ongoing involvement in a number of court cases, including:
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Alberta v. Lyle Marcellus Nasogaluak (SCC)
This case concerns the availability of sentence reductions as a remedy for violations of constitutional rights. The CCLA has intervened at the Supreme Court of Canada anda a decision is pending.
See the Supreme Court of Canada’s case summary
See a summary of CCLA’s position
Read CCLA’s factum
Watch an archived webcast of the hearing
Trent Terrence Sinclair v. Her Majesty the Queen (SCC), R. v. McCrimmon (SCC), and Stanley James Willier v. Her Majesty the Queen (SCC)
These cases are concerning the scope of the constitutional right to counsel in the context of a custodial interrogation. The CCLA intervened at the Supreme Court of Canada and a decision is pending.
See a summary of CCLA’s position
Read CCLA’s factum
See Supreme Court of Canada case summaries of:
Trent Terrence Sinclair v. Her Majesty the Queen
R. v. McCrimmon
Stanley James Willier v. Her Majesty the Queen
Watch archived webcasts of the hearings for:
R. v. McCrimmon
Trent Terrence Sinclair v. Her Majesty the Queen
Stanley James Willier v. Her Majesty the Queen
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen, et al. (SCC) and Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd., et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, et al. (SCC)
The cases concern the constitutionality of mandatory publication bans regarding bail hearing proceedings when requested by the accused. The CCLA has intervened at the Supreme Court of Canada and a decision is pending.
See the Supreme Court of Canada’s case summary for Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen, et al.
See the Supreme Court of Canada’s case summary for Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd., et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, et al.
See a summary of the CCLA’s position
Read CCLA’s factum
City of Vancouver, et al v. Alan Cameron Ward, et al. (SCC)
This case concerns whether an award of damages for the breach of a Charter right can made in the absence of bad faith, an abuse of power or tortious conduct. The CCLA has been granted leave to intervene at the Supreme Court of Canada.
See the Supreme Court of Canada’s case summary
See a summary of the CCLA’s position
Read CCLA’s factum
Watch an archived webcast of the hearing
N.S. v. R. et al., Ontario Court of Appeal
This case concerns whether or not a Muslim woman, who is a complainant in a childhood sexual abuse case, must remove her veil in order to testify. CCLA has been granted leave to intervene at the Ontario Court of Appeal.
See a summary of CCLA’s position
Farès Bou Malhab v. Diffusion Métromédia CMR inc., et al., Supreme Court of Canada
This case concerns Quebec defamation law and whether generalized comments by a radio host regarding ‘Arab and Hatian taxi drivers’ can give rise to liability.
See the Supreme Court of Canada’s case summary
See a summary of CCLA’s position
Leblanc c. Rawdon (Municipalite de), Quebec Court of Appeal
This case stems from a lawsuit initiated by the Municipality of Rawdon, Rawdon’s Mayor and the Director General of the city. CCLA is extremely concerned about the freedom of speech implications of municipalities suing for defamation in general, as well as the broad order restraining future speech that was issued in this case. Arguments will likely be heard in February, 2010.
See a summary of CCLA’s position
See the Quebec Court of Appeal’s judgment granting leave
See CCLA’s factum
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Her Majesty the Queen, et al. (SCC)
Prior to 2005, Quebec journalists covering the judicial system were free to use recording equipment outside of courtrooms, and could broadcast excerpts of the courts’ official recordings of hearings. In 2005, however, directives were applied to many Montreal courthouses that confined all interviewing and camera use to designated areas, and prohibited all broadcasting of hearings. Shortly thereafter, the Quebec Ministry of Justice extended most of these restrictions to all courthouses in the province. When these decisions were challenged as an unjustifiable restriction on freedom of the press, the majority of the Quebec Court of Appeal found that the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of the press did not apply in courthouses. CCLA will argue that newsgathering in courthouses and the broadcasting of open court proceedings convey crucial information about the nature and workings of the justice system, and that the Canadian public has a constitutional right to receive this information. The hearing is scheduled for March 16, 2010.
See the Supreme Court of Canada’s case summary
See a summary of CCLA’s position
Read CCLA’s factum
Warman v. Fournier, Fournier and John Does 1-8, Ontario Superior Court of Justice
The case arises from a lawsuit which alleges that some anonymous comments made on an Internet discussion forum are defamatory. The Court will be asked to decide the circumstances under which a website operator can be forced to turn over information that would ‘unmask’ anonymous forum commentators.
See a summary of CCLA’s position
R. v. Cornell (SCC)
This case is concerning whether the manner in which police conduct a search, in particular a unannounced ‘hard entry’, constitutes a violation of s. 8
See the Supreme Court of Canada’s case summary
See a summary of CCLA’s position
Read CCLA’s factum
Watch a live webcast of the hearing
Attorney General of Ontario v. Michael J. Fraser on his own behalf and on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada, et al., Supreme Court of Canada
The case concerns the legal protections, or lack thereof, available to Ontario agricultural workers in their exercise of freedom of association. CCLA argued that the government must provide insular, discrete and marginalized minorities with meaningful protection of their freedom of association. The Supreme Court has not yet released its judgment.
See the Supreme Court of Canada’s case summary
See a summary of CCLA’s position
See CCLA’s factum
Watch an archived webcast of the hearing

Prime Minister Stephen Harper prorogued parliament DO NOT FORGET THAT!!.

Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament
Category:
Organizations - Political Organizations
Description:
Find out about activities in your community:http://sontag.ca/CAPP-Facebook-Links.htmlFor more ways to get involved:http://tinyurl.com/31daysofactionA group for Canadians to voice their concerns about prorogation and work towards making a better Canada.On December 30th, Prime Minister Stephen Harper prorogued parliament, effectively shutting down our democratic institutions for the sake of political expediency. The group started with a very simple idea: Canadians contacting their Members of Parliament and requesting that they return to Parliament Hill on January 25th when parliament was supposed to resume. What a difference we've made. Many MPs have listened and they will be returning to serve the interests of the Canadian people.What do we do now? We need to keep the pressure on the Prime Minister and our MPs to recognize that there needs to be changes in Ottawa. First and foremost: prorogation. As it stands, the decision to call prorogation is at the sole discretion of the Prime Minister. While proroguing is typically done to signal the end of the parliamentary session, this most recent case has shown that the power can be abused. If you've already written to your MP, do it again and let them know what kinds of changes you want to see. Should we impose limits on when prorogation might be called? Should it be put before a vote in the house of commons? Don't be shy, you can find your MP's contact information here:http://canada.gc.ca/directories-repertoires/direct-eng.html#mpWe've built tremendous momentum over the past few weeks, Ottawa is watching and listening. This is our chance to re-write the rules and bring about serious change in the way our country is run. Write your MP, get involved locally and become a politically engaged Canadian!SAMPLE LETTERDear ,As you are aware, the majority of Canadians are opposed to this previous prorogation of our government. I am writing to you to request that you and your colleagues in Parliament Hill take immediate action in addressing this issue. I would like to see legislation introduced limiting the power of the Prime Minister to ensure that this doesn't happen again. I thank you very much for your time and look forward to updates on your progress. Sincerely, POSTING GUIDELINESThese guidelines were drafted up in reference to the Facebook terms of use.1. No spamming: The wall changes over quickly, and you are invited to repost occationally, but please do not spam it with identical messages.2. No advertising: This group is non-partisan, so no solicitations for donations to political parties. Feel free to encourage people to donate, but do not specify a political party. Advertising includes posting advertisements in the video forum, but you can post links to ads for the purpose of comment.3. No obscene/hate messages: Please refrain from posting obscene material or especially hateful or threatening messages about any individual or group.If you see messages that violate these guidelines, please use the report function, which will allow the neutral, third-party Facebook administrators to evaluate. The group administrators also reserves the right to delete material which violates these guidelines. Effort will be made to contact posters before a deletion is made, but cannot in each case.LIGNES DIRECTRICES DE PUBLICATIONCes lignes directrices ont été rédigées en référence aux termes d'utilisation Facebook.1. Aucun spam. Le babillard change rapidement et vous êtes invités à republier occasionnellement. Par contre, s'il vous plait ne faite pas republier avec un message identiques.2. Aucune publicité. Ce groupe est non partisan, alors aucune solicitations pour des donations aux partis politiques est tolérées. Sentez-vous libre d'encourager des gens à donner mais sans spécifier un parti politique. La publicité inclut des publication dans le forum vidéo mais vous avez droit de publier des liens vers des publicités pour fin de commentaire.3. Aucun message obscène ou haineux. S'il vous plait, retenez-vous de publier du contenu obscène,particulièrement haineux ou des messages de menace au sujet d'un individu ou un groupe.Si vous voyez des messages qui violent ces lignes directrices, s'il vous plait, utiliser la fonction de signalement qui permettra à un tiers partie neutre, l'admistrateur Facebook, d'en évaluer la pertinence. L'administrateur du groupe se réserve aussi le droit de supprimer le contenu qui violent ces lignes directrices. Des effort seront fait pour contacter la personne ayant publier un tel contenu avant une suppression dans le meilleurs des cas sans obligation de notre part.

Top court affirms Charter constrains Canadian officials’ conduct abroad Reasons: Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, [2010] S.C.J. No. 3.

The Supreme Court’s condemnation of the Canadian government’s “ongoing breach” of Omar

Khadr’s constitutional rights will legally constrain Canadian officials from
collaborating in future rights abuses abroad, contend counsel who argued the
case at the top court.
By holding in clear and unequivocal terms that in
2003
and 2004 the government violated the Guantanamo Bay prisoner’s s. 7
Charter
right to life, liberty and security of the person in a manner that
is
contributing to his current detention and the ongoing breach of his
rights, last
month’s ruling in Prime Minister of Canada v. Khadr 2 “has many
broad
implications beyond this case,” said University of Toronto law
professor Sujit
Choudhry.
Choudhry suggested the principles of the
judgment will apply to
many situations where Canadian government and
military officials cooperate with
foreign officials abroad on matters of
national security, law enforcement and
defence.
“Khadr 2 says we clearly
can’t be violating fundamental
rights—that’s very important,” said Choudhry,
who represents the British
Columbia Civil Liberties Association, one of more
than a dozen legal groups who
intervened in support of Khadr’s appeal at the
high court.
Simon Potter of
Montreal’s McCarthy Tétrault said most
important is the court’s firm rejection
of the government’s argument that
courts may not interfere with the executive’s
exercise of the Crown
prerogative over foreign relations. “They were arguing
that within their
prerogative in foreign affairs they could do anything and the
courts would
have nothing to say about it,” said Potter, counsel for the
intervener
Lawyers Without Borders, the Barreau du Quebec, and Groupe d’étude en
droit
et libertés of Laval University’s Faculty of Law.
Potter said the court
has reaffirmed that when a government refuses to abide by constitutional
constraints when exercising its prerogative to conduct foreign relations,
the
court may order compliance. “For my clients, the... principle was that
the
executive branch never is on a ground on which it is immune from review
by the
judicial branch, and that principle has been resoundingly
protected.”
The
high court’s 9-0 per curiam judgment Jan. 29 affirms the
conclusion of the
Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal that Canadian
officials contributed to
the Khadr’s present detention in a fundamentally
unjust manner when they
repeatedly interrogated the then-16-year-old youth
at Guantanamo Bay in 2003 and
2004.
“Interrogation of a youth, to elicit
statements about the most serious
criminal charges while detained in these
conditions and without access to
counsel, and while knowing that the fruits
of the interrogations would be shared
with the U.S. prosecutors, offends the
most basic Canadian standards about the
treatment of detained youth
suspects,” the court said.
The judges went on to
note that the “relevant,
useful” and “potentially inculpatory” statements
elicited by Canadian
officials will likely form part of the prosecution’s case
at the U.S.
military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay. Canadian-born Khadr, whose late
father
had links to al-Qaeda, faces war crimes charges stemming from the death
of
an American soldier during a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan.
The Supreme
Court awarded Khadr his legal costs and issued him a declaration “that
through
the conduct of Canadian officials in the course of interrogations in
2003-2004,
as established on the evidence before us, Canada actively
participated in a
process contrary to Canada’s international human rights
obligations and
contributed to Mr. Khadr’s ongoing detention so as to
deprive him of his right
to liberty and security of the person guaranteed by
s. 7 of the Charter,
contrary to the principles of fundamental
justice.”
However, the judges
denied Khadr’s request that the federal
government be ordered to seek his return
to Canadian soil—even though they
acknowledged such a remedy “could potentially
vindicate” his Charter
rights.
While the lower courts concluded such a remedy
under s. 24(1) of
the Charter was “appropriate and just” in the circumstances,
“the remedy
ordered below gives too little weight to the constitutional
responsibility
of the executive to make decisions on matters of foreign affairs
in the
context of complex and ever-changing circumstances, taking into account
Canada’s broader national interests,” the Supreme Court said. “We conclude
that
the appropriate remedy is to declare that, on the record before the
Court,
Canada infringed Mr. Khadr’s s. 7 rights, and to leave it to the
government to
decide how best to respond to this judgment in light of
current information, its
responsibility for foreign affairs, and in
conformity with the Charter.”
The
court said it took this “prudent
course” given “the evidentiary uncertainties,
the limitations of the court’s
institutional competence, and the need to respect
the prerogative powers of
the executive.”
The refusal of injunctive relief
was “disappointing but
not surprising” given the tenor of the judges’
questioning during argument,
commented Nathan Whitling of Edmonton’s Parlee
McLaws, who represents Khadr,
along with Dennis Edney.
“We had told Omar this
was the most likely
result and he did not have his hopes up,” Whitling told The
Lawyers Weekly.
“During the appeal hearing the court was clearly concerned about
the
propriety of...intruding into the sphere of foreign relations because this
is not the traditional role of the court.”
Whitling did not rule out
going
back to court to seek injunctive or other relief. Khadr still has
pending a
$10-million Charter damages action against the
government.
Choudhry said the
judgment provides fodder for Khadr to
return to court, depending on the Harper
government’s next move.
“I think
[the judges] were a little bit too cautious”
but “the court said ‘at this
point’ we will not issue mandatory relief,” he
noted. “They did not say
‘never’ [to a mandamus] remedy, so I don’t think they
wimped out.”
Potter
said his clients are “very pleased” by the judgment, even
though they
supported the remedy below. “I don’t see it as an abdication,” he
explained.
“I don’t see it as a refusal to [ever] give the relief requested.
It’s
simply deferential on that point. The executive branch thought that there
had been no [constitutional] violation and that nothing had to be done. [The
court effectively said] ‘we are going to correct the executive branch on
that so
that they can decide what to do.’ I think that is a prudent way to
do it, but it
is not a judgment to the effect that the court can never make
such an
order.”
Less than a week after Khadr 2 was handed down, the
Harper government
announced it would not change its longstanding policy not
to seek Khadr’s
repatriation. At press time, the government had not ruled
out taking other steps
to vindicate Khadr’s Charter rights. Crown counsel
could not comment but others
have suggested that the government might ask
the U.S. to treat Khadr more
leniently in light of his age at the time of
the alleged offences, or request
that the information passed on by Canadians
not be used in the military
prosecution.
Counsel for the interveners
opined that the government cannot
simply do nothing in the wake of Khadr 2.
“I expect the government to do
something because the judgment clearly
demands that, and then there is going to
be a debate—whether a public debate
or a judicial debate—as to whether that’s
sufficient,” Potter
predicted.
Brian Greenspan of Toronto’s Greenspan
Humphrey, counsel for
the intervener Criminal Lawyers’ Association, said it is
tragic but “not a
big surprise” that the government refuses to ask the U.S. to
return Khadr,
notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s statement that such a move
could
potentially mitigate the ongoing breach of Mr. Khadr’s s. 7 Charter
rights.
Greenspan noted the interveners in the appeal urged the court to
grant Khadr’s requested remedy because of concern that “the reaction of the
government would be precisely the reaction which has taken place, and
therefore
unless some enforceable remedy was granted, then it was likely the
government
would continue to skirt its responsibility.”
Reasons: Canada
(Prime
Minister) v. Khadr, [2010] S.C.J. No. 3.