A provincial court judge has rebuked Calgary police in her finding that a man was not guilty of driving while disqualified.
Judge Cheryl Daniel ruled that officers harassed the accused during an investigation, then gave testimony at trial that wasn't credible.
Daniel found Fuk Kiun Chin not guilty of driving while under suspension.
His trial heard how Chin had a testy relationship with a police sergeant who was checking up on Chin's son over a curfew.
The officer testified that he knew Chin was not supposed to be driving so he staked out the man's car, pulled him over and charged him.
Chin testified he wasn't in his car when he was stopped by the officer, but was walking to a bus stop to go to work.
Daniel said Chin's testimony had a "ring of truth" but she was "uncomfortable" about the credibility of the officer.
She also found a search of Chin's car, which turned up nothing illegal, was unlawful.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2011/01/06/calgary-police-judge-rebuke-.html#ixzz1AK9zaDFk
Friday, January 7, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
The former Harper spin doctor Kory Teneycke who helped advance the Conservative brand is back at the helm of the right-leaning Sun TV News startup.
Kory Teneycke is expected to resume working at the 24-hour news channel next week, The Globe and Mail has learned.
The odd turn of events comes 3 1/2 months after Mr. Teneycke made a high-profile and abrupt exit from the Quebecor project, telling a news conference last September that increasingly bitter public acrimony over his role had made him a liability to the TV venture. At the time, it was petitioning federal regulators for a broadcasting licence.
Mr. Teneycke’s return will likely give Sun TV News the sharp edge and taste for controversy that was intended when he helped to conceive the idea for the network.
The combative one-time spokesman for Stephen Harper built a reputation as a take-no-prisoners political operative and lobbyist even before he reached the Prime Minister’s Office. He was a key player in the successful Conservative attack on former Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion’s carbon tax plan, and as a lobbyist for renewable fuels helped coax the Tories to spend billions of dollars on ethanol and biodiesel subsidies.
The populist Sun TV News undertaking – which critics have labelled Fox News North – is expected to begin broadcasting as early as March and feature a variety of personalities, from right-wing author Ezra Levant to Liberal spin doctor and columnist Warren Kinsella.
Mr. Levant, who says he will host a show on Sun TV News in the 5 p.m. ET slot, said he was delighted to hear Mr. Teneycke is returning.
“He’s the spiritual leader, so to speak. He’s the one who has the grand plan and created this thing from a spark. He’s our Roger Ailes,” Mr. Levant said, referring to the Republican political operative who founded Fox News.
In the months leading up to his departure from Sun TV News last September, Mr. Teneycke had deliberately courted controversy to publicize his new venture. These actions, he acknowledged upon leaving, had “contributed to the debasing of [the] debate” over Sun TV News.
Mr. Teneycke’s formula for generating buzz about the venture included a no-holds-barred approach to rivals and naysayers. He publicly derided other news outlets as the “lame-stream media” and lashed out at Sun TV News critics, calling veteran TV journalist Don Newman “the Helen Thomas of Canada.” That was a reference to the disgraced White House reporter who recently resigned after saying Israelis should “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go home” to places such as Germany.
Mr. Teneycke's resignation last September came one day after Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby asked the RCMP and Ottawa police to investigate tampering with an online petition against Sun TV News organized by global activist group Avaaz.org.
In the Avaaz incident, the organization had alleged that fraudsters added the names of Canadian journalists without their consent to the petition – as well as the names of fictitious characters such as Sesame Street's Snuffleupagus.
Mr. Teneycke became embroiled in the matter when he used his Twitter account Sept. 3 to announce he'd been in contact with a prankster who'd admitted to tampering with the petition. “Source e-mailed me to say they registered Boba Fett, D. Shroot, etc. Petition lacks basic controls,” he wrote. Avaaz said the data collected on the alleged fraudsters suggests they were based in Ottawa and using a Rogers Internet connection.
Contacted Wednesday, the Ottawa police could not immediately say whether they had investigated the complaint.
The federal broadcast regulator approved Quebecor Inc.’s Sun TV News licence application last November. Sun TV is now set to launch in mid-March. The launch was originally set for Jan. 1, but technical delays including later-than-expected equipment deliveries have slowed things down somewhat.
The company has been building the network’s main studio, in downtown Toronto close to the Toronto Sun offices, which will also house a second studio. Others will be built in Ottawa, Calgary, and likely Edmonton.
Sun TV had originally requested a license that would oblige cable and satellite companies to carry it on their services. That was rejected; and Sun TV tried again, asking for a standard license with the exception that distributors would have to offer it to customers on at least one of their packages, in the first three years. In early October, the company said it would withdraw that request, and ask for a standard Category 2 licence
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
“What has happened to you guys? I thought you were the human rights good guys.”
“What has happened to you guys? I thought you were the human rights good guys.”
That is what my military escort at Guantanamo Bay said one day in August while I was there to observe Omar Khadr's military commission trial. He was well aware that Khadr had long been the only Westerner left in the prison camps and that the Canadian government had no interest, to put it mildly, in giving him a hand.
Those were the words of a U.S. soldier on active duty at Guantanamo Bay — not a human-rights activist or opposition politician. And they are words that invite reflection, at year's end, about Canada's human rights standing on the world stage. What has happened to us? Are we still the human rights good guys?
The year 2010 held great promise for Canada, with tremendous opportunities to shine on the world stage, including the chance to highlight important human rights issues. The world was watching Canada stage the Olympics and Paralympics; host the G8 and G20 summits; and, of course, promote our candidacy for a seat on the UN Security Council.
But it went awry in so many ways. Hosting the G8 and G20 summits did leave behind a new initiative to tackle a critical human rights concern, maternal and newborn health. But the financial support from other governments is uncertain. And the initiative was strained by the government's refusal to ensure that a solid sexual and reproductive rights framework, including some attention to access to abortion services, was at its heart.
At the end of the day, what transpired within the official summits was overshadowed by the staggering assault on freedom of expression that played out on the streets of Toronto. It still seems impossible to imagine that more than 1,100 people were arrested over the weekend, the overwhelming majority of whom were involved in peaceful acts of protest or were just passing by.
What is needed in the aftermath is a comprehensive joint provincial/federal public inquiry that will examine how policing the demonstrations could have gone so terribly wrong. So far, however, neither government shows any appetite for doing so.
Canada's ill-fated Security Council bid, with a withdrawal from the process to avoid certain defeat, still smarts. Many Canadians hung their heads in shame when they realized past supporters had deserted us, and it became clear that Portugal was going to leave Canada in the dust. It is the first time in UN history that we have run for a seat and lost — by no means a proud moment.
Of course there are many explanations for the result, some of which are wrapped up in the often deceptive and complex world of back-scratching that mars many UN votes. But there is no denying that a significant piece of the outcome stems from our tarnished global reputation impacted by failure to respect human rights.
There is Omar Khadr. Our defiant refusal to come to the aid of a child soldier, who has made credible (fully corroborated in at least one instance) allegations of torture and ill-treatment and who has been ensnared in Guantanamo injustice for eight years, has certainly been noted. It has left open just where Canada stands on key human rights issues that we long championed, including protecting child soldiers and standing firm against torture.
There is Africa. Our nearly wholesale shift of humanitarian, diplomatic and political attention away from Africa has sent a distressing message. Canada, which has long played a key role in addressing serious human rights concerns in Africa — apartheid-era South Africa, military rule in Nigeria, catastrophe in Sudan — has now virtually become a non-player in most corners of the continent. It is a continent that needs more, not fewer, human rights champions.
There is Israel. The government proudly proclaims that Canada is a staunch friend of Israel and will not apologize for being so. Apologies are not necessary. Being a friend of Israel is a fine thing. But with friendship must come honesty about human rights. Canada has refused to criticize the Israeli government — be it at the UN or in one-on-one dealings — about the vast array of grave human rights violations that are the daily reality for Palestinians in the region; it does no favours for Palestinian victims of those violations, the hopes of lasting peace in the Middle East, and Canada's standing and reputation.
And what transpires globally has been matched domestically. Over the past year, a stunning number of Canadian organizations have lost government funding for important humanitarian programming because those organizations strive to strengthen protection of Palestinian rights. In the end, Canada's reputation as an honest broker about a contentious and long-standing human rights tragedy lies in tatters.
There is the death penalty. In 2007, 2008 and again this year, an important resolution came before the UN General Assembly seeking a global moratorium on executions. Canada votes for it. But Canada refuses to demonstrate leadership by joining the more than 80 other countries that have put their names to the resolution and co-sponsored it. We are the only firmly abolitionist country to refuse to do so. We are the only country with a track record of co-sponsoring earlier UN death penalty resolutions that refuses to do so now. That is beyond a failure to demonstrate leadership, it is a retreat from leadership.
And then there are Indigenous peoples. Part of what went sour for Canada during the Security Council vote can be traced back to our appalling behaviour in 2006 and 2007, when the UN finally adopted a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which had been in the works for more than 20 years. We not only voted against it, we aggressively (and fortunately unsuccessfully) pressed other countries to oppose it. And when it was passed by an overwhelming majority we claimed it did not apply to us because we had voted against it. That was an unacceptable view of the status of UN decisions that we would never accept from other countries.
Finally this year — after four years of bullying and defiance — Canada changed its mind. It wasn't announced until November, after the Security Council vote. And it could have been such a good news moment. Only it was clear there was nothing proud or genuine about the change of heart. In fact, the decision was announced to no fanfare, with a posting to government websites on a Friday afternoon (a well-established trick for burying a news story).
So, the soldier's view from Guantanamo may well have hit the mark. It is time to ask what has happened to Canada, the human rights good guys. And it is time to turn it around.
Globally, we end the year with grave worry about simmering human rights crises in places like Haiti and Ivory Coast. However, we also end the year with a bit of a boost from the uplifting news of Aung San Suu Kyi's release from imprisonment in Myanmar and the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Chinese prisoner of conscience Liu Xiaobo.
Struggles go on. Victories are possible. Human rights good guys are in short supply. Canada needs to get back in that game.
That is what my military escort at Guantanamo Bay said one day in August while I was there to observe Omar Khadr's military commission trial. He was well aware that Khadr had long been the only Westerner left in the prison camps and that the Canadian government had no interest, to put it mildly, in giving him a hand.
Those were the words of a U.S. soldier on active duty at Guantanamo Bay — not a human-rights activist or opposition politician. And they are words that invite reflection, at year's end, about Canada's human rights standing on the world stage. What has happened to us? Are we still the human rights good guys?
The year 2010 held great promise for Canada, with tremendous opportunities to shine on the world stage, including the chance to highlight important human rights issues. The world was watching Canada stage the Olympics and Paralympics; host the G8 and G20 summits; and, of course, promote our candidacy for a seat on the UN Security Council.
But it went awry in so many ways. Hosting the G8 and G20 summits did leave behind a new initiative to tackle a critical human rights concern, maternal and newborn health. But the financial support from other governments is uncertain. And the initiative was strained by the government's refusal to ensure that a solid sexual and reproductive rights framework, including some attention to access to abortion services, was at its heart.
At the end of the day, what transpired within the official summits was overshadowed by the staggering assault on freedom of expression that played out on the streets of Toronto. It still seems impossible to imagine that more than 1,100 people were arrested over the weekend, the overwhelming majority of whom were involved in peaceful acts of protest or were just passing by.
What is needed in the aftermath is a comprehensive joint provincial/federal public inquiry that will examine how policing the demonstrations could have gone so terribly wrong. So far, however, neither government shows any appetite for doing so.
Canada's ill-fated Security Council bid, with a withdrawal from the process to avoid certain defeat, still smarts. Many Canadians hung their heads in shame when they realized past supporters had deserted us, and it became clear that Portugal was going to leave Canada in the dust. It is the first time in UN history that we have run for a seat and lost — by no means a proud moment.
Of course there are many explanations for the result, some of which are wrapped up in the often deceptive and complex world of back-scratching that mars many UN votes. But there is no denying that a significant piece of the outcome stems from our tarnished global reputation impacted by failure to respect human rights.
There is Omar Khadr. Our defiant refusal to come to the aid of a child soldier, who has made credible (fully corroborated in at least one instance) allegations of torture and ill-treatment and who has been ensnared in Guantanamo injustice for eight years, has certainly been noted. It has left open just where Canada stands on key human rights issues that we long championed, including protecting child soldiers and standing firm against torture.
There is Africa. Our nearly wholesale shift of humanitarian, diplomatic and political attention away from Africa has sent a distressing message. Canada, which has long played a key role in addressing serious human rights concerns in Africa — apartheid-era South Africa, military rule in Nigeria, catastrophe in Sudan — has now virtually become a non-player in most corners of the continent. It is a continent that needs more, not fewer, human rights champions.
There is Israel. The government proudly proclaims that Canada is a staunch friend of Israel and will not apologize for being so. Apologies are not necessary. Being a friend of Israel is a fine thing. But with friendship must come honesty about human rights. Canada has refused to criticize the Israeli government — be it at the UN or in one-on-one dealings — about the vast array of grave human rights violations that are the daily reality for Palestinians in the region; it does no favours for Palestinian victims of those violations, the hopes of lasting peace in the Middle East, and Canada's standing and reputation.
And what transpires globally has been matched domestically. Over the past year, a stunning number of Canadian organizations have lost government funding for important humanitarian programming because those organizations strive to strengthen protection of Palestinian rights. In the end, Canada's reputation as an honest broker about a contentious and long-standing human rights tragedy lies in tatters.
There is the death penalty. In 2007, 2008 and again this year, an important resolution came before the UN General Assembly seeking a global moratorium on executions. Canada votes for it. But Canada refuses to demonstrate leadership by joining the more than 80 other countries that have put their names to the resolution and co-sponsored it. We are the only firmly abolitionist country to refuse to do so. We are the only country with a track record of co-sponsoring earlier UN death penalty resolutions that refuses to do so now. That is beyond a failure to demonstrate leadership, it is a retreat from leadership.
And then there are Indigenous peoples. Part of what went sour for Canada during the Security Council vote can be traced back to our appalling behaviour in 2006 and 2007, when the UN finally adopted a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which had been in the works for more than 20 years. We not only voted against it, we aggressively (and fortunately unsuccessfully) pressed other countries to oppose it. And when it was passed by an overwhelming majority we claimed it did not apply to us because we had voted against it. That was an unacceptable view of the status of UN decisions that we would never accept from other countries.
Finally this year — after four years of bullying and defiance — Canada changed its mind. It wasn't announced until November, after the Security Council vote. And it could have been such a good news moment. Only it was clear there was nothing proud or genuine about the change of heart. In fact, the decision was announced to no fanfare, with a posting to government websites on a Friday afternoon (a well-established trick for burying a news story).
So, the soldier's view from Guantanamo may well have hit the mark. It is time to ask what has happened to Canada, the human rights good guys. And it is time to turn it around.
Globally, we end the year with grave worry about simmering human rights crises in places like Haiti and Ivory Coast. However, we also end the year with a bit of a boost from the uplifting news of Aung San Suu Kyi's release from imprisonment in Myanmar and the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Chinese prisoner of conscience Liu Xiaobo.
Struggles go on. Victories are possible. Human rights good guys are in short supply. Canada needs to get back in that game.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Microsoft warns of Word attacks : RTF-based exploits making the rounds, apply Nov. patch pronto, says MMPC
- Hackers are exploiting a vulnerability in Microsoft Word to plant malware on Windows PCs, Microsoft said Tuesday.
The bug in Microsoft Word 2002, 2003, 2007 and 2010 was patched Nov. 9 as part of Microsoft's monthly security update.
Word 2008 and 2011 for the Mac have also been patched, but Microsoft has not yet issued a fix for the same flaw in the older Word 2004. The circulating attacks affect only Windows versions of the suite, however.
According to the Microsoft Malware Protection Center (MMPC), the group that investigates attack code and issues signature updates for the company's antivirus software, the first in-the-wild exploits were detected last week.
When Microsoft shipped the Word patch last month, it rated the bug as "1" on its exploitability index, meaning it believed a working attack would pop up within 30 days.
The attack uses a malicious RTF (Rich Text Format) file to generate a stack overflow in Word on Windows, said MMPC researcher Rodel Finones. Following a successful exploit, the attack code downloads and runs a Trojan horse on the compromised computer.
Finones said that the code "reliably exploits this [Word] vulnerability."
Last month, Microsoft rated the RTF vulnerability as "critical" in Word 2007 and 2010, but as "important" in all other affected versions.
At the time, outside researchers had put their bets on the bug as a hacker choice because users running Office 2007 or 2010 could be attacked if all they did was preview a specially-crafted RTF document in the Outlook e-mail client.
"Once a [malformed] message hits the Outlook preview pane, remote code can be executed. You should patch this right away," Jason Miller, the data and security team manager for Shavlik Technologies, said on the day Microsoft released the patch.
Finones urged users who have not yet installed the November patch to do so as soon as possible.
More information about the vulnerability can be found in the MS10-087 security bulletin.
The MS10-087 update can be downloaded and installed using Microsoft Update and Windows Server Update Services (WSUS).
The bug in Microsoft Word 2002, 2003, 2007 and 2010 was patched Nov. 9 as part of Microsoft's monthly security update.
Word 2008 and 2011 for the Mac have also been patched, but Microsoft has not yet issued a fix for the same flaw in the older Word 2004. The circulating attacks affect only Windows versions of the suite, however.
According to the Microsoft Malware Protection Center (MMPC), the group that investigates attack code and issues signature updates for the company's antivirus software, the first in-the-wild exploits were detected last week.
When Microsoft shipped the Word patch last month, it rated the bug as "1" on its exploitability index, meaning it believed a working attack would pop up within 30 days.
The attack uses a malicious RTF (Rich Text Format) file to generate a stack overflow in Word on Windows, said MMPC researcher Rodel Finones. Following a successful exploit, the attack code downloads and runs a Trojan horse on the compromised computer.
Finones said that the code "reliably exploits this [Word] vulnerability."
Last month, Microsoft rated the RTF vulnerability as "critical" in Word 2007 and 2010, but as "important" in all other affected versions.
At the time, outside researchers had put their bets on the bug as a hacker choice because users running Office 2007 or 2010 could be attacked if all they did was preview a specially-crafted RTF document in the Outlook e-mail client.
"Once a [malformed] message hits the Outlook preview pane, remote code can be executed. You should patch this right away," Jason Miller, the data and security team manager for Shavlik Technologies, said on the day Microsoft released the patch.
Finones urged users who have not yet installed the November patch to do so as soon as possible.
More information about the vulnerability can be found in the MS10-087 security bulletin.
The MS10-087 update can be downloaded and installed using Microsoft Update and Windows Server Update Services (WSUS).
Monday, January 3, 2011
Swedish actor Per Oscarsson, a household name in his country who appeared in two films based on Stieg Larsson's Millennium trilogy, has died along with his wife.
Swedish actor Per Oscarsson, a household name in his country who appeared in two films based on Stieg Larsson's Millennium trilogy, has died along with his wife.
Police in the town of Skara, in southwest Sweden, say the couple likely perished when their house burned down.
They believe the 83-year-old actor and his wife, Kia Ostling, were at home when a fire engulfed their home Thursday night or Friday morning.
"Relatives have told us that the couple was staying in the house over New Year's," police officer Carina Anderson told the TT news agency. "They haven't heard that they had any plans to travel."
Police spokesman Jan Strommegard said Sunday that remains were found at the scene but have not been verified. The cause of the fire is unknown.
Bo Lustig of the Skara emergency services said the house had already burned down when they arrived. Only the chimney still stands. Lustig said a relative living nearby made the discovery late Friday morning.
The house is in an isolated area just outside of Skara, 33 kilometres southwest of Stockholm.
Oscarsson, who began his career in the 1940s, appeared in theatre, films, TV series and children's specials in Sweden.
He won a best actor award at the Cannes film festival in 1966 for his role as a starving writer in the movie Hunger.
His most recent role was Holger Palmgren, guardian and lawyer to Lisbeth Salander, the heroine of Larson's blockbuster crime trilogy. Oscarsson appears in The Girl Who Played With Fire, the second of the Swedish films based on Larson's books, and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest.
American critic Roger Ebert hailed Oscarsson's performance in the role and described him as "a great Swedish actor … who incredibly never worked with [Ingmar] Bergman."
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2011/01/02/oscarsson-obit.html#ixzz19wjm2HCv
Police in the town of Skara, in southwest Sweden, say the couple likely perished when their house burned down.
They believe the 83-year-old actor and his wife, Kia Ostling, were at home when a fire engulfed their home Thursday night or Friday morning.
"Relatives have told us that the couple was staying in the house over New Year's," police officer Carina Anderson told the TT news agency. "They haven't heard that they had any plans to travel."
Police spokesman Jan Strommegard said Sunday that remains were found at the scene but have not been verified. The cause of the fire is unknown.
Bo Lustig of the Skara emergency services said the house had already burned down when they arrived. Only the chimney still stands. Lustig said a relative living nearby made the discovery late Friday morning.
The house is in an isolated area just outside of Skara, 33 kilometres southwest of Stockholm.
Oscarsson, who began his career in the 1940s, appeared in theatre, films, TV series and children's specials in Sweden.
He won a best actor award at the Cannes film festival in 1966 for his role as a starving writer in the movie Hunger.
His most recent role was Holger Palmgren, guardian and lawyer to Lisbeth Salander, the heroine of Larson's blockbuster crime trilogy. Oscarsson appears in The Girl Who Played With Fire, the second of the Swedish films based on Larson's books, and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest.
American critic Roger Ebert hailed Oscarsson's performance in the role and described him as "a great Swedish actor … who incredibly never worked with [Ingmar] Bergman."
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2011/01/02/oscarsson-obit.html#ixzz19wjm2HCv
Sunday, January 2, 2011
In a farewell speech to senior medical leaders this month, ousted health super-board boss Stephen Duckett accused politicians of being short-sighted and the provincial government of stoking ER woes by neglecting investment in seniors care.
In a farewell speech to senior medical leaders this month, ousted health super-board boss Stephen Duckett accused politicians of being short-sighted and the provincial government of stoking ER woes by neglecting investment in seniors care.
Duckett has not spoken publicly about his Nov. 24 departure from the helm of Alberta Health Services, a government-created organization responsible for delivering medical care. However, in his speech, delivered in Edmonton to top-level AHS officials 12 days after his dismissal, Duckett was sharply critical of the province, former health regions and the media.
He noted Alberta spends more money per capita on health than other provinces, but gets less.
Duckett also condemned how that money has been spent, saying Alberta has overemphasized investment on acute care at the expense of ailing seniors.
"Is it any wonder that our acute facilities had to become de facto seniors housing, contributing to the systemic problems that have created the problems in emergency care?" Duckett stated in a copy of his Dec. 6 speech, obtained by the Herald.
The troubled state of Alberta health care -- particularly strained emergency wards and seniors waiting in hospitals for nursing-home beds -- dominated political and public debate in the province this fall.
Frustrated physicians warned in October of a "potential catastrophic collapse" in many emergency wards due to severe overcrowding and the looming winter flu season.
Weeks later, Edmonton MLA Raj Sherman -- an ER physician who was the Tory government's junior health minister -- was punted from Conservative caucus after he assailed the premier and Alberta Health Services over their handling of medical care.
Some critics contend Duckett isn't blameless for the province's health struggles.
"This is someone who was leading the health system," said Wildrose Alliance MLA Heather Forsyth.
"If he thought there was something wrong with the system . . . he had the opportunity to speak out on behalf of Calgarians and seniors and other health-care professionals."
A health economist from Australia hired in spring 2009 to lead the newly amalgamated health entity, Duckett came under intense fire over a controversial cookie exchange with the media last month.
After a daylong meeting organized to draft solutions to hospital overcrowding and lengthy waits for treatment, Duckett refused to answer questions from reporters, telling them repeatedly, "I'm eating my cookie."
Video of the exchange went viral on the Internet. Premier Ed Stelmach characterized Duckett's comments as "offensive."
In his Dec. 6 speech, the ousted health executive conceded his cookie remarks were a mistake. However, he claimed the Alberta government had, for the past few months, advised him "to be less accessible" to the media.
Zwozdesky, though, told the Herald he never asked Duckett to avoid answering questions from the media, nor is he aware of others in government doing so.
"The only thing that we talked about right from the beginning was getting closer on the same page and being consistent in our messaging," the health minister said.
"And that's why I frequently called him."
Zwozdesky wasn't aware Duckett delivered a farewell speech to AHS officials.
The health minister said he disagrees with the critique that the Alberta government was shortchanging seniors care.
"The investments in seniors' accommodations and providing various new forms of choice for seniors has really been a success story," Zwozdesky said.
"There's still more to go, obviously, but what's out there now and the fact that we're providing 1,000 additional spaces per year over the next five, six, seven years, is very positive news for seniors."
Duckett offered some praise of the government in his farewell address.
He noted the province has placed AHS on a secure, long-term financial footing with its five-year funding commitment.
However, Duckett also said he felt misled about Alberta's financial state when he was recruited to lead the largest medical organization in Canada.
In the face of a global recession, he was asked to trim $1 billion from Alberta Health Services' budget upon arriving in spring 2009.
"The media created a Stephen Duckett I didn't recognize, portraying me as a one-dimensional budget cutter, a portrayal that still continues," Duckett asserted in his speech.
Duckett also contended the media painted a rosy picture of the province's nine former health regions, which he accused of restricting transparency. In his address, he alleged some of the now-defunct health entities manipulated waiting lists.
"Unfortunately for me, these strategies were not consistent with either my values or those of AHS."
The ousted health executive declined Thursday to comment further on his speech when reached by e-mail on holidays in Australia.
In his goodbye remarks, Duckett argued that "politicians only see the short term, and often fail to connect the dots" -- lumping them in with the media, which he blames heavily for his rough ride in Alberta.
NDP Leader Brian Mason said Duckett's assessment of the state of seniors care in Alberta echoes concerns that his party have repeatedly raised.
While Mason was one of several political leaders who called for his dismissal, he believes Duckett was given a difficult task in running a mammoth, newly created health body.
Still, Bruce West of the Alberta Continuing Care Association believes AHS bears some responsibility for inadequate seniors-care planning.
He contends the continuing-care policy of the organization and province too heavily favours assisted-living spaces over long-term-care beds, which are more expensive to create but offer greater medical aid.
"Continuing care has been perennially underfunded in relation to acute care," West said.
"We're seeing the results of that right now, for sure, with crowded emergency rooms and people backing up beds in acute care facilities.
Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Stephen+Duckett+blamed+Tories+crisis+health/4042193/story.html#ixzz19r5ewW44
Duckett has not spoken publicly about his Nov. 24 departure from the helm of Alberta Health Services, a government-created organization responsible for delivering medical care. However, in his speech, delivered in Edmonton to top-level AHS officials 12 days after his dismissal, Duckett was sharply critical of the province, former health regions and the media.
He noted Alberta spends more money per capita on health than other provinces, but gets less.
Duckett also condemned how that money has been spent, saying Alberta has overemphasized investment on acute care at the expense of ailing seniors.
"Is it any wonder that our acute facilities had to become de facto seniors housing, contributing to the systemic problems that have created the problems in emergency care?" Duckett stated in a copy of his Dec. 6 speech, obtained by the Herald.
The troubled state of Alberta health care -- particularly strained emergency wards and seniors waiting in hospitals for nursing-home beds -- dominated political and public debate in the province this fall.
Frustrated physicians warned in October of a "potential catastrophic collapse" in many emergency wards due to severe overcrowding and the looming winter flu season.
Weeks later, Edmonton MLA Raj Sherman -- an ER physician who was the Tory government's junior health minister -- was punted from Conservative caucus after he assailed the premier and Alberta Health Services over their handling of medical care.
Some critics contend Duckett isn't blameless for the province's health struggles.
"This is someone who was leading the health system," said Wildrose Alliance MLA Heather Forsyth.
"If he thought there was something wrong with the system . . . he had the opportunity to speak out on behalf of Calgarians and seniors and other health-care professionals."
A health economist from Australia hired in spring 2009 to lead the newly amalgamated health entity, Duckett came under intense fire over a controversial cookie exchange with the media last month.
After a daylong meeting organized to draft solutions to hospital overcrowding and lengthy waits for treatment, Duckett refused to answer questions from reporters, telling them repeatedly, "I'm eating my cookie."
Video of the exchange went viral on the Internet. Premier Ed Stelmach characterized Duckett's comments as "offensive."
In his Dec. 6 speech, the ousted health executive conceded his cookie remarks were a mistake. However, he claimed the Alberta government had, for the past few months, advised him "to be less accessible" to the media.
Zwozdesky, though, told the Herald he never asked Duckett to avoid answering questions from the media, nor is he aware of others in government doing so.
"The only thing that we talked about right from the beginning was getting closer on the same page and being consistent in our messaging," the health minister said.
"And that's why I frequently called him."
Zwozdesky wasn't aware Duckett delivered a farewell speech to AHS officials.
The health minister said he disagrees with the critique that the Alberta government was shortchanging seniors care.
"The investments in seniors' accommodations and providing various new forms of choice for seniors has really been a success story," Zwozdesky said.
"There's still more to go, obviously, but what's out there now and the fact that we're providing 1,000 additional spaces per year over the next five, six, seven years, is very positive news for seniors."
Duckett offered some praise of the government in his farewell address.
He noted the province has placed AHS on a secure, long-term financial footing with its five-year funding commitment.
However, Duckett also said he felt misled about Alberta's financial state when he was recruited to lead the largest medical organization in Canada.
In the face of a global recession, he was asked to trim $1 billion from Alberta Health Services' budget upon arriving in spring 2009.
"The media created a Stephen Duckett I didn't recognize, portraying me as a one-dimensional budget cutter, a portrayal that still continues," Duckett asserted in his speech.
Duckett also contended the media painted a rosy picture of the province's nine former health regions, which he accused of restricting transparency. In his address, he alleged some of the now-defunct health entities manipulated waiting lists.
"Unfortunately for me, these strategies were not consistent with either my values or those of AHS."
The ousted health executive declined Thursday to comment further on his speech when reached by e-mail on holidays in Australia.
In his goodbye remarks, Duckett argued that "politicians only see the short term, and often fail to connect the dots" -- lumping them in with the media, which he blames heavily for his rough ride in Alberta.
NDP Leader Brian Mason said Duckett's assessment of the state of seniors care in Alberta echoes concerns that his party have repeatedly raised.
While Mason was one of several political leaders who called for his dismissal, he believes Duckett was given a difficult task in running a mammoth, newly created health body.
Still, Bruce West of the Alberta Continuing Care Association believes AHS bears some responsibility for inadequate seniors-care planning.
He contends the continuing-care policy of the organization and province too heavily favours assisted-living spaces over long-term-care beds, which are more expensive to create but offer greater medical aid.
"Continuing care has been perennially underfunded in relation to acute care," West said.
"We're seeing the results of that right now, for sure, with crowded emergency rooms and people backing up beds in acute care facilities.
Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Stephen+Duckett+blamed+Tories+crisis+health/4042193/story.html#ixzz19r5ewW44
Saturday, January 1, 2011
YEAR IN REVIEW: Omar Khadr: “Canadian officials who go to other countries are going to be bound by the Charter insofar as to when they’re interacting with Canadian citizens abroad,” said Whitling, whose litigation practice focuses, in part, on international human rights law at the Edmonton firm, Parlee McLaws LLP.
While a pivotal chapter of Omar Khadr’s sad saga concluded this year, the story about the youngest and the only Canadian (and Westerner) among the 176 detainees at Guantanamo Bay is far from over.
In late October, he accepted a deal to avoid a questionable military trial and lengthy prison term upon conviction, and pleaded guilty to five charges under the 2009 U.S. Military Commissions Act, including “murder by an alien unprivileged combatant” and “providing material assistance to terrorism” — offences created after his capture by American forces in Afghanistan.
In exchange, 24-year-old, Toronto-born Khadr received an eight-year sentence. He will spend one more year in Guantanamo Bay after which he can request (and likely obtain) repatriation to Canada under the plea deal.
Under the terms of Canada’s International Transfer of Offenders Act, Khadr is expected to serve the rest of his time in a provincial correctional facility for adults — since he was a youth at the time his offence was committed — and be eligible for parole after one year and eight months, or the summer of 2012, according to one of his Canadian lawyers.
But while Khadr may by then be a free man, Nate Whitling suggests that some of the jurisprudence from his client’s legal battles in the Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) could constrain officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) and Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) agents in the future.
“Canadian officials who go to other countries are going to be bound by the Charter insofar as to when they’re interacting with Canadian citizens abroad,” said Whitling, whose litigation practice focuses, in part, on international human rights law at the Edmonton firm, Parlee McLaws LLP.
But as he added, the SCC’s decision in Canada (Justice) v. Khadr, [2008] S.C.J. No. 28, emphasized that the life, liberty and security guarantees under s. 7 of the Charter applied to the interrogations of Khadr at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba by DFAIT and CSIS officials, because the process violated Canada’s obligations under international law.
The court referred to other decisions, such as one from its American counterpart in Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that detainees at Guantanamo had illegally been denied access to habeas corpus, and that the procedures under which they were to be prosecuted violated the Geneva Convention. In Khadr (2008), the SCC also referred to its earlier decision in R. v. Hape, [2007] S.C.J. No. 26, in which the court unanimously ruled that the deference required to the principle of comity, which implies acceptance of foreign laws and procedures when Canadian foreign officials are operating abroad, “ends where clear violations of international law and fundamental human rights begin.”
In the SCC’s second decision on Khadr’s situation in the Guantanamo Bay prison, Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, [2010] S.C.J. No. 3, the court agreed with previous rulings by the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal that Khadr was entitled to a remedy under s. 24 (1) of the Charter, since his constitutional rights were violated when a DFAIT official interviewed him in 2004, knowing that Khadr had been subjected by U.S. authorities to a sleep-deprivation technique. Known as the “frequent-flyer program,” it involved physically moving Khadr every three hours over a three-week period to make him less resistant to interrogation. However, the remedy Khadr sought — that the federal government be ordered to request his repatriation — was denied, “in view of the constitutional responsibility of the executive to make decisions on matters of foreign affairs.”
The government has yet to provide Khadr with any remedy. It could come in the form of challenging the validity of the plea bargain agreement reached between Canada and the U.S. once he is back on Canadian soil, according to constitutional law scholar Errol Mendes.
“His lawyers could say that he should be released immediately since the plea deal was in itself a violation of his rights. The Supreme Court of Canada has already said that the complicity of Canadian officials in his interrogation amounted to a violation of his constitutional rights,” said Mendes, a professor of law at the University of Ottawa’s common law section and the editor-in-chief of The National Journal of Constitutional Law. “Or Khadr could spend whatever time he has left to fulfill the plea agreement, but sue the hell out of the government for millions of dollars.”
Still, in an upcoming article on Khadr (2010) to appear in the Supreme Court Law Review, University of Toronto law professor Audrey Macklin wrote that “Khadr has been dumped in the mother of all legal grey holes, the place of right without remedy. And a legal grey hole is really little more than a black hole decorated with judicial wallpaper.”
In an interview, she explained that while not holding Canadian citizenship “can hurt,” being a Canadian citizen “doesn’t help when somebody is considered a pariah by the government.
“The government’s position is that it does not owe Canadian citizens any duty to assist them in any way when their fundamental rights are being violated abroad. The government claims absolute and unfettered discretion to pick and choose which Canadians to protect.”
Regardless of one’s views of Omar Khadr, this assertion of unaccountable discretion should worry all Canadians who travel outside the country. And so far, the SCC has been unwilling to contradict the government’s position, said Macklin.
Nathalie Des Rosiers, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA)’s general counsel, said in an interview that the federal government needs to provide clarity on the criteria it applies to determine whether it will assist a Canadian in distress outside the country, since in recent years the message has been mixed.
Two years ago, a federal government-chartered jet whisked Canadian Brenda Martin away from a Mexican prison back to Canada where she was briefly remanded into custody before being released on parole for time served. Yet Maher Arar endured torture as a suspected terrorist in a tiny Syrian cell before a federal government commission exonerated him of any terrorist ties; a Federal Court last year had to order the government to issue a passport to Abousfian Abdelrazik, who was stuck in Sudan for six years; and in 2009 Suaad Haji Mohamud was stranded for three months and spent eight days in jail in Kenya, where she was charged with identity fraud — on Canada’s recommendation — after Kenyan immigration officials claimed her facial features didn’t match her Canadian passport (DNA testing later verified her identity). All three people hold Canadian citizenship.
“It looks bad if the government is helping white Canadians, but doesn’t help racialized Canadians,” said Des Rosiers, who is on leave as a professor in the University of Ottawa’s civil law section. “Maybe there are good reasons, but they should be more apparent to the public.
“Mendes believes Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government made the decision that Khadr “wasn’t worth fighting for,” although he remains subject to a “potentially unlawful detention” under international law.
“The government is making distinctions between different types of Canadian citizens, and some have more rights than others. If it feels someone is not worthy to have the full protection of Canada, it won’t lift a finger. In fact, it will actually encourage a foreign state to let you basically rot in whatever condition you find yourself,” said Mendes. “Which is why I agree with the opposition that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. If we start making a distinction, we’re going down a very slippery slope.”
To help avoid that from happening, Des Rosiers is in favour of the creation of a new federal “ombudsman” who would represent all Canadians in need of assistance when outside the country.
But Ottawa lawyer and international and terrorist intelligence analyst David Harris offers a cautionary note about interpreting Charter rights in light of current national security concerns.
“We understandably have a greater focus on the individual, and I think that must continue…But I am a little concerned that we have gradually and inexorably been leading ourselves in directions that are incompatible with public safety,” said Harris, a former chief of strategic planning at CSIS prior to the Khadr case.
Harris acknowledged that while “platoons of exceptionally well-intentioned and well-educated lawyers are properly and vigorously advocating the interests of their clients in national security matters, I don’t see a great deal of public discourse in, and virtually any legal attention to, the sorts of backdrops, realities and threats I’ve seen on the ground. I think that reflects shortcomings in the profession and the community at large, and it interferes with our ability to seek a true balance in a delicate balance problem.”
In late October, he accepted a deal to avoid a questionable military trial and lengthy prison term upon conviction, and pleaded guilty to five charges under the 2009 U.S. Military Commissions Act, including “murder by an alien unprivileged combatant” and “providing material assistance to terrorism” — offences created after his capture by American forces in Afghanistan.
In exchange, 24-year-old, Toronto-born Khadr received an eight-year sentence. He will spend one more year in Guantanamo Bay after which he can request (and likely obtain) repatriation to Canada under the plea deal.
Under the terms of Canada’s International Transfer of Offenders Act, Khadr is expected to serve the rest of his time in a provincial correctional facility for adults — since he was a youth at the time his offence was committed — and be eligible for parole after one year and eight months, or the summer of 2012, according to one of his Canadian lawyers.
But while Khadr may by then be a free man, Nate Whitling suggests that some of the jurisprudence from his client’s legal battles in the Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) could constrain officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) and Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) agents in the future.
“Canadian officials who go to other countries are going to be bound by the Charter insofar as to when they’re interacting with Canadian citizens abroad,” said Whitling, whose litigation practice focuses, in part, on international human rights law at the Edmonton firm, Parlee McLaws LLP.
But as he added, the SCC’s decision in Canada (Justice) v. Khadr, [2008] S.C.J. No. 28, emphasized that the life, liberty and security guarantees under s. 7 of the Charter applied to the interrogations of Khadr at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba by DFAIT and CSIS officials, because the process violated Canada’s obligations under international law.
The court referred to other decisions, such as one from its American counterpart in Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that detainees at Guantanamo had illegally been denied access to habeas corpus, and that the procedures under which they were to be prosecuted violated the Geneva Convention. In Khadr (2008), the SCC also referred to its earlier decision in R. v. Hape, [2007] S.C.J. No. 26, in which the court unanimously ruled that the deference required to the principle of comity, which implies acceptance of foreign laws and procedures when Canadian foreign officials are operating abroad, “ends where clear violations of international law and fundamental human rights begin.”
In the SCC’s second decision on Khadr’s situation in the Guantanamo Bay prison, Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, [2010] S.C.J. No. 3, the court agreed with previous rulings by the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal that Khadr was entitled to a remedy under s. 24 (1) of the Charter, since his constitutional rights were violated when a DFAIT official interviewed him in 2004, knowing that Khadr had been subjected by U.S. authorities to a sleep-deprivation technique. Known as the “frequent-flyer program,” it involved physically moving Khadr every three hours over a three-week period to make him less resistant to interrogation. However, the remedy Khadr sought — that the federal government be ordered to request his repatriation — was denied, “in view of the constitutional responsibility of the executive to make decisions on matters of foreign affairs.”
The government has yet to provide Khadr with any remedy. It could come in the form of challenging the validity of the plea bargain agreement reached between Canada and the U.S. once he is back on Canadian soil, according to constitutional law scholar Errol Mendes.
“His lawyers could say that he should be released immediately since the plea deal was in itself a violation of his rights. The Supreme Court of Canada has already said that the complicity of Canadian officials in his interrogation amounted to a violation of his constitutional rights,” said Mendes, a professor of law at the University of Ottawa’s common law section and the editor-in-chief of The National Journal of Constitutional Law. “Or Khadr could spend whatever time he has left to fulfill the plea agreement, but sue the hell out of the government for millions of dollars.”
Still, in an upcoming article on Khadr (2010) to appear in the Supreme Court Law Review, University of Toronto law professor Audrey Macklin wrote that “Khadr has been dumped in the mother of all legal grey holes, the place of right without remedy. And a legal grey hole is really little more than a black hole decorated with judicial wallpaper.”
In an interview, she explained that while not holding Canadian citizenship “can hurt,” being a Canadian citizen “doesn’t help when somebody is considered a pariah by the government.
“The government’s position is that it does not owe Canadian citizens any duty to assist them in any way when their fundamental rights are being violated abroad. The government claims absolute and unfettered discretion to pick and choose which Canadians to protect.”
Regardless of one’s views of Omar Khadr, this assertion of unaccountable discretion should worry all Canadians who travel outside the country. And so far, the SCC has been unwilling to contradict the government’s position, said Macklin.
Nathalie Des Rosiers, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA)’s general counsel, said in an interview that the federal government needs to provide clarity on the criteria it applies to determine whether it will assist a Canadian in distress outside the country, since in recent years the message has been mixed.
Two years ago, a federal government-chartered jet whisked Canadian Brenda Martin away from a Mexican prison back to Canada where she was briefly remanded into custody before being released on parole for time served. Yet Maher Arar endured torture as a suspected terrorist in a tiny Syrian cell before a federal government commission exonerated him of any terrorist ties; a Federal Court last year had to order the government to issue a passport to Abousfian Abdelrazik, who was stuck in Sudan for six years; and in 2009 Suaad Haji Mohamud was stranded for three months and spent eight days in jail in Kenya, where she was charged with identity fraud — on Canada’s recommendation — after Kenyan immigration officials claimed her facial features didn’t match her Canadian passport (DNA testing later verified her identity). All three people hold Canadian citizenship.
“It looks bad if the government is helping white Canadians, but doesn’t help racialized Canadians,” said Des Rosiers, who is on leave as a professor in the University of Ottawa’s civil law section. “Maybe there are good reasons, but they should be more apparent to the public.
“Mendes believes Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government made the decision that Khadr “wasn’t worth fighting for,” although he remains subject to a “potentially unlawful detention” under international law.
“The government is making distinctions between different types of Canadian citizens, and some have more rights than others. If it feels someone is not worthy to have the full protection of Canada, it won’t lift a finger. In fact, it will actually encourage a foreign state to let you basically rot in whatever condition you find yourself,” said Mendes. “Which is why I agree with the opposition that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. If we start making a distinction, we’re going down a very slippery slope.”
To help avoid that from happening, Des Rosiers is in favour of the creation of a new federal “ombudsman” who would represent all Canadians in need of assistance when outside the country.
But Ottawa lawyer and international and terrorist intelligence analyst David Harris offers a cautionary note about interpreting Charter rights in light of current national security concerns.
“We understandably have a greater focus on the individual, and I think that must continue…But I am a little concerned that we have gradually and inexorably been leading ourselves in directions that are incompatible with public safety,” said Harris, a former chief of strategic planning at CSIS prior to the Khadr case.
Harris acknowledged that while “platoons of exceptionally well-intentioned and well-educated lawyers are properly and vigorously advocating the interests of their clients in national security matters, I don’t see a great deal of public discourse in, and virtually any legal attention to, the sorts of backdrops, realities and threats I’ve seen on the ground. I think that reflects shortcomings in the profession and the community at large, and it interferes with our ability to seek a true balance in a delicate balance problem.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)