MONTREAL—An apparent case of political interference is once again rearing its head in Montreal, but this time it involves the Prime Minister’s Office.
An investigation by Radio-Canada suggests that Dimitri Soudas, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s spokesman, tried to pressure board members of the Montreal Port Authority to name Robert Abdallah, a former director general at Montreal city hall, as its new president.
In a 2007 meeting at Le Muscadin, an Italian restaurant in Old Montreal, Soudas made it clear the federal government favoured Abdallah for the position, according to board member Marc Bruneau.
“There was certainly interference, because we specifically met on the nomination of the new president,” Bruneau told the broadcaster.
The board, however, had other candidates in mind.
Former Tory cabinet minister Michael Fortier also confirmed to Radio-Canada that board members were approached by those claiming “Harper preferred Mr. Abdallah.”
Soudas told the Star Tuesday evening he did nothing wrong and insisted he was simply communicating to the port authority the government’s choice for an appointee.
Radio-Canada reports that Abdallah was also favoured by powerful figures at Montreal city hall. Frank Zampino, at the time the right-hand man of Mayor Gérald Tremblay, wanted Abdallah named and pressured board member Diane Provost to vote for him, according to Claude Dauphin, mayor of the Montreal borough of Lachine.
Abdallah told Radio-Canada the fact he wasn’t named head of the port is proof there wasn’t undue influence.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Canada's brutal refugee policy.
The federal government's rhetoric about the evils of human smuggling has crashed into the twin barriers of unyielding detention policies and common sense.
Canada has traditionally maintained a moderate policy on the detention of asylum seekers. The legal justifications for detention are reasonable and functional: lack of identity documents, a danger to Canada or a flight risk. Fewer than 10 per cent of claimants are detained and most only for a short period of time, usually to confirm their identity. Other countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, have sought to deter refugee claimants by detaining them upon arrival. Those punitive policies have not worked. They have proven to be tremendously expensive, injurious to traumatized refugees, and ineffective in reducing the flow of refugee claimants.
Last August, the Sun Sea arrived from Thailand with 492 Tamil passengers. All of them were detained. Government officials will tell you the children were not "detained," which is technically correct and realistically false. The children had a choice. After their flight from Sri Lanka, lengthy exile in Thailand and a three-month voyage in the bottom of a derelict vessel, they could remain with their mothers in detention or go with English-speaking strangers to an unknown place. Prison guards, kinder than their government, brought toys for the children.
Since their arrival, the Canadian government has pursued a harsh detention policy toward all of the boat passengers, although it soon became obvious that many had no connection with the Tamil Tigers. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) stubbornly opposed the release of any of the claimants, imposing higher standards for identification documents than for normal refugee claimants. When the IRB did order the release of passengers, the government fought the release orders in Federal Court, even those involving women and children, although most of the orders were upheld by the court.
In one notable case, the Federal Court criticized the government's position as an abuse of process when it continued to hold a passenger who had been ordered released on three separate occasions.
During this same period, the government mounted a campaign against human smuggling. Vic Toews, the Minister of Public Safety, had already warned us of the arrival of a boat carrying passengers from Thailand. Five phrases were repeated again and again in government messages: human smugglers, human traffickers, Tamil Tigers, terrorist organization and more boats coming. Smugglers and their passengers might have connections to the Tamil Tigers, which was a terrorist organization. These allegations were potentially true. However the government did not mention the humanitarian side of the story, that the passengers might also be traumatized refugees who had legitimate fears of persecution and had no legal opportunity to claim refugee protection in Thailand. At the time, no one knew which story was true but public opinion polls showed a sharp decrease in support for refugees.
Soon after the boat's arrival, the government introduced Bill C-49, the Bill Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act. The bill primarily punished the smuggled rather than the smugglers. Anyone found to be a refugee could not apply for permanent residence or reunite with their family for another five years. All passengers in a group arrival, man, woman and child, would automatically be detained for up to one year without a right to challenge their detention in court.
Every lawyer in the country understood that this provision violated the Canadian Charter of Rights. The Supreme Court of Canada had recently struck down a law that imposed three months of detention without judicial review. More cynical commentators said the government's true purpose was to embarrass the opposition rather than to pass an unenforceable bill. To their credit, all opposition parties publicly opposed the bill on principle and it was withdrawn from the House order paper. Now an election campaign is underway and the Conservatives have made human smuggling a key election issue accusing the opposition of being "weak on human smuggling."
Nearly eight months after the Sun Sea's arrival, fewer than 40 Tamil claimants remain in detention. To date, two men have been found to be inadmissible to Canada due to connections with the Tigers. Running out of arguments to sustain the detentions, CBSA has been demanding that detainees provide proof that they have paid off the smugglers before being released. The convoluted logic is that the detainees could be flight risks; they might go underground in order to pay off their debts even though they could legally work until their refugee claim is decided. In order to comply with that demand, relatives of the detainees are selling land and possessions or borrowing money in order to pay off the smugglers. In effect, CBSA has become a debt collector for the smugglers while the Conservative government continues to rail against the evils of human smuggling. Go figure.
National security is an important issue that should not be taken lightly. It should also not be the manufactured excuse for the unreasonably harsh treatment of refugees. Ever since 9-11, refugees have been unfairly and foolishly linked with North American security. It is unfair because real and unnecessary damage has been done to some refugees. It is foolish because the real security dangers are ignored while public and government attention is diverted elsewhere. Requiring refugees to pay off the smugglers is one of the more ludicrous examples of narrow, Orwellian thinking. Next thing you know, they'll be taking away manicure scissors at airport security. Oh wait, they already do that.
Peter Showler teaches refugee law at the University of Ottawa where he is the director of the Refugee Forum at the Human Rights Research and Education Centre.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Detained+Tamils+case+exposes+Canada+brutal+refugee+policy/4632681/story.html#ixzz1Jwh7eqRp
Canada has traditionally maintained a moderate policy on the detention of asylum seekers. The legal justifications for detention are reasonable and functional: lack of identity documents, a danger to Canada or a flight risk. Fewer than 10 per cent of claimants are detained and most only for a short period of time, usually to confirm their identity. Other countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, have sought to deter refugee claimants by detaining them upon arrival. Those punitive policies have not worked. They have proven to be tremendously expensive, injurious to traumatized refugees, and ineffective in reducing the flow of refugee claimants.
Last August, the Sun Sea arrived from Thailand with 492 Tamil passengers. All of them were detained. Government officials will tell you the children were not "detained," which is technically correct and realistically false. The children had a choice. After their flight from Sri Lanka, lengthy exile in Thailand and a three-month voyage in the bottom of a derelict vessel, they could remain with their mothers in detention or go with English-speaking strangers to an unknown place. Prison guards, kinder than their government, brought toys for the children.
Since their arrival, the Canadian government has pursued a harsh detention policy toward all of the boat passengers, although it soon became obvious that many had no connection with the Tamil Tigers. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) stubbornly opposed the release of any of the claimants, imposing higher standards for identification documents than for normal refugee claimants. When the IRB did order the release of passengers, the government fought the release orders in Federal Court, even those involving women and children, although most of the orders were upheld by the court.
In one notable case, the Federal Court criticized the government's position as an abuse of process when it continued to hold a passenger who had been ordered released on three separate occasions.
During this same period, the government mounted a campaign against human smuggling. Vic Toews, the Minister of Public Safety, had already warned us of the arrival of a boat carrying passengers from Thailand. Five phrases were repeated again and again in government messages: human smugglers, human traffickers, Tamil Tigers, terrorist organization and more boats coming. Smugglers and their passengers might have connections to the Tamil Tigers, which was a terrorist organization. These allegations were potentially true. However the government did not mention the humanitarian side of the story, that the passengers might also be traumatized refugees who had legitimate fears of persecution and had no legal opportunity to claim refugee protection in Thailand. At the time, no one knew which story was true but public opinion polls showed a sharp decrease in support for refugees.
Soon after the boat's arrival, the government introduced Bill C-49, the Bill Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act. The bill primarily punished the smuggled rather than the smugglers. Anyone found to be a refugee could not apply for permanent residence or reunite with their family for another five years. All passengers in a group arrival, man, woman and child, would automatically be detained for up to one year without a right to challenge their detention in court.
Every lawyer in the country understood that this provision violated the Canadian Charter of Rights. The Supreme Court of Canada had recently struck down a law that imposed three months of detention without judicial review. More cynical commentators said the government's true purpose was to embarrass the opposition rather than to pass an unenforceable bill. To their credit, all opposition parties publicly opposed the bill on principle and it was withdrawn from the House order paper. Now an election campaign is underway and the Conservatives have made human smuggling a key election issue accusing the opposition of being "weak on human smuggling."
Nearly eight months after the Sun Sea's arrival, fewer than 40 Tamil claimants remain in detention. To date, two men have been found to be inadmissible to Canada due to connections with the Tigers. Running out of arguments to sustain the detentions, CBSA has been demanding that detainees provide proof that they have paid off the smugglers before being released. The convoluted logic is that the detainees could be flight risks; they might go underground in order to pay off their debts even though they could legally work until their refugee claim is decided. In order to comply with that demand, relatives of the detainees are selling land and possessions or borrowing money in order to pay off the smugglers. In effect, CBSA has become a debt collector for the smugglers while the Conservative government continues to rail against the evils of human smuggling. Go figure.
National security is an important issue that should not be taken lightly. It should also not be the manufactured excuse for the unreasonably harsh treatment of refugees. Ever since 9-11, refugees have been unfairly and foolishly linked with North American security. It is unfair because real and unnecessary damage has been done to some refugees. It is foolish because the real security dangers are ignored while public and government attention is diverted elsewhere. Requiring refugees to pay off the smugglers is one of the more ludicrous examples of narrow, Orwellian thinking. Next thing you know, they'll be taking away manicure scissors at airport security. Oh wait, they already do that.
Peter Showler teaches refugee law at the University of Ottawa where he is the director of the Refugee Forum at the Human Rights Research and Education Centre.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Detained+Tamils+case+exposes+Canada+brutal+refugee+policy/4632681/story.html#ixzz1Jwh7eqRp
Monday, April 18, 2011
Canadians shrug off 'just visiting' attacks .
OTTAWA - For most of his long career as an academic and journalist, Michael Ignatieff has lived and worked outside of Canada.
He returned to Canada in 2005, became a Liberal MP in 2006 and, almost immediately after that, was derided by his Conservative opponents who claimed he was "just visiting" Canada and that "he didn't come back for you."
Indeed, those are the main themes of the Conservative anti-Ignatieff attack ads in this election campaign.
Now, a new poll, done exclusively for QMI Agency by Leger Marketing, shows that the Conservative attacks appear to have had some success in key election battlegrounds but, overall, most Canadians - or 54% - think the issue is irrelevant or that Ignatieff's overseas experience is a good thing for an applicant for the job of prime minister.
But in Ontario, where Liberals must do well to have any hope of forming a government, 43% say it's "a bad thing" that Ignatieff has spent most of his working life outside of Canada, while 41% of Ontarians say it's irrelevant and 9% say it's "a good thing".
In B.C., 42% of respondents said Ignatieff's resume is a bad thing while 44% said it's irrelevant and 8% said it's a good thing.
Quebecers and Atlantic Canadians seemed the least susceptible to the Conservative attack line. In the provinces east of Ontario,
more than half of respondents said the Liberal leader's work record was irrelevant. And in Quebec, 16% said it was a good thing, a sharp contrast with Alberta where just 4% of respondents agreed it was positive.
The poll was conducted April 15 to 17, after last week's leaders debates. Leger surveyed 3,534 respondents selected randomly from its online panel of more than 350,000 Canadians. The pollster says results would be accurate to within 1.7 percentage points 19 times out of 20 for a similar-sized group selected randomly from among all Canadians.
He returned to Canada in 2005, became a Liberal MP in 2006 and, almost immediately after that, was derided by his Conservative opponents who claimed he was "just visiting" Canada and that "he didn't come back for you."
Indeed, those are the main themes of the Conservative anti-Ignatieff attack ads in this election campaign.
Now, a new poll, done exclusively for QMI Agency by Leger Marketing, shows that the Conservative attacks appear to have had some success in key election battlegrounds but, overall, most Canadians - or 54% - think the issue is irrelevant or that Ignatieff's overseas experience is a good thing for an applicant for the job of prime minister.
But in Ontario, where Liberals must do well to have any hope of forming a government, 43% say it's "a bad thing" that Ignatieff has spent most of his working life outside of Canada, while 41% of Ontarians say it's irrelevant and 9% say it's "a good thing".
In B.C., 42% of respondents said Ignatieff's resume is a bad thing while 44% said it's irrelevant and 8% said it's a good thing.
Quebecers and Atlantic Canadians seemed the least susceptible to the Conservative attack line. In the provinces east of Ontario,
more than half of respondents said the Liberal leader's work record was irrelevant. And in Quebec, 16% said it was a good thing, a sharp contrast with Alberta where just 4% of respondents agreed it was positive.
The poll was conducted April 15 to 17, after last week's leaders debates. Leger surveyed 3,534 respondents selected randomly from its online panel of more than 350,000 Canadians. The pollster says results would be accurate to within 1.7 percentage points 19 times out of 20 for a similar-sized group selected randomly from among all Canadians.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
new survey suggests Canadians are starting to warm up to the idea of a coalition government on Parliament Hill.
new survey suggests Canadians are starting to warm up to the idea of a coalition government on Parliament Hill.
Compiled by TNS Canada, it shows 57 per cent of Canadians found the idea of two parties forming a coalition 'completely' or 'somewhat' acceptable.
To add to that, 49 per cent of Canadians would be okay with the idea of two parties, that did not win the most seats, forming a majority government in the House of Commons.
Only one in five Canadians said they would not prefer any of these coalition scenarios.
"I think voters are looking for a way for a minority government or minority party to work together with the other parties and sort of keep it together," says Vice President and Director of Public Opinion Research Norman Baillie-David.
The survey continues to say the most pallatable solution for Canadians is a prospective Liberal - NDP union at 28 per cent, followed by a Conservative - NDP coalition at 24 per cent.
Preference begins to drop dramatically for an union that involves the Bloc Quebecois.
The prairie provinces however were the region that was least warm to the idea with only 39 per cent of those polled okay with a coalition government.
Baillie-David feels that may be just a coincidence and not have much to do with the fact that the majority of the Conservative support is in Western Canada.
"We're a minority situation, pardon the pun, in terms of a coalition government around the world," he says. "Even Jean Chretien said yesterday that Canada is one of the only countries left that thinks it can get a majority."
Compiled by TNS Canada, it shows 57 per cent of Canadians found the idea of two parties forming a coalition 'completely' or 'somewhat' acceptable.
To add to that, 49 per cent of Canadians would be okay with the idea of two parties, that did not win the most seats, forming a majority government in the House of Commons.
Only one in five Canadians said they would not prefer any of these coalition scenarios.
"I think voters are looking for a way for a minority government or minority party to work together with the other parties and sort of keep it together," says Vice President and Director of Public Opinion Research Norman Baillie-David.
The survey continues to say the most pallatable solution for Canadians is a prospective Liberal - NDP union at 28 per cent, followed by a Conservative - NDP coalition at 24 per cent.
Preference begins to drop dramatically for an union that involves the Bloc Quebecois.
The prairie provinces however were the region that was least warm to the idea with only 39 per cent of those polled okay with a coalition government.
Baillie-David feels that may be just a coincidence and not have much to do with the fact that the majority of the Conservative support is in Western Canada.
"We're a minority situation, pardon the pun, in terms of a coalition government around the world," he says. "Even Jean Chretien said yesterday that Canada is one of the only countries left that thinks it can get a majority."
Canada’s F-35s .. Government will be required to provide powerplant for stealth fighters, documents show.
The multi-million dollar F-35 stealth fighter that the Conservatives want to purchase comes with all the accoutrements of a high-tech aircraft — everything, that is, except an engine.
The government will be required to provide engines for the 65 planes to be delivered by U.S. manufacturer Lockheed Martin, according to newly released Defence Department documents.
The proposed F-35 purchase, estimated to cost between $14 billion and $29 billion depending on what figures are used, has been controversial. Opposition parties are calling for a review or cancellation of the program, while the Tories have made it a key part of their defence policy.
The DND documents, which outline answers to questions about the F-35, also note that the stealth fighter could be used in a secondary role for search-and-rescue.
The records, obtained through the Access to Information law by peace activist Tamara Lorincz, are from a series of meetings last fall when defence bureaucrats and military officers toured the country to promote the F-35 deal.
“Engines are provided as gov’t furnished equipment,” noted the documents.
The term “government furnished equipment” signifies that the engines are being provided separately by Canada.
It is unclear how much extra the engines will cost or whether there would be additional costs for installing the power plants into the fighters.
In an e-mail late Friday, DND stated that Canada is purchasing the least costly variant of the F-35.
But DND did not provide an explanation about why the government is required to provide the engines.
It also did not provide any details on the price tag of the engines or the cost to install them.
But the e-mail suggested the cost of the engines is included in the overall price.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has labelled the F-35 as a good deal for Canada and notes that the aircraft will cost around $75 million per plane.
The Conservatives say the entire purchase will cost around $14 billion but a report from Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page puts the number at $29 billion.
The Government Accountability Office, the U.S government’s equivalent of the auditor general, has also warned about serious ongoing problems with the aircraft and rising costs. Mike Sullivan, a senior official with the Government Accountability Office, estimates that the F-35 model that Canada is buying will cost between $110 to $115 million.
U.S. defence specialist Winslow Wheeler, who has also raised concerns about the F-35, has warned that the extra cost of an engine could boost the price of an aircraft for Canada to around $148 million.
“If Canada’s government can get an F-35 for the mid-70 million dollars per airplane, well they should sign a contract right now and get it delivered,” said Wheeler, an analyst with the Center for Defense Information in Washington. “Because I can promise you nobody on this earth will ever get a flying F-35 for $75 million per copy. It’s pure fantasy.”
But former chief of the defence staff, retired Gen. Paul Manson, a strong supporter of the F-35 and a former chairman of Lockheed Martin Canada, has challenged Wheeler’s viewpoints in a letter to the Citizen. According to Manson, the F-35 project is progressing well and the plane is the right one for Canada. He said Wheeler lacks credibility because he is associated with a “left-wing” organization in Washington.
Wheeler, who was asked to testify last year before a Commons committee, has spent the last 30 years working on defence issues for Republican and Democratic politicians. He was an analyst for nine years with the Government Accountability Office, working on studies concerning defence procurement and military aircraft.
The DND records highlight the F-35’s capabilities, pointing out that it will be easy to fly and the purchase will provide contracts for Canadian aerospace companies.
During the tour, the issue of whether the F-35 could contribute to search and rescue (SAR) missions also came up. “Fighter aircraft (are) not a primary SAR asset, but can play a secondary role — and would,” the documents state.
But Steve Staples, a vocal critic of the F-35 purchase, calls that claim ludicrous.
He said the billions of dollars earmarked for the fighter jets have helped delay other more important projects such as the air force’s much-delayed plan to buy fixed wing search and rescue planes.
“The concern here is that the F-35 eats everybody’s else’s lunch and there will be no money left,” said Staples, president of the Rideau Institute. “The search and rescue aircraft are a casualty, so instead we’ll get some supersonic stealth fighter trying to find hikers lost in the woods.”
According to the DND presentations from the documents, the first F-35 will be delivered to Canada in 2016. The final delivery will take place in 2022.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Canada+Engines+included/4629251/story.html#ixzz1Jkvpm2QE
The government will be required to provide engines for the 65 planes to be delivered by U.S. manufacturer Lockheed Martin, according to newly released Defence Department documents.
The proposed F-35 purchase, estimated to cost between $14 billion and $29 billion depending on what figures are used, has been controversial. Opposition parties are calling for a review or cancellation of the program, while the Tories have made it a key part of their defence policy.
The DND documents, which outline answers to questions about the F-35, also note that the stealth fighter could be used in a secondary role for search-and-rescue.
The records, obtained through the Access to Information law by peace activist Tamara Lorincz, are from a series of meetings last fall when defence bureaucrats and military officers toured the country to promote the F-35 deal.
“Engines are provided as gov’t furnished equipment,” noted the documents.
The term “government furnished equipment” signifies that the engines are being provided separately by Canada.
It is unclear how much extra the engines will cost or whether there would be additional costs for installing the power plants into the fighters.
In an e-mail late Friday, DND stated that Canada is purchasing the least costly variant of the F-35.
But DND did not provide an explanation about why the government is required to provide the engines.
It also did not provide any details on the price tag of the engines or the cost to install them.
But the e-mail suggested the cost of the engines is included in the overall price.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has labelled the F-35 as a good deal for Canada and notes that the aircraft will cost around $75 million per plane.
The Conservatives say the entire purchase will cost around $14 billion but a report from Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page puts the number at $29 billion.
The Government Accountability Office, the U.S government’s equivalent of the auditor general, has also warned about serious ongoing problems with the aircraft and rising costs. Mike Sullivan, a senior official with the Government Accountability Office, estimates that the F-35 model that Canada is buying will cost between $110 to $115 million.
U.S. defence specialist Winslow Wheeler, who has also raised concerns about the F-35, has warned that the extra cost of an engine could boost the price of an aircraft for Canada to around $148 million.
“If Canada’s government can get an F-35 for the mid-70 million dollars per airplane, well they should sign a contract right now and get it delivered,” said Wheeler, an analyst with the Center for Defense Information in Washington. “Because I can promise you nobody on this earth will ever get a flying F-35 for $75 million per copy. It’s pure fantasy.”
But former chief of the defence staff, retired Gen. Paul Manson, a strong supporter of the F-35 and a former chairman of Lockheed Martin Canada, has challenged Wheeler’s viewpoints in a letter to the Citizen. According to Manson, the F-35 project is progressing well and the plane is the right one for Canada. He said Wheeler lacks credibility because he is associated with a “left-wing” organization in Washington.
Wheeler, who was asked to testify last year before a Commons committee, has spent the last 30 years working on defence issues for Republican and Democratic politicians. He was an analyst for nine years with the Government Accountability Office, working on studies concerning defence procurement and military aircraft.
The DND records highlight the F-35’s capabilities, pointing out that it will be easy to fly and the purchase will provide contracts for Canadian aerospace companies.
During the tour, the issue of whether the F-35 could contribute to search and rescue (SAR) missions also came up. “Fighter aircraft (are) not a primary SAR asset, but can play a secondary role — and would,” the documents state.
But Steve Staples, a vocal critic of the F-35 purchase, calls that claim ludicrous.
He said the billions of dollars earmarked for the fighter jets have helped delay other more important projects such as the air force’s much-delayed plan to buy fixed wing search and rescue planes.
“The concern here is that the F-35 eats everybody’s else’s lunch and there will be no money left,” said Staples, president of the Rideau Institute. “The search and rescue aircraft are a casualty, so instead we’ll get some supersonic stealth fighter trying to find hikers lost in the woods.”
According to the DND presentations from the documents, the first F-35 will be delivered to Canada in 2016. The final delivery will take place in 2022.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Canada+Engines+included/4629251/story.html#ixzz1Jkvpm2QE
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Corrections Canada is fighting the release of controversial videos of forced chemical injections related to the prison death of troubled New Brunswick teen Ashley Smith.
Corrections Canada is fighting the release of controversial videos of forced chemical injections related to the prison death of troubled New Brunswick teen Ashley Smith.
Lawyers for the head of Canada's prison system will be in court Monday trying to quash a summons that would force the commissioner of corrections to appear in court with videos of Smith being forcibly injected with anti-psychotic drugs.
A psychologist hired by the correctional service's watchdog has called the forced injections illegal.
An inquest, which had been set to begin April 4 in Toronto, will examine factors that may have impacted Smith's state of mind, coroner Bonita Porter said in November.
Porter ruled last month she would not consider the injection videos as part of the inquest into Smith's death.
The family is challenging the coroner's ruling in Ontario Divisional Court and has sought a summons hoping to force the head of Corrections Canada to testify and submit the videos for court examination.
The Moncton teen died in October 2007 after strangling herself in a segregation cell at the Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener, Ont., under the watch of prison guards.
Smith's family is suing the federal government for $11 million over her death. The lawsuit alleges federal corrections staff — from senior bureaucrats to prison guards — engaged in a "conspiracy" that endangered Smith's life by "unlawfully" segregating her for nearly a year and not taking proper action after she was declared a suicide risk.
End of Story
Lawyers for the head of Canada's prison system will be in court Monday trying to quash a summons that would force the commissioner of corrections to appear in court with videos of Smith being forcibly injected with anti-psychotic drugs.
A psychologist hired by the correctional service's watchdog has called the forced injections illegal.
An inquest, which had been set to begin April 4 in Toronto, will examine factors that may have impacted Smith's state of mind, coroner Bonita Porter said in November.
Porter ruled last month she would not consider the injection videos as part of the inquest into Smith's death.
The family is challenging the coroner's ruling in Ontario Divisional Court and has sought a summons hoping to force the head of Corrections Canada to testify and submit the videos for court examination.
The Moncton teen died in October 2007 after strangling herself in a segregation cell at the Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener, Ont., under the watch of prison guards.
Smith's family is suing the federal government for $11 million over her death. The lawsuit alleges federal corrections staff — from senior bureaucrats to prison guards — engaged in a "conspiracy" that endangered Smith's life by "unlawfully" segregating her for nearly a year and not taking proper action after she was declared a suicide risk.
End of Story
Friday, April 15, 2011
Judges' panel says detainee transfer documents won't be released in campaign
The Conservatives say they are willing to amend an agreement with two opposition parties to allow for the release of secret documents about Canadian prisoners in Afghanistan.
It comes after the two judges at the centre of the documents screening process sent a letter to the three party leaders involved to inform them the records cannot be released when Parliament is not sitting.
The documents were supposed to be released by Friday under a deadline imposed by the Bloc Québécois after the party threatened to walk away from the review process. The committee of MPs was waiting for a summary of the most sensitive documents by the judges.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff immediately called on Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe to join him in urging the judges to release their final report as scheduled.
Shortly afterward, Conservative candidate Laurie Hawn, who was a member of the MPs' panel, also encouraged the judges to release the records.
"We are willing to facilitate whatever it takes to release the documents, including amending the agreement if necessary," Hawn told CBC News Thursday evening.
Ignatieff said the Canadian people have a right to see the documents, and noted the Conservatives were forced to come to terms with the opposition parties by a threat of being found in contempt of Parliament.
"Parliament is supreme — not Stephen Harper," he said. "We owe it to the brave men and women serving in our Canadian Forces and to the Canadian public to get to the bottom of this issue and only full and immediate transparency will achieve that."
But Duceppe, the other opposition leader who signed the memorandum of understanding, told CBC News late Thursday afternoon that he had not yet seen the letter from the judges.
The document review is the second report sidelined by the election call, as all parties have called for the release of the auditor general's report into spending for last year's G8 and G20 summits following the leak of a scathing draft report.
The memorandum of understanding signed by Harper, Ignatieff and Duceppe agreed to the formation of a committee of MPs to determine how to release the documents.
The judges' letter, dated Wednesday, states that while the memorandum "contemplates that under certain conditions it will survive the dissolution of Parliament, whether those conditions will be met cannot be ascertained until the House reconvenes."
The judges say they will continue to work on finalizing the report by Friday and preparing the thousands of documents for release.
"However, since there is no Committee in existence to which we can deliver it … we will retain this material pending the summoning of a new Parliament and any further directions that might be provided to the [judges'] panel at that time," the judges write.
In a historic ruling last spring, the Speaker of the House of Commons ruled the Conservatives had breached parliamentary privilege by denying MPs their right to see the documents. But Speaker Peter Milliken also gave the government and opposition the chance to figure out a way to share them while accommodating the government's national security concerns.
Compromise deal
The committee was struck last May in a compromise deal that avoided a finding of contempt against the government that would have triggered a vote of non-confidence and a potential snap election.
The parties agreed to contribute two MPs each to the committee, which is working with the panel of legal experts to decide what can be released to Parliament.
The NDP pulled out of the working group while they were still negotiating the terms, arguing the Tories weren't being co-operative and the process would not lead to Canadians seeing the records.
The documents are at the centre of accusations that prisoners were tortured by Afghan authorities after being handed over by Canadian troops. The government maintained that releasing the documents posed a threat to national security and the security of Canadian troops in Afghanistan.
End of Story
It comes after the two judges at the centre of the documents screening process sent a letter to the three party leaders involved to inform them the records cannot be released when Parliament is not sitting.
The documents were supposed to be released by Friday under a deadline imposed by the Bloc Québécois after the party threatened to walk away from the review process. The committee of MPs was waiting for a summary of the most sensitive documents by the judges.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff immediately called on Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe to join him in urging the judges to release their final report as scheduled.
Shortly afterward, Conservative candidate Laurie Hawn, who was a member of the MPs' panel, also encouraged the judges to release the records.
"We are willing to facilitate whatever it takes to release the documents, including amending the agreement if necessary," Hawn told CBC News Thursday evening.
Ignatieff said the Canadian people have a right to see the documents, and noted the Conservatives were forced to come to terms with the opposition parties by a threat of being found in contempt of Parliament.
"Parliament is supreme — not Stephen Harper," he said. "We owe it to the brave men and women serving in our Canadian Forces and to the Canadian public to get to the bottom of this issue and only full and immediate transparency will achieve that."
But Duceppe, the other opposition leader who signed the memorandum of understanding, told CBC News late Thursday afternoon that he had not yet seen the letter from the judges.
The document review is the second report sidelined by the election call, as all parties have called for the release of the auditor general's report into spending for last year's G8 and G20 summits following the leak of a scathing draft report.
The memorandum of understanding signed by Harper, Ignatieff and Duceppe agreed to the formation of a committee of MPs to determine how to release the documents.
The judges' letter, dated Wednesday, states that while the memorandum "contemplates that under certain conditions it will survive the dissolution of Parliament, whether those conditions will be met cannot be ascertained until the House reconvenes."
The judges say they will continue to work on finalizing the report by Friday and preparing the thousands of documents for release.
"However, since there is no Committee in existence to which we can deliver it … we will retain this material pending the summoning of a new Parliament and any further directions that might be provided to the [judges'] panel at that time," the judges write.
In a historic ruling last spring, the Speaker of the House of Commons ruled the Conservatives had breached parliamentary privilege by denying MPs their right to see the documents. But Speaker Peter Milliken also gave the government and opposition the chance to figure out a way to share them while accommodating the government's national security concerns.
Compromise deal
The committee was struck last May in a compromise deal that avoided a finding of contempt against the government that would have triggered a vote of non-confidence and a potential snap election.
The parties agreed to contribute two MPs each to the committee, which is working with the panel of legal experts to decide what can be released to Parliament.
The NDP pulled out of the working group while they were still negotiating the terms, arguing the Tories weren't being co-operative and the process would not lead to Canadians seeing the records.
The documents are at the centre of accusations that prisoners were tortured by Afghan authorities after being handed over by Canadian troops. The government maintained that releasing the documents posed a threat to national security and the security of Canadian troops in Afghanistan.
End of Story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)