Parliament. Privilege.

PrivilegeWatch: Do not taunt Happy Fun Parliament.

By Kady O'Malley
Defence Minister Peter MacKay would be ordered to "explain the meaning and intent" of his December 1 statement in the House of Commons, which, in the words of the motion, "purports to question the powers and privileges of the House and has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to obstruct or impede the House and its Members in the performance of their functions, by misleading or intimidating potential witnesses at our committees,"; acknowledge said powers and privileges, and agree that "any legal or other punitive action taken against a committee witness would constitute a contempt of Parliament." If he fails to do so "to the satisfaction of the Speaker," he would be "admonished and reprimanded by the Speaker for his misconduct and contempt of Parliament."

Associate Deputy Minister of Justice Carolyn Kobernick would be called to the Bar of the House to explain "the meaning and intent of the legal opinion" that was sent to House Law Clerk Rob Walsh under her name on December 9th, 2009 -- which, like MacKay's statement, allegedly "purports to question the privileges of the House" -- and, also like MacKay, would acknowledge the powers and privileges of the House, and that any action taken against a witness would constitute contempt," and would also face admonishment and reprimanding if she failed to meet the Speaker's satisfaction. (Interestingly, the motion allows for the possibility that Justice Minister Rob Nicholson might want to appear in her stead, in which case he would be the one doing the acknowledging.)
Finally, the government would have seven days to turn over all detainee-related documentation that were requested by the Afghanistan committee last fall, after which point the Speaker would issue a warrant instructing the Sargent-at-Arms to seize the records, with the stipulation that any material that would otherwise be protected from disclosure by the Security of Information Act would be segregated and dealt with by the committee in camera to prevent public exposure.
(Wow, that was so much less .. gist-y than I was hoping. Sorry about that -- at least I spared you a few whereases, right?)

Here's the full text of the proposed motion -- which, I should note again, is a draft version, and still undergoing review, which means the version that eventually airs in the Commons may be slightly -- or even significantly -- different :
Whereas the House has taken notice of three distinct matters which have called into question or appear to be attempts to derogate from the ancient and undoubted powers and privileges of this House to send for persons, papers and records, and have a tendency, directly or indirectly, to obstruct or impede the House and its Members in the performance of their functions, all in relation to the work of the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan in the 2nd Session of this Parliament;MOVED THAT1. The Hon. Member for Central Nova and Minister of National Defence, the Hon. Peter Mackay, a Member of this House, be ordered to attend in his place forthwith or at a time to be determined by the Speaker, to explain the meaning and intent of his statement in this House on December 1, 2009 (at ref.1540) which purports to question the powers and privileges of the House and has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to obstruct or impede the House and its Members in the performance of their functions, by misleading or intimidating potential witnesses at our committees; and to acknowledge the powers and privileges of this House to send for persons, papers and records, and that such powers and privileges are not diminished, prejudicially affected or repealed except by an express provision of a statute to that effect; and to acknowledge that any legal or other punitive action taken against a committee witness would constitute a contempt of Parliament; and that if the Hon. Member fails to do so to the satisfaction of the Speaker, then the Hon. Member shall be admonished and reprimanded by the Speaker for his misconduct and contempt of Parliament (or: the Speaker forthwith report to the House the Honourable Member's failure to comply with this order and the reasons given, if any, for the failure to comply).2. Carolyn Kobernick, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice, Public Law Sector, be called to the Bar of the House, or alternatively at his own instance by giving notice to the Speaker, the Minister of Justice in place of Carolyn Kobernick be called to stand in his place, in either case in the presence of the Speaker forthwith or at a time to be determined by the Speaker to explain the meaning and intent of the legal opinion written by the said Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice to our Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel on December 9, 2009, which opinion purports to question the privileges of the House and has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to obstruct or impede the House and its Members in the performance of their functions, by misleading or intimidating potential witnesses who are public servants, as well as members of the public, at our committees; and to acknowledge the powers and privileges of this House to send for persons, papers and records, and that such powers and privileges are not diminished, prejudicially affected or repealed except by an express provision of a statute to that effect; and to acknowledge that any legal or other punitive action taken against such witnesses would constitute a contempt of Parliament; and if she or he is unwilling or fails to do so fully to the satisfaction of the Speaker, then he or she shall be admonished and reprimanded by the Speaker for misconduct and contempt of Parliament. (or: the Speaker forthwith report to the House the Honourable member's failure to comply with this order and the reasons given, if any, for the failure to comply).3. The Sergeant-at-Arms be instructed by this House under the direction of the Speaker to obtain forthwith for the use of the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan, when reconstituted, all the documentation specified in the order of the House concerning the Business of Supply on December 10, 2009 (Journals #128) by and after written request or, in case of a refusal or obstruction or any other non-compliance, and in any event after seven days from this day, by seizure; but if any such document or part thereof shall be claimed by its custodian to be subject to disclosure restrictions under the provisions of the Security of Information Act, then those documents or the copies thereof be segregated from the other documents obtained, if any, and all the documents obtained be made available to the Members of the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan; provided that documents that are segregated be provided to the Special Committee using such procedures that ensure protection from public disclosure, unless the Speaker finds the disclosure restriction is not justified, and such procedures to be administered by the Clerk under the direction of the Speaker; and the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Clerk of the Special Committee jointly maintain a record, including a list, of all documents obtained, copied, destroyed or returned under the direction of the Speaker, and the Chair of the said Committee and its Members be bound by such directions; and the Speaker do issue such warrants and directions as he considers necessary or expedient in aid of this order.4. This order and any House vote or division or procedures taken in relation to it are exercises of the powers and privileges of this House and are not and shall not be taken to be an expression of confidence or non-confidence in the Government by this House. 5. That an Humble Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General praying that she take notice of the order of the House made this day to exercise its powers and privileges as aforesaid. That the Address be engrossed and presented to Her Excellency the Governor General by the House Leaders of the Government and the Official Opposition.

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

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


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

Tom Brokaw Explains Canada To Americans its nice

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

Danny Williams surgery more of a self image saver

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

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

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

I will be looking at this to!

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

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

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