Exit Stage Left Rothstein

New Marshall In Town Says Judges Must Focus On Applying Law, Not Making It

Jim Brown, Canadian Press
Published: Monday, February 27, 2006

OTTAWA (CP) - Judges should stick to the law and leave social agendas to elected politicians, says the man nominated by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to be the newest member of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Marshall Rothstein, the first high court candidate in history to face questions from a committee of MPs, tempered his remarks Monday by observing that legislation must always be measured against the Charter of Rights. But the overall tenor of his comments will likely ease concerns by some - especially Conservatives - about so-called judicial activism.

"I'm not sure that I would be comfortable thinking that judges should be advancing the law with a social agenda in mind," said Rothstein.

"It seems to me that the social agenda is the agenda for Parliament . . . . The court's job is really to take what you (MPs) say about social issues and try to interpret it as best we can and apply it to the facts."

Justice Minister Vic Toews, who chaired the committee, was pleased with that job description.

"I think one can say that Justice Rothstein understands very clearly what the role of a judge is," Toews observed after the hearing.

Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quebecois members, whether they agreed or not with Rothstein's judicial philosophy, all said he was obviously qualified for a seat on the high court.

The hearing was notable for its civility - a far cry from the circus atmosphere some had feared based on similar hearings in the United States.

Harper is expected to make Rothstein's appointment official on Wednesday.

The prime minister said last week he's been looking for judges who will "apply the law rather than making it" and who won't be overly "inventive" in their rulings.

Rothstein, a 14-year veteran of Federal Court, readily agreed when prodded on the subject Monday by Conservative MP Diane Ablonczy.

"If I've interpreted him correctly, I absolutely agree," he said of Harper's comments. "Those are all aspects of judicial temperament that I think are appropriate."

That doesn't mean laws should never be struck down for violating the Charter of Rights, he went on.

But judges must remember that "the statute they're dealing with was passed by a democratically elected legislature, that it's unlikely that the legislature intended to violate the Charter . . . and therefore they have to approach the matter with some restraint."

Real Menard, the Bloc justice critic, said it's obvious Rothstein is the very opposite of a judicial activist and that he's "uneasy with the idea of creating law."

Menard also expressed concern that the Winnipeg-born judge speaks no French and has no knowledge of Quebec civil law. But he welcomed Rothstein's promise to remedy both those problems as soon as possible.

Rothstein, 65, peppered his testimony with a series of folksy anecdotes, including a tale of a long-ago summer job on the CPR line between Vancouver and Winnipeg.
"I often say that I learned more about life working in the dining car than anywhere else,"he reminisced.

"Working for 36 to 48 hours at a stretch, in close quarters with nine or 10 other people, from different backgrounds, different education levels, different prejudices, is not always easy."

As a lawyer and judge in later life, he said, he's always looked for evidence of "hard physical work" when screening applications from potential law clerks.

Sue Barnes, the Liberal justice critic, called Rothstein "an excellent nominee" but was far less enthusiastic about the hearing process.

Nothing came to light that couldn't have been discovered by reading Rothstein's written judgments and law review articles, she said.

Joe Comartin, the NDP justice critic, said it was only Rothstein's "diplomatic" answers that prevented the hearing from degenerating into a political free-for-all.

The judge politely dodged a series of loaded questions about the federal gun registry, the controversial security certificates used to deport terrorist suspects from Canada, the nature and limits of free speech and the mechanics of federal-provincial relations.

His task was eased by the ground rules set out at the start of the hearing by Toews, who warned fellow MPs that Rothstein would have the final say on whether or not to answer any question.

"I think this is necessary, given the central, independent nature of the judiciary in this country and that we, as parliamentarians, must respect that independence," said the minister.

Constitutional expert Peter Hogg reinforced that message, counselling MPs to steer clear of hot-button issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage or the legalities of Quebec secession.

Nobody delved into those areas, but Menard did test the waters early by asking Rothstein what he thought about the contentious gun registry that the Tories have promised to abolish.

"I think it's really a political question, a question of policy," Rothstein calmly replied.

"I don't mind the question. It's just that you must understand, that's not my area, that's your area."

© The Canadian Press 2006

So What?

Did Trudeau not say that the government has no place to be in the bedrooms of the nation? Apparently those great words mean nothing, as this man was refused his chauffeur's permit because he was into BDSM... so what? It's not like he's going to go turn his vehicle into some kinky dungeon, dominating passengers with fuzzy pink handcuffs or whipping them with the leather whips hidden in the glove compartment box - why would it matter what someone is interested in? Who cares whether they're into a little bit of S&M, or even the "standard" missionary-style sex, do you think that anyone is really going to care? They're hiring the guy to chauffeur them from place to place, not me masochistic in the backseat behind tinted windows. I'll stand by what Trudeau said, "the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation" ... or, any other place for that matter - let people do whatever they want.


Vancouver Asks B.C. Court To Stop Human Rights Hearing Into Sadism Lifestyle

Canadian Press
Published: Tuesday, February 28, 2006

VANCOUVER (CP) - The City of Vancouver is trying one more time to untie itself from a Human Rights Tribunal complaint connected to sadism and masochism.

The city is asking the B.C. Supreme Court to overrule the tribunal decision that it would hear Peter Hayes' complaint on the basis of sexual orientation. Hayes went to the tribunal alleging a Vancouver police officer denied him a chauffeur's permit because of his so-called BDSM lifestyle.
BDSM refers to bondage and discipline, domination and submission, and sadism and masochism.

The city wants the court to declare that sexual orientation is connected to gender and doesn't include behaviours or practices.

Rights tribunal member Lindsay Lyster earlier ruled the case should be tested under the Human Rights Code, saying it was clear Hayes suffered because he was denied the permit.

No court date has been set to hear the city's petition.

© The Canadian Press 2006

Mommy, What's A Sovereigntist?

Premier Jean Charest Promotes Sovereigntist in Minor Cabinet Shuffle

Canadian Press
Published: Monday, February 27, 2006

QUEBEC -- Quebec Premier Jean Charest fine-tuned his cabinet Monday, making room for a former sovereigntist who recently won a byelection and moving two other ministers to the government's backbenches.

"Our government is working well,'' Charest said at a news conference. "Our goal today is to strengthen this team.''

Raymond Bachand, who won a byelection last December as a Liberal in the Montreal riding of Outremont, becomes minister of economic development.

"My passion is economic development,'' Bachand, a former president of the Quebec Federation of Labour's Solidarity Fund investment arm, said at a news conference.

Bachand brings considerable business experience to his post, having held top jobs at Culinar, grocery chain Metro-Richelieu, and Secor. He was also a top bureaucrat in the Parti Quebecois governments of Pierre-Marc Johnson and Rene Levesque.

Two other ministers -- Thomas Mulcair, who held the environment portfolio, and Pierre Reid, who was minister responsible for government services, were bounced to the backbenches.

Charest denied Mulcair's departure was linked to his hardline stance with the federal government and said he was offered Reid's job but turned it down.

"There are no small jobs in cabinet,'' Charest said.

Mulcair was highly regarded by environmentalists and had a reputation for feistiness.

Former economic development minister Claude Bechard, considered a rising star in the government, takes over as environment minister at a time when delicate discussions are expected on climate change legislation with the federal government.

Henri-Francois Gautrin takes over as minister responsible for government services from Reid, who becomes a backbencher.

Reid, who was considered a star candidate when he was plucked from his job as rector of the University of Sherbrooke to run in the 2003 election, was not offered any other cabinet job. He had previously served as minister of education.

Charest says he made the changes to strengthen his government before an election call, which could come as early as next year.

One minister who was widely speculated to lose her job in a cabinet shuffle remained on the job Monday.

Carole Theberge, who has faced criticism over day care legislation, was kept on as family minister by Charest.

"She has been the victim, I think, of remarks that have been unjustified,'' Charest said. "She has my total confidence.''

© Canadian Press 2006

The Tribe Has Voted

SCOC Nominee Rothstein Grilled

Canadian Press
Published: Monday, February 27, 2006

OTTAWA -- Canada's newest Supreme Court nominee opened a hearing before a committee of parliamentarians Monday by telling a story of how working as a waiter on a railway dining car taught him about life.

Marshall Rothstein, 65, had the summer job on the CPR line between Vancouver and his native Winnipeg while attending university.

"I often say that I learned more about life working in the dining car than anywhere else,'' Rothstein said.

"Working for 36 to 48 hours at stretch in close quarters with nine or 10 other people, from different backgrounds, different education levels, different prejudices, is not always easy.

"You had to be flexible and accommodating or you couldn't survive. You had to be scrupulously honest about pooling your tips or you couldn't survive. It was long days on your feet; it was hard physical work.''

Rothstein, a veteran of the Federal Court renowned for his command of commercial law, said he's always looked for "hard physical work'' when screening applications from potential law clerks.

He said he does this "so they will appreciate what I have come to appreciate: the diversity of our population, how hard Canadians have to work to make ends meet and something of what it's like not to have the advantages they will have as a lawyer.''

Canada, he said in response to questions, is a bilingual and "bijural country -- and that is one of the great strengths of the country,'' referring to Quebec's separate system of civil law.

So is the fact that it is diverse, a "country of immigrants'' like his parents, who came to Canada from Poland and Russia before the First World War, he added.

Those strengths have also made Canada a tolerant country, said Rothstein, who does not speak French.

Justice Minister Vic Toews opened what he called "historic'' hearings into Rothstein's nomination by calling on fellow MPs to exercise discretion with their questions.

Ultimately, he said, Rothstein would be the one to decide whether the questions put to him by the unprecedented 12-member committee are suitable.

"In this particular case, the witness -- in fact, the nominee -- is in a very unusual situation,'' Toews said before more than three hours of questions were to begin.

"As a witness, he will nevertheless determine and have the final say on the propriety of questions that will be asked. I think this is necessary, given the central, independent nature of the judiciary in this country and that we, as parliamentarians, must respect that independence.''

While some contentious questions may be asked, he added, answers ``may not be given in full, or at all.''

It is the first time members of Parliament have questioned a nominee to the Supreme Court of Canada in a public forum, though they do not have veto power.

In a statement before questioning began, constitutional expert Peter Hogg told the committee that Rothstein could not explain his past rulings nor express his opinions on controversial issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage or the secession of Quebec from Canada.

"Those issues could come to the court for decision in some factual context or other and any public statements by Justice Rothstein about those issues might give the false impression that he had a settled view on how to decide the case,'' Hogg said.

It didn't take long before Rothstein exercised his right.

Bloc Quebecois MP Real Menard asked him whether he felt the gun registry was working. Rothstein said the registry is a political animal.

"I know that the question of the gun registry is a controversial one and I must say that I think it's really a political question, a question of policy,'' Rothstein said.

"I don't mind the question. It's just that you must understand, that's not my area, that's your area to determine those policies. If disputes are brought to a court, then that's when we get involved.''

Rothstein was chosen by Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a candidate for the high court last week from a short list of three people agreed to under a process started by the former Liberal government.

The committee will not decide whether he can sit on the high court -- that's Harper's prerogative.

Rothstein is to replace Justice John Major, who retired in December.

© The Canadian Press 2006

And I'll Cry If I Want To...

Needless to say, yet again I'm not a huge "fan" of our Prime Minister
Stephen Harper... in fact, even a month after the Elections, I still visibly shudder when he's brought up on the news... I'm sure that if he didn't have that evil smile and disgusting hair-piece, I wouldn't mind so much... or, you know, if he'd been a Liberal...

Hmm, that made me think... what would happen if Harper crossed the floor? Oh boy, wouldn't that piss off a whole bunch of people... that would make me giggle like a 12-year-old school girl...

Anyway... after reading countless news paper articles and watching who knows how many hours of news, I have come to the brilliant conclusion that this Conservative government is not off to a good start... thank goodness that I'm not a supporter, I would be hiding in a closet somewhere, crying in the dark.

First there was dear old Emerson, according to the article "Emerson, Harper Will Pay" by Richard Foot, many historians "say David Emerson's backflip into the Conservative cabinet is an unprecedented showof arrogance and a grave error by Prime Minister Stephen Harper", I could not agree more; it is (still) an outrage that a person could run for one party and express themselves in partisan terms, then jumping into the metaphorical bed a week later. One would think that an MP should be able to speak on behalf of their consituents, and have their support - I'm sure that Emerson has all the support he needs... from his mob of body gaurds and other goons, he sure as hell is not getting it in Vancouver where many voters are still protesting against him, demanding that Emerson return to Vancouver like a big boy and face a byelection. This says so much about all the preaching Harper did about "clean politics", does it not? Harper's crisp white shirts aren't so white now are they? Maybe some Tide and another election is the cure.

Then there was the idea of missile defence brought up, yet again - I cannot stress enough how stupid that idea is... I'm sure that I'm not the only one that thinks that this will just cause the beginnings of the next arms race...

You mustn't forget Flaherty's federal budget, which will rear it's ugly face pretty soon. Although Harper and his cabinet haven't been shy to say as to where they're going to spend the "big bucks", they haven't considered how much some of these promises are going to cost - I'm just a first year university student, but even I know that economic growth won't generate enough money to satisfy Harper's long list of shiney promises... yet Flaherty says that "he's confident that he can balance everything" - perhaps he can try to balance the boxes of Kraft Dinner and creamsicles he could buy on a student loan; better him playing around with play-money in a daycare then running the country into a deficit... deficit, what a wonderful FUN word... sure, the country needs a few dollars towards military, education, tax cuts, this and that - though they've pledged $5 billion on new military spending over the next 5 years, in addition to the $5 billion that had been promised by the former Liberal government... not to mention that Harper's decided to keep the Liberal child-care plan until March 2007, which will add a good $700million dollards to his cheques to send out to families for childcare starting in July. Good move, buddy... don't ya know money doesn't grow on trees? Or do they in Harper-Land?

I'm sure that you're getting the picture now... or at least... a well crafted finger-painted portrait of Harper's government thus far... we all know that I could babble for hours on end about all the stupid things that have been going on during this long month under Conservative leadership... but do you really want to sit on your ass that long reading it? I didn't think so - my fingers ache from typing anyway...

Drink Wine & Babble

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the provincial premiers had their first little get-together at 24 Sussex the other day... they claim that they "chatted about a range of issues, from Canada-U.S. relations to health care to native affairs and finances" (Canadian Press, Feb. 24), and said that they discussed post-secondary education just to keep university students, such as myself happy... in reality, it was to "get to know the new prime minister a bit better" - you know, discuss where to get the best pedicures and whether Ashley Simpson's latest cd was as good as her last one - "You make me want to la-la..." was probably sung horribly off-key after a few too many cups of port... perhaps a few shots of tequila.

Talk about the issues? I very much predict that the premiers and the PM had a few playful pillow fights - eastern provinces vs, the western provinces... most likely followed by insessant giggling and the braiding of eachother's hair... or lack there of - at least for Harper, I firmly believe that his "hair" is just a helmet-like hair piece...

Chatted about our relations with the U.S? About Policies? I'm sure that those issues may have sounded a lot like a group of teenage girls giggling having a slumber party:
Harper: Bush looks like a monkey doesn't he? A cute little monkey eating a bananna
Random Premier #1: Um... I think he's a moron
Harper: Geez dude, would you call me a moron too? Geez!
Random Premier #2: Not exactly... you haven't talked too much
Harper: I'm just shy
Random Premier #1: Shy? You're the friggin' Prime Minister of Canada!
Harper: I know but... I just... sometimes I just don't know what to say
Random Premier #3: You could always blurt out the first thing that comes to your mind
Harper: Nah, I don't think so... I don't think that my new communications person can portray that side of me effectively
Random Premier #3: Well... get a new one, silly!
Harper: Maybe I will, in the morning... I'd rather just eat my skittles and play monopoly
Random Premier #4: Sir, aren't we supposed to talk about social policies?
Harper: Shut up, I don't wanna.
Random Premier #4: Sir, I really think so... that's what we're supposed to do
Harper: You're just jealous because I won the pillow fight
Random Premier #4: No... I just think... tha-
Harper: Listen buddy, we're going to eat our cheetos, watch Survivor, then I'm going to go get my beauty sleep.

I'm sure that they really did talk about Canadian issues at some point... no one will ever know. And by no one will ever know, I mean us non-premiers and non-PM's.

So... Post Secondary Isn't An Issue?

Conservatives 'Snub' Premiers' Education Summit

February 24, 2006
Source: Liberal Party of Canada

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s decision to ignore the meeting of Canada’s provincial and territorial premiers in Ottawa to discuss post-secondary education and skills training is “totally unacceptable,” Deputy Leader of the Opposition Lucienne Robillard said today.

“This snub shows that not only are post-secondary education and skills training not priorities for this government, but it also shows the lack of importance this prime minister places on having good federal-provincial relations. It is totally unacceptable,” said Ms. Robillard, a former Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.

“Where is Human Resources and Social Development Minister Diane Finley? Where is Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Michael Chong? Are they saying that they don’t care what the provinces and territories have to say about the direction they want to go in these key areas?
“At the very least, these ministers should be sending their own representatives to set the groundwork for a good working relationship with the provinces and territories,” said Ms. Robillard.

The summit is bringing together university officials, students, labour groups, and others to ensure there is common ground among those who have a stake in education and skills training and the politicians who fund it. The Council of the Federation invited all four federal political parties to participate, but only the Liberal and Bloc sent representatives.

MP Mike Savage, Liberal critic for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Chair of the Liberal Caucus on PSE and Research, said, “If provinces and territories are to help determine the future of post-secondary education and skills training in this country, isn’t it imperative that the federal government be part of this process?”

Mr. Savage dismissed Prime Minister Harper’s attempt to assuage the snub to the premiers by inviting them to an informal dinner at 24 Sussex tonight to hear their concerns.

“This is just not good enough,” said Mr. Savage. “The Canadian government needs to be a part of this process. They need to be at the table discussing post-secondary education and skills training with those who know first-hand what is required to make it a success.

“If this is an indication of what we can expect from Mr. Harper’s government with regards to federal-provincial relations, then this country is in deep trouble,” he said.

Harper, Where's My Baby?

Harper Government Ignores Needs of Canadian Families

February 24, 2006
Source: Liberal Party of Canada

OTTAWA – The Conservatives’ decision to terminate the day care funding agreements reached by the Liberal government with the provinces shows that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government are out of touch with the reality of hard working Canadian families, said Liberal Social Development Critic Dr. Carolyn Bennett.

As well, it would appear the Conservatives are also reneging on their election promise to send $1,200 annual childcare payments to families, said Dr. Bennett.

She pointed to Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s recent comments that child-care agreements will be terminated in favour of a “tax credit” for parents.

“A tax credit significantly waters down an already inadequate promise of about $20 a week that could only buy, on average, about one day’s worth of care,” said Dr. Bennett.

“The Conservatives’ decision to cancel our program will leave children, families and communities in the lurch. Today in Canada, 84 per cent of families with children have both parents in the workforce. Simply put, child care is an everyday necessity in Canada, and this is a reality the Conservative government needs to acknowledge.”

They also need clarify their election promise, she said.

“All along the Conservatives have been talking about cutting cheques to parents with small children. Now suddenly it’s a ‘tax credit.’ Did Mr. Flaherty misspeak, or was he trying to slip through the back door yet another broken election promise?

“If it is the latter, this is even more disturbing than their initial platform. The Conservatives need to clear this up immediately so that parents – and all taxpayers – know whether or not they were duped,” she said.

The dismantling of the ten existing early learning and child care agreements between Ottawa and the provinces means the loss of more than $4.3 billion in federal funding, Dr. Bennett said.

“In many communities, the shovels are

So, Gay Paratroopers Huh?

7 U.S. Paratroppers Charged With Having Sex On Gay Porno Website

Canadian Press
Published: Friday, February 24, 2006

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - The U.S. army has charged seven paratroopers from its elite 82nd Airborne Division with engaging in sex acts in video shown on a homosexual pornographic website, authorities said Friday.

Three of the soldiers face courts-martial on charges of sodomy, pandering and engaging in sex acts for money, said a statement released Friday by the military. Four other soldiers, whose names were not released, received non-judicial punishments.

The army has recommended all be discharged.

The charges do not mention the name of the site but the division has said previously it was investigating allegations soldiers appeared on a homosexual pornography website. A spokesman for the division said Friday the charges are a result of that investigation.

The military-themed website on which the army has said soldiers appeared does not make any direct reference to the division or Fort Bragg, a sprawling post about 110 kilometres south of Raleigh.

"As far as we're concerned, it's isolated to the unit and our investigation determined that these seven individuals were the only ones" involved, said 82nd Airborne spokesman Maj. Thomas Earnhardt.

Steve Ralls, a spokesman for a legal group that helps gays and lesbians in the military, said the charges indicate the soldiers' behaviour is "a much more serious matter than just their sexual orientation."

"I'm not going to make excuses for service members who are taking part in sexual conduct for money," said Ralls, who works for the Washington-based Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

"It would be absolutely criminal, regardless of whether they were heterosexual or gay," Ralls said.

Earnhardt said the three soldiers charged criminally under the Uniform Code of Military Justice had been appointed military lawyers but the lawyers would be unavailable for comment Friday.

The three soldiers who face courts martial are: Spc. Richard Ashley, Pte. 1st Class Wesley Mitten and Pte. Kagen Mullen. The army did not release their ages or hometowns but said all seven paratroopers were members of the 2nd Battalion of the 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment.

The non-judicial punishment received by the four other soldiers included reduction to the rank of private, 45 days of restriction to the unit area, 45 days of extra duty and forfeiture of a month's pay.

The registered owner of the website's domain name lists an address in Fayetteville, N.C., the city that adjoins Fort Bragg. A phone number listed for the registered owner was not in service Friday and e-mails to the owner have been regularly returned as undeliverable.

The 15,000 paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne are among the U.S. army's elite soldiers, all having volunteered to serve in a unit that trains to deploy anywhere in the world within 18 hours.

The military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy states "homosexual orientation alone is not a bar to service but homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service."

Service members who violate the policy are removed from the military.

© The Canadian Press 2006

Bullets On Ice?

U.S Putting Missile Defence Talk On Ice (Ambassador Says)

Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press
Published: Friday, February 24, 2006

OTTAWA -- The United States has no current plans to reopen missile-defence negotiations with Canada, U.S. ambassador David Wilkins said Friday.

"I know of no overture or effort being made by either side to begin the discussions,'' Wilkins said.

The former Liberal government, faced with intense public pressure, abandoned missile-defence discussions last year.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he would be willing to reopen talks if the Americans make a formal offer.

But the White House appears satisfied to let the status quo reign for now, the ambassador suggested.

"That issue came up and Canadian officials decided,'' Wilkins told reporters after a speech to law students.

"And we move on from there and continue to work together on other issues and in other areas.''

Wilkins said Canada won't necessarily remain divorced from the project forever, but added in the next breath that the issue remains off the table.

"I'm not saying there won't ever be (discussions), but I know of no effort from either side,'' he said.

The U.S. stand could appear to be a stunning about-face for a Republican administration that has been all too eager to see Canada participate in the missile shield.

Barely a year ago, U.S. President George W. Bush was in Canada putting public pressure on Paul Martin to join the project.

Martin, who initially supported missile defence, capitulated to public sentiment and announced months later that Canada would remain out.

But the reality of the current U.S. stand carries a highly practical dimension.

The Tories could see their minority government destabilized by a debate on missile defence.

A vote in Parliament could very well backfire on the Tories. And if Harper proceeded without consulting Parliament, the opposition would likely threaten a confidence vote and could certainly use the issue to make political hay in the next election.

To boot, Canada's formal participation would be largely symbolic at this point anyway.

While they did not offer their political backing, the Liberals did agree to modify a Canada-U.S. agreement that puts the binational Norad system in charge of operating the missile shield.

Which means a joint Canada-U.S. system is in charge of monitoring for incoming missiles. Only the Americans at Norad headquarters in Colorado would be involved, however, in launching a counter-strike against them.

The U.S., which wants to build a global missile system, was hoping for Canada's symbolic backing to help sell the project internationally.

The current system consists of missile platforms in Alaska and California. Early test results have been spotty, but the eventual goal is to build a system that could knock incoming missiles out of the sky from any point on Earth.

The project has widespread support from both major political parties in the U.S.

In Canada, all parties except the Conservatives oppose it.

Wilkins' remarks came after he delivered a highly personal speech to law students about his impressions of Canada.

In his folksy southern style, the ambassador joked about embarrassing himself trying to skate on the Rideau Canal.

He joked about French lessons: "I'm taking them. They're not taking to me.''

He spoke of his pride at being able to call president Bush a personal friend.

Wilkins cracked that Nunavut is the only place in Canada where he doesn't get asked about softwood lumber. "There are no trees.''

He fielded almost a dozen questions from students. With equally colloquial grace, he sprinkled his answers to the often-difficult questions with diplomatic generalities.

The students cheered when one of their own cast same-sex marriage as a human rights issue and asked Wilkins how he felt about it.

The ambassador simply replied that South Carolina's legislature opposed gay marriage and introduced a law to that effect.

Then he urged the students to respect the opinion of U.S. voters and their legislators on that issue, even if they disagree, just like he respected the Canadian decision on marriage.

"That's what living in a free democracy is all about.''

© The Canadian Press

I'm A Big Kid Now

Harper Governent Puts Provinces On Notice About Day Care Cuts

Canadian Press
Published: Friday, February 24, 2006

TORONTO -- The new Conservative government has notified the provinces it will terminate child-care agreements signed by the previous Liberal regime as of next March.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says his government has a mandate to scrap the child-care deals with the provinces in favour of a tax credit for parents.

During the election campaign, the Conservatives promised to give parents $1,200-a-year cash for each child under age six.

It was unclear if Flaherty misspoke or was signalling a departure from the election promise when he referred to the payment as a tax credit.

While the Liberals signed various deals with provinces, Ontario's intergovernmental affairs minister, Marie Bountrogianni, says the change will mean the loss of 20,000 new child-care spaces for her province alone.

In Ottawa, the premiers are planning to tell Harper tonight they want him to live up to the day-care agreements.

Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba all signed pacts with the former Liberal government.

Toronto Mayor David Miller said Friday that Harper's cut in day-care funding will mean the loss of 6,000 new subsidized spaces "for the poorest people in the poorest neighbourhoods."

Bountrogianni said she'd hate to see Harper kill the plan by cutting its funding.

Ontario is committed to giving parents "one-stop shopping" at schools for everything from day care to before-after school care and breakfast programs, she said.

© The Canadian Press 2006

Did You Know Missles Cost Money?

Stay Out Of Costly U.S. Missile Defence System, Former Pentagon Expert Warns

Colin Perkel, Canadian Press
Published: February 24, 2006

TORONTO -- A former top Pentagon official is warning Canada not to join Washington's missile defence program, calling it a colossal waste of money that would make the country more vulnerable to attack, not less.

In fact, Canada should be leading international talks to prevent the weaponization of space, said Phil Coyle, who was assistant secretary of defence and senior weapons tester at the U.S. Department of Defence from 1994 to 2001.

"The concept of missile defence is quite seductive," Coyle said Thursday in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"(But) it's destabilizing, it's incredibly expensive, and it doesn't work."

A year ago, former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin pulled the plug on Canadian participation in developing and deploying a system that would, in theory, shoot incoming missiles out of the sky before they strike North American targets.

The decision drew pointed scorn from the American ambassador at the time, Paul Cellucci, who called it a "perplexing, astounding" and "disappointing" decision that amounted to Canada wimping out and hiding behind the skirts of the U.S. military.

"If there's a missile incoming, and it's heading toward Canada, you are going to leave it up to the United States to determine what to do about that missile," Cellucci said during a speech in Toronto last year.

"We don't think that is in Canada's sovereign interest."

The new Tory government under Stephen Harper has been musing about revisiting the decision; Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said Thursday he's willing to reopen the debate.

"In principle, I don't have difficulty, personally, with ballistic missile defence," O'Connor said.

Coyle, who is in Canada for a seminar on missile defence Friday at the National Press Club in Ottawa, warned against going that route.

"You don't get anything for your investment," he said. "All you get is a scarecrow defence."

Currently, Washington is spending about $10 billion US a year on the missile-defence system; two weeks ago, President George W. Bush asked Congress for $11.1 billion US for the program in 2007 - close to Canada's entire defence budget.

Despite the mammoth infusion of cash, Coyle said the system will never work.

Trying to hit an incoming intercontinental ballistic missile is like trying to score a hole-in-one on a green that's not only moving at 15,000 miles per hour, but also covered with holes identical to the one you're aiming at, he said.

He also said the threats the Pentagon cites as its justification for the program are bogus, warning that the system would inevitably spark a new arms race and lead to the weaponization of space.

"That's where Canada has drawn the line and it's a practical place to draw the line," Coyle said.

Taking part would increase the likelihood that friendly countries such as China would regard Canada with increased hostility, while refusing to get involved would not hurt our relations with the U.S., he added.
"Canada's place in the hearts of Americans is secure," he said.

"There's no country in the world that is as well regarded, admired and engenders as much affection in Americans as Canada does. Nothing is going to change there."

That affection also makes Canada ideally situated to persuade the Americans to rethink their plans, Coyle added.

© The Canadian Press 2006

Harper, You're Not As Accountable

Emerson Spends Taxpayer Money to Avoid National Media

February 23, 2006
Source: Liberal Party of Canada

OTTAWA – The Harper government’s crisis of accountability increased today as they used Canadians’ tax dollars to fly civil servants to Vancouver, allowing David Emerson to avoid political embarrassment and scrutiny by the national media, said Ujjal Dosanjh, Member of Parliament for Vancouver South.

“Prime Minister Stephen Harper's appointment of Mr. Emerson to his cabinet has already created a crisis of accountability in the Conservative government - and Mr. Harper has exacerbated the problem by keeping Mr. Emerson hidden from the national media since his controversial appointment,” said Mr. Dosanjh.

It is highly unusual, and costly, to dispatch civil servants to hold briefings in a Minister’s riding outside of Ottawa. Despite this, several senior civil servants from the Department of International Trade have been flown to Vancouver to brief Mr. Emerson since he left Ottawa under fire for switching parties immediately after the election.

Mr. Harper promised Canadians a new government solidly grounded in ethics and integrity. But only one month into his mandate and he has already broken numerous campaign promises, jettisoned his principles, and shaken the trust placed in him by Canadians.

"This irresponsible move is further evidence that this is the pattern of behaviour we can expect from a Harper government,” Mr. Dosanjh added.

“Mr. Harper is so intent on keeping Mr. Emerson away from the cameras and microphones in Ottawa that he is willing to ask the taxpayers to pay for his evasive maneuvers. This is clearly a case of tax dollars being used for political gain, allowing Mr. Emerson to weather this political storm in his own riding.”

This is yet another example of the virtual invisibility of Mr. Harper and his ministers over the past month, as they play hide-and-seek with the media and the Canadian public.

Mackay You Goin' Down Dude

Again, "Me Likes Guns"

O'Connor Willing To Re-Open Missile Defence Debate

John Ward, Canadian Press
Published: Thursday, February 23, 2006

OTTAWA -- Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says he's willing to re-open the controversial debate on ballistic missile defence.

However, the minority Conservative government would eventually put the question before the Commons and since all three opposition parties have opposed the idea in the past, the concept is likely dead before it starts.

''It would really, ultimately, be up to a vote in Parliament,'' the minister told reporters Thursday.

The previous Liberal government seemed to favour participation in missile defence, which was a key policy for the Bush administration. The Liberals eventually made a U-turn and said no.

But O'Connor has a different view.

''In principle, I don't have difficulty, personally, with ballistic missile defence.''

The plan involves a limited number of missiles intended to knock down a small strike by terrorists or a rogue state. It isn't designed to foil a mass attack by a major power.

The Americans would have to re-open the issue by again inviting Canadian participation, the minister said.

''Our policy is the fact that the Americans would have to approach us to participate in ballistic missile defence, then we would enter into negotiation.''

Opponents of the missile plan say it won't work and risks kicking off a new international arms race.

Supporters say it could offer some protection against a terror strike, it would improve Canada-U.S. relations and since the Americans have asked for neither territory nor money, it would be cheap.

The Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP oppose the idea and could easily out-vote the minority Conservative government on the question.

O'Connor made the missile defence comments after delivering his first major speech as minister.

He told a conference of defence groups that the Tories plan to carry through with their ambitious election promises, including 13,000 new regular soldiers, new icebreakers and a northern port, new transport planes and infrastructure.

''We made a number of commitments in that platform and we intend to implement every one of them,'' he said.

He said the policy is simple: ''It's about having a three-ocean navy, a robust army and a revitalized air force.''

The Tories promised more money for defence and O'Connor said that will start soon.

''The Conservative government will provide new funding for National Defence in the upcoming federal budget.''

He wouldn't say how much will be in the first budget, but added he's sure the cash will be there.

''The prime minister has assured me that over the next few years we will get the money necessary build the armed forces the way we planned.''

O'Connor, a retired armoured general, got a warm welcome from the audience of serving and former officers, defence contractors, analysts and academics at the annual meeting of the Conference of Defence Associations.

They seemed especially pleased when he said he will tackle the Byzantine procurement system at Defence, which can take a decade or more to deliver new gear.

''Our armed forces can no longer afford to take years and years to obtain major pieces of equipment,'' he said.

O'Connor's promises were welcomed at the conference, but got short shrift from Bill Graham, leader of the Liberal opposition.

Graham, himself a former defence minister, said the Tory promises are too expensive and will run afoul of fiscal realities.

''The cost factor will be very substantial, far in excess of anything that they talked about,'' he said.

''I think we'll see there's a difference between their rhetoric and what the finance minister will have them achieve.''

© Canadian Press 2006

Sir, Are You Sure You Need Another?

Red Rover, Red Rover, I Call Rothstein Over

Harper Nominates Marshall Rothstein As New Supreme Court Justice

Canadian Press
Published: Thursday, February 23, 2006

OTTAWA (CP) - Marshall Rothstein of Winnipeg has been named as Prime Minister Stephen Harper's nominee to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Federal Court of Appeal judge has agreed to face a first-ever public hearing before Harper confirms his appointment to the country's highest court.

"Marshall Rothstein's candidacy was scrutinized by a comprehensive process initiated by the previous government that included members from all the political parties," Harper said in a prepared statement.

"I believe he has the qualifications necessary to serve Canadians well from the country's highest court."

Rothstein, 65, specialized in commercial law in private practice before he was named to the Federal Court's trial division by Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government in 1992.

He was elevated to the court's appeal division by the Jean Chretien Liberals in 1999 and has presided over a wide range of cases.

The Supreme Court overturned Rothstein's most celebrated ruling - the case of the so-called Harvard mouse, a genetically engineered rodent developed at Harvard University for use in cancer research.

The new judge will be the first in history to appear before a parliamentary committee - in a televised, three-hour hearing set for next Monday - to field questions from MPs before taking a seat on the court. Justice Minister Vic Toews will chair the 12-member, all-party panel.

"I am looking forward to watching the ad hoc committee's work and listening to Mr. Rothstein's answers," Harper said. "This hearing marks an unprecedented step towards the more open and accountable approach to nominations that Canadians deserve."

Harper has billed the hearing as an effort to bring "openness and transparency" to the judicial selection process.

Critics say it threatens to politicize the judiciary and spark the same kind of partisan bickering that has marred similar hearings in the United States.

Unlike the American process, however, the Canadian committee will have no veto power. Under the Constitution the prime minister is ultimately responsible for Supreme Court appointments, no matter who he consults along the way.

In addition to Rothstein, the others on the short list were:

-Peter MacKinnon, 58, former dean of law at the University of Saskatchewan, now president of the same school. The husband of former NDP provincial finance minister Janice MacKinnon, he has never held judicial office.

-Constance Hunt, 56, who specialized in resource law in private practice, then served as dean of law at the University of Calgary. She was named to Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in 1992 and Alberta Court of Appeal in 1995.

The list was supposed to be confidential, with only the winner's name made public, but was leaked to the media earlier this week.

The nine-member Supreme Court was left one judge short with the retirement in December of Justice John Major of Alberta. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin had made it clear she wanted the bench back to full strength in time for the spring term that opens April 10.

Rothstein was widely seen as the favourite of the three short-listed for the post.

Considered one of the bright lights of Federal Court, his cases dealt with everything from immigration to national security, access to information, environmental regulation, trademark and patent disputes, taxation and contract law.

Rothstein wrote the majority opinion in a judgment that granted Harvard a Canadian patent on the mouse - dismissing arguments by church groups and environmentalists who contended that living animals should not be subject to patents.

The Supreme Court overturned the ruling in a 5-4 split decision in 2002.

© The Canadian Press 2006

Not Quite Home Sweet Home

Emerson gets on-the-road briefings while weathering political storm in Vancouver

Published: Wednesday, February 22, 2006

OTTAWA (CP) - A handful of civil servants have been dispatched to Vancouver in an unusual move that allows Trade Minister David Emerson to receive transition briefings while he weathers a political storm in his riding.

At least seven high-ranking bureaucrats from the Department of International Trade have joined Emerson since he left Ottawa while under fire for switching parties immediately after the election, The Canadian Press has learned.

Emerson had been avoiding the national media for days and went home while many of his constituents clamoured for a by-election.

Government officials could not put a price tag on the travelling transition briefings.

Emerson has received briefings in his regional office from deputy minister Rob Fonberg, as well as several assistant deputy ministers and other top-level staff.

"It will cost something, I'm sure," one government official said.

But another government official said the final bill would be modest.

Almost none of the bureaucrats have been lodged overnight in Vancouver and several have only made same-day stops while travelling back and forth from events in Asia, he said.

Trade spokesman Andre Lemay said transition briefings are exhaustive and must be done in person. Given those constraints, he said the cost will be reasonable.

"You can't do this over the phone," Lemay said.

"The senior managers that were going out or coming in were basically asked to stop in Vancouver to meet with the minister.

"So it's not like we sent seven people from Ottawa."

The official reason given for Emerson's departure to Vancouver was that he needed to work on regional files. His ministerial portfolio includes the Pacific Gateway and the 2010 Vancouver-Whistler Olympics.

"Since the House (of Commons) is not sitting, he has to tackle those files in B.C., obviously," said one government official.

"It would be awkward if he was getting briefed in Halifax, or in Parry Sound-Muskoka while he was vacationing.

"The minister is not on vacation."

Federal officials couldn't say whether any other ministers had such similarly sized contingents following them home.

But one admitted his own skepticism that Emerson needs to be in B.C. to work on provincial issues.

"I suspect he is meeting his constituents because there's a lot of flack coming out of there."

The Opposition Liberals have their own theory: that Emerson was asked to avoid microphones and cameras for a while, and it's now costing taxpayers money.

"It could be perceived that he's hiding from the national media," said Liberal spokeswoman Susan Smith.

"It's a pattern from Mr. Harper. It's a pattern from Mr. Harper's ministers."

Under the Liberal government ex-trade minister Jim Peterson got all his transition briefings done in Ottawa, said former aide Jacquie Larocque. And when he travelled he would prefer holding conference calls instead of displacing even two bureaucrats, she said.
But Lemay said it's easy to get briefings done on a same-day trip while ministers work in their ridings.

He said the sessions each last several hours while a revolving door of experts delivers lessons on the finer points of a minister's file.

Peterson, for instance, got five separate briefings on softwood lumber alone during his tenure as trade minister.

One was a blow-by-blow chronology of the Canada-U.S. dispute. One described key provincial players on the file. Another listed important contacts in Washington.

"Briefings aren't given for days and days on end by the same people. They're not all in the same room at the same time," Lemay said.

There were also separate briefings on free trade: How is NAFTA working? What about Canada's other free-trade agreements? What other trade deals is Canada seeking?

Peterson also sat in for a briefing on science and developing technologies.

Lemay noted that Emerson has already had a strong head-start learning his files and knows them well for a rookie trade minister.

He was a leading softwood-lumber executive before entering politics. That was 20 months ago, when he was named minister in Paul Martin's Liberal government.

© The Canadian Press 2006

Oh My, There's A Leak

Harper's Supreme Court shortlist leak draws fire

Jim Brown, The Canadian Press
Published: Wednesday, February 22, 2006

OTTAWA -- Stephen Harper may have got more than he bargained for in promising to bring openness and transparency to the selection of judges for the Supreme Court of Canada.

As the new Conservative prime minister pondered his first nomination to the high court, his short list of candidates was already in the public domain Wednesday.

The names are:

- Marshall Rothstein of the Federal Court of Appeal, considered by many to be the front-runner in the unexpectedly public horse race.

- Peter MacKinnon, president of the University of Saskatchewan and a former dean of law at the same school, but a man with no judicial experience.

- Constance Hunt, a former resource law specialist and onetime dean of the University of Calgary law school, who now sits on the Alberta Court of Appeal.

The list, drawn up under the former Liberal government, was a closely guarded secret for months. But it leaked to the media within hours of Harper's disclosure Monday that he was about to make a choice.

The official announcement is to come Thursday.

The nominee will then face an unprecedented public hearing next Monday before an all-party committee of MPs before ascending to the bench.

Harper's's decision to hold such a hearing had already generated controversy and sparked fears that he was politicizing the judiciary.

But some in the legal community were more upset by the leak of the short list, a development that they say could deter well-qualified candidates from coming forward in future.

"It's one thing to appear before a parliamentary committee,'' said Henry Brown, an Ottawa lawyer and Mulroney-era Tory cabinet aide who now practises frequently before the Supreme Court.

"It's something else to get involved in a public shooting gallery that produces winners and non-winners. A lot of good candidates might not want to get involved in that.''

Patricia Hughes, the current dean of law at the University of Calgary, termed it unfortunate that the list had got out.

"I would not like to see this become the norm, that we start throwing out names publicly,'' said Hughes.

`Are we trying to say it's a sort of election? I don't find it to be a very elegant way to select a member of the top court of Canada.''

Not everyone agreed with that assessment.

Chris Axworthy a former NDP attorney general of Saskatchewan who ran unsuccessfully for the federal Liberals in the recent election, was unruffled by the leak.

"People who want to be justices of the Supreme Court of Canada should be willing to stick their necks out once in a while,'' said Axworthy. "If you're interested in the job maybe you have to let the world know.''

Aides to Harper say it wasn't the Prime Minister's Office that leaked the list. It was their intention to make only the final choice public, sparing the other contenders from media and political scrutiny.

© The Canadian Press

Yay For Liberals

Liberals Will Not Prop Up Conservative Government: Bill Graham

February 16, 2006
Source: Liberal Party of Canada

It will be up to the NDP and Bloc Québécois – not Liberals – to prop up the Conservative government, Opposition Leader Bill Graham said.

In media interviews on February 16, 2006, Graham said that while the first priority of Liberals will be to work constructively with the other parties to make this parliament work as best they can, they will not be afraid to defeat Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s minority Conservative government if need be.

Graham said that Liberals were elected as the Official Opposition and they will oppose in an “effective and principled” manner. That means opposing Harper’s government if he refuses to accommodate Liberal positions on key issues such as child care and income tax cuts.

If they don’t accommodate these very important programs, they must turn to the NDP and Bloc for support in the House of Commons, since they are the ones who triggered the last election out of political opportunism.

“We’re not in the business of propping up the government,” he told the Globe and Mail. “We’re the Official Opposition. And that is our role, and we will stick to our points where they are important to the future of the country.

“Other parties will have to decide whether they want to compromise on this, because they’re the ones — the Canadian public very well knows — that put us in this position. They’re the ones that created the Harper government. They’re the ones that are going to have to accommodate it.”

But Harper, as leader of a minority government, has to accept the fact that he, too, must be willing to compromise “if he wants to continue to be the Government of Canada,” Graham said.

He said Liberals intend to push for its national early learning and child care program over the Conservative plan to send roughly $100 a month to parents.

He said he found “astonishing” the NDP’s “chutzpah” of proposing a subsidized plan in the coming session of parliament, since they killed such a plan in the first place by forcing the election.

If the Conservatives nix the Liberals’ income tax cuts in favour of a GST cut, Liberals will also be loudly speaking out, Graham said.

“When they find out the consequences of this, people are going to be astonished,” he said.

Graham assured his party that he will do his best to keep the opposition together through any leadership contest.