Author: admin

Mark Wiffen, an associate with the law firm McMillan MP, crunches the numbers on the newst Supreme Court Justices, Michael Moldaver and Anromache Karakatsanis (free registration required). His method is to take a look at the decisions each jurist made while with the Ontario Court of Appeal and compare some of those numbers about the whole court's behaviour in order to examine a couple of narratives that emerged once the appointments were announced.

• First narrative: Moldaver was appointed because of his particular expertise in criminal law. Wiffen's analysis: Perhaps. From 2009 to 2011, 44 per cent of the court's published decisions were related to criminal law. In Moldaver's case, 53 per cent of the cases he published on were criminal cases but two other judges heard more criminal cases. The decisions of Karakatsanis, by comparison, who is seen as stronger on administrative law, dealt with criminal law in just 35 per cent of cases.
• Second narrative: The appointments by Moldaver and Karakatsanis are an attempt by a Conservative prime minister to give the Supreme Court a stronger “law-and-order” or rightward tilt. Wiffen's analysis: Difficult to use the numbers to support that view.  By Wiffen's estimation, a law-and-order judge is one who will tend to clash with defence lawyers — that's Moldaver, apparently — and who frequently sides the Crown in his or her ruling. The court average when it came to siding the Crown was 73 per cent. Moldaver ruled in favour of the Crown 79% of the time — just a bit more. Defence lawyers had a better shot with Karakatsanis who ruled in favour of the Crown only 63 per cent of the time. When it comes to civil appeals, though, Moldaver and Karakatsanis have much more in common. Appeals by the whole court were allowed, on average, 24% of the time, but Moldaver and Karatsanis were involved in decisions in which appeals were allowed just 16 per cent and 17 per cent of the time respectively.

But, as Wiffen concludes, while these numbers may be interesting, they may not be predictive: “Understanding what Justices Moldaver and Karakatsanis have done in the past may help us predict what they will do in the future. That being said, the inherent unpredictability of people, combined with the differences between the dynamics on the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, suggests that it will be a long time before we know how these appointments will actually turn out.”

 

Samsung's ad team gets its game on to take on the world-leading Apple iPhone:

Accountants and auditors are not, by definition, given to hyperbole and exaggeration. They're mild-mannered types, if you know what I mean. So when interim Auditor General John Wiersema, commenting on the fact that his office today is for the third time in a decade sounding the alarm that we are giving entry visas to more than 1.36 million foreign nationals a year and we don't know squat about them, says “That's disturbing,” that ought to be a four-alarm call to action.

“By now, The Government of Canada has been in the business of issuing visas for a long time, we should have better processes in place to make sure we're issuing visas to the people that should get them,” Wiersema told me.

Chapter 2 of the Auditor General's twice-a-year report is here and in it, you'll find these indictments of both Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency, jointly responsible for the visa program:

“…CBSA has not reviewed the effectiveness of its security screening process. It has not requested feedback from CIC on the usefulness of the information provided to visa officers, and there is no process to find out how they use the information. In our survey, about 45 percent of the Canada-based officers indicated that one of the challenges in determining the inadmissibility of an applicant is the lack of relevant information from security partners.”

“The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) is responsible for updating risk indicators, but we found that two of the screening manuals had not been updated for several years; one of these was last updated in 1999.”

“At the time of our audit, the Department had defined only two diseases—syphilis and tuberculosis—as dangers to public health. These same two diseases have defined the screening practice for the last 50 years. We noted that mandatory HIV testing has been implemented since 2002, with the anticipated public health benefit of early detection, treatment, and prevention. Persons with HIV, however, will not be denied access to Canada for public health reasons. They would be found inadmissible only if their health condition might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social services.”

And here's something else to ponder: In 2010, 1.2 million foreign nationals applied for visas to enter, work, or live in Canada. All but 668 were approved. That's a statistical oddity that the A-G picked up on:

“We noted that very few applicants, referred by visa officers using the current risk indicators, were found to be likely inadmissible by security partners. In many cases, there may be no information or concerns related to applicants. Of the cases security partners worked on in 2010, only about 1 percent of applicants for temporary residence and 0.1 percent of applicants for permanent residence were found to be likely inadmissible (Exhibit 2.3). We noted that there has been no analysis to determine whether the current risk indicators to help identify potentially inadmissible applicants are appropriate or properly applied.”

I am at the very beginning of Carleton University historian Paul Litt's biography of John Napier Turner, who, until Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff came along, was the symbol of Liberal failure in the last century-and-a-half. And yet, despite being crushed twice at the polls (in 1984 and in 1988) by his chief opponent Brian Mulroney, Litt — seven pages in to his Elusive Destiny: The Political Vocation of John Napier Turner — sets out an audacious thesis to prove, over the next 400 pages that John Turner is no failure but is, in fact, a hero:

“Turner's glorious opposition to free trade during the 1988 election offered Canadians an alternative of wholesale continental integration. He lost that battle but won an enduring place in history by making the case for a more independent Canada. The leading anglophone Liberal of the late twentieth century, John Turner deserves to be remembered for more than the frustrations he encountered in the final chapter of his career. His destiny was elusive; his legacy, substantial.”

Well, first of all, one's destiny cannot, by definition, be “elusive.” It is what it is. If you are at point B in your life, well, your destiny was point B. Point A might have been elusive for you but, by definition, it was not your destiny. Point B was your destiny, despite your attempts to reach Point A, and so your destiny could not have been elusive.

But more importantly: Litt must overcome the perception I think many have of John Turner that was best sketched out in Greg Weston's wonderfully gossipy and impeccably researched account of Turner's return to politics in 1984 and Turner's subsequent first drubbing by Mulroney (Reign of Error, 1988).  I am going to need a great deal of convincing in Litt's next 393 pages to overturn my initial estimation of our country's 17th prime minister.  For one thing, Litt holds out Turner as the “leading Anglophone Liberal of the late twentieth century.” Well, what does 'late twentieth century' mean? After 1950? If so, surely some might claim Lester Pearson as more “leading” than Turner. And even if we draw the cutoff line at 1970, a good case could be made that that Juggernaut, Windsor, Ont.-born Paul Martin easily eclipses Turner as the “leading Anglophone Liberal.” Martin was the finance minister who, in 1993, took decisive, if controversial, steps to undo the fiscal mess that finance ministers from Turner through to Michael Wilson had got us into. Turner quit on Trudeau as finance minister and when he returned, he led the Liberals twice into a general election and both times his opponent won majority governments. Say what you will about Martin but he never quit on Chretien during the tough times of the 1990s and, when he did say sayonara, it was when the country's finances were in good enough that it could afford to lose a finance minister. Martin, too, led his Liberals twice into election but he won one, albeit a minority, and when he lost his last one, it was a squeaker to Stephen Harper's minority. (And Martin, one could argue, faced a tremendous hurdle that Turner did not in that Martin had to overcome the stench of the Sponsorship Scandal, arguably the biggest stink to hit an incumbent government since Sir John A. and the Pacific Scandal)

And if holding the premiership was not a defining characteristic of being “the leading Anglophone Liberal of the late 20th century”, then one could conceivably argue that Allan MacEachen, Trudeau's minister of everything, was that Liberal. Or John Manley. Or Sheila Copps. Or, looking further than Ottawa, what about Clyde Wells?

But, as I said, I'm only on page 7 of Litt's book. And if I find myself arguing with an author on page 7, that's usually a good sign I'm going to enjoy the rest of the book.

Incumbent Mayor Gregor Robertson and his Vision Vancouver enjoyed about as decisive a victory Saturday as any political party could want. Bill Tieleman and I talk about it tonight on my program.

 

This is the plane — an Airbus A-310 given military gear to become a CC-150 Polaris — that carries Canada's prime minister (or other VIPs), staff, bureaucrats and (usually) journalists (at their own expense) to international events. I've spent lots of time on this plane, most recently travelling back and forth to Perth, Australia and the Commonwealth summit and to Cannes, France for the G20 summit.

Here's a picture of the plane that the CC-150 replaced, the Boeing 707 (CC-137):

 

You'll notice the two planes are painted differently. The Polaris has what the air force calls “low-visibility livery”.  Now, the PMO is believed to be interested in returning to something that says “Canada” with a bit more flair, perhaps painting the Polaris with the kind of colour scheme that the Boeing had. Althia Raj, writing in the Huffington Post, had a good little scoop on that today. That, in turn, produced this exchange in the House of Commons today:

Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam Speaker, lots of smug talk about fiscal balance, but we have just learned that the Prime Minister has overruled his own Minister of National Defence and is forcing National Defence to repaint a VIP government aircraft because he does not like its colour. The current fleet of aircraft are painted military grey because they are used in critical military operations. The Prime Minister's vanity paint job will make the plane unsafe for those very military operations. Why is the Prime Minister putting his own vanity above the needs of the military?

Mr. Chris Alexander (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) Mr. Chris Alexander (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Madam Speaker, apart from being a complete non-sequitur with the member's first question, the accusation made is completely unfounded. These changes would only happen in accordance with the regular maintenance cycle of National Defence and if they are cost neutral. These aircraft are repainted every six years and there is no current plan to change the paint scheme for any Airbus aircraft.

Alexander subsequently rose on a point-of-order to clarify his response to say that, in fact, no decision had been made about re-painting the Airbus/Polaris but he wanted to be clear that, whatever decision would be made, it would be done, as he said in the House, on a “cost-neutral” basis. So what you do think? Should the Canadian prime minister — whether he or she is a Conservative, Liberal, New Democrat, or Greenie — ride around in a plane that says “Canada” a little more proudly and boldly? Lord knows, the leaders of many other countries do. (I've been to international summits where the Japanese PM arrived in beautifully painted 747 with an identical second 747 carrying his delegation behind him. The Leaders of India and the US also have pretty fancy easily identified 747s.) For what it's worth, if the painting is done on its regularly scheduled maintenance cycle, why not jazz it up a bit?

 

The New Democratic Party of Canada announced this week that it will be staging six debates for its party's leadership candidates, with the first set for Dec. 4 in Ottawa. Each debate will have a theme:

• Ottawa DEC 4: Towards an Inclusive Economy
• Halifax January TBD: Families
• Quebec City February TBD: Canada on the world stage
• Winnipeg February TBD: Connecting people and regions
• Montreal March TBD: Building a strong, united Canada
• Vancouver March TBD: Opportunities for young and new Canadians

The vote itself will take place on the weekend of March 23-24 in Toronto.

Leadership candidate Paul Dewar, though, thinks that six debates is not enough. He wants 10: “Over the next 4 months our New Democratic Party has an opportunity to reach out and connect with Canadians from coast-to-coast-to-coast,” said Dewar. “We owe it to our members, and Canadians at large, to speak to as many of them as possible”.

Nathan Cullen and Niki Ashton are with Dewar on this one. “I've not been impressed with the schedule and we pushed for many more as well,” Cullen told me in an e-mail. “In particular we've been asking members to advocate for more and will encourage folks to organize their own if the party won't budge. Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario in particular are left out in the cold here.” Ashton, who represents the northern Manitoba riding of Churchill, wants more for northern Canada: “I believe we should have more debates. We should have debates in Saskatchwan, Alberta and there should be one in Canada's North,” she said in an e-mail. “It's good to see the two debates in Quebec. But there should be a tour throughout Quebec.”

Brian Topp is largely agnostic on the issue, saying he's happy to participate in whatever debates the party decides to hold and adds, “If the party decides to expand the schedule, I'd encourage them to find a way to keep the current balance between French and English-language debates. This given the very high premium party members are placing on bilingualism in the next leader, and the strategic importance of our breakthrough in Quebec — source of more than half of our current caucus.”

Robert Chisholm, the Nova Scotian in the race, says: “I look forward to the debates. The party made a decision on the number and location and I will comply with their schedule. I understand there will be many other opportunities for debates and I will certainly try to be part of those as well.”

Julien Newman, a spokesman for the Thomas Mulcair, said his candidate was happy to have more debates but noted that all campaigns were consulted ahead of time about the number and nature of the debates. “We're happy with the process,” Newman said.

Daniel Wilson of the Romeo Saganash campaign, said: “The schedule was set by the party and agreed to by most campaigns. The party believes that it meets the need for regional exposure and linguistic balance, considering limits on timing, funds and logistics. Some may have different views about that, but we would not support any criticism of the debate schedule as agreed. We note that there may be informal debates in other cities in which we would consider participating, depending on the quality of preparations, fairness of procedures and completeness of candidate participation.”

And here's Wally Stephen, campaign director for Martin Singh's campaign: “Regarding the number of debates, we are fine with the six scheduled debates. That being said, we would welcome any additional opportunities which may come about, as long as all of the candidates are available.”

Meanwhile, Alice Funke breaks down the latest NDP membership numbers. The next NDP leader will be chosen in in a one-vote per member system. And, right now, the New Democratic Party is still very much a party of the west with a total of 59,773 or 63% of its members/voters living west of the Ontario/Manitoba border. This, of course, despite the fact that more than half of its caucus in the House of Commons come from Quebec.

But, as Alice notes, the growth in party memberships has, so far, come from east of the Manitoba border. Membership in the Ontario NDP is up 15.7 % over the last month to 25,772. Ontario New Democrats are the second largest provincial block behind the 31,456 card-carrying New Democrats in British Columbia. Quebec membership is still pitiable, compared to the party's electoral strength there, at 5,558 voters. Still, Quebec membership has more than tripled over the last month. The number of card-carrying New Democrats has doubled and the number in Newfoundland and Labrador is up nearly six-fold. Oddly: About 700 New Democrats have ripped up their cards let the memberships expire so there are fewer NDPers in that province now than there were a month ago. Again: Check out Alice's post for all the stats.

Rory Medcalf writing in Foreign Policy:

Obama remains more popular in Australia than in most countries, if only for the reason that he is not George W. Bush. The current hand-wringing angst on the Australian left about the prospect of a U.S. military presence here is nothing next to their public displays of outrage during the last presidential visit in 2003, when the leader of the Greens party, Bob Brown, heckled until he was ejected from parliament. This time, Brown and all his Greens were on their best behavior, even while they sat through a speech extolling an alliance they can barely abide.

The Irish Times reports that, yesterday in Beijing, China welcomed Zimbabwe madman Robert Mugabe with open arms. Mugabe ranked right at the top of this list of The World's 10 Worst Dictators. Xi Jinping, the heir apparent to Chinese president Hu Jintao, called Mugabe an “old friend” and a “trustworthy friend” of China. Here's the Times Beijing correspondent Clifford Coonan:

Mr Xi described the 87-year-old Mr Mugabe, who has been marginalised by most of the international community for human rights abuses, as “a famed leader of the national liberation movement in Africa and also an old friend whom the Chinese people know well”.

A paragraph later comes what one normally refers to as an understatement:

China is often criticised for its “values-free” approach to dealing with some of the countries in Africa and elsewhere that the international community shuns.

Canada, of course, is warming up its relations with China. At this point, Canada can only aspire to Zimbabwe's lofty status! The last time a Canadian leader was in Beijing — that would be Prime Minister Stephen Harper — Canada got a dressing-down from the Chinese premier for not showing up enough. (I reacted badly to watching Wen dis Harper)

 

Christian Fuchs is a professor in media and communications studies at Uppsala University in Sweden. In a recent paper, he concludes that Google is, has been, and always will be evil:

“…Google permanently surveils the online behaviour of the users of Google services and thereby economically exploits them. In Google’s moral universe, prosumer exploitation does not seem to be evil, but rather a moral virtue. Google thinks that advertising is evil when it displays irrelevant information, when it is flashy and if it is not recognizable as such. It ignores that the problem is that for organizing and targeting advertising, Google engages in the surveillance and exploitation of users and the commodification of personal data and usage behaviour data. Advertising is furthermore a mechanism that advances the monopolization of business, the manipulation of needs and the commercialization and commodification of culture and life. Advertising and exploitation are always “evil”, therefore Google is just like all capitalist advertising companies “evil”. In capitalism, evil is not a moral misconduct of individuals, who are blinded and could also act in more positive ways, exploitation is rather a structural and necessary feature of capital accumulation, which makes evil a generic feature of all forms of capitalism and of all capitalist organizations.

…Google is a sorcerer of capitalism”

[Read the whole paper]