The Catholic Church’s Last Chance

Posted on April 24, 2016 by susanonthesoapbox

Suing the Catholic Church is like throwing Jello at the wall, it’s a mess but not much sticks.

Thousands of Canada’s First Nations, Metis, Inuit and Inuvialuit joined in a class action seeking compensation for the abuse they suffered in Canada’s residential schools.

On Nov 20, 2005, this class action was settled in the largest payout in Canadian history.

The federal government agreed to pay $1.9 billion to claimants who attended residential schools prior to Dec 31, 1997—and while $1.9 billion sounds like a lot of money it works out to about $24,000 per survivor.  Survivors who suffered egregious abuse retained the right to make claims for additional compensation.

old_sun_indian_residential_school

Children at a residential school

The feds also agreed to establish the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, endow the Aboriginal Healing Foundation and fund the commemoration of the “legacy of Indian Residential Schools”.

The Anglican, Catholic, United and Presbyterian churches agreed to a financial settlement.  All but the Catholic Church fulfilled their part of the bargain.

The Catholic bargain

The Settlement Agreement obligated 50 Catholic entities to pay out $79 million as follows:

  • $25 million in unspecified “in kind” services – the entities delivered the full $25 million
  • $29 million in cash to be paid into the Aboriginal Healing Foundation – the entities delivered $27.4 million arguing that the remaining $1.6 million was eaten up by legal and administrative fees
  • $25 million from a national fund raising campaign – the entities raised $3.7 million, $21.3 million is still owing

Bottom line: the Catholic entities agreed to pay $79 million.  They paid $56.1 million.  They’re $22.9 million short and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

How did this happen?

The Catholic Church

The Catholic Church is the largest Christian institution in the world but does not exist as a legal entity.   

It is led by the Pope, who takes his place in the hierarchy first set down by Jesus.  The Pope is the head of the College of Bishops.  The College of Bishops is made up of individual bishops who are responsible for a diocese.  The diocese is made up of a number of parishes which are led by a priest.

(Certain bishops are elevated to the College of Cardinals who advise the Pope and select the Pope’s successor when he dies.  This is a never ending source of intrigue for all concerned).

Brothers, nuns, hermits and friars live in communities organized according to Rome’s rules.  They do God’s work and are not part of the official hierarchy.

As recently as 1997 God’s work included running residential schools.

pope-francis

Pope Francis and the children

Given that the Catholic Church is not a legal entity the Settlement Agreement was signed by a hodge podge of incorporated and unincorporated entities including Episcopale corporations, bishops, dioceses, oblates (lay people and priest spreading the gospel) and nuns.

Other than delivering the required $25 million for “in kind” services, the Catholic entities fell far short of their financial obligations.

“Miscommunication” and “best efforts”

The federal government sued the Catholic entities to make them to cough up more cash.  Along the way the feds made a mistake.

There was a “miscommunication” between the government and church lawyers which a Saskatchewan court said released the Catholic entities from their outstanding $56.1 million financial obligations in return for the payment of a paltry $1.2 million.

Lawyers for the survivors could argue that Catholic entities’ lawyer took unfair advantage of the government lawyer or that the government lawyer’s screw up should not bind the survivors.

Lawyers for the Catholic entities could argue they met their “best efforts” obligation to raise $25 million by running a professional Canada-wide fund raising campaign for seven years and even though it was a fiasco the Catholic Entities Church Agreement specifically states that not raising the $25 million, in and of itself, is not a default under the agreement.

Lawyers could argue a lot of things but that would simply reinforce the survivors’ view that the Catholic Church is not sincere about reconciliation.

Moral Imperative

William Gladdis said you get the law in this world and justice in the next.

The Catholic Church seems to agree with him.

The fact the Church acknowledged it harmed the children entrusted to its care and is now standing on its legal rights to avoid compensating the survivors is nothing short of tragic.

But the Church has one last chance to redeem itself.

Perry Bellegarde, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, is going to ask the Pope to apologise for the Church’s role in residential schools and to rectify the Church’s failure to fix it.

Soon we shall find out whether the Pope will bring justice to the survivors in this world or make them wait until they reach the next one.

Sources:

http://www.residentialschoolsettlement.ca/settlement.html

http://catholic-pages.com/church/hierarchy.asp

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/afn-chief-to-urge-pope-to-rectify-churchs-role-in-residential-schools/article29737393/

Posted in Crime and Justice, Politics and Government, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 11 Comments

Notley’s Budget: Myths and Facts

Posted on April 17, 2016 by susanonthesoapbox

The NDP government unveiled its budget on Thursday.  The conservatives reacted as if the government dropped a neutron bomb on the people.

Wildrose leader Brian Jean worried that parents driving their kids to hockey practice would end up in the poor house if they had to pay an extra 4.5 cents per litre for gas.  Progressive Conservative leader Ric McIver said it was the monster in the room (whatever that means).

The Budget

A few facts before we dive into the myths.

The government expects to collect $41.4 billion in revenue and spend $51 billion on expenses.  It’s facing a revenue short fall and will borrow $10.4 billion this year, $10.1 billion next year and $8.3 billion the year after that.

alberta-premier-rachel-notley

Premier Notley

The fact that money is being borrowed to fund operations is driving the conservatives bananas.

So they cranked up the myth-making machinery.

The Myths

Myth #1:  The private sector could teach the NDP a thing or two about budgets 

Conservative economist Mark Milke says Albertans would be well served if the NDP would emulate private sector companies like Trican, a well service company.

Trican is going to cut wages by up to 50% for two months to preserve jobs.

Mr Milke admits this will be “brutally painful” but says it will allow some employees to pay their mortgages and provide for their children.  Presumably those who can’t will go to the food bank.

What Mr Milke fails to mention is that Trican is a spectacularly poor example of the private sector in action.

In 2015 it underperformed the S&P TSX by 57.55% and delivered a net profit margin of minus 69.23%; nevertheless it managed to scrape together over $1 million in compensation for its CEO and between $523,475 and $940,236 for its executive team.

Which leads us to…

Myth #2: Just roll back wages silly!

Mr Milke says resource revenues dropped by 16% last year so the NDP should demand a 16% wage cut from all government and public-sector employees (following this logic Trican should reduce executive compensation by 69.23%).

Mr Milke ignores the fact that a private non-unionized company would never embark on a 16% wage cut program without a team of high priced lawyers at its side–the risk of constructive dismissal litigation is just too high.  A private unionized company would do nothing because it’s bound by collective agreements.

The bulk of Alberta’s government/public sector work force is unionized.

Seventy-five percent of Alberta government employees belong to AUPE, 30,000 nurses and allied workers belong to the United Nurses of Alberta, 10,000 physicians belong to the Alberta Medical Association and 43,500 teachers and teaching administrators belong to the Alberta Teachers’ Association.

All of these unions have binding agreements with the government.  Only a fool (or Margaret Thatcher) would embark on a 16% wage cut scheme and expect to come out of it unscathed.

Myth #3: The DBRS downgrade is devastating and will negatively impact investment

DBRS reacted to the budget by downgrading Alberta’s credit rating from AAA to AA(high).  Moody’s put Alberta on negative watch but left its AAA credit rating intact.

mciver-jean

Messrs McIver and Jean

DBRS rates British Columbia as AA(high) and Saskatchewan at AA so Alberta isn’t exactly Greece, nevertheless the Wildrose and the Progressive Conservatives hit the panic button.

Their fears are unwarranted.

University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe says he’d prefer to see Alberta eliminate the deficit before 2024 but notes Alberta’s future financial health is not at risk and its borrowing costs will continue to be considerably lower than its provincial peers.

FACT:  Alberta is overly reliant on resource revenue  

The difficulty the conservatives face is that the only way to attack the NDP budget is to argue that it’s still overly reliant on resource revenue…and that leads them straight into the jaws of the sales tax debate.

Over the last 44 years resource revenue contributed 20% to 45% of the revenue required to provide public services.

Yet every conservative government, with the exception of Peter Lougheed, failed to create the appropriate tax and royalty regimes to ensure there would be enough revenue to carry Alberta through the lean years.

This year’s budget illustrates Alberta’s predicament.  Resource revenue sits at $1.4 billion, the lowest it’s been since 1994, forcing the government to borrow to cover operating costs.

Energy economist Peter Tertzakian suggests the energy industry may never attain the lofty heights it experienced in the past which means this budget may not be an anomaly.

If the government hopes to avoid a perpetual revenue shortfall it will need to revisit its revenue model.

The NDP government made a good start by restructuring Alberta’s personal and corporate tax regime, introducing a carbon levy, increasing sin taxes on cigarettes and alcohol and “bending the curve” on public sector wages.

It is also focusing on diversifying the economy with incentives to value-added industries and increased support for post-secondary education and innovation.

But that’s not enough.

Cue scary music…

Brian and Ric I’ve got a job for you

The Wildrose and the Progressive Conservatives criticize the NDP for being ideologically driven.  They say they’re just the opposite—pragmatic supporters of the free market.  Proof of their pragmatism lies in their reliance on prominent economists like Jack Mintz.

Mr Mintz and other economists say Alberta needs a sales tax coupled with credits for low income earners to make ends meet.

Wouldn’t it be fun if the conservatives did something constructive for a change and instead of whining about this year’s budget initiated a conversation about the pros and cons of a sales tax?

Or are they too ideologically hide-bound to give it a try?

Posted in Economics, Energy & Natural Resources, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , | 26 Comments

How the Conservatives Spun Murray Edwards and Vicki Kaminski

Posted on April 10, 2016 by susanonthesoapbox

This week the conservatives spun Murray Edwards’ decision to move to England and Vicki Kaminski’s decision to leave Alberta Health Services for a job in Australia to convince Albertans to ditch the NDP.

The spin looked like this:  Facts [Edwards/Kaminski is leaving Alberta] plus conjecture [due to the NDP’s failed ideologically driven policies] equals disaster [Alberta is losing its brightest and its best…and most importantly, its richest].  Vote conservative!!!!

Spin is pretty flimsy at the best of times but this was flimsier than most.

Picking on the billionaires

Mr Edwards runs Canadian Natural Resources, he holds a major stake in Ensign Energy Services and Penn West Petroleum and is a co-owner of the Calgary Flames hockey team.

He’s ranked at 30th on Canadian Business magazine list of Canada’s 100 richest people with an estimated net worth of $2.69 billion.

murrayedwards

Mr Edwards

Mr Edwards refused to comment on why he’s moving to England but that didn’t stop the Canadian Taypayers’ Federation and Mark Milke, former director for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and the Fraser Institute, from using Mr Edwards as a case study in failed government policy.

Mr Milke admits he knows nothing about Mr Edwards’ financial situation.  Small wonder given that Mr Edwards earns the paltry sum of $1.00 in salary from Canadian Natural, the bulk of his compensation comes in the form of bonuses and stock options.

Nevertheless Mr Milke says the tax changes introduced by Notley (and Trudeau) will increase Mr Edwards’ tax burden by $4.5 million.

And while $4.5 million is a lot of money, in Mr Edwards’ case it amounts to a 0.04% hit on his net worth.  Perhaps this was the last straw in a year that saw Mr Edwards’ energy stock portfolio plummet but somehow I doubt it.

Mr Milke suggests that Mr Edwards may be the first of the uber-rich to bail on Alberta.

Really?

Alberta’s richest resident, Edmontonian Darryl Katz is worth $4.14 billion and is about to get a whole lot richer having just sold the family drug store chain to McKesson Group for $3 billion.  Mr Katz is going to focus on real estate, sports and entertainment.  He has big plans for Edmonton’s Arena District.  It is extremely unlikely that he’ll turn his back on Edmonton after accepting a $279 million support package to make his $606.5 million vision for the ICE District a reality.

Calgarians JR Shaw of Shaw Communication ($1.92 billion), the Southern family of Atco ($1.76 billion) and the Riddell family of Trilogy and Perpetual Energy ($1.31 billion) don’t appear to be in a big hurry to hop on their private jets in search of a kinder gentler tax regime either.

Which brings us back to Mr Edwards.

The only person who knows why Mr Edwards is moving to England is Mr Edwards.

Trotting out Mr Edwards as the poster boy for failed government policy is not only a disservice to the Notley government it’s an insult to Mr Edwards.

Meddling with the CEO

When Vicki Kaminski resigned her post as CEO of Alberta Health Services (AHS) she said she “sincerely enjoyed working at AHS” and was leaving for “personal reasons”.

Later we learned that Ms Kaminski was unhappy under the new regime.  She accused the NDP government of political interference.

cu1x8g0ucaavewj

Ms Kaminski

The Wildrose Official Opposition seized on Ms Kaminski’s comment in Question Period.*

Mr Jean commended Ms Kaminski’s for walking away from her $600,000 dream job halfway through her contract.  He demanded answers from the government:

  • Did the government force AHS back to the bargaining table to avoid being booed at an AUPE function? No, the government wanted AHS to resume negotiating.
  • Why did the government interfere with Ms Kaminski’s decision to outsource a $3 billion lab services contract to an Australian company? Because there was no evidence that Ms Kaminski seriously considered any options other than privatization.
  • Why did the government interfere with Ms Kaminski’s decision to outsource laundry and linen services? Because the NDP was elected to provide publicly delivered, not privately delivered healthcare.
  • Why did the government interfere with “every day” people management? Because AHS planned on laying off thousands of front line workers, contrary to the NDP’s promise not to cut front line services.
  • Did the Health Minister tell Ms Kaminski to communicate in “voice mode” to avoid creating a written record of her political interference? No, there are lots of records of communications.  If Ms Kaminski was seriously concerned about political interference why did she agree to delay the announcement of Jim Prentice cancelling the Calgary cancer centre until after the election?

David Swann (Lib) was the only MLA to focus on the real issue, namely how would the Health Minister improve the relationship between her ministry and AHS.  Ms Hoffman cited her good relationship with the deputy minister, the AHS board and the interim CEO and said public health services couldn’t be delivered by pretending AHS was a business organization.

Ms Soapbox wonders whether Ms Kaminski resigned because she supported the conservative position that the free market can do everything better than government and couldn’t work with a government that believed otherwise.

The spin  

The formula “facts plus conjecture equals disaster, vote conservative” won’t push Albertans into the conservative camp unless the conjecture is rooted in logic.

There is no logic linking Mr Edwards’ departure to Alberta’s tax regime because no one knows what he pays in taxes (maybe he’s leaving for love, not money).  There is no logic linking Ms Kaminski’s move to Australia to political meddling because she accepted “meddling” from the previous Progressive Conservative government (maybe it’s a promotion or she likes kangaroos).

The Opposition’s real test will come when the NDP rolls out its first full budget.

An effective opposition will focus on the consequences of the government’s budgetary decisions.  A silly opposition will waste everyone’s time with “facts plus trumped-up consequences equals disaster.”

A silly opposition is all about spin.

*Hansard, Apr 6, 2015, 388, 389 and Apr 7, 438  

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics and Government, Rich and/or Famous | Tagged , , , , | 21 Comments

It’s Time for the Soapy Awards!

Posted on April 3, 2016 by susanonthesoapbox

Ms Soapbox was trolling through Hansard searching for signs of intelligent life under the Dome when she discovered (sandwiched between the Wildrose Opposition’s accusation that the Premier appointed a Soviet-era communist to serve as her deputy chief of staff and the NDP MLA for Edmonton-Ellerslie admires “the worst leftist dictators”) a few glimmers of wit.

This led to the birth of the Soapy Awards.

The Soapys recognize politicians who come up with a clever response in the face of unrelenting tedium, commonly referred to as Question Period.

Here are the Soapy winners in the individual performer category:

The sex-lives-of-giant-mammals award goes to Progressive Conservative MLA Dr Starke who compared the NDP’s announcement of a $10 million grant for a new biofuel production facility to the mating behavior of elephants—“it was done at a high level, there was a lot of trumpeting and stamping of feet, and it will take two years to see if we get any results”.  This preamble was in aid of his question, a concern about the availability of sufficient canola feedstock.   

Dr Starke is a vet.  No doubt he sees a lot of this sort of thing, presumably with cows not elephants.

The lucky leprechaun award goes to Deputy Premier Sarah Hoffman who deflected Wildrose leader Brian Jean’s assertion that if the government didn’t denounce BC’s tanker ban it was against Alberta’s energy industry.

Ms Hoffman said the either/or dichotomy showed a lack of diplomacy and respect for other provinces and that Mr Jean’s “plan to address the difficulties that we’re facing is kind of like a four-leaf clover, shrouded in mythology and hard to find”.

dsc08740

Deputy Premier Sarah Hoffman

Ms Hoffman got extra points for making the quip on St Patrick’s Day.

The Mesozoic-Era-put-down award also goes to Ms Hoffman for her response to Mr Jean who continued to insist she condemn the BC tanker ban or Alberta’s energy industry.

She said “instead of acting like dinosaurs from Drumheller” Albertans needed to develop a reputation for being environmentally responsible.  The link to dinosaurs in a comment about fossil fuels was very clever.

An honourable mention goes to Wildrose MLA Mr Nixon who declared “orange is clearly the new blue” in a question concerning the NDP government’s new caucus office in Calgary.  We all know “orange is the new black” but Mr Nixon can be forgiven for getting his colours mixed up given that in the last federal election it was unclear whether orange was the new red or red was the new orange and it’s equally confusing on the provincial level where blue will be the new blue/green (teal?) if the Progressive Conservatives and Wildrose merge.

The Soapy for Best Performance by a Political Party is jointly awarded to the NDP and the Liberals for press releases they issued on April Fools Day.

The NDP’s press release announced a plan to float bitumen, oil and natural gas to foreign markets by Zeppelin.  The plan would sidestep the NEB and avoid objections from other provinces.  The Local Dirigible Manufacturing requirement would kick start “a nascent aerospace industry” thereby furthering the government’s efforts to diversify the economy.

The Liberal’s press release announced the PC party had officially filed for divorce from the Wildrose party citing “irreconcilable differences”.

It included a quote from a Wildrose supporter who said “It’s not like we haven’t tried. When they stole our leadership, we turned the other cheek.  When Albertans elected an NDP government we thought that horror would bring us together.  We even stood up and voted unanimously for Bill 10.”

alta_notley_20150706

Premier Notley

The press release said Premier Notley was unavailable for comment but the song “We are the Champions” was heard emanating from her office.

That concludes the Soapy Awards for this year.  Ms Soapbox will be accepting nominations for the 2017 Soapy Awards on Jan 1, 2017.

***

On a more serious note, Ms Soapbox would like to take this opportunity to ask the Official Opposition to pull itself together (there really aren’t any “Soviet-era communists” lurking in the corridors of power) and work with the government and the other members of the Opposition (Sandra Jansen is right, we don’t need Yet Another Recall Act) to help bring Alberta through this difficult downturn.

Posted in Humour, Politics and Government, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

The Ghomeshi Verdict: We Deserve Better

Posted on March 28, 2016 by susanonthesoapbox

“Violence against women is not about the behavior of the women.”–Gillian Hnatiw, lawyer for Lucy DeCoutere

By his own admission Jian Ghomeshi likes rough sex.

The legal question is whether the three women who met Ghomeshi in 2002 and 2003 like it too.

image

Mr Ghomeshi

 

Jian Ghomeshi was charged with four counts of sexual assault and one count of choking to overcome resistance to sexual assault.  The charges arose after CBC publicly fired Ghomeshi and the Toronto police asked women with complaints against him to come forward.

Three women accepted the invitation.  Their cases were heard by Justice William Horkins.

It was a legal and media gong show.

The law

Before we go into the decision, let’s review a few legal principles:

  • Anyone accused of a criminal offence is presumed innocent
  • The accused can be convicted only if the evidence displaces the presumption of innocence
  • The standard of proof in a criminal case is whether the allegations are proven beyond a reasonable doubt
  • A judge in a sexual assault case must ask himself two questions: did the complainant consent to the actions of the accused and if not, did the accused have a reasonable, but mistaken belief that the complainant consented
  • Lastly, any contact or communications between the complainant and the accused, specifically having sex or talking about sex, is not relevant to the issue of consent

The women   

LR met Ghomeshi in 2002 when she was a waiter at a CBC Christmas party.  She testified to two sexual assaults, one in his car and the other a week or so later in his house.  She said he yanked her hair hard and punched her in the head several times.  After each incident he calmed down but she decided not to see him again.

Judge Horkins focused on a number of inconsistencies in LR’s statements to the police, the media and in court.

He questioned whether the hair yanking came “out of the blue” or in the middle of a kiss, did Ghomeshi yank LD backwards towards the car seat or sideways toward the window, was she “thrown” or “pulled” to the floor in his house, if she didn’t want to continue the relationship why did she send Ghomeshi flirtatious emails and a photo of herself in a red string bikini 18 months after the incident, and most importantly why did LD remember the hair pulling incident as occurring in Ghomeshi’s yellow VW when he didn’t purchase the car until seven months later.

The second complainant, Lucy DeCourtere, is an actress.  She met Ghomeshi in 2003 at the Banff Film Festival and later visited him in Toronto.  She testified that he put his hands on her throat, forced her to the wall, choked her, slapped her and then became calm.  She decided not to see him again, but bumped into him at the Gemini awards dinner and the Banff Film Festival the following year.

Justice Horkins questioned DeCourtere’s credibility and reliability:  she was confused about which came first; the choking or the slapping, she failed to disclose she’d sent flowers to Ghomeshi after the incident to thank him for being a good host and that months later she sent him flirtatious emails about meeting up at the 2004 Banff Film Festival where she sang a karaoke version of Britney Spears’ Hit Me Baby One More Time and Ghomeshi joined her in a duet.

The third complainant, SD, is a dancer.  She met Ghomeshi when she was performing in the park.  She testified that he put his hands around her neck and squeezed so hard she had trouble breathing.

Justice Horkins focused on the inconsistencies in SD’s testimony: she was confused about whether Ghomeshi’s hands were open or closed around her neck or how many seconds they were wrapped around her neck, she said she went out with him a couple of times but only in public places because she was afraid to be alone with him but later admitted to giving him a hand job at his home.

Justice Horkins noted SD and DeCourtere shared 5000 emails.  He wondered whether they were consumed with animus and colluding to bring Ghomeshi down.

The decision

In the course of his decision Justice Horkins acknowledged a number of critical principles that are relevant in sexual assault cases…but didn’t appear to apply them.

He said it’s wrong to use “stereotypical models” to assess the behavior of abuse victims, but didn’t explain what model, if any, he used to determine that LR’s emails to Ghomeshi after the incident, particularly the red string bikini shot, were “at the very least, odd”.

He rejected DeCourtere’s explanation that her post-incident contact with Ghomeshi was an effort to “flatten the negative” or normalize the behavior but didn’t explain why.

He acknowledged that victims often can’t recall “the sequence of such a traumatic event from over a decade ago”, but this didn’t help DeCourtere’s credibility when she became confused about the sequence of choking, slapping and being pushed to the wall.

Justice Horkins said “each case must be assessed individually in light of its own unique set of circumstances”, then proceeded to assess all three women exactly the same way.  The most glaring example was his characterization of all three women as being in the arts and entertainment business.  They weren’t.  LR was a waiter.

He concluded the women were deceptive and manipulative and that their evidence did not displace the presumption of innocence and prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

Justice is not served

The legal test in a sexual assault case is whether the complainant consented to the actions of the accused and if not, whether the accused had a reasonable, but mistaken belief she had consented.

toronto-jian-ghomeshi

In a “he said, she said” case, the test for consent boils down to the credibility (honesty) and reliability (memory) of the complainant.

The accused is not forced to testify, hence his credibility and reliability are not tested under rigorous cross-examination.

Notwithstanding this hurdle, complainants are offered a modicum of protection from character assassination by the rape shield laws and the principle that contacts and communications between complainants and the accused that occur after the incident are not relevant

Justice Horkins appears to have forgotten this principle.

He devoted pages of his decision to a series of contacts and communications including the red string bikini photo sent 18 months after the incident, the karaoke duet that occurred a year after the incident and a string of emails sent by two of the complainants a decade after the incident.

Justice Horkins concluded the women “engaged in conduct…after the fact, which seems out of harmony with the assaultive behavior” they ascribed to Ghomeshi.

These lurid details are not only irrelevant but provided fodder to the media in a case Jeffrey Dvorkin described as a trifecta of celebrity, sexual violence and victimization.

I’m not saying Ghomeshi would have been convicted had Justice Horkins ignored these irrelevant facts—LD’s confusion over the yellow VW creates reasonable doubt as to the veracity of her recollection of the first assault—nevertheless given the high profile of this case and the fact that only .3% of the 460,000 sexual assaults result in a conviction LD, DeCourtere and SD, indeed all women, deserve better.

Note: the last bullet in the legal principles section has been amended to include “specifically having sex or talking about sex” to more accurately reflect the law.      

Sources: http://www.scribd.com/doc/305846901/Ghomeshi-ruling-full-text

http://ablawg.ca/2014/10/31/jiangho-unchained-a-discussion-of-the-narrative-and-commentary-surrounding-the-jian-ghomeshi-scandal/

http://ablawg.ca/2016/02/08/reflections-on-week-one-of-the-ghomeshi-trial/

Posted in Crime and Justice, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 44 Comments

Let’s Make Alberta Great Again: Elect Donald Trump!

Posted on March 20, 2016 by susanonthesoapbox

Donald Trump’s scary lead in the Republican nominee race led Ms Soapbox to wonder whether The Donald’s promise to Make America Great Again! with a mishmash of protectionist, racist ideas grafted to a fiscally conservative and socially conservative platform would play well in Alberta.

Legitimizing racism and bigotry 

Trump will build a wall to keep out Mexican rapists and drug dealers, ban Muslims from entering the country and deport 11 million undocumented people living in the US.

trump_flicker_face_yess

Donald Trump

Well, there’s Alberta Trump’s first hurdle—Albertans will not tolerate a racist, bigoted government.

This became crystal clear in the 2012 election when the homophobic “lake of fire” comments of a Wildrose candidate came to light.  It resurrected the Progressive Conservatives’ campaign.  The PCs trounced the Wildrose winning 61 of 87 seats.

Examples of social conservatism (like protests against gay-straight alliances) continue to pop up now and then but appear to be limited to Wildrose party supporters and small advocacy groups.

Alberta Trump could not play the social conservative card and win.

National security justifies everything

Trump condones the use of torture and killing the families of terrorists.

In the 2015 election Harper’s Conservatives took 29 out of 34 seats in Alberta.  Harper proposed a number of counter-terrorism measures.  Some violated the Charter but none rose to the abhorrent level advocated by Trump.

While some Albertans supported Harper’s proposals it is unlikely that the majority of Albertans would accept Trump’s inhumane actions even in the face of an actual terrorist threat.

Luckily for Alberta Trump, national security is a federal matter and he does not need to test this policy provincially.

Reducing income taxes and corporate taxes   

Ah, the sweet spot!

Wildrosers and Progressive Conservatives stridently reject the NDP government’s tax hikes.

They’d welcome Alberta Trump’s proposal to reduce taxes with open arms…until they looked at the numbers.

Alberta would have to raise taxes to meet Trump’s targets.  Trump is proposing a 15% corporate tax rate.  Alberta’s corporate rate is 12%.  Trump is proposing a 25% tax on the highest income earners.  Alberta’s maximum personal income tax rate is 15%.

Scratch that plank from Alberta Trump’s platform.

Fix the economy 

Trump says he’s the only candidate with the business experience to fix the economy.  He promises to renegotiate NAFTA (and presumably reject the TPP)* and to punish US corporations that off-shore their business operations.

This resonates with voters but Trump can’t do it alone.  He needs help from Congress and the Supreme Court.

Albertans would flock to Alberta Trump if he promised to fix the economy.

The fact that Alberta Trump could not force OPEC to stop flooding the market so that oil prices would rise to, say, $50 and could not force oil companies who are sitting on $8.5 billion in cash to rehire laid-off staff is irrelevant to people praying for a miracle.

Donald Trump announces his Candidacy for President

Donald Trump again (sorry)

Interestingly, Donald Trump offers a bold break from the free market model so dear to the Wildrose and Progressive Conservatives.  He’d be an interventionist president who’d impose tariffs on companies that fail to behave.

Alberta’s conservatives firmly reject the idea of government intervention in the market place.

They’re saying no to the $2 billion capital infusion to Alberta Treasury Branch, Alberta Enterprise Corp and AIMCo for business development; no to royalty changes that reward efficient energy companies, no to the climate leadership plan which makes Alberta energy more attractive to outsiders and no to carbon pricing which redirects funds to low income families and green development.

They’re convinced the only way to bring the boom back is to revert to the status quo—which is exactly how Alberta ended up in this economic mess in the first place.

The “outsider”

Trump boasts he’s not a member of The Club, the coterie of Wall Street investment bankers, corporate CEOs and powerful politicians who make the rules.

An outsider would be extremely attractive to Albertans who are all too familiar with The Club—the Progressive Conservative inner circle which took care of its own.

Examples include Jack Davis who expensed a $230 Ghandarva (?) massage for his partner while earning $1.2 million/year as the head of Calgary Health, an appointment he received after rotating through a number of deputy minister posts in the PC government.

Albertans elected many outsiders when they voted for the NDP in 2015, and while some voters truly preferred the NDP candidate others were casting an anti-PC vote.

The “outsider” card might work for Alberta Trump.

Blame

Albertans are frustrated and angry.

They’re looking for someone to blame for the worse economic downturn they’ve ever experienced.  Some blame the PCs who lacked the foresight to avoid this mess.  Others blame Canada for failing to get them out of it.  None blame the oil companies that expanded too fast and flooded the market when oil prices were high.

A Trump-like figure—without the racist overtones—could channel their frustration by blaming the NDP for failing to pull a rabbit out of a hat.

Alberta Trump would not be able to fix the economy but if the economy recovered under his watch he’d get credit for the return to prosperity…

…or if the gods are kind, Rachel Notley will be at the helm when oil prices pick up and the work she’s done to modernize royalties, diversify the economy and care for the less fortunate will come to fruition leaving Alberta Trump no choice but to slink back to the swamp of US politics where he belongs.

*Ms Soapbox welcomes any proposals to re-examine NAFTA and the TPP.  The ISDS clause that allows foreign corporations to sue Canada if laws change in a way that negatively impacts their bottom line violates national sovereignty.

Posted in Economy, Politics and Government, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 26 Comments

“Kudatah”: It’s not a joke

Posted on March 13, 2016 by susanonthesoapbox

Ms Soapbox is deeply troubled by last week’s failed Kudatah.

The Kudatah (or “coup d’etat” for those who know how to spell) was George Clark’s attempt to overthrow the NDP government.

George blames the NDP for the economic downturn. He wants the old guard back. It’s not clear whether he’s referring to the old-old guard, the Progressive Conservatives, or the new-old guard, the Wildrose.

img_3046

George Clark at the Kudatah

George wants a two tier welfare system that supports laid off oil workers but not bums “who never worked a day in their lives” and “recent immigrants who haven’t found work yet.”

He wants to eliminate the Temporary Foreign Worker program until all Albertans get their jobs back. Apparently he doesn’t know that the TFW program is a federal program outside of the NDP government’s jurisdiction.

It’s not clear how George would force OPEC to increase oil prices to a level high enough to convince oil companies to come out of their bunkers and start to reinvest in the oilsands.

George’s plan

These questions don’t concern George or his followers because George has a plan.

Plan A was to collect thousands of signatures on a petition and present it to Alberta’s lieutenant governor. The petition would ask for a plebiscite on the carbon tax and the farm safety bill which presumably would topple the government.  The plan failed.

George moved to Plan B—the Kudatah.

George would invoke a clause in the Elections Act and instantly throw the NDP out of power. Apparently the Progressive Conservatives and the Wildrose failed to notice this clause but George was so confident he’d found the silver bullet that he was going to “make the announcement at 12:15 [and] we will be back in control of the government by 12:30.”

On March 8, George and his supporters staged a Kudatah rally on the steps of the Legislature in support of Plan B. The plan failed.

George then moved to Plan C which may have been part of Plan A. He told his supporters to join the NDP party and change it from within (a reverse Kudatah?)

All along George said he was committed to the power of love—the Kudatah would depose the NDP government in a democratic, legal and non-violent fashion.

The Kudatah

George was wrong.

The NDP are still in power and the Kudatah turned into an angry demonstration with participants shouting homophobic slurs, waving posters emblazoned with swastikas and “Final Solution” slogans (in connection with killing the farm safety bill), making what looked like Nazi salutes and calling for someone to “kill the bitch Notley”.

George did nothing to bring his followers back from the brink.

So here’s the really troubling part—almost nobody called him on it.

Brian Jean, leader of the Wildrose, appears to be quietly supporting George. Ric McIver, the interim leader of the Progressive Conservatives, said George was doing a great job, then deleted the post because like his march with anti-gay pastor Artur Pawlowski, it might not sit well with the electorate.

mciver-jean

Ric McIver and Brian Jean

The main stream media is treating George as a joke, not worthy of real coverage. Journalists failed to fact check George’s claim to 160,000 signatures, they failed to confirm how many supporters actually showed up for the Kudatah and most importantly, they failed to write editorials denouncing the presence of of a confused mob waving swastika posters to oppose farm safety legislation and using homophobic rhetoric to decry an anti-bullying bill and lord knows what else on the Legislature steps.

The act of censuring George Clark and his followers fell to social media which did an admirable job.

Anger as a political motivator

George Clark tapped into the anger of Albertans who’ve been let down by the Progressive Conservative government’s mismanagement of their natural resources.  Albertans have a right to be angry. They’re in a deep economic hole.

In the Throne Speech (which was delivered on Kudatah day) the NDP government outlined a strategic plan to address this problem. It will increase access to energy markets, get serious about diversification and a greener economy and help Albertans impacted by the economic downturn.

George Clark is unconvinced. Like Donald Trump’s followers in the gong show south of the border, George prefers the conservative government that that threw him into this hole over the NDP government that’s trying to dig him out.

The real story

This isn’t about George Clark and the Kudatah. It’s about how George and his followers failed to recognize who abused them and turned their anger on others they perceive to be  more vulnerable.  And it’s about the politicians and media who let George and the Kudatah get away with it.

The Canadian Race Relations Foundation says there’s no single way to eliminate racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and hate;  but no effort is too small and discrimination, wherever it appears, must be challenged.

Shame on Alberta’s politicians who seized upon George and the Kudatah as a political opportunity.

Shame on the main stream media who dismissed the whole thing as a big joke.

And heaps of gratitude to the social media bloggers and tweeters who fought it with everything they had.

NOTE: Ms Soapbox received a few comments that will not be published because (1) they allege Ms Soapbox is harbouring hate or (2) they attempt to shame another commentator.  The Soapbox provides a forum for people to discuss the issues and agree or disagree as the case may be, but not to make personal attacks.  This is not the comments section of a newspaper.

Posted in Crime and Justice, Energy & Natural Resources, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , | 49 Comments

Justice Abella a.k.a. Rock Star

Posted on March 6, 2016 by susanonthesoapbox

Rosalie Silberman never wanted to be a judge.

But the phone kept ringing.

Would she like to be a Family Court judge? She was 29 and pregnant but sure, why not.  How about heading up the Royal Commission on Women’s Affirmative Action? Yes, but let’s expand the scope to include aboriginals, visible minorities and the disabled and create a definition of equality that will one day be endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Would she like to teach Advanced Jurisprudence at McGill? Sure…um, what’s jurisprudence? Would she sit on the Ontario Court of Appeal? Yeah, why not? How about joining the Supreme Court of Canada? You bet!

abella2brosalie2bsilberman2b1

Rosalie Silberman Abella

It’s been an incredible journey for a little Jewish girl born in a German Displaced Persons camp to parents who’d been sent to concentration camps and were reunited before finding their way to Canada.

Justice Abella (oh, let’s just call her Rosalie) rolled into Calgary like a rock star on the final leg of a world tour.

She was witty and entertaining, intelligent and thoughtful. She shared stories about her professional and personal life with such bubbly enthusiasm it was difficult to capture them all but here are some highlights:

The SCC “gig” (her word, not mine)

Rosalie is one of four women on at the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). She dryly assures anyone who worries that having four women and five men on the bench will damage the Court’s credibility that all of the men got there on merit.

She says the women add a sense of collegiality and teamwork which is vitally important given that every decision a judge writes is critiqued by the other eight judges before it’s ready for publication. She likens it to having eight husbands and trying to agree on where to go for dinner.

Charter challenges

Rosalie expects to see more Charter challenges on issues like freedom of religion, the right to privacy and the need for transparency in our institutions, noting that these cases like the Niqab case, will test the boundary between Canadians’ tolerance for differences and their desire to uphold core values.

The politicization of judges

In Rosalie’s view a judge’s political leanings are irrelevant;  it’s more important that he or she have an open mind.

This perspective is reflected in her decisions. In the Yukon Francophone School Board  case she said a judge’s prior conceptions and opinions must not close his/her mind to the evidence and the issues—“judges should be encouraged to experience, learn and understand “life” — their own and those whose lives reflect different realities.”

We hang out with people like ourselves. We need to look outside to see the “different realities” of others.

Activist judges

Rosalie notes that accusations of judicial activism are creeping back into legal discourse. She says it’s a silly term which simply means someone doesn’t like a judge’s decision. She says it’s only used to denigrate judges who expand rights, but never against judges who curtail them.

This led Ms Soapbox to reflect on Antonin Scalia, the US Supreme Court judge who was so wedded to the doctrine of originalism—the US Constitution must be interpreted as it was understood at the time of its adoption—that he could hardly abide the decisions which legalized abortion and homosexuality, both of which were criminal acts for over 200 years.

Rosalie says the real test of a Court’s judgment is:  was it the right decision for its time?  This would drive Antonin Scalia bonkers given his devotion to a Constitution frozen in time–a time when slavery was legal and women didn’t have the vote.

Access to justice

Rosalie posed a question: if justice is the application of the law to life but some are denied access, then what’s the point?

rosalie-silberman-abella

Justice Abella

She had harsh words for the legal profession which, she says, is unwilling to change because the system works for them. She asked where but in the legal profession is the phrase “But we’ve always done it this way” an acceptable rebuttal?

The burden of changing the profession falls squarely on the shoulders of “the grownups”, seasoned lawyers, not law schools, law students or new grads.

Advice

Rosalie has two sons. She gave them lots of advice but stayed clear of three topics: (1) what profession they should enter, (2) who they should marry and (3) when and if they should have children.

Both her sons went to law school. When the youngest complained that law school was boring, she agreed (does anyone really care whether the Egg Marketing Board is a federal or provincial enterprise?) but she wouldn’t let him quit because she believed a legal education would teach him a way to think and solve problems, expose him to great role models and as Rosalie put it, a legal education “sets your brain on fire”.

Brain on fire

Justice Rosalie Abella set our brains on fire.

She blew us kisses when she entered the hall. She regaled us with witty and thought provoking stories and personal anecdotes. She graciously accepted her “thank you” present—a Justice Abella 2016 Prairie Tour T-shirt—and modeled it to thunderous applause before leaving the stage.

The audience filed out of the hall knowing that the future is bright for law students who believe in themselves and seek out the job that’s right for them. Those of us with law degrees (“the grownups”) decided to shake off the inertia that’s swamped our idealism and see what we could do to revitalize the profession.

I’m betting Rosalie Abella never wanted to be a rock star, but she’s proven herself to be one in every sense of the word.

Posted in Education, Law, Lectures, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 26 Comments

Ezra Levant: Once a lawyer always a lawyer?

Posted on February 28, 2016 by susanonthesoapbox

Ms Soapbox is grateful to Ezra Levant (and that’s not an easy thing to say).

Thanks to Ezra she’s discovered that journalism is not a profession (actually she suspected it all along); she’s also learned that “once a lawyer always a lawyer” until the Law Society says otherwise.

Levant’s resignation

There may be 50 ways to leave your lover but there are only two ways to leave The Law—you get disbarred or you resign. Either way, whether you stay or go is not your decision, it depends on the Law Society.

Erza has been trying to leave the profession for eight years but people keep filing complaints against him so he can’t get a clear window of time in which his resignation request can be heard.

Poor Ezra.  This time complaints filed against him by the Alberta Human Rights Commission and two lawyers who used to work there are blocking his exit.

CALGARY-RALLY

Ezra Levant Lawyer/Political Commentator

Levant called the Human Rights Commission “crazy town” as in “you gotta get out your shovel and dig to get to the crazy that’s underneath the crazy.” He described a lawyer as a “bigot”, an “anti-immigrant racist”, and “a fan of racist revenge porn”.

The complaint alleges that Levant has been “publicly discourteous or disrespectful to a commissioner or tribunal chair” and his “public comments regarding [the Commission] were inappropriate and unbecoming.”

Ezra says he’s not going to resign while there’s a pending complaint against him. Actually he can’t resign in the face of a pending complaint because the Law Society won’t approve a resignation request unless an applicant has no outstanding conduct issues, or if there are outstanding conduct issues they aren’t bad enough to result in disbarment.

It says Levant will have to “address” his outstanding conduct issues with the three-person committee struck to consider his request. The committee will not make a determination of guilt or innocence, it will simply decide whether it’s in the public’s best interest to grant Levant’s request to resign.

In the past 15 years the Law Society considered fewer than 20 applications for resignation. The majority of these applications were made by lawyers facing outstanding conduct issues including incompetence, misleading other lawyers, lying to their clients and stealing trust funds.

These lawyers were allowed to resign after they admitted the facts alleged against them.

Levant argues that the Law Society doesn’t have the jurisdiction to consider these complaints, presumably because he was a non-practicing lawyer exercising his right of free speech and the freedom of the press when he made them.

He says he’ll either fight the complaint (which means a full blown disciplinary hearing not just a resignation hearing) and win and then retire (assuming he hasn’t triggered another complaint in the meantime) or the Law Society will drop the complaints (fat chance) and then he’ll retire.

One thing Levant is adamant about is that “There’s no way in hell I will ever apologize for my political journalism. I would literally go to jail before I retracted a political opinion and I’m not saying that to be dramatic.”

The Law Society’s Reach

Here’s where it gets interesting.

If the Law Society sticks to its position that it has jurisdiction and insists Ezra provide an admitted statement of facts and he refuses, it should deny his application. In so doing it will set a new precedent—that it does indeed have the power to discipline non-practicing lawyers for statements they’ve made in the non-legal arena.

It’s not much of a stretch to conclude that all non-practicing lawyers-turned-politicians would be open to Law Society censure for making egregious statements about their opponents and their policies and they won’t be able to shield such statements as political rhetoric.

wildrose

Brian Jean Lawyer/Politician

Alberta has more than its share of non-practicing lawyers who’ve entered politics.

And while snarky comments like Jim Prentice’s “math is hard” to Rachel Notley would not rise to the level of “conduct unbecoming”;  misleading or false statements like those made by Brian Jean about Bill 6 Farm Safety may be enough to land lawyer/politicians in front of the Law Society’s discipline committee.

And for that Ezra Levant I would be truly grateful.

Posted in Law, Politics and Government, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 20 Comments

Journalism Redefined

Posted on February 21, 2016 by susanonthesoapbox

It’s been a disturbing week.

Ezra Levant, who swore under oath that he was not a reporter, sued the NDP government for refusing to let him attend (and report, presumably) on government media events.  Established journalists fell all over themselves supporting Mr Levant’s position.

In the face of the media backlash the government appointed former Western Canadian bureau chief for The Canadian Press, Heather Boyd, to review the government’s media policy.

CALGARY-RALLY

Mr Levant

What’s not clear is what exactly Ms Boyd has been asked to consider: is it (a) is there a difference between a “reporter” and a “journalist” or (b) should journalism be regulated and if so by whom?

If it’s the former we already know the answer. It doesn’t matter if there’s a difference between a “reporter” and a “journalist” because anyone can be either. Journalism has no minimum educational requirements, no self-regulating group and (other than the law of libel) no regulations restricting what reporters and journalists can say.

If it’s the latter, Ms Boyd can expect flak from the freedom of the press contingent.

Oversight

Ms Soapbox is supportive of some form of oversight of journalism.

She’s acutely aware that the need for caution. Oversight cannot be used as an excuse to infringe the freedom of the press (although Harper demonstrated that you don’t need regulations to silence the press, you can just ignore them).

However as Will Dutton writing in The Guardian points out: “The precious freedom of speech of an individual is different from the freedom of speech of a media corporation with its capacity to manipulate the opinions of millions, which is why it must take place within the law and within a framework of accountability. Freedom is not only menaced by the state; it is also menaced by private media barons and their servants.”

Mr Dutton was reflecting on the hysteria leading up to the release of the findings of the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the newspaper industry in the wake of the Murdoch newspaper’s revelation that it routinely hacked the phones of politicians, celebrities, the Royal Family and murdered children.

The Leveson Inquiry called for the creation of an independent self-regulating body, rooted in legislation, to provide oversight to the press while also recognizing the government’s responsibility to uphold and protect the freedom of the press.

It’s a delicate balance and David Cameron’s government balked.

Postmedia

The question for Ms Boyd is whether greater oversight of the press is required in Alberta.

Alberta’s newspapers have not fallen as far down the sewer as the British tabloids…have they?

godfrey1

Postmedia CEO Mr Godfrey

Take a look at the Saturday edition of the Calgary Herald, page A6.  There you’ll find a full page ad depicting what appears to be a nude young man sporting a fashionable two day stubble. His brow is furrowed. The freehand caption covering three quarters of the page asks: “Does she care how big my debt is?”

Who is “she”? A girlfriend? A wife? Some greedy woman who spends his money?  Why is his debt her problem? What the heck is this ad about?

Ms Soapbox showed the ad to three young women and a young man. Their reactions varied from it’s suggestive (it’s easy to misread the word “debt” in that sentence) to it’s menacing (what’s he going to do to this woman who doesn’t care about his debt).

This was an ad for Mogo which brags that it provides #FinancesWithBenefits.

Mogo is a payday loan company.

Postmedia is $670 million in debt.  It just fired 90 journalists as part of an $80 million cost savings program…and it signed a deal with Mogo to provide $50 million in free advertising over the next three years in return for the right to buy 1.2 million Mogo shares at $2.96, that’s 10 cents more than they were trading at the day of the deal.

Andrew MacLeod, Postmedia’s chief commercial officer, described the deal as “exactly the type of innovation that can accelerate both companies’ business objectives — to amplify Mogo’s customer acquisition goals, brand awareness and new product promotion and Postmedia’s development of innovative monetization strategies.”

Translated into English Mr MacLeod said Postmedia is going into the payday loan business and hopes its considerable reach as a national newspaper will help Mogo get more customers so that Postmedia will make money on its $50 million investment.

What Mr MacLeod didn’t say was that Mogo and its predecessor companies have been the subject of numerous lawsuits including a BC class action that awarded the plaintiffs $3 million to cover fees they paid in excess of what’s allowed under the Criminal Code. The Court said the effective annual interest rate in that case was 57,747%, that’s fifty-seven thousand seven hundred forty seven percent.

Money managers tell people in need of short term cash to go to a pawnbroker instead of a payday loan outfit.

What’s happening to journalism?                                             

Professor Romayne Smith-Fullerton says journalism is more than a business, it’s a sacred trust and a cornerstone of democracy.

Unfortunately a number of journalists missed the memo.

They’ve called Mr Levant’s publication “a propaganda sheet” but still accept his argument for access to government media events. How can Mr Levant argue for freedom of the press if he’s not a member of “the press”?

They’ve turned a blind eye to the implications of the Postmedia/Mogo deal. How can Postmedia say it will be free from conflict of interest in reporting on payday loans while at the same time publishing free full page Mogo #FinancesWithBenefits” ads?

Sure, creating an oversight body is difficult, but given the events of this week, it’s time to try.

Sources:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ezra-levant-neil-macdonald-1.3452671

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/25/will-hutton-leveson-report-regulate-press

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/nov/29/leveson-report-key-points

http://www.news1130.com/2016/01/25/postmedia-strikes-new-type-of-promotional-deal-with-mogo-finance-technology/

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2006/2006bcsc1132/2006bcsc1132.html?resultIndex=4

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 41 Comments