Issue of release of documents on detainees could end up in Supreme Court.

It remains to be seen whether the parties can sort this issue out or if Milliken can give a ruling that will satisfy the opposition. In any event I expect that any Supreme Court ruling would be in favor or some restrictions on the release of documents in the name of National Security. That is a sacred cow which must be kept so that governments can always have a way of avoiding scrutiny or accountability. This is from the Star.

Struggle between Parliament and government could reach Supreme Court
April 21, 2010

Susan Delacourt

OTTAWA–Will the Supreme Court of Canada have to step in to sort out the power struggle between the House of Commons and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government?

It’s a solution that some parliamentary experts and observers believe is possible after Commons Speaker Peter Milliken issues his historic ruling on whether Parliament or the government have the right to control the documents in the Afghan detainee controversy.

“On this one, I think that’s something the government certainly could do,” said Ned Franks, professor emeritus at Queen’s University and one of the country’s leading parliamentary scholars.

Milliken is expected to announce as early as Thursday his verdict in a serious, five-month-old standoff between the Harper government and the opposition in the Commons, which forms a majority. Milliken’s ruling could have significant implications for how power is exercised in parliamentary democracies – not just in Canada, but beyond.

In December, the three opposition parties banded together and passed a parliamentary order, compelling the government to produce all documents related to Canada’s treatment of detainees captured by Canadian forces in Afghanistan. The order has the force of law, but the government has argued that other laws, protecting national security for instance, weigh against wholesale compliance with the parliamentary dictate.

In many ways, this is a sequel to another constitutional crisis – specifically, the standoff immediately after the 2008 election, when the opposition parties banded together in a coalition that threatened to unseat Harper’s government.

The Liberals and New Democrats put together a coalition-government proposal, with tacit agreement from the Bloc Quebecois. But the Conservative government, in a massive public-relations campaign, argued that the coalition was undemocratic and a sop to separatists.

Governor General Michaelle Jean granted Harper a request to prorogue Parliament, but reportedly made clear, in a two-hour discussion with the Prime Minister, that the government was being granted the stay of execution on condition that it co-operate better with the majority opposition in the Commons.

Now, a little more than a year later, Harper’s refusal to co-operate with this parliamentary order could be viewed as defiance of the Governor General’s instructions. In that case, if this dispute lands in front of Jean again, she may have no choice but to dissolve Parliament, recognizing that it has become dysfunctional.

The Supreme Court, however, could represent a compromise of sorts. If Milliken sides with the argument that Parliament prevails over government, the Justice Department may well draft a formal reference to the Supreme Court – in the form of a constitutional, not a political question — about which laws have precedence in the case of a dispute.

In other words, rather than going to the Governor General, and almost certainly an election, the problem would head to the Supreme Court, where everyone could buy some time.

It’s not unheard of – former prime minister Jean Chretien asked the Supreme Court to sort out the rules of secession in the late 1990s and the current, Conservative government is asking the Supreme Court to issue an opinion on whether the federal government has the authority to establish a national securities regulator. The provinces and Liberal senators have also been urging Harper to put his Senate-reform ideas to the Supreme Court.

Franks said this isn’t an ideal situation in the current standoff – in a perfect world, Parliament wouldn’t defer to the Supreme Court to sort out its own powers. Franks suspects and hopes that Milliken is able to issue a ruling that treads somewhere down the middle, allowing the government and the Commons to sit down and solve this standoff themselves.

“I would far rather see the two sides in Parliament sort this out than have it go to the Supreme Court,” Franks said.

Minister Verner takes issue with Oscar winner's view on Bill C 10

Perhaps the Conservatives should be copying Afghanistan's new ban on five soap operas. Surely they have no redeeming artistic value! Or maybe the Conservatives will create also a Ministry of Virtue and Vice as the Afghans have done.


THE BUZZ: BREAKING ENTERTAINMENT NEWS
Minister Verner takes issue with Oscar winner's view
TRALEE PEARCE
April 22, 2008
Toronto -- Acclaimed director Ang Lee has ruffled the feathers of Canada's Minister of Canadian Heritage, Josée Verner, by criticizing pending legislation affecting the film industry. If passed, Bill C-10 will deny tax credits to Canadian-made films and videos deemed offensive to the public.
During a talk with young Vancouver filmmakers on Saturday, Lee urged them to "make a noise, whatever" to stop Bill C-10. "It's almost like censorship."
Upon hearing of his comments, Verner issued a statement yesterday: "I'm surprised about the comments of Mr. Ang Lee, director of the world acclaimed movie Brokeback Mountain."
In addition to pointing out that Lee, as a non-Canadian, is exempt from being denied the particular tax credit included in the bill, Verner denied Lee's charges of censorship.
"Our government is determined to ensure freedom of expression and will continue to support the production of entertaining and high-quality content," the statement said. "We are reaching out to industry to work with them on Bill C-10. Together, we will find the best solution for the industry, for Canadian citizens and taxpayers."
That raises another issue for critics of the bill such as writer Susan Swan, the chair of the Writers' Union of Canada. She says the arts community has no intention of working out guidelines with the minister. Swan was in Ottawa last week to deliver this message to a senate committee.
"None of the delegates from the other arts organizations at the Senate banking committee last week expressed any interest in doing it," she said. "There are already guidelines in place for government funding of film. Why would we want to add another tier?"

Censorship by stealth..

No doubt some right wingers offended by some of the materials that get tax breaks will be happy with this move but as Toronto lawyer David Zitzerman of Goodmans LLP says the government's plans smack of "closet censorship", and as the Globe and Mail article notes the legislation could violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Toronto lawyer David Zitzerman of Goodmans LLP says the government's plans smack of "closet censorship."

"The proposed new initiative, if not properly crafted, could potentially violate the Charter [of Rights and Freedoms] and lead to possible legal challenges against the Minister of Canadian Heritage," Mr. Zitzerman said yesterday. "Such a provision could potentially lead to the government acting as 'morality police.' The existing definitions of pornography and obscenity in the Criminal Code should be sufficient for the government's purposes.

"Would this committee put money into Juno? It might not want to encourage teen pregnancy. Would the government put money into a film with a dirty title, like Young People Fucking? Would they invest in something like Brokeback Mountain? They might not want to encourage gay cowboys to have sex together in Alberta."

David Cronenberg an acclaimed director also lambasted the Harper goverment plan.
Of course Harper censorship is good clean censorship not bad dirty censorship of the type common in commie China! From the CBC.

David Cronenberg, the Canadian director behind the critically acclaimed Eastern Promises, said the proposed plan doesn't belong in Canada.

"It sounds like something they do in Beijing," he told CBC News.



"You have a panel of people working behind closed doors who are not monitored and they form their own layer of censorship."

Cronenberg says Canadians have a reputation for making edgy dark movies that go places other filmmakers wouldn't venture.

This new panel could quash that kind of creativity, he said.

Producer Steven Hoban is concerned that the provision will stop money from flowing into the Canadian film industry.

Filmmakers depend on the tax credit to help secure additional funding, said Hoban, who produced the film Young People F**ing, which is scheduled for commercial release in April.

"I think a movie like Young People F**ing would not have been made if Bill C-10 had been in effect when we were going for financing the film," he said.

"Just the optics you get with that kind of title, I think we wouldn't have gotten the tax credit and, again, if we didn't have that tax credit, it wouldn't have been possible to make that film here in Canada."

Plan amounts to morality policing