we have to stop gangs from becoming even stronger

Prohibition benefits Vancouver gangs

By Carlito Pablo

A retired judge has doubts about whether Premier Gordon Campbell’s response to the recent upsurge in gang-related shootings in the Lower Mainland will quell organized-crime-related violence in the long term.

Jerry Paradis, who was a provincial court judge for 28 years until he retired in 2003, said that putting more police officers on the ground won’t lessen the danger to ordinary citizens, who are at risk of getting caught in the crossfire.

“The police will be unaware of when the next explosion will happen,” Paradis told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview from his North Vancouver residence. “They don’t know about them [shootings] until they happen.”

Paradis is a board member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a Massachusetts-based group composed of current and former members of the police and justice communities who are critical of current drug policies around the world.

“I’m satisfied in my own mind that although organized crime is involved in other things at the moment, while this particular or several gang wars may be due to other things that I’m not aware of, I have no doubt in my mind that it’s [an] attempt to either get status or maintain status in the drug market and protect turf,” he said.

In Canada, drug laws are a federal matter. Judging by pronouncements from Campbell and Attorney General Wally Oppal, it seems the province will be seeking federal help with this problem, but only in terms of expanding legal provisions for wiretapping, and toughening laws for bail and criminal sentencing.

The experience of the United States with outlawing alcohol in the 1920s and early 1930s is instructive, according to Paradis. Criminal organizations proliferated and made huge amounts of money from the illegal-alcohol market. With this came gang rivalries and violence. When Prohibition ended in 1933, Paradis stressed, the widespread gang violence disappeared almost overnight.

According to Paradis, “The same thing happens here, and until we legalize and regulate drugs—all drugs, but at least we can start with marijuana; that’s the one that’s got the most demand and therefore needs the most supply, and therefore is the most lucrative to get involved with—until we do that, it’s just not going to get better, no matter how many cops we put on the street or how much money we throw at the problem.”

Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, which is chaired by RCMP Commissioner William Elliott, has noted that B.C.’s Lower Mainland, Southern Ontario, and the Greater Montreal region are the country’s organized-crime centres.

“The illicit drug market remains the largest criminal market in terms of extent, scope, and the degree of involvement by the majority of organized crime groups,” CISC stated in its 2008 annual report on organized crime.

The report also noted that marijuana “remains one of the most trafficked illicit drugs in Canada, with extensive organized crime involvement at all levels of production, distribution and exportation”.

A 2006 drug situation report by the RCMP estimated annual cannabis production in Canada at 1,399 to 3,498 tonnes and said it “continues to be predominant in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec”.

In 2002, the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs released a report noting that the criminalization of marijuana has seen the “power and wealth of organized crime enhanced as criminals benefit from prohibition; and governments see their ability to prevent at-risk use diminished”.

Paradis said that the value of drugs on the street is grossly out 
of proportion to the real cost of production. He noted that a single shot of cocaine should cost about $3.50, with a “reasonable” return to the producer. He said that, in fact, it’s sold on the black market for about 10 times that price.

“As soon as you decriminalize, it becomes something like alcohol, which the provinces are in charge of,” Paradis said. “I see no reason why it shouldn’t be exactly the same as the liquor stores. The only difference would be—and I think it should be this way with liquor as well—there would be no marketing, no advertising, no promotion, zero.

“We managed to price alcohol in such a way, in a variety of alcohols, that people who are addicted to alcohol but have little funds don’t steal to get what they want,” he added.

back when i was a princess....

more news about stephen harper and ex pm brian mulroney

Schreiber wins expanded role at Mulroney probe

Updated Thu. Feb. 12 2009 9:22 AM ET

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Karlheinz Schreiber will have a legal say not only on his business dealings with Brian Mulroney, but also on potential ethical reforms that could guide federal politicians in future.

Justice Jeffrey Oliphant, in a ruling made public Wednesday, granted Schreiber full standing to participate, through his lawyers, in wide-ranging policy deliberations to be held by a public inquiry.

Schreiber is "intimately involved in almost all, if not all, of the matters covered by the mandate of the commission," wrote the judge.

As such he is likely to be "substantially and directly affected" by any policy recommendations arising from the investigation. And although he may not have any professional expertise on ethical issues, "he does have a particular perspective that may assist me," said Oliphant.

That's especially true, he added, of matters related to the handling of correspondence by the Prime Minister's Office.

Schreiber has said he wrote to Stephen Harper last year outlining his complaints against Mulroney. Harper has said the letter was never passed on to him by federal officials.

The German-Canadian arms dealer already had legal standing for the fact-finding portion of the inquiry, meaning his lawyers can make submissions, cross-examine witnesses, propose witnesses of their own and otherwise fully participate in proceedings.

Schreiber applied last month for similar status in the broader policy deliberations - unlike Mulroney who has shown no interest in participating in that part of the inquiry.

In other rulings, Oliphant also granted standing for the policy review to the federal Justice Department and to Democracy Watch, a group that has long campaigned for improved ethics in government.

Duff Conacher, head of the group, welcomed the decision and said Democracy Watch can provide an independent voice that might otherwise have gone unheard.

"Every government since the (ethics) rules were created has ignored them or played around with weak enforcement measures," said Conacher.

"We want to make sure the commissioner knows all of the loopholes that exist that need to be closed."

Oliphant, appointed by Harper to get to the bottom of the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, is expected to hear his first witnesses in late March. A final report isn't due until the end of the year.

Mulroney has admitted he accepted $225,000 from Schreiber after he stepped down as Conservative prime minister in 1993 to promote the building of German-designed light-armoured vehicles in Canada.

He says he tried to line up support among foreign political leaders whose countries might buy the vehicles.

Schreiber says the deal was struck before Mulroney left office although the cash didn't change hands until later. He also claims the payments totalled $300,000 and that Mulroney was supposed to lobby the Canadian government, not foreign leaders.

Schreiber faces charges of tax evasion, fraud and bribery in Germany and has been fighting extradition for years. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson ruled last year he could stay in Canada long enough to participate in the inquiry.

it's interesting to see this get dropped so close to the court date? oh steven harper..

Harper dropped lawsuit ahead of key hearing

Updated Tue. Feb. 10 2009 7:19 AM ET

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Stephen Harper dropped his lawsuit against the Liberals in the Cadman affair just weeks before a hearing on whether his emails, notes and agenda could be called into evidence.

A court date was to be scheduled this month over the failure of the prime minister's legal team to provide documents and answers to questions that had been requested during a series of cross-examinations last summer.

The lawyer for the Liberal party was set to ask the court to rule whether Harper would have to provide emails and notes for meetings his staff held related to Chuck Cadman.

The matter involves allegations that the Conservatives offered a financial inducement to Cadman, an Independent MP, while trying to defeat the minority Liberal government in 2005. The Tories deny the charge.

The prime minister dropped his $3.5-million defamation lawsuit on Friday after reaching a deal with the Liberals.

Sources say the Liberal party is not obligated to pay any damages or apologize for claims on its website that Harper was aware Tory officials offered Cadman - who was dying - a $1-million insurance policy if he sided with them in a Commons budget vote.

Despite the refusal of either side to comment about their agreement to dismiss the case, records show a legal fight was brewing over the documents and other information Liberal lawyer Chris Paliare had requested.

Hearings were expected to begin this month over Harper's failure to have his lawyers respond to Paliare's request for documents and information from the prime minister's office.

In a series of cross-examinations last summer, Paliare requested copies of Harper's agenda for the day he was interviewed by B.C. journalist Tom Zytaruk, who reported the life-insurance allegations in a biography of Cadman.

Paliare had also asked for copies of Cadman's journals and diaries for the period of time during which the financial inducement allegedly took place.

Harper lawyer Richard Dearden abruptly quit last November, to be replaced by Toronto lawyer David Wingfield, after the initial stages of the Liberal efforts to obtain the documents and information began.

Dearden gave no explanation for his departure, and court notices of the lawyer swap do not indicate whether it was at Harper's wish or Dearden's.

During the examination of Harper last August, Dearden objected to Paliare's request for an email said to discuss a meeting between Cadman and two Conservatives the day of the confidence vote in 2005.

Other documents Paliare requested during his cross-examination of Harper included the notes of "all the people" who attended meetings in the prime minister's office in late February when the allegations were first reported.

Harper's lawsuit prevented the Liberals from exploiting the allegations during the federal election last fall.

Tom Conway, a prominent Ottawa lawyer who represented a former Tory member who sued Harper, said the looming court fight over access to emails and notes may have been behind Harper's decision to abandon the lawsuit.

"People drop lawsuits for all sorts of reason and sometimes they drop lawsuits because they are being asked to produce information they don't want to produce," said Conway, a member of the board of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The NDP is calling on both parties to disclose the terms of their deal.

"Now it just sort of disappears from the radar because of this closed-door agreement?" said Vancouver MP Bill Siksay. "I don't think that's acceptable."

our gov is pretty powerless to other influence.

Scaling wall over Canada's trade complaint against China

 Email story

 Print

   Choose text size

 Report typo or correction

 Email the author

 

Feb 09, 2009 04:30 AM

Comments on this story  (8)

MICHAEL GEIST 

Late last month, the World Trade Organization released a much-anticipated decision involving a U.S.-led complaint against China over its intellectual property laws. Canada was among a number of countries that participated in the case, which alleged that China's domestic laws, border measures and criminal penalties for intellectual property violations do not comply with its international treaty obligations.

On April 25, 2007, David Emerson, then the Minister of International Trade, issued a press release announcing Canada's participation, stating that it was "based on concerns expressed by Canadian stakeholders on a range of issues related to China's intellectual property rights regime."

Yet, according to dozens of internal Canadian government documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, Canadian officials, unable to amass credible evidence of harm to Canadian interests, harboured significant doubts about the wisdom of joining the case and ultimately did so only under the weight of great pressure from the United States.

The case centred on three claims:

• That Chinese law does not provide adequate legal protection to all works;
• That its border measures, which allow customs officials to donate confiscated items to the Red Cross, violate international trade law;
• That Chinese criminal enforcement does not live up to international standards by establishing a minimum threshold before authorities are able to prosecute cases of infringement.

Canada supported the U.S. position on all three issues.

The WTO panel confirmed the U.S. claims on legal protection for all works, but virtually all of the Chinese border measures were upheld as lawful. Moreover, the panel rejected claims regarding the criminal thresholds, admonishing the U.S. for failing to provide adequate evidence to demonstrate a violation of China's treaty obligations.

The panel's emphasis on the lack of evidence should resonate with Canadian officials, since documents indicate that the inability to gather solid evidence of Canadian harm in China hampered the case from its very inception.

Government records reveal that the U.S. began to pressure Canada to join the case as a full party in 2006, months before the case was formally filed with the WTO. In April 2006, officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs asked the Beijing and Shanghai consular offices for information on intellectual property infringement problems, but neither provided much assistance.

Two months later, with the case making little progress (in May, an RCMP official wondered aloud why Canada was even concerned with enforcement in other countries), Foreign Affairs launched a public consultation on intellectual property enforcement abroad. The consultation was not limited to China, as officials decided to keep it open-ended.

The consultation generated 55 responses, but officials, hoping to build a solid case against China, were left sorely disappointed. According to a government summary (the consultation results have never been disclosed to the public and were obtained under Access to Information), only one-third of the responses specifically referenced China as a problem. In fact, there were more responses that criticized the United States and the consultation itself.

By the end of the summer, the U.S. had provided Canadian officials with its legal arguments, but Canada was without the evidence it needed to demonstrate harm and thereby participate as a co-complainant in the case.

Indeed, on the key issue involving criminal enforcement thresholds, a Department of Justice official noted Justice and RCMP guidelines used similar thresholds for prosecutorial decisions, and that the Chinese could effectively make similar claims against Canada.

Given the weak position, Canadian officials could not support becoming a co-complainant, instead recommending that Canada join as a third party. Anticipating an October 2006 complaint, a press release was prepared but never issued after the U.S. decided to delay launching the case.

With no complaint in sight, the Canadian Recording Industry Association, which had been the most vocal supporter of Canadian participation, met with senior Foreign Affairs officials in January 2007. Documents prepared by department officials in advance of the meeting noted that CRIA's previous efforts to encourage participation had "lacked specifics."

The memo concluded that "we remain of the view that we do not have enough information related to specific Canadian experiences and interests to go forward as a co-complainant" and that "there is still no real concrete information, however, of Canadian interests that have been harmed in China."

Over the next few months, Canadian officials grappled with several concerns as a U.S. complaint appeared inevitable. For example, with plans for Canada to participate in the intellectual property case against China but not in a second case on market access, officials feared that the Canadian steel industry would voice its objections.

Further, as Canadian officials drafted a formal letter of notification of its participation, a Geneva-based official asked "do we have statistics to mention about intellectual property owned by Canadians sold in China or something like it to explain why we are interested?"

Without solid statistics, the formal notification did not reference the issue, instead merely stating Canada's "concern" with Chinese practices.

The U.S. commenced its action on April 9, 2007. Canada filed its notification as a third-party participant two weeks later and within hours, CRIA wrote to Foreign Affairs to offer its assistance on the case.

Nearly three years after Canada began exploring its potential participation, the case has led to a double loss for Canadian interests. Not only has the WTO panel rejected most of its key arguments, but Canada's politically motivated participation has undermined its relationship with China. 

oh stephen....you are a shady one! my prime minister....sigh

Why didn't Stephen Harper sue Chuck Cadman's biographer, Tom Zytaruk?

By Charlie Smith

I never thought that Stephen Harper’s lawsuit against the federal Liberals was anything but an attempt to get the media to stop reporting on the Conservative party’s conduct before a 2005 budget vote.

Yesterday’s news that the case has been dropped suggests that Harper really didn’t want to hear what a judge might say about his unproven allegation about Surrey reporter Tom Zytaruk.

The pro-Harper news media routinely portray the prime minister as a man of integrity.

This nasty business involving the taped interview got in the way of that storyline. In the same way, his failure to keep promises about his so-called accountability legislation reinforces Opposition claims that Harper can’t be trusted.

Here’s the story in a nutshell: Zytaruk, who wrote a biography of former MP Chuck Cadman, included an astonishing revelation from Cadman’s wife Dona.

She said that her husband, who died in 2005, told her he was offered a $1-million life insurance policy if he voted with the Conservatives against the 2005 budget.

Cadman voted with the Liberals, and said he wasn’t offered anything to do this.

Zytaruk also quoted Harper, then Opposition leader, saying he knew there were discussions.

After the book was released last year, the federal Liberals posted a statement on their Web site claiming that the Conservatives had offered a bribe to Cadman. Harper went ballistic (yes, the man has a temper) and sued.

His local henchman, Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam MP James Moore, led the attack on the Liberals and the veracity of the tape.

Harper also claimed that Zytaruk's tape was doctored. However, a court-ordered analysis suggested there was no tampering in the section in question.

Harper never sued Zytaruk. The prime minister only filed an action against the federal Liberals.

It would have been a shocking act of mendacity for Zytaruk to do something like this, considering that it could conceivably cost Harper his job as prime minister.

If Harper truly wanted to clear his name, why didn’t he include the Surrey reporter as a defendant?

Could it be because Zytaruk might have turned around and filed a counterclaim, which would elevate the risk of a judge nailing Harper for not telling the truth with his allegation of a doctored tape?

We’ll never know because this case has been dropped and Zytaruk was never named as a defendant.

Let’s hope the public doesn’t forget this the next time national columnists suggest with a straight face that Harper’s trump card is his integrity.

As with his failure to keep his promises with his accountability legislation, Harper also didn't demonstrate the most savoury character in this instance.

If he really wanted to clear his name, he would have sued Zytaruk. But instead of doing this, Harper only sued the federal Liberals.

Draw your own conclusions.

Miriam Makeba - The Click Song

i wish that this incredible lady was still alive.....