B
bizorky
Guest
That is an interpretation, so it would only be a subjective point of view that it is left wing. Hence my questioning of cuts made to this organization on the basis of it being "leftish."
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A
afransen TO
Guest
It's pretty clearly left wing. They don't advocate for right wing pet projects like anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-death penalty legislation.... This is why Harper would want to essentially kill it. The Law Commission will have to close up shop within a few months.
And it's strange for a modern industrial democracy like Canada to not have a body like the Law Association.
And it's strange for a modern industrial democracy like Canada to not have a body like the Law Association.
B
bizorky
Guest
It is not "left wing" except to those who want to view it that way. The Law Commission has made no declarations as such and has no allegiances to any political parties. It is an organization that attempts to explore ideas and recommend progressive changes to law that reflect contemporary Canadian society. Since Canada is an evolving nation, the view is that the laws should change in order to better reflect the nature of that society.
LAW COMMISSION OF CANADA RESPONDS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S DECISION TO ELIMINATE FUNDING
Ottawa, September 26, 2006. Yesterday, the President of the Law Commission of Canada, Yves Le Bouthillier, was informed by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Honourable Vic Toews, of the government’s decision to eliminate the funding of the Law Commission. "It was my duty to relay this information to the ten staff members as well as the four commissioners", remarked the President. In the days to come, the Law Commission will communicate the news to the members of its Advisory Council, composed of twenty-one Canadians who represent the rich diversity of this country as well as its numerous partners that have contributed both financial and intellectual resources to the Commission’s work.
"Today," the President of the Commission said: "It is incumbent upon me to recognize the contribution to law reform in Canada by both current and former staff, advisory council members and commissioners. I want to acknowledge in particular the important role played by my two predecessors, Roderick A. Macdonald and Nathalie Des Rosiers. I am convinced that they would agree that the quality and calibre of the Law Commission’s work was achieved through the interest and support of countless Canadians who participated in the consultations." He also stated that "the Law Commission is very proud of its record of accomplishments, since its inception. Despite a budget that has remained the same since its creation in 1997, the Law Commission has been able to successfully complete significant work on societal issues in which law plays a key role." The Law Commission obtained additional financial resources through various partnerships such as the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Federation for Humanities and Social Sciences and the Community Foundations of Canada.
During the last nine years, the Law Commission has tabled a number of reports in Parliament, each containing a series of recommendations for law reform:
In 2000, in response to a request from the Department of Justice, the Law Commission tabled a report aptly titled Restoring Dignity: Responding to Child Abuse in Canadian Institutions;
In 2002, Beyond Conjugality: Recognizing and supporting close personal adult relationships, recommended that Parliament re-examine the personal relationships between adults, extend rights and obligations beyond conjugal relationships, and remove restrictions on same sex marriage;
In 2003, Transforming Relationships Through Participatory Justice, has since inspired a provincial bar to adopt the Law Commission’s model as a plan of action;
In 2004, the Law Commission tabled its report Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada, recommending mixed member proportionality. At the same time, it was completing two other reports, Leveraging Knowledge Assets, dealing with security interests in intellectual property, and Modernizing Canada’s Secured Transactions Law: The Bank Act Security Provisions, which deals with reforms to the Bank Act;
In July 2006, the Law Commission’s latest report, In Search of Security: The Future of Policing in Canada, proposes a strategy to better understand and deal with the complex relationships between public police and private security.
Until yesterday’s announcement, the Law Commission was pursuing its research program, nurturing partnerships with a host of entities and carrying out consultations on the following topics:
Globalization examines new tools of governance to enhance democracy, transparency and accountability given the increasing impact on Canadian law of norms adopted in international fora;
What is a Crime?reflects upon the definition of and response to crime and unwanted behaviour;
Indigenous Legal Traditions explores a framework for creating space and recognition of indigenous legal traditions;
Is Work Working? evaluates the various policy and regulatory options available to ensure adequate and appropriate support for the promotion of economic security of those engaged in work in the broad sense of the term;
Does Age Matter? looks at a possible framework to verify if age is the best criterion to provide benefits or impose restrictions in law;
Financing on Reserves address the issue of equitable access to financial resources for those living on First Nations reserves.
True to its unique multidisciplinary approach to law reform, the Law Commission of Canada has pursued its research on these topics, while maintaining its independence and transparency and consulting with experts and Canadians from all walks of life. These are the characteristics that set law reform agencies apart from other mechanisms. The ability of law reform bodies to examine both the legal and social implications of reform, to take a long-term view, to openly consult with the public and to bring politically-difficult topics into the open for debate are reasons often given for the establishment of such agencies.
Following the federal government’s decision to eliminate funding of the Law Commission of Canada, the President summed up the situation as follows: "Two days ago, I believed the Law Commission could, as it had done for the past nine years, contribute to these issues in a significant manner. Today, the Commission is not in a position to comment on how the work already undertaken will be pursued. The only certainty is that in a not too distant future, it will be in the interest of all Canadians to find new ways to address these important issues."
- 30 -
For further information:
Lorraine Pelot
Acting Executive Director
(613) 946-8975
lpelot@lcc.gc.ca
LAW COMMISSION OF CANADA RESPONDS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S DECISION TO ELIMINATE FUNDING
Ottawa, September 26, 2006. Yesterday, the President of the Law Commission of Canada, Yves Le Bouthillier, was informed by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Honourable Vic Toews, of the government’s decision to eliminate the funding of the Law Commission. "It was my duty to relay this information to the ten staff members as well as the four commissioners", remarked the President. In the days to come, the Law Commission will communicate the news to the members of its Advisory Council, composed of twenty-one Canadians who represent the rich diversity of this country as well as its numerous partners that have contributed both financial and intellectual resources to the Commission’s work.
"Today," the President of the Commission said: "It is incumbent upon me to recognize the contribution to law reform in Canada by both current and former staff, advisory council members and commissioners. I want to acknowledge in particular the important role played by my two predecessors, Roderick A. Macdonald and Nathalie Des Rosiers. I am convinced that they would agree that the quality and calibre of the Law Commission’s work was achieved through the interest and support of countless Canadians who participated in the consultations." He also stated that "the Law Commission is very proud of its record of accomplishments, since its inception. Despite a budget that has remained the same since its creation in 1997, the Law Commission has been able to successfully complete significant work on societal issues in which law plays a key role." The Law Commission obtained additional financial resources through various partnerships such as the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Federation for Humanities and Social Sciences and the Community Foundations of Canada.
During the last nine years, the Law Commission has tabled a number of reports in Parliament, each containing a series of recommendations for law reform:
In 2000, in response to a request from the Department of Justice, the Law Commission tabled a report aptly titled Restoring Dignity: Responding to Child Abuse in Canadian Institutions;
In 2002, Beyond Conjugality: Recognizing and supporting close personal adult relationships, recommended that Parliament re-examine the personal relationships between adults, extend rights and obligations beyond conjugal relationships, and remove restrictions on same sex marriage;
In 2003, Transforming Relationships Through Participatory Justice, has since inspired a provincial bar to adopt the Law Commission’s model as a plan of action;
In 2004, the Law Commission tabled its report Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada, recommending mixed member proportionality. At the same time, it was completing two other reports, Leveraging Knowledge Assets, dealing with security interests in intellectual property, and Modernizing Canada’s Secured Transactions Law: The Bank Act Security Provisions, which deals with reforms to the Bank Act;
In July 2006, the Law Commission’s latest report, In Search of Security: The Future of Policing in Canada, proposes a strategy to better understand and deal with the complex relationships between public police and private security.
Until yesterday’s announcement, the Law Commission was pursuing its research program, nurturing partnerships with a host of entities and carrying out consultations on the following topics:
Globalization examines new tools of governance to enhance democracy, transparency and accountability given the increasing impact on Canadian law of norms adopted in international fora;
What is a Crime?reflects upon the definition of and response to crime and unwanted behaviour;
Indigenous Legal Traditions explores a framework for creating space and recognition of indigenous legal traditions;
Is Work Working? evaluates the various policy and regulatory options available to ensure adequate and appropriate support for the promotion of economic security of those engaged in work in the broad sense of the term;
Does Age Matter? looks at a possible framework to verify if age is the best criterion to provide benefits or impose restrictions in law;
Financing on Reserves address the issue of equitable access to financial resources for those living on First Nations reserves.
True to its unique multidisciplinary approach to law reform, the Law Commission of Canada has pursued its research on these topics, while maintaining its independence and transparency and consulting with experts and Canadians from all walks of life. These are the characteristics that set law reform agencies apart from other mechanisms. The ability of law reform bodies to examine both the legal and social implications of reform, to take a long-term view, to openly consult with the public and to bring politically-difficult topics into the open for debate are reasons often given for the establishment of such agencies.
Following the federal government’s decision to eliminate funding of the Law Commission of Canada, the President summed up the situation as follows: "Two days ago, I believed the Law Commission could, as it had done for the past nine years, contribute to these issues in a significant manner. Today, the Commission is not in a position to comment on how the work already undertaken will be pursued. The only certainty is that in a not too distant future, it will be in the interest of all Canadians to find new ways to address these important issues."
- 30 -
For further information:
Lorraine Pelot
Acting Executive Director
(613) 946-8975
lpelot@lcc.gc.ca
C
cacruden
Guest
Dam, the lawyers lost a source of funding for pet projects :rollin
But seriously, this was a good idea when the consitution was new to Canada, but it has been 25 years. Most of the most important interpretations of the constitution have already been decided.
Now it is time for private people/organizations to step up if they really believe in something. Law firms take cases pro-bono (sp?) do they not.... Organizations in the US take the government on everyday for "the little folk" (NAACP, Civil Liberties Union, etc.).
But seriously, this was a good idea when the consitution was new to Canada, but it has been 25 years. Most of the most important interpretations of the constitution have already been decided.
Now it is time for private people/organizations to step up if they really believe in something. Law firms take cases pro-bono (sp?) do they not.... Organizations in the US take the government on everyday for "the little folk" (NAACP, Civil Liberties Union, etc.).
C
cacruden
Guest
As far as medical marijuana research -- that is **s backwards. It is funding of a cure looking for a disease. Funding for medical research is usually done to find a cure. If you do it the other way around - you bias the results -- since you want "THIS" to be the answer. Marijuana does have medical applications, and there is no reason to exclude it from any medical research -- but this was bad policy.
S
spmarshall
Guest
Most of the most important interpretations of the constitution have already been decided.
Not true. The standards that the constitution is applied to continues to evolve and change, even if the wording may not change. It is still up for interpretation all the tim (even in the US, where apart from the 20-something amendments, the wording remains the same as it did for 225 years, though the Republicans have been pushing to stop modern interpretations of the constitution). This merely a regressive, ideological move.
C
cdl42
Guest
A slightly less `Just Society'
Oct. 2, 2006. 01:00 AM
TheStar.com
CAROL GOAR
Recognizing that it was bigger, richer and stronger than anyone whose rights it might contravene, the government of Canada did a remarkable thing in 1978. It created the Court Challenges Program.
This allowed citizens to fight discriminatory treatment in the courts. It provided funding so they could hire a lawyer and present their case effectively. It gave Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which came along four years later, real teeth.
Human rights activists around the world praised Canada for its enlightened approach. Constitutional scholars applauded the government for offering disadvantaged minorities the opportunity to use the Charter. Women, individuals with disabilities, gays and lesbians, and people of colour felt they had a role in shaping the nation's values.
Naturally, there were naysayers. They regarded the program as a left-wing conspiracy, a waste of tax dollars and a sop to aggrieved interest groups.
But the new program took root and blossomed.
The naysayers are now in power. Last week, the government of Stephen Harper killed the Court Challenges Program.
It was one of the 63 spending cuts announced by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Treasury Board President John Baird.
The elimination of the groundbreaking program — axed once before by Brian Mulroney but reinstated by Jean Chrétien — won't make a significant difference to the government's bottom line. At a cost of $2.75 million a year, it represented approximately seven minutes' worth of federal spending.
But it will change the power balance in Ottawa.
Individuals or groups seeking to challenge legislation they consider unconstitutional — from the paternalistic Indian Act to restrictive security policies — will find it harder to mount a court case. There will be fewer equality judgments coming out of the Supreme Court. The majority view will prevail more often and more easily over the needs of vulnerable minorities. The so-called "Charter Era," in which fundamental rights were exercised, debated and defined, will fade into history.
David Baker, who specializes in disability law, was heartsick when he heard the news. He has used the Court Challenges Program to win sign language interpretation for deaf clients, to require VIA Rail to make its trains wheelchair accessible and to ensure that caregivers get fair pensions.
"I have a huge concern that these kinds of cases won't go forward now," he said.
Even if lawyers were willing to argue equality cases pro bono, he said, they'd still have to come up with tens of thousands of dollars to bring in expert witnesses and get technical documents. "That's asking more than a firm like mine could handle."
To Lorne Sossin, associate dean of law at the University of Toronto, the loss of the Court Challenges Program represents a weakening of one of the cornerstones of Canadian democracy.
"The courts were a place where people who might be excluded or left behind had a venue to be heard," he said. "Now, your seat at the table will be defined by your market power."
Sossin would have welcomed a public debate on the effectiveness of the 28-year-old program. But the government axed it without a word.
The setback came at a dispiriting time for human rights advocates.
In Ontario, low-income groups, people with disabilities and representatives of racial minorities are battling a government plan to strip the province's human rights commission of its power to investigate complaints and act as an advocate for citizens seeking justice.
The British Columbia government has already abolished its human rights commission, leaving residents to argue their case before a provincial tribunal.
The courts at all levels have become too expensive for many citizens. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin warned, at this summer's meeting of the Canadian Bar Association, "our justice system is becoming less and less accessible to more and more Canadians. We cannot, I believe, allow this to continue."
And the Harper government is systematically excising programs designed to boost those with limited economic and political bargaining power. It has cancelled a five-year agreement between aboriginal leaders and first ministers to deliver help and hope to Canada's indigenous peoples. It has chopped funding for early learning and adult literacy. It is paring women's programs, youth employment initiatives and support for volunteerism.
The government's explanation: They weren't providing "good value for money."
That depends, of course, on what a nation values.
Canada once aspired to be a Just Society. Now, judging by the actions of its political leaders, it seeks to be a land where the strong, privileged and lucky get ahead.
Carol Goar's column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
Oct. 2, 2006. 01:00 AM
TheStar.com
CAROL GOAR
Recognizing that it was bigger, richer and stronger than anyone whose rights it might contravene, the government of Canada did a remarkable thing in 1978. It created the Court Challenges Program.
This allowed citizens to fight discriminatory treatment in the courts. It provided funding so they could hire a lawyer and present their case effectively. It gave Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which came along four years later, real teeth.
Human rights activists around the world praised Canada for its enlightened approach. Constitutional scholars applauded the government for offering disadvantaged minorities the opportunity to use the Charter. Women, individuals with disabilities, gays and lesbians, and people of colour felt they had a role in shaping the nation's values.
Naturally, there were naysayers. They regarded the program as a left-wing conspiracy, a waste of tax dollars and a sop to aggrieved interest groups.
But the new program took root and blossomed.
The naysayers are now in power. Last week, the government of Stephen Harper killed the Court Challenges Program.
It was one of the 63 spending cuts announced by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Treasury Board President John Baird.
The elimination of the groundbreaking program — axed once before by Brian Mulroney but reinstated by Jean Chrétien — won't make a significant difference to the government's bottom line. At a cost of $2.75 million a year, it represented approximately seven minutes' worth of federal spending.
But it will change the power balance in Ottawa.
Individuals or groups seeking to challenge legislation they consider unconstitutional — from the paternalistic Indian Act to restrictive security policies — will find it harder to mount a court case. There will be fewer equality judgments coming out of the Supreme Court. The majority view will prevail more often and more easily over the needs of vulnerable minorities. The so-called "Charter Era," in which fundamental rights were exercised, debated and defined, will fade into history.
David Baker, who specializes in disability law, was heartsick when he heard the news. He has used the Court Challenges Program to win sign language interpretation for deaf clients, to require VIA Rail to make its trains wheelchair accessible and to ensure that caregivers get fair pensions.
"I have a huge concern that these kinds of cases won't go forward now," he said.
Even if lawyers were willing to argue equality cases pro bono, he said, they'd still have to come up with tens of thousands of dollars to bring in expert witnesses and get technical documents. "That's asking more than a firm like mine could handle."
To Lorne Sossin, associate dean of law at the University of Toronto, the loss of the Court Challenges Program represents a weakening of one of the cornerstones of Canadian democracy.
"The courts were a place where people who might be excluded or left behind had a venue to be heard," he said. "Now, your seat at the table will be defined by your market power."
Sossin would have welcomed a public debate on the effectiveness of the 28-year-old program. But the government axed it without a word.
The setback came at a dispiriting time for human rights advocates.
In Ontario, low-income groups, people with disabilities and representatives of racial minorities are battling a government plan to strip the province's human rights commission of its power to investigate complaints and act as an advocate for citizens seeking justice.
The British Columbia government has already abolished its human rights commission, leaving residents to argue their case before a provincial tribunal.
The courts at all levels have become too expensive for many citizens. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin warned, at this summer's meeting of the Canadian Bar Association, "our justice system is becoming less and less accessible to more and more Canadians. We cannot, I believe, allow this to continue."
And the Harper government is systematically excising programs designed to boost those with limited economic and political bargaining power. It has cancelled a five-year agreement between aboriginal leaders and first ministers to deliver help and hope to Canada's indigenous peoples. It has chopped funding for early learning and adult literacy. It is paring women's programs, youth employment initiatives and support for volunteerism.
The government's explanation: They weren't providing "good value for money."
That depends, of course, on what a nation values.
Canada once aspired to be a Just Society. Now, judging by the actions of its political leaders, it seeks to be a land where the strong, privileged and lucky get ahead.
Carol Goar's column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
S
sdoody
Guest
But seriously, this was a good idea when the consitution was new to Canada, but it has been 25 years. Most of the most important interpretations of the constitution have already been decided.
The Law Commission's job isn't necessarily (or even mainly) about interpreting the constitution, it's about interpreting every Canadian law to see whether it actually works the way it should. Law commissions fulfill a vital role in modern legal systems; for one thing by making recommendations to Parliament about how laws should be changed they avoid the necessity of leaving this in the hands of judges, something I'm surprised you would dislike.
C
cacruden
Guest
Law commissions fulfill a vital role in modern legal systems; for one thing by making recommendations to Parliament about how laws should be changed they avoid the necessity of leaving this in the hands of judges, something I'm surprised you would dislike.
Actually, I like judges .... as long as they do not become "activist judges" (left, right, or some other agenda). We have too sets of laws, the constitution (rights) which cannot be contravened by parliament -- without a constitutional change (with the exception of the not withstanding clause), and laws that are made by the parliament of the day. The Supreme Court of Canada has been given the duty to invalidate laws that contravene the constitution. That is their job. If you don't like the constitution as written there is an amending formula -- it is not easy -- but it was not meant to be easy. The only thing I dislike is when judges overstep their authority and rule that a law contravenes the constitution -- when it is not written law (this has to be used conservatively since writing laws is the job of the parliament).
BTW, I believe that the Supreme court was absolutely within it's right to strike down the marriage law. The constitutional equality rights section uses "particularly" in conjunction with a list of absolute equality rights - which leaves it open to being extended.
Individuals/Organizations have the right to challenge any law that they think contravenes the constitution. That is their right.
B
bizorky
Guest
Sadly, here is one project being killed in this round of cuts. Unfortunately it is an example of the worst of what can happen when good intentions collide with bad management, hesitation and impatience. Nine million down the tubes courtesy of a government that had no interest in this, cost over-runs courtesy of a government that could not decide, and bad management due to a belief that taxes provide an endless source of money - no matter what the cost.
Tories pull plug on portrait gallery
Government looking at other uses for former U.S. embassy
Tim Naumetz, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Monday, October 02, 2006
The Conservative government, without confirming a decision publicly, is scrubbing plans for a national portrait gallery at the site of the former U.S. embassy on Wellington Street in front of Parliament Hill and is considering other uses for the heritage building.
A senior Conservative confirmed the plan is dead following the publication last week of spending estimates in two departments that showed no further money designated for the gallery after this year.
But contract documents obtained through the Access to Information Act show the ill-fated project has already taken a sharp bite out of taxpayers' pockets because of unexpected delays, contract amendments and design changes under the former Liberal government.
The cost of three major contracts for the gallery mushroomed by more than 50 per cent to $5.7 million because of nearly three dozen amendments for additional work -- including a $30,000 study to project snowfall accumulation on nearby sidewalks and buildings -- after the project began in early 2003.
When former Canadian Heritage minister Sheila Copps announced the gallery project in January 2001, the estimated price tag was $22 million. By the time then-heritage minister Liza Frulla unveiled the design in March 2005, following an earlier suspension of work under the Liberal government of Paul Martin, the expected cost had grown to $44.6 million.
By last April, with the only visible work completed outside the building being a decorative wooden hoarding along the sidewalk that cost $30,000, the government had spent a total of $9 million on architectural plans, mockups, mortar inspection, interior demolition and portrait gallery staff in a new Library and Archives Canada bureau.
Though a Canadian Heritage Department official insisted last week "there has been no decision," a top Conservative insider told the Citizen "there will be no gallery" in the former embassy and historic portraits may instead be shown in cities across the country.
A Public Works Department spokes-man insisted a total of 34 amendments resulting in a $2-million increase in the original stated costs for the three contracts -- architectural design, construction management and interior demolition --are a normal part of government construction projects.
Pierre Manoni said each of the contracts was originally awarded through a "competitive process," but he also said the eventual costs were within the budget previously approved by Treasury Board.
"It is wrong to say that contract amendments equate to cost increases," Mr. Manoni said in an e-mail response to written questions. "Let's be clear, contract amendments allow us to more effectively manage unforeseen developments and to exercise appropriate financial oversight."
The largest contract, for architectural design, was awarded to a joint venture of Jeremy Dixon/Edward Jones/Teeple Architects Inc. and Cole & Associates Architects Inc. of Toronto on Feb. 25, 2003. The "total estimated cost" was specified in a letter of acceptance as $2,038,505, including GST.
Nineteen amendments and more than three years later, the cost of the contract by last week totalled $3,199,450, including GST, according to the e-mail letter from Mr. Manoni. The letter had two amendments that were in addition to 17 listed in documents obtained earlier through the department's Access to Information branch.
A contract for construction management was awarded to Paul Daoust Construction Canada Ltd. of Ottawa on April 8, 2003, with the "total estimated cost" specified as $1,047,316, including GST. By last April, the cost for that contract had grown to $1,746,780.89 through 15 amendments.
A contract originally valued at $715,710 was awarded to Bascelli Construction Inc. of Ottawa for interior demolition cost $806,806 because of "unforeseen site conditions." The contract included asbestos removal.
Amendments to the architectural contract included sub-contracts for studies, additional travel and meal allowances, a feasibility study for a sprinkler system suited for a gallery with priceless works of art, and a May 2004, amendment that added $390,000 worth of new services. That was followed by 12 further amendments, including a $24,000 study to address concerns the Library of Parliament had over a loss of natural sunlight in its building directly behind the proposed gallery.
Prior to that, a $29,532 amendment allowed for a "snow deposition and wind study" to determine how construction of an annex beside the embassy would affect the elements.
Construction management costs included money for interior mockups requested by the architects, masonry inspection and additional work because of design changes.
Mr. Manoni said the contractors were also compensated for delays caused by the Martin government's review of the project.
The head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said he was shocked by the cost increases. "It leaves the taxpayer's head spinning," said John Williamson.
The government is considering the site for a possible RCMP centre near Parliament Hill or new offices for the Privy Council, but opposition MPs say the building should either be converted to more space for parliamentarians or become a public venue.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2006
Tories pull plug on portrait gallery
Government looking at other uses for former U.S. embassy
Tim Naumetz, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Monday, October 02, 2006
The Conservative government, without confirming a decision publicly, is scrubbing plans for a national portrait gallery at the site of the former U.S. embassy on Wellington Street in front of Parliament Hill and is considering other uses for the heritage building.
A senior Conservative confirmed the plan is dead following the publication last week of spending estimates in two departments that showed no further money designated for the gallery after this year.
But contract documents obtained through the Access to Information Act show the ill-fated project has already taken a sharp bite out of taxpayers' pockets because of unexpected delays, contract amendments and design changes under the former Liberal government.
The cost of three major contracts for the gallery mushroomed by more than 50 per cent to $5.7 million because of nearly three dozen amendments for additional work -- including a $30,000 study to project snowfall accumulation on nearby sidewalks and buildings -- after the project began in early 2003.
When former Canadian Heritage minister Sheila Copps announced the gallery project in January 2001, the estimated price tag was $22 million. By the time then-heritage minister Liza Frulla unveiled the design in March 2005, following an earlier suspension of work under the Liberal government of Paul Martin, the expected cost had grown to $44.6 million.
By last April, with the only visible work completed outside the building being a decorative wooden hoarding along the sidewalk that cost $30,000, the government had spent a total of $9 million on architectural plans, mockups, mortar inspection, interior demolition and portrait gallery staff in a new Library and Archives Canada bureau.
Though a Canadian Heritage Department official insisted last week "there has been no decision," a top Conservative insider told the Citizen "there will be no gallery" in the former embassy and historic portraits may instead be shown in cities across the country.
A Public Works Department spokes-man insisted a total of 34 amendments resulting in a $2-million increase in the original stated costs for the three contracts -- architectural design, construction management and interior demolition --are a normal part of government construction projects.
Pierre Manoni said each of the contracts was originally awarded through a "competitive process," but he also said the eventual costs were within the budget previously approved by Treasury Board.
"It is wrong to say that contract amendments equate to cost increases," Mr. Manoni said in an e-mail response to written questions. "Let's be clear, contract amendments allow us to more effectively manage unforeseen developments and to exercise appropriate financial oversight."
The largest contract, for architectural design, was awarded to a joint venture of Jeremy Dixon/Edward Jones/Teeple Architects Inc. and Cole & Associates Architects Inc. of Toronto on Feb. 25, 2003. The "total estimated cost" was specified in a letter of acceptance as $2,038,505, including GST.
Nineteen amendments and more than three years later, the cost of the contract by last week totalled $3,199,450, including GST, according to the e-mail letter from Mr. Manoni. The letter had two amendments that were in addition to 17 listed in documents obtained earlier through the department's Access to Information branch.
A contract for construction management was awarded to Paul Daoust Construction Canada Ltd. of Ottawa on April 8, 2003, with the "total estimated cost" specified as $1,047,316, including GST. By last April, the cost for that contract had grown to $1,746,780.89 through 15 amendments.
A contract originally valued at $715,710 was awarded to Bascelli Construction Inc. of Ottawa for interior demolition cost $806,806 because of "unforeseen site conditions." The contract included asbestos removal.
Amendments to the architectural contract included sub-contracts for studies, additional travel and meal allowances, a feasibility study for a sprinkler system suited for a gallery with priceless works of art, and a May 2004, amendment that added $390,000 worth of new services. That was followed by 12 further amendments, including a $24,000 study to address concerns the Library of Parliament had over a loss of natural sunlight in its building directly behind the proposed gallery.
Prior to that, a $29,532 amendment allowed for a "snow deposition and wind study" to determine how construction of an annex beside the embassy would affect the elements.
Construction management costs included money for interior mockups requested by the architects, masonry inspection and additional work because of design changes.
Mr. Manoni said the contractors were also compensated for delays caused by the Martin government's review of the project.
The head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said he was shocked by the cost increases. "It leaves the taxpayer's head spinning," said John Williamson.
The government is considering the site for a possible RCMP centre near Parliament Hill or new offices for the Privy Council, but opposition MPs say the building should either be converted to more space for parliamentarians or become a public venue.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2006
S
sdoody
Guest
I think you sort of missed what I was saying. The Law Commission exists to monitor Canada's laws and make recommendations as to how they should be changed, if necessary. The other option, I suppose, is to strike some sort of commission every time Parliament wants to examine a particular law, but I would think that a permanent body that does this for a living can probably do it more efficiently...aren't you pro efficiency?
Also the Supreme Court (and other courts) don't only rule on a law's constitutionality, of course, they also rule on laws that are poorly drafted, laws that conflict, laws that can have multiple meanings...in other words they interpret laws the way they think Parliament or common sense meant for them to be interpreted (if this means changing the way a law's been interpreted up until now, then so be it.
The whole rant against 'activist judges' amuses me, actually, especially when you also support getting rid of the law commission...if the court can't change the laws, and no one's advising Parliament on how they should do it, how will the law ever get changed?
Also the Supreme Court (and other courts) don't only rule on a law's constitutionality, of course, they also rule on laws that are poorly drafted, laws that conflict, laws that can have multiple meanings...in other words they interpret laws the way they think Parliament or common sense meant for them to be interpreted (if this means changing the way a law's been interpreted up until now, then so be it.
The whole rant against 'activist judges' amuses me, actually, especially when you also support getting rid of the law commission...if the court can't change the laws, and no one's advising Parliament on how they should do it, how will the law ever get changed?
B
bizorky
Guest
It would appear that the Conservatives refuse to see any merit in adult literacy programs. John Baird refers to this effort as "repair work after the fact."
Literacy groups assail funding cuts
TERRY PEDWELL
Canadian Press
OTTAWA — Literacy groups are demanding that the federal government put back the $17.7-million cut from adult literacy programs – and then some.
The Conservatives under Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the cuts recently as part of a plan to slash $1-billion in federal spending.
The cuts have sent shockwaves through the learning community, said Wendy DesBrisay with the Movement for Canadian Literacy.
“The cuts will decimate the infrastructure built co-operatively by all levels of government and the literacy community and will set us back years in our ability to meet the literacy challenges of Canadians,†Ms. DesBrisay told a news conference on Wednesday.
The money was cut from programs that provided outreach to potential learners, professional development for educators, curriculum development and research.
The Tories rationalize the cuts by saying they want to focus instead on better teaching children how to read and write, Treasury Board President John Baird said last week.
He noted that governments need to more effectively use the $20-billion they already spend on educating younger Canadians.
“This is repair work after the fact,†Mr. Baird said of adult-literacy programs. “We've got to (have a) much greater focus on ensuring we get it right from the get-go, with the first $20-billion, rather than doing it after the fact.â€
Patricia Ashey, who learned to read as an adult, knows all too well the lifelong struggle Canadians with literacy difficulties face to improve their lives.
“I was one of the lucky ones,†Ms. Ashey said about finding a literacy program at St. Lawrence College in Kingston. “It turned my life around."
Ms. Ashey considered herself highly successful, having helped run a family dairy business. But before embracing her literacy problems, she always felt inadequate, she said.
“It took a lot of courage to go through the doors of St. Lawrence College (and their) upgrading program,†she said. “I grew so much ... my life was blossoming in every direction.â€
Literacy groups estimate that upwards of nine million Canadians face some difficulties with reading and writing.
The vast majority of those people are in lower paying jobs and many find it almost impossible to get a promotion or advance their careers.
Literacy groups were astonished when the federal funding cuts were announced, Margaret Eaton of ABC Canada said.
“This is not the time to be cutting back on the very resources Canadians need,†she said. “Cutting back now simply exacerbates the low-literacy problem and ignores the other costs that fall out from not making such an investment.â€
The Commons Standing Committee of Human Resources and Social Development is expected to review the impact of the cuts.
An NDP motion calls on the Human Resources minister, senior departmental staff and affected stakeholder groups to appear before the committee.
“From the outset, I feared that these cuts would affect Canada's most vulnerable, and that has been confirmed,†New Democrat MP Denise Savoie said.
“We can keep calling on the government to listen to Canadians, or we can use the tools we have aspoliticians to force them to listen.â€
Literacy groups assail funding cuts
TERRY PEDWELL
Canadian Press
OTTAWA — Literacy groups are demanding that the federal government put back the $17.7-million cut from adult literacy programs – and then some.
The Conservatives under Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the cuts recently as part of a plan to slash $1-billion in federal spending.
The cuts have sent shockwaves through the learning community, said Wendy DesBrisay with the Movement for Canadian Literacy.
“The cuts will decimate the infrastructure built co-operatively by all levels of government and the literacy community and will set us back years in our ability to meet the literacy challenges of Canadians,†Ms. DesBrisay told a news conference on Wednesday.
The money was cut from programs that provided outreach to potential learners, professional development for educators, curriculum development and research.
The Tories rationalize the cuts by saying they want to focus instead on better teaching children how to read and write, Treasury Board President John Baird said last week.
He noted that governments need to more effectively use the $20-billion they already spend on educating younger Canadians.
“This is repair work after the fact,†Mr. Baird said of adult-literacy programs. “We've got to (have a) much greater focus on ensuring we get it right from the get-go, with the first $20-billion, rather than doing it after the fact.â€
Patricia Ashey, who learned to read as an adult, knows all too well the lifelong struggle Canadians with literacy difficulties face to improve their lives.
“I was one of the lucky ones,†Ms. Ashey said about finding a literacy program at St. Lawrence College in Kingston. “It turned my life around."
Ms. Ashey considered herself highly successful, having helped run a family dairy business. But before embracing her literacy problems, she always felt inadequate, she said.
“It took a lot of courage to go through the doors of St. Lawrence College (and their) upgrading program,†she said. “I grew so much ... my life was blossoming in every direction.â€
Literacy groups estimate that upwards of nine million Canadians face some difficulties with reading and writing.
The vast majority of those people are in lower paying jobs and many find it almost impossible to get a promotion or advance their careers.
Literacy groups were astonished when the federal funding cuts were announced, Margaret Eaton of ABC Canada said.
“This is not the time to be cutting back on the very resources Canadians need,†she said. “Cutting back now simply exacerbates the low-literacy problem and ignores the other costs that fall out from not making such an investment.â€
The Commons Standing Committee of Human Resources and Social Development is expected to review the impact of the cuts.
An NDP motion calls on the Human Resources minister, senior departmental staff and affected stakeholder groups to appear before the committee.
“From the outset, I feared that these cuts would affect Canada's most vulnerable, and that has been confirmed,†New Democrat MP Denise Savoie said.
“We can keep calling on the government to listen to Canadians, or we can use the tools we have aspoliticians to force them to listen.â€
A
afransen TO
Guest
Clearly, laws should only change as a result of the potentially uninformed debate of Parliamentarians because the government has decided that getting advice on legislation is too costly.
That extra couple million a year could buy a new helicopter for the CAF every decade or two, ya know.
That extra couple million a year could buy a new helicopter for the CAF every decade or two, ya know.
A
Abeja de Almirante
Guest
With nine million out of thirty million Canadians (that's 30%) facing reading difficulties, one has to question what that number would have been if the literacy-support funding had been cut decades ago.Literacy groups estimate that upwards of nine million Canadians face some difficulties with reading and writing.
The vast majority of those people are in lower paying jobs and many find it almost impossible to get a promotion or advance their careers.
Literacy groups were astonished when the federal funding cuts were announced, Margaret Eaton of ABC Canada said.
In order to get funding IMO, an organization should have to demonstrate more than just a dire need for funds, but must also be able to set measureable targets for the funding. I suspect the Literacy groups said to the government of the day that there was a dire need, so the government funnelled money their way, however I bet the groups never said, with this money, we will reduce literacy issues by a certain %.
Like it or not, this is how IMO this government works. If you want the taxpayer's money, you must demonstrate both a need and how you will specifically address that need. Gone (for now) are the days when you can simply be an environmental think-tank, and get government $.
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
Like it or not, this is how IMO this government works. If you want the taxpayer's money, you must demonstrate both a need and how you will specifically address that need
It might sound good on paper, but accountablity measures requires bureaucracy to support. What you'd end up with is quite likely an elaborate system of checks that these organizations have to maintain, which eats into their operating budgets while providing no benefit whatsoever.
AoD