The U.S. and Canada—singing in harmony?
By Luiza Ch. Savage - Monday, May 2, 2011 - 4 Comments
U.S. and Canadian business groups are urging their governments to coordinate rules and ease restrictions
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
As Target Corp., the mass retailer of trendy housewares and clothing, prepares to open hundreds of stores across Canada in its first non-U.S. expansion, it has started to grapple with the realities of doing business across the border. In a letter to U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, dated April 18, two Target executives bemoan conflicting regulations between the U.S. and Canada in areas such as product standards, testing facilities, customs procedures and documentation. “For example, the safety requirements and test methods applicable to camping tents are markedly different between the U.S. and Canada, making it difficult and cost prohibitive to provide the same product in each country,” wrote the vice-president for government affairs, Matt Zabel, and vice-president for compliance, Canada, Anthony Heredia. “These differences may result in higher consumer costs, or reduced selection.” They called on the Obama administration to focus on “greater regulatory coherence” with Canada that would “increase cross-border investment.”
The Target letter was one of 30 submissions the Commerce Department received after asking for public comments on “regulatory co-operation that would help eliminate or reduce unnecessary regulatory divergences in North America that disrupt U.S. exports.” The request for comments came after a February meeting in Washington at which President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper launched two joint initiatives to ease cross-border trade and travel: an overhaul of border management aimed at creating a system of “perimeter security”, and an attempt to harmonize some regulations between the two countries to help ease trade. The leaders created two working groups, one on border management and the other on regulatory co-operation, led by senior government officials, whom they instructed to hold public consultations and produce detailed action plans for each government.
The stakes are high. Canada and the U.S. have the world’s largest two-way trade relationship, worth $645 billion a year. Three-quarters of all of Canada’s exports go to the United States, and border delays cost the economy billions each year. As well, Canada is America’s largest market, accounting for one fifth of all exports, and Obama is also searching for ways to boost that trade. In his state of the union speech last year, he set a goal of doubling overall U.S. exports in five years in order to spur job creation in the struggling American economy.
-
Confronting reality
By Aaron Wherry - Friday, December 11, 2009 at 11:19 AM - 8 Comments
Payam Akhavan reviews the legal and international standards.
The allegations in question are not “large-scale” war crimes that would fall within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court as some have argued. However, they may constitute offences under the War Crimes Act and raise far-reaching questions about whether we are adequately protecting our soldiers against potential liability.
Whether one believes Colvin’s testimony or not, this issue is far too important to be politicized by either the government or the opposition. It belongs to an impartial inquiry that demonstrates Canada’s commitment to the rule of law.
-
The burden of proof (II)
By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, November 25, 2009 at 11:04 AM - 10 Comments
Sébastien Jodoin, a public interest law fellow with Amnesty International in Ottawa, sends along a response to these questions.
To answer your question, under international law, the question is not whether the Canadian officials were presented with incontrovertible evidence of torture, the question is whether they were presented with evidence of the real risk of torture and what steps they took in response to this risk to preempt the perpetration of torture.
The U.N. Committee Against Torture, which has responsibility for ensuring state party compliance with the Torture Convention, has stated that the protections under the Torture Convention extend to detainees held by the military forces of a contracting party, regardless of where those forces are situated. The Committee considered this same armed conflict in Afghanistan and found that Denmark violated its non-refoulement obligation when it transferred detainees to the jurisdiction of another state.
He cites this report of the UN Committee Against Torture. The relevant paragraphs therein are as follows. Continue…
-
'At this point there is no program to vaccinate detainees'
By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 9:30 PM - 16 Comments
Global gets a statement from National Defence.
“Vaccinations against H1N1 are being offered to members of the Canadian forces and Canadian civilian personnel deployed in Afghanistan. The Canadian forces are providing appropriate medical care to those in their custody. Offering vaccinations to detainees for H1N1 would be based on medical need and at this point there is no program to vaccinate detainees. No vaccine has been provided to any detainee.”
Canadian Press gets the same statement and reviews the claims.
-
About those Geneva Conventions
By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 4:44 PM - 35 Comments
The military says prisoners in Afghanistan will be offered the H1N1 vaccine. The military says this is in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq says this is outrageous. Canadian Press says Canada doesn’t recognize the mission in Afghanistan as falling under the Geneva Conventions.
I confess some confusion. But here are the Geneva Conventions. And here is an excerpt from a joint statement issued a year ago by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende.
First, we need to ensure security in the five southern Afghan provinces. This is where Canada has just recently transferred command of ISAF forces to the Netherlands. There is still hard work to be done there with boots on the ground. We are confident that Allies understand the importance of standing together and ensuring that ISAF has the forces, resources and flexibility for success in these provinces. It is our shared interest to always adhere to International Law. We operate in strict accordance with Geneva conventions. That will also improve NATO’s image in that part of the world.
-
No, apparently he can't (convince a majority of Canadians that Omar Khadr will get a fair trial)
By kadyomalley - Tuesday, January 13, 2009 at 9:35 AM - 26 Comments
Not, at least, by his very presence. Or so says Angus Reid’s latest:
Since July, a plurality of Canadians has expressed concerns over the fairness of a legal process in Guantanamo Bay. Earlier this month, 44 per cent of respondents said Khadr would not get a fair trial—including 51 per cent of those aged 18-34. Conversely, 36 per cent of Canadians think a fair process is possible in Guantanamo—including 51 per cent of male respondents.
To be fair, the number who say he will be treated fairly has gone up since November - but is ITQ the only one who’d really like to see the regional breakdowns this time around too?
[...]Canadians are split in their assessment of Khadr’s case. In the online survey of a representative national sample, 40 per cent of respondents claim that Khadr should be repatriated to face due process under Canadian law, while 38 per cent prefer to leave Khadr to face trial by military commission in Guantanamo Bay.[...]
When informed of the possible closure of Guantanamo, 47 per cent of respondents believe Khadr should be repatriated to face due process under Canadian law, while 38 per cent would seek his transfer to the United States to face federal prosecution there.
Respondents aged 18-34 (56%) and those over the age of 55 (49%) endorse Khadr’s repatriation in the even of Guantanamo’s closure, while a plurality of those aged 35-54 (43%) believe a trial in an American court is the best policy option. [...]
-
BREAKING: Supreme Court *unanimously* finds Canada bound by principles of fundamental justice and international law
By kadyomalley - Friday, May 23, 2008 at 10:27 AM - 0 Comments
Canada (Justice) v. Khadr DISMISSED…
The principles of international law and comity of nations,Canada (Justice) v. Khadr DISMISSED
The principles of international law and comity of nations, which normally require that Canadian officials operating abroad comply with local law and which might otherwise preclude application of the Charter to Canadian officials acting abroad, do not extend to participation in processes that violate Canada’s binding human right obligations. The process in place at Guantanamo Bay at the time Canadian officials interviewed K and passed on the fruits of the interviews to US officials has been found by the US Supreme Court, with the benefit of a full factual record, to violate US domestic law and international human rights obligation to which Canada subscribes. The comity concerns that would normally justify deference to foreign law do not apply in this case. Consequently, the Charter applies.
With K’s present and future liberty at stake, Canada is bound by the principles of fundamental justice and is under a duty of disclosure pursuant to s. 7 of the Charter. The content of this duty is defined by the nature of Canada’s participation in the process that violated its international human rights obligations.
In the present circumstances, this duty requires Canada to disclose to K records of the interviews conducted by Canadian officials with him, and information given to US authorities as a direct consequence of conducting the interviews, subject to claims for privilege and public interest immunity. Since unredacted copies of all documents, records and materials in the appellants’ possession which might be relevant to the charges against K have already been produced to a designated judge of the Federal Court, the judge will now review the material, receive submissions from the parties and decide which documents fall within the scope of the disclosure obligation.
HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE RULING
Continue…
