Parliament vs. the Crown in Canada -- Which is Supreme?

As Andrew Coyne of Macleans' Magazine notes, the issue of the transfer of Afghan detainees could be exposing a powerful debate between the powers of Parliament ( House of Commons & Senate) and the Crown (Prime Minister & Cabinet). The all-party House of Commons Parliamentary Committee (Military Police Complaints Commission [MPCC]) seeks documents the Prime Minister and Cabinet have heavily censored, thereby preventing the House of Commons Committee from being able to do its job and advise Parliament on the issue of Canadian tranfers of Afghan detainees. The Government (Prime Minister & Cabinet) have defended their position by stating that the censored portions have been blacked out for reasons of national security. Not only this, the government has effectively shut down the ability of the Committee to investigate further.

The controversey sets in as the constant hammering of this multi-party committee on the reputation of the government was proving to be a political liability for the Conservatives. Support for the government was dropping in public opinion polls primarily due to this issue.

Read Coyne's article and decide which side in the debate should be supported: Parliament or the Crown?

"An Iranian Nuclear Bomb, or the bombing of Iran?"

Read the article in the Economist dated December 3, 2009. Which alternative is the lesser of the two evils? Is there a 'third alternative' not provided for in the article? -- if so, what might it be?

The Chilcot Inquiry: the Leadership Methods of Tony Blair Revealed?

An inquiry is taking place in the United Kingdom over the actions of the Tony Blair government which resulted in British forces invading Iraq in 2003. The accusations of Sir Ken MacDonald directed against Tony Blair cast the former Prime Minister's actions as duplicitous and scheming; according to MacDonald, Blair may have knowingly mislead Parliament to orchestrate British involvement in the US invasion of Iraq. Even Blair acknowledges he would have agreed to war without the case for Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Given such (possible) revelations into the leadership methods of Tony Blair, to what extent does was Blair Machiavellian?

Safety ..at last? But for who?

Read the history of R. v. Charkaoui. After many years of imprisonment and state monitoring of his every move, the Moroccan Montreal school teacher's release has been ordered. Many celebrate the apparent triumph of human rights over unjust, unwarranted and dangerous state powers over the lives of Canadians; 'security certificates' in the eyes of many represent a dangerous breatch of the fundamental principle of habeus corpus.

But others are concerned by these latest developments. In particular, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) believes that the developments in the case against Charkaoui compromise its ability to ensure the safety of Canadians. "CSIS cannot protect the safety and security of Canadians effectively if the subjects of its investigations are aware of its methods of operation," CSIS spokesman Manon Berube said to the Globe and Mail. "It is imperative that a security intelligence service protect its methodologies and investigative techniques."

Thus the question: is safety for the majority of Canadians worth the sacrifice of a few people's rights? At what point --if at all -- does harming one person to help another become ethical and moral?

(See how your knowledge of the issue compares to others!)

Canadian Cash Funds Genocide...

December 7, 2009, the Ottawa Citizen reports "Rwandan rebels settled in Canada have helped faciliate a resource-driven war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo that has killed millions and seen more than 200,000 women raped, United Nations investigators say."

Read the backgrounder offered by Doctors Without Borders on their Top 10 Humanitarian Crises of 2008 site.

The BBC also has an informative Country Profile on the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

Read the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade's (DFAIT) web site which provides an overview of bilateral relations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the DRC.

Is the Canadian Government doing enough to affect resolution to the conflict in the DRC?

Canada's Polluted Politics:

Colin Horgan and George Monboit of Britain's Guardian Newspaper have characterized Canada in a light most Canadians would be shocked to read. The London Times also writes of the challenge Canada has if it seeks to avoid "Blackening its Name".

Canada, "a corrupt petro-state", writes Monboit, "is now to climate what Japan is to whaling."

Reading these charges against the Canadian image abroad, develop your own opinion. Are Monboit and Horgan presenting a reasoned and balanced discussion? - or do their articles offer an imbalanced and aggressive spin, distorting the truth in order to advance their political agenda?

Problem question: given the details of the Tar Sands debate, should Canada prioritize its environment or economy?

Additional Resources:
Jonathan Gatehouse, "Suddenly the World Hates Canada," Macleans Magazine, December 16, 2009.

View video of Greenpeace Climate Change protest on Parliament Hill, Ottawa

New York Times: Who's At the Climate Talks, and What do They Seek?

New York Times: Timeline - Science & Politics of Climate Change

New York Times: Energy & Environment - Copenhagen Climate Talks

The Guardian: Copenhagen Climate Change Interactive

Official Site: Copenhagen Climate Change Conference