- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
How about Rick Mercer for ombudsman??
Andre Marin, CF Ombudsman, and beyond (merged)
- Thread starter bossi
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,142
- Points
- 1,060
Reading this document, especially paragraph 143, I have nothing but contempt for the government of Ontario, especially the senior bureaucrats who are running the show.
"Between a Rock and a Hard place" http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/pdf/FINALSPECIALNEEDSREPORT.pdf
143
All of this seems like déjàvu all over again. I do not want to suggest, however,
that these initiatives are not being undertaken in good faith. This generation of
studies may well bear fruit, but it is evident that there is reason for concern and
despair. It is just that while the last round of fruitless studies was being vaunted
as evidence of progress, J. B. developed post traumatic stress disorder
trying to cope with Wesley. While all of this study was going on J. C.
was threatening members of his family and making their home life intolerable
while he languished on a waiting list. While all of this study was going on
B.M. and her husband were working different shifts, rarely seeing
each other, and living under virtual house arrest so that they could care for their
son. While all of this study was going on D. N. was being locked in his
room so his family could sleep and K. P. was being taken to a
psychiatric facility after refusing to cross the school threshold to go home.
While all of this study was going on T.G. was taking her young
children into the bathroom with her to protect them from their brother. While all
of this study was going on these and many other families have had to look to the
child welfare system to help them when the relevant agencies could not. We
may not know the final trend analysis of the studies that have been done and we
may be left with incomplete data but there is a reality we do know beyond
question. It is that this matter has been studied to death while real problems,
known problems, are being ignored or glossed over, and while the crisis that
was addressed with stopgap measures in 2001 has been allowed to recur.
Enough study. It is time for action.
Solutions
144
There is a manifest crisis. It is immediate for those families who are in the child
welfare system - they should not be there. There is an immediate crisis for those
who require residential care but who are on waiting lists - they should not be
there. An immediate crisis calls for an immediate resolution.
*******************************************************************************************
My heart goes out to the families who have children with such serious disabilities and are forced into the welfare system due to our inept system of laws. It is absolutely disgraceful that this is happening in our country.
"Between a Rock and a Hard place" http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/pdf/FINALSPECIALNEEDSREPORT.pdf
143
All of this seems like déjàvu all over again. I do not want to suggest, however,
that these initiatives are not being undertaken in good faith. This generation of
studies may well bear fruit, but it is evident that there is reason for concern and
despair. It is just that while the last round of fruitless studies was being vaunted
as evidence of progress, J. B. developed post traumatic stress disorder
trying to cope with Wesley. While all of this study was going on J. C.
was threatening members of his family and making their home life intolerable
while he languished on a waiting list. While all of this study was going on
B.M. and her husband were working different shifts, rarely seeing
each other, and living under virtual house arrest so that they could care for their
son. While all of this study was going on D. N. was being locked in his
room so his family could sleep and K. P. was being taken to a
psychiatric facility after refusing to cross the school threshold to go home.
While all of this study was going on T.G. was taking her young
children into the bathroom with her to protect them from their brother. While all
of this study was going on these and many other families have had to look to the
child welfare system to help them when the relevant agencies could not. We
may not know the final trend analysis of the studies that have been done and we
may be left with incomplete data but there is a reality we do know beyond
question. It is that this matter has been studied to death while real problems,
known problems, are being ignored or glossed over, and while the crisis that
was addressed with stopgap measures in 2001 has been allowed to recur.
Enough study. It is time for action.
Solutions
144
There is a manifest crisis. It is immediate for those families who are in the child
welfare system - they should not be there. There is an immediate crisis for those
who require residential care but who are on waiting lists - they should not be
there. An immediate crisis calls for an immediate resolution.
*******************************************************************************************
My heart goes out to the families who have children with such serious disabilities and are forced into the welfare system due to our inept system of laws. It is absolutely disgraceful that this is happening in our country.
- Reaction score
- 5,768
- Points
- 1,360
Whiskey,
Working tonight, have lots to say but no time right now.
Later
Working tonight, have lots to say but no time right now.
Later
C
c4th
Guest
Forces' ombudsman candidate under fire
Minister's pick for rights watchdog once fought to limit powers of office
a journalist
The Ottawa Citizen
June 20, 2005
Defence Minister Bill Graham's choice for the new Canadian Forces ombudsman was the legal representative for senior brass as they fought to limit the powers of the independent watchdog agency in its infancy, according to documents obtained by the Citizen.
But Mr. Graham is standing behind Yves Cote as his candidate for the ombudsman's job, arguing that the former legal adviser to the generals and Defence Department bureaucrats is an excellent choice for the position.
The leaked records show that in 1999, Mr. Cote was acting as the lawyer for the military's senior hierarchy in negotiating the mandate of the first Canadian Forces ombudsman, Andre Marin. But the negotiations, over 14 lengthy sessions, which at times also involved members of the Judge Advocate General's office (JAG) and senior defence staff, became deadlocked after Mr. Marin complained he was receiving little co-operation.
Mr. Marin detailed in a March 25, 1999 letter how he expressed concerns to then-defence deputy minister Jim Judd, Mr. Cote and a ministerial aide, that the terms of reference the military leadership wanted him to accept meant his office would lack control over investigations and how they were reported. He noted in the letter to Mr. Judd that the draft terms of reference showed "the apparent abandonment of commitments made by or on behalf of the Minister in respect of the office."
Mr. Marin also pointed out he continued on in negotiations with Mr. Cote, but to no avail. Another draft report produced after Mr. Cote met with the JAG and the chief of the defence Staff was profoundly disappointing, according to Mr. Marin.
It rejected recommendations put forward by Mr. Marin and his staff and failed to ensure methods were in place to deal with retaliation and reprisals against those making complaints to the ombudsman.
In a June 2, 1999 letter, Mr. Marin wrote then-defence minister Art Eggleton to complain that negotiations were deadlocked and the Defence department was being unco-operative. The letter detailed his "growing concern over the resistance encountered during the negotiations."
In addition, Mr. Marin accused department officials of reneging on issues which had already been negotiated and said they produced a document which "unilaterally seeks to impose the will of one party."
In later interviews, Mr. Marin acknowledged the senior brass and the JAG's office, the military legal branch, attempted during this period to limit his powers. The JAG's office has consistently denied that.
Mr. Marin was named ombudsman in 1998 in the wake of the Somalia scandal and concerns the military needed an outside watchdog to investigate complaints from the rank-and-file.
Mr. Cote did not respond to requests for comment.
But Mr. Graham's spokesman, Steve Jurgutis, said he saw no conflict of interest in naming Mr. Cote as ombudsman, despite the lawyer's role in representing the generals and Defence Department during negotiations in determining the ombudsman's mandate. Mr. Jurgutis dismissed concerns Mr. Cote, currently the Privy Council's lawyer, wouldn't be objective in the job and reiterated Mr. Graham considered him an excellent candidate.
"He was involved with the drafting of the parameters of the (ombudsman's) office," Mr. Jurgutis confirmed. "I'm not going to speculate to what his thoughts on that were or his involvement with that." But Mr. Jurgutis added that Mr. Cote started his career as a captain so he knew the type of problems people might face and be able to deal with those.
The Commons defence committee recently rejected Mr. Cote as ombudsman. Some Conservative and Bloc Quebecois MPs on the committee questioned Mr. Cote's close ties to the senior military and government leadership and worried he would not be able to properly represent the lower ranks. Others raised concerns about his job as a federal co-ordinator during the Somalia inquiry and whether he had any role in the Liberal government's decision to shut down that independent civilian probe, which was examining the killings and cover-up during the 1993 Somalia mission.
Mr. Cote told the defence committee he was not involved in the government's decision and that as ombudsman he would be independent and make it a priority to represent the lower ranks. Mr. Graham is under no obligation to accept the committee's rejection of Mr. Cote.
Mr. Marin, now Ontario's ombudsman, was not a favourite of the military's leadership since his high-profile reports often highlighted their failure to take care of their soldiers.
When Mr. Marin was first hired, Judge Advocate General Jerry Pitzul warned him against speaking to the media and taking an adversarial approach in his new position.
Gen. Pitzul told Mr. Marin about the case of the Australian military ombudsman, someone he described as controversial and adversarial. The military and government rode out that ombudsman's term and then hired a more conciliatory candidate, Gen. Pitzul noted. "We should look at their experience," the JAG told Mr. Marin, according to records previously released under the Access to Information law.
Mr. Marin rejected Gen. Pitzul's advice.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2005
Minister's pick for rights watchdog once fought to limit powers of office
a journalist
The Ottawa Citizen
June 20, 2005
Defence Minister Bill Graham's choice for the new Canadian Forces ombudsman was the legal representative for senior brass as they fought to limit the powers of the independent watchdog agency in its infancy, according to documents obtained by the Citizen.
But Mr. Graham is standing behind Yves Cote as his candidate for the ombudsman's job, arguing that the former legal adviser to the generals and Defence Department bureaucrats is an excellent choice for the position.
The leaked records show that in 1999, Mr. Cote was acting as the lawyer for the military's senior hierarchy in negotiating the mandate of the first Canadian Forces ombudsman, Andre Marin. But the negotiations, over 14 lengthy sessions, which at times also involved members of the Judge Advocate General's office (JAG) and senior defence staff, became deadlocked after Mr. Marin complained he was receiving little co-operation.
Mr. Marin detailed in a March 25, 1999 letter how he expressed concerns to then-defence deputy minister Jim Judd, Mr. Cote and a ministerial aide, that the terms of reference the military leadership wanted him to accept meant his office would lack control over investigations and how they were reported. He noted in the letter to Mr. Judd that the draft terms of reference showed "the apparent abandonment of commitments made by or on behalf of the Minister in respect of the office."
Mr. Marin also pointed out he continued on in negotiations with Mr. Cote, but to no avail. Another draft report produced after Mr. Cote met with the JAG and the chief of the defence Staff was profoundly disappointing, according to Mr. Marin.
It rejected recommendations put forward by Mr. Marin and his staff and failed to ensure methods were in place to deal with retaliation and reprisals against those making complaints to the ombudsman.
In a June 2, 1999 letter, Mr. Marin wrote then-defence minister Art Eggleton to complain that negotiations were deadlocked and the Defence department was being unco-operative. The letter detailed his "growing concern over the resistance encountered during the negotiations."
In addition, Mr. Marin accused department officials of reneging on issues which had already been negotiated and said they produced a document which "unilaterally seeks to impose the will of one party."
In later interviews, Mr. Marin acknowledged the senior brass and the JAG's office, the military legal branch, attempted during this period to limit his powers. The JAG's office has consistently denied that.
Mr. Marin was named ombudsman in 1998 in the wake of the Somalia scandal and concerns the military needed an outside watchdog to investigate complaints from the rank-and-file.
Mr. Cote did not respond to requests for comment.
But Mr. Graham's spokesman, Steve Jurgutis, said he saw no conflict of interest in naming Mr. Cote as ombudsman, despite the lawyer's role in representing the generals and Defence Department during negotiations in determining the ombudsman's mandate. Mr. Jurgutis dismissed concerns Mr. Cote, currently the Privy Council's lawyer, wouldn't be objective in the job and reiterated Mr. Graham considered him an excellent candidate.
"He was involved with the drafting of the parameters of the (ombudsman's) office," Mr. Jurgutis confirmed. "I'm not going to speculate to what his thoughts on that were or his involvement with that." But Mr. Jurgutis added that Mr. Cote started his career as a captain so he knew the type of problems people might face and be able to deal with those.
The Commons defence committee recently rejected Mr. Cote as ombudsman. Some Conservative and Bloc Quebecois MPs on the committee questioned Mr. Cote's close ties to the senior military and government leadership and worried he would not be able to properly represent the lower ranks. Others raised concerns about his job as a federal co-ordinator during the Somalia inquiry and whether he had any role in the Liberal government's decision to shut down that independent civilian probe, which was examining the killings and cover-up during the 1993 Somalia mission.
Mr. Cote told the defence committee he was not involved in the government's decision and that as ombudsman he would be independent and make it a priority to represent the lower ranks. Mr. Graham is under no obligation to accept the committee's rejection of Mr. Cote.
Mr. Marin, now Ontario's ombudsman, was not a favourite of the military's leadership since his high-profile reports often highlighted their failure to take care of their soldiers.
When Mr. Marin was first hired, Judge Advocate General Jerry Pitzul warned him against speaking to the media and taking an adversarial approach in his new position.
Gen. Pitzul told Mr. Marin about the case of the Australian military ombudsman, someone he described as controversial and adversarial. The military and government rode out that ombudsman's term and then hired a more conciliatory candidate, Gen. Pitzul noted. "We should look at their experience," the JAG told Mr. Marin, according to records previously released under the Access to Information law.
Mr. Marin rejected Gen. Pitzul's advice.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2005
Lest not be afraid. I believe that The Honourable Bill Graham made the right choice for Ombudsman. I have reviewed all the legal cases that confronted past Ombudsmen and I see nothing wrong with how they were defended and decided upon. And that includes those of brought to civil and criminal courts. Unless there is a blatant miscarriage of justice, the courts will decide upon them with reasonable care, carefully weighed and without blatant disreagard for justice. My experience has been that no matter how corrupt a lawyer or a judge is, he cannot blatantly decide upon cases to the prejudice of a man seeking redress by doctoring evidence,or illogical conclusios. They cannot fool or escape the ire of the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of Canada. Even the penurious party to the case can get justice. And unethical practices have not been left unpunished as I surveyed them. My very very poor mother is witness to that. We all are in Canada. Not in Cuba or Colombia.
And to one isolated case of miscarriage, one Supreme Court Justice of USA declared: It would be far better to mistakenly acquit one guilty person than convict a thousand innocents. The communist in Havana declared and acts otherwise. Hence, I am very proud to practice law under democracy. Hail USA!!, a bastion of democracy and the rule of law. Hail UK!! Hail Canada too. Hail Justice Lamers!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Very interesting. I wasn't aware that the Ombudsman dealt with legal cases. I had thought that was the job of the Court Martial Appeals Court and ultimately the Supreme Court. I understood (perhaps mistakenly...) that the Ombudsman dealt with significant personnel issues other than legal cases, and only after the chain of command and the grievance system had failed. What was your capacity when you conducted this review? Can you cite a few of these cases so I can get an idea of what you're talking about?
Could it also be: " It is better that a thousand guilty men go free than that a single innocent man be punished?"
Cheers
The Ombudsman recommends all his findings to the Court Martial. Court Martial decide on the merits of the case. Ombudsman is there to provide and refute evidence. Ombudsman who necessarily must be and presumably cognizant of the laws including the binding precedents hence, should be lawyer or legal assistant and appear before court martial. Although rarely do cases have be elevated to civil courts or criminal courts, when they do, he appears before them. Personnel cases are also have to be resolved applying laws and precedents on administrative law (civilian employees of Canadidian Forces. NO offense, but what I was trying to emphazize was the beauty of Canadian law and the justice system. That nobody can fool or escape the wrath of the scrupulous Members of the Supreme Court of Canada. They are morally upright and cases of abusive Ombudsmen or abusive litigants, either employer or employee, will not remain unpunished. Every case shall be carefully scrutinized and filtered of of irrational arguments until the Highest SC justice renders judgmentt; and hence the final say.I am proud to be a Canadian. Not Cuban, Iraqi under Saddam or Vietnames or Chinese. Hail democracy. Hail those CF generals and Ombudsmen of a Canada Forcew dedicated to the rule of law! Hail all those law-abiding members of these website. Hail freedom of speech and the press! (Decision of the courts will remain binding for all litigants and citizens to observe and respect.Again I hope nobody gets offended. I might also stand to be corrected. Thank you for the comments. I will die for all of you!
Democratic law is best compared to communist law. It far surpasses communist law in terms of perfection.And to those critics from communistcountries, I say, it would be better to "acquit one guilty person than acquit a thousand innocents"."One billion" innocent victims of communism have attested to that. The innocent victims of Stalin and Mao were witness to that. I stand behind this quote.Ask any lawyer.(There have been resolved cases that can easily be reopened especially upon public clamor)
Democratic law is best compared to communist law. It far surpasses communist law in terms of perfection.And to those critics from communistcountries, I say, it would be better to "acquit one guilty person than acquit a thousand innocents"."One billion" innocent victims of communism have attested to that. The innocent victims of Stalin and Mao were witness to that. I stand behind this quote.Ask any lawyer.(There have been resolved cases that can easily be reopened especially upon public clamor)
May I add to your "Liberal societies....herbivores". I was diagnosed by my doctor to be an idiot.So my apologies if I did not get it. My addendum: "The future is a race between education and catastrophe"...."Education is the process by which a society attempts to instill achievement-oriented values in all students, regardless of their background. Millions of today's middle and even upper class people were born into poverty but used education as a ladder to where they are today. While most Canadians have access to our educational system, there are many who refuse to apply the effort, even though they have the latent ability to take advantage of this resource. In spite of our best efforts, there will always be some students (and teachers) who cannot or will not become achievers and who become very abusive of those who are. To continue to warehouse these misfits in public schools out of a sense of misguided egalitarianism is a major error, as it not only makes them more resentful, but they severely interfere with those who are eager to learn"-Donald Bunker, PLUNDER, The Looting of Canada By The Welfare State. 
- Reaction score
- 1,142
- Points
- 1,060
Hat talker, are we?
- Reaction score
- 5,023
- Points
- 1,060
thesaurus said:
Could you commence now, for all of us, please.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Whew! That was a live one! Yikes. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for that diagnostic session:
"Good morning Mr Thesaurus"
"Hail, Doctor! Hail all doctors! Glorious, non-communist doctors! And morally upright Ombudsmen too.."
"Yes, that's very nice. Please get off the table and sit down. And take off that foil hat..."
" Hail my foil hat! Hail the table! All of these things will be reviewed by the Court Martial! And possibly by a legal assistant!"
"Right. OK, then. I have some news for you. Put that lamp down, please..."
"What glorious and beautiful announcement do you have for me, Doctor?"
"I got your lab results back."
"Aha! And was the evidence provided or refuted? Will I die for you?"
"It says here that you're an idiot."
Cheers.
"Good morning Mr Thesaurus"
"Hail, Doctor! Hail all doctors! Glorious, non-communist doctors! And morally upright Ombudsmen too.."
"Yes, that's very nice. Please get off the table and sit down. And take off that foil hat..."
" Hail my foil hat! Hail the table! All of these things will be reviewed by the Court Martial! And possibly by a legal assistant!"
"Right. OK, then. I have some news for you. Put that lamp down, please..."
"What glorious and beautiful announcement do you have for me, Doctor?"
"I got your lab results back."
"Aha! And was the evidence provided or refuted? Will I die for you?"
"It says here that you're an idiot."
Cheers.
C
c4th
Guest
As an experiment, Mike should consider opening up a "Banned Members" only forum. It would be interesting to see what the results of more than one idiot in a topic could produce.
Unfortunately, I doubt the server could handle the extra traffic.
Unfortunately, I doubt the server could handle the extra traffic.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
c4th said:
I'm all for this.This would be a lot like the old lunatic asylum in 18th century London-St Mary's of Bethlehem- ("Bedlam") where the upper classes could visit and watch the nutters go at it from behind the safety of iron bars. Perhaps they would just neutralize each other. Or maybe an evil genius would be synthesized from the collective madness? Hmmmm...maybe we better not.....
Cheers
Similar threads
