DOCSLIB.ORG

Kingston Prison for Women Inquiry – Louise Arbour Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kingston Prison for Women Inquiry – Louise Arbour Report Commission of Inquiry into certain events at the Prison for Women in Kingston 8 Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1996 All rights reserved Printed and bound in Canada Catalogue No. JS42-73/1996E ISBN 0-662-24355-2 Publié aussi en français sous le titre : Commission d'enquête sur certains événements survenus à la Prison des femmes de Kingston. Available in Canada through: Canada Communication Group C Publishing Ottawa, Canada, K1A 0S9 CANADIAN CATALOGUING IN PUBLICATION DATA Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston (Canada) Commission of Inquiry into certain events at the Prison for Women in Kingston Issued also in French under title: Commission d'enquête sur certains évènements survenus à la Prison des femmes de Kingston. Commissioner: The Honourable Louise Arbour. ISBN 0-662-24355-2 Cat. no. JS42-73/1996E 1. Reformatories for women C Ontario C Kingston. 2. Prison violence C Ontario C Kingston. 3. Prison discipline C Ontario C Kingston. 4. Women prisoners C Civil rights C Ontario C Kingston. 5. Correctional institutions C Canada C Management. I. Arbour, Louise, 1947- . II. Title. III. Title: The Prison for Women in Kingston. HV9025.C65 1996365.9713'72C96-980136-X Care has been taken to trace the ownership of copyright material in the text including tables and figures. 1 The Honourable Herb Gray, P.C., M.P. Solicitor General of Canada Sir Wilfrid Laurier Building 340 Laurier Avenue West Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0P8 Dear Minister: By Order in Council PC 1995-608 dated April 10, 1995, I was appointed Commissioner to investigate and report on the state and management of that part of the business of the Correctional Service of Canada that pertains to the incidents that occurred at the Prison for Women in Kingston, Ontario, beginning on April 22, 1994. I have the honour to submit the attached report in both official languages. Respectfully submitted, The Honourable Louise Arbour Commissioner 2 Commissioner The Honourable Louise Arbour Commission Counsel Patricia D. S. Jackson Administrator Sheila-Marie Cook Associate Commission Counsel Chief Investigator Guy Gournoyer Dennis Olinyk (Ontario Provincial Police) Assistant to the Commissioner Research & Policy Advisors and to Commission Counsel Tammy Landau, PhD. Karen McFarlane Kelly Hannah-Moffat Legal Services Criminology Research Jana Mills Anne-Marie Singh Cheryl Waldrum Marnie Crouch Sandra Hargreaves Investigators Evidentiary Document Control Unit (Ontario Provincial Police) Deborah Anne Whittames Julie Cyr Barb Fiorentino Jenny Zapotoczny Sean Lytle Valerie Baun Leslie Wake Sylvie C^tJ Administrative Services Registrar Fern Anes Joyce Ihamaki Melissa Jarrett Angie McWaters Kingston Hearings Site Elizabeth Rolland Communications Suzanne Schryer-Belair Annette Snowdon Gillian Sadinsky Editor - English David Redgrave Editor - French Nicolas Joly 3 Commission of Inquiry into certain events at the Prison for Women in Kingston Terms of Reference Preface The Inquiry Process Glossary Abbreviations PART I THE EVENTS AT THE PRISON FOR WOMEN 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Structure and Organization of the Correctional Service of Canada 1.2 The Organization of the Prison for Women 1.3 The Physical Layout of the Prison for Women 1.4 Daily Life in the Prison for Women 1.5 The Correctional Investigator 1.6 Other Organizations 1.7 The Correctional Context: Creating Choices 2. FACTUAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE INCIDENTS UNDER INVESTIGATION 2.1 Overview Chronology 2.2 April 22, 1994 2.3 The Segregation Unit at the Prison for Women, April 22-26, 1994 2.4 The Strip Search of April 26-27, 1994 2.5 The Body Cavity Search on April 27, 1994 2.6Transfers to the Regional Treatment Centre 2.7Board of Investigation 2.8Segregation Post-April 26, 1994 2.9The Complaint and Grievance Procedure 2.10The Correctional Investigator 2.11Documents 2.12Measuring CSC's Performance Against its Mission Statement PART II POLICY ISSUES 3.GENERAL CORRECTIONAL ISSUES 3.1Developing a Culture of Rights 3.2Developing an Effective Sanction 3.3Managing Segregation 3.4Increasing Accountability in Operations 4.WOMEN'S ISSUES 4.1Federally Sentenced Women B A Current Profile 4.2Cross-gender Staffing 4.3Aboriginal Women and The Healing Lodge 4.4The Future of Women's Corrections PART III THE ROOTS OF CHANGE: AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 5.HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL WOMEN'S PRISON 5.1The Early Years 5.2Women Prisoners and Their Rights to Fair and Equitable Treatment 5.3Conclusion PART IV - SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDICES A. Contractors B. WITNESSES AT THE HEARINGS C. PARTICIPANTS IN THE ROUNDTABLES D. CONSULTATIONS BY THE COMMISSIONER AND STAFF E. RULING ON APPLICATIONS FOR STANDING E. RULING ON APPLICATION FOR STANDING F. RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE G. INTERVENOR FUNDING: ORDER IN COUNCIL AND SCHEDULE ``A'' GUIDELINES H. SAMPLES OF UNDERTAKINGS I. SAMPLES OF S. 13 NOTICES 4 List of Illustrations Figures Figure 1 The Correctional Service of Canada Organization B Part I 6 Figure 2 The Correctional Service of Canada Organization B Part II 7 Figure 3 2nd Floor Layout Prison Cells 12 Figure 4 Mezzanine Layout Prison Cells 13 Plates Plate 1 Segregation Unit upper and lower tier of Dissociation side 14 Plate 2 Upper tier Dissociation side 15 Plate 3 Interior view of a cell 16 Plate 4 Exterior view of a cell 17 Plate 5 Cell with heavy metal treadplate 18 Plate 6 Cell with heavy metal treadplate 19 Tables Table 1 Persons Charged by Gender Selected Incidents, 1994 205 Table 2 Sentence Length of Incarcerated Federally Sentenced Women 206 Table 3 Current Region & Institution of Incarcerated Federally Sentenced Women 207 Table 4 Offences of Federally Sentenced Women in Custody 208 Terms of Reference HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL, on the recommendation of the Solicitor General of Canada, is pleased hereby. 1. pursuant to Part II of the Inquiries Act, to authorize the Solicitor General of Canada (a) to appoint, by Commission under the Great Seal, the Honourable Louise Arbour of Toronto, Ontario, a judge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, as a commissioner to investigate and report on the state and management of that part of the business of the Correctional Service of Canada that pertains to the incidents that occurred at the Prison for Women in Kingston, Ontario, of the Correctional Service of Canada thereto, in particular (i) the measures in place at the Prison for Women in Kingston, Ontario, in April 1994 to respond to incidents, (ii) the adequacy and appropriateness of the actions and decisions taken in relation to the seriousness of the incidents that occurred, (iii) the deployment of an all-male emergency response team, the mandate that was given to the team and the appropriateness of the team's conduct during its involvement in the incidents that occurred, and (iv) the subsequent confinement in administrative segregation of the inmates concerned, the reasonableness of their treatment while in segregation and the duration of the segregation; b) to authorize the Commissioner (i) to adopt such procedures and methods as she may from time to time deem expedient for the proper conduct of the inquiry, (ii) to sit at such times and at such places in Canada as she may from time to time decide and to have complete access to personnel and information in the Correctional Service of Canada and the Department of the Solicitor General and adequate working accommodation and clerical assistance, and 5 (iii) to engage the services of such staff and technical advisors as she deems necessary or advisable and the services of counsel to aid and assist her in the inquiry, at such rates of remuneration and reimbursement as may be approved by the Treasury Board; and c) to direct the Commissioner (i) to make independent findings of fact regarding the incidents that occurred, in view of different conclusions in the two reports, (ii) to recommend improvements, as may be required, to the policies and practices of the Correctional Service of Canada in relation to such incidents, (iii) to report in both official languages to the Solicitor General of Canada by March 31, 1996, and (iv) to deposit the records and papers of the Commission with the Solicitor General of Canada as soon after the conclusion of the inquiry as is reasonably possible; and 2. pursuant to section 56 of the Judges Act, to authorize the Honourable Louise Arbour of Toronto, Ontario, a judge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, to act as Commissioner. 6 Preface The history of women and crime is spotted with opportunities most of which have been missed. We hope that history will not dictate our future. The incidents that gave rise to this inquiry could have gone largely unnoticed. Until the public viewing of a videotape which shed light on part of these events, and the release of a special report by the Correctional Investigator in the winter of 1995, the Correctional Service of Canada had essentially closed the book on these events. This was perceived as, by far, not the most serious series of events to have taken place in a Canadian penitentiary. Sadly, that is probably true. At the Prison for Women, loss of life and self-mutilation are among the many tragedies that occur, and that are largely unknown to the Canadian public. However, this inquiry was concerned not only with what happened at the Prison for Women in 1994, but with the response of the Correctional Service of Canada to these events. The shortcomings that have been revealed in the course of this inquiry are, in my opinion, of the most serious nature. Corrections is the least visible branch of the criminal justice system. Occasions such as this, where its functioning is brought under intense public scrutiny, are few and far between. This may explain the discomfort of Corrections officials in handling this level of public attention.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Louise Arbour and Marie Henein Share Their Personal Reflections on Unconscious Bias in Litigation December 9, 2020
    Louise Arbour and Marie Henein Share Their Personal Reflections on Unconscious Bias in Litigation December 9, 2020 In this transformative age when actions against unconscious bias and social injustice have swiftly gathered momentum, two legal phenoms engage in an enlightening Q & A on what this means for us as people, as a profession, and as propellers for change. Hear Louise Arbour and Marie Henein tell us how they have approached unconscious bias and how to combat it. Topics will include the following: • personal experiences with power, privilege and unconscious bias • how to prevent bias and discrimination in workplaces • bias, discrimination and underrepresentation as viewed through a judicial lens • why the existence and consequences of unconscious bias are important to the bench and bar. Speakers The Honourable Louise Arbour, C.C., G.O.Q., Senior Counsel at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP The Honourable Louise Arbour is Senior Counsel and jurist in residence at BLG in Montreal. She provides strategic advice on litigation, governance and international disputes. She is an active mentor of younger lawyers. She recently completed her mandate at the UN as Special Representative of the Secretary- General on International Migration, which led to the adoption of the Global Compact for Migration. She has also held other senior positions at the United Nations, including High Commissioner for Human Rights (2004-2008) and Chief Prosecutor for The International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda (1996 to 1999). She formerly sat as a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada from 1999 to 2004, on the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Supreme Court of Ontario.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report
    COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ANNUAL REPORT July 1,1996-June 30,1997 Main Office Washington Office The Harold Pratt House 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 58 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10021 Washington, DC 20036 Tel. (212) 434-9400; Fax (212) 861-1789 Tel. (202) 518-3400; Fax (202) 986-2984 Website www. foreignrela tions. org e-mail publicaffairs@email. cfr. org OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS, 1997-98 Officers Directors Charlayne Hunter-Gault Peter G. Peterson Term Expiring 1998 Frank Savage* Chairman of the Board Peggy Dulany Laura D'Andrea Tyson Maurice R. Greenberg Robert F Erburu Leslie H. Gelb Vice Chairman Karen Elliott House ex officio Leslie H. Gelb Joshua Lederberg President Vincent A. Mai Honorary Officers Michael P Peters Garrick Utley and Directors Emeriti Senior Vice President Term Expiring 1999 Douglas Dillon and Chief Operating Officer Carla A. Hills Caryl R Haskins Alton Frye Robert D. Hormats Grayson Kirk Senior Vice President William J. McDonough Charles McC. Mathias, Jr. Paula J. Dobriansky Theodore C. Sorensen James A. Perkins Vice President, Washington Program George Soros David Rockefeller Gary C. Hufbauer Paul A. Volcker Honorary Chairman Vice President, Director of Studies Robert A. Scalapino Term Expiring 2000 David Kellogg Cyrus R. Vance Jessica R Einhorn Vice President, Communications Glenn E. Watts and Corporate Affairs Louis V Gerstner, Jr. Abraham F. Lowenthal Hanna Holborn Gray Vice President and Maurice R. Greenberg Deputy National Director George J. Mitchell Janice L. Murray Warren B. Rudman Vice President and Treasurer Term Expiring 2001 Karen M. Sughrue Lee Cullum Vice President, Programs Mario L. Baeza and Media Projects Thomas R.
    [Show full text]
  • Carissima Mathen*
    C h o ic es a n d C o n t r o v e r sy : J udic ia l A ppointments in C a n a d a Carissima Mathen* P a r t I What do judges do? As an empirical matter, judges settle disputes. They act as a check on both the executive and legislative branches. They vindicate human rights and civil liberties. They arbitrate jurisdictional conflicts. They disagree. They bicker. They change their minds. In a normative sense, what judges “do” depends very much on one’s views of judging. If one thinks that judging is properly confined to the law’s “four comers”, then judges act as neutral, passive recipients of opinions and arguments about that law.1 They consider arguments, examine text, and render decisions that best honour the law that has been made. If judging also involves analysis of a society’s core (if implicit) political agreements—and the degree to which state laws or actions honour those agreements—then judges are critical players in the mechanisms through which such agreement is tested. In post-war Canada, the judiciary clearly has taken on the second role as well as the first. Year after year, judges are drawn into disputes over the very values of our society, a trend that shows no signs of abating.2 In view of judges’ continuing power, and the lack of political appetite to increase control over them (at least in Canada), it is natural that attention has turned to the process by which persons are nominated and ultimately appointed to the bench.
    [Show full text]
  • Gosselin V. Que´Bec (Attorney General)
    Gosselin v. Que´bec (Attorney General) Gwen Brodsky, Rachel Cox, Shelagh Day and Kate Stephenson Authors’ Note Some of the authors of this judgment have a history with Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General) that pre-dates the creation of the Women’s Court of Canada. Rachel Cox and Gwen Brodsky were co-counsel to the National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) in its 2001 intervention in Gosselin at the Supreme Court of Canada. Shelagh Day was an advisor to NAWL’s legal team in that litigation. Kate Stephenson was not directly involved in the Gosselin case, but her work as a leading anti-poverty litigator makes her intimately familiar with the reasoning and outcome. Each of the authors has been affected by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision. Rachel Cox, who lived in Montre´ al in the 1980s when the Social Aid Regulation reduced young people’s welfare benefit by two-thirds, felt keenly the gulf between the reality of the time and the Supreme Court of Canada’s characterization of the scheme as ‘‘an affirmation of [young people’s] potential’’ and dignity. For those living in Que´ bec in the 1980s, the reason for the reduced rate was clear: to save the government money. Even if people disagreed about whether that was right or wrong, no one believed at the time that the government had designed the scheme in a sincere effort to help young people on welfare. There was a recession and somebody had to pay. Simply put, the court case was about whether or not it was legal for the government to make already very poor welfare recipients pay so much of the cost.
    [Show full text]
  • Poverty Law and Society Series W
    Poverty Law and Society Series W. Wesley Pue, General Editor The Law and Society Series explores law as a socially embedded phenom- enon. It is premised on the understanding that the conventional division of law from society creates false dichotomies in thinking, scholarship, educational practice, and social life. Books in the series treat law and society as mutually constitutive and seek to bridge scholarship emerging from interdisciplinary engagement of law with disciplines such as politics, social theory, history, political economy, and gender studies. A list of the titles in this series is available at http://www.ubcpress.ca/books/ series_law.html Edited by Margot Young, Susan B. Boyd, Gwen Brodsky, and Shelagh Day Poverty: Rights, Social Citizenship, and Legal Activism © UBC Press 2007 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without prior written permission of the publisher, or, in Canada, in the case of photocopying or other reprographic copying, a licence from Access Copyright (Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency), www.accesscopyright.ca. 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in Canada on ancient-forest-free paper (100% post-consumer recycled) that is processed chlorine- and acid-free, with vegetable-based inks. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Poverty : rights, social citizenship, and legal activism / edited by Margot Young [et al.]. (Law and Society, ISSN 1496-4953) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-7748-1287-0 1. Public welfare – Law and legislation – Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • 3:15 P. Roy Thomson Hall 60 Simcoe Street Toronto, Ontario
    1 THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA SPECIAL CONVOCATION TORONTO CALL 2 Thursday, February 25, 1999 - 3:15 p. Roy Thomson Hall 60 Simcoe Street Toronto, Ontario ATCHISON & DENMAN COURT REPORTING SERVICES LTD. 155 University Avenue, Suite 302 Toronto, Ontario CANADA M5H 3B7 (416) 865-9339 (800) 250-9059 www.stenographers.com 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Opening Remarks - Treasurer . 3 National Anthem - Siobhan Dungan . 3 Citation - Philip M. Epstein, Q.C. 5 Remarks - Dr. Louise Arbour .6 Academic Awards .13 Presentation of Candidates for Call to the Bar, Admissions to the Degree of Barrister-at-law 14 Honour Song, Victory Song - Jimmy Dick 18 Oath of Allegiance . 22 Barristers Oath .23 Solicitors Oath .23 Remarks - The Honourable Madam Justice Heather J. Smith, Associate Chief Justice . 23 ATCHISON & DENMAN COURT REPORTING SERVICES LTD. 155 University Avenue, Suite 302 Toronto, Ontario CANADA M5H 3B7 (416) 865-9339 (800) 250-9059 www.stenographers.com February 25, 1999 Special Convocation - 3:15 p.m. 3 1 ---Upon commencing at 3:15 p.m. 2 THE TREASURER: Convocation will come to 3 order. I would ask you to remain standing while Siobhan 4 Dungan sings the National Anthem. 5 ---National Anthem 6 THE TREASURER: Please be seated. 7 My name is Harvey Strosberg, and I am the 8 Treasurer of the Law Society. The Treasurer is the 9 President. The Law Society of Upper Canada governs the 10 legal profession in Ontario in the public interest. The 11 directors of the Law Society are called Benchers and the 12 Director's meeting is called Convocation.
    [Show full text]
  • International Journal of the Legal Profession Judging Gender
    International Journal of the Legal Profession Judging gender: difference and dissent at the Supreme Court of Canada MARIE-CLAIRE BELLEAU* & REBECCA JOHNSON** ABSTRACT Over 25 years ago, Justice Bertha Wilson asked “Will women judges really make a difference?” Taking up her question, we consider the place of difference in gender and judging. Our focus is on those ‘differences of opinion’ between judges that take the form of written and published judicial dissent. We present and interrogate recent statistics about practices of dissent on the Supreme Court of Canada in relation to gender. The statistics are provocative, but do not provide straightforward answers about gender and judging. They do, however, pose new questions, and suggest the importance of better theorizing and exploring the space of dissent. 1. Introductory observations In a controversial 1990 speech, Justice Bertha Wilson, the first woman judge of the Supreme Court oF Canada, posed a question that has occupied many theorists of law: “Will women judges really make a diFFerence?” (Wilson, 1990). With the beneFit oF 25 years with women judges on Canada’s highest court, it is worth returning to Justice Wilson’s question. But in asking about judges, gender and diFFerence, we want to Foreground a particular kind of diFFerence often present For appellate judges: a ‘diFFerence of opinion’. All judges grapple constantly with the unavoidable tension at the heart oF law—a tension between the demands of stability and responsive change (Fitzpatrick, 2001). But the grappling is intensiFied For appellate judges, who bring multiple skills and divergent liFe experiences to bear on a single case.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpreting the Charter with International Law: Pitfalls & Principles
    APPEAL VOLUME 19 n 105 Winner of the 2014 McCarthy Tétrault Law Journal Prize for Exceptional Writing ARTICLE INTERPRETING THE CHARTER WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW: PITFALLS & PRINCIPLES Benjamin Oliphant* CITED: (2014) 19 Appeal 105–129 INTRODUCTION While the use of international human rights law in Canadian courts is not an entirely novel phenomenon,1 there is little doubt that it has become more prevalent in the Supreme Court of Canada’s jurisprudence.2 Far from being treated “as some exotic branch of the law, to be avoided if at all possible,”3 the courts have come to embrace international law and human rights norms, notably in the course of defining the guarantees found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”).4 Indeed, more than simply being considered among various aids to interpretation, it is often said that the Charter must be presumed to provide at least as much protection as international human rights law and norms, particularly those binding treaties that served as its inspiration.5 However, as I aim to show below, the Court has so far used international human rights law inconsistently and imprecisely in the process of Charter interpretation, exhibiting * The author would like to thank the Appeal Editorial Board for their diligent work and helpful suggestions throughout the process, and Judith Oliphant for her editorial assistance and unwavering support. Special thanks are also owed to Professor Brian Langille, who has been a constant source of encouragement and with whom many of these ideas below were initially developed. 1 See e.g. R v Shindler, [1944] AJ No 11, 82 CCC 206; R v Brosig, [1944] 2 DLR 232, 83 CCC 199; and R v Kaehler and Stolski, [1945] 3 DLR 272, 83 CCC 353.
    [Show full text]
  • Louise Arbour, Griffin Bell Award Remarks
    issue 72 summer 2013 THE BULLETIN RENEWING FRIENDSHIPS AT THE 2013 SPRING MEETING IN NAPLES, FLORIDA Nearly 800 Fellows and guests joined for fellowship at the Naples Botanical Gardens for President Varner’s Welcome Reception See article on page 2 >> LOUISE ARBOUR RECEIVES GRIFFIN BELL AWARD FOR COURAGEOUS ADVOCACY Past President John J. (Jack) Dalton introduced Louise Arbour, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, to the Fellows assembled in Naples, Florida, for the College’s 2013 Spring Meeting. Arbour was no stranger to the group, having been inducted as Honorary Fellow of the College in 2003 when she was a Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. However, it was Arbour’s work on the International Criminal Court that drew the at- tention of the Griffin Bell Award for Courageous Advocacy Committee. Excerpts of Jack Dalton’s remarks: The Award was created in 1964, but in 2008, the Board of Regents re-named the award …in honor of Griffin Bell of Atlanta, a distinguished advocate and a leader of this College. Judge Bell was an advocate. He was a soldier. He was a President of this College. He was a judge of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. He was the people’s lawyer, as Attorney General of the United States. The Board of Regents felt that re-naming the award was a fitting way to acknowledge a true leader of the College. Our process for conferring this award is arduous, and it is thorough. The guidelines say “this award should be reserved for the truly exceptional candidate, whose record leaves no ques- tion that he or she should be given the award.” As trial lawyers, we understand and appreci- ate the intense personal commitment, sacrifice, and courage necessary to sustain the extraor- dinary advocacy that our recipient has demonstrated.
    [Show full text]
  • Biograhphy of Louise Arbour
    VULNERABLE POPULATIONS: INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITIES World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland Monday, October 31, 2005 SPEAKERS’ BIOGRAPHIES KEYNOTE ADDRESS: ERNESTO ZEDILLO, Ph.D., Director, Center for the Study of Globalization, Yale University Ernesto Zedillo is the Director of the Center for the Study of Globalization and Professor in the Field of International Economics and Politics at Yale University. He was President of Mexico from December 1994 to December 2000. He earned his undergraduate degree at the National Polytechnic Institute of Mexico and his master and doctoral degrees at Yale University. After leaving office, Mr. Zedillo became Chairman of the UN High Level Panel on Financing for Development and was a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics. He served as Co- Coordinator of the UN Millennium Project Task Force on Trade and was Co- Chairman of the UN Commission on the Private Sector and Development along with Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada. He is currently Chair of the Global Development Network and Co-Chairman of the International Task Force on Global Public Goods. In April he was appointed by the UN Secretary-General to serve as his Envoy for the upcoming September 2005 Summit in which heads of state and government will review implementation of the Millennium Declaration. Mr. Zedillo is a member of the Trilateral Commission, serves on the International Advisory Board of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Board of Directors of the Institute for International Economics and is a trustee of the World Economic Forum. MODERATOR: RALPH BEGLEITER, Distinguished Journalist in Residence, University of Delaware; former CNN World Affairs Correspondent Ralph Begleiter brings more than 30 years of broadcast journalism experience to his appointment at the University of Delaware, where he teaches communication, journalism, and political science.
    [Show full text]
  • Gwen Brodsky
    6 Human Rights and Poverty: A Twenty-First Century Tribute to J.S. Woodsworth and Call for Human Rights1 gwen brodsky The Canada for which J.S. Woodsworth and the Co-operative Common- wealth Federation (CCF) party struggled – a society in which everyone has an adequate standard of living, including access to adequate food, clothing and housing, health care, workers’ rights, and social programs are vigorous (MacInnis, 1953), is not the Canada of today. This is a mo- ment in Canadian political history when government commitment to social programs is at a low ebb.2 It has become shockingly ordinary that people in Vancouver, and other major cities in Canada, have to line up at food banks, beg, steal, sleep in doorways and on church pews, and sell their bodies to support themselves and their children.3 This chap- ter is concerned with the disjuncture between Canada’s human rights obligations and poverty in Canada. Social programs are essential to re- alizing Canada’s human rights obligations. This essay maps out in gen- eral terms a practical and concrete proposal for legislation that would require greater governmental accountability for the establishment and maintenance of adequate social programs. If it is recognized that hav- ing adequate social programs is essential to the realization of human rights that inhere in all Canadians, it follows that there is a governmen- tal obligation, not only to establish social programs, but to have eff ec- tive accountability mechanisms to ensure stability, and consistency for social programs, and to guard against their erosion. It is not my intention in this chapter to take issue with the moral and religious foundations for the sense of social obligation that ani- mated the social reformers of Woodsworth’s time.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court of Canada and the Judicial Role: an Historical Institutionalist Account
    THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA AND THE JUDICIAL ROLE: AN HISTORICAL INSTITUTIONALIST ACCOUNT by EMMETT MACFARLANE A thesis submitted to the Department of Political Studies in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada November, 2009 Copyright © Emmett Macfarlane, 2009 i Abstract This dissertation describes and analyzes the work of the Supreme Court of Canada, emphasizing its internal environment and processes, while situating the institution in its broader governmental and societal context. In addition, it offers an assessment of the behavioural and rational choice models of judicial decision making, which tend to portray judges as primarily motivated by their ideologically-based policy preferences. The dissertation adopts a historical institutionalist approach to demonstrate that judicial decision making is far more complex than is depicted by the dominant approaches within the political science literature. Drawing extensively on 28 research interviews with current and former justices, former law clerks and other staff members, the analysis traces the development of the Court into a full-fledged policy-making institution, particularly under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This analysis presents new empirical evidence regarding not only the various stages of the Court’s decision-making process but the justices’ views on a host of considerations ranging from questions of collegiality (how the justices should work together) to their involvement in controversial and complex social policy matters and their relationship with the other branches of government. These insights are important because they increase our understanding of how the Court operates as one of the country’s more important policy-making institutions.
    [Show full text]