How Harper could have called a time out without calling Rideau Hall

ShareTweet With all the focus lately on Prime Minister Harper’s self-serving request that the Governor General prorogue Parliament, there has been surprisingly little commentary on whether Mr. Harper could have kept Parliament shut down during the Olympics without resorting to that blunt instrument Canadians now commonly know as Prorogation.  And just what did we lose […]

With all the focus lately on Prime Minister Harper’s self-serving request that the Governor General prorogue Parliament, there has been surprisingly little commentary on whether Mr. Harper could have kept Parliament shut down during the Olympics without resorting to that blunt instrument Canadians now commonly know as Prorogation.  And just what did we lose when all those Bills died on the Order Paper?

The rules of procedure for the House of Commons provide that the days or times of parliamentary sittings may be altered through special order.  Examples of this being done before are listed on Parliament’s website itself [emphasis added]:

  1. to eliminate a sitting in order to allow some Members to attend a political convention;
  2. not to sit when ceremonies are taking place to mourn the passing of public figures;
  3. to make a statement of apology to former students of Indian Residential Schools;
  4. to start a sitting earlier on given days in order to consider Government Orders;
  5. for the installation of a new Governor General;
  6. to begin a sitting earlier or later in order for a visiting leader or head of state to address both Houses;
  7. not to sit on days on which the House would otherwise sit;
  8. and to sit on days on which the House would not otherwise sit, including Saturdays and Sundays.

Although none of the reasons cobbled together by Mr. Harper for shutting down Parliament for an extended period of time rise to the level of making a landmark apology to victims of Indian Residential Schools, the fact remains that there was a process available for altering — even drastically — the schedule of Parliament without proroguing the parliamentary Session.

The difference between prorogation and an (albeit extended) adjournment is significant.  Upon prorogation, all parliamentary committees cease and all orders of reference lapse.  Committee memberships (other than for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs) are terminated.  No documents can be tabled (including reports of parliamentary officers like the parliamentary budget officer, or the auditor general).  A new throne speech must be read and debated.  And, most significantly, by default Bills which have not received Royal Assent before prorogation are “entirely terminated” and must be reintroduced at the next Session as if they had never existed.  (And yet Mr. Harper complains about Bills getting stalled in the Senate!)

Here, by the way, is a list of Bills that died on the Order Paper when Parliament was prorogued:

  1. Bill C-6: An Act respecting the safety of consumer products (Canada Consumer Product Safety Act). This bill had actually passed third reading stage in the Senate, but hadn’t actually received Royal Assent.  Close, but no cigar.
  2. Bill C-8: An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves (Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act).
  3. Bill C-13: An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act.
  4. Bill C-15: An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Here’s another Bill that had passed Third Reading in the Senate but hadn’t yet received Royal Assent.
  5. Bill C-19: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions)
  6. Bill C-20: An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident (Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act). Sound important?  It made it through the Commons Committee stage.
  7. Bill C-23: An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia (Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act). That’s okay.  The Colombians aren’t going anywhere.
  8. Bill C-26: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime). This one was before a Senate committee when it died.
  9. Bill C-27: An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act (Electronic Commerce Protection Act). Huh, what’s that about the economy?
  10. Bill C-30: An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Senate Ethics Act).
  11. Bill C-31: An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.
  12. Bill C-34: An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act).
  13. Bill C-35: An Act to deter terrorism, and to amend the State Immunity Act(Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act).
  14. Bill C-36: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act).
  15. Bill C-37: An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts (An Action Plan for the National Capital Commission).
  16. Bill C-40: An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (Expanded Voting Opportunities Act).
  17. Bill C-42: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act).
  18. Bill C-43: An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code (Strengthening Canada’s Corrections System Act).
  19. Bill C-44: An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.
  20. Bill C-45: An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.  According to the Bill’s legislative summary, this is actually the third time this Bill has died on the Order Paper.
  21. Bill C-46: An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act).
  22. Bill C-47: An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to support investigations (Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act).
  23. Bill C-52: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud) (Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act).
  24. Bill C-53: An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accelerated parole review) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Protecting Canadians by Ending Early Release for Criminals Act).
  25. Bill C-54: An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act (Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act).
  26. Bill C-55: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Shoker Act).
  27. Bill C-57: An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act).
  28. Bill C-58: An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service (Child Protection Act (Online Sexual Exploitation)).
  29. Bill C-59: An Act to amend the International Transfer of Offenders Act (Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act).
  30. Bill C-60: An Act to implement the Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America (Keeping Canadians Safe (Protecting Borders) Act).
  31. Bill C-61: An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of railway operations (Railway Continuation Act, 2009).
  32. Bill C-63: An Act to amend the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and another Act in consequence thereof (First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act).

This list doesn’t include the four government Bills introduced in the Senate, the 45 public bills from the Senate, or the 353 private members’ bills in the House (which admittedly weren’t likely to get anywhere anyway).  All of which died on the Order Paper.

If we are to believe Mr. Harper’s claim that time was needed for MPs to participate in the Olympics and simultaneously buckle down on figuring out how to manage the economy — and we don’t — then surely he could have seen fit to introduce a motion for a special order modifying the Parliamentary schedule to accommodate this through an extended adjournment.  Sure, he would have had to convince more people than just the Governor General, but at least a case could have been made that the time was right for a snow day.  And, when MPs got back to work after the Olympics and figuring out that pesky economy, they could have picked up where they left off debating those Bills they thought important enough to consider over the 13 days of sittings they had already had before the break. (The first break,  that is: admittedly this manoeuvre would have required an Order of the House of Commons itself.  But there was plenty of time to arrange that, either when Parliament was scheduled to resume on January 25, or earlier if Mr. Harper asked the Governor General to advance the date on which Parliament was set to resume.)

Now that the prorogation ship has sailed, the least Mr. Harper can do is support a move to resurrect Bills that died on the Order Paper (such as Mr. Layton’s proposal), or even bring one himself.  The Standing Orders provide that Bills can be reinstated at the start of a new session at the same stage they had reached at the end of the previous session, either with unanimous consent, or by motion after notice and debate.

So, we at DoubleHearsay say “Bring Back the Bills!”  If Harper doesn’t pledge to do it first, I suspect the opposition parties would find a lot of public support for moving to reinstate some of these themselves.  If there’s one thing Canadians won’t be able to stand more than watching MPs take an extended winter vacation to help the Prime Minister avoid accountability, it’s watching those MPs waste time re-“debating” legislation all over again.

Open Sourcing the Law?

ShareTweet DoubleHearsay recently got wind of a(nother) seemingly altruistic movement afoot aimed at making legal information freely available to the public.  LexPublica is a website community that develops free contract templates and supporting information to serve individuals and small businesses who can’t afford high-priced lawyers to draft these up for them. Contract “precedents” (the word […]

DoubleHearsay recently got wind of a(nother) seemingly altruistic movement afoot aimed at making legal information freely available to the public.  LexPublica is a website community that develops free contract templates and supporting information to serve individuals and small businesses who can’t afford high-priced lawyers to draft these up for them.

Contract “precedents” (the word lawyers use to describe “templates”, for no other reason I can discern than to make them sound less pedestrian) are worth their weight in gold to a lawyer.  Thanks to precedents, lawyers can re-use some or all of a previously drafted agreement — usually at another client’s expense — and churn out an appropriate document fit for use by another client.  Law firms allocate significant resources to build up fancy precedent databases to allow their lawyers to search for and easily find useful precedents ready to be adapted for the task at hand.  Smaller firms and solo lawyers typically lend precedents to colleagues, extending a sort of tit-for-tat exchange of information.  For clients paying for legal services using the billable hour method, contract precedents make it possible for legal transactions to occur for relatively low cost.

But until now, the legal profession has largely served as the gatekeeper to this fount of valued information.  Even as do-it-yourself will and divorce kits abound, it has generally been understood that “you get what you pay for” when it comes to cobbling together legal documents using resources that cost $20 or less.  A common refrain in response to these DIY guides is that legal documents require precision in drafting in order to give effect to the actual intentions of the parties involved.  Using a “one size fits all” approach to legal transactions is a recipe for disaster, as blind allegiance to boilerplate can lead to a document that doesn’t reflect at all what its users thought it did.  And who wants to leave a will that inadvertently results in one’s estate being escheated to the Crown?!

LexPublica confronts some of these challenges by collaborating with lawyers, law students, “legal experts”, and others to create the contract templates.  And, they say, the templates include “supporting information” to explain how to properly use the agreement.  LexPublica makes very clear that it is not providing, and is no substitute for, legal advice.  If in the course of preparing an agreement using a LexPublica template a user realizes that the matter is more complicated than expected, LexPublica recommends checking in with a lawyer.

So far, LexPublica has five contract templates available for download: a Confidentiality Agreement, Consulting Agreement, Employment Agreement (for use in British Columbia), an Intellectual Property Assignment, and a Website Privacy Policy.  Each has a few highlighted fields indicating where users need to fill in information unique to the transaction being contemplated.

But it’s the “supporting information” that really makes this service worthwhile.  At the time of writing, most of the agreements noted above include “Guidelines for Use” documents that explain to users some of the ins and outs of the particular contract.  The Employment Agreement, for example, does a remarkable job of explaining why certain terms default to statutory requirements under provincial employment standards legislation and should only be modified upward, if at all.  The “General Considerations” document accompanying the Consulting Agreement includes a useful summary of the law for determining whether an individual is an “employee” or “independent contractor”.  Without these tools, lay users could easily fall into traps by changing contract terms without realizing the consequences of doing so.

Will LexPublica and services like it replace the need for lawyers?  Surely not.  The service is intended for individuals and small businesses that can’t afford hiring a lawyer to draft The Perfect Agreement.  For these users, the status quo is either muddling through an entirely self-drafted document (and hoping it never needs to be enforced) or skipping a written agreement altogether.  Even larger companies routinely need to decide whether to retain counsel to draft a Cadillac-style contract that takes into account all the “what-if’s” and comes with a correspondingly high cost to prepare, or to settle for a relatively “quick and dirty” version that gets the job done quickly and cheaply.  With services like LexPublica, we hope individuals and small businesses will be closer to having a similar choice.

“Canada’s Most Reliable Network” is No More

Rogers Communications Inc. will no longer be able to tout itself as offering Canada’s most reliable network, thanks to an injunction obtained by Telus Communications Co.

Rogers Canada's Most Reliable Network

Rogers Communications Inc. will no longer be able to tout itself as offering Canada’s most reliable network, thanks to an injunction obtained by Telus Communications Co. 

On November 24, 2009, the Supreme Court of British Columbia issued reasons for judgment in a case challenging Rogers’ legal right to advertise that it provides Canada’s fastest and most reliable network.  Telus based its challenge on section 52 of the federal Competition Act, which prevents “knowingly or recklessly mak[ing] a representation to the public that is false or misleading in a material respect.”

As explained in the reasons issued by Mr. Justice Grauer, wireless service in Canada has historically been provided using two different network protocols, the “Global System for Mobile Communications” (GSM) and “Code Division Multiple Access” (CDMA).  Telus and Bell historically operated on CDMA networks, while Rogers operated on a GSM network.

By 2006, Rogers was using a second generation “EDGE” network that provided peak data speeds of up to 384 Kbps, while Telus had developed a third generation “EVDO” network that increased peak data speeds to 2 Mbps.

Rogers launched its advanced third generation HSPA technology on top of its existing GSM/EDGE network in September 2007.  In the 25 Canadian cities tapped for the HSPA upgrade, Rogers’ customers are provided with peak data speeds of up to 7.2 Mbps.  Elsewhere, Rogers’ customers rely on the existing GSM/EDGE network.

Based on Rogers post-2007 upgrade, which provided an advantage for data transmission capability (enabling Rogers, in turn, to exclusively market the iPhone), Rogers advertised its network as both Canada’s fastest and most reliable.  Since then, Rogers switched its focus to its reputation as “Canada’s Most Reliable Network”, including in a campaign launched November 2, 2009 and scheduled to run until December 28, 2009.

Meanwhile, Telus joined forced with Bell to construct a new national wireless network using the most advanced HSPA technology available.  Telus essentially built the western half while Bell built the eastern half, both in parallel to their existing EVDO networks.  The new national network launched on November 5, 2009.  Telus argued that, in doing so, it completely nullified Rogers’ advantage, and has actually leap-frogged ahead of Rogers because Telus’ HSPA technology is newer and available more widely.

Thus, Telus argued, it was false or at least misleading for Rogers to continue to advertise that its network is Canada’s fastest and most reliable.

Telus’ claims under the Competition Act haven’t been decided yet.  But the victory for Telus flows from the Court’s ruling that, for now, Rogers must back away from its advertising claims of having Canada’s most reliable network. 

The timing of the injunction hasn’t been finalized yet, nor has its terms.  The Court acknowledges that the busy Christmas shopping season is upon us.  Both Rogers and Telus have been summoned back to Court on November 29th to determine the precise wording of the injunction order, including the amount of time Rogers will be granted to pull its offending advertising materials.  One things seems certain, though: Rogers’ highly successful and uniquitous advertising slogan is headed for the dustbin.

An interesting point argued by Rogers was that, even if its advertising was misleading, Telus could easily launch its own competing advertising campaign to set the record straight.  The Court dismissed this “marketplace of ideas” line of argument, however.  Requiring this of Telus would be too much to ask, the Court stated.  We imagine Telus will find a way of getting the word out regardless, probably with the help of those cute animals we’ve come to enjoy seeing in those “The World is Friendly” ads.

Get Adobe Flash player