Stephen Taylor

Ben Chin is known to most 416/905ers as a former television personality and news host for Citytv in Toronto.

Chin’s now running for the Ontario Liberals in a by-election for the riding of Toronto-Danforth after the provincial seat was vacated by NDP candidate Marilyn Churley when she ran for a federal seat.

As the political game goes for some, it is often advantageous to stress humble beginnings that only help magnify one’s accomplishments.

Chin reaches out to his constituents in this advertisement:

“I moved to East York as a 13 year old. I left my parents behind in Korea, where they were facing political persecution. I didn’t know if I’d see them again.” — Ben Chin, provincial Liberal candidate Toronto-Danforth

However, in this interview we learn a little bit more about Chin’s family background and we get a clearer picture about Ben Chin’s escape from Korea:

Q: As the son of a South Korean diplomat, you travelled the world. Did you notice the different cars in each place you lived?

A: I have always loved cars. I had toy cars and pedal cars as a kid. I used to have a steering wheel with a suction cup. You’d slap it on the dash, sit by the driver and pretend to drive. Because of my dad’s position we always had a chauffeur. The first job I wanted growing up was to be a chauffeur. It’s freaky in retrospect. Everybody’s father had a driver.

Q: Your Dad retired from government service when you were 16 …

A: Yes. We moved to Canada. In Europe the diplomat’s car was the Mercedes. In North America it was the Cadillac. The first car we bought when we moved to Canada was a Chevette and then an Oldsmobile Delta 88. After a life of limos all I saw on the road were cars like these. I was shocked. I didn’t know that such things existed. I was seven years old when I realized my Dad could drive. I gained a whole new respect for him. I thought the car belonged to the guy in the uniform.

Ben Chin was born in Geneva Switzerland and his parents actually moved to Canada when he was 6 years old. When Ben was 10, his father’s diplomatic posting in Ottawa ended and instead of following his parents back to Korea (the country in which the faced “political persecution”), Ben decided to stay in Toronto (source)

From the hard-knock life of a jet-set diplomat’s chauffeured son to the Liberal backbench…

(h/t: Blamb)

UPDATE: In the interests in presenting as much of the story as possible and to be as fair as possible, I present what may be the other side of the story. The following is unverified and 2nd hand from a friend of a friend of the Ben Chin campaign. But, it comes from Jason Cherniak, so it might be worth considering:

“Ben Chin’s father was a diplomat. Apparently, at some point in the 1970s he opined that pro-democracy activists should be let out of prison in South Korea. (Remember that the country was not a democracy at that point in time.) Ben Chin’s father was arrested by the Korean secret service and accused of being a communist. In 1976, the secret service visited Chin at school and threatened to end his education. That is when he obtained a student visa to Canada, where he lived with his brother and sister who were in university. In 1978, Ben Chin’s father was released from prison and allowed to move to Canada. His wife (Ben’s mother) snuck out of South Korea and joined her family.”

So, what’s the true story? Did Ben live in Ottawa until 1974 with his parents until they left him to return to Korea? (source)

Or was Chin in Korea in 1976 and only moved to Canada after his father was threatened? (according to an unnamed partisan source close to the Chin campaign via Cheriak)

I posted this story because it’s about Canadian politics and it has an inconsistancy about a Liberal candidate’s backstory. Could Cherniak’s unnamed partisan source be more accurate than what has/hasn’t been reported in print? It’s possible, but without more credible information I’m going with what appears in the public record.

But, I thought Jason’s post was worth consideration and that’s why I’ve included it.

Today, Stephen Harper pick for Supreme Court Justice faces a Parliamentary ad-hoc committee and this reflects our Prime Minister’s election promise to bring more transparency and accountiblility to government.

Justice Marshall Rothstein must feel like a student that’s studied his whole life for this final exam. Except this exam isn’t one of those university finals worth 75%-100%, it’s more akin to one taken in high school worth 5%-10%. The Justice is already top of his class and barring some cataclysmic event, he’s already passed.

Enter Joe Comartin, the predicted spoiler of the whole affair. Comartin calls the process “a sham”, because, the reason he gives, is that it does not go far enough.

It really isn’t anything about accountability because obviously we as a committee have no control over this. We’re not even going to make a recommendation, as far as I know. — Joe Comartin, NDP MP

However, we all know that the NDP doesn’t even want to make a recommendation. In fact, they have already decried the entire process dismissing it as “American style”.

Yet, Mr. Comartin has tabled a motion planned to restrict the transparency of the process and may boycott the committee if it isn’t passed. Ladies and gentlemen, that’s what we call “American style filibustering” and being in relative opposition instead of principled opposition.

Indeed, Jack Layton spoke about making Parliament work for the “working Canadians” so one would predict that adding even an ounce (sorry, 28.3 grams) of transparency would be inline with the average working Joe Canadian instead of the legal elitism that Jack now seems to back. Before Stephen Harper, the SCC appointment process was restricted from “working Canadians” and was limited to the Prime Minister and a handful of legal advisors that met behind closed doors. Many people wouldn’t have pegged Layton as an elitist, but perhaps that’s the Toronto NDP in him coming out.

UPDATE: Paul from BBS writes a letter to the editor regarding Joe Comartin’s regressive attitude.

Today Stephen Harper announced that his nominee for the Supreme Court of Canada will be Marshall Rothstein. Rothstein was previously on the Federal Court of Appeal. I really like what Harper is doing with this new transparent process. Most Canadians likely can name more US Supreme Court justices than Canadian Supreme Court justices. This process will take a secretive elite selection process and open it up for all Canadians. This is our court so it’s good that we get to find out what kind of judge Rothstein is.

Here is his CV:

CURRICULUM VITAE

Personal and Education Information

• Born December 25, 1940 in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
• Educated at Winnipeg schools and University of Manitoba. B. Com. 1962, LL.B. 1966.
• Called to the Bar of Manitoba in 1966.
• Married June 12, 1966 to Sheila Dorfman of Montreal, four children, Ronald, Douglas, Tracey and Robert and two grandchildren.

Practice Information

• Associate Thorvaldson, Eggertson, Saunders and Mauro, 1966-1969
• Associate Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson 1969-1972
• partner Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson 1972-1972
• Member and periodic Chairman of Management Committee/Executive Board 1981-1992.
• Appointed Q.C. 1979.
• Practised in the areas of Administrative Law and Litigation, primarily Transportation and Competition Law, Labour and commercial arbitrator.
• Adjudicator, Manitoba Human Rights Act 1978-1983.
• Member, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal 1986-1992.
• Appeared before
  • federal and Manitoba Administrative Tribunals
  • Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench
  • Court of Appeal, Federal Court of Canada – Trial and Appeal Divisions
  • Supreme Court of Canada.

Teaching Information

• Lecturer, Transportation Law, University of Manitoba, Faculty of Law 1970-1983, 1988-1992.
• Lecturer, Contract Law, University of Manitoba, Extension Department 1970-1975.
• Bar Admission Course Lecturer, Law Society of Manitoba 1970-1975.

Legal Aid Information

• Secretary (Administrator), Civil Legal Aid Committee, Law Society of Manitoba 1968-1970.

Commissions of Inquiry

• Chairman, Commission on Compulsory Retirement (Manitoba) 1981-1982.
• Chairman, Ministerial Task Force on International Air Policy (Canada) 1990-1991.

Committee Participation Information

• Member, Manitoba Transportation Industry Development Advisory Committee 1985-1987, and Chairman 1987-1990.
• Member, Airports Task Force 1985-1986.
• Member, Airports Transfer Advisory Board 1988-1992.
• Member, External Advisory Committee, University of Manitoba Transport Institute 1989-1992.

Judicial Career

• Judge of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division and member ex officio Appeal Division June 24, 1992 to January 20, 1999. (Rulings: 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002)
• Appointed Judge of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada October 29, 1992. (Rulings)
• Judicial member of the Competition Tribunal May 31, 1993 to January 20, 1999. (Rulings)
• Appointed Judge of the Federal Court of Canada – Appeal Division, January 21, 1999. (Rulings: 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006)
• Appointed Member of Committees and Special Committees (NAFTA) Regulations, November 15, 2004.

NOTE: With the coming into force, on July 2, 2003, of the Courts Administration Service Act, the appeal and trial divisions of the Federal Court of Canada became separate entities known as the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. At that time, Mr. Justice Rothstein became a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal.

So… the big question remains… what do you think?

UPDATE: In perhaps his most famous ruling:

“In addressing the question of whether the transgenic offspring of a transgenic animal were patentable, Mr. Justice Rothstein noted that most inventions involve some use of the laws of nature. Thus, the mere fact that the laws of nature play a role in the development of the invention does not prevent it from being patentable. In this case, human intervention was needed to create the first transgenic animals. The fact that these animals, once produced, can reproduce to create transgenic off-spring does not render them unpatentable. The off-spring exist due to a human-controlled process (the creation of the first transgenic animals). The fact that nature also plays a role in the creation of transgenic animals does not detract from the key role of human intervention. Thus, transgenic animals and their off-spring now appear to be patentable subject matter in Canada.”

UPDATE: So who is Marshall Rothstein? Well, it looks like he’s our next SCC Justice since the Liberals won’t be able to provide much opposition to his appointment during the ad-hoc committee hearing. Irwin Cotler is the head Liberal on the committee and was the chief drafter of Harper’s shortlist. Furthermore, Rothstein was appointed to the Federal Court by Mulroney’s government and to the Appeals Court by Chretien’s government. Besides, Rothstein’s cadidacy was highly scrutinized by a process that included members of all parties. We know that Rothstein comes with high praise from the Liberal and Conservative parties. Will the NDP and Bloc endorse Rothstein?

If the NDP views the opposition of the candidate as futile, will they oppose the process?