Friday's Supreme Court of Canada decision, which strikes down the notion that a person can give advance consent to sexual activity that takes place while that person is unconscious, does not radically alter the existing laws on sexual assault.
Still, legal experts say it is an important reaffirmation and clarification of those laws.
"It clears up any misapprehension that there is such a thing as implied consent, advance consent or continuous consent, particularly in the context of spousal or other intimate relationships," says Melanie Randall, who teaches law at the University of Western Ontario in London. "The Supreme Court is really unambiguous that there is no special exemptions or exceptions in these contexts."
Such exceptions did exist not that long ago, adds Randall. Up until 1983, when the Criminal Code was revised, a women's consent to sex was not required but assumed in marriage, for example.
"It's taken a long time for people to realize that even in intimate relationships, women have a right to say no to sex, that men must ensure that there is consent to sexual contact, that consent does not exist in advance of or prior to sexual contact," Randall said.
The May 27 ruling was a split 6-3 decision by the nine judges of the Supreme Court, who are: front row, left to right, Marie Deschamps, William Binnie, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, Louis LeBel and Morris Fish; back row, left to right. Marshall Rothstien, Rosalie Silberman Abella, Louise Charron and Thomas Cromwell. Binnie, LeBel and Fish were the dissenting judges. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
Randall worked on drafting legal arguments for one of the interveners in this case, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), which argued that a person who is unconscious is not capable of consenting to sexual activity and that consent must be active, voluntary, ongoing, contemporaneous with the activity in question and revocable at any time.
"[The decision] has confirmed what is already clear in the Criminal Code and what, in our view, also should be common sense, which is that when a woman is unconscious, she's not sexually available," said LEAF's legal director, Joanna L. Birenbaum.
Randall sees the decision as important for clarifying what Canadian law on sexual assault requires when it comes to arguing that a complainant consented to a sexual act.
"It's a strong and clear judgment that consent requires a conscious operating mind and that you can't either actively consent or revoke your consent in the absence of that. So, it's impossible to consent in advance to sexual contact when you're unconscious," she said.
Prior consent no longer valid defence
The Criminal Code does not directly address the notion of advance consent or the question of whether a person is conscious or unconscious, the two key factors in the case that went before the Supreme Court. The Code does define sexual assault in terms of the absence of "voluntary agreement" to engage in sexual activity and refers to instances when a person is "incapable" of giving such agreement.
Existing Criminal Code provisions already made it clear that if a person is unconscious, they are incapable of giving voluntary agreement. But prior to Friday's decision, the Code was not explicit about the idea of giving consent in advance, said Martha Shaffer, a law professor at the University of Toronto
"Now, the law is clear: The notion that you give prior consent is not recognized in Canadian law," Shaffer said.
The case is the first to go before the Supreme Court involving advance consent to unconscious sex, Shaffer said, but is consistent with both Criminal Code provisions and past court decisions on sexual assault. Rather than looking in detail at the facts of the case, as had been done in the two earlier stages — in provincial court and the Ontario Court of Appeal — the Supreme Court judges focused on the points of law involved.
"I don't think the facts were really driving this decision," Shaffer said. "What was driving this decision was concern about recognition of the idea that you can give consent in advance to the activity that occurred and what that would mean for women who are intoxicated — either voluntarily or involuntarily."
'This case was argued purely as a question of law: is it legal to give this kind of advance consent?'
— Martha Shaffer, University of Toronto Faculty of LawFrom that perspective, questions around whether the female complainant in the original case gave her consent to the sexual activity that her common-law partner performed on her while she was unconscious or why she recanted her original accusation of sexual assault were irrelevant at the Supreme Court stage.
"This case was argued purely as a question of law: Is it legal to give this kind of advance consent — can you do it?" said Shaffer. "And the court said, 'No, you can't.' So, even if she thought she could, what the court has said is, 'Too bad, you can't do it; it is not valid consent as a matter of Canadian law.'"
Constitutional challenge possible
Also not considered at this stage were the dozens of past criminal convictions the defendant had, which included domestic violence against the complainant as well as against a former girlfriend, or the original trial judge's finding that the woman's conflicting testimony was "typical... of a recanting complainant in a domestic matter."
But for LEAF, the context of the particular case as well as the broader issues of violence perpetuated against women who are incapacitated, whether because of drugs, alcohol or physical disability, which, Birenbaum says, is a risk that is real and pervasive, are as valid as the points of law.
'I see all of these arguments as kind of red herrings – same as the concern that spouses who kiss their sleeping partners are suddenly going to be criminalized.'
— Melanie Randall, University of Western Ontario Faculty of Law"Part of what LEAF's role is is to situate the legal issues that come before the court within the factual context of the reality of women's lives," said Birenbaum.
Concerns that the decision will curtail people's freedom to engage in risky, unconventional forms of sex are unwarranted, says Randall.
"I see all of these arguments as kind of red herrings – same as the concern that spouses who kiss their sleeping partners are suddenly going to be criminalized," she said. "We don't really have massive social problems around these issues, but we do have a massive social problem around sexual assault and getting a good criminal justice response to sex assault."
She says that although the Supreme Court decision could be appealed by way of a constitutional challenge, she hopes that won't happen.
"I hope that no one wastes their effort on that, because it doesn't seem to be an important social issue right now," she said.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Saturday, May 28, 2011
AF447 stalled but crew maintained nose-up attitude : flight AF447 maintained nose-up inputs to the aircraft even after the Airbus A330 entered a stall.
French investigators have disclosed that the crew of Air France flight AF447 maintained nose-up inputs to the aircraft even after the Airbus A330 entered a stall.
The inquiry has also revealed that the pilots set engine thrust variously to go-around power and idle as they battled to rescue the jet.
In an update to the loss of the A330 over the South Atlantic two years ago the Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses has detailed the last few minutes of the flight. BEA said the aircraft climbed from its cruise altitude of 35,000ft towards 38,000ft and stalled, but added that the flying pilot "maintained nose-up inputs" to the controls.
BEA confirms that the captain had left the cockpit to rest, about eight minutes before the emergency on 1 June 2009, having discussed with the relief crew possible turbulence ahead of the aircraft.
The pilots altered course slightly, about 12° to the left, and as turbulence increased they opted to reduce speed to Mach 0.8.
About 2min later the aircraft's autopilot and autothrust disengaged, and remained so for the rest of the flight. This would have put the jet into 'alternate' law, meaning it lost its angle-of-attack protection.
The aircraft began to roll to the right, and as the pilot made a nose-up left input, the A330's stall warning sounded twice - an indication that the aircraft had exceeded a critical angle-of-attack threshold.
The primary flight display on the captain's side showed a "sharp fall" in speed from 275kt to 60kt, and the aircraft's angle of attack "increased progressively" beyond 10°.
While the jet had initially been cruising at 35,000ft, investigators stated that the aircraft climbed, with a vertical speed of 7,000ft/min, heading towards 38,000ft.
The pilot made nose-down inputs as well as inputs for left and right roll. The vertical speed fell back to 700ft/min, the displayed speed "increased sharply" to 215kt, and the angle of attack reduced to 4°.
In its update the BEA said the non-flying pilot "tried several times to call the captain back".
There was another stall warning and the BEA said the stall warning sounded again. The thrust levers were positioned for take-off/go-around power but the flying pilot "maintained nose-up inputs".
Angle of attack continued to increase, it added, and the trimmable horizontal stabiliser increased from a 3° nose-up position to 13° nose-up - where it stayed for the rest of the flight.
The aircraft reached 38,000ft - its maximum altitude - with its angle of attack having increased to 16°.
AF447's captain returned to the cockpit - just 90s after the autopilot had disengaged - by which time the aircraft had started its fatal descent.
As it passed through 35,000ft the angle of attack increased to more than 40° and the A330 was descending at 10,000ft/min. Its pitch did not exceed 15°, its engine power was close to 100% of N1, and the jet oscillated with rolls of up to 40°.
"The [flying pilot] made an input on the sidestick to the left and nose-up stops, which lasted about 30s," said the BEA.
Just 20s after the captain returned to the cockpit, said the BEA, the thrust levers were set to the 'idle' position, with the engines delivering 55% of N1.
Measured angle of attack values, the BEA pointed out, are only considered valid when the measured speed is above 60kt. It said that the angle of attack, when valid, always remained above 35°.
AF447's had turned almost a three-quarter circle to the right during the emergency, and - having descended for 3min 30s - it struck the ocean surface with a ground speed of just 107kt, a nose-up pitch attitude of 16.2°, with a heading of 270°.
BEA stated that the aircraft stalled but that the inputs from the flying pilot were "mainly nose-up". It added that the engines "were operating and always responded to crew commands".
The inquiry has also revealed that the pilots set engine thrust variously to go-around power and idle as they battled to rescue the jet.
In an update to the loss of the A330 over the South Atlantic two years ago the Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses has detailed the last few minutes of the flight. BEA said the aircraft climbed from its cruise altitude of 35,000ft towards 38,000ft and stalled, but added that the flying pilot "maintained nose-up inputs" to the controls.
BEA confirms that the captain had left the cockpit to rest, about eight minutes before the emergency on 1 June 2009, having discussed with the relief crew possible turbulence ahead of the aircraft.
The pilots altered course slightly, about 12° to the left, and as turbulence increased they opted to reduce speed to Mach 0.8.
About 2min later the aircraft's autopilot and autothrust disengaged, and remained so for the rest of the flight. This would have put the jet into 'alternate' law, meaning it lost its angle-of-attack protection.
The aircraft began to roll to the right, and as the pilot made a nose-up left input, the A330's stall warning sounded twice - an indication that the aircraft had exceeded a critical angle-of-attack threshold.
The primary flight display on the captain's side showed a "sharp fall" in speed from 275kt to 60kt, and the aircraft's angle of attack "increased progressively" beyond 10°.
While the jet had initially been cruising at 35,000ft, investigators stated that the aircraft climbed, with a vertical speed of 7,000ft/min, heading towards 38,000ft.
The pilot made nose-down inputs as well as inputs for left and right roll. The vertical speed fell back to 700ft/min, the displayed speed "increased sharply" to 215kt, and the angle of attack reduced to 4°.
In its update the BEA said the non-flying pilot "tried several times to call the captain back".
There was another stall warning and the BEA said the stall warning sounded again. The thrust levers were positioned for take-off/go-around power but the flying pilot "maintained nose-up inputs".
Angle of attack continued to increase, it added, and the trimmable horizontal stabiliser increased from a 3° nose-up position to 13° nose-up - where it stayed for the rest of the flight.
The aircraft reached 38,000ft - its maximum altitude - with its angle of attack having increased to 16°.
AF447's captain returned to the cockpit - just 90s after the autopilot had disengaged - by which time the aircraft had started its fatal descent.
As it passed through 35,000ft the angle of attack increased to more than 40° and the A330 was descending at 10,000ft/min. Its pitch did not exceed 15°, its engine power was close to 100% of N1, and the jet oscillated with rolls of up to 40°.
"The [flying pilot] made an input on the sidestick to the left and nose-up stops, which lasted about 30s," said the BEA.
Just 20s after the captain returned to the cockpit, said the BEA, the thrust levers were set to the 'idle' position, with the engines delivering 55% of N1.
Measured angle of attack values, the BEA pointed out, are only considered valid when the measured speed is above 60kt. It said that the angle of attack, when valid, always remained above 35°.
AF447's had turned almost a three-quarter circle to the right during the emergency, and - having descended for 3min 30s - it struck the ocean surface with a ground speed of just 107kt, a nose-up pitch attitude of 16.2°, with a heading of 270°.
BEA stated that the aircraft stalled but that the inputs from the flying pilot were "mainly nose-up". It added that the engines "were operating and always responded to crew commands".
Friday, May 27, 2011
policing black eye isn’t fading away: The one-year anniversary of the G20 Summit policing fiasco will shortly be upon us.
The one-year anniversary of the G20 Summit policing fiasco will shortly be upon us.
Yet none of the half dozen internal and external inquiries into what went so disastrously wrong last June has been tabled yet. A police board inquiry won’t even start its hearings until next week.
Only a narrow investigation by Ontario ombudsman André Marin that looked at the misapplication of an obscure security enhancement regulation under the Public Works Protection Act has seen the light of day.
And just one from among the many bullying, bushwhacking officers who assaulted peaceful protesters has been charged.
In cop lingo, the clearance rate is dismal.
Unless, of course, the intention was always to clear cops of wrongdoing by burying the G20 autopsies under a heap of paper-chase bureaucracy. But however much Premier Dalton McGuinty and Chief Bill Blair might wish it, this law-and-order shiner isn’t going to fade away.
On Thursday, the Special Investigations Unit announced it has reopened a probe — for the third time — into one specific complaint of alleged police brutality, the beating of Dorian Barton.
SIU director Ian Scott does not score big points for that.
The pissing match between Scott and police spokesman Mark Pugash has been entertaining to watch. It’s almost like the old days when police board chair Susan Eng went mano-a-mano with then-chief Bill McCormack. McCormack, though, had no problem speaking for himself, if in tortuous McCormack-ese, and was always available to reporters. Blair, by comparison, has largely delegated the push-back to his communications pitbull. Who is actually running that asylum?
Somebody at the cop shop is — how shall I put this delicately? — lying. Actually, a whole bunch of officers would appear to be prevaricating over the no-see-um insistence on what happened to Barton in the incident wherein he was tackled to the ground, suffering a broken right arm, black eye, swollen limbs and bruised back.
Eleven witness officers — count ’em — have told the SIU they were unable to identify the culprit in their midst, though eight were in the immediate vicinity of the incident and photographic evidence clearly shows a recognizable individual through his face shield. Further, as the Star’s Dan Robson exclusively reported Thursday, Scott has learned that one from among the Group of Eleven was the suspect officer’s G20 roommate and two others were supervisors who presumably knew the names of those under their command.
This isn’t a whodunit mystery.
Indeed, as Pugash told the Star a week ago, the Toronto Police Service has on three occasions since January given the suspect officer’s name to the SIU. The means by which he was ID’d, however, is a puzzle, insofar as that methodology is even relevant.
Pugash says the officer’s handle was obtained by zooming in on the badge number and name in the photograph. Scott counters that he was unable to duplicate that feat, despite borrowing technology from the province’s revenue ministry. (Why the revenue ministry would even have such technology is another matter entirely.)
Barton’s father tried also, employing a software program downloaded from the Toronto Police Service website, but came up empty too. So what is Pugash talking about? That’s an issue which might be resolved now that the police have agreed to allow the SIU to interview the employee who performed the photo-identifying deed.
Yet this is a tangential diversion from the core of the matter: The SIU’s prolonged unwillingness to charge the suspect officer on evidence that would sure as hell be good enough for police to charge a civilian. If there exists, as many suspect, one law for cops and one for the rest of us, Scott is just as guilty of adhering to it.
The SIU director continues to insist that a positive identification of the officer, by name, is essential for a charge to stand up in court. The “loop’’, he posits, is insufficient to support a prosecution, though he’s got a witness, photographer Andrew Wallace, who saw Barton being struck by that officer and is willing to testify in court.
Believe me. If I took a swing at, oh, let’s say a traffic officer and someone standing by saw it, I’d be in handcuffs lickety-split.
In recent off-the-record discussions I’ve had with legal experts, including Crown attorneys and a senior judge, not one has been able to fathom Scott’s reasoning. It’s as if he wants this charge bubble-wrapped up in defence-proof binding.
Such a lofty standard is unfair to Barton and, frankly, further damages an agency that spends way too much time whining about what it can’t do. The truth is, what it chooses not to do.
This isn’t just about Barton anymore. It’s about the integrity of both the SIU and Toronto’s police department.
Leave it for a judge or jury to decide if the charge is supportable on the evidence. That’s not Scott’s job.
I want a prosecutor to call all 11 witness officers to the stand so they can be asked, under oath, if they recognize the defendant as the person who struck Barton. I want to hear them, one by one, deny it. I want their names on the public record.
With the shell game some cops are playing right now, that feels even more vital than a conviction.
In the court of public opinion, let them be judged.
Yet none of the half dozen internal and external inquiries into what went so disastrously wrong last June has been tabled yet. A police board inquiry won’t even start its hearings until next week.
Only a narrow investigation by Ontario ombudsman André Marin that looked at the misapplication of an obscure security enhancement regulation under the Public Works Protection Act has seen the light of day.
And just one from among the many bullying, bushwhacking officers who assaulted peaceful protesters has been charged.
In cop lingo, the clearance rate is dismal.
Unless, of course, the intention was always to clear cops of wrongdoing by burying the G20 autopsies under a heap of paper-chase bureaucracy. But however much Premier Dalton McGuinty and Chief Bill Blair might wish it, this law-and-order shiner isn’t going to fade away.
On Thursday, the Special Investigations Unit announced it has reopened a probe — for the third time — into one specific complaint of alleged police brutality, the beating of Dorian Barton.
SIU director Ian Scott does not score big points for that.
The pissing match between Scott and police spokesman Mark Pugash has been entertaining to watch. It’s almost like the old days when police board chair Susan Eng went mano-a-mano with then-chief Bill McCormack. McCormack, though, had no problem speaking for himself, if in tortuous McCormack-ese, and was always available to reporters. Blair, by comparison, has largely delegated the push-back to his communications pitbull. Who is actually running that asylum?
Somebody at the cop shop is — how shall I put this delicately? — lying. Actually, a whole bunch of officers would appear to be prevaricating over the no-see-um insistence on what happened to Barton in the incident wherein he was tackled to the ground, suffering a broken right arm, black eye, swollen limbs and bruised back.
Eleven witness officers — count ’em — have told the SIU they were unable to identify the culprit in their midst, though eight were in the immediate vicinity of the incident and photographic evidence clearly shows a recognizable individual through his face shield. Further, as the Star’s Dan Robson exclusively reported Thursday, Scott has learned that one from among the Group of Eleven was the suspect officer’s G20 roommate and two others were supervisors who presumably knew the names of those under their command.
This isn’t a whodunit mystery.
Indeed, as Pugash told the Star a week ago, the Toronto Police Service has on three occasions since January given the suspect officer’s name to the SIU. The means by which he was ID’d, however, is a puzzle, insofar as that methodology is even relevant.
Pugash says the officer’s handle was obtained by zooming in on the badge number and name in the photograph. Scott counters that he was unable to duplicate that feat, despite borrowing technology from the province’s revenue ministry. (Why the revenue ministry would even have such technology is another matter entirely.)
Barton’s father tried also, employing a software program downloaded from the Toronto Police Service website, but came up empty too. So what is Pugash talking about? That’s an issue which might be resolved now that the police have agreed to allow the SIU to interview the employee who performed the photo-identifying deed.
Yet this is a tangential diversion from the core of the matter: The SIU’s prolonged unwillingness to charge the suspect officer on evidence that would sure as hell be good enough for police to charge a civilian. If there exists, as many suspect, one law for cops and one for the rest of us, Scott is just as guilty of adhering to it.
The SIU director continues to insist that a positive identification of the officer, by name, is essential for a charge to stand up in court. The “loop’’, he posits, is insufficient to support a prosecution, though he’s got a witness, photographer Andrew Wallace, who saw Barton being struck by that officer and is willing to testify in court.
Believe me. If I took a swing at, oh, let’s say a traffic officer and someone standing by saw it, I’d be in handcuffs lickety-split.
In recent off-the-record discussions I’ve had with legal experts, including Crown attorneys and a senior judge, not one has been able to fathom Scott’s reasoning. It’s as if he wants this charge bubble-wrapped up in defence-proof binding.
Such a lofty standard is unfair to Barton and, frankly, further damages an agency that spends way too much time whining about what it can’t do. The truth is, what it chooses not to do.
This isn’t just about Barton anymore. It’s about the integrity of both the SIU and Toronto’s police department.
Leave it for a judge or jury to decide if the charge is supportable on the evidence. That’s not Scott’s job.
I want a prosecutor to call all 11 witness officers to the stand so they can be asked, under oath, if they recognize the defendant as the person who struck Barton. I want to hear them, one by one, deny it. I want their names on the public record.
With the shell game some cops are playing right now, that feels even more vital than a conviction.
In the court of public opinion, let them be judged.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
2,000 Sony Ericsson customers from Canada whose personal data had been stolen and posted online for anyone to see.
TORONTO — David Campbell found out Wednesday morning that he was one of 2,000 Sony Ericsson customers from Canada whose personal data had been stolen and posted online for anyone to see.
He's been through a case of online fraud before and is resigned to the fact that information stored on the web is at risk. So he wasn't overly concerned to learn that his name and email were being shared by hackers.
But he doesn't appreciate that Sony didn't alert him to the latest security breach to hit the entertainment giant.
"I guess (the data breach) is disappointing but in this modern day you'd probably be a little foolish to think that anything's safe. If you're using a computer you've got to be aware that your information is vulnerable," said Campbell, who works with the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in southwestern Ontario.
"I think more disappointing would be that Sony didn't bother to contact any of their customers to let them know this had happened."
Sony has been hit with a number of hacker attacks in recent weeks, the most notable coming last month and affecting more than 100 million accounts of PlayStation Network and Qriocity users.
In that incident, data including names, birth dates, email addresses and log-in information was compromised. Sony also said encrypted credit card data from 10 million accounts may have been accessed.
The company said in a statement issued Wednesday that hackers on Sony Ericsson's Canadian site only accessed email addresses and encrypted passwords.
Sony did not immediately respond to questions about whether it attemped to contact affected consumers.
Campbell previously had a problem with fraudulent purchases being made with his credit card and that experience raised his level of caution when sharing information online.
But a few months ago, he needed a product from Sony and found he could only get it through the web. He took the risk.
"I wanted it, it was the only way to get it, so I did it," Campbell said.
"I don't think you have a reasonable expectation of privacy online any more, even on secure websites. I think that's being pretty clearly established."
Scott Spence, a Winnipeg-based financial planner, said he, too, was disappointed to not hear from Sony about his name and email being obtained by hackers. But he expected little fallout from the incident.
"The information that has been breached really is nothing more than getting information out of a telephone book and ... the impact to me personally is going to be minute," Spence said.
"A decade ago, most individuals would be absolutely appalled, but in this digital age, most individuals are finding it's (just) an inconvenience."
Earlier this month, Canada's privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart called for the power to impose "attention-getting fines" when major corporations fail to protect personal information.
She also said she was "very disappointed" that Sony did not proactively notify her of the major breach in April.
On Wednesday, a spokeswoman for Stoddart said her office was not notified about the most recent breach.
"We have contacted them with the purpose of better understanding what took place and what measures are being taken to manage the situation," said spokeswoman Anne-Marie Hayden.
He's been through a case of online fraud before and is resigned to the fact that information stored on the web is at risk. So he wasn't overly concerned to learn that his name and email were being shared by hackers.
But he doesn't appreciate that Sony didn't alert him to the latest security breach to hit the entertainment giant.
"I guess (the data breach) is disappointing but in this modern day you'd probably be a little foolish to think that anything's safe. If you're using a computer you've got to be aware that your information is vulnerable," said Campbell, who works with the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in southwestern Ontario.
"I think more disappointing would be that Sony didn't bother to contact any of their customers to let them know this had happened."
Sony has been hit with a number of hacker attacks in recent weeks, the most notable coming last month and affecting more than 100 million accounts of PlayStation Network and Qriocity users.
In that incident, data including names, birth dates, email addresses and log-in information was compromised. Sony also said encrypted credit card data from 10 million accounts may have been accessed.
The company said in a statement issued Wednesday that hackers on Sony Ericsson's Canadian site only accessed email addresses and encrypted passwords.
Sony did not immediately respond to questions about whether it attemped to contact affected consumers.
Campbell previously had a problem with fraudulent purchases being made with his credit card and that experience raised his level of caution when sharing information online.
But a few months ago, he needed a product from Sony and found he could only get it through the web. He took the risk.
"I wanted it, it was the only way to get it, so I did it," Campbell said.
"I don't think you have a reasonable expectation of privacy online any more, even on secure websites. I think that's being pretty clearly established."
Scott Spence, a Winnipeg-based financial planner, said he, too, was disappointed to not hear from Sony about his name and email being obtained by hackers. But he expected little fallout from the incident.
"The information that has been breached really is nothing more than getting information out of a telephone book and ... the impact to me personally is going to be minute," Spence said.
"A decade ago, most individuals would be absolutely appalled, but in this digital age, most individuals are finding it's (just) an inconvenience."
Earlier this month, Canada's privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart called for the power to impose "attention-getting fines" when major corporations fail to protect personal information.
She also said she was "very disappointed" that Sony did not proactively notify her of the major breach in April.
On Wednesday, a spokeswoman for Stoddart said her office was not notified about the most recent breach.
"We have contacted them with the purpose of better understanding what took place and what measures are being taken to manage the situation," said spokeswoman Anne-Marie Hayden.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Top Tories dispute party's founding principles : A key principle that sealed the merger between the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance was never meant to be a permanent party rule, says one of the party's founding figures.
OTTAWA — A key principle that sealed the merger between the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance was never meant to be a permanent party rule, says one of the party's founding figures.
Ontario MP Scott Reid, one of the Alliance negotiators during merger talks in 2003, wrote to party members over the long weekend about a change he would like to see in the Conservative party constitution.
Such changes will be discussed at the party convention next month and could fuel a passionate rule fight on the floor, as it has in previous years.
Reid wants to alter the formula that gives all riding associations an equal say in a leadership vote, regardless of how many members they have. Reid would like to see larger associations get more clout — something Progressive Conservatives balked at in 2003 for fear that the mostly western-based Alliance would swamp the ballot.
Reid points to the text of the 2003 merger agreement between the parties that referred to a "one-time process for leadership selection" before the race that saw Stephen Harper elected.
"So a change to a new system is entirely in the spirit of the agreement signed by Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay and the issue of how the party would select its second and subsequent leaders was never a deal-breaker," Reid wrote in a letter obtained by The Canadian Press.
That directly contradicts Defence Minister Peter MacKay's letter to members written only a few days earlier.
"The equality of (riding associations) was a crucial, 'deal-breaker' issue in the merger of our legacy parties in 2003," wrote MacKay. "Equality . . . has allowed us to elect our leader with a cross-country base of support, develop as a truly national party, and this in turn has enabled us to form a truly national, majority government. . . .
"This is a divisive debate our party does not need to have again, having rejected similar proposals in our founding agreement and at two national conventions."
Conservative Senator Hugh Segal agreed and saluted Harper for defending the rule in the past.
"Retroactive efforts to change the core '03 agreement are not in the interest of a strong party, however well intentioned, the proposer may be," Segal said in an email to The Canadian Press.
"Smaller Tory riding associations in less populous parts of Canada, in rural areas, the Atlantic and Maritime regions, not to mention Quebec or the North, should not be discouraged or diminished as the proposed changes would make unavoidable.
"Fussing with an eight-year-old agreement every few years is counterproductive."
Some Quebec Tories who spoke to The Canadian Press said they were completely against changing the rule at a time when the party needs to rebuild in the province. Quebec riding associations generally do not have the same numbers of members as those in other parts of the country.
"I'm against it for the simple reason that fundamentally, if there is a riding that has 100,000 voters while another has 45,000 voters, the chances of having the same number of party members is completely unrealistic," said Jean-Nicolas Marchand, president of the Louis Saint-Laurent Conservative association.
"Right from the outset it's inequitable because all ridings in Canada don't have the same number of people."
Reid is not the only Conservative pushing for a change to the equality-of-ridings principle. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney's Calgary riding has its own proposal, as do others from British Columbia.
Under the current system, riding associations have 100 points to allocate in a leadership vote. The points are awarded to each contender based on the percentage of party members in each riding who cast ballots for one person or another. A riding association with a few dozen members gets to send the same number of points to a leadership contestant as a riding with thousands of members.
Reid complained in his letter that a majority of party members could cast ballots for a particular candidate, but see someone else win because of the equality rule.
"And this is the whole point of suggesting a new leadership election formula," Reid said. "I think it's obvious that if Candidate A wins the leadership of a party when Candidate B has won twice as many votes, the victory will be seen as illegitimate and the party will be unable to function," Reid said.
Reid also rejected the notion that the party is "divided into factions based upon our prior partisan allegiances."
He did not return calls made to his office last week and on Tuesday.
Ontario MP Scott Reid, one of the Alliance negotiators during merger talks in 2003, wrote to party members over the long weekend about a change he would like to see in the Conservative party constitution.
Such changes will be discussed at the party convention next month and could fuel a passionate rule fight on the floor, as it has in previous years.
Reid wants to alter the formula that gives all riding associations an equal say in a leadership vote, regardless of how many members they have. Reid would like to see larger associations get more clout — something Progressive Conservatives balked at in 2003 for fear that the mostly western-based Alliance would swamp the ballot.
Reid points to the text of the 2003 merger agreement between the parties that referred to a "one-time process for leadership selection" before the race that saw Stephen Harper elected.
"So a change to a new system is entirely in the spirit of the agreement signed by Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay and the issue of how the party would select its second and subsequent leaders was never a deal-breaker," Reid wrote in a letter obtained by The Canadian Press.
That directly contradicts Defence Minister Peter MacKay's letter to members written only a few days earlier.
"The equality of (riding associations) was a crucial, 'deal-breaker' issue in the merger of our legacy parties in 2003," wrote MacKay. "Equality . . . has allowed us to elect our leader with a cross-country base of support, develop as a truly national party, and this in turn has enabled us to form a truly national, majority government. . . .
"This is a divisive debate our party does not need to have again, having rejected similar proposals in our founding agreement and at two national conventions."
Conservative Senator Hugh Segal agreed and saluted Harper for defending the rule in the past.
"Retroactive efforts to change the core '03 agreement are not in the interest of a strong party, however well intentioned, the proposer may be," Segal said in an email to The Canadian Press.
"Smaller Tory riding associations in less populous parts of Canada, in rural areas, the Atlantic and Maritime regions, not to mention Quebec or the North, should not be discouraged or diminished as the proposed changes would make unavoidable.
"Fussing with an eight-year-old agreement every few years is counterproductive."
Some Quebec Tories who spoke to The Canadian Press said they were completely against changing the rule at a time when the party needs to rebuild in the province. Quebec riding associations generally do not have the same numbers of members as those in other parts of the country.
"I'm against it for the simple reason that fundamentally, if there is a riding that has 100,000 voters while another has 45,000 voters, the chances of having the same number of party members is completely unrealistic," said Jean-Nicolas Marchand, president of the Louis Saint-Laurent Conservative association.
"Right from the outset it's inequitable because all ridings in Canada don't have the same number of people."
Reid is not the only Conservative pushing for a change to the equality-of-ridings principle. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney's Calgary riding has its own proposal, as do others from British Columbia.
Under the current system, riding associations have 100 points to allocate in a leadership vote. The points are awarded to each contender based on the percentage of party members in each riding who cast ballots for one person or another. A riding association with a few dozen members gets to send the same number of points to a leadership contestant as a riding with thousands of members.
Reid complained in his letter that a majority of party members could cast ballots for a particular candidate, but see someone else win because of the equality rule.
"And this is the whole point of suggesting a new leadership election formula," Reid said. "I think it's obvious that if Candidate A wins the leadership of a party when Candidate B has won twice as many votes, the victory will be seen as illegitimate and the party will be unable to function," Reid said.
Reid also rejected the notion that the party is "divided into factions based upon our prior partisan allegiances."
He did not return calls made to his office last week and on Tuesday.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
The Public Health Agency of Canada is looking to make public the drug company affiliations — and therefore any potential conflict of interest — of its expert advisers, CBC News has learned: Agency's policy move on drug advisers comes after CBC Tamiflu documentary .
The Public Health Agency of Canada is looking to make public the drug company affiliations — and therefore any potential conflict of interest — of its expert advisers, CBC News has learned.
This new direction was set out in an email over the holiday weekend to CBC/Radio-Canada reporter Frédéric Zalac and follows a months-long investigation by reporters from three different news organizations in three different countries into the effectiveness of the anti-viral drug Tamiflu and how it has been promoted.
Made by the giant Swiss-based pharmaceutical company Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., now known as Roche, Tamiflu was seen by some as a front-line defence in the H1N1 flu outbreak of 2009.
Tamiflu, from the Swiss-based pharmaceutical company Roche, is one of the world's most prominent anti-viral drugs, but researchers are asking how effective it is. (Reuters)
The company has sold roughly $10-billion worth of Tamiflu in the 10 years since the drug was launched, much of that in the years surrounding the avian and H1N1 flu scares. In Canada, the federal and provincial governments stockpiled nearly $180-million worth of anti-viral drugs, most of that Tamiflu from Roche Canada.
These stockpiles came about largely on the recommendations of the Public Health Agency of Canada and its expert advisers, as well as some independent flu experts.
Now, nearly half of the Tamiflu in the National Antiviral Stockpile is about to expire and Ottawa and the provinces will have to make a decision whether to reinvest.
A CBC documentary, which was broadcast on The National on Monday night, reports that certain other researchers in Canada, Italy, Britain and the U.S. are now challenging the claims by Roche that Tamiflu can significantly reduce complications or hospitalizations due to the flu.
The documentary also raises concerns about possible side effects surrounding the drug — strange behaviours and psychiatric delusions — that some countries, Japan in particular, have reported.
Using freedom of information requests, the investigation found hundreds of similar cases in Canada and the U.S., which were reported to health authorities but have not been made public.
It’s often difficult to establish a clear causal link between a drug and rare adverse reactions. Roche says its research suggests that these side effects result from the flu itself and high fevers, not the medication.
In the course of the CBC investigation, Zalac also reported that three of Canada's most prominent flu experts — Dr. Donald Low and Dr. Allison McGeer of Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, and Dr. Fred Aoki of the University of Manitoba — had received research funding or acted as a consultant or speaker for Roche during the period when Tamiflu was being promoted.
Their research involvement with Roche and other anti-viral drug makers was not a secret within the industry.
All three would sign the now standard conflict-of-interest declarations when speaking at professional events or publishing papers. And the Public Health Agency says it has always been aware of the drug industry affiliations of its private sector advisers and takes these into account.
Dr. Donald Low, microbiologist in chief at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, says he doesn't feel the drug companies influenced him in any way. (Frank Gunn/Canadian Press)
But these relationships were rarely reported in broader public forums, in the media or even when some of these individuals would appear in marketing videos or flu-warning commercials on television produced by Roche.
Responding to these concerns, Low told Zalac that he doesn't feel the drug companies influenced him in any way.
"I do a lot with industry," he said. "And it doesn't take long to catch up to you if you are making statements that in your heart you don't believe and you don't have the data to support."
As for the Public Health Agency of Canada, it released a statement that said it would be inappropriate at this point to release the drug company connections of its advisers without their consent.
PHAC says that its advisory committees provide advice but that the agency makes the final decisions. However, because of the questions raised in the CBC documentary, the agency said it "intends to establish a policy on the release of information relating to members of its expert or advisory groups/committees."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The documentary "Tamiflu Inc." was a joint international project involving the CBC/Radio-Canada and NPR (National Public Radio) in the U.S. and RSI (Swiss-Italian Television) in Europe. Its primary reporters were Frédéric Zalac for CBC, Serena Tinari for RSI and Sandra Bartlett for NPR.
This new direction was set out in an email over the holiday weekend to CBC/Radio-Canada reporter Frédéric Zalac and follows a months-long investigation by reporters from three different news organizations in three different countries into the effectiveness of the anti-viral drug Tamiflu and how it has been promoted.
Made by the giant Swiss-based pharmaceutical company Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., now known as Roche, Tamiflu was seen by some as a front-line defence in the H1N1 flu outbreak of 2009.
Tamiflu, from the Swiss-based pharmaceutical company Roche, is one of the world's most prominent anti-viral drugs, but researchers are asking how effective it is. (Reuters)
The company has sold roughly $10-billion worth of Tamiflu in the 10 years since the drug was launched, much of that in the years surrounding the avian and H1N1 flu scares. In Canada, the federal and provincial governments stockpiled nearly $180-million worth of anti-viral drugs, most of that Tamiflu from Roche Canada.
These stockpiles came about largely on the recommendations of the Public Health Agency of Canada and its expert advisers, as well as some independent flu experts.
Now, nearly half of the Tamiflu in the National Antiviral Stockpile is about to expire and Ottawa and the provinces will have to make a decision whether to reinvest.
A CBC documentary, which was broadcast on The National on Monday night, reports that certain other researchers in Canada, Italy, Britain and the U.S. are now challenging the claims by Roche that Tamiflu can significantly reduce complications or hospitalizations due to the flu.
The documentary also raises concerns about possible side effects surrounding the drug — strange behaviours and psychiatric delusions — that some countries, Japan in particular, have reported.
Using freedom of information requests, the investigation found hundreds of similar cases in Canada and the U.S., which were reported to health authorities but have not been made public.
It’s often difficult to establish a clear causal link between a drug and rare adverse reactions. Roche says its research suggests that these side effects result from the flu itself and high fevers, not the medication.
In the course of the CBC investigation, Zalac also reported that three of Canada's most prominent flu experts — Dr. Donald Low and Dr. Allison McGeer of Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, and Dr. Fred Aoki of the University of Manitoba — had received research funding or acted as a consultant or speaker for Roche during the period when Tamiflu was being promoted.
Their research involvement with Roche and other anti-viral drug makers was not a secret within the industry.
All three would sign the now standard conflict-of-interest declarations when speaking at professional events or publishing papers. And the Public Health Agency says it has always been aware of the drug industry affiliations of its private sector advisers and takes these into account.
Dr. Donald Low, microbiologist in chief at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, says he doesn't feel the drug companies influenced him in any way. (Frank Gunn/Canadian Press)
But these relationships were rarely reported in broader public forums, in the media or even when some of these individuals would appear in marketing videos or flu-warning commercials on television produced by Roche.
Responding to these concerns, Low told Zalac that he doesn't feel the drug companies influenced him in any way.
"I do a lot with industry," he said. "And it doesn't take long to catch up to you if you are making statements that in your heart you don't believe and you don't have the data to support."
As for the Public Health Agency of Canada, it released a statement that said it would be inappropriate at this point to release the drug company connections of its advisers without their consent.
PHAC says that its advisory committees provide advice but that the agency makes the final decisions. However, because of the questions raised in the CBC documentary, the agency said it "intends to establish a policy on the release of information relating to members of its expert or advisory groups/committees."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The documentary "Tamiflu Inc." was a joint international project involving the CBC/Radio-Canada and NPR (National Public Radio) in the U.S. and RSI (Swiss-Italian Television) in Europe. Its primary reporters were Frédéric Zalac for CBC, Serena Tinari for RSI and Sandra Bartlett for NPR.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Globalive in the Federal Court of Appeal .
Globalive Wireless Management Corp. squared off with competitors in the Federal Court of Appeal on Wednesday arguing that its cellular upstart, Wind Mobile, has more than enough Canadian ownership to operate.
Lawyers from competition cellular upstart Public Mobile argued that with more than 65 per cent of the company's debt being held by a foreign company, Wind is controlled by foreign interests.
Lawyers from Globalive fired back saying the startup cellular firm has passed government benchmarks used to determine acceptable levels of Canadian ownership and has obtained federal approval to operate in Canada. The company says, while Egyptian firm Orascom owns most of its debt, the foreign company only has 33 per cent of Globalive voting shares, not enough to influence company decisions.
Also on hand were lawyers from the Attorney General of Canada's office who supported the federal government's decision by arguing that while there are foreign ownership limits, there are no limits on the amount of cash a Canadian company can raise from foreign sources of funding and Globalive is free to raise cash from international investors in order to compete in Canada's cellular market.
Globalive has been fighting to prove it does not violate Canadian telecommunication ownership laws since it first launched in 2009.
That fall the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) ruled the company's ownership structure, coupled with longer-term loan agreements with Orascom, were enough to push Globalive over foreign ownership restrictions and barred it from starting up business.
The Conservative government, citing a need for more competition in the Canadian cellular market, overturned the CRTC's decision. Wind opened for business in December of that year.
However, after a complaint by Public Mobile in February, a Federal Court judge quashed the government's decision to overrule the CRTC. The judge ruled the government had overstepped its authority by overturning the decision of the telecommunication's regulator.
The judge's decision in February set up Wednesday's showdown in the Federal Court of Appeal, where lawyers spent the day arguing over whether Wind should have ever been allowed to open for business in Canada. The company spent more than $442 million in a 2008 spectrum auction to purchase cellular frequencies so it could begin offering service to Canadians and now has more than 300,000 subscribers across the country.
Judges at the Court of Appeal will now consider the arguments put before them and render a decision.
A court loss wouldn't immediately threaten Wind's customers, as the company could still try to take its case to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Prior to to last month's federal election, the Conservative government also promised to change legislation limiting foreign ownership. While that hasn't happened yet, a newly elected majority government could make those changes in the coming weeks.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Globalive+touts+Canadian+ownership/4806726/story.html#ixzz1N9gfO9yT
Lawyers from competition cellular upstart Public Mobile argued that with more than 65 per cent of the company's debt being held by a foreign company, Wind is controlled by foreign interests.
Lawyers from Globalive fired back saying the startup cellular firm has passed government benchmarks used to determine acceptable levels of Canadian ownership and has obtained federal approval to operate in Canada. The company says, while Egyptian firm Orascom owns most of its debt, the foreign company only has 33 per cent of Globalive voting shares, not enough to influence company decisions.
Also on hand were lawyers from the Attorney General of Canada's office who supported the federal government's decision by arguing that while there are foreign ownership limits, there are no limits on the amount of cash a Canadian company can raise from foreign sources of funding and Globalive is free to raise cash from international investors in order to compete in Canada's cellular market.
Globalive has been fighting to prove it does not violate Canadian telecommunication ownership laws since it first launched in 2009.
That fall the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) ruled the company's ownership structure, coupled with longer-term loan agreements with Orascom, were enough to push Globalive over foreign ownership restrictions and barred it from starting up business.
The Conservative government, citing a need for more competition in the Canadian cellular market, overturned the CRTC's decision. Wind opened for business in December of that year.
However, after a complaint by Public Mobile in February, a Federal Court judge quashed the government's decision to overrule the CRTC. The judge ruled the government had overstepped its authority by overturning the decision of the telecommunication's regulator.
The judge's decision in February set up Wednesday's showdown in the Federal Court of Appeal, where lawyers spent the day arguing over whether Wind should have ever been allowed to open for business in Canada. The company spent more than $442 million in a 2008 spectrum auction to purchase cellular frequencies so it could begin offering service to Canadians and now has more than 300,000 subscribers across the country.
Judges at the Court of Appeal will now consider the arguments put before them and render a decision.
A court loss wouldn't immediately threaten Wind's customers, as the company could still try to take its case to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Prior to to last month's federal election, the Conservative government also promised to change legislation limiting foreign ownership. While that hasn't happened yet, a newly elected majority government could make those changes in the coming weeks.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Globalive+touts+Canadian+ownership/4806726/story.html#ixzz1N9gfO9yT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)