VANCOUVER — The federal government on Wednesday sought to dismiss a lawsuit by a group seeking a constitutional challenge of Canada's law that makes it illegal to assist a suicide.
The New Westminster, B.C.-based Farewell Foundation and five representative plaintiffs claim the law, which carries a maximum penalty of up to 14 years in prison, violates their right to end their lives with dignity in the future.
Donnaree Nygard, the lawyer representing the federal attorney general, argued that the plaintiffs cannot come before the court on a hypothetical situation.
"The plaintiffs have no private interest standing of their own," Nygard told B.C. Supreme Court Justice Lynn Smith.
If the plaintiffs were charged with assisting a suicide, they would have standing to argue a constitutional challenge, she said.
Nygard added the plaintiffs have failed to provide a factual foundation to show they are sufficiently affected or prejudiced by the assisted suicide law.
The Farewell Foundation filed its legal action after it applied to the registrar of companies in B.C. to become a non-profit society.
But its application was rejected because its stated purpose is to assist people to commit suicide.
The foundation launched an appeal of that decision, which was heard a day earlier by Justice Smith.
At the same time, the foundation filed a civil lawsuit against the federal government, claiming the law violates the Charter rights of its members.
Some of Farewell Foundation's 117 members have a terminal illness.
No matter what Smith rules, one side is expected to appeal and the case will likely end up in the Supreme Court of Canada.
The top appeal court ruled in a split decision in 1993 to uphold the law making it illegal to assist a person to commit suicide.
That case involved a B.C. woman, Sue Rodriguez, who was terminally ill and eventually ended her life.
Opinion polls in recent years have found the majority of Canadians are in favour of euthanasia in certain circumstances.
Since the Rodriguez case, a number of countries, including Belgium and the Netherlands, have passed legislation to allow assisted suicide.
Washington State and Oregon have also passed legislation to allow assisted suicide.
Farewell Foundation has proposed adopting a Swiss model of assisted suicide in order to protect the vulnerable, provide procedural safeguards and allow people to make informed choices.
Lawyer Jason Gratl, representing the Farewell Foundation, told the judge that assisted suicide is already taking place in Canada.
"It's clandestine, secretive, it's not transparent or accountable," he argued in court.
"The Farewell Foundation hopes to rectify this situation," he added.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has also launched a legal challenge of the assisted suicide law, taking the position that a person deciding to end his or her life should be assisted by a doctor.
The Farewell Foundation wants to provide a place, called Farewell House, where a person can go to make an informed decision to end their life.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Federal+government+seeks+dismiss+challenge+assisted+suicide/5200869/story.html#ixzz1U2ZGp9sZ
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
support the CBC
Don Tapscott
I recently attended the Aspen Ideas Festival, an annual gathering of the American intelligentsia and powerful to discuss global issues. I watched a session where Chrystia Freeland, a Canadian, was interviewing Bob Rubin, former secretary of the U.S. treasury and now chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. Rubin gave a brilliant description of the deep and seemingly intractable problems in the United States. The country is so divided it is increasingly difficult if not impossible to get anything done. The most recent example is the current fiasco on raising the debt ceiling.
Freeland, an adept journalist, asked Rubin if he ever thought about the role a strong public broadcaster could play in the United States. She referenced the role of the CBC in Canada, not in bringing the country together, but by creating a platform whereby various points of view are expressed and reasonable discussions could occur.
The interview became one of Rubin interviewing Freeland on how the CBC works in Canada and its effects on the country. Did just a tiny elite listen to and watch it or was it broadly accessed by the general population from different communities within the country? They discussed the difference between the CBC and its impact compared with the U.S.’s National Public Radio, which is listened to by a much smaller and narrower cross-section of the population. At the end, Rubin concluded that a strong public broadcaster like the CBC could be a simple yet powerful initiative that could help United States get out of its self-destructive funk.
It reminded me once again how important the CBC is to the country, and arguably never more important than today with the arrival of digital media. There is a fragmentation of all media, and we’ve gone from mass media to what I call “molecular media.” One upshot is that increasingly any Canadian can be awash in any particular narrow point of view. They can listen to, read or watch the views they support or hold. That means there is a real danger of balkanizing our society — we all may end up in self-reinforcing echo-chambers where all we hear is our own point of view.
In the United States, many conservatives seek out right-wing news organizations such as Fox News, RushLimbaugh.com or the Wall Street Journal. Similarly, Democrats increasingly turn to centre and left-of-centre news organizations such as the Huffington Post and MSNBC. More and more news organizations preach to the converted. Tomer Strolight, president of Torstar Digital, says, “People can now spend their time in a media landscape that gives them comfort. When someone enjoys Fox News, are they being informed or just comforted?”
In 1995 I wrote a book called The Digital Economy, in which I predicted that broadcasting would soon be transformed — it won’t be broad and it won’t be casting. Audiences, especially a new generation of digital natives, expect media delivered on all platforms and they expect it to engage and even be interactive. Transforming from a traditional broadcaster to a national 21st century media company is no small challenge. In fact, it’s one that many media organizations are failing at
To be sure, there are a lot of strong traditional arguments as to why there should be stable funding for the CBC. There is still a role for great broadcasting. CBC/Radio-Canada spends more on Canadian programming than all other conventional broadcasters combined. This gives essential support to Canadian content and the independent production sector that creates it. The result is diverse voices in the media landscape, and distinctive programming not available from any other broadcaster.
But broadcasting itself is changing as prime time becomes any time. There are 1.6 million podcasts downloaded per week from Radio One. So the listener becomes the “programmer.” I look at what CBC Radio does with a program like Q. It is a radio program, a television station through online TV, a Twitter initiative and a community. It engages the country. Another excellent program is Spark.
I was recently interviewed by Peter Mansbridge on Mansbridge One on One. It triggered tremendous traffic on my Twitter account, not just from within the CBC but from all over the world — more so than any other interview I’ve had in recent years. It reminded me of the power of our uniquely Canadian platform and asset.
This is a time of great opportunity where the CBC can be enormously transformative and influential. Courtesy of the Internet, it is now available almost anywhere on Earth. The CBC deserves support for all the traditional reasons. But the digital revolution introduces a profound new imperative. The CBC needs new resources if it is going to reinvent itself for the digital age. A strong 21st century CBC is essential to help us achieve our proper leadership role in the world.
Don Tapscott is the author of 14 books about new technologies in business and society, most recently, with Anthony D. Williams, Macrowikinomics: Rebooting Business and the World. Twitter@dtapscott.
I recently attended the Aspen Ideas Festival, an annual gathering of the American intelligentsia and powerful to discuss global issues. I watched a session where Chrystia Freeland, a Canadian, was interviewing Bob Rubin, former secretary of the U.S. treasury and now chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. Rubin gave a brilliant description of the deep and seemingly intractable problems in the United States. The country is so divided it is increasingly difficult if not impossible to get anything done. The most recent example is the current fiasco on raising the debt ceiling.
Freeland, an adept journalist, asked Rubin if he ever thought about the role a strong public broadcaster could play in the United States. She referenced the role of the CBC in Canada, not in bringing the country together, but by creating a platform whereby various points of view are expressed and reasonable discussions could occur.
The interview became one of Rubin interviewing Freeland on how the CBC works in Canada and its effects on the country. Did just a tiny elite listen to and watch it or was it broadly accessed by the general population from different communities within the country? They discussed the difference between the CBC and its impact compared with the U.S.’s National Public Radio, which is listened to by a much smaller and narrower cross-section of the population. At the end, Rubin concluded that a strong public broadcaster like the CBC could be a simple yet powerful initiative that could help United States get out of its self-destructive funk.
It reminded me once again how important the CBC is to the country, and arguably never more important than today with the arrival of digital media. There is a fragmentation of all media, and we’ve gone from mass media to what I call “molecular media.” One upshot is that increasingly any Canadian can be awash in any particular narrow point of view. They can listen to, read or watch the views they support or hold. That means there is a real danger of balkanizing our society — we all may end up in self-reinforcing echo-chambers where all we hear is our own point of view.
In the United States, many conservatives seek out right-wing news organizations such as Fox News, RushLimbaugh.com or the Wall Street Journal. Similarly, Democrats increasingly turn to centre and left-of-centre news organizations such as the Huffington Post and MSNBC. More and more news organizations preach to the converted. Tomer Strolight, president of Torstar Digital, says, “People can now spend their time in a media landscape that gives them comfort. When someone enjoys Fox News, are they being informed or just comforted?”
In 1995 I wrote a book called The Digital Economy, in which I predicted that broadcasting would soon be transformed — it won’t be broad and it won’t be casting. Audiences, especially a new generation of digital natives, expect media delivered on all platforms and they expect it to engage and even be interactive. Transforming from a traditional broadcaster to a national 21st century media company is no small challenge. In fact, it’s one that many media organizations are failing at
To be sure, there are a lot of strong traditional arguments as to why there should be stable funding for the CBC. There is still a role for great broadcasting. CBC/Radio-Canada spends more on Canadian programming than all other conventional broadcasters combined. This gives essential support to Canadian content and the independent production sector that creates it. The result is diverse voices in the media landscape, and distinctive programming not available from any other broadcaster.
But broadcasting itself is changing as prime time becomes any time. There are 1.6 million podcasts downloaded per week from Radio One. So the listener becomes the “programmer.” I look at what CBC Radio does with a program like Q. It is a radio program, a television station through online TV, a Twitter initiative and a community. It engages the country. Another excellent program is Spark.
I was recently interviewed by Peter Mansbridge on Mansbridge One on One. It triggered tremendous traffic on my Twitter account, not just from within the CBC but from all over the world — more so than any other interview I’ve had in recent years. It reminded me of the power of our uniquely Canadian platform and asset.
This is a time of great opportunity where the CBC can be enormously transformative and influential. Courtesy of the Internet, it is now available almost anywhere on Earth. The CBC deserves support for all the traditional reasons. But the digital revolution introduces a profound new imperative. The CBC needs new resources if it is going to reinvent itself for the digital age. A strong 21st century CBC is essential to help us achieve our proper leadership role in the world.
Don Tapscott is the author of 14 books about new technologies in business and society, most recently, with Anthony D. Williams, Macrowikinomics: Rebooting Business and the World. Twitter@dtapscott.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Canada's spy agency flatly denies it practises a controversial anti-terrorism tactic that got it a firm knuckle-rapping from a federal watchdog.
OTTAWA — Canada's spy agency flatly denies it practises a controversial anti-terrorism tactic that got it a firm knuckle-rapping from a federal watchdog.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service's insistence that it does not employ the technique known as disruption is squarely at odds with the findings of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which keeps an eye on CSIS.
The committee has recommended CSIS seek ministerial guidance on disruption -- letting suspected terrorists know they are under investigation with the aim -- or side-effect -- of prompting them to drop their plans.
It also called on the spy service to develop formal guidelines regarding its use of the tactic.
Newly declassified records only underscore the differences.
The review committee, which reports to Parliament, says the spy service "expressly set out to disrupt" a threat to Canada and did not inform the public safety minister it was doing so.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service's insistence that it does not employ the technique known as disruption is squarely at odds with the findings of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which keeps an eye on CSIS.
The committee has recommended CSIS seek ministerial guidance on disruption -- letting suspected terrorists know they are under investigation with the aim -- or side-effect -- of prompting them to drop their plans.
It also called on the spy service to develop formal guidelines regarding its use of the tactic.
Newly declassified records only underscore the differences.
The review committee, which reports to Parliament, says the spy service "expressly set out to disrupt" a threat to Canada and did not inform the public safety minister it was doing so.
Monday, August 1, 2011
The French BEA's latest interim report on its investigation into the 2009 crash of Air France Flight 447 indicated that the pilots were inadequately trained and failed to properly identify a stall situation or react promptly to it.
The French BEA's latest interim report on its investigation into the 2009 crash of Air France Flight 447 indicated that the pilots were inadequately trained and failed to properly identify a stall situation or react promptly to it.
BEA said in May that the Airbus A330-200 took fewer than four minutes to fall from approximately 38,000 ft. into the waters of the Atlantic Ocean following the disengagement of the autopilot (ATW Daily News, May 30). It released a detailed report Friday on the cockpit crew's actions in the moments leading up the crash, based on an analysis of the cockpit voice and flight data recorders recovered in the spring. The report is carefully worded, and BEA emphasized that it does not assess blame, but the portrait painted of the pilots is not positive—and was rejected by AF.
The A330 crashed while en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris Charles de Gaulle on June 1, 2009, killing all 228 passengers and crew. BEA reiterated that a key factor in the crash was the inconsistent speed measurements from the aircraft's pitot probes.
It revealed the flight captain was "resting" when the emergency situation arose; operating the flight were two copilots who engaged in "no explicit task-sharing," BEA said. According to the accidents investigation bureau, even though the pilots "identified and announced the loss of the speed indications, neither of the two copilots called the procedure 'unreliable IAS' [indicated airspeed]. The copilots had received no high altitude training for the 'unreliable IAS' procedure and manual aircraft handling. No standard callouts regarding the differences in pitch attitude and vertical speed were made. There is no CRM [crew resource management] training for a crew made up of two copilots in a situation with a relief captain."
Even though a stall warning alarm was triggered, "neither of the pilots made any reference to the stall warning" and "neither of the pilots formally identified the stall situation," BEA stated. At one point, it noted, the stall warning "was triggered continuously for 54 seconds."
BEA recommended that "regulatory authorities re-examine the content of [air transport pilot] training and check programs, and in particular make mandatory the creation of regular specific exercises aimed at manual airplane handling [including] approach to and recovery from stall, including at high altitude."
In its response to BEA's findings, AF said that a "combination of multiple improbable factors led to the disaster" and insisted the flight crew "comprising both first officers and the captain showed an unfailing professional attitude, remaining committed to their task to the very end … At this stage, there is no reason to question the crew's technical skills … It is important to understand whether the technical environment, systems and alarms hindered the crew's understanding of the situation."
.
BEA said in May that the Airbus A330-200 took fewer than four minutes to fall from approximately 38,000 ft. into the waters of the Atlantic Ocean following the disengagement of the autopilot (ATW Daily News, May 30). It released a detailed report Friday on the cockpit crew's actions in the moments leading up the crash, based on an analysis of the cockpit voice and flight data recorders recovered in the spring. The report is carefully worded, and BEA emphasized that it does not assess blame, but the portrait painted of the pilots is not positive—and was rejected by AF.
The A330 crashed while en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris Charles de Gaulle on June 1, 2009, killing all 228 passengers and crew. BEA reiterated that a key factor in the crash was the inconsistent speed measurements from the aircraft's pitot probes.
It revealed the flight captain was "resting" when the emergency situation arose; operating the flight were two copilots who engaged in "no explicit task-sharing," BEA said. According to the accidents investigation bureau, even though the pilots "identified and announced the loss of the speed indications, neither of the two copilots called the procedure 'unreliable IAS' [indicated airspeed]. The copilots had received no high altitude training for the 'unreliable IAS' procedure and manual aircraft handling. No standard callouts regarding the differences in pitch attitude and vertical speed were made. There is no CRM [crew resource management] training for a crew made up of two copilots in a situation with a relief captain."
Even though a stall warning alarm was triggered, "neither of the pilots made any reference to the stall warning" and "neither of the pilots formally identified the stall situation," BEA stated. At one point, it noted, the stall warning "was triggered continuously for 54 seconds."
BEA recommended that "regulatory authorities re-examine the content of [air transport pilot] training and check programs, and in particular make mandatory the creation of regular specific exercises aimed at manual airplane handling [including] approach to and recovery from stall, including at high altitude."
In its response to BEA's findings, AF said that a "combination of multiple improbable factors led to the disaster" and insisted the flight crew "comprising both first officers and the captain showed an unfailing professional attitude, remaining committed to their task to the very end … At this stage, there is no reason to question the crew's technical skills … It is important to understand whether the technical environment, systems and alarms hindered the crew's understanding of the situation."
.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals have cut Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak’s lead to 10 points from 15 points in the past month, a new poll suggests.
Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals have cut Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak’s lead to 10 points from 15 points in the past month, a new poll suggests.
The Forum Research survey found Hudak’s Tories at 38 per cent — down from 41 per cent in June — to McGuinty’s Liberals at 28 per cent, up from 26 per cent. NDP Leader Andrea Horwath jumped to 24 per cent from 22 per cent and Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner was down to seven per cent from eight per cent.
“This election is up for grabs,” Forum president Lorne Bozinoff said in an interview Friday, predicting an eventful 10 weeks before the Oct. 6 vote.
“This is not going to be a walk in the park. The PCs cannot just sit back.”
The interactive voice response telephone poll of 2,256 Ontarians was conducted Wednesday and Thursday and is considered accurate to within 2.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
McGuinty’s approval rating has increased slightly to 39 per cent from 36 per cent with 61 per cent disapproving of the job he’s done, down from 64 per cent last month.
Hudak’s rating went down to 49 per cent from 53 per cent. More than half of Ontarians — 51 per cent — disapprove of his performance, up from 47 per cent.
Horwath’s approval is up to 63 per cent from 59 per cent and her disapproval down to 37 per cent from 41 per cent.
“She is making a great impression on voters,” said Bozinoff.
The poll also suggests Hudak’s views on abortion may have hurt him.
Forum found 56 per cent of Ontarians think women should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy in all circumstances with 35 per cent agreeing in some circumstances. Only eight per cent are outright opposed to abortion.
Hudak once signed a petition calling for an end to government funding for the procedure but has said he will not reopen the divisive debate, although he considers himself “pro-life.”
“The one thing that can kill the Tories is to be caught out on a social issue and there’s nothing like abortion in terms of a social issue,” said Bozinoff.
Bozinoff said the Liberals have at least three opportunities for the “game-changer” they need to win a third election.
“McGuinty has a couple of cracks at it — they have the platform and they have the debate,” he said of the Liberal manifesto expected in early September and the televised leaders’ debate during the campaign.
“And they have Rob Ford,” the pollster said of the Conservative Toronto mayor who has embarked upon a controversial round of budget cuts at city hall.
“It’s not clear if Rob Ford is helping or hurting the Liberals,” he said. “How that (budget crisis) gets resolved could help the Liberals and hurt the Tories if it doesn’t go well.”
The Forum Research survey found Hudak’s Tories at 38 per cent — down from 41 per cent in June — to McGuinty’s Liberals at 28 per cent, up from 26 per cent. NDP Leader Andrea Horwath jumped to 24 per cent from 22 per cent and Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner was down to seven per cent from eight per cent.
“This election is up for grabs,” Forum president Lorne Bozinoff said in an interview Friday, predicting an eventful 10 weeks before the Oct. 6 vote.
“This is not going to be a walk in the park. The PCs cannot just sit back.”
The interactive voice response telephone poll of 2,256 Ontarians was conducted Wednesday and Thursday and is considered accurate to within 2.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
McGuinty’s approval rating has increased slightly to 39 per cent from 36 per cent with 61 per cent disapproving of the job he’s done, down from 64 per cent last month.
Hudak’s rating went down to 49 per cent from 53 per cent. More than half of Ontarians — 51 per cent — disapprove of his performance, up from 47 per cent.
Horwath’s approval is up to 63 per cent from 59 per cent and her disapproval down to 37 per cent from 41 per cent.
“She is making a great impression on voters,” said Bozinoff.
The poll also suggests Hudak’s views on abortion may have hurt him.
Forum found 56 per cent of Ontarians think women should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy in all circumstances with 35 per cent agreeing in some circumstances. Only eight per cent are outright opposed to abortion.
Hudak once signed a petition calling for an end to government funding for the procedure but has said he will not reopen the divisive debate, although he considers himself “pro-life.”
“The one thing that can kill the Tories is to be caught out on a social issue and there’s nothing like abortion in terms of a social issue,” said Bozinoff.
Bozinoff said the Liberals have at least three opportunities for the “game-changer” they need to win a third election.
“McGuinty has a couple of cracks at it — they have the platform and they have the debate,” he said of the Liberal manifesto expected in early September and the televised leaders’ debate during the campaign.
“And they have Rob Ford,” the pollster said of the Conservative Toronto mayor who has embarked upon a controversial round of budget cuts at city hall.
“It’s not clear if Rob Ford is helping or hurting the Liberals,” he said. “How that (budget crisis) gets resolved could help the Liberals and hurt the Tories if it doesn’t go well.”
Saturday, July 30, 2011
The Supreme Court of Canada has cleared the way for the legal showdown between the provinces and Big Tobacco — with the stakes being billions of dollars in money for government coffers.
The Supreme Court of Canada has cleared the way for the legal showdown between the provinces and Big Tobacco — with the stakes being billions of dollars in money for government coffers.
In a ruling Friday, the top court ruled the federal government cannot be considered a third-party defendant in provincial lawsuits over smoking and the drain it has put on health care.
That leaves the tobacco companies on the hook by themselves for any financial penalties awarded as the result of provincial lawsuits.
It's now a "two-party gunfight," one legal expert explained, a situation that could push lawsuits through the system quickly, leading to faster settlements.
"You clear up the issues, it's just two people, there's nothing else to talk about," said Erik Knutsen, a civil litigation expert from Queen's University in Kingston, Ont. "It's so much cleaner. If the cards are going to fall and settle . . . it will be sooner rather than later."
With the rules simplified, Knutsen said provinces preparing to sue Big Tobacco are likely to launch lawsuits soon.
"I think it's probably a matter of days and weeks before the others are coming," he said.
In a unanimous decision that cited legal precedents in the United States, Canada, Australia and Britain, the court ruled tobacco companies should bear the full financial brunt of any future settlements in lawsuits.
"(British Columbia) sought to transfer the medical costs from provincial taxpayers to the private sector that sold a harmful product. This object would be fundamentally undermined if the funds were simply recovered from the federal government, which draws its revenue from the same taxpayers," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote for the court.
B.C. Attorney General Barry Penner said the dollar figure being sought will be released at trial, but the province estimates smoking-related illness costs B.C. about $650 million annually.
The province has tried to recoup costs for about a decade, Penner said.
"I'm reluctant to estimate how much longer it will take, but with these hurdles out of the way it does set the stage for us to get down to trial," he said.
Tobacco companies sought to make the federal government a defendant in any lawsuit, arguing Ottawa was a key industry player since the 1960s.
It was also a smart legal manoeuvre, Knutsen said. With billions of dollars at stake, bringing the federal government into the legal fray would have dragged litigation on for years, he said, and spread around the financial burden.
The top court's decision doesn't mean settlements will happen within the next month or year. Knutsen said tobacco companies may try to bring in other defendants, including suppliers, retailers and maybe even smokers.
"The interesting thing is (the court) only actually decided who's not going to be at the table," Knutsen said. "Who knows who else big tobacco might bring to the table."
Imperial Tobacco indicated Friday it was not giving up its defence in the massive lawsuits.
"Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Canada has decided that the federal government is not accountable for its decisions and actions," Donald McCarty, Imperial Tobacco Canada's vice-president of law, said in a statement.
"We nonetheless intend to set the record straight and believe it is important for the government of Canada to answer for its long and sustained involvement in the tobacco industry."
Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador have also launched lawsuits against tobacco companies for health-care costs associated with tobacco use. Four more have announced intentions to launch similar lawsuits.
The Ontario lawsuit seeks $50 billion.
Penner said B.C. was willing to partner with other provinces to push lawsuits forward.
The Supreme Court also ordered the tobacco companies to cover the government's legal bill in the case. Health Canada said the government's legal costs haven't been calculated.
Read more: http://www.canada.com/health/SCOC+decision+paves+tobacco+lawsuits/5178626/story.html#ixzz1TZKJ9Twj
In a ruling Friday, the top court ruled the federal government cannot be considered a third-party defendant in provincial lawsuits over smoking and the drain it has put on health care.
That leaves the tobacco companies on the hook by themselves for any financial penalties awarded as the result of provincial lawsuits.
It's now a "two-party gunfight," one legal expert explained, a situation that could push lawsuits through the system quickly, leading to faster settlements.
"You clear up the issues, it's just two people, there's nothing else to talk about," said Erik Knutsen, a civil litigation expert from Queen's University in Kingston, Ont. "It's so much cleaner. If the cards are going to fall and settle . . . it will be sooner rather than later."
With the rules simplified, Knutsen said provinces preparing to sue Big Tobacco are likely to launch lawsuits soon.
"I think it's probably a matter of days and weeks before the others are coming," he said.
In a unanimous decision that cited legal precedents in the United States, Canada, Australia and Britain, the court ruled tobacco companies should bear the full financial brunt of any future settlements in lawsuits.
"(British Columbia) sought to transfer the medical costs from provincial taxpayers to the private sector that sold a harmful product. This object would be fundamentally undermined if the funds were simply recovered from the federal government, which draws its revenue from the same taxpayers," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote for the court.
B.C. Attorney General Barry Penner said the dollar figure being sought will be released at trial, but the province estimates smoking-related illness costs B.C. about $650 million annually.
The province has tried to recoup costs for about a decade, Penner said.
"I'm reluctant to estimate how much longer it will take, but with these hurdles out of the way it does set the stage for us to get down to trial," he said.
Tobacco companies sought to make the federal government a defendant in any lawsuit, arguing Ottawa was a key industry player since the 1960s.
It was also a smart legal manoeuvre, Knutsen said. With billions of dollars at stake, bringing the federal government into the legal fray would have dragged litigation on for years, he said, and spread around the financial burden.
The top court's decision doesn't mean settlements will happen within the next month or year. Knutsen said tobacco companies may try to bring in other defendants, including suppliers, retailers and maybe even smokers.
"The interesting thing is (the court) only actually decided who's not going to be at the table," Knutsen said. "Who knows who else big tobacco might bring to the table."
Imperial Tobacco indicated Friday it was not giving up its defence in the massive lawsuits.
"Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Canada has decided that the federal government is not accountable for its decisions and actions," Donald McCarty, Imperial Tobacco Canada's vice-president of law, said in a statement.
"We nonetheless intend to set the record straight and believe it is important for the government of Canada to answer for its long and sustained involvement in the tobacco industry."
Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador have also launched lawsuits against tobacco companies for health-care costs associated with tobacco use. Four more have announced intentions to launch similar lawsuits.
The Ontario lawsuit seeks $50 billion.
Penner said B.C. was willing to partner with other provinces to push lawsuits forward.
The Supreme Court also ordered the tobacco companies to cover the government's legal bill in the case. Health Canada said the government's legal costs haven't been calculated.
Read more: http://www.canada.com/health/SCOC+decision+paves+tobacco+lawsuits/5178626/story.html#ixzz1TZKJ9Twj
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Research and Innovation Minister Glen Murray has announced the MaRS science complex at the corner of University Ave. and College St. will double in size after a $344.5 million expansion.: “It will make it arguably the largest innovation hub in the world here in Toronto,” Murray said Tuesday.
Research and Innovation Minister Glen Murray has announced the MaRS science complex at the corner of University Ave. and College St. will double in size after a $344.5 million expansion.
“It will make it arguably the largest innovation hub in the world here in Toronto,” Murray said Tuesday.
Hailing “some very creative leasing and financing arrangements with the private sector,” the minister said the 20-storey addition will create 4,000 construction jobs and enlarge MaRS to 1.5 million sq. ft. of offices and laboratories.
Infrastructure Ontario, the arm’s-length government agency that specializes in private-public partnerships, has loaned MaRS $230.3 million for the development.
“It will more than double the number of researchers and innovators and entrepreneurs at MaRS from 2,300 to more than 5,000,” said Murray, noting the facility’s success at rapidly commercializing scientific breakthroughs.
“Here is really where the future is being invented. Persistent challenges from prostate cancer to turning sewage into energy to ways of cleaning our air and storing energy so green energy is ‘dispatch-able,’” he said.
“We’re going to solve some of the most difficult problems facing humanity right here in the middle of this network and that’s why this is important.”
MaRS, which originally stood for Medical and Related Science when announced by former Progressive Conservative premier Ernie Eves in 2002, has been at capacity since opening six years ago.
“Our facility is bursting at the seams. This expansion of the MaRS platform offers a huge opportunity to accelerate that momentum and further strengthen our innovation economy for future generations,” said Ilse Treurnicht, the chief executive officer of MaRS Discovery District.
The addition, which should be completed by fall 2013, will house the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research and Public Health Ontario’s central lab, which prevents and controls infectious diseases.
Mindful of the Oct. 6 provincial election, Murray said MaRS symbolizes what the Liberal government is striving to achieve.
“Some of the people opposite on the right like to talk about us as latte-sipping liberals who live south of Bloor and are out of touch with reality,” said the Toronto Centre MPP.
“Ontarians, whether they’re assembling cars or in their labs, are some of the smartest, most committed people in the world and they like intelligence and they like smarts,” he said.
Also Tuesday, Dr. Oetker Canada, a subsidiary of the German food giant, announced it would be building its first frozen pizza production facility in North America in London, creating 430 direct and indirect jobs.
The firm aims to make 50 million of the popular thin-crust pies for Canadian and U.S. customers every year at the new factory.
“With an array of fresh, high-quality Ontario ingredients nearby, we look forward to supporting local food processors and businesses by sourcing these products for use in the production of our pizzas,” Martin Reintjes, executive vice president of Dr. Oetker GmbH, said in a statement.
“It will make it arguably the largest innovation hub in the world here in Toronto,” Murray said Tuesday.
Hailing “some very creative leasing and financing arrangements with the private sector,” the minister said the 20-storey addition will create 4,000 construction jobs and enlarge MaRS to 1.5 million sq. ft. of offices and laboratories.
Infrastructure Ontario, the arm’s-length government agency that specializes in private-public partnerships, has loaned MaRS $230.3 million for the development.
“It will more than double the number of researchers and innovators and entrepreneurs at MaRS from 2,300 to more than 5,000,” said Murray, noting the facility’s success at rapidly commercializing scientific breakthroughs.
“Here is really where the future is being invented. Persistent challenges from prostate cancer to turning sewage into energy to ways of cleaning our air and storing energy so green energy is ‘dispatch-able,’” he said.
“We’re going to solve some of the most difficult problems facing humanity right here in the middle of this network and that’s why this is important.”
MaRS, which originally stood for Medical and Related Science when announced by former Progressive Conservative premier Ernie Eves in 2002, has been at capacity since opening six years ago.
“Our facility is bursting at the seams. This expansion of the MaRS platform offers a huge opportunity to accelerate that momentum and further strengthen our innovation economy for future generations,” said Ilse Treurnicht, the chief executive officer of MaRS Discovery District.
The addition, which should be completed by fall 2013, will house the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research and Public Health Ontario’s central lab, which prevents and controls infectious diseases.
Mindful of the Oct. 6 provincial election, Murray said MaRS symbolizes what the Liberal government is striving to achieve.
“Some of the people opposite on the right like to talk about us as latte-sipping liberals who live south of Bloor and are out of touch with reality,” said the Toronto Centre MPP.
“Ontarians, whether they’re assembling cars or in their labs, are some of the smartest, most committed people in the world and they like intelligence and they like smarts,” he said.
Also Tuesday, Dr. Oetker Canada, a subsidiary of the German food giant, announced it would be building its first frozen pizza production facility in North America in London, creating 430 direct and indirect jobs.
The firm aims to make 50 million of the popular thin-crust pies for Canadian and U.S. customers every year at the new factory.
“With an array of fresh, high-quality Ontario ingredients nearby, we look forward to supporting local food processors and businesses by sourcing these products for use in the production of our pizzas,” Martin Reintjes, executive vice president of Dr. Oetker GmbH, said in a statement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)