News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

Started by Josephus, March 22, 2011, 09:27:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Grey Fox

I read somewhere, can't recall where that basically the government didn't have faith in smaller scale sites to actually invest in developing them.

It's infuriating. All the while the Liberals gave 800 millions to Irving to build 2! ship.
Colonel Caliga is Awesome.

Barrister

But the original CanSino plan had been to manufacture the vaccine in Canada.  When that fell apart, why did they go with a purchase-only approach?
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

crazy canuck

Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2021, 02:12:32 PM
But the original CanSino plan had been to manufacture the vaccine in Canada.  When that fell apart, why did they go with a purchase-only approach?

They didn't, the article makes it clear they started retooling when that deal went south.

The valid criticism is why didn't they do so early.

I suppose the answer to that is that the vaccine that could be manufactured in Canada was still some time away from being approved.  But better to have the facilities ready and waiting then the other way around.

Malthus

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 02, 2021, 12:18:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 01, 2021, 09:47:35 PM
Interestingly, I've heard it said that by far the most dangerous area of law for lawyers is not criminal law, but rather family law.

The reason given for this is that in criminal law, you are either acting as defence counsel (so on the side of the accused) or as a prosecutor (so just a representative of various government forces arrayed against the defendant). They are either "on your side" or, if against you, are part of the bureaucracy - not necessarily more of a focus than the cops, the judge, the jailers, etc.

In family law, it is your lawyer against your former spouse's lawyer, trying to take away what you think of as your income, your house, and your kids ... it is easy for all the anger felt to get projected onto the lawyer for the other side. It is more personal. This makes it more dangerous.
I can imagine. I always feel that must be one of the most difficult and stressful areas of law to work in.

Though I've never practiced in this area, I know some who do, and they are all of the same opinion - that family law is the most stressful, as you say.

Here's an interesting article on that point:

https://www.lawtimesnews.com/archive/the-lawyer-therapist-the-life-of-a-family-lawyer/262561

Not mentioned is that the extreme emotions generated by this area are capable of creating dangerously obsessive clients and opponents, the sort who might make a habit of attempting to destroy the lawyer's reputation online, and worse.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

crazy canuck

When I clerked my judge was very determined to convince me never to practice family law.

Barrister

I did a majority of family law for about a year and a half near the start of my career.

I've often joked/not-joked that I joined the Crown's office so I didn't have to look at another family law file ever again.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Sheilbh

:lol: The extent of my family law experience is that it is (still) my only practical advocacy experience which I did for a couple of days at a law centre and family law court in East London. It was not for me.

And that was in a relatively placid non-contested case compared to some of the more emotional cases that I think pose all those risks as Malthus says.
Let's bomb Russia!

crazy canuck

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 02, 2021, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2021, 02:12:32 PM
But the original CanSino plan had been to manufacture the vaccine in Canada.  When that fell apart, why did they go with a purchase-only approach?

They didn't, the article makes it clear they started retooling when that deal went south.

The valid criticism is why didn't they do so early.

I suppose the answer to that is that the vaccine that could be manufactured in Canada was still some time away from being approved.  But better to have the facilities ready and waiting then the other way around.

The Globe article is more informative.

QuoteThe new facility in Montreal was announced last August, and Champagne's department has been in talks with most of the leading vaccine makers trying to lure them into making their vaccine there when it is finished.
None of those talks bore fruit until now.


Barrister

*sigh*

Hockey Alberta cancels the remainder of the kids hockey season.  Not entirely unsuspected, but very depressing.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Oexmelin

Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2021, 02:12:32 PM
But the original CanSino plan had been to manufacture the vaccine in Canada. 

That always was a gamble.
Que le grand cric me croque !

Malthus

Proud Boys listed as a terrorist organization in Canada.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

crazy canuck

Quote from: Malthus on February 03, 2021, 01:24:10 PM
Proud Boys listed as a terrorist organization in Canada.

Well the started in this country so it seems right that we are the first country to take this decision.

Although I am not a big supporter of that legislation in principle.

Jacob

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 03, 2021, 04:43:24 PM
Well the started in this country so it seems right that we are the first country to take this decision.

Although I am not a big supporter of that legislation in principle.

A case of bad tools being applied to deserving people? The attractive initial part of a potentially problematic slippery slope?

Malthus

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 03, 2021, 04:43:24 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 03, 2021, 01:24:10 PM
Proud Boys listed as a terrorist organization in Canada.

Well the started in this country so it seems right that we are the first country to take this decision.

Although I am not a big supporter of that legislation in principle.

I know very little about it. What are the implications of being declared a terrorist organization?
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

crazy canuck

Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2021, 04:48:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 03, 2021, 04:43:24 PM
Well the started in this country so it seems right that we are the first country to take this decision.

Although I am not a big supporter of that legislation in principle.

A case of bad tools being applied to deserving people? The attractive initial part of a potentially problematic slippery slope?

That is a good way to put it.

Quote from: Malthus on February 03, 2021, 05:28:04 PM
I know very little about it. What are the implications of being declared a terrorist organization?

This gets into inside baseball stuff of judicial review so you will find it interesting but others can tune out now  :D

There is a wide discretion which is exercised to put someone on the list.  As a result, Judicial Review is not going be an effective remedy even if a group has a good case.  There is really no way to obtain a remedy short of of a constitutional challenge to the legislative scheme itself.  Once on the list it allows the government to freeze and seize assets. So significant adverse effects without meaningful oversight.