[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Funding issues are fundamentally different.  There is a lot of law on that already.

[Neil]

However, it may give a big boost politically to those advocating for such programs, as a presumably neutral and influential arbiter - the SCC - has examined the evidence and has concluded that such programs are reasonable.

Bolded for emphasis.

Still, I'm hoping the effects can remain limited to Vancouver, and that the Harper government can find ways to limit the effectiveness of this ruling.

[Grey Fox]

Doesn't this decision open the door to activist groups launching suits all across Canada to force provinces to open similar sights?

Vancouver's Downtown East Side is probably the biggest congragation of injection drug users, but they're hardly unique.

Legally? No.

The case states that the feds must reasonably grant the required exemption to allow the program to legally work if the province creates such a treatment program, but does not state that the province must create such a program in the first place.

Obviously, the latter is far more intrusive.

However, it may give a big boost politically to those advocating for such programs, as a presumably neutral and influential arbiter - the SCC - has examined the evidence and has concluded that such programs are reasonable.

Why not?  How is a province's decision to not fund an Insite-like facility any less a violation of an addict's s. 7 rights than is the fed's decision not to grant an exemption?

I don't like to make slippery slope arguments, but, well, some slopes are indeed slippery.

I hate, hate, hate the courts making a Charter analysis on what are complex social policy issues.

Because they are not laws?

More asking then stating.

But both are decisions...

Yes but, to restate my question diffrently, does the Charter apply to decisions made without having a revelant law allowing it?

[Malthus]

Doesn't this decision open the door to activist groups launching suits all across Canada to force provinces to open similar sights?

Vancouver's Downtown East Side is probably the biggest congragation of injection drug users, but they're hardly unique.

Legally? No.

The case states that the feds must reasonably grant the required exemption to allow the program to legally work if the province creates such a treatment program, but does not state that the province must create such a program in the first place.

Obviously, the latter is far more intrusive.

However, it may give a big boost politically to those advocating for such programs, as a presumably neutral and influential arbiter - the SCC - has examined the evidence and has concluded that such programs are reasonable.

Why not?  How is a province's decision to not fund an Insite-like facility any less a violation of an addict's s. 7 rights than is the fed's decision not to grant an exemption?

I don't like to make slippery slope arguments, but, well, some slopes are indeed slippery.

I hate, hate, hate the courts making a Charter analysis on what are complex social policy issues.

This issue is already addressed in the case law, though admittedly I'd have to dig it up - in sum, challenging a decision by one level of government to end an existing program already supported/funded by another level of government is legally much easier that requiring the gov't to create a program that does not exist, even if the effect on the person is the same (they don't get the program).

[Barrister]

Funding issues are fundamentally different.  There is a lot of law on that already.

I think you're right that funding issues are treated differently, but I don't know about fundamentally different.

[crazy canuck]

Funding issues are fundamentally different.  There is a lot of law on that already.

I think you're right that funding issues are treated differently, but I don't know about fundamentally different.

There was no issue regarding allocation of resources in this case.  The Province is the funder not the Feds. The Courts defer on allocation of resources.  The analysis is fundamentally different.

[Barrister]

Funding issues are fundamentally different.  There is a lot of law on that already.

I think you're right that funding issues are treated differently, but I don't know about fundamentally different.

There was no issue regarding allocation of resources in this case.  The Province is the funder not the Feds. The Courts defer on allocation of resources.  The analysis is fundamentally different.

Wasn't inadequate funding part of the analysis in the Quebec health care case?

[Barrister]

Doesn't this decision open the door to activist groups launching suits all across Canada to force provinces to open similar sights?

Vancouver's Downtown East Side is probably the biggest congragation of injection drug users, but they're hardly unique.

Legally? No.

The case states that the feds must reasonably grant the required exemption to allow the program to legally work if the province creates such a treatment program, but does not state that the province must create such a program in the first place.

Obviously, the latter is far more intrusive.

However, it may give a big boost politically to those advocating for such programs, as a presumably neutral and influential arbiter - the SCC - has examined the evidence and has concluded that such programs are reasonable.

Why not?  How is a province's decision to not fund an Insite-like facility any less a violation of an addict's s. 7 rights than is the fed's decision not to grant an exemption?

I don't like to make slippery slope arguments, but, well, some slopes are indeed slippery.

I hate, hate, hate the courts making a Charter analysis on what are complex social policy issues.

Because they are not laws?

More asking then stating.

But both are decisions...

Yes but, to restate my question diffrently, does the Charter apply to decisions made without having a revelant law allowing it?

The Charter applies to any action, any decision, made by government at any level.

Everything that I do as a Crown agent has to be consistent with the Charter, and it would not be unheard of for an accused to claim that my actions have violated his Charter rights.

[viper37]

Heck, that entire criminal code should be provincial jurisdiction, just like the US.

While I love you, viper, this statement is just mind-bogglingly wrong.  The US has approximately 4500 federal crimes (including most notably a host of drug crimes), which are prosecuted by the US federal government.  This is in addition to each state's individual criminal code.

there is no such thing a provincial criminal code, unlike the US.

[crazy canuck]

Wasn't inadequate funding part of the analysis in the Quebec health care case?

Yes, and that is a very good case to see how the analysis is different.  Again the services to be provided had already been decided at the political level.  The problem was the promised services were not be provided.

It works a bit like tort law where the government cannot be liable for not making a highway as safe as it could be but if the government makes a decision to implement certain safety measures and doesnt then it can be held liable to the extent that failure caused damage.

[viper37]

That would still be silly, but not as silly as finding that drug addicts have a Charter right to a safe injection sight.

It is silly, I agree with you now just as I did in the past.  But if a province decides it wants to use its own health budget for that, why not?  Apparently, it saves them around 1.8 million$/year in health care costs.
I still think it's a bad idea, but it's a provincal issue. 

[Barrister]

Wasn't inadequate funding part of the analysis in the Quebec health care case?

Yes, and that is a very good case to see how the analysis is different.  Again the services to be provided had already been decided at the political level.  The problem was the promised services were not be provided.

It works a bit like tort law where the government cannot be liable for not making a highway as safe as it could be but if the government makes a decision to implement certain safety measures and doesnt then it can be held liable to the extent that failure caused damage.

Provinces already provide a variety of drug treatment services...

[crazy canuck]

Wasn't inadequate funding part of the analysis in the Quebec health care case?

Yes, and that is a very good case to see how the analysis is different.  Again the services to be provided had already been decided at the political level.  The problem was the promised services were not be provided.

It works a bit like tort law where the government cannot be liable for not making a highway as safe as it could be but if the government makes a decision to implement certain safety measures and doesnt then it can be held liable to the extent that failure caused damage.

Provinces already provide a variety of drug treatment services...

And your point is?

[viper37]

You are both wrong. The case was not decided on division of power grounds - that is, the argument was made, but defeated: drug regulation remains exclusively federal.

The federal Minister was ordered to grant a further exemption (which had been previously granted some years ago).

Ok, I see.  It's nice when Federal laws come to bites the Federal Government.

Still, imho, it's a good decision, because it lets a province do what it wants with it's healthcare system.  BC decided it was better for them to give free drugs to addicts, so the Feds shouldn't try to prevent them from doing it.

Read GF post now.  The decision is not the way as I first saw it.

[crazy canuck]

Still, imho, it's a good decision, because it lets a province do what it wants with it's healthcare system.  BC decided it was better for them to give free drugs to addicts, so the Feds shouldn't try to prevent them from doing it.

The decision does not go that far and in fact your interpretation of Provincial rights was expressly rejected by the Court - which is very significant because the Court did not go as far as the advocates wished - a declaration that this fell within provincial jurisdiction and was not a criminal matter.