[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

That gives me faith in our system. 


You are correct, that there is a softer obligation on me, but I am still obligated as an officer of the court to bring legal principles and cases to the courts attention, even if it is contrary to my clients interest, if the other side has not properly advised the court as to the relevant law.

The best example of that is on the morning of closing argument, I came across a case, which had been released just that morning, which frankly destroyed my argument.  I brought it with me to the court, gave it to the lawyer on the other side and handed it to the judge. I then proceeded to explain to the judge why I thought the case was distinguishable. The judge smiled, thanked me for bringing the case to her attention, and promptly gave judgment against my client from the bench relying entirely on the case that I had given her.

[Sheilbh]

You have to give PP this, he knows how to campaign in the modern digital age.

He has effectively bypassed the media - much luck a Trudeau of a different age.

Yeah I think in form it's interesting. I remember thinking in 2010 when a Gordon Brown speech went viral on YouTube - and after Obama's success - that it might bring back more oratory because people could (and were) watching whole speeches instead of the clip on the evening news. I wouldn't say that turned out entirely as I thought it might

But people go to YouTube for explainer videos - they're not stupid and they don't turn off their critical faculties (knowing this is from a politician etc). But this fits with how people use YouTube - and it's for something (an explanation of an issue) that isn't readily available in the traditional media. It won't work for everyone on everything, but it's interesting - and a good politician will be focusing on a message (this is where we are, this how we got here, this is how we can fix it) that maybe fits something like explainer videos on YouTube?

[Barrister]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-naturopath-adriana-lagrange-rob-roth-primary-care-1.7049522

Alberta government is meeting with naturopaths to consider wider role in primary health care.  In particular they want to be able to prescribe some drugs.

This of course seems like something right up Danielle Smith's alley.  She was supportive of ivermectin as a Covid treatment for example.

So I'm pretty opposed to Naturopaths - they mostly provide a whole series of quack treatments with no scientific background.

But I mean I could see some slight benefit from being able to go to a naturopath much more quickly in order to get a prescription for, I dunno, antibiotics or a topical cream or something.

But what I would fear is naturoapths handing out prescriptions for the next ivermectin with no basis to do so.

[Zoupa]

That is utterly insane. Why would a naturopath be able to prescribe antibiotics?

What the hell is going on in Alberta? How can you elect these kinds of clowns?

[Grey Fox]

 

Lots of people are going to die.

[crazy canuck]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-naturopath-adriana-lagrange-rob-roth-primary-care-1.7049522

Alberta government is meeting with naturopaths to consider wider role in primary health care.  In particular they want to be able to prescribe some drugs.

This of course seems like something right up Danielle Smith's alley.  She was supportive of ivermectin as a Covid treatment for example.

So I'm pretty opposed to Naturopaths - they mostly provide a whole series of quack treatments with no scientific background.

But I mean I could see some slight benefit from being able to go to a naturopath much more quickly in order to get a prescription for, I dunno, antibiotics or a topical cream or something.

But what I would fear is naturoapths handing out prescriptions for the next ivermectin with no basis to do so.

Probably better to send them to pharmacists - the BC government allowed pharmacists to prescribe a fairly wide range of medications that has cut down on the routine things that docs used to have to deal with.

[crazy canuck]

The SCC has released a signficant decision which will have the impact of increasing French language education throughout Canada.

The facts are simple and set out in the headnote

Five parents not holding the right guaranteed by s. 23 of the Charter to have their children receive instruction in one of the two official languages, where it is the minority language, applied to the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment of the Northwest Territories ("Minister") for their children's admission to a French first language education program. In each case, the Commission scolaire francophone des Territoires du Nord‑Ouest ("CSFTNO") recommended admission because it would promote the development of the Francophone community of the Northwest Territories. In spite of those recommendations, the Minister denied each of the applications for admission on the ground that the non‑rights holder parents did not meet the conditions established by the ministerial directive on enrolment in French first language education programs, which created categories of eligible non‑rights holders.

It is a complex constitutional decsion, and I don't propose to get too deeply into the weeds on the analysis.  But I think the bit that will be of interest to Languish readers is:

Second, the admission of children of parents who are not rights holders under s. 23 of the Charter can have an impact on the preservation and development of minority language communities. Population growth in the minority language community helps to ensure its development and prevent its decline, including by reducing the likelihood of assimilation and cultural erosion. The admission of children of non‑rights holder parents also contributes to fulfilling the promise of s. 23, which is to give effect to the equal partnership of Canada's two official language groups in the context of education. It follows that these values are always relevant when the government exercises its discretion to admit children of non‑rights holder parents to minority language schools and that they must therefore always be taken into account, even when there is no direct infringement of the right guaranteed by s. 23.

here is the full case

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/20177/index.do

This is also going to have a considerable impact on all statutory decision makers in terms of justifying their decisions in a way that reflects Charter values.

[Barrister]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-naturopath-adriana-lagrange-rob-roth-primary-care-1.7049522

Alberta government is meeting with naturopaths to consider wider role in primary health care.  In particular they want to be able to prescribe some drugs.

This of course seems like something right up Danielle Smith's alley.  She was supportive of ivermectin as a Covid treatment for example.

So I'm pretty opposed to Naturopaths - they mostly provide a whole series of quack treatments with no scientific background.

But I mean I could see some slight benefit from being able to go to a naturopath much more quickly in order to get a prescription for, I dunno, antibiotics or a topical cream or something.

But what I would fear is naturoapths handing out prescriptions for the next ivermectin with no basis to do so.

Probably better to send them to pharmacists - the BC government allowed pharmacists to prescribe a fairly wide range of medications that has cut down on the routine things that docs used to have to deal with.

CC, if you read the article it cites BC as a jurisdiction where naturopaths can write prescriptions.

[crazy canuck]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-naturopath-adriana-lagrange-rob-roth-primary-care-1.7049522

Alberta government is meeting with naturopaths to consider wider role in primary health care.  In particular they want to be able to prescribe some drugs.

This of course seems like something right up Danielle Smith's alley.  She was supportive of ivermectin as a Covid treatment for example.

So I'm pretty opposed to Naturopaths - they mostly provide a whole series of quack treatments with no scientific background.

But I mean I could see some slight benefit from being able to go to a naturopath much more quickly in order to get a prescription for, I dunno, antibiotics or a topical cream or something.

But what I would fear is naturoapths handing out prescriptions for the next ivermectin with no basis to do so.

Probably better to send them to pharmacists - the BC government allowed pharmacists to prescribe a fairly wide range of medications that has cut down on the routine things that docs used to have to deal with.

CC, if you read the article it cites BC as a jurisdiction where naturopaths can write prescriptions.

Not without getting further training they don't.  You need to read the legislation rather than the headline.

[Jacob]

Interesting CC. Is the bottom line that we are going to see more and better funded French language education in Anglophone Canada?

[crazy canuck]

Interesting CC. Is the bottom line that we are going to see more and better funded French language education in Anglophone Canada?

I think that will be the end result.  The requests for French language instruction in BC has always been oversubscribed by English language families.  Now they have a constitutional right to request that the capacity be expanded and the government will have to come up with a different reason for denying the request other than, "you have no rights".  I am not sure they will be able to do so.

[Barrister]

CC, if you read the article it cites BC as a jurisdiction where naturopaths can write prescriptions.

Not without getting further training they don't.  You need to read the legislation rather than the headline.

Are you able to give me the "Coles Notes" version of the legislation?

[Barrister]

I think that will be the end result.  The requests for French language instruction in BC has always been oversubscribed by English language families.  Now they have a constitutional right to request that the capacity be expanded and the government will have to come up with a different reason for denying the request other than, "you have no rights".  I am not sure they will be able to do so.

See, this is where as a small-c conservative I am always wary of these kinds of funding issues being turned into court cases.

French language instruction isn't great in Alberta either.  I mean - there is a Francophone school board that receives english funding.  That is Charter protected.

But yeah - as an english-speaking family, that chose not to bus our kids to attend french-immersion, the quality of french instruction is not great to non-existant.  My older son in junior high is unable to get French education at all - and we did try to sign up for French.

But it's a funding issue.  Do I want the court to mandate that funds should be spent on French?  Even though that might mean the school board then takes away instruction in music?  Or whatever else?

I tend to think "no".

In particular when you're talking about the NWT, which is where this case came from.

[crazy canuck]

CC, if you read the article it cites BC as a jurisdiction where naturopaths can write prescriptions.

Not without getting further training they don't.  You need to read the legislation rather than the headline.

Are you able to give me the "Coles Notes" version of the legislation?

They need to get a further certification to be able to prescribe which is similar to pharmacy training.  But the list of things they can prescribe for is more limited than pharmacists. 

[crazy canuck]

I think that will be the end result.  The requests for French language instruction in BC has always been oversubscribed by English language families.  Now they have a constitutional right to request that the capacity be expanded and the government will have to come up with a different reason for denying the request other than, "you have no rights".  I am not sure they will be able to do so.

See, this is where as a small-c conservative I am always wary of these kinds of funding issues being turned into court cases.

French language instruction isn't great in Alberta either.  I mean - there is a Francophone school board that receives english funding.  That is Charter protected.

But yeah - as an english-speaking family, that chose not to bus our kids to attend french-immersion, the quality of french instruction is not great to non-existant.  My older son in junior high is unable to get French education at all - and we did try to sign up for French.

But it's a funding issue.  Do I want the court to mandate that funds should be spent on French?  Even though that might mean the school board then takes away instruction in music?  Or whatever else?

I tend to think "no".

In particular when you're talking about the NWT, which is where this case came from.

We found something we can agree on 

When the Charter was first being applied, the courts were careful to not step over the resource allocation threshold.  But that caution is now long gone.