statism watch

Kevin Libin, National Post
Published: Thursday, May 08, 2008

CALGARY -After being cut out of federal compensation funds before, and waiting for promised medical help that never showed up, some of Canada’s “forgotten” hepatitis C victims are understandably skeptical they’ll see a penny from the Conservative government’s latest pledge to tainted-blood victims. Unfortunately, they may be right.

“I don’t believe I’ll get anything in the end,” confessed Vikki Boddy of Lethbridge, Alta., who contracted the blood-borne illness through a transfusion in 1984 and has sought federal recompense for over a decade. She says the effects of hep C cost her her job at 35, and medication — one prescription costs nearly $2,000 a month — has driven her family to bankruptcy, twice. She predicts she’ll die without seeing remuneration.

Almost two years ago, the Conservatives announced a nearly $1-billion settlement for roughly 6,000 “forgotten victims” — those infected from the blood supply before 1986 and after 1990. They had been shut out of a $1.2-billion deal the former Liberal government offered hep C and HIV patients infected between the two dates. Announcing the new fund in 2006, the Conservatives suggested victims could see money within six months. Nearly two years later, many say they haven’t seen dollar one.

“What they do is give you the waiting game. They hope you’ll die, frankly,” said Jacqui Lemmon, of Oshawa, who has been fighting on behalf of infected family members. Unlike Ontario’s class -action settlement for victims of E. coli poisoning in Walkerton, where survivors, once cured, could await a payout, she says, hep C is degenerative and frequently lethal, so “people continue to die waiting for their money.”

…

Thousands have already died waiting for federal money. Transfers to the provinces under the mid-nineties’ “care instead of cash” program, supposedly to defray patients’ medical costs, never found its way to victims. Predictably, some are now cynical enough to float sinister theories, suggesting the government — which gets back any unclaimed funds — is waiting out the victims. More likely, say lawyers close to the case, Crawford may be struggling to keep up with application volumes. They think things are moving at a reasonable pace. But that’s going by lawyer time. Tainted-blood victims may not be able to afford to be as patient.

Full Story | See Also: Government knew of HIV risk from imported blood | Bayer Continued Selling Contaminated Blood Product in 1980s | Aids scandals around the world | Blood Money: The Clinton Ties to the Blood Scandal

CBC News
Last Updated: Thursday, May 8, 2008

A new $5-billion bridge is being planned for the Windsor, Ont.-Detroit corridor, sources told Radio-Canada.

Governments in Canada and the United States will work together to build a second bridge beside the overburdened Ambassador Bridge, say the sources.

An official announcement is expected in July.

…

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is said to be pushing to have the deal finalized by the fall, before U.S. President George W. Bush departs from office in early 2009.

The French-language network of the CBC said the project, which is expected to create up to 25,000 jobs, would be the biggest joint construction effort in the history of Canada-U.S. relations, and the largest public-private partnership in Canadian history.

“For all of those governments to come together and say this is the plan — this is many, many years in the making,” the CBC’s Susan Pedler reported from Windsor on Thursday.

She said that for such a plan to take shape requires co-operation between multiple layers of government on both sides of the border, including municipal, provincial, state and federal bodies.

Full Story | See Also: Border ‘two-headed monster,’ industry minister says | PM voices concerns about ‘thickening’ of U.S. border

David Lepofsky, The Toronto Star
May 08, 2008 04:30 AM

New tribunal has been given sweeping power to make rules that override legal safeguards

You probably don’t know Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal is now considering adopting potentially draconian new rules on how it will handle discrimination claims. This should worry everyone, whether they look through the eyes of a discrimination claimant or through the eyes of a person or organization accused of discrimination.

On June 30, the controversial Bill 107 goes into effect. It privatizes human rights enforcement. For the first time, discrimination victims must take claims directly to the Human Rights Tribunal for a decision.

No longer will the Human Rights Commission first investigate, conciliate, screen and prosecute individual claims.

Weeks before June 30, Premier Dalton McGuinty’s appointees still scratch their heads over details on how this will work.

To cope with an anticipated tenfold-plus caseload increase, McGuinty gave the tribunal sweeping power to make rules that override long-standing legal safeguards – safeguards needed to ensure fair hearings. The tribunal proposes new rules to give itself excessive new powers. These are troubling, whether you support or oppose Bill 107.

Normally at a court or tribunal hearing, the parties choose which witnesses to present to prove their case, as long as evidence is relevant and not unduly repetitive. Violating this, the tribunal proposes rules that will allow it to refuse to hear relevant witnesses a party wants to present to prove their case.

The tribunal is the judge that hears the witnesses and decides who wins. It shouldn’t also be able to decide that a party can’t present all witnesses who are relevant and who the party wants the tribunal to hear.

As a lawyer, I know the party who investigates and prepares their case knows far more about the evidence and how to present it than the judge does. The tribunal is the umpire, not a player.

The tribunal proposes giving itself unbridled power to selectively exempt anyone it wishes from any of its rules, without having to give reasons.

…

It’s a cruel irony that the small group of lawyers who advocated for Bill 107 slammed the old system for letting the Human Rights Commission dismiss claims without a hearing in person. Some of those lawyers now work at the tribunal that proposes giving itself the same power to decide or delay cases without a hearing in person.

Full Story