There may be problems with corruption in the construction industry, but have you any evidence that this was a problem with the construction of the Olympic Stadium? All I’ve ever heard is that there was a problem with the conception of the stadium.
As for the roads and overpasses that need to be replaced, it’s largely because they were pretty much all built in the 60s and they were planned to last for 40 years or whereabouts.
That must have been one hell of an articling week event. 
[For those who are following: Death of Garry Hoy - Wikipedia ]
I would suggest you read about the commission Cliche (in French). Ah, the 70s, when you couldn’t throw a rock without hitting a commission investigating corruption or police wrong doing 
I don’t know about the actual structure but I know one issue with the roof was incorrect or underestimated forces due to winter winds. These forces pull on the roof cables and cause stresses and strains beyond their design limits. Or at least that’s what my vibrations engineering prof told us!
It’s a great day for BC!
Insite gets a unanimous approval from the Supreme Court:
Clifford Olsen dies:
That’s one hell of a court decision – health trumping criminal law. I’m very impressed.
I saw that earlier today, in the Globe and Mail. Didn’t have time to read the story thoroughly, though I’m sure there will be plenty more news and comment forthcoming in the next few days. Not sure how I feel about the decision; I 'd like to read it first.
I like the way the court shut down the division of powers argument and instead went directly to Section 7.
There has long been stories about companies being paid for the number of cement trucks that came through the front gate during construction. The story goes that a truck would drive up to the front and be counted and then drive through the site and leave through the back gate. The truck would drive around for a while and come back through the front gate and get counted again. I’m pretty sure that there were other things like that going on. There is a new. recent inquest into the link between construction and organized crime in Quebec. It is an old story.
Anybody else catch that ‘Golden Showers’ comment from question period today?
I agree. In an ideal world people wouldn’t be injecting themselves, but since there is drug use it makes sense to keep it as safe as it can possibly be.
BTW, the decision is not up on CANLII yet, but can be read onDocumentCloud.
We’ve had that problem with bears in a certain community in northern Ontario. The contractor was paid by the number of bears live-trapped at the dump, so the contractor would trap a bear, drive it out of the dump to a neighbouring concession road, and release it, so that it could return to the dump and be traped again, and again, and again, being quite happy to get a free meal in the trap in exchange for a few hours of jail time followed by a five minute ride.
Violent mob in Northern Sask attack RCMP, mobs hospital
twitch twitch It doesn’t matter what came first - the chicken or the egg. They’re both here and we all have to deal with it.
Isn’t that the same argument used in Malmo-Levine? How does the Insite decision differ?
(It’s been some years since I read Malmo-Levine, but I do remember its “harm reduction” argument.)
Ah, the SCC decision is posted. See here.
Here is the golden shower comment. It seems he didn’t want to piss anyone off…
Never mind–I’ve started reading the SCC decision, and a quick skim is showing me where M-L is useful, but not exactly on point.
Binge drinking is a major problem throughout a great many northern First Nations communities. No solution in sight.
Can anyone give us the Cliff Notes version of the Insite decision? I’m all in favour of the outcome, but it feels uncomfortably like the court was making a policy decision. I’m hoping there’s more to the argument than “the government’s policy is bad, so we’re not allowing it.”
I thought it was a question of jurisdiction. Health care is considered a provincial responsibility, and BC considers this program to be part of their mandate. Therefore the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in overruling any decisions.
Of course I’m just a lay easterner. Who’s undoubtedly going to be subject to the same sort of clinics shortly.
I don’t agree with the decision BTW. You have funds? Put it into education and deterrence, not free give-aways.
Drug addiction is a disease in which the central feature is impaired control over the use of the addictive substance. Insite provided health services that were successful in saving lives without increasing crime.
The government’s decision was arbitrarily and grossly disproportionately contrary to the Controlled Drug and Substances Act’s goals of maintenance and promotion of public health and safety, and by putting addicts’ health and lives at risk was not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice and was in violation of s.7 of the Charter.
The Minister was ordered to grant a further, but not permanent, exemption to Insite from the CDSA. The Court noted that if a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption.
