email Oct 21 2015
email Oct 21 2015
Original message --------
From: "Kim Appotive - kimappotive@gmail.com" <do-not-reply@it.ubc.ca> Date: 10-21-2015 3:36 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Subject: 2015W1-LAW505-002-Canadian Public Law-DANAY: Our Group Project Hi Jennifer and Mukunthan,
I thought it would be best to start an email thread as we are working together on this group project to create a wiki page. The description as provided online is below.
Perhaps best moving forward would be to divide up the readings, I numbered them 1-7, as there is 3 of us, we can each do 2 readings, and one of us will do 3. Make an outline on the readings and then compile it online in a wiki page. Would that work for everyone or would you have any suggestions on how to tackle this project?
I look forward to working together on this project.
Kind regards,
Kim
Outline:
The purpose of this review exercise is to allow students to consolidate their knowledge of Canadian federalism law, and apply that knowledge to a specific case scenario. It will also provide the opportunity to reflect on the political, philosophical and historical context of judgments about the division of powers.
For this exercise, you will be put randomly into groups. With your fellow group members, reflect on the following materials. Collaborate with your group in a wiki (to find out more about wiki visithttp://elearning.ubc.ca/toolkit/wiki/) to write an outline addressing the questions below. Share your outline with the class by providing a link to your wiki in the discussion forum for this exercise. Review the outlines of at least two other groups.
The context of this exercise is the legal and political debate surrounding Insite, which is a “safe injection site” located in Vancouver. It provides a clean, controlled environment where drug users can inject their own drugs under the supervision of clinical staff. The operation of Insite has been the source of ongoing controversy. Health care professionals and other supporters claim that it helps avoid overdoses and mitigates the harms caused when overdoses do occur. Supporters also claim that the existence of Insite helps users avoid unsafe practices like needle-sharing, which reduces the spread of infections diseases such as HIV. Insite is based, in part, on the idea that drug addiction is properly understood as a health care problem, not a criminal one. In contrast, critics argue that there is insufficient evidence to support many of the positive benefits claimed on behalf of Insite, and that it can create an enabling environment for drug use.
Although there are numerous constitutional questions about Insite, we will focus on those questions concerning the division of legislative powers between the provincial and federal governments.
Read the following texts:
1. “Insite” entry on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insite. In addition to reviewing the main entry, choose two or three of the listed reports or media articles to get a sense of the range of perspectives that exist on this issue. Consider choosing commentary from groups and individuals who support the existence of Insite and some from those who oppose it. Think about whether their views and reasons are grounded in scientific, medical, religious, political or legal arguments, and to what audience they are directing their comments.
2. PHS Community Services Society v. Attorney General of Canada, 2008 BCSC 661, online:http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2008/2008bcsc661/2008bcsc661.html [read paras. 1-89, 100-121]
3. PHS Community Services Society v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 BCCA 15, online:http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2010/2010bcca15/2010bcca15.html [read paras. 1, 80-177, 200-245]
4. Factum of the appellants the Attorney General of Canada and Minister of Health for Canada, available from the Supreme Court of Canada website: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/info/fac-mem-eng.aspx?cas=33556 [read paras. 1-80, 92-93]
5. Factum of the respondents PHS Community Services Society, Wilson and Tomic, available from the Supreme Court of Canada website: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/info/fac-mem-eng.aspx?cas=33556 [read paras. 1-72]
6. Hester Lessard, “Jurisdictional Justice, Democracy and the Story of Insite” (2012) 19:1, 2 & 3 Constitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel (2011) No 3: 93.
7. Webcast of the SCC hearing: available from the Supreme Court of Canada webiste: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcast-webdiffusion-eng.aspx?cas=33556. Watch some or all of the presentations by at least two parties before the court.
- please do not read the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in this case until after you have completed the review exercise. (Recall that your success in this review exercise is not related to coming to the same conclusion as the SCC, and reading the case in advance will make this exercise less interesting and less valuable for you and your colleagues).
Questions:
1. Imagine you are a judge at the Supreme Court of Canada. How do you resolve the federalism issue in the appeal of the PHS case?
1. Reflecting on a range of perspectives, including those raised by Lessard, what values are most at stake when applying the division of powers analysis in this case? You might consider issues such as the role of “cooperative” federalism in a democracy, the role of local community activism in democratic politics, and the contested characterization of the “facts” in this case.
After you have completed the review exercise, read the final decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Do you agree with their decision? Are you surprised by it?
Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 134, online:http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7960/index.do [paras. 1-20, 45-73]