Connect with us


Bill 96: Quebec public servants now required to make ‘exemplary’ use of French


7 minute read


Storytelling is in our DNA. We provide credible, compelling multimedia storytelling and services in English and French to help captivate your digital, broadcast and print audiences. As Canada’s national news agency for 100 years, we give Canadians an unbiased news source, driven by truth, accuracy and timeliness.

Follow Author


Charges against couple who refused to quarantine withdrawn

Published on

With permission from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms


MISSISSAUGA, ON: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is pleased to announce that the charges against an Ontario couple who refused to stay in a quarantine hotel have been withdrawn by Crown prosecutors.

Audrey and Douglas Davies departed Canada for Florida in January 2021. On June 26, 2021, they returned to Canada through the Toronto Pearson International Airport but were charged with breaching the Quarantine Act for refusing to stay in a quarantine hotel. Mr. and Mrs. Davies immediately completed a form on the reverse of their ticket, requesting an early resolution meeting with prosecutors.

It was not until June 2, 2023 (almost 24 months later), that a notice of an early resolution meeting was signed by the Court Clerk of the Ontario Court of Justice. The early resolution meeting occurred on July 20, 2023. At the meeting, the Davies’ lawyer expressed concern with the delay, citing Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that “[a]ny person charged with an offence has the right to be tried within a reasonable time.” The Crown nonetheless insisted on prosecuting the case.

According to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v. Jordan, trials for cases in Provincial Courts must be completed within 18 months of charges being laid. If trials are not completed within 18 months, prejudice is assumed, and a stay of charges will result, barring exceptional circumstances or delays caused by the accused. From approximately March 2020 to April 2022, however, the division of the Ontario Provincial Court dealing with the Provincial Offences Act was closed to in-person proceedings, even though other divisions of Provincial Courts had been open. Remarkable and lengthy closures like those affecting the Davies were considered to be “exceptional circumstances” and did not, therefore, count toward the 18-month threshold.

On August 14, 2023, lawyer Chris Fleury sent a letter to the Crown, reiterating the Davies’ concerns regarding the delay and demanding that the matter move forward as quickly as possible. On August 30, 2023, the Crown informed Mr. Fleury that the charges against Mr. and Mrs. Davies had been withdrawn.

Lawyer Chris Fleury, whose efforts on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Davies have been supported by the Justice Centre, stated, “This is a bittersweet result for the Davies. It is an excellent outcome for them personally. But, it is frustrating for Canadians who will not get to challenge Ontario’s decision to keep Provincial Offences Courts closed, while all other Ontario courts were open. We were looking forward to challenging established case law and ensuring that section 11(b) of the Charter is enforced consistently across the Provincial Courts.”

Continue Reading


Canadian innovation beats EU precaution in agriculture sustainability

Published on

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Stuart Smyth

Canada should learn from, not follow, the EU’s agriculture policy errors

The world needs a lot of food to feed eight billion hungry mouths. Even though global production for the most important crops – rice, wheat and maize – reached all-time highs last year, inflation, geopolitical interruptions and misguided policy have disrupted our ability to make food abundant and affordable for everyone.

Crop breeding, more efficient fertilizer and chemical use, and investments in farming equipment and technology offer tried and true strategies for increasing production while enhancing sustainability and reducing GHG emissions.

The European Union is rejecting these proven strategies through policies that dramatically reduce fertilizer and chemical use and ban modern crop breeding technologies. Regrettably, Canada’s federal government is looking at the European approach as a model for its emissions reduction plans. Canadians must reject the ideologically driven, counterproductive policies pursued in the European Union and must insist on science and outcome-driven policies to promote a strong, sustainable agricultural sector that can help satisfy the world’s growing needs.

Innovation is fundamental to modern societies and economies. Governments constantly encourage innovation and enact policies to incentivize investment into the research and development required to bring new products and processes to market. In recent years, environmental sustainability has been a primary concern and Canadian agriculture has been at the forefront of sustainable innovation. Fundamentally, sustainability in agriculture means maximizing efficiency: producing more pounds of crop per acre of land for each pound of input (seed, fertilizer, pesticides, labour) applied.

Prior to the widespread adoption of modern crop technologies, all crop and food production was done through what are now known as organic production practices. With organic production the only way to produce more food is to use more land. However, beginning in 1960, food production became decoupled from increased land use, increasing by 390% while using only 10% more land. Innovations in crop breeding technologies such as GM crops (genetically modified), fertilizer and chemical use, and farm industrialization have all contributed to this increasingly sustainable food production.

This increase in productivity has allowed the world’s population to flourish from just 3 billion people in 1960 to 8 billion today. Although the global agricultural sector is a significant source of greenhouse gases, total emissions have remained flat since 2000 even as production increased, and the sector’s share of global emissions has declined.

Despite this incredible success story, modern agriculture is often viewed with suspicion, particularly in the European Union. They have incorporated precaution-based regulations which dramatically reduce fertilizer and chemical use and ban modern crop breeding technologies. Presently they are proposing to triple organic production, from 8% of current land to 25%, by 2030, as part of what’s known as their “Farm to Fork” strategy to reduce agricultural GHG emissions.

Inevitably, the strategy will not necessarily reduce emissions but will certainly reduce production. Declines are expected: -26% in cereals, -27% in oilseeds, -10% for fruits and vegetables, -14% of beef and -9% of dairy. All of these production decreases will contribute to even higher food prices in the EU, which has been experiencing double digit inflation increases for most of the past year.

By contrast, Canada allows all plant breeding technologies to be used in the development of new varieties, and fertilizer and chemical use is based upon risk appropriate, science-based regulations. The benefits of this approach are unambiguous.

In Saskatchewan, only 3% of crop land requires tillage – mechanical turning of the soil to control for weeds and pests and prepare for seeding. In the European Union, 74% of crop land requires it. Removing tillage from land management practices not only reduces soil erosion and increases moisture conservation; it also reduces the amount of carbon released and increases the sequestration of carbon through continuous crop production. 90% of Saskatchewan farmers indicate that efficient weed control provided by the use of glyphosate increased sustainability in their practices, and 73% said production of herbicide tolerant canola, which is predominantly GM, did.

An assessment of EU agricultural GHG emissions concluded that had genetically modified crops been adopted there in a timely fashion, total EU agricultural GHG emissions would have been reduced by 7.5%. This amounts to 33 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. At any rate, their reduced yields have left them heavily dependent on imports of GM livestock feed from Brazil and Argentina.

Comparing sustainable agricultural production between the EU and Canada reveals two very different situations. The EU has rejected GM crops due to politics and precaution and as a result still heavily relies on tillage. Canadian farmers have enthusiastically adopted GM crops, virtually eliminating tillage. The EU is proposing additional precaution-based regulations that will further reduce crop and food production. Canadian farmers have demonstrated the ability to produce more food with fewer inputs, while the EU is poised to produce less, with more land requirements.

Opposing paths have been selected in the EU and Canada. The evidence to date confirms that it is Canadian agricultural production that is increasingly sustainable. The government must learn the right lessons from Europe’s mistakes when adopting strategies for reducing emissions from our agricultural sector. Canada should continue to improve sustainability through innovation. Canada should not follow Europe’s failed attempts to reduce emissions by producing less food.

Stuart J. Smyth is Professor & Agri-Food Innovation & Sustainability Enhancement Chair at the University of Saskatchewan.

Continue Reading