Interior Health fined after hospital workers exposed to illicit substance | Canada News Media
Connect with us

News

Interior Health fined after hospital workers exposed to illicit substance

Published

 on

PENTICTON, B.C. – British Columbia’s Interior Health Authority has been fined nearly $275,000 after workers were exposed to an unknown substance at a hospital in Penticton.

A notice posted online by WorkSafeBC, the province’s worker protection agency, says the $274,073 fine imposed in August was the result of an incident in which two workers were sickened after a noxious odour was detected in a patient’s room.

It says the employees became ill after entering the room in response to a service request, while eight other workers were also treated for exposure.

The notice does not say what the substance was, but it says WorkSafeBC determined the employer’s procedure for responding to illicit substances had not been adequately communicated to workers.

It says the workers had not received training on the process to follow, and recommended respiratory protection had not been communicated.

The notice says the health authority has repeatedly failed to implement written procedures to eliminate or minimize the risk of worker exposure to chemical agents that could cause adverse health effects.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 1, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading

News

Harris team warns CEOs that Trump is a threat to economy, while Trump says tariffs can drive growth

Published

 on

WASHINGTON (AP) — Kamala Harris ‘ campaign is actively warning business leaders that Donald Trump has a pattern of disregard for democracy and the rule of law that would threaten U.S. economic growth — a closing argument designed to show the possible consequences for companies and workers if he returns to the White House.

It’s a position that Trump’s team rejects as they tell voters that prices will be lower and growth stronger than ever before if he wins Tuesday’s election. As a billionaire who made his name in real estate, the former president has argued for higher tariffs to bring more factories into the United States and tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations on the premise that will lead to more investment.

The rival positions get at a fundamental distinction between the two candidates on how to guide the world’s largest economy: Harris’ team is arguing that the rule of law creates the certainty that can make markets and workers thrive, while Trump is arguing that tariff increases and tax cuts are the keys for growth.

Gene Sperling, who has guided three Democratic presidents on economic policy and is now advising the Harris campaign, has made what he describes as a “common sense” case to financiers and others about the dangers of a second Trump administration.

“A president who targets people, targets CEOs, targets companies, targets journalists and targets opposition could have a devastating impact on the investment confidence that has been robust for the past four years but also part of America’s strength since its founding,” said Sperling.

But the billionaire hedge fund investor John Paulson, a Trump supporter who sees himself as a possible treasury secretary, pushes back against the Harris campaign’s criticisms by saying the world was more stable under Trump and inflation was lower.

“It’s completely false,” he said of Sperling’s argument about the rule of law being at risk. “When people make these claims, they’re totally spurious. They’re not grounded in reality. Trump is a brilliant businessman. He wants to bring down wasteful spending and encourage growth.”

Trump has derided his opponent’s handling of the economy as “stupid” and claimed the stock market will crash if he loses the election, although the S&P 500 index of stocks has increased roughly 50% during President Joe Biden ‘s term.

“We will give our companies the lowest taxes, the lowest energy cost, the lowest regulatory burdens, and free access to the best and biggest market on the planet,” Trump said at a rally Tuesday in Allentown, Pennsylvania. “The problem is, if we had more of these idiots running our country, you won’t have a big and best market anymore because we’re a nation in decline.”

The Harris team’s push involves connecting the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol with Trump’s history of using the bully pulpit to attack the Federal Reserve as well as companies such as Amazon, Merck, Comcast, John Deere and Toyota. Their argument is that companies are less likely to make long-term investments if democratic values are under attack and election results denied.

In addition to Sperling, corporate executives have been hearing from Robert Rubin, the former treasury secretary; Kenneth Chenault, the former CEO of American Express; and Brian Deese, the former National Economic Council director for Biden.

One person familiar with the conversations said that the representatives of the Harris campaign are not having to push hard on this issue. Seemingly apolitical CEOs are privately raising this issue as their central concern about a Trump presidency, with the person insisting on anonymity to describe the private conversations with business leaders who want to stay out of the electoral spotlight.

But Vanessa Williamson, a senior fellow in governance at the Brookings Institution, said that the Harris campaign has somewhat underplayed the risks given the possible hazards.

“By and large, Americans have been able to take the basic rule of law for granted,” Williamson said. “The kind of rampant cronyism and fraud that is endemic in some other countries has really been unimaginable here­­ — and that’s a great thing, of course. But it also makes it difficult for people to conceive of just how important government is for the functioning of markets.”

Both campaigns are vying for support from the business community. Trump has the backing of billionaire Elon Musk, the owner of Tesla, SpaceX and X, the social media platform previously known as Twitter. Billionaires such as Microsoft founder Bill Gates and billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban are backing Harris.

Many of the disputes have centered on policy differences. Trump has said that the higher corporate tax rates favored by Harris would deter investment, while the Harris team has attacked his plans to remove Biden-era incentives for building computer chip, electric vehicle and other advanced factories as costing the country factory jobs.

But the argument about the importance of democratic values picked up credibility in October after the Nobel memorial prize in economics was awarded to three economists, Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson, who showed that social institutions and the rule of law are critical for economic growth.

Acemoglu was among the 23 Nobel prize-winning economists who signed a letter saying Trump’s economic plans would “lead to higher prices, larger deficits, and greater inequality.”

The letter said: “Among the most important determinants of economic success are the rule of law and economic and political certainty, and Trump threatens all of these.”

The topic has long fascinated Harris, a former California attorney general. Two people working in the White House recalled that in 2022, Harris asked for economic research to back her own understanding that the erosion of democratic standards would harm growth. Those people insisted on anonymity to discuss the request.

Similarly, Biden was the nominee, White House chief of staff Jeff Zients made the case to the CEOs in the Business Roundtable that a Trump return to the presidency would generate uncertainty that would hinder growth. It was a pitch that contrasted with Trump floating additional tax cuts to the group.

Neither the Business Roundtable nor the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have made endorsements in November’s presidential election. The Business Roundtable has made keeping corporate tax rates at their current 21% rate its top legislative priority. Trump has pledged further cuts to the corporate rate for U.S. manufacturers, whereas Harris would like to raise it to 28%, an increase though still lower than the 35% rate in place until 2017.

The Chamber, meanwhile, has emphasized its willingness to advocate for its corporate members with whichever administration would be in power.

Business Roundtable CEO Josh Bolten said in a statement this month that the organization supported the peaceful transfer of power. So far, Trump has declined to commit to the peaceful transfer of power, after having falsely claimed that his 2020 loss was the result of a rigged election, a claim that helped encourage the 2021 insurrection.

“It can take time to finalize election results, and we urge all Americans to respect the processes set out in federal and state laws for electoral determinations and an orderly transition,” Bolten said.



Source link

Continue Reading

News

S&P/TSX composite up nearly 100 points Friday, U.S. stock markets also higher

Published

 on

TORONTO – Canada’s main stock index gained almost 100 points Friday on strength in technology, base metal and financial stocks, while U.S. markets also moved higher.

It was a positive end to the week after Thursday’s backslide, which saw investors sour on Microsoft and Meta despite strong earnings reports.

Markets are looking for perfection from the mega-cap tech names, said Allan Small, senior investment adviser at IA Private Wealth.

“It was a silly reaction to, I thought, two fantastic earnings reports by Meta and Microsoft. I’m quite surprised,” said Small.

A strong report after the bell from Amazon helped turn things around Friday, with Microsoft gaining back one per cent as Amazon rose by more than six per cent.

The e-commerce giant reported higher profits than expected by analysts.

“I think it was a reason for investors to buy in after maybe a couple of days of soft markets,” said Small.

“Overall, today is a charge higher.”

In New York, the Dow Jones industrial average was up 288.73 points at 42,052.19. The S&P 500 index was up 23.35 points at 5,728.80, while the Nasdaq composite was up 144.77 points at 18,239.92.

The S&P/TSX composite index closed up 98.29 points at 24,255.16.

Intel shares also rallied after its revenue and forecast beat expectations. Meanwhile, shares in Apple fell after its revenue growth forecast for the holiday quarter disappointed.

After a busy week of earnings, next week will bring the U.S. election on Tuesday followed by the next U.S. Federal Reserve interest rate decision Wednesday.

“Next week will be interesting to say the least,” said Small.

The election still feels like a “coin toss,” he said, but expectations for the Fed are clearer: he sees the central bank announcing a quarter-percentage-point cut.

“I just don’t see a catalyst coming from the Fed,” he said.

“If and when they do cut 25 basis points, I think that’s already baked in.”

Friday also brought a weak jobs report in the U.S., with the economy adding just 12,000 jobs compared with the 115,000 expected. Two hurricanes during the month and a strike at Boeing weighed on the report.

Factoring out the short term effects, the numbers were more or less as predicted, said Small, adding to the case for a quarter-percentage-point cut from the Fed on Wednesday.

The Canadian dollar traded for 71.78 cents US compared with 71.86 cents US on Thursday.

The December crude oil contract was up 23 cents at US$69.49 per barrel and the December natural gas contract was down five cents at US$2.66 per mmBTU.

The December gold contract was down 10 cents at US$2,749.20 an ounce and the December copper contract was up three cents at US$4.37 a pound.

— With files from The Associated Press

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 1, 2024.

Companies in this story: (TSX:GSPTSE, TSX:CADUSD)

Note to readers: This is a corrected story. A previous version erroneously said the crude oil contract settled at US$9.49 per barrel.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading

News

Limit on preliminary inquiries doesn’t apply to some ongoing cases: Supreme Court

Published

 on

OTTAWA – A change to the law that limited the right of an accused person to a preliminary inquiry does not apply to some ongoing cases, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.

The top court’s decision Friday helps clarify who is eligible for a preliminary inquiry — a judicial hearing to see if there is enough evidence for a trial — in light of a 2019 amendment to the criminal law.

In September 2019, a Criminal Code change abolished the right to a preliminary inquiry for an accused charged with an indictable offence punishable by less than 14 years in prison.

The government said the amendment would free up time and resources in provincial courts, while alleviating the burden on some witnesses and victims by preventing them from having to testify twice in cases.

After the change, there was disagreement among judges across the country about the circumstances under which someone charged with an offence before the amendment came into force would be eligible for a preliminary inquiry.

In its decision, the Supreme Court said a preliminary inquiry is available when an accused person could actually face 14 or more years behind bars.

The top court said a preliminary inquiry is also possible in some ongoing cases involving events that occurred before the 2019 change.

The court’s pronouncements came in the separate cases of two men accused of sexual offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison when the crimes allegedly took place, long before the September 2019 amendment.

However, both requested a preliminary inquiry only after the 2019 change to the law.

The issue worked its way through the Quebec courts, with the province’s Court of Appeal concluding the amendment did not apply to the two men and that preliminary inquiries should take place.

The Crown then requested a hearing at the Supreme Court.

Five of the top court’s nine judges agreed the previous version of the law applied in these particular cases, meaning the men were entitled to preliminary inquiries.

The majority provided three sets of reasons for that conclusion.

In her reasons, Justice Sheilah Martin said where the alleged offence date is prior to September 2019, an accused who would have been eligible for a preliminary inquiry but for the amendment “remains eligible, regardless of the applicable maximum punishment.”

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, an intervener in the case, had noted in a written submission to the court that preliminary hearings can be used to screen out meritless allegations.

“This protective function is provided by the fact that an accused will be discharged after a preliminary hearing, at an early stage of the proceedings, if there is insufficient evidence to justify a prosecution.”

Cases involving charges laid many years after the offence was allegedly committed present unique challenges to accused people, the association added.

“Evidence relating to the offence, and necessary to marshal a defence, can with the passage of time become lost, or can be rendered increasingly difficult to uncover. Memories fade, accounts become vague, witnesses die or become hard to track down,” the association said.

“In such cases, preliminary hearings become the vehicle through which the accused gains the power to subpoena witnesses, to ask questions to the investigators, the Crown’s witnesses, and potential defence witnesses, and to uncover potentially critical and previously undisclosed evidence.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 1, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version