RCMP say they have busted ‘the largest, most sophisticated drug superlab in Canada’

VANCOUVER – British Columbia’s ports may again be disrupted by a labour dispute, as employers say they have received 72-hour strike notice from the union representing foremen.

The BC Maritime Employers Association said in a statement on Thursday that it is “deeply disappointed” after the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 514 rejected its “final offer” presented on Wednesday.

“The BCMEA has advanced proposals in good faith to reach a balanced agreement that is beneficial for the 730 hardworking forepersons and for their families, while also ensuring West Coast ports remain reliable, competitive, and affordable for all Canadians,” the statement said.

“The BCMEA and its members will be considering next steps,” the statement concluded.

The union has not issued a response to questions about the strike notice or future negotiations.

The two sides had been negotiating with the help of a federal mediator over three days this week to avoid the latest work stoppage, which would affect all ports in B.C.

Employers said that if the union takes strike action, it would begin at 8 a.m. on Monday, Nov. 4.

The strike would be the latest in a number of labour disruptions at the Port of Vancouver, the largest port in Canada.

In September, workers set up pickets at six Metro Vancouver grain terminals for several days before a tentative deal was reached.

A month before that, port operations were disrupted by work stoppages at both major Canadian railways.

A 13-day port workers strike last year froze billions in trade at the docks.

The foremen’s union said in September that members voted 96 per cent in favour of strike action, if necessary.

The dispute has been centred around one employer, DP World, and its manpower requirements as it relates to automation.

The union has said it had “no interest in an industry-wide dispute” because it wanted to negotiate with DP World directly, but the Canada Industrial Relations Board said the union can’t bargain with one employer alone.

The union said that ruling prompted members to take an industry-wide vote on a strike mandate.

As the two sides entered negotiations this week, local 514 president Frank Morena said “the clock is ticking,” referring to the union’s strike mandate that expires on Nov. 2.

“ILWU Local 514 wants to see a new contract, not a strike or lockout, and has done everything possible to negotiate at the table — not through the media, as BCMEA has attempted to do,” Morena said before talks restarted on Tuesday.

Earlier on Thursday, the employers said they believed their latest offer would “conclude negotiations in a manner that serves the best interest” of all parties involved.

Negotiations began last year after the last contract expired in March 2023.

On Oct. 23, the Canada Industrial Relations Board ruled on complaints from both sides alleging negotiating in bad faith, dismissing the union’s claim, while partly agreeing with the employers’ complaint.

The union has said it “respectfully disagrees” with the ruling and would ask a court to overturn that part of the decision.

The employers association said Thursday that the latest job action aggravates the effects of previous work stoppages and causes significant harm to the Canadian economy.

“This escalation follows months of labour instability across rail, air, grain and port sectors and compounds Canada’s growing reputation as an unreliable trading partner,” the employers’ statement said. “This level of uncertainty and chaos is untenable for the waterfront industry and Canada’s supply chain.”

In a written statement, Greater Vancouver Board of Trade vice-president David van Hemmen said his group is “calling for immediate action by the federal government to intervene.”

“We are extremely concerned that this strike could cascade quickly to shutting down the entire West Coast port system,” van Hemmen said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 31, 2024.

TORONTO – Creditors are set to vote later this year on a proposed settlement that would see three tobacco giants pay out billions to provinces and smokers across Canada, an Ontario court ruled Thursday as one of the companies indicated it opposes the plan in its current form.

The court approved a motion that would see representatives for creditors, which include provincial governments seeking to recover smoking-related health-care costs as well as plaintiffs in two Quebec class-action lawsuits, review and vote on the proposal on Dec. 12.

One of the companies, JTI-Macdonald Corp., had urged the court to hold off on approving the motion for a few weeks so the proposed plan could be amended before it’s presented to creditors.

“This plan is, in respect to JTIM, not capable of being implemented in its current form and therefore it should not be put to a vote,” said Robert Thornton, one of the lawyers representing JTI-Macdonald Corp.

The proposal would see the three companies — JTI-Macdonald Corp., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges and Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. — pay $24 billion to provinces and territories and more than $4 billion to tens of thousands of Quebec smokers and their heirs.

Before it can be implemented, the proposed plan must be voted on by representatives for the creditors and then be approved by the court.

Ontario Superior Court Chief Justice Geoffrey Morawetz did not give reasons for his decision to approve the motion Thursday, but repeatedly suggested during the hearing that discussions over any outstanding issues could continue before and even after the creditors’ meeting.

Several of the other parties argued Thursday that JTI-Macdonald Corp.’s concerns should be raised and addressed later in the process.

“Whether the plan is fair and reasonable is for another day,” said André Michael, who represents a number of provincial governments in the case.

The companies will all have a chance to make their arguments when the proposal is presented for the court’s approval, he said. “But now, to get there, we ask for the claims procedure and meeting to be ordered. It is time to take the next step toward implementation.”

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges and Imperial Tobacco said they had no issue with setting a date for the creditors’ meeting but reserved the right to object to the proposal at a later stage in the process.

The proposal reached through mediation doesn’t specify each company’s share of the $32.5-billion global settlement, an issue that “must be resolved” to move forward, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges said in a court document filed ahead of Thursday’s hearing.

“RBH has not agreed to the proposed plan with the allocation issue unresolved,” the company said in the document.

The company added it is “committed to resolving the issue in a timely manner to avoid the risk of substantial objections at the sanction hearing as well as the potential for further complications and delay.”

Whether the companies need to support the plan for it to take effect remains in dispute, with some parties arguing the court could simply impose the settlement.

Other payments laid out in the proposal include more than $2.5 billion for smokers in other provinces and territories who were diagnosed with smoking-related illnesses over a four-year period, and more than $1 billion for a foundation to help detect and prevent tobacco-related diseases.

The Canadian Cancer Society, which is a social stakeholder in the case, said Thursday it believes there should be “important changes” to the proposal before it is approved and implemented.

“At the root of why we are here is tobacco and its devastating health effects and health-care costs, yet there is nothing in the plan to actually reduce tobacco use,” Rob Cunningham, the organization’s lawyer, told the court.

Restrictions on the promotion of tobacco products should also be included, as well as the release of thousands of pages of internal industry documents, among other changes, he said.

The proposed settlement comes after more than five years of negotiations as part of a corporate restructuring process that was triggered by a decades-long legal battle.

A Quebec Superior Court judge first ordered the three companies to pay about $15 billion in two class-action lawsuits involving smokers in the province who took up the habit between 1950 and 1998 and either fell ill or were addicted, or their heirs.

The landmark decision was upheld by the province’s top court in 2019, prompting the companies to seek creditor protection in Ontario.

The Ontario court put all legal proceedings against the companies, including lawsuits filed by provincial governments, on hold as the parties negotiated a global settlement.

The stay of proceedings was initially set to expire after a few months, but has been renewed about a dozen times. It has now been extended to Jan. 31, 2025.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 31, 2024.

LONDON (AP) — A British ban on protesting outside abortion clinics went into effect on Thursday, though it left a question mark over whether anti-abortion demonstrators who pray silently will be breaking the law.

The law, which applies to England and Wales, bars protests within 150 meters (164 yards) of clinics. Scotland and Northern Ireland, which make their own health policies, recently enacted similar bans.

The new rules make it an offense to obstruct someone using abortion services, “intentionally or recklessly” influence their decision, or cause “harassment, alarm or distress.” Offenders face a fine, with no upper limit.

The buffer zone rule was passed 18 months ago as part of the previous Conservative government’s Public Order Act, but wrangling over whether it would apply to silent prayer protests, and a change in government in July, have delayed it taking effect.

The Crown Prosecution Service says silent prayer near an abortion clinic “will not necessarily commit a criminal offense,” and police say they will assess each case individually.

Anti-abortion campaigners and religious groups argue that banning silent-prayer protests would be an affront to freedom of religion. But pro-choice campaigners say silent anti-abortion demonstrators are often intimidating to women entering clinics.

“It’s difficult to see how anyone choosing to perform their prayers right outside an abortion clinic could argue they aren’t attempting to influence people — and there are countless testimonies from women who say this makes them feel distressed,” said Louise McCudden, U.K. head of external affairs at MSI Reproductive Choices, one of Britain’s biggest abortion providers.

In March 2023, lawmakers rejected a change to the legislation proposed by some conservative legislators that would have explicitly allowed silent prayer within the buffer zones. The final rules are a potentially messy compromise that is likely to be tested in court.

Crime and Policing Minister Diana Johnson said she was “confident that the safeguards we have put in place today will have a genuine impact in helping women feel safer and empowered to access the vital services they need.”

But Bishop John Sherrington of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, said the government had “taken an unnecessary and disproportionate step backwards” on religious freedom.

“Religious freedom includes the right to manifest one’s private beliefs in public through witness, prayer and charitable outreach, including outside abortion facilities,” he said.

Abortion is not as divisive an issue in the U.K. as in the U.S., where women’s access to terminations has been rolled back, and banned in some states, since the Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling in 2022.

Abortion was partly legalized in Britain by the 1967 Abortion Act, which allows abortions up to 24 weeks of pregnancy if two doctors approve. Later abortions are allowed in some circumstances, including danger to the mother’s life.

But women who have abortions after 24 weeks in England and Wales can be prosecuted under the 1861 Offenses Against the Person Act. Last year a 45-year-old woman in England was sentenced to 28 months in prison for ordering abortion pills online to induce a miscarriage when she was 32 to 34 weeks pregnant. After an outcry, her sentence was reduced.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.