So long, Quebec...

[Louis VI the Fat]

At any rate, I don't think you read the article in your burst of francophone-solidarity driven exhuberance. This company is complying with all environmental regulations. Yet they are still getting sued as if they have done something wrong.

I did read it all. Which was the very reason for my burst of francophone-solidarity driven exhuberance. Because, if I am not mistaken about French law, this decision brings Québec into compliance with French standards.

industry won't complain, they just won't stay. They'll go somewhere else.

Yes they will and good riddance. Have your child labour in Burma. Your environmental destruction in China. Your poor health and safety standards in Columbia.

And if they so desire, the rest of Canada can have their 'neighbours should be expected to suffer annoyances that exceed a reasonable limit of tolerance' and their 'no liability for companies to pay damages over failure to maintain pollution-control equipment in ”optimal” working order'.

Canada is a modern society, and modern societies have industrial standards and standards for neighbourly conduct.
Some companies will leave at the prospect of having to comply with these standards. Others will understand them and take over. This is the lesson from history from the past two hundred years. We'd all still be living in 19th century Dickensian circumstances if we would have given in to industrial scaremongering and threats. Québec seems to understand this and is leading the way. The other provinces can compete with each other for who is willing to bend over backwards the most by lowering health, safety and environmental standards for industry in a bid to be the most competitive. (Although I bet they will never outcompete Nigeria or Bangladesh in these respects)

[KarlXII]

Oh oui oui baguette?

[Ice]

I did read it all. Which was the very reason for my burst of francophone-solidarity driven exhuberance. Because, if I am not mistaken about French law, this decision brings Québec into compliance with French standards.

Yes they will and good riddance. Have your child labour in Burma. Your environmental destruction in China. Your poor health and safety standards in Columbia.

Right. So the air will be clean, but there will be no jobs OR TAX REVENUE FOR THE COMMUNITY/PROVINCE.. That's logical.

And if they so desire, the rest of Canada can have their 'neighbours should be expected to suffer annoyances that exceed a reasonable limit of tolerance' and their 'no liability for companies to pay damages over failure to maintain pollution-control equipment in ”optimal” working order'.

Correct.

Canada is a modern society, and modern societies have industrial standards and standards for neighbourly conduct.
Some companies will leave at the prospect of having to comply with these standards. Others will understand them and take over. This is the lesson from history from the past two hundred years. We'd all still be living in 19th century Dickensian circumstances if we would have given in to industrial scaremongering and threats. Québec seems to understand this and is leading the way. The other provinces can compete with each other for who is willing to bend over backwards the most by lowering health, safety and environmental standards for industry in a bid to be the most competitive. (Although I bet they will never outcompete Nigeria or Bangladesh in these respects)[

You are missing the point. The companies were following, according to the article, most of these environmental laws to the letter. Taking a broad interpretation of a vague law and applying it to this situation is absolutely ridiculous. If they laws need changed according the people's wishes then fine. Do it the correct way through legislation. This is crap.

[lars573]

Kush I think Louis read the entire article. Including the parts at the end that Goofball left off. Like how the company had special legislation passed so it could open in 1952. And that by 1955 the community and the plant were fighting over noise and emissoins. Or that the ceased operation in 1997. Or that this suit has been going on since 1994.

[Kralizec]

”One, under the ordinary rules of civil liability, is based on the wrongful conduct of the person who allegedly caused the disturbances. The second is a regime of no-fault liability based on the extent of the annoyances suffered by the victim ... ”

The second branch will be ”based on the annoyances suffered by the victim being excessive, rather than on the conduct of the person who allegedly caused them,” the court said.

This doesn't seem like a bad approach on paper, but from the rest of the article I get the impression that it was used to cave in to NIMBY sentiments.

Maybe the people who lived there in '55 should have gotten compensation. After more than two generations down the line, though...

[Ice]

Kush I think Louis read the entire article. Including the parts at the end that Goofball left off. Like how the company had special legislation passed so it could open in 1952. And that by 1955 the community and the plant were fighting over noise and emissoins. Or that the ceased operation in 1997. Or that this suit has been going on since 1994.

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to in my previous post.

Bah. Some may leave, others will come. We've increased wages, decreased working hours, increased enviromental laws, etc all the time over the past century. Every time, the industry has cried for the end of the world. Yet all the time, our wealth has steadily increased. And if I may be so bold, it's because of laws like this.

This one isn't going to change that. Just like the thousands of other laws we have passed didn't change it.

May I see a shred of proof to back up this assertion? It doesn't even have to be a link.

I'm sure you are also aware that correlation doesn't always equal causation as I've said before.

It is the law. The principle is codified in Civil Law legislation and found in Common Law precedent. The principle is that one man's rights end where another one's begins. One man's property rights end where another one's begins.

I'm aware of how the law is theoretically suppose to work. I believe that the courts have taken this system, which allows for a great deal of leeway on the court's part, and blown it out of proportion.

In our respective bouts of anti and pro Québec sentiments, Goofball and I overlooked something. Namely, that this case simply brings Québec in line with the legal systems of both anglophone Canada and France. In fact, standard practice in both systems were a consideration for this verdict

.


I didn't know French law worked like that. It's nice to know.

Far from this being a case of 'communist Québec' being unfriendly to business, this case is another step in Québec emancipating itself from being a toilet where English Canada can dump its unwanted industry.

*Shrugs*

If you don't want the industry, then don't cry when the effects of such said action occur.

So long, Canada, you'll have to take your craps on your own territory. Can't over the fence and use Québec for that anymore.

This will actually make the rest of Canada less dependent on Quebec which would be a bad thing IMHO.

[lars573]

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to in my previous post.

The entire debate you and Louis were having. Mostly that it's all academic. The jobs your arguing for were lost 11 years ago, and the environmental impact he's arguing against stopped then too.

This will actually make the rest of Canada less dependent on Quebec which would be a bad thing IMHO.

As far as the manufacturing sector goes Ontario is the power house (which is why it's taking a huge economic beating in the current recession). Quebec is a respectable second.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Right. So the air will be clean, but there will be no jobs OR TAX REVENUE FOR THE COMMUNITY/PROVINCE.. That's logical.

Should communities in the developed world have to suffer abusive behaviour by employers just because they need to compete for investment with rival communities throughout the country?

[HoreTore]

Right. So the air will be clean, but there will be no jobs OR TAX REVENUE FOR THE COMMUNITY/PROVINCE.. That's logical.

Bah. Some may leave, others will come. We've increased wages, decreased working hours, increased enviromental laws, etc all the time over the past century. Every time, the industry has cried for the end of the world. Yet all the time, our wealth has steadily increased. And if I may be so bold, it's because of laws like this.

This one isn't going to change that. Just like the thousands of other laws we have passed didn't change it.



and Louis, I love your new lefty style.... you touch me in ways I've never been touched before... Don't ever go back. Ever.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The companies were following, according to the article, most of these environmental laws to the letter. Taking a broad interpretation of a vague law and applying it to this situation is absolutely ridiculous. If they laws need changed according the people's wishes then fine. Do it the correct way through legislation. This is crap.

It is the law. The principle is codified in Civil Law legislation and found in Common Law precedent. The principle is that one man's rights end where another one's begins. One man's property rights end where another one's begins.

In our respective bouts of anti and pro Québec sentiments, Goofball and I overlooked something. Namely, that this case simply brings Québec in line with the legal systems of both anglophone Canada and France. In fact, standard practice in both systems were a consideration for this verdict.

Far from this being a case of 'communist Québec' being unfriendly to business, this case is another step in Québec emancipating itself from being a toilet where English Canada can dump its unwanted industry.


So long, Canada, you'll have to take your craps on your own territory. Can't over the fence and use Québec for that anymore.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Comparative Review of Canadian Common Law and French Civil Law

[76] At this stage in our analysis of liability in respect of neighbourhood disturbances, we believe it will be helpful to consider how certain other legal systems approach the same kinds of problems. We will therefore briefly review the solutions adopted in Canadian common law and French civil law.

[77] At common law, nuisance is a field of liability that focuses on the harm suffered rather than on prohibited conduct (A. M. Linden and B. Feldthusen, Canadian Tort Law (8th ed. 2006), at p. 559; L. N. Klar, Tort Law (2nd ed. 1996), at p. 535). Nuisance is defined as unreasonable interference with the use of land (Linden and Feldthusen, at p. 559; Klar, at p. 535). Whether the interference results from intentional, negligent or non‑faulty conduct is of no consequence provided that the harm can be characterized as a nuisance (Linden and Feldthusen, at p. 559). The interference must be intolerable to an ordinary person (p. 568). This is assessed by considering factors such as the nature, severity and duration of the interference, the character of the neighbourhood, the sensitivity of the plaintiff’s use and the utility of the activity (p. 569). The interference must be substantial, which means that compensation will not be awarded for trivial annoyances (Linden and Feldthusen, at p. 569; Klar, at p. 536).

[78] In France, the Court of Cassation accepts as a principle of law that [translation] “no one may cause an abnormal neighbourhood disturbance to another” (J. Carbonnier, Droit civil (2004), vol. II, at p. 1785; P. Malinvaud, Droit des obligations (8th ed. 2003), at p. 404; Viney and Jourdain, at pp. 1069‑70). This principle is not based on art. 1382 of the Civil Code (Malinvaud, at p. 404; Viney and Jourdain, at p. 1069). Liability for damage resulting from abnormal neighbourhood disturbances is thus independent of fault, and a finding of excessive injury or abnormal disturbance is all that is needed to trigger it (Viney and Jourdain, at pp. 1069 and 1079). However, trivial annoyances caused by relations between neighbours will not trigger liability (Starck, Roland and Boyer, at p. 169).

[79] Thus, in both these legal systems, a scheme of no‑fault liability in respect of neighbourhood disturbances is accepted in one form or another. Their schemes seem analogous to the one that can be inferred from art. 976 C.C.Q.

[Papewaio]

Sounds like the ruling might not hold up the letter of the law, it certainly upholds the spirit of the law and hence justice far more nicely.

The law if just sees everyone as equal. So their is no good reason that a company should be allowed leeway within the law because it might effect its bottom line. Local people should be allowed justice, even if the plant has been their for generations. Age should not exclude a company for complying with laws or community standards. To say otherwise is to state that all ancient companies may use lead paint, child labour and slavery.

Let the companies come screaming and kicking into the 21st century. If a company wants all the benefits as a person on paper, they need to be upheld to the same standards as the rest of the community. That includes the golden rule and not to curtail the freedoms and bounty of others.

Also most law Gaelic or otherwise has the 'reasonable person' litmus test. Being would a reasonable person in the same situation act in such a manner or accept the situation at hand. If you think the average person is not accepting of pollutants then the pollution must be with all reasonable ability curtailed.

I am more interested how the special legislation was allowed in the first place, whose palms were greased for that? Is it okay that they health of future citizens be impeded because of the graft of prior ones?

Also just because a company upholds the environmental laws, does not mean it was upholding the good neighbour laws. Just because someone drives a Prius does not absolve him of parking tickets or running someone over.

[lars573]

Far from this being a case of 'communist Québec' being unfriendly to business, this case is another step in Québec emancipating itself from being a toilet where English Canada can dump its unwanted industry.


So long, Canada, you'll have to take your craps on your own territory. Can't over the fence and use Québec for that anymore.

Visit Saint John New Brunswick where there is both an oil refinery and pulp mill in the center of the city. And the city water sources are so unclean that the water smells like it came from a public pool. Then try and make that crack. Or google Sydney tar ponds.