In no particular order (other than that in which the tabs were opened):
I know, I know, this is standard operating procedure for international defence confabs, but when I read this notice, I can’t help being the teeniest bit relieved that this particular conference is taking place somewhere other than Ottawa:
Representatives of states attending the meeting: privileges and immunities granted
For the period of May 9 to 19, 2008 and August 31 to September 10, 2008, the Order grants representatives of states and governments that are members of the Organization privileges and immunities set forth in sections 11, 12 and 14 to 16 of Article IV of the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, as set out in Schedule III of the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.
In no particular order (other than that in which the tabs were opened):
I know, I know, this is standard operating procedure for international defence confabs, but when I read this notice, I can’t help being the teeniest bit relieved that this particular conference is taking place somewhere other than Ottawa:
Representatives of states attending the meeting: privileges and immunities granted
For the period of May 9 to 19, 2008 and August 31 to September 10, 2008, the Order grants representatives of states and governments that are members of the Organization privileges and immunities set forth in sections 11, 12 and 14 to 16 of Article IV of the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, as set out in Schedule III of the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.
As an indication and, except insofar as their state has expressly waived this immunity, during the above-mentioned period, these representatives enjoy immunity from personal arrest or detention and from seizure of their personal baggage; immunity from legal process of every kind in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by them in their capacity as representatives; inviolability for all papers and documents; the right to use codes and to receive papers or correspondence by courier or in sealed bags; exemption from immigration restrictions for themselves and their spouses; and the same immunities and facilities in respect of their personal baggage as those accorded to diplomatic envoys.
—
In a possibly related note: As of July 2nd, General Rick Hillier – or, actually, whoever replaces him, since that’s after his scheduled departure – will be considered to be a Designated Public Officeholder for the purposes of the new Lobby Act (which, coincidentally, comes into force on the same day), as will pretty much every other top-ranking military officer, the Comptroller General of Canada, various senior advisors to the Privy Council, and this guy.
—
Speaking of those Conservative-entoughened lobby regulations that are finally coming into effect (more than a year after the Federal Accountability Act was passed, but better late than never) – here’s the final version, complete with samples of the paperwork that will have to be filed quarterly – and, in certain cases, every month.
—
Watch out, Insite: Tony Clement is tough on drugs. Generic drugs, to be precise:
The purpose of the proposed amendments to the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations [PM(NOC) Regulations] is to reinforce the predictability, stability and consistency of Canada’s intellectual property (IP) regime for pharmaceuticals by reaffirming and clarifying the intended effect of a transitional measure included in an earlier round of amendments to the same underlying instrument. The intention of this measure was to ensure that patents protected under the PM(NOC) Regulations prior to 2006 (i.e. “grandfathered” patents) continue to enjoy that protection until expiry.
[…]
The Government recognizes that one possible consequence of the proposed amendments is that some generic drug companies may not be able to enter the market with a generic version of a patented drug on the same date as had been expected if the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision were left to stand. While this could result in delayed savings to consumers and provincial drug plans, the Government considers these potential costs to be counter-balanced by the above-mentioned benefits, which are fundamental to the innovative industry’s continued confidence in Canada as a place to invest in research and development and as a market in which to bring new and better products.
Basically, they – the government, that is – are trying to make an end run around the mere possibility of a future court decision that could “result in a sudden and unexpected loss of market exclusivity for a number of innovative drugs” – even though it may mean that Canadians – and, for that matter, Canada’s provincial and federal governments – will end up paying more for longer as a result. ITQ extends our heartiest congratulations to the patent medicine lobby for sneaking this one through the regulatory back door without raising the ire of public health supporters, consumer advocates and the generic industry, and with a “shorter than average” public comment period of just fifteen days from publication in the Gazette.
—
Finally, what the heck is this all about? I mean, I can understand how the odd typo might slip through into a Gazette notice, but an entire paragraph?
Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Notice is hereby given that the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) to the Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations published in the Canada Gazette, Part
I, Vol. 142, No. 10, Saturday, March 8, 2008, contained an error on
page 599. The following paragraph should not have appeared in the RIAS
and is being removed:“Under the proposed Regulations, to become a permanent resident of Canada, a provincial nominee must present their permanent resident visa to an officer at an office of CIC in the province or territory that nominated them. This provision is designed to encourage the applicant to settle in the province that nominated them and would provide more certainty for that province.”