Split (1)

train · 2.6M rows

text stringlengths 12 27.8k
It was initially thought his injuries were “life-threatening”, but they are now being treated as serious.
Officers have launched an investigation into the incident.
A spokesman for Police Scotland was unable to confirm the type of weapon used during the attack and added no one has been arrested.
However, it is understood the incident was a stabbing.
A Police Scotland spokesman said: “The call came in to us at around 8.20pm. The man was taken to Aberdeen Royal Infirmary with, what were considered at the time, life- threatening injuries.
“He was understood to be conscious and breathing when he was taken from the scene.
Several cordons were put in place after police arrived on the scene.
Pedestrians and drivers were asked to take an alternative route before the road was reopened around 1am.
Police have confirmed the incident was “contained”, with no threat to the wider public.
On a mixed-member proportional representation ballot, voters are asked to make two marks: one for a party (on the left) and one for a local candidate (on the right). The local candiate with the most votes is elected as with the current system, but additional seats are apportioned based on the party vote. This is a sample only - Elections Ontario would design its own if MMP is approved.
A: MMP or mixed-member proportional representation is a political system used in places like New Zealand and Germany, where voters cast a two-part ballot, selecting both a preferred local candidate and a political party.
In Ontario's version, voters would choose "local" MPPs in the traditional way in 90 newly created, larger ridings instead of the existing 107 constituencies. With their vote for the party of their choice on the second part of the ballot, they would also select an additional 39 MPPs from lists of candidates compiled by the parties.
These "list" MPPs would be elected based on their parties' popular vote, to top up a party's tally of "local" MPPs and more accurately reflect results across the province. The Legislature would be expanded to 129 MPPs to accommodate the changes.
Q: What are the advantages of MMP?
A: Smaller parties like the Greens, the Family Coalition and the Freedom Party would have a chance at winning seats in the Legislature even if they cannot win a riding outright. Any party that wins at least 3 per cent of the popular vote would be awarded four "list" seats. It would mean the end of majority governments when a party has won less than half the vote and prevent scenarios like former NDP premier Bob Rae's landslide victory in 1990 with 37.6 per cent of the vote.
Q: What are the disadvantages of MMP?
A: Critics charge the 39 "list" MPPs would not be directly elected and the parties could use the lists as a sort of Senate to reward party apparatchiks, financial donors or others. As well, it would likely spell the end of decisive, majority governments since no party has won 50 per cent or more of the popular vote since 1937.
Q: What is "first past the post"?
A: "First-past-the-post," or FPTP, is the current method of electing MPPs and is how Canadians have traditionally chosen federal and provincial representatives. It is a winner-take-all system, where the candidate with the most votes wins a riding. The political party that wins the most electoral districts forms the government.
Q: What are the advantages of FPTP?
A: Simplicity and familiarity. The system is in use in countries around the world, including Britain and the United States, and has served Ontario and Canada for generations.
Q: What are the disadvantages of FPTP?
A: The winner-take-all nature of it means that the majority's voting intent may not be honoured. In recent history, most Ontario voters did not want Dalton McGuinty, Mike Harris or Bob Rae as premier, yet all three were elected with majority governments. It also means the ballots of dissenting voters in ridings won by the Liberals, Tories or New Democrats are meaningless province-wide. In theory, a party could win all 107 seats by winning every riding with a little over one-third of the vote.
Q: Who selected MMP as the alternative to FPTP?
A: The new system was proposed by the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, a group of 104 people – 103 randomly selected to represent every riding, plus George Thomson, a former judge and senior civil servant, who chaired the panel. The panel prepared a report for the government after holding public hearings.
Q: How do I vote in the referendum?
A: There will be a separate referendum ballot that can be cast when you submit your election ballot. Both ballots will go in the same box.
Q: What does it take for the referendum to pass?
A: The proposal must be approved by a "super majority'' of 60 per cent of the votes cast across Ontario and by at least 50 per cent of the voters in 64 of the 107 ridings.
Q: If passed, when would the new system take effect?
A: It would be in place for the next provincial election scheduled for 2011. However, if there is a minority government after Oct. 10, the next election could come as early as 2008.
Got a question about MMP? Send it to us, and we'll do our best to answer.
Q: Could a candidate run in a riding, be defeated overwhelmingly by the voters, but be appointed by the party to represent them regardless via the "list" route? Would the "list" candidates be elected by the party membership as a whole rather than selected by a committee party insider group whose reasons for "list" inclusion might be suspect?
A: Each party is almost certain to have its leader at the top of its list especially if he or she is in a tight race, as, say, Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory is against Education Minister Kathleen Wynne in the Oct. 10 election. Senior government cabinet ministers and top party veterans or star candidates may also be atop a party's list because these would be the MPPs the party most wants to elect. While not every party would qualify for a list seat – the party that wins the most directly elected seats of the 90 up for grabs may not even get one of the 39 appointed seats because their popular vote tally might not be high enough – parties would be shrewd to use their lists as a safety net for their leader.
Q: Are the list members selected by the parties chosen in a predetermined order? Do the parties publish a list of ranked individuals they will choose depending on the number of list members they can chose?
Q: I have read a lot about the MMP but can't get a clear answer about how the "list" candidates will be chosen.
Q: Thirty-nine members are to be chosen from the "list" provided by each party. Will these members be chosen from the party faithful who are owed favours, or will they have to be nominated and campaign for the opportunity to be shoehorned into the Legislature?
A: How each party assembles its list remains to be seen. Even in the current system, the parties have different nominating systems: Premier Dalton McGuinty is allowed to appoint five candidates of the Liberals' 107 without any competitive nomination process, while Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory's party doesn't allow for any appointed candidates. How each party selects its list candidates would likely be up to the party: Some may opt for an open, all-party vote, while others may just have party insiders choose the list. But given that the whole point of MMP is to make the Legislature more demographically representative, parties may use their lists to promote female and minority candidates. Also, parties will almost certainly tout the diversity of their lists to attract voters.
Q: Since there will now be 129 members in the Legislature instead of 107, can I assume that the new system will cost me (the taxpayer) approximately 20 per cent more than the old?
A: Yes, having 129 MPPs will definitely cost more than having just 107. However, it's worth noting that we used to have 130 before premier Mike Harris trimmed the number to 103 (to match the boundaries of Ontario's federal ridings) for the 1999 election.
Q: How will the riding boundaries change if the new system is put in place and who will decide this?
A: Any changes to riding boundaries will be determined by Elections Ontario, a non-partisan agency of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that works under the direction of the province's chief electoral officer.
Q: What will these list candidates do from day to day? Traditionally, MPPs have constituency duties that these list MPPs will not have. How will they earn their salaries?
A: List MPPs would be considered "at large" representatives, and would have legislative obligations on committees and other duties. While they would have no constituencies per se they could opt to serve as regional representatives.
Q: Do both the candidate vote and the party vote count toward tallying the percentage of the popular vote that parties receive in order to determine how many of the 39 filler seats they are given? In other words, if 1,000 ballots are filled out with both votes on each ballot, is the popular vote determined by 1,000 or 2,000 votes?
A: The party vote determines the share of votes each party receives in the Legislature. So, using this example, the 1,000 party votes would be counted in the calculation. Your riding MPP vote therefore wouldn't be included in the popular vote tally.
Q: What will the total cost be to implement an MMP system if it is approved in the upcoming referendum?
A: No such figure has been published. However, it seems fair to assume that the ongoing cost for MPPs would be at least 20 per cent higher, because the number of MPPs would rise roughly 20 per cent (to 129 from the current 107).
Q: When a vacancy occurs in the MMP seats, how will it be filled? Will another vote be held or will the parties simply pull the next name on their lists?
A: The next person on that party's list would be offered the seat.
Q: What is the maximum number of times the same list MPP can be appointed by a party? In other words, how long can a list MPP sit in the Legislature?
A: As it stands, there are no term limits at Queen's Park. In theory, a list MPP could serve for many years.
Q: Is it possible to vote for an "Independent" who is not affiliated with any particular party?
A: It would still be possible to vote for an Independent candidate on one side of your ballot as a representative in one of the 90 new ridings, but there will not be an "Independent" category for the 39 list MPPs. That side of the ballot is strictly for party preference.
Q: Under the current system, individuals who are elected can decide to become Independents or switch parties if they no longer agree with the decisions or directions their party is taking. With the MMP system, would the 39 individuals who are chosen from the party lists be allowed to do this?
A: It's not clear what would happen if a list MPP crossed the floor, since the result would be a distribution of seats that no longer matched the popular vote from the most recent election.
Q: What would happen if a party won 65 of the 90 ridings and 45% of the popular vote? The way I understand it, that party should get about 58 seats of the 129, even though it has won 65 seats. Would that party lose seats?
Q: If you only vote for the party and not the local candidate, or vice versa, is the ballot spoiled?
A: No. Your two choices (for a candidate and for a party) are considered different ballots, and you're not obliged to fill out both.
Q: Since we currently have only 3 official parties in the Ontario Provincial Legislature, what will determine which parties will be listed on an MMP ballot? Would a party like the Rhinoceros party be able to obtain a place on the ballot?
A: It's possible. Any party that can meet Elections Ontario's criteria for official party status (there are currently 12 recognized parties) would be on the ballot. Right now, a party needs to run just two candidates in a general election to be recognized.
Q: If the referendum fails, will the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform be asked to go back to the drawing board and come up with an alternative system, one that might be accepted by the voting public? Or is this a one-time opportunity?
A: The assembly's work is officially over once the referendum is held. But if the result is close, you can bet there will be public pressure on the government to take the issue to the people again.
LOS ANGELES – For once, USC is not playing solely for pride and bragging rights when it travels to Pauley Pavilion tonight to face rival UCLA.
If the No. 19 Trojans can shock the No. 2 Bruins, USC will tie UCLA for first place in the Pacific 10 Conference.
Former USC player and coach Bob Boyd, the program’s resident historian with 56 years following the team, said he doesn’t remember a USC-UCLA game this big since 1971.
In that season, a Paul Westphal-led Trojans team coached by Boyd had a chance to tie the Bruins for first place in the final game of the regular season but lost 73-62.
That game had even more drama than this one. USC had been ranked No. 1 in the nation for half the season before losing to UCLA in the first game. The Bruins took over No. 1 in the polls, but the Trojans had climbed back to No. 2 by the second contest.
Back in those days, only the winner of the Pac-10 made the NCAA Tournament. So, even though they were the top two teams in the nation, only one was going to move on to the postseason. USC ended up 24-2, with both losses to UCLA, but did not advance.
USC players thought that they gave the game away when they allowed UCLA to come back from a 10-point deficit and win on Arron Afflalo’s buzzer-beating jumper Jan. 13.
That they outplayed UCLA for most of the game has the Trojans believing they can win at Pauley, where they have a pair of 21-point defeats the past two seasons.
Westphal said he thought after that 1971 season that USC and UCLA would be perennial top-10 teams for the rest of his life, but it didn’t turn out that way. The Trojans have had only fleeting moments of success. USC hasn’t won a conference title since 1961.
For the team veterans – Stewart, Nick Young and Gabe Pruitt – this is an opportunity they relish. They remember being last in the Pac-10 just two years ago.
Starting point guard Pruitt said he expects to play though he suffered a mild sprain to his right ankle while making an awkward stop late in practice Tuesday.
The Australian government is searching for information concerning the whereabouts of Yang Hengjun, a prominent Chinese-Australian writer who friends fear has been detained by Chinese authorities.
Yang Hengjun, a dissident and former Chinese diplomat, flew from New York to the city of Guangzhou on January 18 despite friends warning the Australian citizen it was too dangerous for him to travel to China.
He assured one of his friends, Sydney academic and prominent Chinese community figure Dr Feng Chongyi, that he would not be on the authorities' radar. Mr Yang believed he had "done nothing to offend the authorities over the last two or three years," according to Dr Feng.
However, after arriving in Guangzhou from New York, Mr Yang did not complete the second leg of his journey which was a flight to Shanghai.
Close supporters of Mr Yang in China, including relatives, believe that only Mr Yang's second wife, Yuan Rui Juan, and young child appeared in the arrivals lounge in Shanghai, Dr Feng said.
Caption: Yang Hengjun left Sydney for Guangzhou on January 18.
Friends of Mr Yang are concerned he was detained by Chinese government security officials before boarding his flight to Shanghai and that his wife was allowed to fly to Shanghai to look after her child. Dr Feng said that after taking her child to relatives, Mr Yang's wife then flew to Beijing and then back to Shanghai.
There is no confirmation of exactly what has happened to Mr Yang. He is incommunicado and has not posted anything on social media including popular Chinese platform wechat since Friday.
Australian diplomats overnight contacted Chinese officials but it is understood they were given little or no information and were unable to confirm if Mr Yang was being held by the Ministry of State Security.
"The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is seeking information about an Australian citizen who has been reported missing in China. Owing to our privacy obligations we will not provide further comment," a spokeswoman said.
The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald called Mr Yang's Chinese phone numbers on Tuesday, but they did not connect. His wife's phone was also turned off. A relative's phone rang out.
Dr Feng, who was detained for several days by Chinese authorities in early 2017, said that he had spoken to Chinese contacts with connections to the security services who said Mr Yang had been detained by the Ministry of State Security.
Mystery about Mr Yang's whereabouts is especially unnerving for those close to him given the recent arrest of two Canadian men, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, by Chinese police amid deteriorating relations between China and democratic countries.
A friend of Mr Yang, China expert John Garnaut, said: "Let’s hope he reappears today and we can all agree there’s just been a misunderstanding. Nobody wants an Australian Michael Kovrig".
Mr Yang has emerged as a popular writer and backer of democratisation and reform. He is critical of the authoritarian practices of the Chinese Communist Party.
This is not the first time he has disappeared while visiting China. He was unreachable for several days during a 2011 trip, with those close to Mr Yang believing the Chinese secret police were responsible. He subsequently said the whole episode was a "misunderstanding".
If it is confirmed that state security officials have detained Mr Yang, the Australian government would seek assurances from Beijing about his welfare and treatment because he is an Australian citizen. It is understood Mr Yang was seeking to bring his wife and young son to Australia under a family reunion visa.
The Australian government would face an uphill battle advocating for Mr Yang.
Concerns raised by Canada and other Western nations about the detention of the two Canadians were rebuffed by Beijing. Another Canadian faces the death penalty for drug smuggling. The Canadian arrests occurred after authorities in Canada detained Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou after a request by the US government, which has investigated Huawei for sanctions busting.
Earlier this week, the Chinese government called Meng Wanzhou’s arrest "an abuse of the extradition agreement" between the United States and Canada, after reports the US will formally lodge an extradition request with Canada.
Mr Yang has spoken out previously about Chinese government interference in Australia, including the mobilisation of thousands of red-flag-waving students to "defend the sacred Olympic torch" in Australia.
Prior to his previous detention in China, Mr Yang spoke about the difficulty facing those arrested by Beijing's security service. He said they effectively had no rights and that foreign governments must do everything they can to protect their citizens when they were detained.
TORONTO, Mar 13, 2019 (Canada NewsWire via COMTEX) -- Namaste Technologies Inc. ("Namaste" or the "Company") (N) (frankfurt:M5BQ) (otcmkts:NXTTF) today announced that it has completed the previously announced acquisition of 49% of the common shares of Toronto-based Pineapple Express Delivery Inc. ("Pineapple Express"). In June 2018, the Company announced that it had entered into a subscription agreement to acquire 15% of the common shares of Pineapple for $1,000,000 which comprised of $850,000 in cash and $150,000 in Namaste common shares (the "Subscription Agreement"). In December 2018, the Company announced that it had entered into a binding agreement (the "Purchase Agreement") with shareholders of Pineapple Express to acquire an additional 34% of the outstanding common shares of Pineapple Express. Pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Agreement, the Company issued the selling shareholders of Pineapple Express such number of Namaste common shares having an aggregate value of approximately $3.06 Million, based on the closing price of Namaste's common shares on the TSX Venture Exchange on December 14, 2018 (the "Transaction"). Following closing of the Transaction, Namaste now owns 49% of the issued and outstanding common shares of Pineapple Express.
Under the terms of the Subscription Agreement dated June 2018, Namaste has the right to acquire an additional 10% of the common shares of Pineapple Express for $1,200,000 within 14 months from closing of the Subscription Agreement. In connection with the completion of the Transaction, Darren Gill, Chief Strategy Officer of the Company, will be appointed to the as a director of Pineapple Express.
"Pineapple Express is a premier delivery company when it comes to cannabis in Canada, and we look forward to working closely with Randy and his team to continue to grow the business," said Meni Morim, Interim CEO of Namaste Technologies Inc. "The acquisition of the shares of Pineapple Express is an important component in Namaste's growth strategy and customer service platform, and shows follow-through, as we continue to operate business as usual and moving forward. Having Pineapple Express as part of our family is an efficient way to get medicinal cannabis to customers in the Greater Toronto Area and across Canada as quickly and efficiently as possible. We remain focused on execution of our 2019 strategy and are pleased to have seen this project through."
Namaste's purchase of shares of Pineapple Express supports the Company's strategy to invest in innovative companies which bring value to the Company and to the broader market as a value service for Cannmart.com, Licensed Producers and regulated dispensaries. Namaste believes that same-day delivery for medical and recreational cannabis through Pineapple Express' platform will provide patients and consumers with added-value now and expanded service potential as the Pineapple Express platform expands.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.