The StarPhoenix' OPINIONS
and No-Fault

Nipawin - September 14, 2000 - by: Mario deSantis

people volunteered their time

Yesterday, I wrote a commentary on my attendance at the last meeting sponsored by the
Coalition Against No-Fault Insurance, and I was very appreciative of the outstanding work
of all the people associated with No-Fault, that is the Coalition members, injured victims,
family physicians, lawyers, university professors and researchers, people at large(1). All
these people volunteered their time and their resources for a cause, the restoration of their
rights taken away by our no fault governments. And today, as I read the OPINIONS of
the StarPhoenix(2), I feel disappointed and I must say disheartened as I realize that our
journalists have an agenda of their own, not to inform and educate the public, but to
publicize their brainwashing journalistic garbage, the same garbage we pointed out in
one of our articles when one National Post editor belittled Justice John Reilly(3).



strongly conservative

And in this respect, our sold out journalists have not changed since 1991 when Dr. Donella
Medows stated that
"They are event-oriented; they report only the surface of things, not the underlying structures... They are attracted to personalities and authorities; they are uninterested in people they've never heard of... They have a tendency to force the world to conform to their story... They are strongly conservative; though they like to think of themselves as tough and uncompromising, in fact they challenge society only at its margins; most of the time, usually unconsciously, they reinforce the status quo and resist really new ideas... Also unconsciously they report through filters of helplessness, hopelessness, cynicism, passivity, and acceptance. They report problems, not solutions, obstacles, not opportunities. They systematically unempower themselves and their audience(4)."




In today's OPINIONS, our StarPhoenix journalists ridicule the role of the many groups
fighting No-Fault. The joint no-fault committee of provincial lawyers and the Canadian
Bar Association have just released a report recommending a modified tort system with
deductible for pain and suffering and a levy on at-fault drivers. Our journalists discount
the work of this committee since they didn't follow the proper process in presenting this
report directly to the Personal Injury Protection Plan (PIPP) review panel. These
journalists state
"However much they claim that they are acting in the public interest by boycotting the review panel in protest of its composition, it does the lawyers little good to whine and moan from the sidelines. By opting instead to side with a few dozen disgruntled persons who've opted to conduct a "parallel review" that has no chance of effecting change in the undoubtedly faulty PIPP system, the lawyers are only undermining their own credibility. The joint committee's decision to invest some big dollars to commission this study shows that lawyers are motivated by something greater than pure altruism in wanting SGI to return to a modified tort system."




As I have already mentioned in my yesterday's article, any good willing researcher or
writer can write a book on the social wrongs of No-Fault, but not our journalists. These
journalists don't take the effort to visit the web site of the Coalition Against No-Fault and
find out for themselves what the evidence is against No-Fault; they have a superior agenda
of their own, to tell the public garbage and maintain as long as possible the status quo.



(SGI) has
spent some
$2 million

They state that the lawyers committee has spent big dollars to come up with the report and
that they are motivated by something greater than pure altruism. These journalists must be
reminded that Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) has spent some $2 million on
the deviant research conducted by Dr. David Cassidy. They must also be reminded that the
individual rights taken away by this government have a very very high price. They label the
Coalition Against No-Fault as a group of a few dozen disgruntled persons who've opted to
conduct a "parallel review" and they should be ashamed for this.



No-Fault is
a political matter

The no-fault legislation was passed in bad faith since the government knew there that the tort
system wouldn't have effected increased insurance rates and financial losses(5); this government
was formed in bad faith by giving the finger to the Saskatchewan people(6); SGI and Dr. David
Cassidy behaved in bad faith when they concocted their no-fault research; Honourable John
Nilson behaved in bad faith when he first established the PIPP review panel. Therefore, this
No-Fault scheme has been a fraud at the expense of the Saskatchewan people. Mr. Gordon
Adair was right when he said that No-Fault is not a financial matter anymore, it is a political
matter, and that this government must be indexed out of the Legislature.
  General reference: political and economic articles published by Ensign
  Coalition Against No Fault In Saskatchewan, Box 24007, 240 Albert Street, Regina, Saskatchewan S4R 8R8, (306)546-4424,


No-fault insurance and the Meeting of September 9, 2000 at Castle Theatre in Saskatoon, by Mario deSantis, September 11, 2000


Lawyers fail public interest, OPINIONS, The StarPhoenix, September 12, 2000, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan


The National Post and Judge John Reilly, by Mario deSantis, September 7, 2000


System Dynamics Meets the Press, by Donella H. Meadows, The Global Citizen, pp. 1-12, Washington, DC, Island Press, 1991


Two memos written by Honourable Eric Cline in February 1994 and directed to the NDP caucus. Refer to Cline questioned no-fault process, memos show, by Betty Ann Adam, The StarPhoenix, September 9, 2000, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan


Governmental coalition in Saskatchewan: a private contractual deal at the expense of the electorate? by Mario deSantis, October 2, 1999