Tuesday, December 17, 2019


REMEMBERING THE MONTREAL MASSACRE AS THE EARLIEST MODERN MISOGYNISTIC MASS MURDER OF WOMEN FOR BEING 
FEMINISTS BY A LEBANESE CANADIAN MALE



People march during a climate strike in Montréal in September 2019. Climate change is a top concern for Canadians, but new Elections Canada rules left civil society organizations fearing they could not speak out on the need for climate action during the election. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Graham Hughes


It’s almost 2020, and with a minority government in power, another federal election could be upon Canadians sooner than expected.
So as the dust settles on the 2019 vote, it’s important to examine the data on an issue that clouded the election campaign — the impact of new Elections Canada regulations on public debate by civil society organizations.
In June 2019, the federal government amended Canada’s Elections Act. The rules require third parties, including non-profit groups, to register with Elections Canada if they spend more than $500 on “political advertising.” That includes any spending to promote positions during election campaigns on public policy issues on which political parties have taken a stand, or to support or oppose particular candidates and parties.
The new Elections Act also sets specific spending limits on third-party election advertising.
These changes to the Elections Act are important measures to prevent the type of unlimited spending by political action committees (PACs) that followed the Citizens United decision by the United States Supreme Court in 2010. The court ruled that spending limits on third-party election advertising was an unconstitutional restriction of free speech.
Since 2010, what are known as super-PACs have subsequently become major players in American elections, enabling wealthy individuals to exert enormous political influence. Indeed, wealthy donors spent more than US$1.4 billion during the 2016 presidential election campaign.

Silencing voices

The new Elections Canada regulations impose spending limits on third parties ($1,023,400 in the pre-election period and $511,700 in the election period) and specific regulations against collusion between third parties that would prevent the type of unlimited spending by super-PACs in the United States.
However, the new Elections Canada regulations have also played a role in silencing the voices of many Canadian organizations on a wide range of public policy issues — from climate change to health care to international aid.
This chilling effect came into play most powerfully when Elections Canada indicated in a training session for non-profits that organizations with public policy positions on climate change would need to register and report on their spending, given that right-wing candidate Maxime Bernier had made public statements denying climate change.
The silencing impact may not have been intentional, but it is very real and represents a threat to healthy public debate and democracy in Canada. Elections are important opportunities for Canadians to debate public policy, and it’s crucial that civil society groups are able to contribute to those debates.
On the surface, the new Elections Act appears to strike a balance between free speech and excessive influence by wealthy individuals and corporations.
The Elections Act does not prohibit civil society organizations from spending money to promote public policy positions. However, many organizations saw the requirement to register and report on spending as ominous — especially after the crackdown on charities carried out by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government.

Fears of another crackdown

Justin Trudeau’s government made significant changes to the CRA regulations in 2019 that allow charities to engage much more freely in public policy debates. But many Canadian civil society groups still worry that the federal government will crack down on organizations that criticize its policies.
The regulations also add bureaucratic headaches and expenses to non-profit organizations, many of which cannot afford to pay additional costs for participation in public policy debates.
Staff with many Canadian civil society groups have reported that their organizations did not speak out on public policy issues during the election campaign for fear they’d be penalized by Elections Canada or the CRA.


The silencing effect is also clear in data from Elections Canada.
There are more than 175,000 registered non-profit and charitable organizations in Canada. Only 147 registered to report election advertising in 2019, only 50 reported spending more than $10,000 (the reporting threshold set by Elections Canada) and only two have charitable status.

Climate change a key concern

Climate change was a top concern for Canadians during the 2019 election campaign. However, my analysis of the Elections Canada data shows that only 17 environmental organizations registered, and only seven reported spending more than $10,000 (for a cumulative total of $634,307) during the election period.
Similarly, while Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer made Canada’s international aid an election issue by proposing to cut it by 25 per cent, only five international social justice organizations registered, and none of them reported spending over $10,000.
Health care is always an important issue to Canadians, but just one (the Canadian Medical Association) reported spending over $10,000.
The data suggests the new rules kept conservative groups quiet too. Only one gun rights organization reported any spending ($32,091) and just seven explicitly pro-Conservative organizations registered, spending a total of $690,922. As of Oct. 14, 2019 — a week before the election —the total reported by all organizations was just over $9.4 million.
Canada’s new Elections Act may have prevented the type of mammoth spending seen in the United States via super-PACs, but it’s been at the expense of silencing many Canadian organizations with important positions on public policy issues.


The $500 limit must be reviewed. Shutterstock

Elections Canada needs to do more to make sure that the new regulations do not block public policy debates. It should also review the $500 threshold for requiring organizations to register with Elections Canada.
With a minority government in Parliament, Canadians could soon head to the polls again, so there may not be much time to make these changes.
This is a corrected version of a story originally published Dec. 12, 2019. This version clarifies details about the amended Elections Act and corrects the number of health-sector organizations that registered with Elections Canada.

It’s almost 2020, and with a minority government in power, another federal election could be upon Canadians sooner than expected.
So as the dust settles on the 2019 vote, it’s important to examine the data on an issue that clouded the election campaign — the impact of new Elections Canada regulations on public debate by civil society organizations.
In June 2019, the federal government amended Canada’s Elections Act. The rules require third parties, including non-profit groups, to register with Elections Canada if they spend more than $500 on “political advertising.” That includes any spending to promote positions during election campaigns on public policy issues on which political parties have taken a stand, or to support or oppose particular candidates and parties.
The new Elections Act also sets specific spending limits on third-party election advertising.
These changes to the Elections Act are important measures to prevent the type of unlimited spending by political action committees (PACs) that followed the Citizens United decision by the United States Supreme Court in 2010. The court ruled that spending limits on third-party election advertising was an unconstitutional restriction of free speech.
Since 2010, what are known as super-PACs have subsequently become major players in American elections, enabling wealthy individuals to exert enormous political influence. Indeed, wealthy donors spent more than US$1.4 billion during the 2016 presidential election campaign.

Silencing voices

The new Elections Canada regulations impose spending limits on third parties ($1,023,400 in the pre-election period and $511,700 in the election period) and specific regulations against collusion between third parties that would prevent the type of unlimited spending by super-PACs in the United States.
However, the new Elections Canada regulations have also played a role in silencing the voices of many Canadian organizations on a wide range of public policy issues — from climate change to health care to international aid.
This chilling effect came into play most powerfully when Elections Canada indicated in a training session for non-profits that organizations with public policy positions on climate change would need to register and report on their spending, given that right-wing candidate Maxime Bernier had made public statements denying climate change.
The silencing impact may not have been intentional, but it is very real and represents a threat to healthy public debate and democracy in Canada. Elections are important opportunities for Canadians to debate public policy, and it’s crucial that civil society groups are able to contribute to those debates.
On the surface, the new Elections Act appears to strike a balance between free speech and excessive influence by wealthy individuals and corporations.
The Elections Act does not prohibit civil society organizations from spending money to promote public policy positions. However, many organizations saw the requirement to register and report on spending as ominous — especially after the crackdown on charities carried out by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government.

Fears of another crackdown

Justin Trudeau’s government made significant changes to the CRA regulations in 2019 that allow charities to engage much more freely in public policy debates. But many Canadian civil society groups still worry that the federal government will crack down on organizations that criticize its policies.
The regulations also add bureaucratic headaches and expenses to non-profit organizations, many of which cannot afford to pay additional costs for participation in public policy debates.
Staff with many Canadian civil society groups have reported that their organizations did not speak out on public policy issues during the election campaign for fear they’d be penalized by Elections Canada or the CRA.


The silencing effect is also clear in data from Elections Canada.
There are more than 175,000 registered non-profit and charitable organizations in Canada. Only 147 registered to report election advertising in 2019, only 50 reported spending more than $10,000 (the reporting threshold set by Elections Canada) and only two have charitable status.

Climate change a key concern

Climate change was a top concern for Canadians during the 2019 election campaign. However, my analysis of the Elections Canada data shows that only 17 environmental organizations registered, and only seven reported spending more than $10,000 (for a cumulative total of $634,307) during the election period.
Similarly, while Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer made Canada’s international aid an election issue by proposing to cut it by 25 per cent, only five international social justice organizations registered, and none of them reported spending over $10,000.
Health care is always an important issue to Canadians, but just one (the Canadian Medical Association) reported spending over $10,000.
The data suggests the new rules kept conservative groups quiet too. Only one gun rights organization reported any spending ($32,091) and just seven explicitly pro-Conservative organizations registered, spending a total of $690,922. As of Oct. 14, 2019 — a week before the election —the total reported by all organizations was just over $9.4 million.
Canada’s new Elections Act may have prevented the type of mammoth spending seen in the United States via super-PACs, but it’s been at the expense of silencing many Canadian organizations with important positions on public policy issues.


The $500 limit must be reviewed. Shutterstock

Elections Canada needs to do more to make sure that the new regulations do not block public policy debates. It should also review the $500 threshold for requiring organizations to register with Elections Canada.
With a minority government in Parliament, Canadians could soon head to the polls again, so there may not be much time to make these changes.
This is a corrected version of a story originally published Dec. 12, 2019. This version clarifies details about the amended Elections Act and corrects the number of health-sector organizations that registered with Elections Canada.
Alberta had a world-renowned research foundation — reviving it would raise Canada’s profile
December 16, 2019 





NOT IN KENNEY'S AUSTERITY SLASHING UCP ALBERTA 

Forty years ago, the former premier of Alberta, the late Peter Lougheed, instituted the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research. The foundation transformed Alberta scientifically and economically, and attracted scores of talented scholars to the province to establish their careers in discovery research in the life sciences.

Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed fielding questions at a news conference in 1984. THE CANADIAN PRESS

Collip and the discovery of insulin

Alberta’s link to Canada’s most important medical discovery may not be well known. Canada has received only one Nobel Prize in medicine: it was awarded to Banting and Macleod in 1923 for the discovery of insulin. However, the key work was done in large part by James Bertram Collip of the University of Alberta. While on sabbatical in Toronto, Collip was invited by Macleod to join the team studying an extract from the pancreas that would lower blood sugar levels in diabetic dogs.
Collip was the first to isolate the hormone we now know as insulin from the crude pancreatic extract. His experimental rigour and talent established the methodology to enable industrial-scale production of insulin, saving tens of millions of lives globally.
As Canada gears up for a celebration of the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin, perhaps it should recognize Alberta’s Collip.

A 1994 video from the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame celebrating the career of James Bertram Collip.

The Naylor reports

The demise of Canada’s stature in discovery research — especially in life and health sciences — has been well-documented. Two separate detailed reports were commissioned by two different federal governments. Both reports were put together by medical researcher David Naylor, the former president of the University of Toronto.
The first, “Unleashing Innovation: Excellent Health Care for Canada” was submitted in July 2015 to former federal health minister Rona Ambrose. The report was “dead on arrival” in Ottawa.
In May 2018, Kirsty Duncan, the former federal science minister, commissioned a second Naylor report called “Canada’s Fundamental Science Review: Strengthening the Foundations of Canadian Research.” After some initial enthusiasm expressed by Canada’s scientific community, implementation of the findings of this second report has not been completed.
A key recommendation was to reinvest in open fundamental research. The federal government only funded half of the target amount considered essential to sustain discovery research in Canada by this Naylor report.
Today, there’s no dedicated minister of science. The coincidental elimination of funding programs renders Canada less competitive for discovery research in life sciences.

Research credibility

In the wake of the federal government’s election results in western Canada, a unique opportunity currently exists that may help address the aspirations of the Naylor reports.
One possibility would be to reconsider Lougheed’s vision to make Alberta a global centre for medical research. A federal government initiative to set up a world-class research institute modelled on the United Kingdom’s Francis Crick Institute or the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany, would pay enormous dividends for Alberta and Canada.
Several world-famous fundamental life science researchers in Alberta provide the international credibility for such a suggestion.
One that comes to mind is University of Alberta virologist Michael Houghton. Already awarded the American Lasker Prize, Houghton was further recognized with the Canada Gairdner International Award after he was recruited to Edmonton. However, he declined the award.
Also at the University of Alberta, cell biologist Richard Rachubinski has recently been featured by the news magazine of the world’s leading chemistry society: the U.K.-based Royal Society of Chemistry. France’s leading popular science magazine La Recherche independently featured the same Edmonton discovery.
Rachubinski’s research investigates parasites that cause devastating diseases in humans; he discovered that when a protein known as Pex3 was inactivated, the parasite died. As reported in Chemistry World, this research provides new hope for the millions of patients globally that suffer (and the thousands that die) from the diseases caused by parasites known as trypanosomes.
Especially relevant is that these diseases have been neglected in part because they were so difficult to study and partly because they tend to affect citizens of less affluent nations.

Inspiration towards excellence

Canadian hockey legend Wayne Gretzky famously said: “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.” This quote was cited by Steve Jobs when he created Apple Inc. and can surely be applied to the creation of the Peter Lougheed Institute for Life Science Research.
For Canada to emerge as a world leader, a focus on the abundant talent of emerging women scientists (as proposed previously), would truly be going where the puck is going to be.
John Bergeron gratefully acknowledges Kathleen Dickson as co-author.

SEE MY BLOG POST
LA REVUE GAUCHE -  Left Comment: Socialized Medicine Began In Alberta https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2005/11/socialized-medicine-began-in-alberta.html