ONTARIO
WSIB takes claims for powder
THUNDER BAY — Miners who became ill after inhaling an aluminum-based powder mistakenly believed to protect them from exposure to silica dust can now make compensation claims to the province’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).
Up until last week, the board had refused to recognize claims from workers in mines and other industries who had occasion to inhale what was called McIntyre Powder over a 35-year period until 1979.
“The theory, eventually proved false, was that inhaling the powder would protect workers’ lungs” from diseases like silicosis, a United Steelworkers union news release said on Tuesday.
“Instead, it made workers sick, and led to many deaths,” as well as cases of Parkinson’s disease.
The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board was unmoved until last week, after a relentless campaign by Sudbury resident Janice Martell to have McIntyre Powder-related ailments recognized appeared to get through to the provincial government.
According to the Ministry of Labour, in March of 2020 it received a report from a cancer specialist who “found a statistically significant increased risk of Parkinson’s disease in miners exposed to McIntyre Powder.”
A ministry spokeswoman said her department has since “made amendments to a regulation under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, to now formally recognize Parkinson’s disease as an occupational disease linked to work-related McIntyre Powder exposure.”
In a statement, Labour Minister Monte McNaughton said the change “will guarantee compensation for workers who have suffered unfairly as a result of exposure to McIntyre Powder.”
McNaughton said the decision “is just a start.”
“Our government will continue to make investments to help identify and recognize occupational illnesses and support those who have been injured by exposure on the job,” he added.
Martell’s father, who worked in an Elliot Lake uranium mine in the late 1970s, died in 2017.
“My dad did not live to see this day, but it is a fitting legacy to a man who always enjoyed breaking the trail . . . to make the path easier for those coming behind him,” Martell said in the United Steelworkers news release.
Carl Clutchey, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Chronicle-Journal
Sunday, February 13, 2022
Philippines activists ready for long battle to keep Marcos from power
MANILA (Reuters) - Petitioners seeking to bar Ferdinand Marcos Jr from the Philippines presidency said on Friday they were bent on keeping "autocratic figures" from power and would use all legal channels to stop the election frontrunner, including the Supreme Court.
Complainants failed to convince the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to disqualify Marcos, 64, the son and namesake of the late Philippines dictator, on the grounds of his decades-old conviction for tax violations. Commissioners on Thursday said the petitions lacked merit.
Loretta Ann Rosales, a petitioner and one of thousands of victims of state brutality under the 1970s-1980s martial law of the elder Marcos, said opponents were ready to appeal to the highest court.
"All measures must be used to stop autocratic figures from winning in the polls that would contribute to the destruction of democratic rule," she said.
Opponents of political veteran Marcos see the prospect of his family returning to the presidential palace decades after it was overthrown in a people's revolt as unpalatable.
Vic Rodriguez, spokesperson for Marcos, said the petitioners should respect courts and quasi-judicial bodies "by not elevating lies that they have peddled".
The Supreme Court was required to rule on a high-profile case before the last election in 2016, involving then presidential frontrunner, Grace Poe.
It reversed COMELEC's decision The Philippine Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that a senator who spent much of her life in the United States is eligible to run for president, reversing a decision by the election commission and putting her in line to reclaim her position as frontrunner to disqualify Poe over questions about her citizenship. Poe finished third overall.
Howard Calleja, a lawyer for one of the petitioners, will next week file a motion asking the full bench of COMELEC to overturn the ruling of its first division.
He said the decision "does not put the disqualification to a close, but further cast doubt not only on the case but on the COMELEC as well."
(Reporting by Karen Lema; Editing by Martin Petty)
ELECTION FRAUD FAKERY WORKING
CNN Poll: A growing number of Americans don't think today's elections reflect the will of the people
By Jennifer Agiesta, CNN Polling Director - Friday
An increasing majority of Americans lack confidence that elections in America today reflected the will of the people, and about half think it likely that a future election in the United States will be overturned for partisan reasons, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS.
There's been a shift in the partisan dynamic driving concerns about the possibility of an overturned future election. While the 50% overall who considered such a prospect at least somewhat likely was similar to the 51% who felt that way in September, Democrats were now more apt to see an overturned election in the future than Republicans. In the new poll, 56% of Democrats saw it as likely vs. 48% of Republicans. In September, 57% of Republicans thought that was likely while just 49% of Democrats agreed.
Also in the new poll, 56% of respondents said they have little or no confidence that American elections reflect the will of the people, up from 52% who felt that way in September and 40% in January 2021. Almost three-quarters of Republicans were now skeptical that elections are representative (74%), as were 59% of independents, and only a third of Democrats (32%). The results reflected a significant decline in confidence over the past year among both independents (45% lacked confidence in January 2021) and Democrats (9% felt that way a year ago).
More broadly, fewer now said that American democracy is under attack than did late last summer (52% now vs. 56% in September), and the share who said the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, represented a crisis for democracy stood at 28%, down from 36% shortly after the attack last year.
The poll's findings come as the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack has issued new subpoenas to key members of former President Donald Trump's inner circle as it investigates the origins of the attack.
Most Americans saw the January 6 attack on the Capitol as a problem for democracy (28% said it's a crisis, 37% a major problem, and another 20% called it a minor problem), and 54% said not enough has been done to penalize those who rioted at the Capitol.
Republicans in particular, though, have shifted in their views of the attack over the past year. While 15% of Republicans said in January 2021 the storming of the Capitol was not a problem, 27% felt that way now. Likewise, while 38% of Republicans a year ago said enough had been done to penalize rioters, 71% felt that way now.
A plurality of all Americans saw the select committee's work as a fair attempt to determine what happened on January 6 (44%), while about a third saw it as a one-sided effort to blame Trump (36%) and 20% said they hadn't heard enough about it to say. About three-quarters of Democrats (76%) said it was a fair investigation, while two-thirds of Republicans (67%) dubbed it a one-sided effort to blame Trump.
Still, those who said the January 6 attack was a problem for democracy were not very likely to see the select committee's work as a path to helping protect American democracy. Overall, 47% said that the attack was a problem and that the panel's work was unlikely to result in changes that would help protect democracy, while 37% said protective changes were the likely outcome.
Beyond the overall partisan divide around these issues, the poll found that those who were most concerned about either the January 6 attack or the health of democracy generally were the most ideological partisans, suggesting the issues may not become turning points for the upcoming midterm elections.
Perceptions of the January 6 attack as a crisis for democracy were concentrated among liberal Democrats, 62% of whom felt that way, compared with 37% of moderate or conservative Democrats, 13% of moderate or liberal Republicans and 11% of conservative Republicans. And views that democracy itself was under attack were likewise strongest among conservative Republicans (72%) vs. 53% of moderate or liberal Republicans, 40% of moderate or conservative Democrats and 57% of liberal Democrats.
Looking back at the outcome of the 2020 election, little has changed in how Americans viewed Joe Biden's victory. While there was no evidence of widespread fraud or vote tampering, 37% said they believed Biden did not legitimately win enough votes to be president. More than 1 in 5, or 22%, said there was solid evidence that Biden did not win enough votes, even though such evidence does not exist. Among Republicans, 70% said Biden's victory was not legitimate, and nearly half, 45%, believed falsely that there was solid evidence of that.
An increasing majority of Americans lack confidence that elections in America today reflected the will of the people, and about half think it likely that a future election in the United States will be overturned for partisan reasons, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS.
There's been a shift in the partisan dynamic driving concerns about the possibility of an overturned future election. While the 50% overall who considered such a prospect at least somewhat likely was similar to the 51% who felt that way in September, Democrats were now more apt to see an overturned election in the future than Republicans. In the new poll, 56% of Democrats saw it as likely vs. 48% of Republicans. In September, 57% of Republicans thought that was likely while just 49% of Democrats agreed.
Also in the new poll, 56% of respondents said they have little or no confidence that American elections reflect the will of the people, up from 52% who felt that way in September and 40% in January 2021. Almost three-quarters of Republicans were now skeptical that elections are representative (74%), as were 59% of independents, and only a third of Democrats (32%). The results reflected a significant decline in confidence over the past year among both independents (45% lacked confidence in January 2021) and Democrats (9% felt that way a year ago).
More broadly, fewer now said that American democracy is under attack than did late last summer (52% now vs. 56% in September), and the share who said the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, represented a crisis for democracy stood at 28%, down from 36% shortly after the attack last year.
The poll's findings come as the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack has issued new subpoenas to key members of former President Donald Trump's inner circle as it investigates the origins of the attack.
Most Americans saw the January 6 attack on the Capitol as a problem for democracy (28% said it's a crisis, 37% a major problem, and another 20% called it a minor problem), and 54% said not enough has been done to penalize those who rioted at the Capitol.
Republicans in particular, though, have shifted in their views of the attack over the past year. While 15% of Republicans said in January 2021 the storming of the Capitol was not a problem, 27% felt that way now. Likewise, while 38% of Republicans a year ago said enough had been done to penalize rioters, 71% felt that way now.
A plurality of all Americans saw the select committee's work as a fair attempt to determine what happened on January 6 (44%), while about a third saw it as a one-sided effort to blame Trump (36%) and 20% said they hadn't heard enough about it to say. About three-quarters of Democrats (76%) said it was a fair investigation, while two-thirds of Republicans (67%) dubbed it a one-sided effort to blame Trump.
Still, those who said the January 6 attack was a problem for democracy were not very likely to see the select committee's work as a path to helping protect American democracy. Overall, 47% said that the attack was a problem and that the panel's work was unlikely to result in changes that would help protect democracy, while 37% said protective changes were the likely outcome.
Beyond the overall partisan divide around these issues, the poll found that those who were most concerned about either the January 6 attack or the health of democracy generally were the most ideological partisans, suggesting the issues may not become turning points for the upcoming midterm elections.
Perceptions of the January 6 attack as a crisis for democracy were concentrated among liberal Democrats, 62% of whom felt that way, compared with 37% of moderate or conservative Democrats, 13% of moderate or liberal Republicans and 11% of conservative Republicans. And views that democracy itself was under attack were likewise strongest among conservative Republicans (72%) vs. 53% of moderate or liberal Republicans, 40% of moderate or conservative Democrats and 57% of liberal Democrats.
Looking back at the outcome of the 2020 election, little has changed in how Americans viewed Joe Biden's victory. While there was no evidence of widespread fraud or vote tampering, 37% said they believed Biden did not legitimately win enough votes to be president. More than 1 in 5, or 22%, said there was solid evidence that Biden did not win enough votes, even though such evidence does not exist. Among Republicans, 70% said Biden's victory was not legitimate, and nearly half, 45%, believed falsely that there was solid evidence of that.
Tennessee parents, teachers push back against 'Maus' removal
ATHENS, Tenn. (AP) — Growing up in rural eastern Tennessee, James Cockrum hadn't given much thought to the possibility that one day he might find himself speaking about his Jewish heritage in front of a packed school board meeting.
ATHENS, Tenn. (AP) — Growing up in rural eastern Tennessee, James Cockrum hadn't given much thought to the possibility that one day he might find himself speaking about his Jewish heritage in front of a packed school board meeting.
But four days after news broke that the McMinn County school board unanimously voted to remove a Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel about the Holocaust from the district's curriculum, Cockrum celebrated the birth of his daughter. That life-changing moment left the 25-year-old wrestling with the realities of the community he grew up in.
“My father was of Jewish descent; I'm of Jewish descent. There is nothing more personal to anybody than our heritage,” Cockrum said. “This is very disturbing.”
Cockrum was one of a handful of people who spoke at the meeting to try to persuade the McMinn County School Board to reconsider its decision that sparked international attention, renewing concerns about book bans and the growing threat of antisemitism. After the board quietly removed “Maus" last month, February's meeting was packed with concerned parents, teachers and students who spilled into an overflow room to see how the board would respond to the criticism.
Instead, the board demurred to a lengthy statement issued weeks earlier justifying its determination that “Maus” — a graphic novel in which Jews are portrayed as mice and Nazis as cats in the retelling of the horrific Holocaust experience of the author's parents — was inappropriate for children because of curse words and a depiction of a nude corpse, which was drawn as a cartoon mouse.
Only one board member, Mike Cochran, broached the subject Thursday. Cochran recounted a conversation with a rabbi who had suggested to him that a Holocaust survivor could talk to students as a possible replacement for the removed book.
“I want people to understand that this had nothing to do with the Holocaust on why we took it out,” he said.
On Jan. 10, McMinn school board members called a special meeting to discuss “Maus," only a day before their district's eighth graders were scheduled to begin reading the book. The time crunch gave the discussion a sense of urgency. No recordings of the meeting have been released, but 20 pages of meeting minutes detail a back and forth between board members and school administrators, who defended the text as a vital lesson that brought home the horror of an important moment in history.
The minutes show that none of the board members had read “Maus” and at least one member noted that the typical process for handling complaints over curriculum had been bypassed. Nevertheless, the board voted unanimously to remove the book and directed teachers to find a suitable replacement.
The decision largely went unnoticed until an advocacy group called the Tennessee Holler broadcast the news. The book has since moved to the center of a growing national debate about the teaching of disturbing history, including slavery as well as the Holocaust, prompted by recent pushes to limit children's exposure to certain materials and discussion. In Tennessee, that effort recently expanded to include school libraries, with the state’s Republican governor and others looking for new ways to ramp up scrutiny on what gets placed on shelves.
Those efforts have ignited fierce pushback from people offended by the board's action. In McMinn County, where many were caught off guard by the move, some groups have sought copies of “Maus” and made it available to students through alternate channels. Sales have soared everywhere, making it among the top sellers on Amazon.com. Booksellers have offered to send free copies to students in McMinn County and across Tennessee. Donations have poured in to help purchase copies worldwide.
Author Art Spiegelman has expressed bafflement at the board's decision and seized the moment to foster conversation about censorship.
“It’s certainly about Jews, but it’s not just about Jews,” Spiegelman said earlier this week during a virtual discussion on book bans hosted by the Jewish Federation of Greater Chattanooga that more than 10,000 people attended.
“This is about othering and what’s going on now is about controlling ... what kids can look at, what kids can read, what kids can see in a way that makes them less able to think, not more. And it takes the form of the criticisms from this board,” he added.
For Alex Sharp, a librarian who lives in McMinn County, the board's fixation on a handful of swear words misses the broader lessons students should learn while studying the Holocaust and other painful moments in history. It also makes no sense, she said, in an age when students have access to more objectionable material online.
“Yes, it has a few bad words in it, but in my opinion our kids are seeing way worse than that on YouTube, TikTok and Snapchat," she said. "You have to remember they're 13 and 14 years old. They're not small children anymore, they're breaching into adulthood, and we have to talk about these controversial topics with them so they grow up into empathetic human beings.”
As he spoke at Thursday's meeting, Cockrum shook his head in disbelief that a book ban had brought him before a school board for the first time ever.
“I'm immensely disappointed in the decision to remove material regarding my own heritage and family's history. I'd like to ask generally: What message does this send to our Jewish neighbors?" he said. “Are these stories not there to learn from?”
Kimberlee Kruesi, The Associated Press
NASA's new space telescope sees 1st starlight, takes selfie
Friday
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — NASA’s new space telescope has captured its first starlight and even taken a selfie of its giant, gold mirror.
All 18 segments of the primary mirror on the James Webb Space Telescope seem to be working properly 1 1/2 months into the mission, officials said Friday.
The telescope's first target was a bright star 258 light-years away in the constellation Ursa Major.
“That was just a real wow moment,” said Marshall Perrin of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore.
Over the next few months, the hexagonal mirror segments — each the size of a coffee table — will be aligned and focused as one, allowing science observations to begin by the end of June.
The $10 billion infrared observatory — considered the successor to the aging Hubble Space Telescope — will seek light from the first stars and galaxies that formed in the universe nearly 14 billion years ago. It will also examine the atmospheres of alien worlds for any possible signs of life.
NASA did not detect the crippling flaw in Hubble's mirror until after its 1990 launch; more than three years passed before spacewalking astronauts were able to correct the telescope's blurry vision.
While everything is looking good so far with Webb, engineers should be able to rule out any major mirror flaws by next month, Feinberg said.
Webb’s 21-foot (6.5-meter), gold-plated mirror is the largest ever launched into space. An infrared camera on the telescope snapped a picture of the mirror as one segment gazed upon the targeted star.
“Pretty much the reaction was 'Holy Cow!',” Feinberg said.
NASA released the selfie, along with a mosaic of starlight from each of the mirror segments. The 18 points of starlight resemble bright fireflies flitting against a black night sky.
After 20 years with the project, “it is just unbelievably satisfying” to see everything working so well so far, said the University of Arizona's Marcia Rieke, principal scientist for the infrared camera.
Webb blasted off from South America in December and reached its designated perch 1 million miles (1.6 million kilometers) away last month.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Marcia Dunn, The Associated Press
Friday
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — NASA’s new space telescope has captured its first starlight and even taken a selfie of its giant, gold mirror.
All 18 segments of the primary mirror on the James Webb Space Telescope seem to be working properly 1 1/2 months into the mission, officials said Friday.
The telescope's first target was a bright star 258 light-years away in the constellation Ursa Major.
“That was just a real wow moment,” said Marshall Perrin of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore.
Over the next few months, the hexagonal mirror segments — each the size of a coffee table — will be aligned and focused as one, allowing science observations to begin by the end of June.
The $10 billion infrared observatory — considered the successor to the aging Hubble Space Telescope — will seek light from the first stars and galaxies that formed in the universe nearly 14 billion years ago. It will also examine the atmospheres of alien worlds for any possible signs of life.
NASA did not detect the crippling flaw in Hubble's mirror until after its 1990 launch; more than three years passed before spacewalking astronauts were able to correct the telescope's blurry vision.
While everything is looking good so far with Webb, engineers should be able to rule out any major mirror flaws by next month, Feinberg said.
Webb’s 21-foot (6.5-meter), gold-plated mirror is the largest ever launched into space. An infrared camera on the telescope snapped a picture of the mirror as one segment gazed upon the targeted star.
“Pretty much the reaction was 'Holy Cow!',” Feinberg said.
NASA released the selfie, along with a mosaic of starlight from each of the mirror segments. The 18 points of starlight resemble bright fireflies flitting against a black night sky.
After 20 years with the project, “it is just unbelievably satisfying” to see everything working so well so far, said the University of Arizona's Marcia Rieke, principal scientist for the infrared camera.
Webb blasted off from South America in December and reached its designated perch 1 million miles (1.6 million kilometers) away last month.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Marcia Dunn, The Associated Press
Alberta Farmers brace for more drought conditions as unusually warm weather continues
Radana Williams and Sarah Offin - Friday
While Calgarians revel in the warm, dry weather we’re seeing this February, it’s a different story for farmers and producers outside the city.
Last year, 2021, was Calgary's fourth driest year on record, and so far 2022 hasn't brought much relief.
Allen Jones is already seeing the impact on his farm east of Balzac, where calfing season has just begun.
Read more:
Dry January: Alberta farmers appeal for help as feed supply dwindles
Jones said the lack of moisture is already having an impact — reserve pastures are already tapped out, the dugout is getting dangerously low, and one of his wells ran dry last week.
He said with hundreds of calves on the way, he’s already thinking of selling off some cattle, especially with things potentially becoming much worse.
Warmer weather is causing soil moisture to evaporate, which Alberta Agriculture’s Ralph Wright predicts could create another drought for the growing season.
“It really hurt a lot of crops dramatically. But you know, that was last year,” Wright said.
“What this year is going to bring, we just simply don't know at this stage. And right now we're looking at some pretty parched lands. We're looking at hay fields that didn't do too well last year, and are probably a little bit stunted. And everyone's quite worried.”
Read more:
Addressing water management in southern Alberta: ‘We will have more droughts’
Wright said that on the positive side, April, May and June are the wettest months of the year, so there is plenty of time to recover — if we get enough moisture.
“We are still expecting there to be some snowstorms in southern Alberta this year that will hopefully bring a little bit of reprieve because it's been so dry for so long,” said Kyle Fougere, Environment Canada meteorologist.
“It's unlikely that even a few good snowstorms will bring that much-needed precipitation to kind of reduce the drought conditions that have been in place.”
Don't just blame climate change for weather disasters
AFP - Friday
As a pioneer in so-called attribution science -- establishing a link between extreme weather and climate change -- Friederike Otto is adamant that the rising toll of heatwaves and hurricanes cannot be explained by global warming alone.
AFP spoke to Otto, a physicist at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London, ahead of the release of a major UN climate report on climate change impacts and how humanity can adapt to them.
Q. Is 'natural disaster' a contradiction in terms?
To talk about natural disasters the way that we usually do is not very helpful because it turns the attention away from the agency that we have as humans.
You have to search very hard to find climate disasters that are purely natural. Even without climate change, if humans are involved, such disasters occur for the most part when vulnerability and exposure meet extreme weather events. Global warming just makes it worse.
Q. Can you give an example?
Last year there were major floods in western Germany which led to lots of lost lives, damaged property.
Yes, climate change made the rainfall more intense. But even without global warming there would have been a huge, heavy rainfall event. And it would have landed in a densely populated geography where the rivers flood very easily and the water has nowhere to go.
Q. Has attribution science led to blaming disasters just on climate change?
When we started to do attribution, everyone -– we, the media –- were excited to finally have an answer to the question: what is the role of climate change in these disasters? It was a breakthrough to be able to say an individual event was made, say, 10 times more likely.
But if we ignore vulnerability, then we also ignore to a large degree what we can actually do to cope with and protect ourselves from climate change.
Q. How do we assess responsibility for a natural disaster?
The goal... is not so much to pinpoint fault or blame, but to understand the causes. The next step is to ask: what do we need to change? Who has the agency to do that? Then you can ask about responsibility.
We know now that building mansions on the beach or cliffs of Malibu is probably a stupid idea. It is deliberately exposing oneself to risk.
A 1,000-year-old city built on what has now become a flood plain is different. But we still have to adapt: educate people not to build there anymore, build in a way -– on stilts, for example -- that can withstand floods. We also need better flood forecasting.
Q. Is it also an equity issue?
It's the vulnerable in society who suffer the greatest loss and damages. They live in houses that can't withstand natural hazards; they live in floodplains; they can't afford insurance. And it's not just Global North vs Global South. Who's still suffering today from the consequences of Hurricane Katrina, that devastated New Orleans in 2005? It's not the rich and white. It's the poor, and people of colour.
Q. What is 'maladaptation', and where does that fit in?
Just blaming climate for disasters can lead to maladaptation. If you think of climate disasters purely as a physical problem, you're likely to favour a technical solution, like building a dam. That may result in less flooding in a small part of a city but have bad consequences along the rest of the river.
If the measure you put in place to adapt makes things worse in the long run or for the majority of people, that's maladaptation. Adaptation also means education, governance, and so on. But investing in those things is harder, and it can take decades to see results.
Q. Have disasters been incorrectly blamed on climate change?
The drought and famine in Madagascar. Climate change is really not playing a role there. The population is extremely dependent on rain-fed agriculture, but the rains are just naturally not terribly reliable.
And there's a very high rate of poverty. Outside disaster assistance has been very short-term. Lots of things that have gone really wrong on the vulnerability side. But climate change is not really a driver.
Q. The UN identified Madagascar at the world's first climate-driven famine
Even without doing an attribution study, just from everything that we knew before from IPCC reports, it should have been clear that climate change is not the only, and not even a major driver of the drought in southern Madagascar.
I can see why they do that -– to raise funds and so on. But it's just not helpful to say, "everything is tickety-boo and then the big, bad climate change monster comes and eats us all". That's not how it works.
mh/klm/spm
Quebec Court of Appeal upholds majority of federal Indigenous child welfare law
MONTREAL — The Quebec Court of Appeal has upheld the majority of a federal law that gives Indigenous governments more control over child welfare.
© Provided by The Canadian Press
In a 219-page unanimous decision rendered Thursday, the five-member appeals court panel said that most of Bill C-92 — which recognizes that Indigenous Peoples have an inherent right to self-government, including over child welfare — is constitutional.
The court said elements of the law that allow Indigenous groups to create their own child welfare legislation, subject to national standards, are also constitutional. It struck down, however, a framework giving those laws the force of federal law and allowing them to override provincial legislation.
Naiomi Metallic, a law professor at Dalhousie University who specializes in Indigenous and constitutional law, said the appeals court ruling doesn't necessarily mean provinces will be able overrule Indigenous child welfare laws.
"Provincial governments have a significant role to play if they want to argue that any part of their law should trump an Indigenous law," she said in an interview Friday. "The tenor is that Indigenous laws will be paramount in the vast majority of cases and it will be very hard for a province to argue otherwise."
Metallic, who described the decision as "remarkable" and "courageous," said she was pleased to see the way the court emphasized the history of residential schools and decades of underfunding of Indigenous child welfare.
"The Indian residential school system gradually morphed into the child welfare system, that is clearly acknowledged in the decision, and what it has done is it has fractured families, it has fractured people's identities and it's also denied Indigenous people's ability to govern in this area," she said.
"That's a really important part of the decision, too — the recognition that Indigenous people controlling this area is really key to their well-being. You cannot separate them.
Quebec had challenged the federal law, arguing that provincial governments have jurisdiction over child welfare and that by affirming in law that Indigenous peoples have an inherent right to self-government, Ottawa was unilaterally creating a new level of government.
In a joint statement, the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador and the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission said they were pleased to see the court uphold the right to self-government.
"The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec confirms what we have argued for a long time before many commissions and inquiries," said Ghislain Picard, chief of the assembly.
"By virtue of the right to self-government, we are in the best position to ensure the wellness of our people and more particularly, our children."
The office of Quebec's attorney general said Friday it was still studying the decision.
Indigenous Services Minister Patty Hajdu told reporters Thursday that the federal government would review the decision before responding.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 11, 2022.
———
This story was produced with the financial assistance of the Facebook and Canadian Press News Fellowship.
Jacob Serebrin, The Canadian Press
MONTREAL — The Quebec Court of Appeal has upheld the majority of a federal law that gives Indigenous governments more control over child welfare.
© Provided by The Canadian Press
In a 219-page unanimous decision rendered Thursday, the five-member appeals court panel said that most of Bill C-92 — which recognizes that Indigenous Peoples have an inherent right to self-government, including over child welfare — is constitutional.
The court said elements of the law that allow Indigenous groups to create their own child welfare legislation, subject to national standards, are also constitutional. It struck down, however, a framework giving those laws the force of federal law and allowing them to override provincial legislation.
Naiomi Metallic, a law professor at Dalhousie University who specializes in Indigenous and constitutional law, said the appeals court ruling doesn't necessarily mean provinces will be able overrule Indigenous child welfare laws.
"Provincial governments have a significant role to play if they want to argue that any part of their law should trump an Indigenous law," she said in an interview Friday. "The tenor is that Indigenous laws will be paramount in the vast majority of cases and it will be very hard for a province to argue otherwise."
Metallic, who described the decision as "remarkable" and "courageous," said she was pleased to see the way the court emphasized the history of residential schools and decades of underfunding of Indigenous child welfare.
"The Indian residential school system gradually morphed into the child welfare system, that is clearly acknowledged in the decision, and what it has done is it has fractured families, it has fractured people's identities and it's also denied Indigenous people's ability to govern in this area," she said.
"That's a really important part of the decision, too — the recognition that Indigenous people controlling this area is really key to their well-being. You cannot separate them.
Quebec had challenged the federal law, arguing that provincial governments have jurisdiction over child welfare and that by affirming in law that Indigenous peoples have an inherent right to self-government, Ottawa was unilaterally creating a new level of government.
In a joint statement, the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador and the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission said they were pleased to see the court uphold the right to self-government.
"The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec confirms what we have argued for a long time before many commissions and inquiries," said Ghislain Picard, chief of the assembly.
"By virtue of the right to self-government, we are in the best position to ensure the wellness of our people and more particularly, our children."
The office of Quebec's attorney general said Friday it was still studying the decision.
Indigenous Services Minister Patty Hajdu told reporters Thursday that the federal government would review the decision before responding.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 11, 2022.
———
This story was produced with the financial assistance of the Facebook and Canadian Press News Fellowship.
Jacob Serebrin, The Canadian Press
AS FAST AS THEY DITCHED O'TOOLE
Tories ditch Erin O'Toole's carbon pricing plan
After briefly trying to appeal to climate-concerned voters, the Conservative Party of Canada is ditching its carbon pricing plan, a move Canada’s environment minister says “proves they have no credibility in the fight against climate change.”
In the run-up to the last election, former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole introduced both a climate plan and a carbon price. But after roughly 13 years of convincing party supporters carbon pricing is a “terrible idea,” the decision alienated voters, said Kathryn Harrison, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia.
Conservative interim leader MP Candice Bergen ditched the party’s pledge to put a price on carbon at a caucus meeting on Wednesday, according to the Toronto Star. The Star’s sources say the issue needs to be debated at the leadership race.
“It’s not surprising that the Conservative Party isn’t putting forward strong solutions to climate change when many of their members don’t believe in it,” the NDP’s environment and climate change critic Laurel Collins said in a statement to Canada’s National Observer.
Harrison said she is not surprised by the announcement.
“The message that the Conservatives were on board with carbon pricing, I think, was exaggerated all along,” she said.
Although the party said it intended to keep the industrial pricing schedule up to $50/tonne, increases beyond that were tied to trading partners like the U.S. and the European Union.
“Fifty dollars a tonne is not a threat to the Canadian oil industry and arguably helps their reputation, so that was no big surprise,” said Harrison.
The Conservatives’ plan proposed carbon pricing that would start at $20/tonne and increase to no higher than $50/tonne — while the Liberal government pledged to increase the price to $170/tonne by 2030.
It called for the tax to be paid when Canadians buy fuel and then deposited into “personal low-carbon savings accounts'' for “green purchases” like a transit pass or energy-efficient retrofits, but Harrison points out details were scarce and that it was “really a gimmick.”
In a statement to Canada’s National Observer, Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault said the Conservatives’ proposed carbon tax meant “the more you burned, the more you would earn — which made no sense.”
“Putting a price on pollution is a central part of our plan to cut carbon emissions and support our economy, with the majority of families receiving more money back than they pay,” reads Guilbeault’s statement.
In 2019, a report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer found 80 per cent of households will get more from the climate change tax rebate than they are paying in carbon tax, while the wealthiest 20 per cent will pay slightly more than they receive.
Despite this, a recent study co-authored by Harrison found many Canadians don’t understand rebates very well and most underestimate how much money they are getting back.
The study revealed partisan divides. Conservative voters were more likely to report they were paying more in taxes than they were getting back, even when shown the opposite was true.
“[The Conservatives] are adopting policies that speak on behalf of their core voters, about a third of Canadians who oppose carbon pricing,” said Harrison. “It seems to be part and parcel with the party's emerging response to the trucker blockades and anti-vax sentiment that they are returning to their base.”
Harrison said there is a serious question of whether the party is limiting its reach with these recent choices.
Conservative MPs — including ex-party leader Andrew Scheer, Garnett Genuis, Melissa Lantsman, and Martin Shields — have voiced support for the trucker convoy, which is on its 12 consecutive day occupying Ottawa’s downtown.
And it’s no secret the party is divided on climate change. At the 2021 Conservative Party convention, 54 per cent of voting delegates voted against a motion that would include the phrases, “We recognize that climate change is real,'' and “The Conservative Party is willing to act” in the party’s policy.
On Thursday, former MP Lisa Raitt, Jim Dinning (FORMER ALBERTA PC MINISTER OF FINANCE) and Ken Boessenkool launched Conservatives for Clean Growth, a group of Conservative Party activists, advisers and members who will work with any leadership candidate to “develop a credible climate, energy and economic plan.”
“This new initiative, led by long-time, high-profile Conservatives, is fighting for the future of their party,” said Harrison, who finds it “quite sad” the party won’t embrace carbon pricing.
“One would expect ideological Conservatives committed to markets and economic efficiency to embrace [it],” she said. For more than a decade, the Conservative Party has misled voters and argued vehemently against carbon pricing, claiming it does not work despite a body of research that proves the opposite, said Harrison.
Because this policy should, in theory, appeal to the party’s market-driven values, Harrison doesn't think the Conservatives’ aversion is really about the carbon price: “It's about protecting the status quo and the fossil fuel industry,” she said.
MP Adam Chambers declined to comment because caucus meetings are confidential and it would compromise the party’s “ability to have open, transparent and honest discussions with each other.”
Nearly 30 Conservative MPs, including Bergen, declined or did not respond to Canada’s National Observer’s requests for comment.
Natasha Bulowski, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Canada's National Observer
Tories ditch Erin O'Toole's carbon pricing plan
After briefly trying to appeal to climate-concerned voters, the Conservative Party of Canada is ditching its carbon pricing plan, a move Canada’s environment minister says “proves they have no credibility in the fight against climate change.”
In the run-up to the last election, former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole introduced both a climate plan and a carbon price. But after roughly 13 years of convincing party supporters carbon pricing is a “terrible idea,” the decision alienated voters, said Kathryn Harrison, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia.
Conservative interim leader MP Candice Bergen ditched the party’s pledge to put a price on carbon at a caucus meeting on Wednesday, according to the Toronto Star. The Star’s sources say the issue needs to be debated at the leadership race.
“It’s not surprising that the Conservative Party isn’t putting forward strong solutions to climate change when many of their members don’t believe in it,” the NDP’s environment and climate change critic Laurel Collins said in a statement to Canada’s National Observer.
Harrison said she is not surprised by the announcement.
“The message that the Conservatives were on board with carbon pricing, I think, was exaggerated all along,” she said.
Although the party said it intended to keep the industrial pricing schedule up to $50/tonne, increases beyond that were tied to trading partners like the U.S. and the European Union.
“Fifty dollars a tonne is not a threat to the Canadian oil industry and arguably helps their reputation, so that was no big surprise,” said Harrison.
The Conservatives’ plan proposed carbon pricing that would start at $20/tonne and increase to no higher than $50/tonne — while the Liberal government pledged to increase the price to $170/tonne by 2030.
It called for the tax to be paid when Canadians buy fuel and then deposited into “personal low-carbon savings accounts'' for “green purchases” like a transit pass or energy-efficient retrofits, but Harrison points out details were scarce and that it was “really a gimmick.”
In a statement to Canada’s National Observer, Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault said the Conservatives’ proposed carbon tax meant “the more you burned, the more you would earn — which made no sense.”
“Putting a price on pollution is a central part of our plan to cut carbon emissions and support our economy, with the majority of families receiving more money back than they pay,” reads Guilbeault’s statement.
In 2019, a report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer found 80 per cent of households will get more from the climate change tax rebate than they are paying in carbon tax, while the wealthiest 20 per cent will pay slightly more than they receive.
Despite this, a recent study co-authored by Harrison found many Canadians don’t understand rebates very well and most underestimate how much money they are getting back.
The study revealed partisan divides. Conservative voters were more likely to report they were paying more in taxes than they were getting back, even when shown the opposite was true.
“[The Conservatives] are adopting policies that speak on behalf of their core voters, about a third of Canadians who oppose carbon pricing,” said Harrison. “It seems to be part and parcel with the party's emerging response to the trucker blockades and anti-vax sentiment that they are returning to their base.”
Harrison said there is a serious question of whether the party is limiting its reach with these recent choices.
Conservative MPs — including ex-party leader Andrew Scheer, Garnett Genuis, Melissa Lantsman, and Martin Shields — have voiced support for the trucker convoy, which is on its 12 consecutive day occupying Ottawa’s downtown.
And it’s no secret the party is divided on climate change. At the 2021 Conservative Party convention, 54 per cent of voting delegates voted against a motion that would include the phrases, “We recognize that climate change is real,'' and “The Conservative Party is willing to act” in the party’s policy.
On Thursday, former MP Lisa Raitt, Jim Dinning (FORMER ALBERTA PC MINISTER OF FINANCE) and Ken Boessenkool launched Conservatives for Clean Growth, a group of Conservative Party activists, advisers and members who will work with any leadership candidate to “develop a credible climate, energy and economic plan.”
“This new initiative, led by long-time, high-profile Conservatives, is fighting for the future of their party,” said Harrison, who finds it “quite sad” the party won’t embrace carbon pricing.
“One would expect ideological Conservatives committed to markets and economic efficiency to embrace [it],” she said. For more than a decade, the Conservative Party has misled voters and argued vehemently against carbon pricing, claiming it does not work despite a body of research that proves the opposite, said Harrison.
Because this policy should, in theory, appeal to the party’s market-driven values, Harrison doesn't think the Conservatives’ aversion is really about the carbon price: “It's about protecting the status quo and the fossil fuel industry,” she said.
MP Adam Chambers declined to comment because caucus meetings are confidential and it would compromise the party’s “ability to have open, transparent and honest discussions with each other.”
Nearly 30 Conservative MPs, including Bergen, declined or did not respond to Canada’s National Observer’s requests for comment.
Natasha Bulowski, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Canada's National Observer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)