The threat of a freight railroad strike is back

Chris Isidore - Yesterday - CNN


A union of railroad track maintenance workers has rejected a tentative agreement with the nation’s freight carriers, renewing the threat that there could be a strike that shuts down this vital link in the nation’s already struggling supply chain.

The vote, announced Monday by the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division, was 43% in favor of the proposed five-year contract, and 57% opposed.

“The lack of paid sick time off was the most cited and specific concern of membership. It was especially evident during the pandemic that it was a major problem,” said a statement from the union on Tuesday. “The railroads have so far not addressed it in any meaningful way.”

About 12,000 of the 23,000 members of the BMWE participated in the vote. It is the third largest of the major freight railroad unions. The two largest freight unions, which represent the more than 55,000 engineers and conductors who make up the two-person train crews, are conducting the their own rank-and-file ratification vote by mail.

The BWME said it will now enter negotiations with the association that represents management at the nation’s major freight railroads in an effort to reach a new deal. Without a new deal there could be a strike, but not until at least Nov. 19, according to the union. Things will remain status quo with the union’s contract until then.

A statement from the association negotiating on behalf of railroad management said it was “disappointed” with the vote, but given that the two sides had decided to maintain the status quo, “the failed ratification does not present a risk of an immediate service disruption.”

But the two largest unions, the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, Transportation union, which represents conductors, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, which represents engineers, have yet to vote — throwing those outcomes into question.

“It’s a toss-up,” said a union source with one of the ‘big two’ unions.

The engineers and conductors union votes are cause for “apprehension on all sides,” said the source. Online chatter among the conductors union and engineers union members signal they want a strike before even seeing the contract, while some are calling for reason, the source said. Conductors union and engineers union members will be mailed ballots later this month with a 21-day voting period. Results of those votes should be known in mid-November, just before the BMWE could be going on strike without a new deal.

The deals last month between railroads and unions were reached just hours before the deadline last month after a 20-hour marathon negotiating session.

“It could be a big letdown” if members reject the deal, said the source of all the time and work that went into reaching the deals.

Even if the members of the two larger unions vote in favor of their deals, they would not report to work if the BMWE were to go on strike. And the fact that the BMWE voted down the contract is probably a sign that rank-and-file anger towards railroad management could lead to no votes at the two larger unions as well.

“I think this is the canary in the coal mine for the engineers’ and conductors’ votes,” said Todd Vachon, professor of labor studies at Rutgers University. “They were the ones you anticipate would reject a deal. The fact that the BMWE voted no suggests a no vote [by train crew members] is more likely.”

The tentative labor deals were reached on Sept. 15 following a marathon 20-hour bargaining session that included direct intervention from President Joe Biden and Labor Secretary Marty Walsh. The new contracts include an immediate 14% raise with back pay dating to 2020, and raises totaling 24% during the five-year life of the contract that runs from 2020 through 2024. They also gives union members cash bonuses of $1,000 a year. All told, the backpay and bonuses will give union members an average payment of $11,000 per worker once the deal is ratified.

But the deals were difficult to reach not because of the financial terms, but because of work rules that unions said had brought engineers and conductors to a breaking point. Staffing shortages had required crew members to be on call seven days a week, ready to report to work at short notice. And union leadership said those rules, which were adjusted as part of the contract, had caused great anger at management among rank-and-file members.

Despite that discord, the unions’ leadership expressed confidence that their members would ratify the deals, even if they didn’t get everything they wanted at the bargaining table.

“I think we got everything we could,” Dennis Pierce, president of the engineers union, told CNN on the day the deal was reached. “And I think once our membership understands where we sit and what’s in it, I think it’ll ratify.”

Numerous smaller unions have already approved their deals. The only group that initially rejected it, the Machinist union which represents about 5,000 mechanics for locomotives and track equipment and facility maintenance personnel, has subsequently reached a new tentative agreement without a strike. The Machinists’ rank and file is again considering that deal.

The Biden administration was desperate to avoid a rail strike because of fears it would upend already strained supply chains. The major railroads carry 30% of the nation’s freight when measured by weight and distance traveled, and a strike could have caused shortages and higher prices for such essentials as food and gasoline, forced factories without parts to close down and left store shelves empty during the holiday shopping period. The only potential good news for the Biden administration is that if there is a strike, it would now take place after the midterm elections.

Rank and file union member anger hasn’t just been expressed at railroads. Union members working in other industries have recently balked at approving deals, even when recommended by their unions’ leadership. Although most union contracts are ratified, there have been some very high-profile examples of angry union members voting no.

About 10,000 members of the United Auto Workers at farm equipment maker John Deere went on strike last fall after rejecting a tentative agreement. That rejected offer included immediate raises in their base pay of 5% to 6%, and additional wage increases later in the contract that could have increased average pay by about 20% over the six years. And it had a cost-of-living adjustment that would give them additional pay based up future inflation.

But more than 90% of the UAW members at Deere voted no and went on strike, and then stayed on strike after rejecting a subsequent deal. They finally returned to work after five weeks after a third vote on a similar package passed.

Striking workers at cereal maker Kellogg (K) also rejected a tentative deal and decided to stay on strike in December before finally agreeing to a deal weeks later.

And only 50.3% of film production workers voted in favor of a deal last fall that achieved virtually all the bargaining goals of their union, a contract that averted a strike by 63,000 technicians, artisans and craftspeople which could have brought production of movies, television and streaming shows to a halt.

SEE 

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2022/10/rail-union-rejects-deal-brokered-by.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2022/09/rail-unions-emphasize-positives-of.html

Machinists union strikes improved tentative deal with U.S. railroads

https://draft.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/9311998/6801511593304304645

HRW urges FIFA and Qatari authorities to guarantee wages for migrant workers

Daniel Stewart -  News 360

The NGO Human Right Watch (HRW) has urged FIFA and the Qatari authorities to ensure that migrant workers who have made the World Cup possible receive their full wages and benefits and are not arrested or deported for participating in protests.


A large billboard welcoming the 2022 FIFA World Cup Qatar is displayed next to the street in Doha, Qatar. - Europa Press/Contacto/yangyuanyong

The organization has also called on FIFA and the Qatari authorities to address underlying complaints of wage abuses, including by supporting a redress fund to address "this problem in a comprehensive manner."

To substantiate its demands, HRW has interviewed 32 migrant workers from India, Kenya and Nepal who have recently participated in strikes over the conditions they received doing their jobs in preparation for the World Cup.

Most of the migrant workers detailed that they had participated in strikes to protest wage theft due to employers' failure to pay wages on time, a process that sometimes dragged on for months.

Other workers on short-term visas have participated in strikes after companies told them they were being sent home before the end of their two-year work contract.

"The strikes and protests by migrant workers in Qatar are an act of desperation for workers demanding action against wage theft," said HRW's deputy Middle East director Michael Page. "With the World Cup weeks away, especially as construction work in Qatar comes to a definitive end, Qatari authorities must ensure that workers' wages and benefits are paid on time and in full rather than penalizing them for asking for what is rightfully theirs," he asserted

Workers have explained to the NGO that strikes occur in phases. When companies do not pay them for months, they decide to stay in their accommodation and refuse to report to work. When they later persist because of delays in wage payments, migrant workers protest in the streets, sometimes in front of government buildings or a company's headquarters, or even block traffic.

Human rights organizations have reported that the Qatari government has so far deported at least 60 migrant workers.

Asked about these expulsions, the Qatari Ministry of Labor claimed that they were arrested during a strike held on August 14 for "violating Qatar's public security laws."

However, other migrant workers have confessed that they had decided not to join the strikes for fear of reprisals from both their employer and the Qatari authorities, something that has nevertheless left them with little recourse to recover unpaid wages or negotiate better accommodation.

According to HRW, Article 116 of the Qatari Labor Law grants only Qatari nationals the right to form workers' associations or unions, depriving migrant workers of their right to freedom of association and to form unions.

"While Qatar acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, it maintained a number of formal reservations in 2018, including the interpretation of the term 'trade unions' in accordance with its domestic law," the organization has asserted.

All in all, HRW has reiterated its call on the Qatari authorities and FIFA to ensure that workers receive the salaries and benefits owed to them.

"The least that FIFA and the Qatari authorities can do is to ensure that workers receive the wages and benefits owed to them as a matter of priority and to establish a redress fund that builds on existing compensation mechanisms, such as the Workers' Insurance and Support Fund, to address past and current widespread wage abuse," Pagina said.

U$A
'Heartbreaking' stories go untold, doctors say, as employers 'muzzle' them in wake of abortion ruling

Elizabeth Cohen - CNN- TODAY

After the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, an obstetrician who works at a hospital in the Northeast thought she could make a difference by publicly describing what she was seeing, by telling the stories of the patients she saw suffering in the aftermath of the court’s historic court ruling.

MUZZLED AND SHACKLED, THAT'S WHAT DOCTORS TELL CNN THEY ARE
Duration 2:23   View on Watch

So when a reporter from The New York Times reached out, she was grateful for the opportunity to discuss the plight of patients traveling to her hospital from states that had abortion restrictions.

The obstetrician passed along the reporter’s inquiry to her hospital’s public relations office, asking for permission to do the interview, noting that the reporter approached her because she holds a leadership position on a state government maternal mortality committee.

A hospital PR official replied that “without any notable exceptions, we are not participating in interviews at this time” and asked the doctor to send along the reporter’s questions and her proposed answers.

The doctor sent along the questions and answers and received a resounding “no” from the PR official: “We ask that you do not comment to the NY Times at this time.”

“They’re censoring me,” the doctor told CNN. “It’s shameful and embarrassing to work for an institution that is not supportive of women’s rights.

“I’m extremely angry,” she added. “It’s disgusting.”

A physician in another state echoed her: “I feel shackled. I feel muzzled. I feel completely restrained, and I’m outraged.”

These two doctors, and six others interviewed by CNN, say their employers – major public and private medical centers in five states – have asked them to not speak publicly about abortion, or have instructed them that if they do speak publicly about abortion, they can do so only as private citizens and cannot mention where they work.

Even when they are permitted to speak about abortion as private citizens, these doctors say, their employers have made it clear that they would prefer the doctors not talk at all, and so they have hesitated to speak up.

“If [they] don’t speak up, who is going to provide the evidence about the effect [abortion bans are] having on patients?” asked Dr. Erika Werner, who chairs the health policy and advocacy committee at the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and is the chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Tufts Medical Center in Boston.

Dr. Eric Rubin, editor in chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, said doctors need to be able to speak up because “the world of medicine in general – and certainly abortion – is full of misinformation, and we have not found good ways to counter that.”

“We’re really spiting ourselves if we do not allow physicians to speak about the facts,” he said.

Dr. Rosha McCoy, acting chief health care officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges, said medical centers and universities are having to deal with a great deal of “fear” and “confusion” in the aftermath of new abortion limitations.

“They don’t want themselves or the physicians to be put in a position where something is said that could be interpreted that’s going to cause a problem for both the clinician and/or the institution,” said McCoy, whose group represents more than 400 teaching hospitals and health care systems.

“We would never support doctors being censored,” she added. “I’m hoping it’s not censorship as much as a protective desire.”

‘These stories are not getting told’

A Texas obstetrician watched as the pregnant woman she was caring for got sicker and sicker.

The woman was 19 weeks pregnant, the fetus too young to survive outside the womb. Her water had broken, an ultrasound showing no amniotic fluid around the baby. In states where abortion is allowed, doctors would offer to terminate the pregnancy, since pregnant women in this situation have a high likelihood of developing an infection and becoming septic, which is a life-threatening emergency.

But in Texas, where strict limitations on abortion took effect more than a year ago, doctors fear criminal and civil prosecution if they offer termination before the mother is on the brink of death.

“Literally, we’ve had to watch patients deteriorate in front of our eyes,” said the doctor, a specialist in high-risk pregnancies who works at a public university.

Since the passage of the Texas laws, some women have been denied abortions even when their lives were in danger and the fetus had fatal birth defects and would die within minutes of birth. Others have been denied abortions even after the fetus had died.

The hospital that employs the Texas doctor said she can speak about abortion and use her name, but she’s not allowed to say where she works, and she can’t communicate with journalists on her work email or using her work computer.

The doctor says it seems clear that her employer would prefer she stay quiet about abortion, so like other doctors in this story, she would only speak to CNN anonymously, for fear of reprisals from her employer.

“This has clearly been done to make us feel like criminals. That’s exactly how it makes us feel – like we’re doing something wrong,” she said. “I think we’re all pretty scared. I’m afraid of losing my job. I’m the primary breadwinner in my family, so losing my job would be a big, big deal.”

At a hospital in a different state, one that does allow abortion, a doctor said they “got called into the principal’s office” by hospital administrators after participating in a public event about abortion, even though at the event, the doctor never mentioned where they work.

The doctor told CNN that at this meeting, it was intimidating that “these very fancy, very high-level, high-powered administrators had watched a video [of the event] and obtained a transcript to make sure I in no way made a connection to my employer.”

The doctor, who works for a public university, said the administrators explained that if they want to speak publicly about abortion and identify the hospital where they work, they should run it by the hospital public relations office first.

“I got the strong sense they’ll say no,” they said. “They worry about state funding sources and what happens if it gets controversial, so unfortunately instead of supporting us, they want everyone to play nice and quiet and not stir up any trouble.”

The doctor does not want CNN to include their gender or what part of the country they work in for fear of reprisals from their employer.

Like this doctor, an obstetrician in the Midwest felt a “chilling effect” when their employer said they could speak publicly about abortion only if they didn’t mention where they worked.

“It’s so heartbreaking, the stories we’ve seen, and these stories are not getting told,” the obstetrician said.

An Instagram post that lasted 40 minutes

In another state, a few weeks after Roe was overturned, a group of residents in obstetrics and gynecology posted a photo that included the message: “Abortion is healthcare” on their group’s Instagram account. It was clear from the post where the residents worked.

The photo was taken down less than 40 minutes later at the insistence of a university lawyer, according to a doctor familiar with the situation.

That doctor says residents didn’t think twice about posting the picture, considering that multiple medical societies – the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Nurse-Midwives, the Society of Hospital Medicine, the National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health, the National Hispanic Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics – have used the exact same phrase they did: Abortion is health care.

The association of medical schools, which represents where the residents work, has criticized the Supreme Court for “rescinding the protection of the right to safe and effective abortions.”

Despite these statements from respected national organizations, a university official told the residents to also remove the photo from their personal social media accounts, according to the doctor familiar with the situation. The doctor added that a little bit later, the official told the residents they could post the picture on their own accounts, as long as they didn’t identify where they work.

Emails and text messages obtained by CNN back up this doctor’s account.

A month later, at a mandatory lecture, university lawyers gave the residents a presentation about the limits of free speech, according to the doctor. CNN has seen a photo of a portion of the presentation.

The doctor said the lawyers instructed the residents that they could talk or write about abortion publicly as long as they didn’t say where they worked. If they did want to make a public statement about abortion and identify where they work, they had to first get approval from the legal department.

The doctor said residents are hesitant to make trouble because when they go to look for another job, “the world is very small, and you rely on senior colleagues to make calls for you, and you won’t be able to find a position if you are perceived as being difficult.”

‘I think real people are suffering’

In the past year, the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center has issued more than 150 news releases detailing advances in the lab, studies conducted by its doctors, awards for its researchers and a new culinary medicine program, among dozens of other topics.

But when five of its doctors published a study – one of the first of its kind – about the effect of abortion bans in real life, the medical center didn’t issue a news release. The research, published in the American Journal of Gynecology, found that at two Texas hospitals, the abortion bans were “associated with significant maternal morbidity.”

When CNN reached out to one of the study’s authors last month, she said that she would be “happy to talk” but that all inquiries needed to go through the university’s media office.

CNN then received this response from the medical center’s director of public relations: “UT Southwestern continues to review the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in conjunction with Texas laws and will not be commenting at this time. The findings speak for themselves.”

When CNN pushed back, explaining that journalists often speak with study authors, the official said the researchers, if interested, could speak with CNN, but “they will be providing comments as private individuals, independent of their role with the state.”

One of the researchers contacted CNN but declined to be interviewed with their name, for fear of reprisals from UT Southwestern.

UT Southwestern isn’t the only medical center that has been hesitant to allow their doctors to speak with the media.

CNN reached out to two oncologists at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, one of the largest cancer centers in the US, to ask them about their experiences treating pregnant patients, considering that Texas has had strict abortion limitations for more than a year.

Oncologists have expressed concern that abortion bans could hurt pregnant cancer patients. Pregnant women can’t receive certain cancer tests, and treatments that can harm a fetus, so if abortion is not an option, they sometimes have to delay lifesaving cancer care. As two breast cancer doctors wrote in August in The New England Journal of Medicine, abortion bans “will harm some of our patients” because sometimes, “we cannot offer complete or safe treatment to a pregnant person with a breast cancer diagnosis.”

When CNN reached out to the cancer doctors at MD Anderson on September 9 to discuss what they have seen since Texas passed strict abortion bans last year, an unsigned response from the MD Anderson public relations office stated that the doctors were “not available for an interview.”

MD Anderson said in a statement that its providers discuss the published data on the implications of delaying treatment due to pregnancy, and they refer patients to maternal fetal medicine specialists.​

On October 7, CNN pressed further to speak with the doctors, and an associate vice president said they were working on coordinating the interviews, but none was made available prior to the deadline for this story.

None of this surprises Kerri Wade.

Wade is the chief public affairs officer at the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, a membership organization that includes physicians who are experts in high-risk pregnancies. A few months ago, a reporter from The New York Times Magazine approached Wade with the idea of embedding a photographer in a high-risk maternal-fetal medicine department.

“It seemed like an easy fit for us,” Wade said.

Wade shopped around the magazine’s request, which she said was clearly a great opportunity to showcase the work of high-risk pregnancy doctors.

About 10 hospitals and medical practices said no, Wade told CNN.

“We were told no by every single person we approached, with the exception of the Cleveland Clinic,” Wade said.

The magazine ran the story, “What a High-Risk Pregnancy Looks Like After Dobbs” on September 13.

Wade reflects on her struggle to place a story that documents the risks that families have had to take since the Supreme Court’s decision.

“When people don’t hear these stories, they don’t understand the reality of what these laws are doing to real people, and I think real people are suffering. That’s what people need to understand and hear,” she said.

She said the hospitals and practices that declined The New York Times’ invitation told her that “this would make our attorneys and public relations colleagues very nervous.’ “

“There is a part of me that understands that as these laws continue to change rapidly, [for hospitals] to interpret what can be done and can’t be done varies in some places day to day. So I can understand someone taking a very cautious approach – why they might see the world that way,” she said.

Doctor ‘a tiny bit more optimistic’

After The New York Times Magazine published its story, a high-risk pregnancy doctor at a large public academic medical center in the Northeast received a similar embed request from a different national media outlet. This doctor works in a “surge state” – one that allows abortion and has been seeing an influx of patients from neighboring states that have banned the procedure.

The doctor ran the request by her hospital’s media department, even though she knew they would say no. They said no.

She said it’s just one more disappointment in a series of disappointments.

It started soon after the Supreme Court’s decision, when she and other maternal-fetal medicine specialists got on a call with their hospital’s administrators.

“My assumption, as a state with relatively liberal abortion laws, is that we would step up in a number of ways, like structural ways to meet the surge we knew we would see. And I thought we would use our position as a respected women’s health institution to continue to educate about the impact these laws have on women’s health,” she told CNN.

But on the call, “it became pretty clear that [the medical center] was not going to take a particularly activist approach” and would not make it easy for doctors to describe the impact of the new laws to the public.

She said she and her fellow high-risk pregnancy doctors were crushed.

“People cried on that call – like 40-, 50-year-old women were in tears when they realized the extent to which the institution was going to make this difficult,” she said.

Then, last week, the doctor thought she might be seeing a glimmer of hope.

She said a physician in a leadership position at the hospital was disappointed that they’d had to say no to the journalist’s request to embed at their hospital. She said the doctor in the leadership position told her that ” ‘We have to stop muzzling physicians. I want to figure out a way to get our voices out there.’ “

“They’re just a doctor – they’re not corporate – but maybe it was a little bit of a thaw. I’m a tiny bit more optimistic,” she said.

CNN’s Lindsey Knight and Casey Hicks contributed to this report.

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com

DAY ONE; FOOT IN MOUTH 

Smith didn't mean to trivialize discrimination of others in remarks about unvaccinated, she says

YES SHE DID

Elise von Scheel - 

New Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says she didn't mean to downplay discrimination against minority communities when she said unvaccinated people have received the worst discrimination of any group in more than 50 years.



"I want to be clear that I did not intend to trivialize in any way the discrimination faced by minority communities and other persecuted groups both here in Canada and around the world or to create any false equivalencies to the terrible historical discrimination and persecution suffered by so many minority groups over the last decades and centuries," she wrote in a statement.

"I am committed to listening, learning and addressing the issues affecting minority communities."

The statement says her office will be setting up meetings to help her better understand what those communities are facing — and that Canadians need to work together to end all discrimination.

On Tuesday, during Smith's first hours as Alberta's premier, she said people who didn't get COVID-19 vaccines faced the most discrimination.

"They have been the most discriminated against group that I've ever witnessed in my lifetime," she said.

"This has been an extraordinary time, in the last year in particular, and I want people to know that I find that unacceptable."

She promised during the United Conservative Party leadership race that if elected she would amend the Alberta Human Rights Act to add vaccination status as a grounds subject to protection from discrimination, the way race, sexual orientation and religion are currently protected.

Smith said she knows society broadly was working to get to a high level of vaccination, but now it's time to treat the virus as endemic, similar to influenza.

'I don't have a choice to have the dark skin I have'

Tuesday's comments led to widespread backlash against the premier from political critics, community leaders and a fellow premier.

"She has marginalized and overlooked the trauma, the ongoing harm, the discrimination, the racism [against] First Nations peoples. And we were here before there was an Alberta, so we have been fighting a long battle," Rachel Snow, an Indigenous legal scholar and member of the Stoney Nakoda Nations, told CBC News.

Alberta's last residential school wasn't closed until the 1990s.

The leader of the Official Opposition reacted to Smith's comments, saying an apology was needed.

"We are trying to draw people to Alberta.… The ignorant, harmful comments about vaccines made by the new premier hurt our reputation and, by extension, our economic future. She must apologize immediately," NDP Leader Rachel Notley wrote on Twitter.

Anila Lee Yuen, the CEO of the Centre for Newcomers in Calgary, also commented.

"I felt it in my stomach and my heart sank and I thought, 'Here we go again, we're going to have to defend our right to be here," she said.

"I don't have a choice to have the dark skin I have, I don't have the choice to be born a woman."

Outgoing B.C. Premier John Horgan also scoffed at Smith's comparison.

"It's laughable, quite frankly," he told CFAX 1070's Al Ferraby on Wednesday.

"These are critical times, and for the incoming premier to focus on a sliver of the population who chose not to get vaccinated when there are all these other challenges seems short-sighted to me, and I just disagree with her."

At least one faith group has asked to meet with Smith.

"We have reached out to the premier's office to express our concerns surrounding these comments and are keen on meeting with the premier to discuss antisemitism, discrimination in our community & others in Alberta, the need for mandatory Holocaust education & the story of Alberta's Jewish community," the Jewish Federation of Edmonton wrote in a social media statement.

Civil liberties group raising transparency concerns ahead of Emergencies Act inquiry

OTTAWA — The Canadian Civil Liberties Association says it fears the federal government will seek to keep some information from becoming public during an inquiry into the unprecedented use of the Emergencies Act.



Cara Zwibel, a lawyer with the group, said she has questions about what is being submitted as evidence.

"I do have concerns about the level of transparency that the federal government has been displaying through this process," she said. "That's a problem in terms of not being forthright with Parliament, and not being forthcoming with the Canadian public."

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government triggered the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14, a week after protesters first blockaded the Detroit-Windsor Ambassador Bridge and several weeks into what he called the "illegal occupation" of downtown Ottawa by anti-lockdown protesters and their vehicles.

It was the first time a government invoked the law since it passed in 1988.

The temporary measures under the act gave authorities greater leeway to make arrests, impose fines, tow vehicles and freeze assets.

Trudeau revoked the emergency declaration Feb. 23, two days after the NDP joined the Liberals in a House of Commons motion affirming his government's choice to use the exceptional powers.

The inquiry and a special parliamentary committee are required under the Emergencies Act to scrutinize the government's decision-making.

MPs and Senators on the joint committee have expressed frustration with the testimony of Liberal ministers, the director of CSIS and others.

Justice Minister David Lametti repeatedly prefaced his responses to questions from committee members in April by saying he "would not betray cabinet confidence" or that he was bound by solicitor-client privilege.

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland's appearance before the committee in June was, in her own words, "adversarial" at times. Several members accused her of not answering questions, being evasive, and of not bringing any new information.

The commission said in June that the government committed to the extraordinary step of providing "all the inputs that were before cabinet" when it declared the emergency, but Commissioner Paul Rouleau has not said whether he will release that information publicly.

Zwibel and others are raising concerns that some documents could be held back from the public by different levels of government, citing confidentiality or national security risks.

"We will have questions about whether the government is being forthcoming, about whether the evidence is going to allow the kind of transparency that we think is required," she said.

Key participants in the inquiry, including CSIS and the Ontario government, were still filing documents with the commission throughout the day Wednesday.

They are among five dozen witnesses who are set to testify, including Trudeau and other ministers, police services and "Freedom Convoy" organizers.

Adding to transparency concerns is the time the inquiry has to complete its work. The commission is mandated to provide a final report to Parliament by Feb. 20, 2023.

"They have a very ambitious schedule," said Zwibel. "There's a lot of witnesses they want to hear from there are a lot of documents to get through."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 12, 2022.

The Canadian Press

Deaths of homeless people in B.C. rose by 75% in 2021: coroner

VANCOUVER — The toxic drug crisis in British Columbia was a key factor in pushing the number of deaths of homeless people up by 75 per cent in 2021 compared with the year before, the BC Coroners Service says.



A preliminary report released Wednesday by the service shows there were 247 deaths of people experiencing homelessness last year.

"This report reflects the risks and realities that people experiencing homelessness face every day," chief coroner Lisa Lapointe said in a statement.

"We know that many are facing significant health concerns, including physical disabilities, mental-health challenges and substance-use issues. Additionally, as is also evident in the province's housed population, the report details the significant risks associated with toxic drugs for those who are unhoused."

She said she hoped the report would support "positive action" during and beyond Homelessness Action Week, which runs until Oct. 15 in B.C.

The report says 85 per cent of deaths last year among people experiencing homelessness were accidental, and 93 per cent of those accidental deaths were caused by the illicit drug supply.

The coroners service says an average of 153 homeless people died each year between 2016 and 2020.

In a joint statement, Housing Minister Murray Rankin and Mental Health and Addictions Minister Sheila Malcolmson called each death a tragedy.

"The data is a stark reminder of the devastating impacts of the toxic drug crisis on people in B.C., compounded by the daily risks and health challenges faced by people experiencing homelessness," the statement said.

"We are working on all fronts to turn the tide on this crisis, including expanding treatment services and harm reduction measures like drug checking and prescribed safer supply, including for people experiencing homelessness."

The ministers said the government is continuing to open supportive housing and complex care housing spaces for people who need a higher level of support, for overlapping mental health and substance use challenges, trauma or acquired brain injuries.

A larger report looked at the number of deaths among people experiencing homelessness in the decade from 2012 to 2021.

It found that people between 30 and 59 years old accounted for 72 per cent of reported deaths, and 83 per cent of the people who died were men.

More than half of the investigated deaths occurred in either the Fraser or Vancouver Coastal health authorities.

Nearly three-quarters of the investigated deaths were classified as accidental, and 87 per cent of those accidental deaths were determined to have been caused by illicit drug toxicity.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 12, 2022.

The Canadian Press

WORD OF THE DAY
Bear expert says B.C. attack on family was likely a rare 'predaceous' incident

Oct 5

VANCOUVER — An expert in bear behaviour says an attack on a family in northeastern British Columbia that left two women with critical injuries appears to have been a rare example of a "predaceous" attack by a black bear.



Ellie Lamb, director of community outreach for the Get Bear Smart Society, said that by knocking down the women near Dawson Creek Monday night then staying close by them for more than an hour, the large boar bear was likely treating humans as food.

RCMP said they shot the bear dead after it was observed "guarding" the injured women, aged 30 and 48, and could not be chased off.

Lamb, a wildlife guide who serves on several B.C. advisory bodies related to human-bear interaction, said bears could exhibit predatory behaviour towards humans if improperly managed at a young age, but this was extremely uncommon.

In a "food-based situation," a bear would be "unwilling to give it up easily," said Lamb.

"They would stand guard to make sure they don’t lose this food-based situation to another animal.”

She said officers were left with no option but to kill the bear involved in Monday's attack on Bear Mountain.

However, in most human-bear encounters, bears usually yield, said Lamb.

She said that people approached by a bear should not run. Instead, they should get bear spray ready, stand their ground and fight for space by firmly telling the bear to back off. If the bear continues to advance, the spray should be used, she said.

Two GoFundMe pages have been set up to raise money for women said by organizers to be the victims of the attack.

One page says a woman in Edmonton's Royal Alexandra Hospital is in critical condition. The other says a woman in intensive care in Vancouver risks losing her left arm and has suffered multiple other lacerations.

The B.C. Conservation Officer Service said it would release an update on its investigation into the attack, which also left a teenage boy injured.

Cpl. Madonna Saunderson of RCMP North District said details of the victims' condition would not be released by police.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published on Oct. 5, 2022.

This story was produced with the financial assistance of the Meta and Canadian Press News Fellowship.

Nono Shen, The Canadian Press

B.C. breaking its own law on climate-change reporting, Sierra Club tells court


VANCOUVER — An environmental group is in court accusing the British Columbia government of failing to report if its climate plans will achieve key greenhouse gas emissions targets, as required by a provincial law.



Harry Wruck, a lawyer representing Sierra Club BC, told a B.C. Supreme Court judge that climate change accountability legislation from 2019 requires the government to publish annual reports that outline progress toward emissions targets for 2025, 2040 and 2050.

Wruck said annual reports are the only mechanism for transparency and accountability, if they include details on how close or far the government is to meeting its targets.

"We're asking the court to interpret the legislation and resolve a dispute between the two parties," he said.

Wruck referred to a decision by the High Court of Justice in London, which in July forced the government in the United Kingdom to outline how its policies would achieve emissions targets. In 2020, Ireland's Supreme Court ordered the government to rewrite its climate-change plan in keeping with its legal obligation.

Sierra Club BC wants the province to come up with a new accountability report for 2021 by filling in the gaps of missing information on its progress toward meeting emissions target for 2025.

It also wants data included on a plan to cut carbon emissions in the oil and gas sector as the province moves toward building a liquefied natural gas industry with the construction of a pipeline across the province and LNG Canada export terminal in Kitimat.

Andhra Azevedo, another lawyer representing the Sierra Club, told the court the B.C. government seems to have a "trust us" approach, which does not align with the legislation's transparency and accountability purposes.

The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy said in a statement that the province has the strongest climate accountability measures in Canada.

It said its annual reports provide the latest available data, but the Sierra Club's lawyers argued the province still isn't explicitly saying what action it would take to get the province to its various targets beyond 2030.

"Nor can it be assumed that progress to 2030 means that you're going to target for three years from now, in 2025," Azevedo said.

"The plan could be good or bad," she said. "It's not about the court assessing that. The law simply requires B.C. to tell us enough information to assess whether the plan is good or bad ... and how far the plan gets us toward the targets."

Azevedo said that while the targets are not enforceable and there are no consequences for not meeting them, the annual reports were meant to allow the public and the legislature to hold the government to account for its failure to achieve them.

The B.C. government released its CleanBC initiative in 2018 with a plan to lower climate-changing emissions. Three years later, that initiative evolved into the CleanBC Road Map to 2030. Its aim was to meet the province's legislated target to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent of 2007 levels by the end of the decade.

David Cowie, a lawyer representing the B.C. government, said gaps had become apparent in the initial plan, creating the impetus to develop a followup plan, which Premier John Horgan introduced as a priority for the government.

Environment and Climate Change Strategy Minister George Heyman echoed those sentiments toward a path to fulfilling the province's net-zero emissions commitment for 2050, Cowie added.

"Is it your submission that those statements equate to compliance with the statutory provisions?" Justice Jasvinder Basran asked.

Cowie said the opposing lawyers seemed to suggest there was no plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2030, but the government had no intention of stopping there.

"But I take your point. That does not satisfy the obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as far as that's required," he said.

Besides the oil and gas sector, the government has committed to reducing emissions in transportation, buildings, communities and industry.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 4, 2022.

Camille Bains, The Canadian Press

TOXIC WHITE MASCULINITY
Committee study on abuse in sport will look to expand beyond just hockey, MPs say


OTTAWA — The House of Commons committee investigating abuse in sport will reconvene next week to hash out how to expand its probe beyond Hockey Canada.



MPs on the committee say their inquiries must find a way to hold all sports organizations, coaches and athletes accountable for inappropriate and abusive behaviour.

Liberal MP Chris Bittle, one of 12 regular members on the Canadian Heritage committee, said the departure of Hockey Canada's president and board of directors Tuesday was necessary, but that alone "is not a substitute for culture change."

The committee launched its investigation into Hockey Canada in June, after it came to light that the organization settled a lawsuit with a woman who alleged eight members of the 2018 national junior team sexually assaulted her after a Hockey Canada gala in London, Ont.

Bittle said there needs to be a focus now on how to fix what ails not only Hockey Canada, but the deep cultural issues across many sports that have prompted a look-the-other-way attitude when medals and glory are on the line.

"We can look at whether there are organizations that are putting athletes on such pedestals that there are no consequences for their actions, including this case that has led to our inquiry where there didn't seem to be any consequences," Bittle said in an interview.

Hockey Canada officials told the committee in June they learned about the alleged assault the day after the London gala, but an internal investigation was not able to identify the players involved and no disciplinary action was taken.

"Why wasn't there a look to say, 'There's certain people who shouldn't be wearing the Maple Leaf on their chest representing Canada moving forward'?" Bittle asked. "If there's no consequences for coaches and athletes in terms of their conduct, it's going to be worse."

NDP MP Peter Julian said the leadership overhaul at Hockey Canada does not change the "fundamental issues around how Hockey Canada treats these horrific allegations of sexual violence, treats sexual abuse, treats victims."

Getting to the bottom of that should be a priority for the committee, but Julian said those questions need to be asked of many more sporting organizations.

"It's not just Hockey Canada that is not taking seriously the issues of protecting athletes and protecting the public," he said. "So there is a lot of work for our committee still to do."

The committee normally meets on Tuesdays and Fridays when the House of Commons is sitting and Julian said he expects the first meeting next week will be spent discussing where the inquiry now needs to go and which witnesses are still to be called.

"I think it's fair to say all members of the committee understand that this is beyond hockey, that this is a crisis in national sports organizations," said Julian. "And I expect that we will continue the hearings and broaden that mandate on that basis."

Allegations of psychological, physical and sexual abuse have arisen in multiple sports in Canada in recent years including rowing, boxing, rugby, skiing and soccer.

Hundreds of athletes in gymnastics and bobsled signed open letters in March calling for independent investigations of abuse and toxic environments. Both letters suggest athletes were afraid to speak up earlier for fear of being punished and left off national and Olympic teams.

In 2018, a lawsuit was filed against Alpine Canada by former skiers who said the organization covered up sexual abuse at the hands of a coach in part to prevent a loss of sponsorships.

Julian said the issue is not just that sporting organizations have been allowing toxic environments, but also that the federal government hasn't done anything to stop it.

"The federal government has let national sports organizations run themselves with no oversight, with no obligations, and that has to fundamentally change," said Julian.

That is starting to change. Sport Minister Pascale St.-Onge suspended federal funding for both Hockey Canada and Gymnastics Canada earlier this year when the abuse allegations arose.

She is overhauling the contribution agreements so that sports bodies have to show accountability, transparency and a commitment to safe sport in order to receive federal money.

To get funding next year, all sporting organizations are required to sign on with the new sporting integrity commissioner, who was hired in June to implement a "Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport."

As of now, only two national federations have signed on: Volleyball Canada and Weightlifting Canada.

In its first three months of operation, the integrity commissioner's office received 24 formal complaints, but two-thirds were related to people in sporting organizations that haven't yet signed on to the process.

Only six of the complaints were considered admissible under the commissioner's jurisdiction.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 12, 2022.

Mia Rabson, The Canadian Press

Hockey culture suffers from a 'systemic problem' of sexual violence, minister says

Ashley Burke - Sept 29

Sport Minister Pascale St-Onge says there's a "systemic problem" of sexual violence and toxic masculinity in Canada's hockey culture that Hockey Canada has failed to change.

Her comment was a response to a Fifth Estate investigation that identified at least 15 group sexual assault cases involving junior hockey players investigated by police since 1989 — half of which surfaced in the past decade.

At least 50 players have been accused in the alleged crimes. Half were charged and only one was convicted after taking a plea to a lesser offence, the Fifth Estate found.

"We're talking about a systemic issue," St.-Onge told CBC News on Thursday. "The stories that we're reading about are deeply disturbing and sickening, quite frankly."

"We've heard these stories before. It's not the first time we talked about the toxic culture in hockey. But nothing has been done, or not enough has been done in the past 10 years. It's a terrible legacy we want to see change."

St-Onge sharpened her condemnation of Hockey Canada on Thursday, arguing the organization doesn't have the luxury of years to change its culture. She said this toxic culture in the sport has been "normalized for too long."

"A lot of players have become men who have never taken responsibility for their actions and what happened," she said. "But it's also about the people in management and in leadership roles that have also failed all those years.

"So far, I don't think what's been done is enough, for sure."

Hockey Canada continues to face calls for a change to its leadership; one of those calls came from St-Onge. The hockey organization has been under intense public scrutiny since May, after a woman filed a $3.5-million lawsuit alleging eight hockey players — some of them members of the 2018 World Junior hockey team — sexually assaulted her.

Hockey parents were outraged to learn that Hockey Canada used a fund made up in part of their registration fees to pay for a settlement in that case and others.

St-Onge suspended Hockey Canada's funding in June — the strongest sanction at her disposal, she said. A series of major sponsors followed suit and pulled their financial support for the hockey organization.

There are a number of conditions Hockey Canada must meet before federal funding can resume. But St-Onge didn't close the door on further conditions after the completion of a financial audit and a series of ongoing investigations.

'There needs to be change in leadership in Hockey Canada,' says sports minister

"I'm giving myself all the flexibility to decide when the federal funding will be reintroduced," she said.

Hockey Canada is facing a "real sustainability problem," said St-Onge, as parents wonder if they should sign up their children for hockey and provincial federations threaten to withhold their dues.

"It can't take two, three, four, five years to change the culture," she said. "There needs to be a 180-degree shift in hockey culture and it needs to happen now."

Hockey Canada says it's taking action

In a statement, Hockey Canada said that "while culture change cannot happen overnight," it is "taking immediate action to eliminate inappropriate action in and around our game."

The hockey organization said it has made progress on its plan to address "toxic" culture by launching a third-party complaint mechanism, rolling out mandatory training for national teams and working on updating its policies.

"We are committed to making the changes necessary to improve the culture of Canada's game, including by taking a leadership role in prioritizing safe sport in Canada," said Hockey Canada in a statement to CBC News on Thursday.

The hockey organization is encouraging anyone who feels they were a victim of maltreatment, sexual violence or any other kind of abuse to come forward and report it.

Hockey Canada said it's also "important to note" it commissioned a former Supreme Court justice to conduct a third-party governance review.



Hockey Canada president and chief operating officer Scott Smith told a Commons committee on July 27 that his organization's goal is to

© Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press

House of Commons committee resumes next month

The only member of Hockey Canada's leadership who publicly resigned during the controversy, Michael Brind'Armour, is scheduled to testify at a House of Commons committee on Oct. 4.

Brind'Amour is the former chair of Hockey Canada's board of directors. He stepped down in early August, saying "there is no need to wait for a new era."

The Commons committee has expanded its review into how Hockey Canada handles cases of sexual assault allegations to include other sports.

Andrea Skinner, the Hockey Canada board's new interim chair, is also being called to testify next month. She was first elected to the board in November 2020, used to serve as a member of the risk management committee and was chair of the human resources committee.

The committee has asked Hockey Canada's board of directors to submit any notes it took during in-camera sessions when it discussed the 2018 group sexual assault case and settlement.

You can watch the Fifth Estate's documentary Anatomy of a Scandal Thursday at 9 p.m. (9:30 p.m. in Newfoundland) on CBC-TV or stream it on CBC Gem.

Delusional broadcast disorder has claimed its latest victim: John Cleese

Opinion by Marina Hyde -The Guardian

How very interesting to hear John Cleese explain how he’d be immediately cancelled or censored on the BBC, in comments made freely and at considerable length yesterday in the marquee 8.10am interview slot on the BBC’s flagship Radio 4 news programme. Explaining why he was about to become a presenter on GB News, the 82-year-old declared loftily: “The BBC have not come to me and said: ‘Would you like to have some one-hour shows?’ And if they did, I would say: ‘Not on your nelly!’ Because I wouldn’t get five minutes into the first show before I’d been cancelled or censored.” To which the only possible response is, “Morning, Major!”


Photograph: Amel Emrić/AP

These days, Cleese claims to “live in hotel rooms” – a bit on-the-nose, but there you go – and evidently boasts a lively range of views. In the strictest interests of accuracy, we should note that he was recently given a whole two series of a sitcom on the BBC, with the last episode of Hold the Sunset broadcast in 2019, a few months before the pandemic hit. Furthermore, it was barely a month ago that Cleese was tweeting: “GB News is sometimes referred to, rather wittily, as ‘KGB News’. To what extent is GB News influenced by Russian interests?” I don’t know – but perhaps it’s a matter that could be explored on his new GB News show. We’re told anything goes.

For now, what seems clear is that Cleese suffers one of the great afflictions of our age, a kind of delusional broadcast disorder that can make the sufferer believe they have been cancelled by the BBC even while they are literally on the BBC. The worst part of it is that we are not allowed to discuss this social sickness because of political correctness. I tried to tell my husband about it at breakfast yesterday – he works at the BBC – but he told me to be quiet so he could listen to John Cleese on the BBC. Like Cleese, I had been silenced.

In any rational world you’d be able to state the obvious reality – the condition is overwhelmingly suffered by men. But you can’t say it! You can’t say it! You can look at Cleese, or Noel Edmonds, or Nigel Farage, or Laurence Fox, but you’re banned from saying what you see. You have to pretend that women are out there every five minutes wanging on about how they’re not allowed to have a primetime show forever, as well as a bus pass or leadership of a political party, and how their only alternative option is presenting hours of gloriously bitter live telly every week on one of our bazillion-pound news-o-tainment channels.

Related video: John Cleese has revealed he will be joining GB News

Duration 1:29   View on Watch

In a sane world, you’d be allowed to say scientific facts, like the fact that 90% of heroically whingeing BBC cancellees are men, 95% of them are acrimoniously divorced, and 110% of them have “divorced energy”. (Obviously, it’s Not All Previously Primetime Men – Mr Blobby has behaved with perfect dignity.) Yet you can’t say it. You’d get cancelled in seconds. In fact, I don’t even know how I’m writing this next sentence.

Pity me. In my incredibly vulnerable position as a newspaper columnist, I have to think about this stuff constantly. Constantly! I once described a soon-to-launch TV news channel as sure to become “unmoored from facts” – and its CEO voided his pram of all toys. He spent rather a lot of time to-ing and fro-ing with the readers’ editor demanding some mean words be changed, before handing Press Gazette a copy of his very grand letter to the Guardian (which was also subsequently published by the Guardian). In it, he explained: “We are absolutely committed to our mission to report news in the most accurate and balanced way we can. It is unfortunate that your article failed to adhere to this basic principle.” The channel in question? Why, it was GB News.

Related: Allegations swirl around Paul Dacre’s Daily Mail. Until they clear, a peerage would be a travesty | Jane Martinson

Don’t get me wrong, I was and am still hugely amused by Angelos Frangopoulos, the adorable little Aussie snowflake who wrote that letter. But imagine how I felt last week when I saw his channel had given a guest spot to Naomi Wolf, who hasn’t been playing with a full deck of data points since the 00s. Wolf’s appearance was essentially a very, very long diatribe against the Covid vaccine. Her assertion that “mass murder has taken place” was bolstered by the GB News presenter Mark Steyn explaining that vaccines “cause every conceivable kind of damage”. Other lowlights of Naomi’s appearance, which was allowed to proceed without a single piece of disinformation being questioned? The claim that Covid vaccinations were “bioweapons” that were “sterilising people” and “poisoning breast milk”. Also, “civil society has been wholly co-opted by bad actors trying to destroy British civil society”. Wolf went on – entirely unchallenged – to compare today’s medical establishment to the eugenicists and exterminators of the Third Reich. Steyn just nodded along, repeatedly going “yeah”, presumably in “the most accurate and balanced way” he could. He booked her again the very next night.

Anyway, a fun new stablemate for John Cleese. Cleese famously decided that the Brexit debate saw this country sink “to the lowest intellectual level ever”, so I strongly urge him to push that envelope and book Wolf on his first show. In the meantime, those of us saddened by a former idol’s comic decline should comfort ourselves that some of the best recent comedy has happened on GB News. Last year on the free speech channel, presenter Guto Harri took the knee live on air, got suspended for it, quit and was soon made prime minister Boris Johnson’s comms chief. The whole batshit saga was easily funnier than anything Cleese has done since A Fish Called Wanda (1988), and we must look forward to his promising new show in that spirit.

Marina Hyde is a Guardian columnist
What Just Happened?! by Marina Hyde (Guardian Faber, £18.99) is out now