Saturday, June 03, 2023

As wildfires burn in Alberta forests, what happens to the animals?

Story by Naama Weingarten • CBC
June 3,2023

A raven lands on the roof of a barn as thick smoke from wildfires obscures the sun near Cremona, Alta., on Wednesday, May 17, 2023.
© The Canadian Press/Jeff McIntosh

As wildfires keep burning in Alberta, it's not just humans who have to bear the effects.

From birds to mammals to insects, some animals perish, some escape, some grow accustomed to a new habitat — and plenty thrive.

Here's what some wild animals have been through since this spring's extreme wildfire season took off.

Experts say whether wildlife can withstand a fire largely depends on the animal.

University of Alberta biological sciences professor Erin Bayne said larger mammals like wolves, elk, moose and deer can easily run out of a fire's path and find a source of water. Smaller mammals might not be fast enough to get away, but some, like deer mice, will go underground.

"We've never seen catastrophic mortality in the boreal forest of most mammals, simply because they are adapted to deal with it to some degree," Bayne said.

He added that some birds were actually lucky when it comes to the timing of Alberta's recent wildfires, since few had started nesting in early May. But some birds with historical nesting sites who depend on older forests will need to find new homes.

"If this had been [later in May], then we would have had massive destruction of nests and the birds would have had to either bail and not nest that year or probably nest somewhere else and try again," Bayne said.

Wildfire danger also doesn't come just from flames, but from where animals flee. Many find themselves in urban areas where interactions with humans can put them in danger.

Dale Gienow, the executive director of WildNorth, a non-profit that provides care to injured or orphaned wildlife, said there's been a small uptick in the number of animals turned in during the wildfires.

He said he's mostly seen birds and small mammals who have been run over by cars or ended up in people's backyards.

"We don't get a lot of burned animals. Most of those animals unfortunately perish," he told CBC's Edmonton AM.

Post-wildfire recovery won't look the same everywhere.


University of Alberta ecology professor Mark Boyce has co-ordinated research on the aftermath of wildfires in North America. He said it typically takes a year or two until vegetation grows back enough for most wildlife to return. It can take anywhere from four to 12 years for it to reach peak levels ideal for mammals like deer, elk and moose.

Many birds also thrive after wildfires: insects like beetles arrive around the one-year mark to feed on burned trees, becoming a good food source.

Despite its visible destruction, fire is an integral part of Alberta's boreal and Rocky Mountain forests.

"That doesn't make it any less devastating for people who have properties in those kinds of areas," Boyce said. "But fire is a natural part of these ecosystems."

Even if animals aren't specifically adapted to wildfires, many tend to do better in the aftermath.

As trees burn away, they create open access for sunlight to hit the ground, helping different types of vegetation grow and giving animals more food sources.

"There are benefits from a fire going through," Bayne said. "What we're seeing right now, however, is unprecedented."

More than 1.1 million hectares have burned across Alberta so far this wildfire season, making it the second-worst on record with months still left to go. The previous record was set in 1981 when 1.3 million hectares burned.

The 2019 wildfire season also came close to a new record, burning more than 880,000 hectares.

"After years of repeated fires, that makes it very difficult for forested ecosystems to regrow," Bayne said.

He said that if these conditions keep escalating, some vegetation could disappear from Alberta's forests over the next century, and the habitat might become a mixture of grassland and smaller patches of trees.

"It might be premature to say we've crossed that line," he said. "I think this season, if nothing else, is a warning bell."

At a news conference this week, Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said the amount of forest burned by wildfires is projected to double by 2050 due to climate change.

Boyce added it's hard to say what a future with more wildfires will mean for the natural environment.

"Fires are an integral part of the ecosystems," he said.

"But their role will change as a consequence of climate change, and exactly how that's going to roll out, I don't think we fully understand yet."
50% LIBERTARIAN POSITION 
Poilievre links Pride with freedom but stays mum on parades, condemns Uganda bill
Story by The Canadian Press • Yesterday 


OTTAWA — Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is wishing LGBTQ people a happy Pride month, linking it with his platform's focus on freedom, but he is not saying whether he'll be attending any Pride events.

The Opposition leader also joined a weeklong chorus of condemnation of Uganda's plan to jail gender and sexual minorities.

"I wish everyone a happy Pride month, because our freedom is something in which all of us can take pride," Poilievre told reporters in Winnipeg on Friday morning.

LGBTQ groups across North America celebrate June as Pride month, although festivals and parades happen throughout the summer in different Canadian cities.

When asked whether he'd march in any Pride parades, Poilievre instead talked about the values of choice and openness.

He said that for LGBTQ people, this includes "the freedom to marry, start a family, raise kids; freedom from bigotry and bashing; freedom to be judged by personal character, not by group identity; freedom to start a life and be judged on your merit."

He also said Canada should continue to resettle LGBTQ refugees from abroad.

His comments come as conservative groups in the U.S. take aim at LGBTQ people, such as by blocking access to gender-affirming care for transgender people or protesting drag queen performances.

Related video: Poilievre responds to anti-LGBTQ2 laws in Uganda, does not comment on participating in pride march (Global News) View on Watch

When asked about a Uganda law that allows judges to jail people for up to 10 years for same-sex relations, Poilievre called the legislation "outrageous and appalling." He noted that former prime minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government had been a vocal advocate for LGBTQ people. THAT'S WHY HIS PAL AND CABINET MINISTER JOHN BAIRD NEVER LEFT THE CLOSET

Poilievre's comments on the Uganda bill come four days after condemnation from members of his caucus, as well as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and numerous MPs from various parties.

Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly spoke against the bill on Monday, noting that it includes the death penalty for certain offences.

“The reversal of human rights that this law represents is deeply concerning, and we are disturbed by the heinous forms of violence it legalizes against a segment of Uganda’s population, only because of who they are and who they love," she wrote in a statement.

"This act is a blatant violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of LGBTQ+ Ugandans. It exposes them to systematic persecution, oppression, violence, including the possibility of life terms in prison and the death penalty."

Joly said the Liberals will work with groups in the region to respond to the bill.

The Equal Rights Coalition, a group of 42 countries including Canada, said the bill includes draconian punishments and will harm programs aimed at shoring up health, echoing concerns from HIV-prevention groups.

The Dignity Network, a coalition of 61 non-governmental Canadian groups that advocate for LGBTQ rights abroad, says it's working with contacts in Uganda to scope out how Ottawa and grassroots organizations can respond.

The group says that Canada should have a special envoy, similar to the U.S., who can monitor LGBTQ rights around the world and speak out when people are under threat.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 2, 2023.

Dylan Robertson, The Canadian Press



DECOLONIZING POSTMODERN MYTHOLOGY 
Opinion: Why I created the superhero I wish I had as a kid

Something magic happens when a kid connects with superhero comics.

This pop mythology made of masks, capes and sequential panels is unlike any other medium: a unique sensory overload. It is a collective patchwork of modern legends who transcend and outlive their creators. A superhero comic hits like magic lightning and can open a channel of infinite imagination.


Luciano Vecchio - Courtesy of Luciano Vecchio


In my case, that lightning hit me as a young kid in Zárate, my own Smallville in Argentina, a corner of the Global South very, very far from where the heroes I was reading about were born. The gaps of geopolitical contrast and cultural difference between North and South America were closed with a powerful single bound.

To me, Superman and his kind really existed. Even as a child I could recognize my own superpower. To draw! To imagine heroes and give them life. With the commitment of a young Bruce Wayne’s oath to fight for justice, I swore on a pile of Spanish translation editions that drawing the comics I loved would be my job when I grew up. And either through stubbornness or precognition, it came to happen.

There are a few points of resonance between queer identity and superhero narratives. The dual identity of the closeted life, the customization of our image and presentation, the sense of otherness and finding a chosen family among peers and even the intentionally coded narrative of mutants as a metaphor for marginalized groups. But coding through metaphor, while sometimes producing smart and less obvious reads, can also be optional and invisible to those who prefer to stay unaware of what they reject.

I grew up as a closeted queer kid in self-denial, in a cultural context with scarce representation and acceptance. Even when I wasn’t an outsider in my social surroundings, I was always an outsider to myself. I was separated from my truth and the organic emotional growth that cisgender, heterosexual people too often take for granted.

As for many, the ongoing metaverse of monthly superhero comics remained, as I grew up, a place of refuge and expansion where anything could happen, in contrast with the then-dull world outside my window. And like many young gay geeks, I orbited toward Wonder Woman, with her fierce compassion, as my icon of anti-patriarchy.

Still, it would take me 21 years of life to build up the strength and courage to face my fears and start living my truth. And I am one of the lucky ones. In that, there is no justice.

A few decades later, I found myself working as a freelance professional artist juggling assignments for DC (which shares a parent company with CNN) and Marvel, living my childhood fantasy. That’s when the opportunity arose to manifest Sereno, my own creator-owned superhero for the local Argentinian scene.

In this genre, creating a new superhero always happens in dialogue with the source archetypes who ignited it all. If Superman and Batman were expressions of the collective unconscious of their era, I asked myself, what kind of fictional hero would I invoke, and what would make him unique?

It’s all about perspective, and mine was that of a gay adult, an enthusiast of practicing art-as-magic, living in Buenos Aires – a place in constant crisis and effervescence, at a crossroads of cultural expressions and colonization from the various nodes of the Global North – a few years after the legalization of equal marriage in Argentina changed my civilian and political existence.

Braiding together influences from American superheroes and their Japanese counterparts like Sailor Moon and the Knights of the Zodiac through the prism of my Latinoamerican sensibility, my hero Sereno, which in Spanish means both “Serene” and “Nightwatchman,”emerged as a Magical Boy, a male version of the Japanese “Magical Girl” archetype. A spiritual warrior of light defending his utopian city, a queer lead character, a counteroffer of sensitive masculinity reclaiming what patriarchy denied us.


Luciano Vecchio's comic "Sereno." - Courtesy of Luciano Vecchio

Sereno is my love letter, my humble gift in return to the genre that nurtured me. He is the hero I wish I had as a kid, who would in turn save my past, present and future.

The stories we tell can shape ideas and transform the real world we inhabit. With that realization there was no turning back. I had to pick my role in the imagination battlefields to participate in the change I want to see in everyday life for me and my community.

A very intimate, creatively transforming project, Sereno not only expanded what I was capable of artistically, but he also amplified my visibility and role as an out and vocal gay creator. LGBTQ representation in the world of superheroes became a passionate focus that I poured back into my more mainstream work.


I joined a vigorous group of other artists taking up this cause. The moment I had the chance, I wrote and drew the first canon gathering of every LGBTQ Marvel hero going together to the Pride march as a political statement, in a short story aptly titled “Assemble.” Soon after, both Marvel and DC presented their first-ever Pride anthologies, showcasing their LGBTQ characters and creators. I had the honor to participate in both. Now my childhood dream was updated with Purpose.


In a world that never stops ending, translating Sereno into English closes a magic circle that in turn opens new paths. I found myself writing and drawing gay mutant icon Iceman for Marvel, while at DC Superman himself, now the son of Clark Kent and Lois Lane and inheritor of the mantle, comes out as queer and winks at me from across the universes in some sort of transtemporal cosmic resonance. Truth, Justice, and a Better Tomorrow.

Sereno will soon be available for the first time in a book collection, and I find myself taking a step back from writing to focus on my drawing roots while preparing for my creation to take on a life of his own, to connect with other young people about to be struck by lightning like I was.

If you meet Sereno, I hope you get to know him so together we can imagine, across time and space, the best possible future.

Right-wing media figures are waging an anti-LGBTQ war on businesses over Pride Month

Story by Oliver Darcy • Yesterday .

Prepare yourself for a Pride Month imbued with callous intolerance.

Fueled by right-wing media personalities and institutions like Fox News, conservatives are waging a ferocious war on companies that express support for the LGBTQ community, with hostilities against the celebration of gay rights swelling to levels not seen in many years. In effect, the supposedly anti-cancel culture crowd is leading the summer’s biggest cancel culture campaign.

In recent weeks, right-wing media has smeared and incited boycotts against Bud Light and Target, two jumbo American brands that have been thrust into the center of the toxic culture wars. Both companies have been relentlessly attacked over their show of public support for the LGBTQ community. In recent days, The North Face, Kohl’s, and Chick-fil-A have also come under assault in the expanding war. And Disney, of course, has been an endless punching bag since it spoke out against the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” bill in Florida last year.

CNN  How Florida's new law is affecting Pride Month  Duration 2:26   View on Watch

In the right-wing media universe, in which millions of Americans firmly reside, these companies have been portrayed as “woke” and evil corporations seeking to groom children with radical — even Satantic — gender ideology that will corrupt their brains and ultimately lead to the destruction of society.

The attacks have put companies in the uncomfortable position of standing up for the values of their own employees and the public writ large against a relentless volley of threats of mass boycotts, lost revenue, and ultimately, long-term brand harm. With each offensive — and claimed victories — the activists wielding the pitchforks have become more emboldened and the business atmosphere more chilled.

Written in black and white, the attacks look deranged. But it is precisely what some of the loudest and most influential right-wing media figures are promoting to their large followings, with new self-generated outrage cycles generated daily. It isn’t quite QAnon, but it’s close — and it is being fed to the GOP base in broad daylight. You don’t have to go to the dark corners of the internet to find this style of crazed commentary; it’s available each day via mainstream right-wing outlets.

In many cases, prominent personalities are not even trying to be secretive about their end goal as they perhaps would have been done in years past. In fact, they are saying the quiet part aloud. The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh, one of the leading purveyors of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric in the US, has explicitly stated that the aim is to make the open embrace of the LGBTQ community harmful to brands.

“The goal is to make ‘pride’ toxic for brands,” Walsh tweeted. “If they decide to shove this garbage in our face, they should know that they’ll pay a price. It won’t be worth whatever they think they’ll gain. First Bud Light and now Target. Our campaign is making progress. Let’s keep it going.”

It is important to remember that a not-so-insignificant portion of the American populace takes this rhetoric to heart. For the conservative news organizations and businesses that promote it, the rhetoric is profitable because it resonates with and excites their audiences. The articles generate clicks, videos attract eyeballs, and the content in general prompts significant engagement — the lifeblood of the internet.

Which is to say that this burgeoning facet of the culture wars, which is now unquestionably the most dominant strain, is not going away any time soon. In fact, with Pride Month about to get underway, and more brands showing their support for the LGBTQ community, expect more fronts to open up. As the right-wing media personalities leading this campaign have said: Bud Light and Target were just the beginning.

The Human Rights Campaign released a statement Wednesday, signed by more than 100 advocacy organizations and allies, condemning the right’s use of the “extremist playbook of attacks.”

“Their goal is clear: to prevent LGBTQ+ inclusion and representation, silence our allies and make our community invisible,” the coalition said. “These attacks fuel hate against LGBTQ+ people, just as we’ve seen this year with more than 500 anti-LGBTQ+ bills that restrict basic freedoms and aim to erase LGBTQ+ people.”

NO MORE RAINBOWS, 
RETURN OF THE PINK TRIANGLE














Conservative boycotts against Target and Bud Light are working thanks to a 'perfect storm' of social media and culture wars, experts say

Story by ahartmans@insider.com (Avery Hartmans,Natalie Musumeci) • 5h ago

A Pride month display at a Target in Wisconsin. 
Dominick Reuter/Insider© Provided by Business Insider

Target is the latest company swept up in a growing wave of boycotts led by right-wing critics.
 
The boycotts are aimed at companies that have allied themselves with trans people.
 
Experts say the boycotts work thanks to the culture wars and panic-stoking online and in the media.


In early May, Target began rolling out its Pride merchandise, just like last year and the years before, going back a decade.

But this year, something was different: Target workers began getting violent threats from customers.

The confrontations — which stemmed from an online backlash led by right-wing commentators who made false claims about certain Target Pride merchandise — prompted Target to start pulling some of the products from its shelves and disassembling prominent Pride displays at some stores.

But the fallout goes beyond Target. Bud Light was the target of social-media outcry in April after it partnered with the trans influencer and TikTok star Dylan Mulvaney. And Disney has found itself the target of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, as well as right-wing protesters and conspiracy theorists, after it took a stance against the state's controversial education bill dubbed "Don't Say Gay" by critics.

If it feels like these types of boycotts and online firestorms are gaining steam, that's because they are.

Experts say it's due to a combination of the culture wars and panic-stoking media coverage that forces brands to either back down or face a firestorm.

Protests spark fears for worker safety


 Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Brand boycotts are nothing new.

In fact, they are "as American as apple pie," Lawrence Glickman, a professor of American Studies at Cornell University and the author of "Buying Power: A History of Consumer Activism in America," said.

What is new is how polarized our society has become and how that polarization gets amplified on social media.

"These boycotts sort of came along at that moment when the right is making such a big deal about trans issues," he said. "If you watch a lot of conservative media, you might be very panicked about this. And so this is a way you can sort of assert your concern for that cause."

Glickman described the current situation as "kind of a perfect storm." The rhetoric around the boycott of Bud Light and protests against Target have been hostile to the point of threatening, with both companies citing fears for employee safety as a serious concern.

Bud Light owner Anheuser-Busch said that several of its facilities had received threats following the weeks of backlash against its brands.

Target CEO Brian Cornell wrote in a letter to employees last week that call-center workers were getting "high volumes of angry, abusive and threatening calls" and that store employees had been confronted in the aisles. The decision to pull the merchandise, he wrote, was in an effort to alleviate the threats to employees' physical and psychological safety.

And this comes at a time when retail workers were already facing unprecedented levels of violence. Restaurant and store workers were on the front lines of the battle over pandemic mask mandates, forced to act as enforcers and bouncers in the face of angry and sometimes violent customers.

More recently, a surge in organized retail crime — where professional shoplifters steal large quantities of inventory to resell for cash — has put store workers at risk of physical violence and even death on the job.

In fact, according to the National Customer Rage Survey, an annual survey of 1,000 Americans conducted by the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, found that customer aggressiveness is increasing: 43% said they had raised their voice at an employee, up from 35% in 2015.

The threats of violence, combined with low pay and shrinking hours, have made retail jobs less desirable than ever and have retailers scrambling to keep enough workers — which means that for CEOs like Cornell, protecting Target's labor force is not just an ethical issue, but a business decision.

How some brands ride out the storm



Scott Olson/Getty Images© Provided by Business Insider

Of course, not every company that finds itself in the center of this type of backlash receives threats — or caves to them. Like Bud Light, Nike also partnered with Mulvaney, but that outrage cycle seemed to blow over quickly.

Vanitha Swaminathan, the director of the Katz Center for Branding at the University of Pittsburgh's business school, said it comes back to authenticity. Swaminathan pointed to Nike, as well as eco-focused brands like Patagonia, as being able to weather these storms more successfully because their brand messaging remains the same, regardless of online backlash.

"Problems arise when brands do things inconsistently. When they seem to take a stance and then back away from that, it seems to be that consumers think that that's very gimmicky and they don't forgive a brand for doing that," she said. "We call this corporate hypocrisy."

In the long term, that can mean reputational damage and the potential trade-off between retaining older customers and attracting new ones, she said.

On top of that, as each successive company has backpedaled on its stances around LGBTQ issues, the movement has gained steam.

During an episode of his "Verdict" podcast late last month, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz described the "cumulative effect" of Disney, Bud Light, and Target being thrust under the microscope as a "deterrent" to the next company thinking about publicly allying itself with trans people and LGBTQ rights.

Within Target, "they're saying, we don't want to be Bud Light. We don't want to be Bud Light," Cruz said. "Well, you know what, the next company is gonna say, 'We don't want to be Bud Light or Target. We don't want to be Bud Light or Target.' That starts to get really powerful."

Cruz is just one prominent voice of many leading the charge against these corporations. Right-wing media are "not hiding the ball here," said Ari Drennen, the LGBTQ program director for Media Matters, a liberal watchdog group.

"They want to make it impossible effectively for major companies to really do any kind of nod to not just LGBTQ people, but just the entire concept of inclusivity," Drennen told Insider. "I think you see them turning to the marketplace as a kind of a last resort, a way to feel like they're doing something in the face of cultural forces that they feel otherwise pretty powerless to stop."
Mexico to fight US dispute over GM corn after formal consultations fail

A worker holds GMO yellow corn imported from the U.S., in Tepexpan



















Story by By Cassandra Garrison • Yesterday 

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) -Mexico said on Friday it would counter U.S. arguments over agriculture biotech measures, including plans to limit its use of genetically modified (GM) corn, in trade dispute settlement consultations requested by Washington earlier in the day.

The consultation request comes as the North American neighbors inch toward a full-blown trade dispute under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) over Mexico's policies to limit the use of GM corn, which it imports from the U.S.

If the consultations fail to resolve disagreements within 75 days, Washington can request a dispute settlement panel to decide the case.

Mexico said it was committed to "constructive dialogue" regarding U.S. concerns and to "reach a mutually satisfactory agreement."

Asked if Canada would take similar action to the U.S., a spokesperson for the Trade Ministry said Canada is "considering its next steps" and would be "guided by what is in the best interest of our farmers and the Canadian agriculture sector."

The United States requested formal trade consultations in March over objections to Mexico's plans to limit imports of GM corn and other agricultural biotechnology products. Those consultations took place, but failed to resolve the matter, senior officials of the U.S. Trade Representative's office said.

Mexico's agriculture ministry declined to comment, but the minister this week expressed confidence that the dispute with the U.S. would not escalate to a dispute settlement panel.

The conflict comes amid other disagreements between the U.S. and Mexico, most notably over energy in which the U.S. has argued that Mexico's nationalist policy prejudices foreign companies.

Despite February changes to Mexico's decree on GM corn, the U.S. said the Latin American country's policies are not based on science and appear inconsistent with its commitment under the USMCA.

The new decree eliminated a deadline to ban GM corn for animal feed and industrial use, by far the bulk of its $5 billion worth of U.S. corn imports, but maintained a ban on GM corn used in dough or tortillas.

Mexico argued on Friday the ban will not affect trade with the U.S., as Mexico produces more than enough white corn used for tortillas.

A senior Mexican executive, speaking before consultations were requested, said that because Mexico is not formally preventing sale of U.S. GM corn, any dispute panel would likely find little material damage had been done to U.S. business.

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has also said GM seeds can contaminate Mexico's age-old native varieties and has questioned their impact on human health.

February's revised "decree does call for a gradual substitution and eventual banning of biotech corn, and this part of the measure itself is not science-based," said a senior USTR official.

The consultations will also address Mexico's rejection of new biotech seeds for products like soybeans, cotton and canola, U.S. officials said.

Mexico argued on Friday that the decree "encourages Mexico to preserve planting with native seeds, which is done in compliance with the USMCA's environmental regulations."

Some sector experts have expressed concern that the move could set a precedent among other countries, which would disrupt the global corn trade.

The National Corn Growers Association, which represents U.S. farmers, praised the U.S.' move.

"Mexico's actions, which are not based on sound science, have threatened the financial wellbeing of corn growers and our nation's rural communities," association President Tom Haag said in a statement.

(Reporting by Cassandra Garrison; Additonal reporting by Adriana Barrera, Kylie Madry and Dave Graham in Mexico City and Ismail Shakil in Ottawa; Editing by Leslie Adler and William Mallard)
QUEBEC LANGUAGE LAW

Kahnawake says no to proposed language law

Story by The Canadian Press • Yesterday 

A no man’s land stood between two rooms of the Bonaventure Hotel in downtown Montreal last Friday: on one side, Quebec held a public dialogue session surrounding the province’s French language laws in the context of Indigenous rights, and on the other, the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador (AFNQL) held an open session in direct opposition.

“Today, the message that we have is that we’re not in support of this moving forward,” said Mohawk Council of Kahnawake (MCK) grand chief Kahsennenhawe Sky-Deer in the Quebec room.

Sky-Deer only briefly entered that room to deliver Kahnawake’s message that they would be actively opposing Quebec’s intent to propose a bill that protects Indigenous languages, because of the fact that the government has failed to collect feedback from Indigenous communities in what MCK called an “ingenuine consultation process.” She highlighted Kahnawake’s refusal to participate in consultations for legislation that she said Quebec ultimately has no right in imposing.

Sky-Deer argued that it’s not the government’s role to pass legislation in regards to Indigenous languages and that the only viable resolution to conflicts surrounding Quebec’s language laws is a total exemption from all French-language requirements for First Nations and Inuit.

“You all know it,” Sky-Deer said, as she sat on the panel alongside Ian Lafrenière, the Coalition Avenir Quebec (CAQ) minister responsible for relations with the First Nations and the Inuit. “This started in 1977 with the French Charter, and saying that French was the primary and predominant language in the province that needed to be protected. But you forgot about the 11 Nations and the Inuit who were here first, and our languages and cultures matter. That’s all I have.”

Upon concluding her remarks, Sky-Deer immediately left the room and returned to session with the AFNQL.

“I didn’t want it to be misconstrued that we’re participating in that forum,” Sky-Deer later told The Eastern Door.

Lafrenière did not directly respond to Sky-Deer’s statement at the time.

“We want to listen to you,” Lafrenière had said before Sky-Deer’s statements. “We want to see what we can do as a government to work together. This is not my job to protect your language and your culture, this is your job and your mandate, but as partners and as a government we want to work together on this.”

Lafrenière also took the opportunity to address comments made by fellow CAQ politician Pierre Dufour, who last month in Val d’Or claimed a 2015 Radio-Canada investigation into assault by police on Indigenous women was “full of lies.” He claimed he contacted Indigenous partners in Val d’Or directly after the comments were made.

“I’m completely against what he said. This is not my vision,” said Lafrenière, as he asked Indigenous communities to still view the government and his party as “partners,” despite his colleague’s comments.

Related video: Kahnawà:ke is one step closer to a new cultural and arts centre (cbc.ca)   The Gunye and Gahaga, or Mohawk community of Gunnawake  
Duration 4:23 View on Watch

Sky-Deer remained unimpressed with Lafrenière’s comments, telling The Eastern Door that the government’s insistence that they want to “listen” is inconsistent with their actions.

“The chiefs of the AFNQL have been, I think, pretty consistent in our message that we don’t see the need for the province to move in this direction,” Sky-Deer said. “If they really want to show us that they mean business and they want to help, don’t make French a requirement when we’re already speaking English and not our own languages.”

Quebec’s language laws limit the number of students English-speaking CEGEPs can accept and impose mandatory French-learning requirements. For students in Kahnawake, many of whom are trying to simultaneously learn Kanien'kéha, this imposition can limit educational opportunities, and, as Sky-Deer noted, could result in “learning a foreign language at the expense of your Indigenous language.”

AFNQL chief Ghislain Picard reiterated the organization’s lack of belief in the CAQ’s legislative proposal and said the AFNQL won’t stand down on the matter.

“I think Quebec has to understand that with opposition comes even more determination on our part. To me, that’s what I see happening not only in our level of leadership, but with men, women, young, old, everyone is in this frame of mind,” Picard said.

He also noted that though the session was called primarily to oppose the activities happening across the hallway, the AFNQL also wanted to meet to continue to discuss their own opinions on language legislation, without the input of CAQ members.

“We know when we are right. And on this issue, we are right,” he said. He noted the room was a safe space for chiefs and participants to discuss without CAQ members. “We’re on the right course of what needs to happen. And it’s a responsibility that we have to set the right conditions for this type of conversation to happen.”

Sky-Deer also reiterated that Kahnawake will not back down in resisting Quebec’s legislation. She mentioned that Quebec’s recent promise of $11 million to the new multi-purpose building project does not mean she trusts the province.

“That’s politics,” she said. “We can agree on one thing, but that absolutely doesn’t mean I have to agree with you on another.”

Sky-Deer said that ultimately, the government must listen to the opinions of First Nations and Inuit, rather than talking over them with their own legislation.

“The voices of the chiefs are what represent the real rights holders of our nations and of our communities,” she said. “That’s the voice and the direction that should be leading where this goes.”

evedcable@gmail.com

Eve Cable, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Eastern Door
HOMELESS RIGHT TO SHELTER
BC
Sweeps throughout the unhoused communities break inherent Indigenous rights, says outreach worker

Story by The Canadian Press • Yesterday 

For years, the unhoused community have been setting up tents in various locations throughout municipalities in B.C., with the city, bylaw, and police enforcing street and traffic regulations displacing the homeless with a lack of sustainable housing options available.

According to Nikki Otteson, founder of the Backpack Project, Victoria’s Princess Avenue, in front of Rock Bay shelter, and Pandora Avenue are places that are swept regularly.

“We get a lot of text messages and messages on social media, asking for tents and sleeping bags and clothing again,” said Otteson when reflecting on the aftermath of a sweep. “We hear lots of stories about what bylaw has taken and what they've thrown in the garbage. A lot of it is sentimental.”

When the spaces that unhoused people gathered in are swept, Otteson said “the first [thing] it does is it breaks up community and it breaks up safety.”

“When you’re scattered, you’re on your own again,” she said. “We're not only isolating them from the housed community, we're isolating them from their own communities.”

QomQem Coastal Connections is an Indigenous-led outreach program that supports Victoria’s unhoused, substance users, or those who have insecure and temporary housing.

“The folks that we are supporting are often displaced or disconnected from family and community,” shared Lacey Jones, an outreach worker with QomQem Coastal Connections. “I think being able to offer Indigenous-led services that are grounded in culture and offering that reconnection back to our relatives on the street is really imperative for their wellness.”

Jones shared that a few years ago, when the encampments had been prominent throughout Victoria, QomQem Coastal started to bring drumming to the unhoused.

“There was a Nuu-chah-nulth women’s dance group that came, and they brought their shawls and paddles,” she said.

Guy and Calvin Louie, alongside Pete Charlie, drummed Nuu-chah-nulth songs, inviting Indigenous folks from the encampment to dance with them.

Jones reflected on the experience of an individual she had been working closely with. She shared with Jones that after having danced, she had the “best sleep she’d had in years,” even though she was outside in a tent.

Brazilian Indigenous tribe protests new land bill (The Canadian Press)
Duration 0:54   View on Watch


“That was the first time she got up and danced in years,” said Jones.

“A long time ago our laws always stated that we always had a home in our community, we always had enough to eat,” shared Jones. “Looking at the sweeps and all these other things that are happening to Indigenous folks especially, goes directly against our inherent rights as Indigenous people to have a place to call home to have food to eat.”

She notes that bylaw enforcement of the homeless has “underpinnings of colonial society always telling us how to live and what we can keep…when they take down your tent, they'll decide what they'll throw away.”

“We have to go back to the idea of land being used as a way to generate wealth for some people, some individuals, and at the expense of others,” said Angela MacDougall, executive director at Battered Women's Support Services. “One of the major problems is that there's been an absolute divestment from this idea of housing being a necessity for people.”

Additionally, MacDougall notes that the lack of mental health services and substance-use treatment centers are significant issues when it comes to homelessness.

“Here we are now where we have encampments and we have encampments with people that can’t access housing, that are struggling with substance-use as a result of trauma… [and] are being poisoned by the drug supply,” she said. “People are congregating as a result of all these things.”

Due to ‘safety concerns,’ in early April, the City of Vancouver, and Vancouver Police Department (VPD) worked to shut down an illegal encampment on East Hastings, enforcing the Streets and Traffic Bylaw alongside the Vancouver Fire chief order to remove tent structures. Their primary concerns were for public safety and fire hazards, with more than 400 fires occurring in the eight months prior.

Though they worked to close the encampment in early April, some tents remain, said MacDougall.

“There's tents still here because there’s nowhere for people to go,” she said.

She explains that shelters are an emergency response and shouldn’t be positioned as “the housing option” for unhoused people.

“I would hope that we could, as a society, want to build options that don’t involve people living on the street, in a tent,” said MacDougall.

-30-

Alexandra Mehl, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Ha-Shilth-Sa

City of Kingston seeks court order to remove Belle Park encampment

Story by The Canadian Press • Yesterday

The city of Kingston is taking another step in its effort to remove an encampment at Belle Park that has remained at the centre of the region's conversations around homelessness for several years.

After initially issuing trespass notices in March to those on site, the city says it has relied on voluntary compliance to move residents and has not forcibly removed anyone.

Several months after the eviction notices were distributed however the city says about 25 people remain in the encampment, leading to an application for a ruling from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in order to remove the encampment at Belle Park.

A Thursday statement from the City of Kingston says this move is being made at council's direction, and that even with "low barrier" shelter spaces available on a relatively consistent basis, some residents have declined available beds.

"Kingston offers low-barrier shelter options to accommodate different needs, including couples, women-only, people with pets, and a wide range of support services," the statement reads.

"A low barrier shelter generally means requirements for entry are limited or minimal for the people who wish to stay there. There is capacity to accommodate individuals remaining in the encampment, but some have declined offers of shelter and support."

In its statement, and a follow up statement after a request for an interview with a member of city staff was declined due to the topic spanning over multiple departments, the city makes no mention of substance abuse disorder and what shelters may have low enough barriers to accommodate those in the encampment who are dealing with an addiction.

Sharry Aiken, a law professor at Queen's University, said what the city defines as "low barrier" really isn't to many of those seeking space, and that the public has a right to know why they have declined shelter space.

Aiken said it's disappointing that the city is resorting to the courts to handle what is fundamentally a social problem which the city should be seeking to resolve through social services and not through enforcement.

She says it won't solve the problem, it will just push it elsewhere.

"It's resolved through patient and consistent interventions by social services, not by going to a court," Aiken said.
Health minister's request triggered internal meltdown at Canada's drug-price regulator, documents show

Story by Catherine Lévesque • National Post

Federal Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos in March 2023.

OTTAWA – Relations between senior leaders at the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) descended into bitter acrimony last fall, documents show, as federal Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos tried to get the board to pause its work to reformulate how patented drug prices are determined.

The House of Commons committee on health, which is studying the havoc that unfolded at the board over the last several months, culminating in the resignations of several of the board’s senior leaders, released more than 350 pages of private internal correspondence this week about the events leading up to the turmoil.

The emails, text messages and letters provide a picture of building resentment and frustration among board members, and toward Health Canada, in the days and weeks before the resignation of PMPRB acting chairperson Melanie Bourassa Forcier in December 2022. Forcier’s resignation was followed in February by board member Matthew Herder quitting, accusing the government of undermining the board’s “independence and credibility.” Days later, PMPRB executive director, Douglas Clark, resigned.

In late 2022, the PMPRB was in the midst of consultations on new guidelines for drug prices in Canada, having been tasked by then health minister Ginette Petitpas Taylor in 2019 to stem “ excessive prices” on patented medicines, as a means to “lay the foundation for national pharmacare.” The PMPRB is a quasi-judicial government agency tasked with reviewing and reporting on drug prices to Parliament, through the minister of health.

The correspondence leading up to Forcier’s resignation reveal that multiple attempts by PMPRB members in the fall of 2022 to brief Duclos on the state of the guideline consultations went unanswered or were stonewalled.

Duclos finally broke his silence in a November letter to ask the board to “consider pausing the consultation process” to work “collaboratively” with stakeholders on the proposed changes. That apparently drove a wedge between Forcier, who was willing to agree to the minister’s request, and other PMRB leaders who wanted to let the consultation process run its course, and had grown to mistrust Duclos’ motives.


The situation culminated in Clark, the executive director, accusing Forcier in an email sent on Dec. 3, 2022 of legitimizing “false allegations” by the pharmaceutical industry, and throwing board members and staff “to the wolves.”


The proposed changes to price policy that the PMPRB was consulting on included rejigging the list of countries it compares Canadian drug prices to, introducing new economic factors to determine whether a price is deemed “excessive,” and requiring drug manufacturers to report “confidential rebates” to third parties, such as public or private insurers.


The last two elements were deemed unconstitutional by the Quebec Court of Appeal last year, following court challenges from the pharmaceutical industry, and the federal government opted to not appeal the decision before the Supreme Court of Canada.

The PMPRB went ahead with drawing up a new list of comparative countries last year, but the board’s work has raised concerns that the PMPRB is overstepping its role, and that the new formulas could lead pharmaceutical companies to determine some new medicines aren’t worth offering in Canada, leaving patients without access to them.

The PMPRB still had to consult on its proposed new guidelines regarding the administration of the price review process last fall.

Duclos told the House of Commons health committee last month that he had never received a formal request for a meeting from the board, nor did he seek to obtain one, in order to keep the PMPRB at arm’s length from his ministry.

But the communications released this week show Clark was eager to meet with Duclos’ office. He contacted the minister’s chief of staff, Jamie Kippen, on Nov. 9, 2022 to offer him a briefing on the new guidelines, but never heard back. He twice called the office of the minister’s senior director of policy, Jean-Sebastien Bock, on Nov. 17, 2022. The first time he called that day, the receptionist told him Bock would call him back, and the second time Clark recorded that Bock simply declined to take his call.


“The receptionist advised me that Mr. Bock wished to know the reason for my call. I responded, ‘the PMPRB Guidelines’. She advised me Mr. Bock would not take my call,” read Clark’s notes from that day.

Clark then texted Kippen on Nov. 18, again suggesting a meeting. He followed up with an email to Kippen, offering again to meet, on Nov. 21.

Text messages show that Forcier had also asked the director of the board secretariat, Sherri Wilson, several times in November to secure a meeting with the minister. Wilson said on Nov. 29, 2022 that she was “unsure how to make it happen,” given that typically such requests go through the deputy minister’s office.

On Nov. 28, 2022, Duclos wrote a letter to Forcier noting that “many stakeholders,” including the pharmaceutical industry and provinces and territories, “have raised concerns and questions associated with the new Guidelines” and asking the board to “consider pausing the consultation process, so as to allow time to work collaboratively, with all stakeholders, to understand fully the short and long-term impacts of the proposed new Guidelines.”

Forcier wrote in notes submitted to the committee that the minister’s request was seen by Clark and PMPRB board members as “potential interference with the board’s independence” but she, as acting chairperson, did not see it that way.

Forcier eventually secured a meeting with the deputy health minister, Stephen Lucas, on Nov. 30. Text messages show that she was already considering suspending the consultations on the guidelines as per the minister’s request. She told Clark the reason was because she did not want to “cause a crisis.”

“We’re already in a crisis,” replied Clark.

During Forcier’s meeting with Lucas, she and Forcier were exchanging texts . When she said she had mentioned to Lucas that she was open to pausing consultations, Clark texted her: “I think you want to stop there.”

The next day, Clark told her in an email that he knows she wants to “get in the good graces” of the minister, but charged that any commitments she made to Lucas were “inappropriate” and “should never have been made before meeting with the Board”.

Clark was also convinced, based on things he had heard, that Duclos had no intention of meeting with Forcier, and in fact wanted to be rid of the PMPRB board members and was hoping they would resign.

“Nothing about what is happening right now is personal. It’s one hundred percent political, which is why it is especially problematic that the Minister is ‘asking’ us to suspend our consultations,” wrote Clark in an email to Forcier.

The PMPRB board — composed of Forcier, Matthew Herder, Carolyn Kobernick and Dr. Ingrid Sketris — convened later in the day after Forcier had her meeting with the deputy health minister. (Clark, as executive director, was not on the board)

Emails show they planned to let the consultation process run its course by Dec. 5 ,as planned, and reconvene later in mid-December to reconsider the minister’s request for a “pause.”

On Dec. 1, 2022, Forcier let board members know by email she could not support that decision.

“If this is the case, unfortunately, I will not support it. I will inform the Minister and, necessarily, I will have to think about my place within the Board because it is essential for me, in the development of public policies, to take the time to listen and to consider the actors,” she wrote.

Forcier then informed the board on Dec. 2, 2022 she would take it upon herself as acting chairperson to suspend the consultation period, to which Herder replied that the decision to suspend had to be made by the board as a group.

Herder wrote in a separate email to the two other board members later that day that he had lost “complete confidence” in Forcier and said he would be open to having a discussion about “the possibility of resigning (whether individually or together).”

The following day, on Dec. 3, 2022, Forcier said she would consider seeking an independent, outside legal opinion on whether she as acting chair had the authority to make the decision to pause consultations on guidelines.

“For several years now, the PMPRB has come up with reforms that resulted in extremely costly litigation. We lost several of these cases. I don’t want any more litigation,” Forcier argued. “I don’t understand why the members have such a problem with extending the consultation period.”

Clark’s email response was virulent. He told Forcier she had “no grounds” to seek outside legal advise, dismissed her concerns about litigation, and accused her of failing the board and consumers.

“I have never seen the head of an organization demonstrate such a lack of judgment and engage in such questionable ethical behaviour in so short a time,” Clark wrote.

Forcier shot back in another email that she was facing “insubordination and attacks on (her) reputation,” that her words were “being twisted,” that she was being “smeared,” and hinted she might be taking legal action against Clark for defamation.

“At first I thought it was your lack of understanding of French but then reading your email I realize that this is a clear attempt to portray me as a Chairperson without integrity,” she wrote.

“Never did I harm you personally and what you are doing in your email has me looking into what needs to be done to stop the harm to my reputation and defamation.”

Clark answered that all of their communications on this matter had been internal, not public “and therefore cannot possibly constitute defamation”.

Forcier reiterated she would still indicate her dissent of the board’s decision. “I note that the staff does not wish to positively respond to my request for an external and independent legal advice. Thank you for this answer. It is noted,” she wrote in an email on Dec. 4, 2022.

Forcier ended up resigning as PMPRB acting chairperson and board member on Dec. 5, 2022. Her departure forced the board to pause consultations on the guidelines.

“For a variety of reasons, I realize that I will not be the person to carry this organization forward. I am hopeful that the next Chairperson will be appointed in the near future and that they will be successful in carrying out their mandate,” she wrote in a letter sent to the clerk of the Privy Council.

On Feb. 1, Duclos announced he had appointed a new chairperson, Thomas J. Digby, an attorney with over 25 years experience in pharmaceutical patent law.

Clark and Herder both resigned from their positions later that same month. In his resignation letter, Herder denounced the Liberal government for failing to defend its own drug-pricing reform plan.

“In the absence of the political courage to support meaningful policy reform, the position of the PMPRB has become untenable,” Herder wrote.

Clark has assumed a new role as a special adviser to the board, and the PMRB said in a statement he is transitioning to retirement from the federal public service.

National Post

clevesque@postmedia.com
OPEC denies media access to Reuters, Bloomberg, WSJ for weekend policy meets
Story by Reuters • Yesterday

FILE PHOTO: A 3D printed oil pump jack is seen in front of displayed Opec logo in this illustration picture© Thomson Reuters

VIENNA (Reuters) - OPEC has denied media access to reporters from Reuters, Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal to report on oil policy meetings in Vienna this weekend, reporters, Bloomberg and people familiar with the matter said on Friday.

The three media organizations are among the world's leading suppliers of financial news and information. They report on the outcome of policy meetings between OPEC and its allies, where ministers make decisions that impact the price of the world's most traded commodity.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies is a group known as OPEC+ and includes top oil producers Saudi Arabia and Russia. Ministers from the group, which pumps more than 40% of the world's oil supply, are scheduled to gather on Saturday and Sunday for regular biannual meetings.

OPEC staff declined on Friday to give media accreditation to Reuters journalists to cover the event. The staff handling media accreditation at one of Vienna's luxury hotels said they could not issue accreditation without an invite. They did not comment when asked why Reuters reporters received no invites.

OPEC has not responded to requests for comment from Reuters this week on why it has not invited or accredited Reuters reporters for the meet.

"We believe that transparency and a free press serve both readers and markets, and we object to this restriction on coverage," a spokesperson for Reuters, the news and media division of Thomson Reuters Corp, said on Friday.

"Reuters will continue to cover OPEC in an independent, impartial and reliable way in keeping with the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles."

A reporter from Bloomberg was also denied accreditation on Friday, a person familiar with the matter said.

A Bloomberg spokesperson confirmed on Friday the company has not been given accreditation to cover the OPEC meeting.

The Wall Street Journal did not respond to a request for comment.

Reporters from the three outlets, many of whom have been covering OPEC meetings for years, did not receive invitations from OPEC ahead of the meeting.

Without accreditation, journalists cannot enter the OPEC Secretariat where the ministers meet, or attend press conferences during the event.

Reporters at other media outlets including trade publications Argus and Platts received accreditation on Friday. Argus confirmed its reporters have been accredited and will attend. Platts did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

(Reporting by Alex Lawler, Dmitry Zhdannikov, Ahmad Ghaddar, Julia Payne, Maha El Dahan; writing by Simon Webb; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

About half of Republicans oppose book bans: poll
Story by Jared Gans • Yesterday 



About half of Republicans oppose book bans: poll© Provided by The Hill

About half of all Republicans oppose banning books in schools, even as many GOP lawmakers throughout the country have implemented laws restricting materials being taught in the classroom, according to a poll released Friday.

The NPR/Ipsos poll shows 51 percent of Republicans oppose state lawmakers passing laws to ban certain books and remove them from classrooms and libraries, including 31 percent who said they strongly oppose it. More than 45 percent also said they oppose individual school boards banning books.

About a third of Republican respondents said they support state lawmakers passing laws on books bans, while about 40 percent said they support school boards taking action.

An analysis from PEN America released in April found that 1,477 book bans were put into place during the first half of the 2022-23 school year, covering 874 unique books. States with the most book bans — Texas, Florida, Missouri, Utah and South Carolina — have all implemented laws that at least somewhat restrict content allowed to be present in public school libraries.

Related video: One of America’s Most Banned Authors: the U.S. has an issue with the truth (MSNBC)  Duration 7:22   View on Watch

Many Republicans have aimed to ban books referencing the LGBTQ community, claiming their contents are pornographic or subject children to inappropriate topics. Some have also targeted books that discuss racism and race relations.

But pollsters found that respondents were generally not supportive of book bans. About two-thirds of respondents said they somewhat or strongly oppose state lawmakers or school boards approving book bans.

Almost 60 percent of K-12 parents polled said they oppose book bans from school boards, and two-thirds said they oppose state lawmakers’ bans.

Democrats and independents were even more opposed to book bans; About 85 percent of Democrats said they oppose bans from school boards and lawmakers, and about two-thirds of independents said the same.

The poll was conducted among 1,316 U.S. adults, including 452 parents of K-12 students, from May 5-11. The margin of error for the entire sample was 3 percentage points, and the margin for K-12 parents was 4.8 points.