Scores of executions feared in Iran as 23-year-old hanged in public killing

Human rights group warns death of Majidreza Rahnavard ‘a significant escalation of violence against protesters’

Majidreza Rahnavard was executed for allegedly killing two members of the Basij paramilitary force. Photograph: social media


Patrick Wintour, Maryam Foumani and Oliver Holmes

Mon 12 Dec 2022 

Fears are growing that Iran is preparing to execute scores more protesters after authorities hanged a 23-year-old man from a crane, in a public killing carried out less than a month after he was arrested and following a secretive trial.

Majidreza Rahnavard was sentenced to death by a court in the city of Mashhad, a centre of the protests, for allegedly killing two members of the paramilitary Basij force and wounding four others. The Basij, affiliated with the country’s feared Revolutionary Guards, has been at the forefront of the state crackdown.

The pro-government Mizan news agency published a collage of images of Rahnavard hanging from a metal crane, his hands and feet bound, a black bag over his head. Masked security force members stood guard in front of concrete and metal barriers that held back a crowd early on Monday morning.

Rahnavard was not allowed to choose his own lawyer, challenge the evidence against him or ask for the trial to be held in public.

Iranian activist network 1500tasvir said Rahnavard’s mother was allowed to visit him the night before he was hanged. Neither was aware of his imminent execution, according to the group, which posted a photo on Twitter of the two hugging and smiling.



The US state department said the latest killing showed the clerical leadership feared its own people.

“These harsh sentences … are meant to intimidate Iran’s people, they’re meant to suppress dissent and they simply just underscore how much the Iranian leadership actually fears its own people,” state department spokesperson Ned Price told reporters.

Iran has carried out public hangings in the past, most infamously in the 1980s during a mass purge of dissidents and after the disputed 2009 presidential election, but they have become rare in recent years.

State TV showed a video in which Rahnavard said in the court that he came to hate the Basij forces after seeing them beating and killing protesters in videos posted on social media. Activists said he was forced to confess under torture, providing a photo of him with his arm in a sling. An internet blackout and restrictions on reporting make it impossible to corroborate claims out of Iran.

The director of the Oslo-based group Iran Human Rights, Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, warned that the public execution of a young man so soon after his arrest indicated “a significant escalation of the level of violence against protesters”.

“Rahnavard was sentenced to death based on coerced confessions, after a grossly unfair process and a show trial,” said Amiry-Moghaddam, a leading activist in exile. “This crime must be met with serious consequences for the Islamic republic.”

He said there was “a serious risk of mass execution of protesters” as thousands were in custody.

UN human rights experts estimated that more than 14,000 people have been arrested since rallies first erupted in mid-September over the death of Mahsa Amini, a Kurdish-Iranian woman arrested by the morality police for allegedly wearing her headscarf the wrong way. She left police custody in a coma and died in hospital from severe head wounds.

Iran is already the world’s most prolific user of the death penalty after China, Amnesty International says. The rights group warned this weekend that the lives of two more young men sentenced to death – Mahan Sadrat and Sahand Nourmohammadzadeh – were both at imminent risk.

Two other people were found guilty of offences that carry the death penalty on Monday, adding to the 25 others that Iranian media have said face execution.

Tehran has repeatedly blamed foreign enemies for what it describes as “riots” and accused “terrorists” of killing dozens of security force members in an uprising that represents the biggest challenge to the regime since the shah’s ousting in 1979.

European Union foreign ministers on Monday imposed new sanctions on Iran over the “widespread, brutal and disproportionate” crackdown on anti-government protests, but also its drone deliveries to Russia for its use in the Ukraine war.

The EU “will take any action we can to support young women and peaceful demonstrators”, the bloc’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, said.

The German foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock, said the sanctions were targeting “in particular those who are responsible for the executions, the violence against innocent people”.

Twenty individuals were sanctioned – having their assets frozen and banned from EU travel – over human rights abuses. Those sanctions are seen as having little impact by Iranian activists, who have called for Europe to begin expelling Iranian diplomats. Activists have also in the past put pressure on companies providing cranes to Iran to halt sales, warning they can be used for executions.

Rahnavard was the second person involved in recent demonstrations to be executed. On Thursday, Iran hanged Mohsen Shekari, who had been convicted of injuring a security guard with a knife and blocking a street in Tehran. During his trial, Shekari showed signs of torture visible on his face, his uncle Mahmoud Shekari said.

His execution over an alleged offence that was non-fatal has raised serious concern over the low bar Tehran is using for capital punishment. One pro-regime legislator, Zohra Elahian, claimed as many as 7,000 security officials had been injured during the demonstrations.

Heartfelt appeals from parents of sons about to face the death penalty have appeared online or in newspapers protesting that their children are innocent and demanding they are given the basic right to a lawyer of their choosing.

Reformists who remain loyal to the idea of the Islamic republic have been warning hardliners for weeks that they need to listen to the protests and respond, or see most of the already alienated population demand the overthrow of the entire post-1979 system.

At least 488 people have been killed since the demonstrations began in mid-September, according to Human Rights Activists in Iran, a group that has been monitoring the protests. Another 18,200 people have been detained by authorities.

The Associated Press contributed to this report

Analysis

UK
Military in thankless task as soldiers drafted in to replace striking workers

Dan Sabbagh

Army’s role risks being politicised as personnel called on to cover for Border Force and ambulance workers

About 600 soldiers are undergoing a week’s training and will be guarding the border as Border Force personnel go on strike. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian

Sun 11 Dec 2022 

A winter of discontent is upon us and it falls to the military to bail the government out. Six hundred soldiers are getting a week’s training to be ready to cover for striking Border Force staff at ports and airports over the Christmas period. A few hundred more are expected to be called on to help cover during the 21 December ambulance workers strike.

Of course, the military exists to act in last resort: their help was necessary and vital during the Covid crisis or where there is flooding or another civil emergency. Sometimes it is only the armed forces that have the personnel and knowhow to assist in a crisis. However, this winter, it is hard to escape the feeling that soldiers are at risk of being politicised for little gain to themselves.

A breathless but vague overnight statement from the Cabinet Office declared that ministers would hold crisis Cobra meetings on Monday and Wednesday to discuss “plans to limit disruption since unions first proposed strikes”. Monday’s meeting, however, will be chaired not by the prime minister Rishi Sunak, but Cabinet Office minister, Oliver Dowden, suggesting the urgency does not reach the top.

There is no fresh detail on military activities – the cover for border staff is well known, and plans to include details on the numbers that might be set aside to cover for ambulance workers will not be announced until Monday at the earliest. But ministers’ refusal to negotiate with striking nurses over pay indicates that the government is not ready to hammer out a deal, but instead wants to fight.

It is into this arena that the soldiers step in. For some it will mean a third Christmas in a row that has been disrupted, prompting grumblings from within the ranks, to deal with non-core military tasks at a time when the war in Ukraine is ongoing. Nor is it obvious that the rank and file benefit in other ways: last year’s pay award of 3.75% is well below the 11.1% annual rate of inflation – and soldiers cannot strike or join a trade union to call for better terms and conditions.

The growing reality is that soldiers are increasingly been asked to assist not just in civil emergencies – a task for which they are well suited – but in civil contingencies, such as at Border Force, where ministers appear to have run out of other alternative options. Labour counts that the military have been asked to help out on 85 occasions this year, although full details of the agreements in place are not routinely made public.

Perhaps the clearest indication of the current priorities is the situation in Estonia. Earlier this year the UK doubled its contribution to the security of the Baltic country in the aftermath of Russia’s unprovoked attack on Ukraine. But half the troops – around 650 – are due to return to the UK this month where they will instead be on standby as the war continues.

Meanwhile, it is a similar number, 600, who after going through a week’s training will be guarding the border as the public head for skiing or other winter holidays. Turning expensively trained soldiers into a civil gendarmarie to help face down striking workers is not how most people would want to see Britain’s expensively maintained military used.

Privatization of Alberta community lab services sparks concerns

Will old blood work requisitions and walk-ins be still available? These are just some of the questions that Albertans are facing with the privatization of community lab services in the province. Henna Saeed takes a look at this transition.

By Henna Saeed

Posted Dec 6, 2022, 8:01AM MST.

Last Updated Dec 6, 2022, 10:55AM MST.

Will previous blood work requisitions be honoured? Will walk-ins still be available?

These are some of the questions that Albertans have as the privatization of community lab services in the province goes ahead.

You will notice a change the next time you head to a location to get blood work done.

Effective Dec. 5, Alberta Precision Laboratory has been privatized. In addition to this change, hospitals and urgent care sites will stop taking outpatient lab requests, and will redirect patients to community labs.

Under contract to AHS, Edmonton-based DynaLIFE Medical Labs is now responsible for about 65 per cent of provincial lab work, including in Calgary, amounting to almost 50 million tests per year.

Mike Parker, president of the Health Sciences Association of Alberta (HSAA) says with privatization, there is a lot of ambiguity around the future of walk-ins at these labs.

“I have heard from members on the front lines talking about a system where there is no walk-in anymore. Now, again, what this tells you is that for-profit organizations are adjusting their service model based on the most efficient model to put people through. If I went to the doctor this morning and he said, I need to go get this work done this afternoon. And now I can’t queue in. So how many days and these micro delays is all part of the issue that comes in the global treatment of a patient.”

READ MORE:

• Alberta government working on hospital capacity amid surge of respiratory illnesses

• Alberta father speaks out about Rotary Flames House staff redeployment

• Canadian Red Cross to help Ottawa hospital amid surge in children’s respiratory illnesses

In a statement to CityNews, AHS says Albertans can call or book online appointments at qme.dynalife.ca and also walk into a DynaLIFE lab.

“The launch of DynaLIFE’s Q.Me appointment system provides patients with more ways to access lab services. Walk-in visits are always an option and may be a good choice if you are not fasting or do not require a special collection,” Kelly Morris, senior communications advisor at AHS said.

AHS adds the transition will improve lab services for Albertans and create savings that will be reinvested into our healthcare services, yet some within the health sector are concerned.

Chris Gallaway, the executive director of Friends of Medicare, says, overall, this continues to be a bad deal for Albertans, though it’s a sweet deal for DynaLIFE.

“DynaLIFE is taking over the majority of our community lab services, which means we’re giving up control. We have a fragmented system now, where some communities will have DynaLIFE, others will still have public lab services. We’re also quite concerned about the workers in the system, who have kind of been tossed back and forth over the years with Calgary public labs and Alberta public labs and now DynaLIFE,” Gallaway said.

The HSAA worries this transition is not as smooth as being claimed. Parker says the frontline workers involved are suffering the most.

“The employer (DynaLIFE) is saying absolutely no to their (frontline workers) retirement security in the form that it is under a pension. There is apprehension about shifts schedule, worksites, locations. Heck, I even got one person saying the gloves that they require, are not provided by this new employer. And these are from the front lines. These are from workers, who are going to be making this transition,” Parker said.

CANADIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE

Q&A part one with CFLPA president Solomon Elimimian: guaranteed contracts will ‘definitely be impactful for the players’

By

 Justin Dunk

 -

December 11, 2022

Photo: Michael Scraper/3DownNation. All rights reserved.

Solomon Elimimian spent 10 years terrorizing opposing offences as one of the fiercest linebackers in the CFL as a member of the B.C. Lions and Saskatchewan Roughriders. After retiring in 2021, the 2014 Most Outstanding Player was voted into the role of Canadian Football League Players’ Association president.

In part one of his sit down with 3DownNation, Elimimian shares the players’ perspective on the monumental seven-year collective bargaining agreement and what guaranteed contracts mean for the players.

Justin Dunk: The league and CFLPA signed a landmark seven-year CBA that includes — for the first time in league history — guaranteed money. How impactful is that for the players?

Solomon Elimimian: “It’s definitely impactful for the players. Our belief is the players are the stars of the show and you want to highlight them. We heard from our great fans about continuity. For us, it’s about helping our members stay in their cities as long as possible. I was fortunate to play nine years in B.C. and I was able to form a lot of relationships to help me in the business world outside of football. So I see the benefit of members staying in the city as long as they can and guaranteed contracts will definitely help with that.”

Dunk: We’re talking about substantial money. Zach Collaros signed a three-year extension with the Winnipeg Blue Bombers and the final year of that deal is partially guaranteed for $300,000. No matter what happens, the team could release him after one or two years, he gets that money. That makes general managers, talent evaluators, and coaches really look into this more if they are going to give players that kind of money. What type of stability does it give players?

Elimimian: “It’s huge. For the next few years, you’re going to know that Zach is going to be the leader of that team. He’s going to be there so you can go out and market Zach, you can go sell season tickets and jerseys because you want the fans to make sure they get value in the money that they spend. They can go and get a Zach Collaros jersey knowing that he’s going to be with the franchise and now the franchise can go and market Zach around the community.”

“Right now we have three guys that have signed guaranteed contracts and we’re talking to other agents that are discussing guaranteed-portion contracts with their clients and their team so hopefully this thing continues and snowballs.”

“I just have to be patient. I’m someone that wants to go, go, go, let’s get everybody, all our stars, guaranteed. I know it’s going to take time but the Winnipeg Blue Bombers did right by Zach. Jake Mayer in Calgary and [Taylor] Cornelius over there in Edmonton, they both have guaranteed portions in their contracts.”

Dunk: How difficult was that to get done to get the guaranteed money? And on the flip side of that, how do you think that can impact your players long term?

Elimimian: “It is tricky because the teams are going to approach bargaining as what’s best for the team. We’re going to look at it from how do you protect our members? How do you make sure the members get an equal share of the pie? But there’s another component there and that’s the fans.”

“I think that’s where the guaranteed contracts, the guaranteed portions, plays a role and that is for the fans, which are consuming the product. You always have to cater to the fans and I think that we were able to have really good conversations about how this is a win-win for all parties. A rising tide lifts all boats. That’s how we see our guaranteed contracts. It’s good for the players, it’s good for the teams and it’s good for our fans.”

Dunk: That rising tide has also shifted to the salary cap and the minimum salary. So how does that help out players across the league who are coming in or guys that are making their way up the salary tiers?

Elimimian: “We also instituted revenue sharing so players have an equity piece of the pie, so to speak now. That’s going to include all revenues, that’s going to include Grey Cup as well. We’ll be able to go in and audit all revenues and we’ll set 2022 as a baseline, and revenue sharing will take effect in 2024. Whatever that difference is, wherever the new money is, we’ll be able to allocate a portion where we see fit. So if we want to raise minimums, if you want to put it in guys’ pensions, increased playoff pay. Whatever our members are saying, we want to see this increased, we have a role in doing that and we can do that as we see fit.”

“So it’s a beautiful thing. It’s partnership. We heard this word thrown around so many times and you really can’t have partnership without equity. Now we are a stakeholder in the game, in the CFL, and I think it’s going to help us work more closely together. Everything’s more aligned because we see things from the vantage of what’s best for everybody. How do we increase revenues? Obviously, player safety is a primary goal of ours, but also now increased revenues because the more revenue the CFL makes, the more revenue our players make. So it’s a positive thing.”

Dunk: Does the PA feel like they’re true partners with the league now, because of the revenue sharing, or is there still more work to be done?

Elimimian: “There’s still more work to be done but one other thing was we negotiated a seat on the venture’s board. The venture’s board, which will include Genius Sports, is in charge of new ideas and increasing the revenues of the CFL. So we’ll be able to understand the long-term goals of the CFL and also provide insight, provide comments because our objectives are aligned now. I think having a seat on that venture’s board is going to be very important to making sure that we also know what’s going on. And we also can help with the stability and increased revenues of the CFL.”

Dunk: How do you think the guaranteed money, salary cap going up, minimum salary going up, the partnership with CFL, and the seat on the board, helps the CFL going forward?

Elimimian: “For them, they have seven years of labour peace. For them, they can focus on the business. Remember in 2019, we had negotiations as well; 2020 the season was cancelled, but we also were negotiating as well, due to COVID; and 2021, it was a truncated season, we played 14 games, and we negotiated a deal as well for that truncated 14-game season. It’s been tough for the CFL to actually maybe focus on the business, dealing with maybe the instability of not having labour peace. So they have seven years of runway to focus on business, knowing that they won’t have to fight us.”

“For us, we can be aligned, be able to provide insight and be able to help drive revenues as well. That’s what the players want. The players want to be part of the game. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, our members are the best. They’re in the communities. They’re doing many events with fans, with kids, they’re very accessible. They put a lot of effort into these communities and they are the stars of the show, and we want to be able to highlight that. I think we’ve done that in this collective agreement. Is it perfect? No, but I think that there are fundamental pieces in there that will help us grow to our shared common goal of raising revenues and really building this thing out to where everyone can profit.”

ALBERTA

Despite soaring profits, oil companies are not paying enough for their environmental damage

A pumpjack draws out oil and gas from a well head near Calgary in October 2022. There are thousands of inactive oil and gas wells in the province that have not been properly decommissioned. 

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh

Published: December 1, 2022 1.55pm EST

THE CONVERSATION

At the end of the third quarter reporting season in October, the Big Four oilsands producers continued to report record profit levels. Collectively, Cenovus, CNRL, Imperial Oil and Suncor earned $5.8 billion in the third quarter and $23.1 billion in the first nine months of 2022. The average return on capital during the period was almost 25 per cent.

The only minor hiccup was Suncor’s reported loss — primarily due to a non-cash impairment charge of $3.4 billion against its Fort Hills assets. Despite the write-down, Suncor still spent $1 billion buying Teck Resources’ stake in the Fort Hills oilsands project.

However, apart from Suncor’s purchase, these companies are not reinvesting in their core businesses. This cash bonanza has implications for Canadian consumers, government taxation and royalty policies and environmental policy.
Consumers left in the lurch

Unlike bank prime lending rates that change every six weeks or so, Canadians heavily dependent on their gas-motored cars or trucks face difficult choices in balancing their budgets with higher housing costs.

According to Statistics Canada, housing accounts for more than 30 per cent of a household’s expenses, and transportation accounts for 16 per cent.

Year-over-year inflation for gasoline in October 2022 was 17.8 per cent. The homeowners’ replacement cost index, a proxy for the price of new homes, increased by 6.9 per cent. Mortgage interest costs increased 11.4 per cent over last year — the highest increase since February 1991.

A motorist fuels up a vehicle at an Esso gas station after the price of a litre of regular gasoline reached a new high of $2.40 in Vancouver in October 2022. 

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck

Canadians who have personal vehicles, those who rely on natural gas for heating and people who have mortgages are under enormous strain. Ontario and Alberta have reduced gasoline taxes, but these are short-term political measures that support the fossil fuel industry by maintaining demand for gas and diesel.

The wait times for electric vehicles is up to one year in Toronto and well into 2024 for buyers in Vancouver.

Oilsands shareholders, who are mostly foreigners, are enjoying huge profits while consumers are bearing the brunt of rising energy prices.

The majority of the shares for Canada’s biggest oil companies are held by institutional investors. These Canadian institutional investors, like TD Investment Management, hold anywhere from a mere three per cent of the shares of Imperial, to nearly 20 per cent of CNRL’s shares.
Big Oil isn’t reinvesting profits

During the first nine months of 2022, $6.7 billion was paid out in dividends, with nearly two-thirds by CNRL. During the same period, $15.6 billion shares were repurchased. These share buybacks reward shareholders because reducing the shares outstanding means higher earnings per share for shareholders.

These buybacks also signal to the market that the company’s board and management feel these purchases are the best way to manage capital and cash flow. Significantly it also means that the company is not investing to either increase or sustain operating cash flow.

Despite Suncor’s net loss in the third reporting quarter, it still bought out Teck Resources’ stake in the Fort Hills oilsands project for approximately $1 billion. 

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh

In addition to share buybacks and dividends, Cenovus, CNRL, Imperial Oil and Suncor have collectively repaid $10 billion in debt. Based on their financial statements, I estimate $32.5 billion of available cash flow was not reinvested in the business. In fact, during 2022, all four companies’ depreciation, depletion, and amortization — which measures the non-cash costs of assets aging — exceeded capital investment by about $1.5 billion.

According to an ARC Energy Research Institute report, in 2015, the Canadian industry’s after-tax cash flow was $30 billion and $55 billion was reinvested in conventional and bitumen production. In 2022, with an estimated after-tax cash flow of $152 billion, ARC Energy Research Institute estimates that only $32 billion and $10 billion will be reinvested in conventional and bitumen production, respectively.

Governments are benefiting

The federal and Alberta governments are enjoying a bonanza due to higher taxes on profits and royalties. I estimate the Big Four paid about $15.2 billion in royalties to provincial governments so far this year.

I have estimated that these four companies will be responsible for at least a quarter of Alberta’s own source revenue (excluding federal transfers) this fiscal year. Based on financial statements from each oil company, I estimate their taxes, as a per cent of net income for the period, run from 13 per cent for Suncor (due to its write-downs) to 36 per cent for Cenovus.

Read more: The Big Four oilsands companies' influence threatens Alberta democracy, argues political scientist

Some of the CEOs of the Big Four have not been shy at pointing out how much tax and royalties they are paying to governments. CNRL president Tim McKay and the leaders of Cenovus and Imperial Oil have also stressed the size of their companies’ contributions to government coffers.

The Alberta treasury’s dependence on the royalties and taxes from only four companies present a major problem, as identified by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith last year in a paper for the School of Public Policy when she was head of the Alberta Enterprise Group. It will be interesting to see how Smith approaches this problem in next February’s budget.
Environmental liabilities

While the oilsands industry divests, it hopes to have federal taxpayers — and possibly those in Alberta — pay the cost of subsidizing carbon capture and underground storage. This capital investment, now promised by the Pathways Alliance to invest $24 billion, remains the industry’s sole hope of continuing to operate past 2030.

At the same time, the industry has booked $10.6 billion in decommissioning liabilities for oil and gas wells, pipelines and facilities. There are thousands of abandoned oil wells and decommissioned pipelines in Alberta alone.

However, annual expenditures by the Big Four to address environmental liabilities run less than $1 billion and are not separately recorded in the statement of expenses. There is a clear gap between the costs of environmental damage done by these companies and the amount they are required to mitigate.

Alberta Auditor General Doug Wylie speaks about the findings from an independent investigation related to the International Centre of Regulatory Excellence at the Alberta Energy Regulator in Edmonton in October 2019. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jason Franson

According to a June 2021 news release from Alberta’s auditor general: “After six years of analysis, the department has not decided if and how the security calculation should change.”

The auditor general also found a lack of clarity between the Department of Energy and the Alberta Energy Regulator. The Alberta government reportedly “has not adopted a consistent ranking system for contaminated sites to determine which are a priority to clean up.”

The Alberta government has failed to ensure environmental liabilities are adequately accounted for and that progress is being made to address the province’s massive tailings ponds made up of byproducts from oilsands mining. Incredibly, when asked about the oil industry’s record cash flows and remediation liabilities, former energy minister Sonya Savage stated:


“The current spike in oil prices isn’t enough reason to require the industry to spend more on cleaning up the tens of thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells in the province.”

As a recent Globe and Mail article pointed out, Alberta’s present good fortune is a mirage because the industry is not re-investing. This has serious ramifications for Alberta’s rural economy, and the Fort McMurray region in particular.

The main driver in Alberta’s economy over the past two decades has been the oilsands industry — if bitumen’s future is uncertain, so is Alberta’s economy.

Alberta, like a one-company town, faces a clear and present danger. Is there a Plan B to tilt Alberta away from its bitumen addiction? How will Smith reduce reliance on oilsands royalties? These are pressing questions that must be answered by the Alberta government.

Author

Robert (Bob) L. Ascah
Research Fellow, The Parkland Institute, University of Alberta

THE FREEDOM FROM FRENCH CONVOY

English only? 

The Emergencies Act inquiry showed Canada’s hostility towards francophones

Is francophobia the last acceptable prejudice?

Despite being French-speaking, CSIS Deputy Director of Operations Michelle Tessier, Director David Vigneault and Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre Executive Director Marie-Hélène Chayer testified in English only before the Rouleau Commission in November 2022 in Ottawa. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld

Published: December 6, 2022

THE CONVERSATION

The Public Order Emergency Commission, which examined the federal government’s decision to declare a state of emergency during the occupation of the so-called freedom convoy in Ottawa, is bringing into the light debates over how bilingual Canada really is.

French-language media lamented the surprising absence of French during the recent proceedings.

In response, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised he would speak French during his testimony — which he did for a total of 10 minutes during the five hours of his testimony).

Although the proceedings were established in French and English by an Order in Council and, as a national inquiry, are bound by the Official Languages Act, they were conducted almost exclusively in English. Indeed, of the more than 75 witnesses who testified, only one spoke entirely in French.

Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc testifies before the Commission on the State of Emergency in Ottawa in November 2022. The Acadian chose to testify in English only. The Canadian Press/Adrian Wyld

Many francophone witnesses, such as proud Acadian Dominic LeBlanc, chose to testify in English.

As a discrimination researcher, I am interested in the power structures that prevent members of minority groups from asserting their rights. I seek to provide insight into the reasons for the absence of French at the commission hearings.

A bilingual judge

On the face of it, one would have had every reason to expect the Public Order Emergency Commission to be welcoming to both official languages. Its commissioner, Franco-Ontarian Judge Paul Rouleau, has long been an advocate for minority language rights. He was instrumental in developing and overseeing the implementation of pioneering access to justice initiatives for francophones in Ontario.

So it’s not surprising that Rouleau tried to set the tone for the commission by delivering an opening speech in both languages, noting that the proceedings would be accessible in both official languages and that witnesses were encouraged to testify in either French or English.

In fact, the Order in Council that created the commission gave it the mandate to “ensure that … members of the public can communicate with and obtain available services from the Commissioner simultaneously in both official languages.”

Anglonormativity

Just as researchers have observed that appointing women to head an organization is not enough to eradicate gender discrimination, simply appointing a francophone to chair the Commission is not enough to counter anglonormativity, the powerful force that prevents francophones from feeling comfortable in their language.

Alexandre Baril, a professor and expert in feminist, trans and intersectional theories, defines this concept as a “system of structures, institutions and beliefs that mark English as the norm.” According to Baril, anglonormativity is the norm by which non-English speakers are judged, discriminated against and excluded.

One of the explanations as to why, despite Rouleau’s efforts, all but one of the francophones chose to testify in French is that the commission is only a window into other anglonormative worlds.

Many francophones may have chosen to speak English because they were testifying about events in their workplaces, such as the police or the federal public service, which are anglonormative.

Several reports published by the Commissioner of Official Languages paint a picture of a federal public service where French is often marginalized and where the organizational culture is unapologetically anglonormative. Even for the most ardent francophones, it may simply be easier to recount conversations that took place in English and to describe documents written in English, in English.

Voluntary servitude or fear of contempt?

Some commentators characterized the commission’s French-speaking witnesses who testified in English as being in “voluntary servitude.” Such statements amount to victim-blaming because they fail to take into account the obvious contempt and hostility that francophone participants faced and the impact that francophobia can have on the decision to assert one’s rights to speak Canada’s minority official language.

Take, for example, Mathieu Fleury. The former city councillor, a strong advocate for francophone rights at Ottawa City Hall, chose to testify in English.

When he expressed difficulty answering a technical question because it was not in his mother tongue, a lawyer for the freedom convoy protesters mocked him. “Je m’appelle Brendan,” the lawyer said, in a derogatory manner causing the audience to laugh.

One wonders what the public’s — and the law society’s — reaction would have been if a lawyer, who has a special responsibility to uphold the values of equality protected by human rights legislation, had ridiculed a witness with a hearing impairment who spoke through an interpreter, or a witness who spoke about their religious beliefs.

Trudeau was also subject to brutal attacks by some English speakers on social media for speaking in French for 10 minutes. The choice was described as petty, irritating and a “smoke screen to dissuade people from listening.”

There was, of course, nothing malicious about Trudeau’s decision to testify in French. He had the right to speak in the official language of his choice, a language in which he grew up and which is spoken by most of the constituents in the riding he represents.

As our country’s highest federal official, he also has an obligation to work proactively to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities in Canada.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau before the Commission on the State of Emergency in Ottawa on Nov. 25, 2022. He spoke in French for about 10 minutes out of more than five hours of testimony.

 The Canadian Press/Adrian Wyld

Francophobia: The last acceptable prejudice?

The hostility that the two francophones faced for their choice of testimony language is a classic example of what feminists call a double bind.

Indeed, francophones who speak French in anglonormative contexts are often labelled as difficult or ascribed bad intentions. On the other hand, francophones who try to be accommodating and speak the language of the majority face ridicule when they are unable to speak or understand at the level of a native speaker.

In the eyes of francophobes, no choice made by a francophone is a good choice because, in the end, it is not the choices of francophones they deplore but francophones themselves.

Unfortunately, discriminatory statements against francophones who speak French are rarely denounced. Worse, most human rights laws across the country offer francophones no protection against discrimination based on their language.

Is francophobia, as Jean-Benoît Nadeau has written, the last acceptable prejudice?

A recent front-page article in the Toronto Star blamed the lack of children’s medication on bilingual labelling requirements.

The headline turned out to be false. Yet even if it had been true, it is disappointing that a national newspaper would choose to blame a minority for the problem rather than the failure of governments to put in place a system that meets the necessary regulatory requirements to protect them.

With strong language rights protection, francophones are certainly privileged compared to other minorities and Indigenous Peoples in Canada. However, this unique protection may also expose francophones to particular forms of discrimination and contempt.

Rights should be a matter of levelling up rather than levelling down. Francophones should not be discriminated against for asserting their right to speak the official language of their choice.

Author

Anne Levesque
Assistant professor, Faculty of Law, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

WORKERS SELF MANAGEMENT

What do workers want? 5 key takeaways from the first citizens’ assembly on workplace democracy

The Ontario Assembly on Workplace Democracy examined how everyday people experience work and what they want done to make work better and their voices heard. 

Published: December 11, 2022 
THE CONVERSATION

Imagine receiving a letter informing you that your job is relocating to another province. Your employment is contingent upon you moving and your employer refuses to discuss it with you.

Or imagine developing an innovative plan for more flexible at-home work options that will reduce your company’s carbon emissions and save your employer money. Your manager, instead of praising your efforts, admonishes you and tells you to focus on your core work — not to “rock the boat.”

Workers around the world face dilemmas like these on a regular basis. At their core, they touch on the notion of worker voice: workers’ capacities and opportunities to speak up and effect change at work.

Read more: Quiet quitting and the great resignation have a common cause – dissatisfied workers feel they can't speak up in the workplace


In light of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, recent labour disputes, concerns about worker shortages and racism and inequality, a growing chorus of people are asking: how can all workers have the opportunity to meaningfully influence workplace decisions and have their voices heard?
Worker voice

Worker voice doesn’t just empower workers. It also has wide-ranging benefits for employers and broader society as well. It can help protect workers’ interests, improve workplace performance and contribute to societal democratization.

Unfortunately, unless Canadian workers are covered by a collective agreement, opportunities to shape decisions at work are largely at the whim of their employer. This leads to situations in which some workers have ample opportunities to speak up at work, while others — often those more marginalized — have almost none.

Canadian Union of Public Employees education workers strike on the picket line in Kingston, Ont., on Nov. 4, 2022. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Lars Hagberg

Even our most robust channels, like collective bargaining and grievance procedures, have been criticized by some as being too adversarial or not protective enough of individual rights and interests of their diverse membership.

Clearly, our practices and systems need an upgrade. The question is: what kind of upgrade would best serve workers and our economy as a whole?
Building a democratic assembly

To tackle this issue, we gathered a group of 32 Ontarians to serve in the Ontario Assembly on Workplace Democracy (OAWD). This was a first-of-its-kind effort that used a democratic innovation known as a “citizens’ assembly.”
A map showing a geographical breakdown of where participants were from. (FreeVectorMaps.com), Author provided

The process involved selecting individuals through a democratic lottery, which generated a group of participants representative of the diversity of the province in their union status, sector, gender, income level and age. They were far from the usual suspects typically involved in policy discussions about this topic.

Over five intensive working sessions spanning the summer and fall of 2022, OAWD members re-imagined how workers shape organizational decision-making in Ontario.

They had frank conversations with each other about their experiences speaking up at work, developed principles that should underpin any robust system of worker voice, and brainstormed recommendations for employers, unions and governments to improve worker voice. These discussions were aided by a dedicated team of facilitators and a diverse group of expert and stakeholder witnesses.
Barriers to worker voice

A final report compiling the participants’ main conclusions has just been published through the University of Toronto’s Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources, which sponsored the project.

Insights from the final report have much to offer to workers, managers, labour advocates and policymakers. First, they pointed to numerous challenges and barriers people face when speaking up at work that need to be addressed.

Some of these barriers included fearing retaliation and negative repercussions from employers and a lack of structured opportunities for having their voices heard at work. Participants also highlighted that many people lacked basic information and knowledge about worker voice, government protections under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and their right to unionize.

Participants also highlighted how traditionally marginalized groups of workers, like migrant workers or those with disabilities, face systematic barriers to voice, especially when they brought up concerns about discrimination at work.
Report recommendations

After identifying these barriers, assembly participants produced a set of 14 comprehensive recommendations for improving worker voice. These recommendations were grounded in a common set of values, including the financial success and sustainability of the participants’ employers, a greater balance of power between workers and their employers, and accountability.

Meeting virtually via Zoom over five sessions, assembly members came up with ways for workers to have more of a say in decision-making and imagine a better future for their workplaces. (Shutterstock)

Managers, labour advocates and policymakers interested in worker voice can get started on five of these recommendations right now. Firstly, all of these groups can — and should — do a better job of educating workers about their rights and responsibilities when it comes to voicing ideas and concerns at work.

Secondly, employers can implement best practices to encourage worker voice at work, through things like worker councils and self-managed teams. Thirdly, employers should also ensure workers are both incentivized and protected to use these tools and resources. Fourthly, employers should measure their progress toward improving worker voice, and benchmark it against their competitors.

And lastly, labour unions can open themselves up to more involvement from their diverse membership and provide greater transparency about their finances and decision-making processes.
Worker perspectives are critical

While worker voice is important, it often flies under our collective radar. To date, much of the void has been filled by academics, think tanks and organizations like chambers of commerce and labour unions. But the perspective of everyday people is just as important.

The OAWD put a spotlight on how everyday people experience work and what they want done to make work better and their voices heard. Participants embraced their responsibility and worked hard to deliver on the assembly’s mandate.

To improve the ability of workers to have a say in workplace decision-making, these recommendations should be read and considered widely by policymakers, politicians, the media and the broader public. It is up to these leaders to listen to workers and take the necessary steps to create fairer, safer, more inclusive and sustainable workplaces.

Authors

Simon Pek
Associate Professor of Business and Society, Gustavson School of Business, University of Victoria

Rafael Gomez
Professor of Employment Relations, Director of Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources, University of Toronto

Disclosure statement
Simon Pek served as the Steering Committee Lead for the Ontario Assembly on Workplace Democracy.

Rafael Gomez is Director of The Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources (CIRHR) at the University of Toronto, which sponsored OAWD. Rafael Gomez also Chaired the steering committee of the OAWD.

Working one day a week in person might be the key to happier, more productive employees

FUTURE WORK; ONE DAY A WEEK PERIOD 

Employees and supervisors are more likely to rate their job satisfaction high while working remotely compared to when working in-person. (Shutterstock)

THE CONVERSATION
Published: December 6, 2022 

The COVID-19 pandemic spurred a global shift to remote work, with the latest evidence suggesting almost half of workers in Canada are still regularly working remotely. Employers are grappling with how to strike the right balance between flexibility for work from home and expectations for in-person time together.

In November, Elon Musk announced the end of remote work at Twitter — a move 80 per cent of Canadians said would cause them to quit. Some of Canada’s largest companies are taking diverging approaches, from Shopify’s “work anywhere” policy to some of the big banks moving to two or three in-person days a week.

A new survey by Toronto Metropolitan University with the support of the Future Skills Centre provides new insights into the ongoing transition to hybrid workplaces. The study, conducted in October 2022 with 1,500 employees and 500 supervisors who regularly work remotely, aimed to shed light on how Canadian workers are feeling and being supported.

Remote workers like remote work

The study’s first major finding will come as no surprise: remote workers like remote work. Both employees and supervisors were more likely to rate their job satisfaction as somewhat high while working remotely (78 per cent) than when working in person (41 per cent).


Compared to before the pandemic, 60 per cent of remote workers said their work-life balance has improved. More than half of employees (54 per cent) said the amount of work they got done increased as a result of remote work. A similar proportion of supervisors agreed (52 per cent), while just 15 per cent said their employees’ output decreased because of remote work.

Working remotely impacts how connected employees feel with their colleagues. (Shutterstock)

What’s the catch?

Remote work has impacted workers’ sense of connectedness and can result in loneliness and lack of social support. When respondents were asked if the shift to remote work had impacted connection with their colleagues, 43 per cent said their connection had declined, while only 21 per cent said their connection had improved.

It’s understandable that many organizations are trying to set expectations for on-site work at least some of the time.
Flexible in-person expectations

The survey found nearly half of remote workers either had no fixed in-person work requirements or worked entirely remotely. Another 37 per cent were expected to work in person once or twice a week and only 17 per cent were expected to work in person three or more days a week.

A survey of 2,000 remote workers in Canada finds nearly half have no fixed expectations for working in person. Author provided

However, expectations did not always match reality. When remote workers were asked how often they actually worked on site in the week prior to the survey (the first week of October), about 67 per cent went worked the required amount of days, 17 per cent went in less often and 16 per cent went in more often.

Two out of three remote workers went to the office the same number of days they were required to. Author provided

Remote workers without fixed in-person expectations, or who were fully remote, tended to report lower stress levels, higher levels of trust in their employers and better job performance. However, these same workers also reported lower levels of connection to their colleagues. To balance the costs and benefits of working remotely, one approach seems to hit a sweet spot: working one day per week in person.
Flexibility increases satisfaction

Job satisfaction with remote work didn’t fall significantly when people worked one day a week in person. Eighty-four per cent of workers (employees and supervisors) had high satisfaction working fully remotely and 83 per cent had high satisfaction working in person one day a week. For workers that worked two or more days in person, that number dropped to 70 per cent.

Similarly, the perceived level of trust workers said their employers had in them didn’t change significantly when people worked one day a week on site.

Eighty per cent of fully remote workers, and 76 per cent who worked one day a week in person, felt their employers had high trust in them. This number decreased to 62 per cent once workers started working two or more days in person.

One day per week on site has higher levels of job satisfaction and perceived trust than more days in person.

Hybrid work also impacted how management viewed the productivity of their employees.

Sixty-seven per cent of supervisors who worked in person one day a week believed their employees were more productive, while only 47 per cent of supervisors who worked two or more days a week did. Of supervisors who were fully remote, 53 per cent believed their employees were more productive.

But did working one day a week in person solve the challenge of connectedness with colleagues? Not quite — those working one day a week in person still reported an overall loss of connectedness to colleagues. But that reversed when employees worked three or more days in person, which correlated with significant drops in perceived job satisfaction and performance.
The future of remote work

Most Canadians who work remotely are still very satisfied and able to get more work done with less stress. This latest survey suggests about half of employers are letting their employees choose when to work in-person. And of those with specific expectations, many employees work less or more in-person than they are expected to.

The biggest issue for employers is how to maintain flexibility while keeping teams connected and productive. Employers across the country are grappling with the right approach to mandating back-to-work requirements, while also balancing concerns about team performance and culture.

In this new world of hybrid work, managers need to support their teams with high-quality working conditions that build and maintain interpersonal connections while allowing for both high productivity and superior job satisfaction.

For employers requiring on-site attendance, this new survey indicates that working one day a week in person might be a sweet spot for maintaining job satisfaction and performance, while still providing opportunities for building in-person connections.

Authors

Sam Andrey
Director of Policy & Research, Leadership Lab, Toronto Metropolitan University

Cory Searcy
Professor, Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, & Vice-Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies, Toronto Metropolitan University

Patrick Neumann
Professor, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Toronto Metropolitan University

Disclosure statement

Sam Andrey receives funding from the Future Skills Centre to support this research.

Cory Searcy receives funding from the Future Skills Centre to support this research.

Patrick Neumann receives funding from Future Skills Centre to support this research.
Partners

COP15 biodiversity summit in Montréal: Canada failed to meet its 2020 conservation targets.

 Will 2030 be any better?



The Fulford Harbour sea garden clam bed was built by First Nations in the Salish Sea near Salt Spring Island, B.C. Despite growing recognition that lands managed by Indigenous Peoples are, on average, more biodiverse, biodiversity conservation has typically marginalized Indigenous Peoples. 

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chad Hipolito

THE CONVERSATION
Published: December 7, 2022 

The 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is underway in Montréal. Like the COP27 climate conference held in Egypt last month, the goal of this conference is to get member nations to make agreements that can help reverse or slow down the damage being done to our planet.

One of the largest challenges in Canada and across the world is that biodiversity conservation has typically marginalized Indigenous Peoples and their knowledge systems. And yet, there is growing recognition that lands managed by Indigenous Peoples are, on average, more biodiverse.

It is, therefore, vital that conservation practices are planned and conducted in collaboration with Indigenous Peoples. The targets set at COP15 cannot be met without Indigenous leadership.

In Canada, efforts to meet the 2020 targets intentionally engaged both Indigenous and Western governance frameworks in national conservation policy formulation for the first time. But was that enough? As we move on to setting new conservation goals for the next decade, we need to evaluate what worked and what didn’t in our efforts so far.

Canada embraces the 2020 Aichi targets

The Conference of the Parties of the CBD held in Aichi Prefecture, Japan, in 2010, set 20 targets for the conservation of the world’s biodiversity. These targets aimed at addressing the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by “mainstreaming biodiversity conservation across government and society.”

This meant integrating actions or policies related to biodiversity into broader development policies such as those aimed at poverty reduction or tackling climate change.



As a member of the COP, Canada adopted these 20 targets, but focused on target 11, which states that at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas will be conserved in protected areas by 2020.

The Aichi target 11 became Canada’s primary biodiversity target (target 1) and was adopted as a policy by the Canadian Parliament. A policy process called the Pathway to Canada Target 1 — or the Pathway process — was put in place in 2017 to help Canada meet its 2020 biodiversity targets.

To achieve these targets, the government of Canada engaged several state and non-state institutions. The coastal and marine target of 10 per cent conserved areas was in the custody of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). This target was met by the DFO, arguably because marine areas are void of human habitation and consequently have less political and social resistance to conservation.

The achievement of the 17 per cent of terrestrial areas and inland water target was to be managed by Parks Canada Agency and the government of Alberta. This target was, however, not met. Only 13.8 per cent of terrestrial and inland waters was protected by the end of 2020.

The Pathway process engaged a wide diversity of conservation and industry stakeholders and Indigenous People to meet this goal. The Indigenous Circle of Experts showed how Indigenous People could help Canada meet its targets, by playing the primary role in protecting and conserving ecosystems through Indigenous laws, governance and knowledge systems, while working towards nation-to-nation reconciliation.

But this ended in March 2018 when the Circle’s report — We Rise Together — was transferred to the Ministry of Environment.

The Pathway to reconciliation

According to some members of the National Steering Committee of the Pathway and the National Advisory Panel, the intent of the Pathway was more than just carving out protected areas to meet Canada’s international commitment on conservation. It was also about relationship building.

The Pathway was an opportunity to advance nation-to-nation reconciliation and to reconcile Canadians with the land. The Indigenous Circle of Experts made great progress in relationship building and in engaging members of the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

The Indigenous Circle of Experts advised the government on how Indigenous Peoples could help Canada meet its targets while working towards nation-to-nation reconciliation.

Its 2018 report laid out a path for greater reconciliation in the conservation sector that focused on the creation and management of Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs).

The federal government remains enthusiastic about supporting IPCAs and Indigenous-led conservation as seen in its support for the Indigenous guardians program and the recent allocation of $40 million for Indigenous-led conservation.

But some provinces, like Ontario, are resistant to IPCAs as they don’t recognize Indigenous jurisdictions under the Crown law. These tensions have been exacerbated during the implementation process which began after the submission of the reports in March 2018 when the implementing agency of the Pathway switched from Parks Canada to Environment and Climate Change Canada. This disrupted some of the relationships that made the pathway a success, including no longer seeking advice from the Indigenous Circle of Experts.

Nevertheless, the growing numbers of IPCAs can be presented as an indication of success of the Pathway.

New targets for the new decade

Canada needs to build on the work of the Pathway initiative to prepare for better outcomes of the conservation of biodiversity targets by 2030.

Protesters urge governments to stop invading Indigenous land in the process of biodiversity conservation during the opening ceremony of the COP15 UN conference on biodiversity in Montréal. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Paul Chiasson

The Canadian government and various national organizations including the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) have been championing the 30 per cent target, which urges nations to commit to protecting 30 per cent of the world’s land and sea by 2030, including key ecosystems around the world.

To do so, Canada needs to continue to support Indigenous-led conservation to meet its new targets. The Dec. 7 announcement of the allocation of an $800 million fund for Indigenous-led conservation initiatives is a great start toward this goal. But viable conservation-based economies are critical. Money alone isn’t the answer.

We need to embrace the facets of the Pathway that went right — including the support of and collaboration with Indigenous experts — and focus on relationships to help steer us to success by 2030.

Authors 

Emmanuel Tamufor
PhD Candidate, Department of Geography, Environment and Geomatics / Guelph Institute of Development Studies, University of Guelph

Robin J. Roth
Professor, Department of Geography, Environment and Geomatics, University of Guelph
Disclosure statement
Robin J. Roth receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada.