KULTURKAMPF

What is Québec's Bill 32 on academic freedom, and why does it matter?

Peter Ives, Professor, Political Science, University of Winnipeg 

Eve Haque, Professor, Department of Languages, Literatures and Linguistics, York University, Canada - 

THE CONVERSATION

In the wake of the controversy over the suspension of a professor at the University of Ottawa for using the n-word in a 2020 lecture, the Québec government hopes to pass Bill 32, “a proposed act "respecting academic freedom in the university sector.”


© (Shutterstock)Quebec's bill may be seen as part of on-going 'culture wars,' and alongside Ontario and Québec conservative governments' grandstanding about 'free speech' on university campuses.

The bill was tabled April 6 and is under committee review.

In addition to undermining the autonomy of universities and faculty, and creating myriad implementation problems, the bill blurs the important distinctions between free expression and academic freedom. Most troubling, it signals that politicians are turning academic freedom into a political weapon.

All Canadians should be concerned about the shift in the meaning and control of academic freedom this bill could usher in.

What’s the bill calling for?

Bill 32 aims to define and control the principle of academic freedom that is now under the jurisdiction of universities. The bill redefines university academic freedom as, “the right of every person to engage freely and without doctrinal, ideological or moral constraint in an activity through which the person contributes, in their field of activity, to carrying out the mission of an educational institution.”

As scholars whose combined work engages with the politicization of language and language, race and belonging, we share concerns with other anti-racist scholars that the bill prioritizes the right to speak without consideration for ethical ramifications. The bill would overshadow issues of justice for racialized members of the academy.

Currently, complex questions about creating “safe spaces” or issuing “trigger warnings” in classrooms are addressed within universities. Commentators argue that the bill “spells the end of ‘trigger warnings’ and "safe spaces’ in the classroom.”
Rejected by students, university teachers

The bill has sparked significant controversy and ignited criticism from students and university teachers for its overreach into university autonomy.

The bill’s Article 6 would give the minister of higher education the power to “order an educational institution to include, in its policy, any element indicated by the minister” or “have the necessary corrections made.”

Québec student unions and Canadian Association of University Teachers have opposed the bill. The head of Concordia’s Black Student Union notes the bill would traumatize racialized students by reaching into university jurisdiction to permit derogatory language without concern for its effect, and calls it a “slap in the face.”

Read more: Academic freedom can't be separated from responsibility

Given that the suspended professor did not work in Québec, one might wonder why the province has proposed the bill. In March 2021, when Danielle McCann, Québec’s minister of higher education, announced a committee to examine academic freedom, she said recent events had convinced the government to take action.

One might wonder how Premier François Legault’s criticism of the suspension of a professor who did not work in Québec has culminated in a bill that attempts to radically transform the definition and control of academic freedom. Perhaps the extent of this reaction reflects anxieties specific to Québec’s nationalist articulations of its identity.

U.S. and Canadian contexts

The bill imports American principles by blurring the distinction between academic freedom and free expression or free speech, similar to other Canadian conservative government manoeuvres, discussed below.

The Canadian and U.S. legal frameworks for academic freedom differ. One fundamental difference is that in Canada, Charter rights do not apply to universities. By contrast, in the United States, the First Amendment, the source of equivalent rights, does apply to public universities.

The U.S. Supreme Court decisions concerning First Amendment free speech rights have a long history of including academic freedom. This connection is non-existent in Canada.


In Canada, academic freedom is grounded in collective agreements or memoranda of understanding negotiated between faculty associations and university administrations. It usually includes the autonomy of the university and its faculty from outside pressures including provincial and federal governments.

In the U.S., the rate of unionization at universities is far lower than in Canada, making collective agreements less viable as the guarantee of academic freedom.

The Alberta Court ruled that the Charter right to free expression applies to campus anti-abortion protesters in Alberta and that students at the University of Calgary were merely expressing themselves when they denigrated their professor on Facebook. But no court has ruled that the Charter applies to universities’ classrooms or university teaching.

To further confuse matters

But Bill 32 focuses not on freedom of speech, but on academic freedom. The only other province to legislate on issues concerning academic freedom to our knowledge is Manitoba.

Manitoba’s Advanced Education Administration Act merely states that the minister responsible for post-secondary education, “respects the appropriate autonomy of educational institutions and the recognized principles of academic freedom.”

But the goal and functioning of Bill 32 is to define and control the principle of academic freedom (now under universities’ jurisdiction).

The Québec government claims it can do better than universities in protecting this core principle of academic freedom. More substantially, this bill politicizes complex questions of how professors do their work at the university.

Ignores right to criticize government

Commentators have criticized the bill for omitting what is usually considered a fundamental dimension, that is, the right for academics to criticize their own universities as well as government.

University collective agreements are clear in granting academic freedom to faculty members based on them having fulfilled years of education to become experts in their fields.

But the bill ignores these standard definitions of academic freedom and presents it as if it is like the right to free expression: universal, applicable to everyone regardless of their qualifications.

As American historian Joan Wallach Scott argues about the American right-wing: by “collapsing the distinction between academic freedom and free speech, they deny the authority of knowledge and of the teacher who purveys it.”

Potential problems with scope

Since the bill does not restrict itself to academics but speaks of “the right of every person … in their field of activity,” concrete problems for implementation are evident.

For example, if a professor gives a student a C in a course, could this be challenged as restricting the student’s academic freedom from “doctrinal” constraint?

Could not the offence of plagiarism be argued as a “moral” constraint and thus against a student’s academic freedom?

Joins Ontario and Alberta ‘culture wars’

The purpose of this bill seems comparable to the influential statement issued by the University of Chicago, known as the Chicago Principles of Free Expression. Those principles nowhere mention academic freedom. But, they were also the grounds for the university to speak against “trigger warnings” and the notion of the university as a “safe space.”

The Chicago Principles have been adopted by many American universities, although not without controversy.

When Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and Ontario Premier Doug Ford insisted that universities in their respective provinces adopt freedom of speech policies, they referenced the Chicago Principles.

Québec’s bill may be seen as part of the on-going “culture wars,” along with Ford and Kenney’s grandstanding about free speech crises on university campuses.

As in those cases, maybe this is just political posturing with little genuine concern for the quality of university education.

In sum, even if this bill is revised or fails, its very proposal signals a move towards using academic freedom as a political weapon.

Read more:
Academic freedom can’t be separated from responsibility

Universities: The often overlooked player in determining healthy democracies

Peter Ives is affiliated with the University of Winnipeg and is a representative-at-large to the council of the University of Winnipeg Faculty Association.

Eve Haque has received funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada for an Insight Development Grant on 'Reconciling Academic Freedom and Equity in Canada'

DOUBLE, DOUBLE, TOIL  AND TROUBLE
Tim Hortons app tracked too much personal information without adequate consent, investigation finds

Nojoud Al Mallees - Yesterday 9:37 a.m.

The federal privacy commissioner's investigation into the Tim Hortons mobile app found that the app unnecessarily collected extensive amounts of data without obtaining adequate consent from users.

The commissioner's report, which was published Wednesday morning, states that Tim Hortons collected granular location data for the purpose of targeted advertising and the promotion of its products but that the company never used the data for those purposes.

"The consequences associated with the App's collection of that data, the vast majority of which was collected when the App was not in use, represented a loss of Users' privacy that was not proportional to the potential benefits Tim Hortons may have hoped to gain from improved targeted promotion of its coffee and associated products," the report read.

The joint investigation was launched about two years ago by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada in conjunction with similar authorities in British Columbia, Quebec and Alberta. It came after reporting from the Financial Post found that the Tim Hortons app tracked users' geolocation while users were not using the app.

According to a presentation to investors shared in May, the restaurant chain's app has four million active users.

3rd party collected geolocation data

Tim Hortons was using a third-party service provider, Radar, to collect geolocation data of users. In August 2020, Tim Hortons stopped collecting location data.

However, the investigation found that there was a lack of contractual protections for users' personal information while being processed by Radar. The report describes the language in the contractual clauses to be "vague and permissive," which could have allowed Radar to use the personal information collected in aggregated or de-identified form for its own business.

"While we accept that Radar did not engage in a use or disclosure for its own purposes, the contractual language in this case would not appear to constitute adequate protection, by Tim Hortons, of Users' personal information," the report said.

The report states that Tim Hortons also agreed to delete all granular location data and to have third-party service providers do so as well, as per recommendations from the privacy authorities. The company also agreed to establish a privacy management program for its app and all future apps to ensure they are compliant with federal and provincial privacy legislation.

The federal law governing privacy issues is known as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA.

Given these remedies, the report found that while the Tim Hortons app was not compliant with privacy laws, the company has since taken measures to resolve the issues.

"We've strengthened our internal team that's dedicated to enhancing best practices when it comes to privacy and we're continuing to focus on ensuring that guests can make informed decisions about their data when using our app," a statement from Tim Hortons released on Wednesday said.

'Heightens the risk of mass surveillance'

The privacy commissioners responsible for the joint investigation held a teleconference with journalists on Wednesday, at which they forcefully condemned the privacy violations highlighted in the report.

"The location tracking ecosystem, where details of our daily lives are treated as a commodity to be exploited to sell us products and services such as a cup of coffee, heightens the risk of mass surveillance," said Daniel Therrien, Canada's privacy commissioner.

David Fraser, a privacy lawyer with the law firm McInnes Cooper in Halifax, said the findings of the investigation are a lesson not only for Tim Hortons but for any entity that creates an app that collects location data.

"Location information is generally recognized as being among the most sensitive information that can be collected because of the sort of inferences you can draw related to people's lifestyles, ... where they will tell you where they live, where they work, where they go," Fraser said.

Calls for stronger privacy legislation

Therrien said it's possible that other apps are in similar violation of privacy laws.

However, the current framework for investigations relies on complaints being brought forward to the commissioner's office. In this case, media reports prompted an investigation.

"We need to have the authority to start an investigation not to see if whether there is a fire, but preventatively to ensure compliance with the law," Therrien said, adding that preventative action would promote consumer trust.

The federal commissioner does not have the power to issue fines to entities found to be in violation of the PIPEDA. However, the Commission d'accès à l'information du Québec will soon be able to issue administrative monetary penalties, fines, binding orders and more. These new powers will go into effect in September 2023.

Michael McEvoy, B.C.'s information and privacy commissioner, said more powers need to be given to the offices of privacy commissioners.

"This turns the focus of the spotlight back on our elected assemblies and jurisdictions to take action," he said.

Karen Eltis, a University of Ottawa law professor and a faculty member of the university's Centre for Law, Technology and Society, said there's a general consensus among privacy experts that the laws and frameworks around privacy in Canada need to be "refreshed."

Privacy expectations are evolving, she said, including the bar for consent when it comes to the collection of data.

"When we talked about consent five years ago, 10 years ago, we really meant checking a box, which I've criticized for a long time. Now we're looking at meaningful consent," Eltis said.

Vass Bednar, executive director of the master of public policy program at McMaster University in Hamilton, said the investigation highlights the need for more comprehensive laws that empower institutions to take swift action, including in the form of financial penalties.

"This investigation took two years. A whole lot has happened in the digital economy in two years. I've downloaded a bunch more apps since then," she said.

Bednar said the interests of the public need to be given more priority when assessing the costs and benefits of data collection by corporations.

"Some of the things they could learn about their customers I think is legitimately interesting," she said. "But in terms of that actual value to everyday people and the value to our broader economy, it's just not there."

Company faces several class-action lawsuits

Restaurant Brands International Inc., the parent company of Tim Hortons, is facing several class-action lawsuits in relation to its mobile app.

The lawsuits were launched after the Financial Post's reporting on the collection of geolocation data.

Fraser said that while the findings of the commissioners' investigation will be relevant to the lawsuits, a different standard would be applied in court, including whether the intrusion of privacy would be "highly offensive to a reasonable person."

"The court has to make its own determination of the facts. The court can't kind of delegate over to say, 'Well, here's what the privacy commissioner found, and therefore we're going to believe this,'" he said.

Investors call for human rights report at gunmaker Sturm Ruger

By Ross Kerber - Yesterday 

Rifles are seen at the Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. gun factory in Newport, New Hampshire

(Reuters) -A majority of shareholders of gunmaker Sturm Ruger & Co voted in favor of a shareholder resolution calling for a human rights impact report, executives said on Wednesday.

The company also said all director nominees were elected and that investors approved its auditor and executive pay at its annual shareholder meeting, which was webcast.

The passage of the shareholder resolution marked a setback for the Southport, Connecticut-based company, which had opposed the measure. It came after mass shootings in May, including one in Uvalde, Texas where a teenage gunman killed 19 schoolchildren and two teachers, that reopened a long-running U.S. debate over gun control.

The resolution, put forward by a nonprofit Roman Catholic health system, said, "The inherent lethality of firearms exposes all gun makers to elevated human rights risks" and that the company lacks sufficient policies or practices to account for product misuse. It said a 2019 report Sturm Ruger had published on its measures to address gun safety "failed to put forward meaningful solutions to address gun violence."


Worker Marilyn MacKay assembles a rifle at the Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. gun factory in Newport, New Hampshire


After the vote, Sturm Ruger Chief Executive Christopher Killoy said he expects the board will now consider how best to respond, and that the company would give a final voting tally in coming days.

Killoy referred to proponents of the measure as "anti-gun activists" and said its passage was "largely due to the support of institutional shareholders, many of whom declined to even speak with us, and others who blindly followed the guidance of ISS (Institutional Shareholder Services) or Glass Lewis."

Both top proxy advisers had recommended investors vote for the resolution.

Resolution proponent Laura Krausa of Chicago-based CommonSpirit Health said via email that the health system hopes Sturm Ruger will conduct the review.

"We know we can find common ground on common-sense approaches" to safety that respect gun ownership rights, she said.

(Reporting by Ross Kerber; editing by Jonathan Oatis)

Liberals to reintroduce disability benefits bill today

Peter Zimonjic -

The federal government will today reintroduce legislation to create a monthly benefit payment for working-age Canadians with disabilities, CBC News has learned.


© Trevor Brine/CBCThe Liberal government will today reintroduce legislation to create a monthly disability benefit payment for Canadians aged 18-64.

"With the Canada Disability Benefit, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to correct the long-standing social and economic exclusion that is the lived experience of far too people with disabilities in our country," Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion Carla Qualtrough said in a media statement.

The Liberal government introduced Bill C-35 in June 2021, during the last Parliament. The bill received first reading but died on the order paper when the 2021 federal election was called.

Earlier this month, the New Democrats introduced a motion calling on the federal government to re-offer the disability benefit. The non-binding NDP motion passed unanimously in the House of Commons. The party said it introduced the motion to prompt the government to act.

Qualtrough told CBC News at the time that any delay in introducing the bill was due to her government's efforts to ensure the benefit would work and would not result in a reduction of other benefits.

"We are … working with the provinces and territories to ensure that the Canada Disability Benefit will increase the monthly income of Canadians with disabilities living below the poverty line and not negatively impact entitlement to other programs and services," the minister said.

When C-35 was first introduced, it did not state how much funding individuals would get, or how. It did, however, give the government scope to set most of the benefit's design elements, including the conditions that must be met to receive it, the monetary value of the benefit and how it would be indexed to inflation.

It is unclear if these conditions will remain in place when the Liberals reintroduce the legislation.

An election promise

During the 2021 federal election campaign, the Liberals said there were more than one million Canadians with disabilities living in poverty and promised to address the issue.

The Liberals' 2021 platform pledged to introduce the benefit to help with the cost of transport, medical procedures and other expenses.

The platform said that, once the benefit was implemented, it would deliver "a direct monthly payment … for low-income Canadians with disabilities ages 18-64."

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's post-election mandate letter to Qualtrough directed her to re-table the bill.

On Wednesday, a multi-party group of senators and members of Parliament issued a public call for the government to re-offer the bill, saying that while 22 per cent of the population is made up of people with disabilities, 41 per cent of Canadians living in poverty have a disability.

"We need to deliver on our promise to create a new benefit for people with disabilities. It is as simple as that," Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith said.

Sen. Chantal Petitclerc, a Paralympic athlete named to the Senate by Prime Minister Trudeau in 2016, sits in the Independent Senators Group. She said now is the time to take action.

"As one of the 22 per cent of Canadians with a disability, I am aware of the barriers and inequities that still exist and persist," she said.

"As a senator, I am committed to ensuring that, in our country, everyone has equal opportunities and has the tools to reach their full potential as well as actively contribute to society."

New harassment policy for Alberta political staff falls short, says lawyer for past employee

Janet French - Yesterday -CBC

The Alberta government has released a summary of new respectful workplace rules in response to a lawsuit alleging the premier's office was home to a hostile workplace environment.

The summary report, released Tuesday, outlines respectful workplace rules for political staff in the Government of Alberta, including how to report and investigate complaints about harassment at work.

The third-party review of the government's HR policies was launched after former senior legislature staffer Ariella Kimmel filed a lawsuit against the premier's office last October.

Kimmel's lawyer, Kathryn Marshall, said the policy will do nothing to protect employees from harassment or retaliation and does nothing to resolve the allegedly problematic culture within the Alberta government.

Marshall also said the policy encourages victims to deal with complaints informally through resolution, not investigation. That's a problem, she said, because complaints should be formally documented by human resources.

"I see it as continuing to perpetuate exactly the situation that happened with my client," said Marshall in an interview Tuesday.

The summary is an abbreviated version of a larger HR policy review by lawyers Jamie Pytel and Alex Matthews of Kingsgate Legal.

Marshall said she and her client are applying to the court to compel the premier's office to release all their findings and recommendations.

"This is going to be, for a lot of people, very disappointing, because there really isn't much in here," Marshall said.

The allegations in Kimmel's lawsuit include sexual harassment and heavy drinking by ministers and staff in legislature offices, and claims that senior staff in the premier's office fabricated rumours about her, contributing to Kimmel's termination.

This then led to former Agriculture Minister Devin Dreeshen stepping out of his cabinet post last November, saying his use of alcohol had "become an issue for the government."



© Will Wang/CBC

Devin Dreeshen resigned as agriculture and forestry minister in 2021 after a former government staffer accused him of heavy drinking at work and abusive conduct.

Kimmel alleges she was fired as retribution after speaking up and that the perpetrators faced no consequences.

The premier's office has denied the allegations in court documents. It said it investigated all harassment complaints.

None of the allegations have been proven in court and Premier Jason Kenney himself is not named in the suit.
Documents say premier's office can't control everyone's conduct

The new policy contained within the summary report applies to employees in the premier and ministers' offices, but not to elected officials.

On Tuesday, Kenney said all ministers have signed a new two-page undertaking, promising to promote a safe work environment for staff, to help informally resolve disputes with staff, and to co-operate with any investigation into formal complaints about harassment or discrimination.

"The report points to areas where we can provide greater clarity to political staff about where to bring a complaint, of what nature, and how that should be handled by their managers," Kenney said Tuesday.

He added that his government was the first to mandate workplace respect training for all elected officials, political staff and civil servants.

However, the guide to interpreting the policy also says the premier's office can't control everyone's conduct.

"Unfortunately, moving a staff member to a new assignment is sometimes the only safe or available solution to a workplace issue," it says.

Employees should view this as a "safety measure" and not a punishment for filing a complaint, it says.

Marshall says these clauses are vague, troubling, and absolve the premier's office of responsibility. They also imply a victim of harassment is expected to sacrifice their career for speaking up, she said.

"Anyone in politics knows that the premier's office has control of everything," she said.

Marshall is also seeking a court order to compel Kenney to answer questions about the working environment in his government.

FAUX OUTRAGE 

‘All The Fentanyl You Want’: Tucker Carlson Calls Out Canada For Banning Guns But Legalizing Fentanyl

[Screenshot/Rumble/Fox News]

RACIST TROPE SCREEN SHOT

NICOLE SILVERIO

DAILY CALLER

MEDIA REPORTER

June 01, 2022

Fox News host and Daily Caller co-founder Tucker Carlson called out Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s new push Wednesday to ban handguns while legalizing fentanyl.

Trudeau introduced legislation Monday intending to prohibit the sales, purchases, transfers and imports of handguns and to impose a buy back of military-style semi-automatic weapons. The prime minister told members of Parliament that there “is no reason anyone in Canada should need guns in their everyday lives.”

Carlson said Trudeau is constantly surrounded by firearms because they are the “key to his power.” Canada has had low gun violence rates in the country, with 16 homicides in Ottawa in all of last year, the Daily Caller co-founder said, adding that drug overdoses have plagued the country with 5,000 Canadians dying from opioids, particularly fentanyl.

“So how is Justin Trudeau responding to this? Well, days ago he announced that he is legalizing fentanyl, along with cocaine and methamphetamine in Canada’s third largest province, British Columbia. 

This is a province where over 165,000 people died last month from drug overdoses. FAKE FIGURE 

2022 Summary • In March 2022, there were 165 suspected illicit drug toxicity deaths. 

BCCS Illicit Drug Toxicity Report to Mar 2022 - Gov.bc.ca

l

Post-mortem toxicology results suggest that there has been a greater number of cases with extreme fentanyl concentrations in Nov 2021-Mar 2022 compared with ...

By comparison, in 2020, in the entire nation of Canada, 23 people died per month in acts involving a firearm. So why, if you were concerned about public health, would you ban firearms but legalize fentanyl?” he said.

“Fentanyl is what people are dying from, not guns. CONTRADICTS THE FACTS

How does that make sense? Well, it only makes sense if your goal is to keep the population weak and vulnerable, even if it kills them,” he continued.

The Canadian federal government has temporarily legalized citizens 18 years or older to carry a total of 2.5 grams of fentanyl, heroin and cocaine in British Columbia, but are still prohibited from producing, trafficking or importing the drugs, the Washington Post reported. Drug overdoes are the leading cause of death of people ages 19 to 39 in Canada.

  (RELATED: Tucker Carlson Targets ‘Botox Dictator’ Trudeau For Disarming Canadian Citizens Who ‘Disagree With Him’)

Carlson said the prime minister’s tyrannical “show of force” will be impossible to stop by disarmed Canadian citizens.

“You can have all the fentanyl you want, but you can’t defend yourself. It’s not just gun confiscation, it’s magazine confiscation,” Carlson said, referencing Trudeau’s plan to ban “high-capacity” magazines. “And as always, our authorities, mostly in the Democratic Party, are taking very close notes when they watch Justin Trudeau’s speech.”

Carlson turned to leaders in the U.S. attempting to limit the types of firearms a citizen can have access to, notably the AR-15. President Joe Biden said Monday that 9mm ammunition is “high-caliber” and “blows the lung out of the body,” and Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul recently called to “eliminate the grandfathering of large capacity ammunition feeding devices.”

He then called out U.S. leaders for decriminalizing serious crimes while simultaneously attempting to disarm citizens. He cited a report by the Seattle Times that detectives will no longer be assigned to investigate new adult sexual assault cases this year.

“If any of the people in charge wanted us to be a safer country, they wouldn’t have caused the current crime wave in the first place,” the host said. “They wouldn’t have defunded police, they wouldn’t be encouraging open air drug markets in our cities. They wouldn’t be sending crack pipes to addicts. 

But they’re not worried about public health at all, what they’re worried about is public resistance to their policies. Disarming the population ends that resistance. They’re very concerned because they know they rule illegitimately so the population will rise up.”

HUH WHAT?!

ONLY TO BE FOLLOWED BY THIS GUY

Jason Kenney Called Out The Decriminalizing Of Some Illegal Drugs In BC & Did Not Hold Back

Charlie Hart - Yesterday 

NARCITY

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney just raised concerns about the decriminalization of small amounts of some illegal drugs for personal use in B.C. and said that the Alberta government is "alarmed" by the move.

In a statement released on May 31, Kenney accused both the federal and B.C governments of "normalizing drug use."

He added that Alberta will now be "monitoring the situation very closely."

The three-year-long exemption was just announced and means that starting January 31, 2023, anyone over the age of 18 in B.C. found in possession of 2.5 grams or less of certain drugs, intended for personal use, will no longer be arrested for it.

Carolyn Bennett, the federal Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health said that the plan would "reduce stigma and harm" and act as another tool for ending the overdose crisis.

However, in response to the announcement, Kenney claimed that the result will likely be "a dramatic increase in drug use, violence, trafficking and addiction."

"Alberta’s government will never allow our communities to become sanctuaries for cartels and drug traffickers," he added.

Kenney also criticized the de-policing of areas in Vancouver, and other major cities, and said that it increased crime and drug use.

He also claimed that the federal government did not consult the public or the Alberta government, about drug decriminalization, and that it contradicts Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's promise to not do so, in the last election.

FALSE CLAIM, THE GOVT OF CANADA AND THE PROVINCIAL GOVT OF BC DID CONSULT

Kenney called on the federal government to place a focus on intercepting illegal drugs at the Canadian border.

LIKE THATS WORKED SO FAR

 

NDP decries defeat of national drug decriminalization bill: ‘Blood on their hands’

B.C. to decriminalize possession of some hard drugs amid opioid crisis

Needles are seen on the ground in Oppenheimer park in Vancouver's downtown eastside on March 17, 2020. On Tuesday, B.C. was granted a three-year exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for people who possess a small amount of certain illicit substances for personal use.

Teresa Wright - Yesterday - Global News

Liberal and Conservative MPs have blocked an attempt by the federal NDP to decriminalize personal possession of some illicit drugs all across Canada as a way to stem the rising death toll from substance abuse.

On Wednesday, a majority of MPs voted against the NDP's private members' bill, which would have repealed a provision in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that makes it an offence to possess certain drugs — the same exemption granted to B.C. one day ago.

Leader Jagmeet Singh said he is disappointed the government has refused to provide a national approach to the toxic drug supply crisis, which has caused tens of thousands of deaths across Canada.

"The lack of federal leadership will absolutely cost lives. It’s very disappointing that this government thinks it’s okay to download the responsibility for a national public health crisis onto premiers and municipal leaders," Singh said in a statement after the vote.

Read more:
B.C. becomes first province to remove criminal penalties for possession of some hard drugs

On Tuesday, B.C. was granted a three-year exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for people who possess a small amount of certain illicit substances for personal use.

The substances remain illegal, but adults who have 2.5 grams or less of opioids, cocaine, methamphetamine and MDMA for personal use will no longer be arrested, charged or have their drugs seized.

According to Singh, there is no justification to approve an exemption for just one province while the rest of the country is left with laws that continue to treat possession of controlled substances as a criminal offence.

“It literally makes no sense to exempt one province and not the rest on a matter that is a Criminal Code matter,” Singh had said ahead of the vote.

Read more:
Peterborough Public Health issues drug poisoning alert following surge in hospital visits

The Criminal Code is a national law applied uniformly in each province and territory, he said.

“To say you’re going to criminalize people if you live east of the Rockies is somehow OK, but apply a health-based approach in B.C. — as much as I love my province, and I think this is great for B.C. — it makes no sense. There is really no justification.”

Courtenay-Alberni MP Gord Johns sponsored the NDP’s Bill C-216, which aimed to mirror the exemption granted this week to B.C., and apply it to every province and territory in Canada. The bill also aimed to expunge certain drug-related convictions and to remove the criminal records of those with previous drug convictions from any federal judicial archives.

The NDP bill also called on the government to adopt a national strategy on a safe supply of drugs to address the harm caused by problematic substance use.

Video: Almost 500% increase in Narcan administrations by paramedics since 2019

During the announcement of the B.C. exemption on Tuesday, Mental Health and Addictions Minister Carolyn Bennett spoke strongly in favour of opting for more progressive approaches to help solve the opioid crisis in Canada, including embracing decriminalization and moving toward a “regulated safe supply of drugs.”

But she indicated she would not vote in favour of the NDP bill, despite the support her government has given to British Columbia in adopting a harm-reduction approach to substance abuse and drug-related deaths.

“I have some discomfort with the bill because I think it doesn’t put in place the guardrails around implementation,” she told reporters in Vancouver Tuesday.

“We just want to thank Gord Johns for all of the work he’s done in raising this conversation and making it really important. But in terms of our international obligations, in terms of what needs to be there in terms of the safeguards, I think… starting by starting with British Columbia is a prudent way to go.”

Johns took strong issue with this Wednesday, saying a national approach is needed to deal with the toxic drug supply crisis.

Read more:
Drug decriminalization unlikely to be pursued by most provinces despite B.C. approval

He noted his bill mirrors calls from an expert task force on substance use convened by Health Canada that issued a report last year saying “criminalization of simple possession causes harms to Canadians and needs to end.”

"We know incrementalism kills. We know that the current patchwork across Canada isn’t working,” Johns said.

“Policies can’t stop at the Rockies. The lives of the families of the people who have been lost on the other side of the Rockies need to be heard, they matter, their communities matter,” Johns said.

Before the vote, Johns said MPs and the prime minister would have “blood on their hands” if they voted against his proposed legislation.

The bill was defeated by a vote of 248-71, with support from Bloc Quebecois MPs and some Liberal MPs. When the final tally was announced, a supporter in the public gallery began shouting an emotional disapproval of the result.

"Shame on you," she yelled from the gallery.

Read more:
Okanagan reaction to B.C. drug decriminalization mixed

Christine Nayler, a mother whose 34-year-old son Ryan died from toxic drug poisoning, had begged MPs in the House of Commons to let the NDP bill pass, so it could go to committee for further study.

“What our country needs is not half-measures or pilot projects. We need a country-wide, comprehensive health-based approach to address this public health emergency,” she said during a press conference prior to the vote.

“As a mother forever changed by our country’s failed drug policies, from the bottom of my heart I stand before you today and I beg you for Ryan… This is not a partisan issue. This is a public health emergency. I ask you to come together, as you did with COVID-19. The cost of not supporting this bill is too high. We are losing a whole generation of Canadians."

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appeared to leave the door slightly open on Wednesday to the notion of taking a pan-Canadian approach to drug decriminalization, saying the federal government will not pursue it with other jurisdictions without putting "the system and supports in place."

Trudeau said the government took the approach it did with B.C. by building capacity and offering many ways to support people, such as projects offering a safe supply of illicit drugs.

-- with a file from The Canadian Press.

Liberals pressed on whether B.C. drug decriminalization could pave the way


OTTAWA — The federal Liberals faced calls Wednesday to take a national approach to decriminalization amid the mounting death toll of the opioid crisis, even as the House of Commons voted against an NDP bill to allow drugs for personal use countrywide.



After the rejection of the bill was announced, someone in the chamber could be heard crying out, "Shame on you!"

Next year, British Columbia will join a handful of jurisdictions around the world where drug users will not face charges for possessing small amounts of some illicit drugs for personal use.

"There isn’t at this stage any larger discussion on decriminalization," federal Justice Minister David Lametti told reporters in Ottawa on Wednesday, noting that the issue falls under the health portfolio, not justice.

Asked in French whether Ottawa should take a pan-Canadian approach rather than considering individual jurisdictions' requests, Lametti said that is something that should be studied, but the government is not doing so now.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appeared to leave the door open a little on Wednesday, saying the federal government will not pursue decriminalization with other jurisdictions without putting "the system and supports in place."

Trudeau said the government took this approach with B.C. by building capacity and offering many ways to support people, such as projects offering a safe supply of illicit drugs.

Carolyn Bennett, minister of mental health and addictions, left the door wider still.

She said the government will watch how decriminalization unfolds in B.C. to see if it achieves its intended goals for "both public safety and public health."

NDP MP Gord Johns said Wednesday that the federal government had an opportunity to pass his private member's bill, which would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to decriminalize personal drug possession across Canada.

Johns, who is the party's critic for mental health and addictions, said the toxicity of the drug supply is claiming Canadian lives.

"I hope they'll do the right thing," said Johns ahead of the vote.

"Otherwise they are going to have blood on their hands."

The Bloc Québécois, Greens and a handful of Liberal MPs ultimately joined the NDP in voting in favour of the bill, but it was defeated 71-248 with the Conservatives and most Liberals voting against.

Bennett said that once B.C.'s plan has rolled out, and the results can be assessed, the federal government will be able to respond to any "unintended consequences."


"I think all the other jurisdictions will be interested in learning from the B.C. experience," said Bennett.

Not every province was jumping at the chance.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney said Tuesday he has concerns about the federal government’s decision to decriminalize possession of small amounts of illegal drugs in B.C.

The Manitoba government also said Tuesday it will not follow B.C.'s example.

Quebec Premier François Legault said Wednesday the province has no plans to pursue decriminalization, adding the government does not think it is necessary.

On Wednesday, Saskatchewan’s government said it was not considering any decision to criminally exempt substances like methamphetamine and cocaine.

“It is unknown what potential long-term effects that decriminalizing illicit drugs will have with regards to public safety. Our government is focused on ensuring that treatment services are available to help people with substance abuse issues to access recovery,” it said in a statement.

New Brunswick Health Minister Dorothy Shephard said she was interested to hear what B.C. has done but it was too early to comment. Her province has been working to help people affected by the drug crisis rather than criminalize them, she said.

On the campaign trail in Ontario, the New Democrats said they would work with Ottawa on decriminalizing drugs for personal use if elected, but the Liberals aren't considering a similar move. The Progressive Conservatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Separately, the City of Toronto has asked Ottawa to allow it to decriminalize possession of small amounts of drugs.

Bennett said there has also been some interest from Montreal, Edmonton and Saskatoon, but they have not submitted proposals seeking decriminalization.

Trudeau has said in years past that the federal government would not pursue decriminalization as an option for tackling the toxic drug and opioid overdose crisis.

Conservative MP Brad Vis, who represents the B.C. riding of Mission-Matsqui-Fraser Canyon, said he doesn't think decriminalization will fix the crisis in the province without also improving access to addiction treatments and mental health supports.

B.C.'s three-year exemption from federal drug laws means people with small amounts of illicit drugs for personal use will not have their drugs seized by police.

Vis said the province already had "de facto decriminalization," in which most police officers didn't arrest people for simple possession, nor did the Crown lay charges against those individuals.

As a crisis of opioid-related overdoses and deaths rages on in Canada, advocates have long been saying that decriminalization would help to reduce stigma associated with drug use and help save lives.

Since January 2016, almost 27,000 Canadians have died from opioid-related causes, according to the Public Health Agency of Canada.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 1, 2022.

---

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

— With files from Mickey Djuric in Regina and Kevin Bissett in Fredericton

Erika Ibrahim, The Canadian Press

Alberta should follow B.C. in decriminalizing small amounts of drugs, advocates say

CBC/Radio-Canada - Yesterday 

As B.C. plans to decriminalize small amounts of drugs next January, some advocates say similar steps should be taken in Alberta.

Dr. Monty Ghosh, assistant professor at the University of Calgary and University of Alberta, is a clinical physician who researches addiction. He said B.C.'s move to legalize the carrying of small amounts of drugs like opioids, cocaine and MDMA is "a step in the right direction."

"We know that decriminalization decreases poor health outcomes and helps support people into treatment," said Ghosh.

He said if people are not afraid of getting arrested for drug use, they will access support and services more often.

Outgoing Alberta Premier Jason Kenney disagrees.

In a statement released Tuesday in response to B.C.'s decriminalization announcement, Kenney said this move to decriminalize will likely lead to an increase in drug addiction, violence and trafficking.

"We'd be happy to get into a more balanced discussion with the federal government about finding real solutions and not making a bad situation worse," Kenney said in a news conference Tuesday.

Kenney's statement also claimed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said during the last election that his government would not decriminalize drugs.

While Trudeau did not explicitly say in the election that the Liberals would move to decriminalize drugs, he did say in September that his government would be open to working with provinces like B.C. that are interested in some form of decriminalization.
Creating a path for recovery

Chris Gallaway, executive director of Friends of Medicare, a non-profit based in Edmonton that defends universal public health care, agrees with Ghosh that B.C. is taking a positive step for harm reduction.

Gallaway called Kenney's response to B.C.'s decriminalization "offensive" and "outrageous."

"It felt like the premier chose to take political cheap shots … rather than do his job," said Gallaway.

According to Gallaway, concerns of increased drug use caused be decriminalization is just an example of fearmongering.


"We know that safe consumption sites, for instance, save lives," said Gallaway.

"There's all these kinds of myths around drug use, but really it's about removing stigma for folks who use drugs and actually creating a real path for people to be healthy, to be alive and potentially to seek recovery."

In 2021, Alberta recorded its deadliest year for drug overdoses with more than 1,700 deaths.

"You can't recover if you're dead," Gallaway said.

Gallaway also believes drug decriminalization is quite a widely accepted idea today even if Kenney disagrees with it.

The governments of B.C, Vancouver and Toronto have all filed exemption requests to decriminalize small amounts of drugs. Friends of Medicare also supported the City of Edmonton's call to look at decriminalization.

But Gallaway said part of the struggle with provinces and cities trying to implement decriminalization is that there's still no clear process that the federal government has outlined. He said Ottawa should make that process clearer or decriminalize drugs across the country.
Models for drug decriminalization

Ghosh said there are two main models for drug decriminalization.

One is the Portugal model: in 2000, the country decriminalized small amounts of drugs. Its model involves sending people caught with small amounts of drugs to a tribunal — not the same as a criminal court — where they meet with social workers and health-care workers. These workers decide whether to hand out fines, send people to treatment programs or release individuals with no consequences.

Portugal's approach also involves resources like methadone clinics, clean needle handouts and programs that encourage small businesses to hire people in drug treatment.


© Armando Franca/The Associated Press

Portugal's Institute for Drugs and Drug Addiction exchange used needles for new ones and try to direct drug addicts to treatment centres. Portugal decriminalized the use of all drugs in a groundbreaking law in 2000.

While this model has faced criticisms, Ghosh said that since Portugal implemented it, the country has seen a large decrease in overdose numbers, as well as rates of HIV and AIDS.

The model being introduced in B.C. is different from Portugal's. People caught with small amounts of drugs will simply not be charged by police nor have to access treatment services. Ghosh said this model gives people autonomy and allows them to decide what steps to take.

While B.C.'s model has not yet been tested, Ghosh said any form of decriminalization is a good idea. Additionally, the federal government will be able to study in the coming years how effective B.C.'s decriminalization turns out.

Gallaway said decriminalization is just one piece of the puzzle to help people struggling with drug use. Systemic change is also needed in the justice system, and the housing crisis is making it even more difficult for people to get back on their feet.

"There's layers of issues," he said.

Ghosh ultimately believes drug decriminalization is in the future for Alberta, but which model the province takes is something Albertans will have to decide.

With files from the Calgary Eyeopener and Colleen Underwood

Bill Morneau says business community was unhelpful, targets political divisiveness in speech

Barbara Shecter - Yesterday 
FINANCIAL POST


Former federal finance minister Bill Morneau says the business community did little to help advance crucial policy initiatives to boost Canada’s economy while he was in office, and was pre-occupied with lower taxes.


Former federal finance minister Bill Morneau: “When people of good conscience see politicians playing fast and loose with our institutions, they need to call out this behaviour.”

Morneau, who ran human resources services firm Morneau Shepell before going into politics in 2015 — subsequently resigning his seat and the finance portfolio in August 2020 — made the remarks in a lengthy prepared speech for an address at the C.D. Howe Institute’s annual directors’ dinner Wednesday evening in Toronto.

“On the collaboration front, it was tough to get helpful input from business,” he said in his first major speech since leaving politics. “Most of the advice I received from business leaders boiled down to demands for lower taxes, but the reality is that Canada’s marginal effective tax rates are competitive.”

He acknowledged that more could be done, but added that Canada’s productivity and economic problems “are about much more than taxes.”

Indeed, when Morneau resigned amid the WE Charity scandal in the summer of 2020, Ian Russell, then chief executive of the Investment Industry Association of Canada, said Morneau’s tenure had been “disappointing” on issues including business taxes. He also cited competitiveness, and foreign investment.

Morneau notably tried to get the business community to invest in public-private initiatives such as large infrastructure projects. In his speech Wednesday, the former finance minister said the Canada Infrastructure Bank had “fallen short of the hoped-for impact” due to “a lack of commitment to the idea and politicians’ worst instincts.”

While he is no longer part of the Liberal government, Morneau’s speech also appeared to take aim at Conservative leadership hopeful Pierre Poilievre and his attacks on the independence of the Bank of Canada. Poilievre has pledged to get rid of Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem if he forms the next government.


“When people of good conscience see politicians playing fast and loose with our institutions, they need to call out this behaviour,” Morneau said.

“That might help you sell a few more memberships. It might even help you win an election. But when you put ‘exciting the base’ ahead of crafting good policy … when you cynically pander to conspiracy theorists … you are doing incalculable harm to the country you claim to love and to the people you seek to lead.”

Morneau defended the independence of the Bank of Canada in his speech, and said its structure should serve as a model in other areas.

“One of the most important and effective decisions of a previous generation was to make the central bank independent,” he said “We need to look for other opportunities to decouple policy from politics.”

Other targets of his speech included the “politicization” and divisiveness of debate, which he said isn’t inevitable despite a system that is partisan and adversarial by design to ensure government is held to account.

“Political competition is essential in the same way that competition is essential in the market,” he said. “But political competition doesn’t have to be ‘winner take all’. It doesn’t have to be stupid.”

The former finance minister also took aim at the media, whose scrutiny he said could feel personal even if journalists were doing their jobs to hold the powerful to account.

At the time of his resignation from politics, Morneau and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau were being probed by the federal ethics commissioner over family and personal ties to WE, which had been handed a lucrative student grants contract at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Trudeau was later cleared but it was found that Morneau should have recused himself from cabinet discussions on awarding WE Charity the multi-million dollar contract, something he acknowledged after the ethics commissioner’s finding.

In his speech Wednesday, Morneau sounded a hopeful note for Canada’s prosperity — if various levels of government and the business community can find ways to work together to address Canada’s slipping productivity, “anemic” capital investment, and lagging comparative GDP growth projections.

“We need a national body that focuses attention and forces discussion on our need for economic growth — and we need to get over the idea that any one party has a monopoly on good ideas,” he said.

“In fact, we need to get over the idea that government itself can solve all the problems we face. Climate investments, addressing our productivity challenge, an aging society … those are all shocks to the supply side of the economy, and real solutions are more likely to be found around the boardroom table or in universities and think tanks than at the cabinet table.”

Lori Fox’s book, This Has Always Been a War stirs class, race and gender struggles

Lori Fox likened it similar to after a car crash, when days later, the reality of the experience floods in and the panic and craziness of it all sinks in. That’s how Fox views the nervous breakdown that occurred upon completion of their book.

The book, This Has Always Been a War: The Radicalization of a Working Class Queer, was released May 3. It is Fox’s first book, an accolade that sits atop an impressive pile of essays, articles, stories and newspaper clippings from prominent national and international publications (which includes writing for the News.)

Fox’s breakdown, documented in a personal re-telling published in the Globe and Mail, is aimed squarely at a system that fails to provide mental health services to working-class people. Denied therapy and proffered prescriptions for drugs that didn’t work, Fox spiraled into a near miss of self-destruction.

And Fox, unlike most, doesn’t keep quiet about it.

“That we have this two-tiered system is a disgrace. The way we treat people who cannot afford to pay for private care is a disgrace. What happened to me – what is happening to other people, even as I write this – is a disgrace.”

Fox is a freelance journalist, a gig worker, a labourer, a server, a 30-something, working class person struggling to make rent. Rent that is only going up and up. A chapter is titled “Other People’s Houses, rent is documented by dollar value, whether or not utilities were included, and by year.” For homeowners, the chapter is deliberately unsettling.

Fox came to the Yukon in 2012 and found work plentiful, but the housing situation dire. During three years of being housing insecure, Fox interviewed the former minister responsible for the Yukon Housing Corporation, Pauline Frost, while homeless and living in a van.

Fox told the News in an interview May 26 that they’d “watched the territory get more and more expensive, and have less and less options for working class people over the last decade.”

Fox is critical of the Whitehorse elites, the government workers and the resources extractors who congregate in the capital city. Fox cites the median household income disparity between Whitehorse’s $93,600 and Ross River’s $45,000, which is half of the median income of Whitehorse.

“Folks in the communities, especially rural folks, tend to make less money because they don’t have access to those government jobs,” Fox says, “The disparity is incredible.”

Fox’s heart lies with the working class, people who labor in low paying jobs and do not own property. The dedication in the book reads: “For my people, the working classes, who cook the meals and pick the fruit, who serve the tables and stock the shelves, who work the gigs and deliver the orders. We are the makers and builders and doers of this world, and all that is in it belongs to us.”

The book is Fox-raw: railing, angry, and exposed.

“The book is incredibly vulnerable. I’m incredibly blunt, and really upfront with some very difficult things. And I pull no punches.”


They add, “And that will not be a surprise to anyone who has ever read anything I’ve ever written”.

This Has Always Been a War is a mix of essays and stories, some previously published, many not. The book takes a longer view. The book looks back to childhood and why it matters, and how the truths that came to be, remain. And then, can change.

Fox spreads their arguments through a read of incidents, accidents and injustices; through jobs and locations linked together with perseverance and hard work.

Fox wields a pointy stick at systems of preference that ignores those without financial means, skin tones other than white, or varied genders and sexual orientations. A system that serves to make those most like it, more comfortable.

For example, reflecting upon Saltspring Island, British Columbia, Fox describes the split between the landowners and workers on the well-groomed island.

“It was an island of the rich and their servants.”

They described how that the only places to live were on landowners’ property who wanted labour in return for lodging.

In another chapter, while thinning fruit in the B.C.’s Okanagan region, Fox wrote, “I just want to know why one man should have two houses and an orchard full of fruit when other people in his village don’t even have a bed and a place to keep their beer cold.”

But Fox looks beyond. A childhood chapter reveals the stubborn harshness of their brutish father, yet recognizes that he is not just one thing. Fox understands the complexity of the human condition, and a larger rationale of the systems that created it.

“There’s no one story, no one straight narrative that can be told about a person, no matter how much we would like there to be,” Fox writes.

The book’s back-and -forth moves between specific events, and huge ideas. Small incidents are juxtaposed with larger concepts.

Fox writes, “Every little act of cruelty, whether intentional or not, makes us a little less than we were, than we would have been. It takes something from us. That’s what patriarchy is. That’s what capitalism is.”

“We cannot be absolved of responsibility for our actions. It’s okay to buy sneakers made in sweatshops and to drive gas-guzzling, carbon monoxide-spewing SUVs and to live guiltlessly on stolen land, because that’s just how it is.”

Fox challenges the status quo, and believes in our ability to change. They write: “So many things, really, are the way they are because we are taught — because we assume — that the way things are, is the way things have to be.”

“The way the world is today, right now, is not the way it has to be.”

Lawrie Crawford, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Yukon News