WAR IS RAPE

Inside the Grueling Mission to Help Russia’s Rape Victims


Anna Conkling
Fri, September 30, 2022 

Photo Illustration by Luis G. Rendon/The Daily Beast/Getty

A network of two dozen organizations has been tasked with the critical role of helping Ukrainians who claim to have been sexually assaulted by Russian soldiers since the start of Vladimir Putin’s devastating war in Ukraine.

The network operates throughout the country, often in some of the war’s most dangerous hotspots, and offers anonymous support to anyone who requests help, ranging from sending rape kits to Russian-occupied villages to providing trauma support to survivors of sexual violence.

“We obtain information about alleged human rights violations including conflict-related sexual violence through a variety of sources,” a spokesperson for the UN’s Human Rights Mission in Ukraine told The Daily Beast. Once the sources are verified, they gather all of the information they have received and use a “reasonable grounds to believe” standard of proof which, if it meets all of the elements of sexual violence, will be recorded.

Despite the intricate system created by these organization, the number of “verified cases” of sexual violence in the Ukraine war stands at just 43 assaults, 20 of which were reportedly against women or girls, with 23 against men. The number is staggeringly low, and inside Ukraine, the network believes that the true number of rape survivors is likely to be much higher, given that in conflict zones only one in every 10 to 20 rapes are reported.

‘They’ll Give Me a Medal’: The Dark Reality of Russian Troops’ Alleged War-Crime Rapes

Each member of the network plays a different role, and in the early days of the war, one those networks, La Strada Ukraine, established two national hotlines for people to call with reports of possible human trafficking. Since then, the NGO has received calls relating to women, men, and children who have been sexually assaulted by civilians and members of the Russian military. The exact number of people La Strada has helped is unknown, but it receives reports of sexual assault every day.

“[It’s] not limited to rape. It also can take many other forms. Sexual exploitation also takes place because of heightened vulnerability of these women,” Yuilia Ansova, a lawyer for La Strada, told The Daily Beast in an interview.

Recently, La Strada received a call about a 17-year-old girl in foster care who went missing while crossing from Ukraine to Poland alone. The girl had been in touch with her foster family before leaving Ukraine and was supposed to meet a volunteer from Poland to ensure her safe arrival. She has not been heard from since. Ansova said that there is no way to know what happened to her, but there is a possibility that she was a victim of sex trafficking. Since La Strada works anonymously, there is no way to follow up to try to find any new information about the girl.

When speaking with survivors of sexual abuse is possible, another network, Sylini Ukraine, works to cover their medical expenses. Sylini works with victims who remain anonymous and, since the beginning of the war, has funded the cost of recovery for eight women, including dental surgery, STD tests, psychological support, and in some cases, abortions.

Volunteers examine the remnants of a shell explosion in the town of Staryy Saltiv, Kharkiv region.
Anadolu Agency/Getty

The number of requests from survivors has grown in recent months. From May to June, 18 survivors of rape reached out to Sylini for help. Some wanted help covering medical costs, while others just wanted to ask questions, often disappearing once their questions are answered. Sylini might not hear from them again, but if the organization is needed, it is ready to help.

“It’s extremely important to give people information and to remind them that it’s OK if you’re not ready to get help,” Anastasia Krasnoplakhtych, a representative of Sylini Ukraine, told The Daily Beast over Zoom. “People want to forget about this crime, and they want to rebuild their lives. A lot of people who write to us ask, ‘Can you help me with some issue?’ and then they disappear.”

While there is no specific demographic of people Sylini helps, they often receive an influx of requests from territories liberated from Russian occupation. Younger survivors are more likely to choose psychological help over medical, whereas older survivors are more focused on getting rid of all physical evidence of their assault than on speaking with a psychologist.

“People [who] have experienced sexual violence shouldn’t be expected to behave in a way that is typical, or the same for everyone. So someone can be very aggressive, other people can freeze and not be ready to contact at all, and others can cry,” Krasnoplakhtych said.

“But the responses of people who have experienced sexual violence depend on a person’s mental state before sexual abuse, on their age, or past experience of sexual violence in their life,” she added.

Along with financial support and resources set up to support survivors, some NGO workers drive to the homes of survivors in Russian-occupied territories, where communication is scarce. That includes members of SEMA Ukraine, a group made up of survivors of sexual violence, some of whom were assaulted by Russian troops in Crimea in 2014.

SEMA could not be reached directly for comment, but its partner, The International Council of Polish Women+, has worked closely with SEMA, documenting each instance where rape could have been used as a war crime. When SEMA is able to visit small villages on the outskirts of Kyiv, it will often count at least three cases of rape. In the war’s hotspots, such as Bucha and Mariupol, the number is usually much higher.

“They [SEMA] are traveling to small towns themselves, using their own money to meet victims in person and counsel them,” Agnieszka Rutkowska, a member of The International Council of Polish Women+, told The Daily Beast. While women are a primary target of sexual violence in Ukraine, Rutkowska said that the network is aware of instances where men and children are victims as well, though they are often less reported.

Local residents evacuate and cross the bridge over the Oskil River in Kupiansk, in the recently retaken area near Kharkiv.
Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP via Getty

The network also offers help and advice to survivors of rape who are now pregnant, including the option of abortion. In the midst of having their homes destroyed, losing loved ones, and being sexually assaulted, survivors must not only process the trauma of the assault but also deal with the physical aftermath. Many of those survivors have fled to Poland for safety, but when they arrive, they are met with some of the strictest abortion laws in the European Union.

In January 2021, Poland’s Constitutional Tribune banned access to abortions in almost all circumstances, except when someone has been raped or their life is at risk. But establishing that a rape has taken place takes time, and abortions are only allowed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. As a result, only 1,000 legal abortions take place in Poland each year. “Imagine the level of stress that the woman is going through during those few weeks of uncertainty, and she might change her mind several times,” said Rutkowska.

“I think the problem is that Ukrainian women hadn’t expected what they saw when they came to Poland—that they couldn’t have had abortion as they could have in Ukraine,” she added.

In an attempt to get a legal abortion, some Ukrainian refugees have been forced to travel to other European Union countries to terminate a pregnancy. The journey has made some pro-choice activists draw comparisons between abortion access in Europe and the “Post Roe” era in the U.S., where the Supreme Court recently overturned the constitutional right to abortion.

It’s Official: The Supreme Court Has Overturned Roe v. Wade

At the beginning of the war, a Ukrainian woman emailed Cocia Basia, an abortion access group in Berlin made up of Polish-speaking volunteers. The woman said she had just lost her husband and her home in Russia’s invasion. She was pregnant and needed an abortion. “I don’t have a house, I cannot keep this pregnancy,” she wrote, according to Ciocia Basia member Zuzanna Dziuban, who had been reduced to tears after reading the email.

Abortions are technically illegal in Germany, but they can be administered under certain circumstances in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy at doctors’ clinics. Dziuban estimates that Ciocia Basia and its partners have helped at least 500 pregnant people coming from Ukraine get an abortion since March.

“It’s incredibly infuriating because abortion bans are closely associated with stigma, with people doing it in secrecy not being very often not being aware of the fact that they cannot be criminalized for having their own abortions,” Dziuban told The Daily Beast. “They’re often alone when doing this… We didn’t think that [this] still exists in 2022. We have to stay alert. The U.S. shows how easy it is to take things from us that we fought for such a long time, and Poland also shows us how easily those rights can be taken away from us.”

PDF

https://www.academia.edu/5832605/Against_our_will_men_women_and_rape_blackatk_

There Are No ‘Jewish-Free’ Zones on the UC-Berkeley Campus


Erwin Chemerinsky

The Daily Beast
Sat, October 1, 2023

Photo Illustration by Erin O'Flynn/The Daily Beast/Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The widespread media attention to recent events at Berkeley Law are stunningly misleading and inaccurate.

An opinion column in the Jewish Journal, which is titled, “Berkeley Develops Jewish-Free Zones,” paints a grossly misleading picture of what happened at Berkeley Law.

To state it plainly: There is no “Jewish-Free Zone” at Berkeley Law or on the UC-Berkeley campus. The Law School’s rules are clear that no speaker can be excluded for being Jewish or for holding particular views. I know of no instance where this has been violated.

Allow me to explain the controversy that sparked this misguided furor.

U.K.’s Crackdown on Anti-Royal Protests Makes U.S. Free Speech Look Good

At the beginning of the school year in late August, a student group at Berkeley Law, Law Students for Justice in Palestine (LSJP), asked other student groups to adopt a by-law condemning Israel. LSJP called for the student groups to pledge not to invite speakers who supported Israel’s “apartheid” policies, to support the Boycott, Divest, Sanction movement, and to participate in training about the plight of Palestinians.

As the dean, I quickly responded with a letter to all student organizations strongly objecting to this.

My letter said, “It is troubling to broadly exclude a particular viewpoint from being expressed. Indeed, taken literally, this would mean that I could not be invited to speak because I support the existence of Israel, though I condemn many of its policies. Chancellor Carol Christ has also spoken about how the boycott, divest, and sanction movement ‘poses a direct and serious threat to the academic freedom of our students and faculty, as well as the unfettered exchange of ideas and perspectives on our campus, including debate and discourse regarding conflicts in the Middle East.’”

I followed this up with a message to the entire Law School community: “The First Amendment does not allow us to exclude any viewpoints and I believe that it is crucial that universities be places where all ideas can be voiced and discussed. In addition, the Law School has an ‘all-comers’ policy, which means that every student group must allow any student to join and all student group organized events must be open to all students.”

The issue quickly faded at the Law School.

A handful of student organizations—fewer than 10 out of over 100—initially adopted the by-law. But the rest rejected it or ignored it. Some that quickly accepted it are now reconsidering that. Most importantly, no group has violated the Law School’s policy and excluded a speaker on account of being Jewish or holding particular views about Israel. Such conduct, of course, would be subject to sanctions.

At this stage, all some student groups have done is express their strong disagreement with Israel’s policies. That is their First Amendment right. I find their statement offensive, but they have the right to say it. To punish these student groups, or students, for their speech would clearly violate the Constitution.

Ironically, most students and faculty in the Law School were unaware of this controversy or paid little attention to it. After the first couple of weeks of the semester, it was virtually never mentioned. But some media outlets have brought it worldwide attention.

I am convinced it is because they have a narrative they want to tell about higher education generally—and Berkeley, in particular—being antisemitic. They wanted to use this incident to fit their narrative, even though the facts simply don’t support the story they want to tell.

There is no doubt that the on-going crisis in the Middle East understandably generates deep feelings on all sides. Some of our students and faculty are strongly critical of Israel’s policies and are concerned about the plight of the Palestinians. Some ardently defend Israel’s actions. And others hold a myriad of views. This is true at Berkeley Law, on the Berkeley campus, and at every university.

Georgetown’s Got a Serious Free-Speech Problem

What is the proper role of the university? To be a place where all ideas and views are discussed.

At my Law School, the Law Students for Justice in Palestine bring in speakers and hold programs to express their views. At the same time, the Helen Diller Institute for Jewish Law and Israel Studies holds many programs. Just last week, Knesset Member Yossi Shain spent a week on the Berkeley campus and spoke of his recent book, as well as meeting with students and faculty.

But this is not the story the media wants to tell. It is frustrating and sad that their version has no relationship to reality.

Freedom of speech, dissent, and debate is alive and well at Berkeley. And there is no “Jewish-Free Zone” at Berkeley Law or on the Berkeley campus. Period.

Erwin Chemerinsky is the Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law.

UN chief urges Yemen's warring sides to renew expiring truce

This is a locator map for Yemen with its capital, Sanaa. (AP Photo) 

Fri, September 30, 2022 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. chief is strongly urging Yemen’s warring parties to not only renew but expand a truce that expires Sunday, saying it has brought the longest period of relative calm since the conflict began in 2014.

Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said Friday that the internationally recognized government and Houthi rebels should prioritize the national interests of the Yemeni people and “choose peace for good.”

His statement followed a stark warning Tuesday from the U.N. envoy for Yemen, Hans Grundberg, that the risk of a return to fighting “is real.”

Yemen’s brutal civil war began in 2014 when the Houthis seized the capital, Sanaa, and much of northern Yemen and forced the government into exile. A Saudi-led coalition entered the war in early 2015 to try to restore the internationally recognized government to power.

The conflict has created one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises and over the years turned into a regional proxy war between Saudi Arabia, which backs the government, and Iran, which supports the Houthis. More than 150,000 people have been killed, including over 14,500 civilians.

Both sides accepted the U.N.-brokered truce for two months at the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan on April 2. It has been extended twice, and Grundberg and the secretary-general have been pushing both sides for a longer extension to try to start negotiations toward ending the conflict.

“Over the past six months,” Guterres said, “the government of Yemen and the Houthis have taken important and bold steps towards peace by agreeing to, and twice renewing, a nationwide truce negotiated by the United Nations.”

With the Sunday deadline looming, Guterres strongly urged the parties to expand the duration and terms of the truce in line with a proposal presented by Grundberg that has not been made public.

Nabil Jamel, a government negotiator, said the U.N. proposal includes ways to pay civil servants in Houthi-held territories and reopen roads of blockaded cities, including Taiz.

16B U$D FOR WEAPONS,

COULD FUND POOR AMERICANS

Putin Just Seized One-Fifth of Ukraine But Biden’s Still Betting Sanctions Can Stop Him

DIPLOMATIC IMPOTENCY, SINCE CRIMEA

CLAUSWITZ CRINGES

Scott Bixby
Fri, September 30, 2022 

Photo Illustration by Luis G. Rendon/The Daily Beast/Getty

Faced with mounting economic costs from sanctions on the Russian government and increasingly explicit nuclear threats from the Kremlin, the Biden administration still believes that a war of attrition is the only way to beat Vladimir Putin.

The newest tranche of sanctions punishing Russia for its illegal annexation of four Ukrainian provinces won’t turn the tide in the war, administration officials said on Friday, but are the safest way to continue backing the Ukrainian resistance without risking direct American involvement.

“The sanctions element of our strategy, the economic pressure that we are placing on Russia, and the denial of their ability to gather what they need to be able to regenerate their war machine, this has been a critical element to how we have prosecuted our strategy so far,” National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan told reporters in the White House briefing room. “The impacts of it will continue to be felt month on month as we go forward and put us in a stronger position, and Russia in a more disadvantaged position.”

Draft Dodgers Slam Putin’s War After Finally Escaping Russia

Sullivan’s remarks came hours after the Commerce, State and Treasury departments announced new economic, diplomatic and financial actions against Russia and its leadership in response to Putin’s announcement on Friday morning that four Ukrainian provinces are now Russian territory.

“People living in Luhansk and Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia are becoming our citizens. Forever,” Putin said in a speech from the Kremlin on Friday morning, naming the four Ukrainian provinces, which make up nearly one-fifth of Ukraine’s territory. The annexation—which is illegal under international law and was met with a range of sanctions, visa restrictions and other economic measures by allied governments around the world—was widely expected by U.S. officials in the months leading up to Putin’s announcement, though the debate over the Biden administration’s response was a matter of internal dispute.

“What is a proportionate response to the illegal seizure of one-fifth of an ally’s territory?” one senior U.S. official told The Daily Beast before a series of sham elections in the occupied provinces that were used to justify Putin’s annexation address. “Russia waited seven years after annexing Crimea to mount another pretext-less invasion of Ukraine—without a proportionate response, whatever that looks like, there is no disincentive to discourage them from another invasion seven years from now.”

In the first hours after the annexation, the administration’s counteroffensive was focused primarily on the economic front: sanctions against the head of Russia’s central bank, more than two hundred members of Russia’s Federal Assembly, and on companies that feed Russia’s military supply chains.

“These sanctions will impose costs on individuals and entities—inside and outside of Russia—that provide political or economic support to illegal attempts to change the status of Ukrainian territory,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “We will rally the international community to both denounce these moves and to hold Russia accountable.”

Despite those measures, the debate over a proportionate response continues, with some senior State Department officials pushing for the U.S. to more aggressively back Ukraine’s bid to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a proposal Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky has called for and which Sullivan sidestepped.

“The best way for us to support Ukraine is through practical on-the-ground support in Ukraine,” Sullivan said, adding that the question of hastening Ukraine’s entry into NATO’s mutual-defense pact “should be taken up at a different time.”

“That’s a B.S. answer,” one senior U.S. diplomat told The Daily Beast when sent a transcript of Sullivan’s remarks. “There is no more apt time to support fast-tracking NATO membership than when half the country has been stolen.”

The U.S. support for Ukraine’s resistance is not entirely in the form of punitive measures taken against the Kremlin, of course. Earlier this week, the Pentagon announced an additional $1.1 billion in security assistance for the country, which includes artillery rocket systems, armored vehicles, drones and body armor, and Biden on Friday signed a stopgap spending bill that included nearly $12 billion in additional aid for Ukraine.

But while limited military assistance for Ukraine has helped Kyiv make major gains in Eastern Ukraine against Russian forces, one national security official said, the White House and National Security Council are constantly aware that backing Putin into too tight a corner risks provoking increasingly desperate counter-responses.

“There are two apex priorities: 1) support Ukraine’s attempts to expel Russian forces and reclaim its occupied territory; and 2) do not do so in a way that sparks World War III,” the official said. “Those two priorities are not in definitional conflict, but the margin is narrowing.”

Zelensky Says Ukraine Is Making ‘Accelerated’ Application to Join NATO

One need only look at the apparent sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea, the official said, as an indicator of how far Putin may go as the invasion falters and inexperienced Russian conscripts replace tens of thousands of dead soldiers on the front. The pipelines, which were discovered on Monday to have massive leaks of methane gas following underwater explosions, supplied nearly 20 percent of Europe’s natural gas before the invasion.

The threat of continued implausibly deniable sabotage is far from the topmost concern, however. That would be Putin’s increasingly explicit threats of nuclear war in the event that Russian territory—which now includes much of Eastern Ukraine, at least in the Kremlin’s eyes—is threatened.

Biden called the leaks a “deliberate act of sabotage,” although he later hedged on directly blaming the Russian government for an attack on the pipeline. “At the appropriate moment when things calm down, we’re gonna send the divers down to find out exactly what happened.”

HALCION DAYS ARE GONE
André Pratte: François Legault limps to victory in Quebec election POLLING SAYS

There was a time when Legault enjoyed stratospheric support, but those days are past

Author of the article: André Pratte
Publishing date: Oct 01, 2022 • 

Coalition Avenir du Quebec leader Francois Legault speaks to the Chamber of Commerce while campaigning Wednesday, September 28, 2022 in Montreal. Quebec votes in the provincial election Oct. 3, 2022. 

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Ryan Remiorz

At the beginning of the provincial election campaign in Quebec one month ago, pundits and pollsters agreed that unless “something extraordinary” happened, François Legault’s Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) would be re-elected with a huge majority of seats, perhaps more than 100 out of the National Assembly’s 125 seats. Well, what do you know, “something extraordinary” did happen: Legault ran one of the worst campaigns ever seen in the province’s modern history.

This coming Monday is election day. According to the latest Léger poll, the CAQ will receive around 37 per cent of the votes. This is exactly the percentage they got in 2018. It will be enough for a second majority mandate, but maybe not the landslide that appeared inevitable before the campaign.

For inexplicable reasons, from day one on the campaign trail, Legault accumulated missteps, notably controversial assertions on immigration that he had to backpedal from. More significant, most days, the premier appeared to be angry and impatient, as if he found the campaign a complete waste of time. The frustrated body language was in evidence during both televised debates, after which Legault’s frequent frowns became the stuff of newspaper cartoonists.

If the polls are correct, six voters out of 10 will side with one of the four major opposition parties. The fact that there are so many parties vying for non-CAQ votes ensures that Legault, even with less than 40 per cent of the vote, will govern from a comfortable position, facing a dispersed opposition.

The PQ survives

Commentators were also forecasting the disappearance of the separatist Parti Québécois (PQ), the party founded by René Lévesque. Few expected that the PQ’s young leader, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon (often called by his initials PSPP) would have the best performance of all leaders, especially during the debates. PSPP ran a competent, positive campaign; the contrast with Legault was striking. Thanks to that performance, he apparently has succeeded in repatriating some sovereignist voters who were thinking of voting CAQ. Credited with 15 per cent of voting intentions, the PQ will probably win a couple of seats, enough to ensure the party’s survival.

Having harvested 25 per cent of the votes and 31 seats in 2018, the Liberal Party of Quebec sat as the Official Opposition in the last parliament. Led by Dominique Anglade, a brilliant engineer and MBA graduate from a Haitian immigrant family, the party is now forecast to lose most of the few predominantly French ridings it currently holds. The Liberals may well keep their Official Opposition status, but with so little support amongst the francophone population, they will have a credibility problem.

Ms. Anglade is running an energetic, enthusiastic campaign, but this appears to be insufficient to repair the damage done by some of her decisions well before the campaign started, especially her wavering position regarding the CAQ’s infamous language bill, bill 96.

The leftist Quebec Solidaire is the only party that could take away the Official Opposition status from the Liberals. However, despite the formidable talents of its co-leader, former student activist Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, the party has failed to significantly increase its support, which rests at 16 per cent. A promise to tax buyers of SUVs, in the name of fighting climate change, did not go over well with many voters.

The Conservative Party of Québec, led by former talk radio host Eric Duhaime, appears to have topped at 15 per cent of voting intentions. It remains to be seen whether this is enough to award the Conservatives with one or two seats in the Assembly. In any case, Quebec politicians will have to find a way to channel the anger and frustration felt by Duhaime’s many supporters. As seen in other countries, ignoring such popular feelings leads to unfortunate scenarios.

The CAQ’s slogan is “Continuons” (Let’s continue). Many are asking, considering Legault’s obvious lack of enthusiasm, “Continue doing what?” The premier has been unable to provide a convincing answer to that question. Now that the government has dealt with the language (bill 96) and religious symbols (bill 21) issues, the CAQ appears to wonder what to do next besides running the government’s daily operations as competently as possible. This is one reason why, even if his party is chosen to form the government again, the question of Mr. Legault’s succession will soon be raised inside and outside the party.

Dominique Anglade is another leader who could face leadership challenges, depending on her party’s score on election night. Potential successors have already been preparing, and if the Liberals fare poorly, the ambitious ones will stand ready at the starting block. However, by running a strong campaign, Anglade probably saved her own seat and her chances of staying on as leader.

There was a time when Premier Legault enjoyed stratospheric support. This was due to the CAQ leader’s exceptional communication skills during the pandemic. It is ironic that that record level of support has dwindled to normal proportions due to Legault’s poor communications performance during the campaign.

In the end, despite that mediocre showing, a CAQ victory is by far the most likely scenario. The reason why was summarized by a Laval voter interviewed by Radio-Canada this week: “Mr. Legault managed the pandemic as best he could; he deserves a pick-me-up.”


André Pratte is a senior fellow at Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa.

AMERICANIZATION; STATES RIGHTS
Two more provinces join in opposition to gun buyback program that 'unnecessarily targets lawful gun owners'

THE GUNS ARE ILLEGAL REGARDLESS OF THE OWNERS STATUS

Ministers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba agree with Alberta's Tyler Shandro, who earlier this week called the program wasteful

Author of the article: Ryan Tumilty
Publishing date: Sep 30, 2022 •

Colt C8 rifles at the annual conference of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police at the Palais de Congres in Montreal, in this August 25, 2008 file photo. 

PHOTO BY PHIL CARPENTER/THE GAZETTE/

OTTAWA — Two more provinces are telling Ottawa they don’t want provincial police resources to be used for a proposed gun buyback program set to collect “assault style” firearms this fall.

Saskatchewan and Manitoba have followed Alberta’s lead and informed the federal government they won’t use local resources to enforce a federal initiative they don’t support.

Christine Tell, Saskatchewan’s Minister of Corrections, Policing and Public Safety, wrote a letter to the highest-ranking RCMP officer in the province telling them not to use provincial resources for the program.

“The Government of Saskatchewan does not support and will not authorize the use of provincially funded resources for any process that is connected to the federal government’s proposed ‘buyback’ of these firearms,” she said in the letter.

She said the government has heard often from the RCMP that they don’t have enough resources.

“It would seem to be counter intuitive to take our front-line resources from our provincial policing service to carry out a federally mandated administrative program.”

Manitoba’s attorney general Kelvin Goertzen posted on Facebook that he had also written to federal Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino to oppose the program.

“We feel many aspects of the federal approach to gun crimes unnecessarily target lawful gun owners while having little impact on criminals, who are unlikely to follow gun regulations in any event,” he said. “In Manitoba’s view, any buyback program cannot further erode precious provincial police resources, already suffering from large vacancy rates, from focusing on investigation of violent crime.”

Alberta was the first to oppose the federal buyback program earlier this week, with the province’s justice minister calling the program wasteful and unnecessary.

“It’s important to remember that Alberta taxpayers pay over $750 million per year for the RCMP and we will not tolerate taking officers off the streets in order to confiscate the property of law-abiding firearms owners,” said Tyler Shandro.

RECOMMENDED FROM EDITORIAL

Liberal minister accuses Alberta of 'abdication' for resisting gun buybacks

The Trudeau Liberals banned approximately 1,500 weapons they described as “assault style,” using a cabinet order in 2020. The list of weapons to be banned include weapons used in some of the country’s deadliest shootings, such as the École Polytechnique massacre and the Nova Scotia mass shooting. Owners will be given between roughly $1,200 and $6,200 for their weapons depending on the make and model.

The Liberals have since followed up with more gun legislation including a proposed “handgun freeze” that would prevent future handgun sales.

Mendicino said earlier this week that Shandro’s statements were regrettable, and called them an “abdication of responsibility.”

He said the weapons in question need to come off the street.

“As we look to get these assault style rifles, which again have carried out extensive, massive casualties in our country, it is imperative that we work together collaboratively.”

He said Shandro’s stance was disappointing.

“To simply say that you’re not going to cooperate, you’re going to resist does not allow us to move forward to accomplish the objective of this program,” said Mendicino.

Mendicino also pointed out courts have consistently ruled that firearms regulation is in the hands of the federal government.

Jason Watson, a spokesperson for B.C’s public safety minister said they’re willing to work with the federal government.

“The government supports any measures that are proven to enhance public safety and we will continue to consult with our federal counterparts,” he said in an email.

But Watson said the program is not a top priority for the B.C. government.

“Ending illegal firearm violence related to organized crime remains our priority. It is a shared responsibility with the federal government and requires a multi-pronged approach and long-term strategies.”

While the RCMP is a federal police force it provides contract policing to eight provinces and three territories with only Quebec and Ontario having their own provincial forces.

In general, larger cities have their own police forces, but smaller communities in those eight provinces rely on the RCMP for policing, with the federal government covering 30 per cent of the costs and provinces covering the rest.

Wally Opal, a former attorney general of British Columbia who has studied policing extensively, said the political dispute puts the RCMP in the middle. He said policing should ideally be focused on local priorities as determined by people in the communities police serve, which is challenging under the RCMP’s current model.

“That type of policing cannot be achieved if you’re going to have a form of contract policing, wherein the governance or the policing is centralized and controlled from Ottawa.”

He said he understands provinces want police to focus on local priorities, as they determine them, but politicians shouldn’t be deciding what laws are enforced.

“I am sympathetic to the provinces, but the normal, general proposition is that the political people ought not to tell police forces what laws to enforce and what not to enforce.”

Mounties were unionized in 2019 and signed their first agreement with the government last year. The National Police federation who represent them declined any comment on the growing dispute with provinces.

Twitter: RyanTumilty
Email: rtumilty@postmedia.com

Kenney is A Funny Guy

SO LONG AND THANKS FOR ALL THE FISH

The gig is up: Alberta Premier Jason Kenney set to step down from top job

'I was never intending to be in this gig for a long time,' Kenney told an audience earlier this month

HE HAS NEVER DONE ANYTHING ELSE IN HIS LIFE BUT BE A POLITICIAN /LOBBYIST

The Canadian Press
Dean Bennett
Publishing date: Oct 02, 2022 

Jason Kenney announces he will step down as leader of the United Conservative Party, after receiving only a 51.4 per cent approval rating in a leadership review, May 18, 2022. 

PHOTO BY JIM WELLS/POSTMEDIA/FILE


EDMONTON — Don’t cry for me, Alberta, I was leaving anyway.

It’s Premier Jason Kenney’s swan song message as he prepares to depart the province’s top job, forced out by the very United Conservative Party he willed into existence.

“I was never intending to be in this gig for a long time,” Kenney told an audience earlier this month. He had planned for one more provincial election, he said.

Instead, UCP members pick a new leader on Thursday, turning the page on a triumph-turned cautionary tale that saw Kenney’s philosophy and management style crash head-on into a once-in-a-generation catastrophe.

Kenney, whose office did not respond to requests for an interview for this story, rode to success in the 2019 provincial election.


Carson Jerema: Jason Kenney quits as Alberta's conservative movement eats itself

The former Calgary member of Parliament dismasted Rachel Notley’s NDP using an audacious blueprint that united two warring conservative factions.

It was a time of woe. Alberta’s economy was in the doldrums, its oil and gas sector in the bust phase of its traditional boom-bust cycle. Budgets were bleeding multibillion-dollar deficits.

Some Albertans were angry with Ottawa over rules deemed to be hindering energy projects. And they felt like suckers, giving billions of dollars in equalization payments and in return being ignored or demonized as climate criminals.

They sought a stick with which to hit Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Kenney was that stick. He came toting a “fight back strategy,” vowing to take on Trudeau and the other happy hit men of the “Laurentian elite” hell-bent on strangling Canada’s energy “golden goose.”

To him, oil and gas were not just good business. It was a higher calling, a “moral cause” to redistribute earth’s bounty to neighbour nations so they could avoid buying it from human-rights-abusing dictators.

UCP AUSTERITY BUDGET

Taking the reins of power, he went to work.

Kenney cut corporate income taxes, abolished the former NDP government’s consumer carbon levy, slashed post-secondary funding, launched more privately delivered care in the public health system, reduced minimum wage for kids, went to war with teachers, sought wage cuts in the public sector, ripped up negotiated bargaining deals, and attacked doctors and nurses as comparatively overpaid underperformers.

He gambled big and lost $1.3 billion OF TAXPAYERS MONEY WITH NO SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS OR POWER on the failed Keystone XL oil pipeline.

Kenney’s plan for Alberta was founded on the conservatism of “prosperity first,” said political scientist Jared Wesley with the University of Alberta.

Kenney, said Wesley, spelled it out in his maiden speech as UCP leader in 2017 by reminding supporters that “in order to be a compassionate and generous society, you must be a prosperous one first.”

Wesley said such an ethos may have captured the mood of conservatives and enthralled others, “but as Albertans and their government were forced (during COVID-19) between prosperity and compassion — or as Kenney put it ‘livelihoods and lives’ — his focus on livelihoods was really out of touch with what people were looking for.”

Political scientist Laurie Adkin said the prosperity-first doctrine was narrowly defined to the benefit of a select few.

“There was really no light between the Kenney government and the oil and gas industry, and that is not good for democracy,” said Adkin with the University of Alberta.

“Government needs to represent the public interest and not a single economic sector to the cost of everything else.”

The math was simple, the corollary obvious: If Alberta’s identity is defined by economic prosperity through oil and gas, then those who challenge this worldview are, well, anti-Albertan

Kenney and his UCP vilified the green left and high-profile oilsands critics like David Suzuki and Tzeporah Berman. When world-renowned green teen Greta Thunberg came to the legislature, Kenney left town.

Kenney mocked Notley’s NDP government as a docile servant to Trudeau’s oil-killing agenda, kowtowing for crumbs, grubbing for “social licence.”

Quebec was an ingrate, fighting pipelines with one hand while accepting Alberta equalization money with the other. A U.S. governor challenging a cross-border pipeline was “brain-dead.”

To fight slurs on oil and gas, Kenney spent millions to create a “war room” that delivered a parade of gaffes, including a public fight with a children’s cartoon about Bigfoot.

Kenney launched a $2.5-million public inquiry into foreign funding of domestic green groups fighting Alberta’s oilsands. It never held an inquiry in public, went over time and over budget, and determined the funding was relatively modest and totally legal.

Over time, the enemy tag broadened. Kenney characterized the NDP as disloyal for its COVID-19 criticism. He linked one radio interviewer’s criticism of his government to an attack on Alberta itself. Reporters were at times dismissed as shills for the NDP or special interest groups.

No quarter was given, even in good times. When Trudeau came to Edmonton to announce a joint $10-a-day child-care program, Kenney, from the podium, said the money was recycled provincial funds anyway and Quebec got a better deal.

As COVID-19 hit with full force in 2020, decimating the economy, Kenney found himself battling a two-front war as bubbling rifts between him and his caucus and party exploded.

Those divides had started before the election, when Kenney promised his UCP would be run by and for the members, but then at the party’s founding convention in 2018 told reporters “I hold the pen” on what will and won’t be policy.

The UCP won in 2019 on the strength of rural votes, said political scientist Duane Bratt. But when Kenney picked his first cabinet, it was Calgary-centric, leaving disgruntled backbenchers seething in silence, poised to push back when things went south.


“It was a top-down government,” said Bratt with Calgary’s Mount Royal University.

“He did not have good relations with his MLAs. He hired attack dogs as staffers. And they just didn’t bully the NDP and journalists and members of the public, but their own MLAs as well.”

Kenney’s government was lauded in the first wave of COVID-19, invoking rules and closures to keep gatherings down, hold the illness at bay and keep hospitals operating.

But in subsequent waves, Kenney’s promise to balance “lives and livelihoods” left him whipsawed by those wanting rules to keep hospitals from cratering and those who felt the rules were unnecessary and a violation of personal freedom.

He tried to find a magic middle ground, which resulted in shifting restrictions: regional, provincial, on for some, off for others. Each time he waited until Alberta’s health system was on the brink of collapse before acting, with thousands of surgeries cancelled and waiting rooms jammed.

He announced Alberta was open for good in late spring of 2021, with all restrictions to be lifted earlier than the rest of Canada in a “Best Summer Ever” campaign. There were hats with that slogan and tweets at naysayers: “The pandemic is ending. Accept it.”

Within months, COVID-19 had overwhelmed Alberta’s hospitals so catastrophically that triage rules were imminent and the Armed Forces called in.

Extreme action was needed, so Kenney introduced a type of vaccine passport, something he had promised he would never do — a policy U-turn that enraged many in his party.

Then came the blame.

Kenney said he would’ve acted earlier except his chief medical health officer didn’t recommend anything. Months later, he said Alberta Health Services officials kneecapped his decision-making by delivering shifting bed capacity numbers.

The gig was not going well. Poll numbers were in free fall. UCP backbenchers openly questioned the restrictions — and Kenney.

And there were scandals piling into each other like cars on a freeway.

Alohagate: a bunch of Kenney caucus members ignored calls to stay home over Christmas to avoid the spread of COVID-19 and jetted off to sunny climes while Albertans shivered at home under strict gathering limits.

UCP caucus chair Todd Loewen resigned his post and was kicked out of caucus after publicly demanding Kenney quit for botching vital files, ignoring the backbench, and running a top-down, tone-deaf administration.

“We did not unite around blind loyalty to one man,” pronounced Loewen.

Kenney and some cabinet confidantes were surreptitiously photographed on the balcony of his office enjoying drinks and dinner in obvious violation of distancing rules.

The premier insisted there was no rule-breaking. But as outrage mounted, he announced his team had returned to the scene of the dine, pulled out the measuring tape, checked the chairs and concluded that, yes, they had gathered too close.

Such gaslighting, chortled Notley during question period.

There was more: a lawsuit alleging the premier’s office was fostering a “poisoned work environment;” drink parties in the agriculture minister’s legislature office; the justice minister trying to interfere in the administration of justice by calling up Edmonton’s police chief on a traffic ticket.

Humming in the background was a long-running RCMP investigation into potential criminal identity fraud in the vote that saw Kenney elected UCP leader.

And this was on top of Kenney’s government passing a law in 2019 that sacked the election official investigating Kenney’s UCP for campaign violations.

As the calendar flipped to 2022, the drumbeats of dissent grew louder, even as COVID-19 receded and oil and gas prices soared, returning Alberta to multibillion-dollar budget surpluses

UCP discontents had been angling to accelerate a party leadership review.

That vote was moved, changed to a special one-day vote, then altered again to a mail-in referendum. Critics said Kenney’s team was moving the goalposts to keep from losing.

Kenney called his critics “lunatics” and then, in his speech to kick off the leadership vote, asked for their forgiveness.

No matter.

On May 18, he got 51 per cent support — technically enough to survive, but he said it was time to go.

On Thursday, UCP members meet in Calgary to seal his fate.

The outcome is not in doubt. A new premier will be chosen.

The gig is up.

HIS SHORT FOUR YEAR AUTOCRATIC RULE WAS INSPIRED BY THIS GUY

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Kenney is A Funny Guy

Meanwhile, Conservative government spokesman Jason Kenney compared Hezbollah to the German Nazi party yesterday and said Canadian opposition MPs are providing political cover to the banned organization.

This is funny coming from the guy who defended Franco and Hitler in the House of Commons during the debate on the private members bill to end the declaration of Candadian Veterans of the Spanish Civil War as being illegal and not recognized as Veterans.

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise to speak on Motion No. 75. I wish to commend my hon. colleague from Kamloops for having brought this motion before the House even though I disagree with it in principle and will vote against it.
On the other side, it was not simply a uni-dimensional coalition of fascists supported and motivated by Adolf Hitler. Indeed the German and Italian fascists supported elements of the Phalangist cause, but there were democrats, monarchists, catholics and others who opposed the Republican cause because they saw it as an encroachment of a foreign tyrannical political movement, communism, and its threatened imposition on Spain.

As usual with right wingers Kenney sees communism as a greater threat than Fascism.

TO POSTMEDIA'S GLEE

Spiteful feud between Toronto Star owners sets up battle for the soul of the newspaper

'I don’t think it’s an easy thing to say yet who’s wearing the black hat and who’s wearing the white hat,' says one Toronto Star veteran

Author of the article: Adrian Humphreys
Publishing date: Sep 30, 2022 

NATIONAL POST

AS REPORTED BY THE BIGGEST ALBATROSS POSTMEDIA HAS

Jordan Bitove, left, and Paul Rivett bought

 media company Torstar in 2020, but the partnership is now in ruins. 

PHOTO BY HANDOUT/NORDSTAR/FILES

Different priorities of the two owners of Torstar, which runs the Toronto Star, one of Canada’s largest newspapers, and a host of smaller papers, became obvious not long after they bought the media giant.

Torstar employees said Jordan Bitove started showing extraordinary emotion at meetings and staff gatherings when speaking of journalism’s mission and responsibility.

He “cries,” said one.

He “chokes up,” said another.

“That’s true,” confirmed a third.

By contrast, Paul Rivett, Bitove’s equal partner in the enterprise, appears less emotional with less focus on journalism, several staff members told National Post, speaking on condition they are not named for fear of retribution from management.

“Paul has always been the more hardnose one in terms of the bottom line,” said a veteran employee. “What Paul does is all about distressed assets and turning them into something. I think Jordan fell in love with the newspaper and I don’t think Paul ever did.”

It makes the feud between these former friends — a clash of titans unveiled Thursday in a lawsuit, filed by Rivett, seeking to dissolve their partnership and sell Torstar, perhaps for parts — as more than a business spat.

It sets it as a battle for the soul of the Star.

It could be that things are so bad they just can’t stand to be near each other

The portrait of competing visions — the value of journalism versus the value of a buck — is compelling, Wall Street meets All the President’s Men, and public statements from both men seem to support it.

“In an intensely competitive media landscape that has and will continue to experience radical transformation, there are two schools of thought on how to be successful,” Bitove said in a written statement.

“The preferred playbook of some investors is to cut costs to the bone, strip the product bare, and shrink newsrooms to extract short-term benefit for shareholders. The approach favoured by those of us who believe in the vital role of the media in a strong and vibrant society is to build a product centred on the trusted journalism that readers demand. And to use that demand to build a sustainable business.”

Bitove said he wants to keep the Star in the game emphasizing “investigative journalism our democracy depends upon.”

“I make no apologies for doing so.”

If Rivett thinks that dichotomy is unfair, he doesn’t show it in his request for a judge to wrap up Nordstar, their mutual holding company that owns Torstar.

“Rivett and Bitove have fundamentally different and irreconcilable views,” his lawsuit alleges. “Bitove has ignored Nordstar’s agreed-to prime objective that Nordstar’s business be carried out in common with a view to profit.”

Several employees said they remain skeptical about what’s really going on behind the scenes.

“I don’t think it’s an easy thing to say yet who’s wearing the black hat and who’s wearing the white hat,” said one. Economic realities haven’t escaped the journalists: “The Star is still a business.”

Said another: “I don’t know what each of their endgames is. Is there anything more to Paul’s vision versus Jordan’s vision?”

Meanwhile, everyone feels caught between two masters.

A woman walks past the Toronto Star head office at 1 Yonge Street. 

PHOTO BY PETER J. THOMPSON/NATIONAL POST

The public airing of his beef with Bitove didn’t leave Rivett shy around the newspaper.

He worked in the Star’s downtown newsroom Thursday, erect at a stand-up desk near the fashion and beauty section. Some thought it a powerplay, because the chief executive officer is rarely in the newsroom, but it could just as easily be because the Star is moving next month, and workspace is in flux.

“It could also be that things are so bad they just can’t stand to be near each other,” one employee said.

It is more typical to see Bitove in the newsroom, as would be expected for his role as publisher.

While the stakes for Rivett and Bitove are, at minimum, their $60-million investment to buy the company in 2020, the impact of their feud and potential fallout spreads further.

It is perhaps existential for the newspaper.

“I have fears for our members but also fears for the paper and its survival,” said Randy Kitt, the media sector director of Unifor, the national union that represents workers at the Toronto Star, as well as National Post.

Staff were “blindsided” by the acrimonious split, he said. “We’ve been bargaining collective agreements across the chain, and we’ve been promised there would be investments in the papers. We expected stability under the ownership, not chaos.

“The Toronto Star employees have been through 20 years of downsizing and concessions and of course they’re concerned about the direction and the uncertainty. Canadians should also be concerned by the viability of Canada’s progressive voice in the media landscape,” said Kitt.

Is there anything more to Paul’s vision versus Jordan’s vision?

The Star began publishing in 1892, when seven Toronto papers battled for readers. It started as a dissident voice by striking printers and journalists.

For 49 years it was shepherded by legendary editor and publisher Joseph E. Atkinson — nicknamed Holy Joe — as a progressive voice that became the biggest paper in Canada. Atkinson died in 1948. After a brief period as a charitable organization, it was controlled by a family compact of five wealthy Toronto families, all related to Atkinson, who promised to uphold Atkinson’s values.

Torstar grew and at one point was worth billions.

Its circulation and profits nosedived in the internet age, and the power and prestige from ownership diminished — and dividends disappeared — leading the families to set nostalgia aside and sell in 2020.

The buyer was Nordstar, a 50-50 partnership between Rivett and Bitove, who had been friends for more than a decade. Bitove was named the new publisher of Toronto Star, the flagship newspaper, and Rivett as chair of Torstar, the corporate umbrella.

Several people who know Bitove, from both inside and outside the company, said they often hear him speak of the promise he gave the members of the family compact to stay true to Atkinson’s principles.

“He really does believe in the paper as a public trust,” said one. “Jordan found something he felt was important. I think he really believes in it.”

The company spent a lot of time and money assimilating operations of the Star with the company’s other properties. More recently, it has been undoing that, repatriating the Star’s operation, insiders said.

Perhaps that leaves room for the newspaper to stand alone, perhaps as a not-for-profit news company. “Maybe there’s an opportunity for employees of the Star to buy the paper and make a truly independent news outlet,” said Kitt.

None of those ideas are floated in the legal filing.

The owners of the Toronto Star’s parent company, Torstar, have “have fundamentally different and irreconcilable views,” according to a lawsuit brought by Paul Rivett against co-owner Jordan Bitove. 

PHOTO BY EDUARDO LIMA/THE CANADIAN PRESS/FILE

The lawsuit suggests an inglorious end, essentially an estate sale for a partnership that is dead. The future of the Star might even involve a coin toss.

Under the plan Rivett requests in a court filing, either of the two would get first crack at bidding on the enterprise, or parts of it.

If both parties want any of the same lots there would be an auction. If only one of them wants an asset, the two can haggle, and if they can’t agree on a price, it would go to valuation arbitration, the proposal says.

If both want it all, it would go to a two-man auction, under the proposal. If neither wants to make the first bid, a coin toss will decide and bidding will begin, in writing, with each party having 30 minutes to make a higher bid.

If neither of them wants it, it should go to public auction.

Meanwhile, a newsroom employee said, everyone else keeps working.

“The Star is still the Star I’ve known for years. It’s still tilting at windmills and taking on crusades. The Star hasn’t fundamentally changed at all since the sale of the paper, and I think that’s a good thing.”

• Email: ahumphreys@postmedia.com | Twitter: AD_Humphreys

KANADA

Indigenous leaders want corporate reconciliation efforts to extend beyond Sept. 30

Krystal Abotossaway poses for a photograph in Toronto's financial district on Monday, Feb. 8, 2020. Abotossaway, president of the Indigenous Professional Association of Canada, and other Indigenous business leaders want corporate support around National Day for Truth and Reconciliation to extend all year round and transform companies, so they're more supportive of Indigenous staff every day. 

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Tijana Martin

Tara Deschamps, The Canadian PressSep 30, 2022 

TOROTO — Chelsee Pettit spent much of the summer collaborating with designers to create and manufacture apparel reflective of the Indigenous values she hoped would be on people's minds when Canada marks its second National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.

But in the days leading up to Sept. 30, she noticed many companies had not had the same forethought and were scrambling to place bulk orders with her store, Aaniin.

"It's just a little funny how last-minute other organizations that are all non-Indigenous are, and they're pushing that (work) back onto Indigenous people," said Pettit, an Anishinaabe woman.

"We're not like big box stores that just have disposable T-shirts and are at everybody's beck and call. Working with us ahead of time as opposed to just laying it on us a week before the day, I think would be super helpful."

Pettit has tried her best to accommodate last-minute orders, but she and other members of the Indigenous business community see the trend as a sign of how much more work corporate Canada has to do to turn support for Indigenous communities into a 365-day-a-year effort.

While many businesses encourage staff to don orange shirts — a tradition started by residential school survivor Phyllis Webstad in 2013 — or to sell wares in the bright hue on Sept. 30, those efforts quickly fade. Companies often don't do much more to elevate Indigenous voices and causes.

"It is positive that we are seeing education happen and awareness-building happen, but it can be quite triggering and harmful for Indigenous Peoples who see it as one day of performative action and nothing throughout the rest of the year," said Tabatha Bull, president and chief executive of the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business (CCAB).

Bull and Pettit say if an employer is looking to make a mark on truth and reconciliation goals, they should also be doing that work all year round.

Those efforts should begin with educating staff about both long-standing and new traumas Indigenous Peoplesface and how to support those affected.

Pettit recalls being at work in 2021, when the remains of 215 children were found at a former residential school site in British Columbia.

"My boss at the time was like, 'Oh, well, everybody knew about that already' and just like kind of brushed it off, but I was feeling very emotional that day for obvious reasons, so there's tons of work that has to be done," she said.

That's borne out in studies too.

A 2021 report from equity organization Catalyst Canada found about 52 per cent of the 86 Indigenous respondents surveyed are “on guard” at work and about 60 per cent feel psychologically unsafe on the job.

The study was based on a survey of 820 Canadian workers from various under-represented groups, but Catalyst isolated results from Indigenous respondents for this report because their need to feel on guard was so significant.

Krystal Abotossaway, president of the Indigenous Professional Association of Canada, said she has seen more companies move toward reflecting on what they can do to improve their corporate culture and support Indigenous communities in recent years.

Land acknowledgments, which note which Indigenous Peoples lived and took care of a site events are being held on, are an increasingly common and good start, she said.

Bull counts at least 200 companies, including Bank of Montreal, Uber, Walmart and Rogers, as members of the CCAB's Progressive Aboriginal Relation program — an initiative helping them build cultural awareness and make progress on reconciliation plans.

Others have yet to take on such work. Bull thinks they're slower to act because they feel overwhelmed and afraid of having difficult conversations.

"Some corporations are just not even knowing what the right question is to ask," she said. "I think we need to move beyond that, if we're going to really progress as a country."

Abotossaway said they can start by marking other Indigenous days and use them as an opportunity to educate.

Among those she suggested are Red Dress Day, which commemorates the lives of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, and International Inuit Day, National Indigenous Peoples Day and Louis Riel Day, which celebrates the life of the late Métis leader.

The efforts shouldn't stop there, she added. Companies should reflect on how their governance structures, hiring policies, talent pipelines and workforce education programs align with Indigenous needs, she said.

"We've seen a lot of learning and development content come out, but that's usually just one course and it might be just an hour long," she said.

"Is it mandatory or is it not mandatory? And then how many of your employees or workforce are participating in it?"

Abotossaway and Bull agree any corporate actions on National Day for Truth and Reconciliation or other days should involve Indigenous Peoples at every step — even if the action is selling orange apparel.

Bull said, "If you're going to create an orange shirt, ensure that you're working with an Indigenous artist, ensure that the Orange Shirt Society or an Indigenous organization benefits from that and you're not making a profit off of the orange shirt or Sept. 30."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 30, 2022.

Companies in this story: (TSX:BMO, TSX:RCI)

Tara Deschamps, The Canadian Press

Canadian employers projecting 4.2% salary increase in 2023: Survey

The Canadian Press

Canadian employers project the national average base salary to increase by 4.2 per cent next year, a new survey says.

According to the report by consulting firm Eckler Ltd., the forecast comes as organizations try to balance inflationary pressures, surging interest rates, recession risks and a tight labour market.

British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec are projecting the highest average salary increases, with the Yukon, Nunavut and Prince Edward Island projecting the lowest.

The largest average salary increases are expected to be in the technology sector at 5.4 per cent.

The smallest increases are expected in the education, health care, agriculture and hospitality sectors.

The survey results also show that Canadian organizations are planning to use compensation as a key part of their talent management strategy, with just one per cent of organizations reporting a planned salary freeze for 2023.

Additionally, 44 per cent of organizations remain undecided about salary budgets for 2023.