France planning to ban wild animals from traveling circuses


Christopher Brito

France has announced that it will "gradually" ban wild animals in traveling circuses. The country's ecological transition minister Barbara Pompili made the announcement Tuesday as part of an array of measures focused on animal welfare.

© Getty Images/iStockphoto tiger in the circus arena

"It is time to open a new era in our relationship with these [wild] animals," Pompili said at a press conference, BBC News reported. "It is time that our ancestral fascination with these wild beings no longer means they end up in captivity."

Wild species such as bears, lions, tigers would no longer be allowed in traveling circuses under the ban, she said. The ban would not apply to zoos or other permanent attractions or shows. While no timetable was set for the ban to take effect, Pompili said it would happen in the "years to come."

"Some species are not made for a life of roaming," Pompili later tweeted in French. "We will therefore progress gradually towards the end of animals from wild species in traveling circuses."

Citing recent studies that show how aware orcas and dolphins are of their captivity, Pompili announced France's dolphinariums will be banned from keeping orcas used in shows within two years. Under the same ban, the marine parks have seven years to stop the use of dolphins.

The ban also immediately stops the building of new marine parks and breeding or bringing in new dolphins or orcas.

Pompili also announced a commitment to end mink farming.

"We can no longer keep wild animals for the sole purpose of slaughtering them to be worn in clothing," she tweeted.

According to the BBC, Pompili said the government is offering a $9.3 million package to help circuses and marine parks adapt to the new measures and will consider creating a sanctuary for animals in captivity now.

"Much more than a threat or a prey, the wild animal is now, above all — and this is my deep conviction — a being to be preserved, and to be respected in its integrity, she said.

Animal rights groups such as PETA supported the measures.

"Champagne corks are blowing up at PETA — thank you to everyone who made this win!" PETA France tweeted.

CANADA

New benefits for workers hurt by pandemic hits speed bump in Senate

#ABOLISHTHESENATE

OTTAWA — After being rushed through the House of Commons in a single day, a bill authorizing new benefits for workers impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic has hit a speed bump in the Senate

.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

Sen. Marc Gold, the government's representative in the Senate, was denied leave Wednesday to have the upper house deal with Bill C-4 on Thursday, after having an opportunity to question Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland and Employment Minister Carla Qualtrough about it.

Senators may yet hear from the two ministers on Thursday but they will not begin debating the legislation until Friday, barring further holdups.

Sen. Scott Tannas, leader of the 13-member Canadian Senators Group, said he was among a number of senators who denied the unanimous consent Gold needed to proceed with the bill Thursday.

And he said they did so to protest the fact that Gold has still not proposed a way for the Senate to resume its full functions during the pandemic, with all senators able to participate in debates and votes, either in person or virtually, as is being done in the House of Commons.

Since mid-March, the upper house has met only periodically for single-day sittings to pass pandemic-related emergency aid bills. For those sittings, only a small number of senators have attended, leaving the rest with no role to play.

The situation has been particularly hard on senators from Atlantic provinces, which have imposed travel restrictions on their residents during the pandemic.

"We've got to be the last chamber in all of the Westminster system that is still operating with no hybrid (format) or not even a glimmer of it," Tannas said in interview.

He said senators are also frustrated that the government is pressuring them to approve billions worth of aid legislation in a matter of hours and then go home and do nothing until the next emergency bill comes along. In the case of Bill C-4, he questioned the urgency, noting that applications for one of the proposed new benefits aren't scheduled to open until Monday, and not until Oct. 11 for the other two.

"We just thought today was a good day to provoke some conversation and see if we could get to the bottom of it and get a resolution, having satisfied ourselves that this would not put anybody in jeopardy in terms of the extension of benefits," Tannas said, adding it's still possible to pass the bill on Friday or to hold a special weekend sitting to get it done.

Tannas said Gold has a motion for hybrid Senate sittings "ready to go" but has not introduced it because he wants to arrive at a consensus with all groups in the 105-seat upper house. That's been stymied by the 21 Conservative senators, whom Tannas said continue to want "everybody to be in the chamber and, if you can't be in the chamber, then you should take a sick day."

A motion for hybrid sittings can be passed without the Conservatives and Tannas said no one can figure out why Gold hasn't tried to proceed without them.

"I don't know why. He knows full well that 80 per cent of us are ready to vote on it today."

Sen. Yuen Pau Woo, leader of the largest caucus group in the chamber, the Independent Senators Group, said his members are equally frustrated and mystified about why Gold has not introduced a motion on hybrid sittings.

"This issue of hybrid sittings has been discussed for many months," Woo said in interview, adding that he supports Tannas' efforts to force the issue.

"Many of us were expecting that there would be a motion this week ... It surprises many of us that we haven't seen such a motion being tabled."

Nevertheless, Woo stressed that ISG senators are committed to passing Bill C-4 this week.

In a written statement, Gold said that he "fully supports the implementation of a hybrid approach as soon as the Senate’s internal administration reaches a state of operational readiness."

He said "much progress" has been made to make hybrid sittings possible this fall but declined further comment since discussions among Senate leaders are "ongoing."

Opposition MPs have expressed similar frustration about the short time they've been given to deal with emergency aid legislation.

Conservatives and Bloc Québécois MPs voted Tuesday against the government's bid to fast-track Bill C-4 through the Commons. With the support of the NDP, the government was nevertheless able to speed up passage of the bill, which was eventually approved unanimously in the wee hours of Wednesday morning.

Conservative and Bloc MPs took shots Wednesday at the NDP as they explained why they supported the bill after vigorously opposing the manner in which it was sped through the Commons.

"This is a minority government, not a coalition government," Conservative House leader Gérard Deltell said. "We have to keep that in mind and I hope that the NDP will continue to do their job. They are there as an opposition party and they have to do opposition work in the House of Commons."

Deltell said Conservatives ultimately supported the bill because, "in the big picture, we are talking about Canadian workers."

"They need some support. Canadian business, they need some support. So this is why we approved the bill at the end of the process."

Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet echoed that position, saying the principles of the legislation "are pretty good."

Yet both he and Deltell continued to complain about the fast-tracking, with Blanchet saying the Liberals' decision to rush the aid package was a blow to democracy, robbing MPs of a chance to analyze and possibly improve the bill.

"We were not given time to proceed with the analysis and the improvements that this law might have received because the government decided for some particular reasons or purpose that … it was important enough for the government to impose the 'shut-up' procedure,'" Blanchet said.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh shot back that New Democrats supported the bill only after forcing the government to make changes that will help millions more Canadians. And he mocked the other two opposition parties for complaining that the NDP "fought to get help to people too quickly."

"We fought and we won for Canadians," Singh said.

"The Conservatives and the Bloc have done nothing. Throughout this pandemic, there's not a single win they can point to that they've helped out Canadians. I think that's a pretty bad record."

All opposition parties have blamed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for creating the need for the speedy approval of the bill by proroguing Parliament for a month, during which time it could not deal with anything.

Bill C-4 replaces the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, which came to an end last weekend after helping almost nine million Canadians weather the pandemic. The CERB is being replaced with a more flexible and generous employment insurance regime and, for those who still don't qualify for EI, a new Canada Recovery Benefit.

The bill also creates a new sick-leave benefit and another new caregiver benefit for those forced to take time off work to care for a dependent due to the pandemic.

At the behest of the NDP, the government has increased the proposed new benefits to $500 per week from the originally proposed $400, aiming to see that no one receives less than they were getting under the CERB.

It has also expanded the eligibility criteria for the sick-leave benefit so that it applies not just to individuals who contract COVID-19 but also to those with underlying health conditions or other illnesses, including the flu or the common cold, that makes them more susceptible to COVID-19.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 30, 2020.

Joan Bryden and Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press

New Steinem biopic shines light on a sisterhood of activists

Among the pithy quips attributed to Gloria Steinem over the years is this reply to why she wasn't interested in getting married: “I can’t mate in captivity.”

© Provided by The Canadian Press

She did eventually marry, to her own surprise, at age 66. But that scene takes up barely a minute in Julie Taymor’s 139-minute long new biopic about Steinem, “The Glorias,” not just because it came late in a long (and still actively ongoing) life, but because there are so many other important relationships to focus on, namely the key women who partnered with Steinem — in friendship, and in activism — on her long journey to becoming America’s most visible feminist.

Women like Bella Abzug, Florynce Kennedy, Dorothy Pitman Hughes and Wilma Mankiller, all of whom (and more) are portrayed in the film, giving moviegoers a quick but valuable education in the history of the women's movement.

“One of the great things about this movie,” Steinem, 86, said in a recent interview, “is that it will lead viewers into knowing more about these women.” Women who, perhaps excepting Abzug, were not nearly as familiar to the public as their very recognizable colleague.

Lorraine Toussaint, who gives a memorably vivid turn as Kennedy, the prominent Black activist and founding member of the National Women’s Political Caucus, said Steinem herself helped guide her performance.

“We realized we had a champion, and that was Gloria herself,” Toussaint said in an interview. “She was very, very helpful for me in terms of her memories with Flo Kennedy and her appreciation of Flo. She speaks so candidly and openly of figures like Flo who did not get the credit she believed they deserved."

History, added Toussaint, has not heard much about Black women in either the suffrage movement or in second-wave feminism. “But Gloria tried to give these women credit," Toussaint said. "The press wasn’t particularly interested in giving them credit, but Gloria certainly spoke out as often as she could.”

In the film, based on the memoir “My Life on the Road,” there are poignant scenes with Steinem and longtime speaking partner Pitman Hughes (Janelle Monáe), the Black activist with whom she appeared in a famous 1971 photograph, firsts raised. And with Mankiller (Kimberly Guerrero), another close Steinem friend and activist who became the first female Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation.

Then there was Abzug, played by Bette Midler in the film opposite Julianne Moore's Steinem. (Moore is one of four actors playing her at different stages of her life.)

Outwardly, the two women could not have appeared more different. The New York congresswoman, nicknamed “Battling Bella,” was unapologetically brash and exuberant, recognizable immediately by the large hats she always wore. Gloria Steinem was known as a “quiet warrior,” in Taymor's words, with a natural Midwestern reserve, long streaked hair and those iconic aviator glasses.

But their friendship ran deep. “She was my teacher and my friend," Steinem said in the interview. “She was enormously funny. Absolutely New York, you know. And I used to say things like, ‘Oh, you’re the person I should have had as my mother.’ And she would say, ‘I’m not old enough to be your mother.’” (Steinem told the same anecdote, through tears, at Abzug's 1998 funeral.)

Moore says she was unfamiliar, before making the film, of Steinem’s close relationship with Abzug.

“We had so much research available to us, and one of the things I drew on was just how much Gloria loved Bella,” the actor said in an interview. "You could see it in the research, the way she looked at her. And so Bette and I hadn't met before and I fell in love with her right away, and I thought it was wonderful to have our relationship and base it on Gloria’s love for Bella at the same time."

Midler, too, was struck by the relationship between the two women.

“There was so much respect there, so much respect and so much fun,” she said. "I think they had a great time together. I think they howled. And I wanted to make sure people knew that it wasn’t the kind of adversarial relationship that lots of people seem to have with Betty Friedan, although I worship Betty Friedan ... but that wasn’t the case with Gloria and Bella. That was real love.”

Taymor says her favourite moment between the two women happens in the offices of Ms. Magazine, which Steinem co-founded, and Abzug is explaining to the conflict-averse Steinem that she can't shy away from conflict with Friedan, the feminist leader and author.

“The difference between them is that moment in the Ms. office where she says 'You can’t avoid conflict, and if you try to avoid conflict, conflict will seek you out.” And they were very different personalities. Gloria ... didn’t want to have women fighting women.”

“And Bella said sometimes we argue, sometimes we fight, sometimes we don’t get along. You know, she understood that women aren’t superwomen, but we’re after the same thing."

Midler said she considered one of the achievements of Taymor's film to be that "You see them together planning, step by step and being in a room and actually making this movement from scratch. I thought it was very exciting. ... these women stayed together for over 50 years, as a clan. They really did. And they moved mountains.”

Jocelyn Noveck, The Associated Press

Biden uses 'inshallah' in response to Trump during debate, lighting up Twitter

By Tamara Qiblawi, CNN

During one of the more charged moments of the chaotic US presidential debate, former Vice President Joe Biden dropped a phrase from everyday Muslim and Arab vocabulary and lit up the internet. 

© Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images Democratic Presidential candidate and former US Vice President Joe Biden speaks during the first presidential debate at Case Western Reserve University and Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, on September 29, 2020. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP) (Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)

Pressing President Donald Trump on when the American public would get to see his long-anticipated tax returns, Biden questioned: "When? Inshallah?"

In certain vernacular, "inshallah" serves as a non-committal response to a question.

Taken literally, the term "inshallah," consists of three Arabic words (In sha' Allah) which translate into "if God wills it." Spiritually it represents a submission to God's will. It can perhaps be seen as the Muslim counterpart to the Yiddish adage, "Man plans, and God laughs."

Children in the Muslim world will often say that when a parent responds to a question with "inshallah," it signals an unfulfilled promise, while unreliable timekeeping is lightheartedly chalked up to "inshallah timing."

"Yes, Joe Biden said 'Inshallah' during the #Debates2020 debate," tweeted political commentator Wajahat Ali. "It literally means 'God willing,' but it's often used to mean, 'Yeah, never going to happen.' Example: My wife: Will you finally pick up your socks? Me: Inshallah. No, saying inshallah doesn't make you Muslim."

So when Biden called the President out on his amorphous sense of timing around his long-promised tax returns, "inshallah" seemed to hit the nail on the head for those well-versed in Muslim and Arab culture. Trump has never released his tax returns to the public, something out of step with previous Republican and Democratic presidential candidates and incumbents.

However, earlier this week, The New York Times reported that Trump had paid no federal income taxes in 10 out of 15 years beginning in 2000 because he reported losing significantly more than he made, citing more than two decades of tax information the paper obtained.

While many saw Biden's use of the phrase as a nod to their own experiences, others saw it as derogatory and drawing on cultural stereotypes about the Muslim and Arab world.

For many in the Muslim and Arab world, the phrase retains its original spiritual purpose. Far from providing license for fickle behavior, "inshallah" represents a relinquishment of control over the uncontrollable. It is an acknowledgement that while one will try to fulfill their goal, there could be God-like circumstances that may get in the way. To many, the utterance of the phrase is an exercise in humility.

"It's so disheartening that the best thing the Biden campaign seems to be able to offer Muslim Americans in the midst of an uptick in islamophobic violence is an offhand, completely inappropriately applied 'inshallah' in the debate," tweeted political activist Meriam Masmoudi.

Howard Levitt: It's completely legal for your employer to spy on you — but there's a catch

© Provided by Financial Post Your employer may be listening or even watching you at any hour of the day.

It should not have taken a pandemic to realize how much we rely upon technology although we intuitively understood that.

The amount of technology devices we rely upon is, in many respects, not good for us. We reflexively pick up our phone with every jingle or buzz. It sometimes seems that our smartphones know more about what we are thinking than we do ourselves. We utter a mere thought and our phone has an advertisement turning that thought into reality.

It’s no surprise that, while privacy has always been a concern, it became a greater one once Canadians were sent home to work in the midst of the pandemic. With many employees being told that they will not see the inside of their offices until 2021, a prevalent question is: what are my privacy rights when it comes to working at home?

The thought of your phone listening to you seems unhinged. It will alarm the Canadian public to know that their employer may be listening or even watching them at any hour of the day, too.

It is somewhat routine for various organizations to monitor their employees’ customer calls but some of these organizations have now taken up monitoring their employee’s screens.

The software, referred to as tattleware, is being downloaded on personal computers to allow employers to track employees’ mouse movements. This means your employer can observe your interactions with clients or what you are searching for on the internet while on the clock. Some versions of this software actually allow employers to download videos of their employee’s screens.

It may surprise you to know that this is completely legal. But there is a catch, or rather, a balance.

An employee must be aware of how their information is being used and collected and it must be balanced with the employer’s justification. For example, if it’s being used to properly manage the organization’s operations, your employer can do so. If your manager is wondering what you have on your desktop for pure entertainment, then that would be offside to a court.

At the end of the day, the employer has a right to ensure that employees are doing what they are paid to do. Otherwise, employers should refrain from randomly checking in on their employees unless it’s tied to a reasonable justification related to work productivity or operations.

At this point, there is no case law on the topic of tracking software specifically, but there are general privacy laws.

Canada’s main statute governing privacy is the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). The act applies to private-sector organizations across Canada, except provinces that have enacted their own privacy legislation such as British Columbia, Quebec and Alberta, regarding the collection, use or disclosure of personal information in the course of a commercial activity. In those provinces that have their own legislation, PIPEDA will still continue to apply to federal bodies, such as telecommunications and banking sectors.

© Getty Images/iStockphoto An employee must be aware of how their information is being used and collected and it must be balanced with the employer’s justification.

The law defines a commercial activity as: “any particular transaction, act, or conduct, or any regular course of conduct.”

An employee covered by PIPEDA, who believes their personal information has been mishandled can file a complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC). Once a complaint is filed, an investigation will take place. One of the remedies that can be rendered is a compliance agreement, which is enforceable by the Federal Court, where the employer will commit to implementing certain measures to resolve the original dispute.

Specifically, section 16 of PIPEDA allows a court to award damages. In one of the first cases, Randall v. Nubodys Fitness Centre, the court confirmed that there is a very high bar for the award of damages under this section and it is only to be used for the most “egregious situations.” In this case, the Fitness Centre disclosed Randall’s frequency of gym attendance to his employer, without the necessary consent.

In the alternative, an employee may bring a suit under the tort of “inclusion upon seclusion.” The leading case is Jones v. Tsige from Ontario’s Court of Appeal. In order to prove this tort, there must be conduct that was intentional or reckless, a defendant who invaded, without lawful justification, the plaintiff’s affairs, and lastly, that a reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation, or anguish. In this case, which involved an extraordinary outrageous privacy breach, the plaintiff was still awarded damages of only $10,000.

But before filing a complaint or getting a court involved, there are steps both employees and employers can take. Employees should ask questions as to what kind of personal information is being collected and why. Employers should be advising their employees of the mechanisms they use for monitoring, their reasoning, and finally the consent of their employees. If employers do not advise their employees, they may be hit with a complaint that can lead to damages.

Employees should not be too keen on bringing matters of this nature to court. Aside from extensive legal fees, the employee is jeopardizing their position in a COVID-19 economy. You may be angered that your employer has been monitoring you, but surely, you would rather be monitored then have no job at all. That is the modern, arguably ugly truth.

Got a question about employment law during COVID-19? Write to me at levitt@levittllp.com.

Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt LLP, employment and labour lawyers. He practises employment law in eight provinces. He is the author of six books including the Law of Dismissal in Canada.

Banned Book Week 2020: Many banned books center on LGBTQ stories, American Library Association says

By Scottie Andrew, CNN



Some school libraries ban books because characters use witchcraft. Others do because of profanity or sexual content, or because of uncomfortable themes like racism.  

© Simon & Schuster "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," a picture book designed to teach young children about same-sex relationships, ended up on the top 100 most frequently banned book list.

But a great deal of the most frequently challenged books of the last decade center around LGBTQ characters and themes, an analysis from the American Library Association revealed.

In honor of "Banned Books Week" the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom published lists of the top 10 most challenged books of 2019 and the top 100 most frequently banned books of the decade.


Lists from years past show that censorship of LGBTQ stories is a recent trend.

On the top 10 most challenged books of 2019 rankings, eight were challenged because of LGBTQ content. Several of them centered on transgender characters, like "George," about a fourth-grade trans girl, and "I Am Jazz," a picture book about real-life activist Jazz Jennings, who transitioned at a young age. 

 

© Penguin Random House Many of the most frequently challenged books in the US focus on LGBTQ characters and experiences, the American Library Association said during Banned Book Week. "The Color Purple" explores sexual identity, violence and abuse, among other themes, and often ends up on most-banned lists.

Others range from classics like "The Color Purple," which features a lesbian relationship, to contemporary comics aimed at grade schoolers like "Sex is a Funny Word."

Other frequently challenged books focused on Black characters, including "The Hate U Give" by Angie Thomas, which centers on police shootings and racism, and Toni Morrison's "The Bluest Eye" and "Beloved."

Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom, told CNN that her office has seen a "growing trend" of censoring books that prominently feature LGBTQ characters.

"There are members of every community that need and wanted these resources, that want to find themselves reflected in their library's collections and programs," she said. "This allows them to understand themselves in the world and affirm their identity."

The dangers of censoring LGBTQ stories

Henry Cody Miller, an assistant professor of English at the College of Brockport, State University of New York, wrote about the high number of LGBTQ books for Teaching Tolerance Magazine in 2019. Omitting narratives from schools can perpetuate harm, he said.

"Framing a book that features LGBTQ characters as 'controversial' places the onus of conflict on LGBTQ people," he wrote. "There is nothing controversial or problematic about being a member of the LGBTQ community."

Books about diverse experiences are beneficial for every reader, Caldwell-Stone said.

"Books, novels, true stories and memoirs are ways of developing empathy for other people and their lives," she said. "If we take that away from young people, we're really depriving them of opportunities to develop as individuals, to understand the world."

The number of frequently challenged LGBTQ books, though, also signals that books with these themes and characters are being published more frequently and read more widely.

But if a book is censored by school officials, it's almost impossible for a librarian or teacher to get that book into a student's hands, Caldwell-Stone said. That's why Banned Books Week focuses on advocacy, too, and features talks with authors on access to literature.

Caldwell-Stone said it's necessary to champion the inclusion of diverse books in collections, even if those books don't align with one's personal views, "so that everyone can find what they need in the library."

National Post newsroom employees apply to unionize with Unifor


TORONTO — Employees in the National Post newsroom are working to unionize, Unifor said Wednesday.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

Unifor filed an application with the Ontario Labour Relations Board to represent staff at the newspaper, according to Unifor spokesman Stuart Laidlaw.

"The company has just received the application and we are reviewing it," said Phyllise Gelfand, Postmedia vice-president communications.

Unifor organizer Chris MacDonald said a majority of the workers must vote to join the union within the next week for it to be successful. There will be a notice put up in the workplace to let workers know that Unifor filed the number of membership cards needed to trigger a vote to create a union in the workplace, MacDonald said.

"They have come to us seeking an opportunity to organize. It's not a huge number of workers, so most will be involved in the process, I would imagine," MacDonald said.

"This is about their working conditions, their relationship with their employer and compensation. Those are the reasons people seek out a union ... they would like someone to bargain on behalf of their interests, collectively."

The Toronto-based newspaper's parent company, Postmedia Network Canada Corp., said at the end of May it would lay off about 40 employees after a number of its unions would not approve a temporary salary reduction.

At that time, the media conglomerate already had 43 collective agreements, including with CWA Canada and Unifor, across the company.

Postmedia’s latest financial results in July showed quarterly sales down nearly 30 per cent from the year prior, even as the company cut costs through additional layoffs, closing 15 of its 125 publications and slashing salaries.

Unifor, which says it is Canada’s largest media union with 11,900 members in the sector, has been pushing for more government support for Canadian journalism.

"COVID has sped up the unravelling of media's business model, thanks to Google and Facebook sucking ad dollars out of Canada," Unifor National President Jerry Dias said in August.

"Just in television local news, we've seen a 23 per cent decline in editorial and operations jobs since 2014. The numbers in print journalism are worse, more like 44 per cent."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 30, 2020.

Companies in this report (TSX:PNC.A, TSX:PNC.B)

Anita Balakrishnan, The Canadian Press

US says it will block palm oil from large Malaysian producer

The United States will block shipments of palm oil from a major Malaysian producer that feeds into the supply chains of iconic U.S. food and cosmetic brands. It found indicators of forced labour, including concerns about child workers, along with other abuses such as physical and sexual violence

.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

The order against FGV Holdings Berhad, one of Malaysia’s largest palm oil companies and a joint-venture partner with American consumer goods giant Procter & Gamble, went into effect Wednesday, said Brenda Smith, executive assistant commissioner at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Office of Trade.

The action, announced a week after The Associated Press exposed major labour abuses in Malaysia’s palm oil industry, was triggered by a petition filed last year by non-profit organizations.

“We would urge the U.S. importing community again to do their due diligence,” Smith said, adding companies should look at their palm oil supply chains. “We would also encourage U.S. consumers to ask questions about where their products come from.”

Malaysia is the world’s second largest producer of palm oil. Together with Indonesia, the two countries dominate the global market, producing 85 per cent of the $65 billion supply.

Palm oil and its derivatives from FGV, and closely connected Malaysian state-owned Felda, makes its way into the supply chains of major multinationals. They include Nestle, L’Oreal, and Unilever, according to the companies’ most recently published supplier and palm oil mill lists. Several huge Western banks and financial institutions not only pour money directly or indirectly into the palm oil industry, but they hold shares in FGV.

Smith said the agency carried out its own year-long probe and combed through reports from nonprofits and the media, including the AP’s investigation.

AP reporters interviewed more than 130 former and current workers from eight countries at two dozen palm oil companies — including Felda, which owns about a third of the shares in FGV. They found everything from unpaid wages to outright slavery and allegations of rape, sometimes involving minors. They also found stateless Rohingya Muslims, one of the world’s most persecuted minorities, had been trafficked onto Malaysian plantations and forced to work.

Many of the problems detailed by Smith mirrored those found by The AP. She said the Customs agency found indicators of restriction of movement on plantations, isolation, physical and sexual violence, intimidation and threats, retention of identity documents, withholding of wages, debt bondage, abusive working and living conditions, excessive overtime, and concerns about potential forced child labour.

FGV issued a statement over the weekend outlining its commitment to human rights, including steps it was taking to make sure its workers have access to their passports and wages. Felda and the Malaysian government did not respond to questions from AP about the findings of its investigation.

“Despite ongoing criticism and allegations against FGV, we will continue with our effort to strengthen our practices to respect human rights and uphold labour standards,” FGV said. “Our commitment to sustainability is clear, and we are determined to achieve the goals and targets we have set as a responsible and sustainable business.”

FGV Holdings has been under fire for labour abuses in the past and was sanctioned by the global Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil certification group two years ago. The association promotes ethical production -- including the treatment of workers -- with members that include growers, buyers, traders, and environmental watchdogs.

Though Asian banks are by far the most robust financiers of the plantations, Western lenders and investment companies have poured billions of dollars into the industry in recent years, allowing for the razing and replanting of ever-expanding tracts of land. Some hold shares in FGV itself — including Vanguard Group, BlackRock, Charles Schwab, State Street Global Advisors, HSBC, and even the California Public Employees’ Retirement System — according to the financial data analysis firm, Eikon.

The AP did not receive comment from any of those financial institutions on Wednesday, but when asked more broadly about their ties to the palm oil industry last week, most responded by noting their policies vowing to support sustainability practices, with many also incorporating human rights into their guidelines.

Multinational food and cosmetic companies responded in a similar way last week, saying they do not tolerate labour and human rights abuses and will immediately investigate complaints they receive and take action, including suspension of a supplier, if necessary.

This is the first time Customs has issued an order related to palm oil, though shipments from other sectors have been detained after similar investigations into forced labour were conducted. They include seafood, cotton and human hair pieces believed to have been made by persecuted Uighur Muslims inside Chinese labour camps.

Under Wednesday’s order, palm oil products or derivatives traceable to FGV will be detained at U.S. ports. If the company is unable to prove that the goods were not produced with forced labour, it can be exported.

“For all these years these companies have refused to pay for remediation or publicly cut ties with FGV, so now the U.S. government has acted for them,” said Robin Averbeck of the San Francisco-based Rainforest Action Network, which was among a group of nonprofits that filed one of two petitions against FGV last year. “Procter & Gamble and other brands must stop paying lip service to human rights and address forced labour and other labour abuses once and for all.”

Margie Mason And Robin McDowell, The Associated Press

Ryan Reynolds is using part of his salary to hire BIPOC crew members in Vancouver

hello-canada 

Ryan Reynolds wants to ensure diversity on his new upcoming Netflix production in Vancouver, and he is dedicating a portion of his salary to ensure there are hires from marginalized groups.

The effort is part of the Group Effort Initiative. Those who are interested in taking part in the untitled Netflix project are invited to submit their applications online to be part of the crew. The website opened on Sept. 24 and was so popular it crashed, but it is now functioning normally, according to the group's Twitter.

Video player from: YouTube (Privacy Policy, Terms)

The Vancouver-born star shared a YouTube video to promote the Group Effort Initiative.


"Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds. From the same wooden background," the funny actor began, glancing around the familiar room with wooden panelling.

"Today we're announcing something that I'm super excited about. It's called the Group Effort Initiative.

"Making a movie, well, it's a group effort. But for entirely too long, that group has systemically excluded Black, Indigenous, people of colour and a whole host of other marginalized communities, of all ages.

"Wait, ALL AGES?!" the 43-year-old paused. "Yes! Because it's never too late."

"I myself am actually way older than I appear on set. So, you're going to see what Ryan Reynolds looks like without the full... you know... beauty makeup," he said, pointing to his face as a photo popped up showing an "aged Ryan" in the Deadpool costume with white hair!

The new recruits for the project will be "paid, housed and travelled" using a part of Ryan's salary. They will gain experience on set and the opportunity to learn from others. The actor says if the new hires "aren't too disillusioned" after the project, they will then be able to use the experience to develop a career in the film industry.

He also encouraged others with privilege similar to him to embrace the name of "Group Effort Initiative" and join.

Those who are looking to get involved can register on the Group Effort Initiative website. The site provides further details on the new hires, who can be anywhere from 18 to 118+. The Group Effort Initiative is hoping to hire 10 to 20 trainees and begin filming the movie this fall, permitting COVID-19 restrictions allow.

Once registered, filming and application details will be sent out in the coming weeks.

© Provided by Hello!
Chadwick Boseman and Sienna Miller at a 21 Bridges photocall on Nov. 9, 2019 in Los Angeles. Photo: © David Livingston/FilmMagic

Ryan's Group Effort Initiative comes at the same time that Sienna Miller revealed how the late Chadwick Boseman gave up part of his salary on their film 21 Bridges to help her achieve equal pay. She described it as the "most astounding thing that I've experienced."

Buying food online? Farmers are paying to make that possible — and it might put them out of business



Grocery shopping online is convenient. A convenience farmers fear could put them out of business.


A handful of grocery chains supply Canadians with food and, with online sales predicted to surge beyond the pandemic, they’re racing to adapt. That means a suite of expenses — warehouses, robotics, software development, delivery trucks — that farmers and processors say are being passed down to them.

“This is coming from the imbalance of (market) power,” said Michael Graydon, CEO of Food, Health, and Consumer Products of Canada, an association representing Canada’s food, beverage, and consumer products industries.

“When you’ve got over 80 per cent of grocery retail consolidated into five individual retailers, it gives them (significant market power). That’s the root cause of the issue.”

Together, Loblaws, Sobeys/Safeway, and Metro make up 63 per cent of all grocery stores in the country.

That leaves farmers and food processors few options to get their products to market, and minimal negotiating power to set prices that reflect their costs of production. It’s a situation farmers say has contributed to skyrocketing farm debt in Canada and could have cascading impacts on Canada’s food supply chain.

“That makes farmers less resilient, less able to adapt to climate change, less able to have the reserves they need to protect themselves from unexpected events like pandemics,” said Darrin Qualman, director of climate policy and action for the National Farmers Union.

Canadian farmers have been increasingly pinched between rising costs for growing food and lower prices for years. They’re the only part of Canada’s food supply chain that is distributed across several thousand small businesses — a sharp contrast to heavy consolidation among both grocery chains and seed and fertilizer companies.

They’re also competing against producers in Mexico, the United States, and other countries where the cost of growing and processing food is cheaper, Graydon said. Eventually, farmers and processors can’t cut their costs any further. Unless they can convince domestic retailers that their food is worth a higher price tag, they’re forced out of business and that increases Canadians’ dependence on food grown across international borders or thousands of kilometres away.

Taken together, these forces have put farmers and processors in a difficult position, Graydon and Qualman agreed. A position that’s set to get worse as grocery chains race for online dominance, a competition best exemplified by a $3.5-billion e-commerce expansion project announced by Walmart Canada in July.

The company’s plans include renovating a third of its Canadian stores, building two new distribution centres to serve online customers, and incorporating robots and machine learning into its operations.

“This investment ensures we’re developing a supply chain that is the envy of the world. The better the supply chain, the quicker our customers can get the products they want,” said John Bayliss, senior vice-president of logistics and supply chains for Walmart Canada in a written statement in July. Canada's National Observer made multiple requests to Walmart for comment that were not answered by publication time.

The problem, Graydon said, is that the company has been clear the $3.5 billion won’t come from its coffers. Instead, it will be transferred down the supply chain as an “infrastructure fee” applied to the price received by the food processors and farmers supplying the U.S.-based company.

“There’s been this tradition to improve profitability while (keeping prices low for consumers) by putting all the risk and responsibility (of expansion) back onto the suppliers,” Graydon said.

That’s common among grocery chains across the country, he explained. What’s different with Walmart’s recent announcement is that the company told its suppliers directly it would be cutting into the prices suppliers received to fund the expansion project. And presented with few other places to sell their goods, producers don’t have much choice besides accepting the price cut and hoping they stay afloat.

“(Walmart) has just reported some of the best financial results in the history of their organization and is now putting what is traditionally the purview of the company themselves — capital investment in growth — onto its (suppliers),” Graydon said.

Walmart saw its sales jump 10 per cent in the first quarter of 2020, a direct result of pandemic panic purchases, and the fastest pace of growth in almost 20 years.

Nor is it alone.

The bulk of this growth went to the country’s three major grocery chains — Loblaws, Sobeys/Safeway, and Metro — companies that are also surging into online shopping, Graydon said. They’re just less transparent about how they’re funding these expansion plans.

Even the federal government is concerned.

“It is unfortunate to see grocers impose these costly (expansion) fees during this pandemic, which fall on the thousands of Canadian food producers who are working hard to feed Canadians and support their communities amid many challenges,” said Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau in an emailed statement.

However, she noted that “terms of sale are generally the exclusive domain between suppliers and buyers, and these areas fall under provincial jurisdiction ... Given that unfair business practices, including as they relate to terms of sale, are addressed at the provincial level, we encourage our provincial and territorial counterparts to examine this matter.”

The minister did not specify whether the federal Competition Act, which aims to “maintain and encourage competition in Canada ... to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises have an equitable opportunity to participate in the Canadian economy,” could be applied in this context.

That doesn’t surprise Graydon.

“The problem is the way the Competition Act is established today,” he said. The Competition Bureau, which administers the act, only looks at the consumer impacts of mergers and consolidation within an industry.

“(The Competition Bureau) doesn’t look at the impact (of consolidation) on the supply chain supporting these retailers.”

Impacts that the pandemic laid bare.

Two huge federally inspected meat-packing plants process about 80 per cent of all beef eaten in Canada. They’re preferred suppliers for Canadian grocery chains because only federally inspected meat can cross provincial borders, while consolidated processing capacity leads to economies of scale — and cheaper meat.

Both were hit hard by the pandemic, with one forced to close for two weeks to control a COVID-19 outbreak at the facility. That led to tumbling cattle prices, steers piled up in feedlots and farms across the country, and concerns of countrywide meat shortages, explained Qualman from the National Farmers Union.

That should be a wake-up call, Graydon said.

“It’s unfortunate that the competition laws in this country haven’t adjusted to the consolidation to protect the wider supply chain.”

Marc Fawcett-Atkinson, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, National Observer