The government’s bad run of digital policy choices that led to blocked news links on Facebook and Instagram, ongoing litigation over mandated streaming payments, and the recent cancellation of the digital services tax, has paved the way for another costly loss. Last fall, the Canadian government announced the conclusion of its national security review of TikTok and arrived at a curious plan: ban the company from operating in Canada but leave the app itself untouched. The decision raised concerns about weakening privacy enforcement as the Privacy Commissioner of Canada acknowledged that it is easier to compel documents and support investigations if the company is in Canada (the results of a Privacy Commissioner investigation into TikTok have still not been released).
The decision also seemed likely to hurt cultural groups who had grown reliant on TikTok sponsorship and support. This was discussed in a Law Bytes podcast episode with Scott Benzie of Digital First Canada, who discussed the remarkable successes of TikTok creators in Canada warned about the harm they would face with a corporate ban. Similarly, at the time I wrote:
TikTok will likely promote that it has spent significant money on Canadian cultural policy initiatives, with a particular focus on music and indigenous creators. Much like the Meta withdrawal from news and its associated agreements, it is similarly unlikely it will continue to provide that support in light of the corporate ban.
Sure enough, TikTok has now announced that it is pulling sponsorships from art institutions such as the Juno Awards and Toronto International Film Festival. It is also cancelling support for the ADISQ music awards gala that honours the Quebec music sector and ending the National Screen Institute’s TikTok Accelerator for Indigenous Creators, which has worked with hundreds of indigenous creators over the years. The company is still challenging the government’s decision in federal court, but the loss of millions in cultural support was entirely predictable.
I’ve argued that Canada needs better laws, not app bans with regard to TikTok. There are real issues and risks with the service that require a serious policy response. But removing the corporate offices and leaving the app untouched always seemed to guarantee the worst possible outcome by doing little to address the potential risks faced by Canadians and bringing to halt some of the cultural benefits of having the service operate in Canada. This represents yet another own goal that undermines the government’s hopes of increased support for the cultural sector.
When the intersection of law and technology presents seemingly intractable new challenges, policy makers often bet on technology itself to solve the problem. Whether countering copyright infringement with digital locks, limiting access to unregulated services with website blocking, or deploying artificial intelligence to facilitate content moderation, there is a recurring hope the answer to the policy dilemma lies in better technology. While technology frequently does play a role, experience suggests that the reality is far more complicated as new technologies also create new risks and bring unforeseen consequences. So too with the emphasis on age verification technologies as a magical solution to limiting under-age access to adult content online. These technologies offer some promise, but the significant privacy and accuracy risks that could inhibit freedom of expression are too great to ignore.
The Hub runs a debate today on the mandated use of age verification technologies. I argue against it in a slightly shorter version of this post. Daniel Zekveld of the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada makes the case for it in this post.
The Canadian debate over age verification technologies – which has now expanded to include both age verification and age estimation systems – requires an assessment of both the proposed legislative frameworks and the technologies themselves. The last Parliament featured debate over several contentious Internet-related bills, notably streaming and news laws (Bills C-11 and C-18), online harms (Bill C-63) and Internet age verification and website blocking (Bill S-210). Bill S-210 fell below the radar screen for many months as it started in the Senate and received only cursory review in the House of Commons. The bill faced only a final vote in the House but it died with the election call. Once Parliament resumed, the bill’s sponsor, Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne, wasted no time in bringing it back as Bill S-209.
The bill would create an offence for any organization making available pornographic material to anyone under the age of 18 for commercial purposes. The penalty for doing so is $250,000 for the first offence and up to $500,000 for any subsequent offences. Organizations can rely on three potential defences:
The organization instituted a government-approved “prescribed age-verification or age estimation method” to limit access. There is a major global business of vendors that sell these technologies and who are vocal proponents of this kind of legislation.
The organization can make the case that there is “legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts.”
The organization took steps required to limit access after having received a notification from the enforcement agency (likely the CRTC).
Note that Bill S-209 has expanded the scope of available technologies for implementation: while S-210 only included age verification, S-209 adds age estimation technologies. Age estimation may benefit from limiting the amount of data that needs to be collected from an individual, but it also suffers from inaccuracies. For example, using estimation to distinguish between a 17 and 18 year old is difficult for both humans and computers, yet the law depends upon it. Given the standard for highly effective technologies, age estimation technologies may not receive government approvals, leaving only age verification in place.
The government would determine through regulation what constitutes valid age verification or age estimation technologies. In doing so, the bill says it must ensure that the method:
(a) is highly effective; (b) is operated by a third-party organization that deals at arm’s length from any organization making pornographic material available on the Internet for commercial purposes; (c) maintains user privacy and protects user personal information; (d) collects and uses personal information solely for age-verification or age-estimation purposes, except to the extent required by law; (e) limits the collection of personal information to what is strictly necessary for the age verification or age estimation; (f) destroys any personal information collected for age-verification or age-estimation purposes once the verification or estimation is completed; and (g) generally complies with best practices in the fields of age verification and age estimation, as well as privacy protection.
Bill S-209 is an improvement over its predecessor as it seeks to exclude search and other incidental distribution, adopts a new standalone definition for pornographic materials, and sets a higher standard for the technology itself. Yet many concerns remain: the bill still envisions court ordered website blocking, including blocking access to lawful content by those entitled to access it. In fact, the bill expressly states blocking may “have the effect of preventing persons in Canada from being able to access material other than pornographic material made available by the organization.” Orders that knowingly block lawful content is certain to raise Charter of Rights challenges.
From a technological perspective, Bill S-209 still relies on technologies that raise both privacy and accuracy concerns and puts government into the business of evaluating those technologies. Based on the analysis from regulators around the world, the mandated implementation of these technologies appears premature at best. For example, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada conducted a consultation last year on the issue of such technologies, identifying three key categories of harms that age assurance technologies are meant to remedy or that they may cause.
A harm that proponents of these technologies want to mitigate is “the extent of youths’ exposure to sexually explicit material online, the frequency with which this material is of an aggressive or violent nature, and the potential harms to body image or mental health it may cause”. Opponents note that these technologies are harmful in that they would limit young people’s (especially those from marginalized groups) “access to online content or forums” that provide “avenues for community-building, civic engagement, and education”, as well as “self-discovery”. Further, use of such technologies comes with risk of data breaches that would publicly expose people’s online activities, consequently causing “psychological or physical harms” and possibly discouraging them from “operating freely in the digital environment”.
In light of these risks, the OPC emphasized the importance of “ensuring that any use of age assurance is proportionate to the risk being addressed”. It intends to pursue further consultation to issue guidance on when age assurance should be used and how to build privacy protections into the design of age assurance techniques.
The challenge of implementing these technologies have been raised elsewhere. In February 2025, the European Data Protection Board issued a Statement on Age Assurance that establishes ten principles to design GDPR-compliant age assurance, in order to “reconcile the protection of children and the protection of personal data”. Neither current Canadian privacy law nor Bill S-209 fully address these principles.
The Australian government commissioned “an age assurance trial to examine options to protect children from harmful content such as pornography and other online age-restricted services, as well as harms on social media”, which will serve to guide its decision-making in November 2024. One element of the trial was to “evaluate the potential impact of different age assurance technologies on user privacy”. Results of the trial have not yet been released.
While interest in age verification technologies continues to grow, there remain significant privacy and freedom of expression concerns. For Canadians, the potential framework contained in Bill S-209 would heighten the risks with limited safeguards and an uncertain regulatory enforcement framework. Further study and assurances of privacy and expression safeguards are essential before even considering moving ahead with mandating risky age verification technologies.
With today’s implementation of tariffs on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border, the level of mistrust between our countries has grown, whether urgent calls to “Buy Canadian” or boos and catcalls at the playing of the American national anthem. Should we continue down this path, Mr. Trump will surely seek to exploit more of Canada’s potential vulnerabilities. Last week, I co-wrote an op-ed with Kumanan Wilson on one such vulnerability: our health data, whose protection has yet to attract much attention but which could emerge as an issue.
Canada is fortunate to have access to unique population-based health data, thanks to our publicly funded health system. This data is essential not only for provision of care, but also for monitoring population-wide health trends and as an integral component in the coming health artificial-intelligence revolution.
Much of our health care data starts with family physicians, local hospitals and Canadian health research facilities, but later winds its way into the hands of international companies. Many of those companies are based in the U.S. and subject to foreign legislation that could compel disclosure, even over the privacy objections of affected individuals. In other words, Canadian health privacy safeguards may have limited effect once the data is outside the country and no longer in the hands of Canadian-controlled entities.
These concerns are not new. The security and sovereignty of our health data emerged as a controversial issue more than two decades ago in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and the introduction of the USA PATRIOT Act. That law, alongside other legislation, established powerful rights for governmental authorities to demand that U.S. companies – as well as those companies subject to U.S. jurisdiction – provide access to personal data on national-security grounds. In response, many Canadian organizations chose to store health data on Canadian-based computer servers as a means to protect this data from U.S. legislation. In fact, some provinces enacted legislation mandating that personal health data be retained within Canada.
And Canada is hardly alone in this regard. In recent years, many countries have enacted similar rules, often referred to as “data residency” or “data localization” requirements that restrict the flow of data across borders in the hope of enhancing the enforceability of national privacy rules.
Given recent turbulent events and the diminishing trust between Canada and the U.S., it is entirely possible that Washington would seek enhanced access to sensitive Canadian data, notably including financial and health data. This data could be invaluable for developing AI algorithms, for instance, a current priority of the Trump administration.
In fact, some of the largest electronic medical records providers, including Epic, Cerner and Meditech, are headquartered in the U.S. and may be unable to avoid American legislation mandating disclosure of data in their possession, potentially under the pretext of a specious national-security argument, for example. Such a scenario would raise privacy alarm bells leading to urgent calls for the government to better protect the health data of millions of Canadians.
Mandated data localization requirements would be an important policy response from Canada. While the end goal would be to establish viable Canadian-controlled cloud services ready to compete with U.S. giants, this may be a way off. An interim measure would involve further beefing up Canadian privacy law by ensuring that Canadian health data is encrypted, resides on servers in Canada and is subject to serious penalties for non-consensual disclosures.
Yet even data localization rules are not without their challenges, since they may create a conflict of laws that puts companies between a proverbial rock and a hard place: Canadian privacy laws mandating that health data remain in Canada, and U.S. rules requiring disclosure under some circumstances. Faced with such a conflict, U.S. companies might well look to the courts for guidance.
In similar circumstances – for example, conflicts between mandated disclosure rules and privacy-protecting Swiss banking laws – courts have considered whether the foreign rules amount to a “blocking statute” in which the company would face serious penalties in the event of unauthorized disclosure. If a blocking statute is in place, the data need not be disclosed. Canadian privacy law would not meet that standard in its current form, requiring that tougher penalties be put in place.
Now is the time for the government to pursue long overdue safeguards to better protect Canadian health data.
Months of relentless antisemitism seems to have finally sparked a response in a growing number of countries with political initiatives in the United States, Australia, France and Germany aimed at countering Jew hatred not seen in generations. While Canadian leaders have too often mistaken tweets for action, that could change this week as politicians, law enforcement, and community leaders gather in Ottawa for a government initiated National Forum on Combatting Antisemitism.
Given the security risks, organizers have kept many of the details under wraps. Indeed, the fact that an event on combatting antisemitism could draw protesters and raise fears of disruption or physical violence demonstrates why it is so essential. Since the Hamas terror attacks of October 7, 2023, Jewish events, synagogues, and community centres in Canada have required heightened security as frequent targets of shootings, vandalism, and antisemitic protests.
The scourge of antisemitism has left few areas of society untouched but has been particularly notable within Canadian universities. I recently undertook a review of publicly-reported events over the past 18 months on Canadian campuses and was left genuinely shaken. While a court ordered injunction ultimately brought most of last spring’s university encampments to an end, far less attention was paid to reports of death threats to Jewish students, students barricaded inside libraries or classrooms by throngs of masked protesters, vandalism of mezzuzahs in student dorms, buildings with Jewish names targeted for protest, holocaust denial, hate speech, and frequent calls for the removal of Zionists from campus.
And this is just the open antisemitism. Less visible is the need to keep club meetings or guest speakers secret for fear of disruption, the heightened security for in-person events, and the many who feel the need to hide their Jewish identity while on campus. Yet faculty who unfailingly respond to discrimination involving gender, the indigenous community, and BIPOC students, suddenly now fall silent at best or actively encourage discrimination against Jewish and Zionist students at worst.
This is not exclusively a Canadian problem, but Canada’s weak response is particularly disturbing when viewed from a global perspective. Facing a similar situation in Australia, its Senate pressed Australia’s universities to take action. Last week, 39 universities endorsed a new definition of antisemitism that will be enforced on campuses throughout the country. The definition states that “substituting the word ‘Zionist’ for ‘Jew’ does not eliminate the possibility of speech being antisemitic.”
In the United States, the Department of Justice has launched an antisemitism task force and just announced plans to investigate ten universities including Columbia, Harvard, and NYU given allegations the schools may have failed to protect Jewish students and faculty members from unlawful discrimination.
European countries have also responded to the rise of antisemitism in universities: Germany’s Bundestag passed a resolution last month that provides for sanctions against antisemitic behaviour in educational institutions, while a bill to “strengthen the legal and regulatory framework for combating antisemitism in higher education” is currently making its way through the French Senate.
What should Canada be doing?
The starting point must surely be university wide adoption of a uniform definition for antisemitism to ensure the effective application of campus codes to antisemitism. The guide developed last year by Canada’s special envoy on antisemitism on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) antisemitism definition, which was published by Canadian Heritage, provides a useful starting point. Some still oppose the guide, but according to documents I obtained under provincial access to information laws, universities such as the University of Windsor considered making such a commitment last summer in response to anger over its encampment agreements.
Implementing the antisemitism definition is critical to ensure effective enforcement of campus codes and guidelines. For too long, universities have failed to enforce their own codes that require all students be treated with respect and dignity and without harassment and discrimination on this singular issue. We would never accept violations in the context of any other group and the Jewish community is entitled to equal protection.
Even as university leaders admit that antisemitism is a significant problem on campus, few have responded with real action to repeated violations. This week’s summit can change that dynamic as governments at all levels must use the power of public funding and oversight to remove any doubt: failing to act against antisemitism is not an option.
If the first salvo fired by U.S. President Donald Trump in the form of a threatened 25-per-cent across-the-board tariff on Canadian goods (excluding energy, which would face a 10-per-cent levy) is a preview of future trade disputes, retaliatory tariffs alone will not solve the problem. Canada will need to turn to eliminating interprovincial trade barriers, rely on European and Asian trade deals to engage in new markets, and prepare for the prospect that long-standing Canadian regulations and market restrictions may face increasing pressure for an overhaul.
My Globe and Mail op-ed argues the need for change is particularly true for Canadian digital and cultural policy. Parliamentary prorogation ended efforts at privacy, cybersecurity and AI reforms and U.S. pressure has thrown the future of a series of mandated payments – digital service taxes, streaming payments and news media contributions – into doubt. But the Trump tariff escalation, which now extends to steel and aluminum as well as the prospect of reviving the original tariff plan in a matter of weeks, signals something far bigger that may ultimately render current Canadian digital and cultural policy unrecognizable.
Our cultural frameworks are largely based on decades-old policies premised on marketplace protections and mandated support payments. This included foreign ownership restrictions in the cultural sector and requirements that broadcasters contribute a portion of their revenues to support Canadian content production.
As we moved from an analog to digital world, the government simply extended those policies to the digital realm. But with Mr. Trump appearing to call out what he views to be Canadian protectionist policies in sensitive sectors such as banking ownership, the cultural and digital sectors may be next.
If so, there are no shortage of long-standing policies that tilt the playing field in favour of Canadians that could spark some uncomfortable conversations.
Why do U.S. companies face ownership restrictions in the telecom and broadcast sectors? Why are Canadian broadcasters permitted to block U.S. television signals in order to capture increased advertising revenue? Why do Canadian content rules exclude U.S. companies from owning productions featuring predominantly Canadian talent?
The Canadian response that this is how it has always been is unlikely to persuade Mr. Trump.
Canadian policies premised on “making web giants pay” may also be non-starters under Mr. Trump. For the past five years, the Canadian government seemingly welcomed the opportunity to sabre rattle with U.S. internet companies. This led to mandated payments for streaming services to support Canadian film, television and music production; link taxes that targeted Meta and Google to help Canadian news outlets; and the multibillion-dollar retroactive digital services tax that is primarily aimed at U.S. tech giants.
Not only have those policies raised consumer affordability and marketplace competition concerns, they have also emerged as increasingly contentious trade issues. If the trade battles with the U.S. continue, the pressure to scale back the policies will mount.
Beyond rethinking established cultural and digital policies both new and old, the bigger changes may come from re-evaluating the competitive impact of policies that rely heavily on regulation just as the U.S. prioritizes economic growth through deregulation. Proposed Canadian privacy, online harms and AI rules have all relied heavily on increased regulation, looking to Europe as the model.
For example, consider the Canadian approach to AI regulation in the now-defunct Artificial Intelligence and Data Act. It specifically referenced the European Union’s regulatory system, which establishes extensive regulatory requirements for high-risk AI systems and bans some AI systems altogether.
However, the European approach is not the only game in town. Mr. Trump moved swiftly to cancel the former Biden administration’s executive order on AI regulation, signalling that the U.S. will prioritize deregulation in pursuit of global AI leadership. Further, the arrival of DeepSeek, the Chinese answer to ChatGPT, took the world by storm and served notice that U.S. AI dominance is by no means guaranteed.
The competing approaches – U.S.-style lightweight regulation that favours economic growth against a more robust European regulatory model that emphasizes AI guardrails and public protections – will force difficult policy choices that Canada has thus far avoided.
Indeed, we never really tried to reconcile two competing objectives: driving economic growth through AI investment and establishing regulatory guardrails to protect against potential AI bias and harms. That led to billions in new government spending to support new data centres in the hope of fostering a globally competitive industry and the introduction of European-style regulations that risk making Canada a less attractive destination for AI investment.
The Canadian government may yet opt for the regulatory model, convinced that AI safeguards are more important than economic success (or bet that the two do not necessarily conflict). However, the threat of Trump tariffs reframes the U.S.-Canada relationship as competitors more than partners, forcing us to re-examine our plans for future regulation and potentially uproot our entrenched cultural and digital policy frameworks.
OTTAWA – During a Super Bowl preshow interview on Sunday, U.S. President Donald Trump once again declared that he is serious about wanting Canada to become the 51st U.S. state. This, alongside his renewed promise of 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, represents a direct threat to Canada’s sovereignty and economic stability.
"Canadians need to wake up to the extraordinary threat we face," said Jonathan Pedneault, Co-Leader of the Green Party of Canada. "Donald Trump’s words are not just political bluster—they signal a deep and dangerous hostility towards Canadian sovereignty and economic independence. We cannot afford to wait and see what happens. The time for action is now."
The Green Party has been sounding the alarm for some time, warning that Canada must diversify its economic and security partnerships to reduce dependence on the United States. Unfortunately, while Pierre Poilievre downplays the risks, and the Liberal government remains slow to act, Canada’s position only grows more vulnerable.
OTTAWA – Donald Trump’s threat to impose 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican products is not just an economic attack—it is an assault on Canadian sovereignty, values, and our ability to chart our own future. The Green Party of Canada is calling for an urgent, unified response to protect workers, small businesses, and vulnerable communities, while reducing Canada’s dependence on an increasingly unstable U.S. trade relationship.
“This is not just about trade—this is about Canada’s independence,” said Elizabeth May, Co-Leader of the Green Party of Canada. “The U.S. is becoming a less reliable partner, and we cannot afford to be caught off guard. We need a plan that ensures we are resilient, united, and ready to defend our economy and our sovereignty.”
A Strong, United Response
The Green Party urges the government to act immediately by:
Everyone has been asking about my “Still Kicking Death’s Ass” mug. You can get one here at a store I set up!
And of course I have been with Simplii Financial since it was PC Financial. Join Simplii today! Or if you’re in Ontario, join Meridian Credit Union and tell them Peter Tretter sent you!
Does anyone remember Premier Danielle Smith’s handpicked administrator of Alberta Health Services confidently predicting that wait times for surgeries in this province were about to fall and fall dramatically?
NDP Opposition Health Critic Luanne Metz (Photo: David J. Climenhaga).
Reduced surgical wait times would be the biggest single mark of success for the health care system under the United Conservative Party, Dr. John Cowell said in February 2023 when he gave his interim report as Alberta Health Services’ interim administrator.
“It is my hope, and I actually believe, that we will be at zero waiting outside of clinical wait time by March of 2024,” Dr. Cowell predicted boldly. “My team and I are absolutely confident that this is achievable.”
Good one!
Dr. Cowell was appointed AHS administrator in November 2022 when the UCP purged the entire AHS board. The same day, then health minister Jason Copping announced there would be a big push to reduce surgical wait times.
Dr. Cowell is gone from that role now. He slipped away so quietly late last year that no one seems to have noted his departure. Premier Smith has since found new ways to reform the health care system.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who handpicked Dr. Cowell to run AHS after firing the health agency’s board in 2022 (Photo: Alberta Newsroom/Flickr).
In the meantime, though, March 2024 came and went and it seems that clinical wait times for surgeries in Alberta hospitals are not getting better and better despite the vast amount of money sunk by the UCP government into getting private clinics to do publicly funded surgeries.
Alas, as a report published yesterday by the respected Canadian Institute of Health Information shows, the spending on private surgical clinics is not delivering the results promised the UCP’s privatization enthusiasts.
According to CIHI’s data, for example, patients who need hip replacement surgery in Alberta only get their surgery done on time 59 per cent of the time – somewhat worse than back in those distant pre-pandemic days when premier Jason Kenney was pumping up private surgical clinics as the answer to Alberta’s wait times.
Indeed, that was the main point of the CIHI report: That Canadians everywhere are waiting longer for priority surgeries and diagnostic imaging than they did before the pandemic.
You’re likely to do better if you need a new hip, though, than if you require knee surgery in Alberta – in which case only 49 per cent of the folks needing surgery are getting it within the recommended time frame.
Then health minister Jason Copping at the February 2023 news conference (Photo: Alberta Newsroom/Flickr).
When it came to cataract surgery, Alberta lags the national average with only 61 per cent getting their eyes fixed on time, compared with 83 per cent in B.C., which also does a little better getting hip and knee replacements too.
Well, as Dr. Luanne Metz, the NDP’s health critic, observed in a news release, “the UCP’s expensive gamble with private surgical clinics isn’t helping patients.”
“The UCP’s contracts with private surgical centres are not helping patients get access to timely, critically needed surgeries nor clearing the backlog to access care,” she said – which, of course, is exactly the point advocates of public health care have been making about private clinics for years.
Dr. Metz, a physician, defeated Mr. Copping in the Calgary-Varsity riding in the 2023 general election.
“Private health care does not provide the health care that Albertans need,” she concluded. “Danielle Smith and the UCP need to abandon their ideological drive towards privatization, invest in public hospitals and commit to publicly-provided surgeries.”
True, but good luck getting the UCP to do that. They’ve got their ideology to guide them, and they’re not going to let any facts get in their way.
Indeed, one could argue there are two ways to interpret the CIHI data published yesterday.
One is that the UCP meets the famous Einsteinian definition of insanity: to wit, it’s doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
The other is that the party is perpetrating a cynical grift: adopting policies that UCP insiders know perfectly well won’t help ordinary citizens but which will result in big profits for their friends and probably generous donations for them.
I’ll leave it to you, my dear readers, to figure out which is the most likely.
OTTAWA - The Ottawa International Airport Authority (OIAA) has moved forward with the destruction of a 10-acre red pine forest on Hunt Club Road despite widespread community opposition.
Over 20,000 residents signed a petition calling for a cancellation of this plan, but the OIAA had virtual free rein to develop land leased to it by Transport Canada through its 1997 mandate without meaningfully consulting the public. This decision reflects a lack of oversight and accountability for airport authorities across Canada.
“The Canadian government has abdicated responsibility for regulating these airports,” said Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada and MP for Saanich–Gulf Islands.
In 2021, the government said in its throne speech that it “will work with municipalities as part of a new commitment to expand urban parks, so that everyone has access to green space.” Protecting urban plantations, forests and wetlands around airport authorities from further development needs to be a priority in this session of Parliament.
OTTAWA - Today, the Green Party of Canada expresses deep concern about the Northvolt battery plant project, which involves construction on a heavily contaminated site along the Richelieu River. The party stresses the risks associated with the lack of a proper environmental assessment, and calls for immediate action to ensure environmental protection.
During construction of the plant, which would involve moving large quantities of soil, there is a high risk that contaminants from the soil will seep into the water table and poison watercourses. This poses a serious threat to local wildlife, including two endangered species, the copper redhorse and the St. Lawrence beluga whale.
"The announcement of $1.37 billion in federal funding for the Northvolt project raises major concerns about the environmental impact on the Richelieu River and its ecosystems," says Leader Elizabeth May. "We urge the federal government to order public environmental assessment hearings to ensure transparency and protect our natural resources."
A few friends of mine have a challenge of reading a new book each month, so I tried to find 12 that I could recommend to our readers. These were curated from finds at the Barrie Public Library, the Innisfil ideaLab & Library, and Goodreads. I have not read all of these, so I cannot … Continue reading "12 Books for 2024 Challenge"
When I first watched Mindy Kaling’s hit show ‘Never Have I Ever…’ or Marvel’s Disney+ series ‘Ms. Marvel’, I finally understood what it meant to be visible. Similarly, the implications of Dees Rees’s 2011 film, ‘Pariah,’ ring true for the young, Black, queer women in our society and unearth an avenue for more nuanced discussions … Continue reading "Diversity Behind the Scenes of Film and Television"
Dear Readers, Happy New Year and welcome to 2024! We are Journey to Diversity Workplaces, a non-profit organization that advocates for diversity, equity, inclusion, and safety in the workplace. We believe that everyone deserves to work in an environment where they feel valued, respected, and empowered. As we enter a new year, we are excited … Continue reading "Meet the Board of Justice Journeymakers: Our New Identity and Vision for 2024"
When you consider newspaper articles, television broadcasts, think pieces on global and domestic issues, or reports on current events, how often have you thought about the person behind its delivery? The foundation of journalism lies in the hands of the voices that are brave enough to step up, unearth the unspoken topics, and bring them … Continue reading "The Hidden Costs of Diversity and Inclusion in Journalism"
OTTAWA – The Green Party of Canada continues to urgently call on the federal government to take immediate action to both replenish and expand the Greener Homes Grant Program.
The Greener Homes Grant Program, a critical initiative for addressing climate change, has offered homeowners grants of up to $5,000 for specific upgrades, fostering environmental sustainability and improving affordability for Canadians. However, recent reports indicate imminent financial strain on the program, putting at risk its ability to achieve its goals.
"The Greener Homes Grant Program stands as a beacon of hope in our collective fight against climate change. Its success in empowering homeowners, reducing emissions, and creating a green economy is undeniable”, said Leader Elizabeth May. “We need to seize this moment to build a legacy of environmental stewardship and economic resilience for generations to come."
On January 18, 2024, the Honourable Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson of the Supreme Court of British Columbia (BC) convicted Angela Davidson (Rainbow Eyes), the Green Party of Canada’s former deputy leader, on charges of criminal contempt of a court injunction.
The initial injunction forbade Mrs. Davidson - a recognized Kwakwaka’wakw land guardian - from entering an area on the traditional, unceded territory of the Pacheedaht First Nation that is claimed by the Provincial Crown and licensed in 2004 by the BC government to the Teal-Jones logging group.
In recent years, Mrs Davidson and other Indigenous and environmental defenders had participated in blockades that sought to protect highly valuable old-growth forest located on Teal-Jones’ license.
While the leadership of the Pacheedaht First Nation elected under the provisions of the Federal Indian Act recognizes Teal Jones’ right to operate on the territory, the Pacheedaht’s traditional leadership is divided on the question, with some elders having invited protesters to the territory.
OTTAWA - As reported recently the Canadian Press, the RCMP have missed their own internal deadline to implement the 130 recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission.
The Commission was created to investigate and make recommendations on the devastating killings in April 2020 from Portapique Nova Scotia through the Wentworth Valley and Debert until the perpetrator was finally killed in Enfield over a 48 hour period in which RCMP negligence and incompetence contributed to the deaths of twenty two people.
The report issued in late March of last year led the Globe and Mail to editorialize that "the only responsible conclusion is that Canada’s national police force needs to be torn down to its foundations, and then those foundations need to be dynamited."
OTTAWA - Netanyahu’s siege and military operation on Gaza have wounded over 50,000 and killed more than 20,000 civilians - most of them children and women - and subject millions to life-threatening conditions.
Israeli forces’ ongoing indiscriminate bombing - which experts described as more intensive than Allied bombing of Germany during World War II - have resulted in the wanton damaging or destruction of nearly 70% of Gaza’s housing stock while its forced displacement campaign and attacks on health facilities and aid workers, coupled with deliberate, arbitrary restrictions on medicines, water and food are causing a severe humanitarian crisis.
In this context, the Green Party of Canada welcomes South Africa's initiative to bring forth an application instituting proceedings and requesting provisional measures to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding Israel's ongoing siege and military actions in Gaza. Canada should support such efforts to clarify the ongoing situation and the search for justice.
OTTAWA - Over the past year, the Canadian population has become poorer, the climate crisis has hit the country like never before, and many parts of the world have been ravaged by war. As we enter 2024, the Green Party of Canada would like to present a list of issues that the Trudeau government should prioritize over the next 12 months. This list of priorities revolves around three themes: peace, order and good government.
Good government
The Green Party is deeply concerned about the country's wide income gaps and the ever-increasing number of people trapped in the low-wage economy - workers, especially our young people, struggling to survive on part-time and precarious jobs.
You were wondering about that ethics investigation into the way former Alberta chief medical officer of health Dr. Deena Hinshaw was immediately re-fired after she was hired as a member of Alberta Health Services’ Indigenous Wellness Core last June?
Was it Premier Danielle Smith? She says not (Photo: Alberta Newsroom/Flickr).
It turns out no rules were broken.
So there’s nothing to see here folks. Please move along …
On Monday, The Globe and Mail and other media reported that Alberta Ethics Commissioner Marguerite Trussler was looking into the way Dr. Hinshaw was fired before she’d even started her new duties at the AHS Indigenous health program.
That Globe story suggested Dr. Hinshaw was fired because United Conservative Party Premier Danielle Smith, a vocal opponent of public health measures during the pandemic who had fired her as chief medical officer of a few months before, demanded it.
In the story, the Globe quoted the resignation letter of former AHS vice-president Braden Manns to AHS Administrator John Cowell. “The decision implemented by you to rescind Dr. Hinshaw’s contract after what I understand to be your personal discussions with the Premier, her Chief of Staff and others in the government of Alberta,” Dr. Manns told Dr. Cowell, “will have a long-lasting effect on our ability to have trusting relationships with our Indigenous leaders and communities. This type of political interference in hiring should not be permitted.” (Emphasis added.)
Was it former AHS administrator Dr. John Cowell? The ethics commissioner says it wasn’t (Photo: Alberta Newsroom/Flickr).
This interpretation of the events is widely believed, significantly by both supporters and opponents of the UCP, because it is entirely on brand for Ms. Smith, a former right-wing talk radio host known for her advocacy of quack COVID cures and vaccine skepticism on the air before she returned to politics in 2022, not to mention her lack of patience with the rule of law since becoming premier.
Dr. Hinshaw was fired the first time as CMOH in mid-November 2022 about a month after Ms. Smith was sworn in as premier. She was fired the second time at the start of June 2023, hours after word she had been hired became public, throwing the UCP’s anti-vaxx base into a tizzy. .
Yesterday, various news media published a new story stating that Ms. Trussler’s investigation is already over and the ethics commissioner had concluded, in the phrase that really should be the motto on Alberta’s coat of arms, No Rules Were Broken.
In a letter to Health Minister Adriana LaGrange dated Monday that was handed out to media yesterday by staff from the Premier’s Office, Ms. Trussler said she had stopped her investigation into the role in the firing played by Dr. Cowell, who had been appointed by Ms. Smith to single-handedly run the agency.
“I am providing you with notice that I have ceased an investigation into an allegation against Dr. John Cowell with respect to his involvement in the decision to revoke an offer of employment to Dr. Deena Hinshaw,” Ms. Trussler wrote in the letter.
Ethics Commissioner Marguerite Trussler – her answers contain no answers (Photo: Office of the Ethics Commissioner).
“Although he had input into the decision, I found no evidence that Dr. Cowell directed the termination of Dr. Hinshaw’s employment,” the letter said. “The evidence showed that Dr. Hinshaw’s employment was terminated through proper process.” Anyway, Ms. Trussler added, Dr. Cowell is no longer a senior official as defined by the Conflicts of Interest Act.
“I also received complaints against the Premier with respect to the same matter. However, given the evidence in the investigation of Dr. Cowell, I did not pursue an investigation of the Premier.”
So who did direct the termination of Dr. Hinshaw’s employment? And what was the premier’s role?
If you feel there are still some huge gaps in this story, you’d be right.
But don’t look for any answers to be forthcoming from the government of Alberta.
“No rules were broken when the former chief medical officer of health was hired for — then promptly fired from — a new job with the province,” Dean Bennett of The Canadian Press summed up the letter in the traditional Alberta phrase.
Former AHS VP Braden Manns – his resignation letter points the finger at the premier and her chief of staff (Photo: Alberta Health Services).
“Ms. Trussler examined events around the dismissal under the Conflicts of Interest Act, which is designed to prevent elected politicians and senior government officials from taking action that financially benefits them or their family,” the Globe explained. “The act’s narrow focus means Ms. Trussler’s decision not to investigate the premier has failed to quell allegations that AHS ripped up Dr. Hinshaw’s contract after Ms. Smith interfered inappropriately.”
There is nothing mildly surprising, let alone shocking about this outcome.
It is the way these things work, and not only in Alberta.
Legislative ethics rules are written by politicians who, understandably if not ethically (as it were), would prefer to shield themselves from the consequences of actions that most of us severely normal Albertans would consider unethical.
That is why it can never be said that a legislatively constrained investigation of this sort has vindicated anyone, as the premier’s political staff is certain to try to persuade us the letter means for their boss’s tattered reputation.
Readers can believe whatever they wish, but the known facts – Ms. Trussler’s uninformative letter notwithstanding – strongly suggest it was Ms. Smith who gave Dr. Hinshaw the shove.
Far out! Alberta won’t let red tape harsh your mellow, man!
Groovy! Rules for cannabis retailers are changing! Red tape’s such a bummer, says The Man, but everything’s gonna be cool starting next month. So don’t harsh your mellow! Tune in, turn on, and make sure your dealer has a licence.
Canadian Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge’s deal with Google on Bill C-18 for an annual $100 million contribution has sparked some unsurprising crowing from partisans who insist the fears that the government had mishandled the Online News Act failed to recognize a well-executed negotiation strategy. Yet the response from industry supporters of the bill has been noticeably muted: News Media Canada did not issue a press release with CEO Paul Deegan noting that the impact would depend on the forthcoming regulations, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said it was relieved there was a deal and that links would not be blocked, Quebec broadcasters are already calling for more support, and Friends of Canadian Broadcasting said the deal did not deliver the support it originally hoped for. These comments come closer to reflecting the reality of the deal, namely that the government misread the market, passed deeply flawed legislation, and was ultimately forced to row back core elements of the law and accept payments consistent with what was on the table over a year ago.
The case that this has been a successful outcome is a weak one, but would largely emphasize that there is some new money coming into the news sector. It is reasonable to argue that Google and Meta’s one-off deals with many Canadian news outlets in advance of Bill C-18 were part of their failed strategy to stop the introduction new legislation, so the mere prospect of a new law generated some financial support. The Meta support has now disappeared and Google’s financial agreements will be cancelled as they are rolled into the $100 million payment, but there is no denying that the payment will inject some new additional funding.
But additional funding alone is not sufficient to make the case that the government handled this issue well. Friends of Canadian Broadcasting is not wrong when it says that many hoped for far more. In fact, so did the government. As recently as a few months ago it said it expected to generate $172 million from Google alone. There were various estimates raised throughout the legislative process: the government said $150 million last December, later raised it to $215 million and then to 35% of actual costs by Senator Peter Harder. Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated the value at $329 million by comparing the expected Canadian benefits with Australia. No matter the number, the $100 million is far below any of the promised estimates.
A more realistic assessment of the Bill C-18 outcome involves more than just the failure to meet the expected targets, however. There are at least two important issues. First, critics argued that the structure of Bill C-18 with mandated payments for links and an unworkable process made link blocking likely on Meta and a real possibility (though not a certainty) on Google. I think that remains the case. Meta has blocked news links for months in Canada and continues to maintain that is the only way it can comply with the law. As for Google, this deal completely alters the Bill C-18 process.
The government once claimed it would not negotiate directly with Google or any platform. Rather, it said it was creating a framework to allow the media companies to do so with the CRTC in the role of arbiter to determine if the various deals met the government’s policy objectives. Instead, it ended up negotiating with Google on a single payment rather than the individual deals promised by the bill, creating what amounts to a fund model that Google supported from the outset. Even the independence of the CRTC in the process is long gone with the government striking a deal and dictating to the Commission that it must exempt Google provided it cuts the $100 million cheque. This is a near complete reversal of Bill C-18 and provides confirmation that the law was unworkable.
Second, even the $100 million is far less than meets the eye, particularly for print and digital publications who were broadly viewed as most in need of assistance. As noted above, Google already has deals with many of these publications. While the precise value is unknown, it is rumoured to be in the tens of millions. The monetary value of those deals will be rolled into the $100 million payment, meaning that it is not entirely $100 million in money. Further, the bill has created some obvious losses including the lost Meta deals and the cost of lost news links. The estimates of those losses are similarly in the tens of millions and must be considered in assessing the overall Bill C-18 outcome.
Perhaps most notably for the print and digital publications, the majority of the $100 million will likely be going toward broadcasters such as Bell, Rogers and the CBC (unless the government uses regulations to specify how the money should be allocated which would further whittle away at the bill and the independence of the sector). The PBO estimated that it would be a 75/25 breakdown, suggesting that all of Canadian print and digital would share in just $25 million. That amount won’t even offset the lost Google deals and Meta links. It appears the government has recognized that this is the likely outcome since its $129 million media bailout announced in the Fall Economic Statement is only available to Canadian print and digital outlets that are eligible as Qualified Canadian Journalism Organizations. In fact, by more than doubling tax credit for journalist costs from $13,750 to $29,750, the government has clearly used the bailout to compensate for the costs of its own media policy. In judging the outcome of Bill C-18, it is instructive to note that even the government seems to admit that it needed to find additional funding to make up for what is far more legislative fail than negotiating brilliance.
The federal government has quietly backed down from its plans to implement a new digital services tax as of January 2024 that the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated would generate billions in revenue. It did not make the headlines or receive much promotion, but after months of insisting that a digital services tax would take effect in Canada in January 2024, the government has now removed that implementation deadline in the Fall Economic Statement. The battle over the proposed tax had sparked increasing anger between Canada and the U.S., with dozens of U.S. Senators and Representatives signing letters urging the government to delay its plans. The Canadian plan remains to establish a retroactive three percent tax that will hit a wide range of businesses, but given fears moving ahead now would jeopardize a global agreement that is designed to address the digital services tax issue, Canada has seemingly faced the obvious reality and backed down.
For months, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland insisted that the deadline would not be changed. For example, in the summer she stated:
Canada’s priority and preference has always been a multilateral approach. We continue to strongly support the two-pillar plan agreed to in 2021 and we have been actively working with our international partners to bring it into effect. As confirmed in Budget 2023, we are moving ahead with legislation to implement the Pillar Two global minimum tax in Canada, starting at the end of 2023. Two years ago, we agreed to pause the implementation of our own Digital Services Tax (DST), in order to give time and space for negotiations on Pillar One. But we were clear that Canada would need to move forward with our own DST as of January 1, 2024, if the treaty to implement Pillar One has not come into force.
Earlier this month, Freeland said she was “cautiously optimistic” that an understanding could be reached with the U.S., but appears that the optimism came from a decision to simply remove the January 1, 2024 start date, replaced with the following in the FES:
in order to protect Canada’s national economic interest, the government intends to move ahead with its longstanding plan for legislation to enact a Digital Services Tax in Canada and ensure that businesses pay their fair share of taxes and that Canada is not at a disadvantage relative to other countries. Forthcoming legislation would allow the government to determine the entry-into-force date of the new Digital Services Tax, as Canada continues conversations with its international partners.
While the government plans to move ahead with legislation to facilitate a digital services tax, the “entry-into-force” date has been removed and left for a later decision. This buys time for a potential international agreement on implementing a global approach to the issue and should relieve some of the external pressure.
As I’ve previously written, a digital services tax is preferable to the cross-industry subsidy model found in Bills C-11 and C-18. However, moving ahead now would have created significant risks, including the prospect of billions in retaliatory tariffs. Led by Bill C-18 and the digital services tax, the government talked tough for months about regulating big tech. But with the FES providing a massive bailout to compensate for the harm caused by the Online News Act and the decision to hold off on implementing the DST, it would appear that the tough talk has been replaced by much-needed realism on what amounted to deeply flawed policies and a weak political hand.
The government plans to release its final policy direction on Bill C-11 today just days ahead of the start of a weeks-long series of hearings at the CRTC on the Online Streaming Act (I am scheduled to appear in early December). Ahead of the release, Canadian Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge tries to re-write history, urging fast enactment of the legislation and blaming the Conservatives for the delays. Yet here is the reality: Bill C-10, the predecessor to Bill C-11, would have become law back in 2021 had the government not opened the door to regulating user content. Instead, the bill rightly became a source of concern, leading to years of legislative delays that virtually guarantees that nothing will take effect until 2025 at the earliest.
The debate over Bill C-11 was notable for the continuous gaslighting from then Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez, who when he wasn’t lying to committee on what he knew about funding an anti-semite, was misleading committee and the broader public about the implications of Bill C-11. St-Onge continues that approach with her comments about the Bill C-11 policy direction. First, the claims of crisis are absurd. The legislation is focused primarily on film and TV production, which has been experiencing record investment in Canada. The attempt to conflate challenges in the news sector, which have made worse by the government’s Bill C-18, is really an attempt to mislead.
Second, the Bill C-11 process was never going to be fast specifically because the government left so much to regulatory processes and CRTC hearings. Despite numerous efforts to include greater specificity in the bill, the government rejected most amendments, leaving it to the CRTC to figure things out. I wrote about the CRTC approach here, noting that there are at least nine consultations planned. The upcoming series of hearings are only the first tranche of many more issues that require resolution. In other words, it was the government’s own choices that ensured there would be no fast implementation to Bill C-11.
Third, while St-Onge says that the concerns regarding regulating user content were misinformation, the policy direction confirms that the opposite is true. For months, the government insisted that regulating user content was out, yet the need for a policy direction on the matter proves that the law as written includes user content. In fact, the government rejected a Senate amendment that would have addressed the concern. Today’s final policy direction again demonstrates that the issue was real and it was largely the sustained criticism that pressured the government into a policy direction limiting the application of its own law. No amount of gaslighting will change the reality that the Bill C-11 process will be a lengthy one as a result of the government’s legislative choices and the concerns about over-broad regulation will linger throughout.
Have I got this straight? Preston Manning just made a recommendation to give politicians absolute authority over public health that was so excellent the Alberta government accepted it a week before they got it?
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith (Photo: Alberta Newsroom/Flickr).
Can someone remind me why we gave the superannuated godfather of the Canadian right a budget of $2 million and paid him $253,000 in personal pin money if we weren’t going to wait for his recommendations and at least talk about them for a day or two before implementing them?
Yesterday, Mr. Manning, 81, dropped his 116-page doorstopper report and another 253 pages of appendices advising us to stop putting doctors in charge of public health emergencies and quit listening so much to scientists and medical researchers in the event of another pandemic so we can give equal time to “alternative scientific narratives.”
The six-member “Public Health Emergencies Governance Review Panel” chaired by the former Reform Party leader and son of a Social Credit Alberta premier, would like us to strengthen individual rights at the expense of collective survival rights in the face of another deadly pandemic.
The panel’s recommendations included such gems as calling for the government to be “expressly forbidden” from halting in-person school classes during a public emergency, unless there are undefined “exceptional circumstances.”
Another recommendation calls for amending the Employment Standards Code and Health Professions Act to make it easier for anti-vaccine health care workers to endanger their patients and co-workers in health care facilities.
NDP Opposition Leader Rachel Notley (Photo: David J. Climenhaga).
Seven days earlier the government announced its plan to dismantle Alberta Health Services and put all the responsibility for running it in the Premier’s Office, which is pretty much the same thing as the Manning Panel wants. Please don’t tell us the government’s right hand didn’t know what its left hand was doing!
That said, the panel also recommended “streamlining system administration,” and the UCP plans to do the opposite, so there’s that.
We don’t have to list all of the panel’s 90 recommendations, a few of which may even make sense, to know that this is nutty and dangerous talk from a guy who only a decade ago was saying he saw need for Green Conservatism if conservative parties were going to survive.
But that was before Canadian Conservatives downed the MAGA potion – so I guess as goes Preston Manning, so goes the conservative movement.
Premier Danielle Smith said in a statement to media by her press secretary that her United Conservative Party government will “will review and analyze the report and consider the panel’s recommendations as we prepare for future legislative sessions.”
Former UCP premier Jason Kenney (Photo: David J. Climenhaga).
But you’ve got to know that since Mr. Manning has pretty much delivered what Ms. Smith was looking for to satisfy the wound-up rage machine that engineered her entrée to the Premier’s Office last year, she’s likely to follow up on at least some of this stuff with dangerous legislative changes.
During the pandemic, and presumably since, the premier was an enthusiastic booster of such quack COVID cures as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
“This report marks a clear deviation from scientific integrity and rational public policy, suggesting that conspiracy theories and pseudo-science be given the same legitimacy as evidence-based medical treatment,” Opposition Leader Rachel Notley said in response. “This is not only irresponsible but also incredibly dangerous.”
It’s pretty hard to argue with that assessment.
“The report’s recommendations pave the way for fringe extremists, like David Parker and Artur Pawlowski, to have control over the health and safety of Albertans,” she continued, naming two prominent anti-vaccine allies of the premier. “By undermining the expertise of dedicated experts, health professionals, and front-line workers, the UCP is failing Albertans all over again.
University of Calgary political science professor Lisa Young (Photo: David J. Climenhaga).
“Recommending that ‘alternative scientific narratives,’ such as Danielle Smith’s promotion of a horse de-wormer for treating COVID-19, will undoubtedly harm Albertans,” she added. “Such an approach to public health undermines the hard work and dedication of our health-care professionals.”
Again, all true, but equally unlikely to dissuade Ms. Smith and her anti-vaxx cabinet and caucus.
University of Calgary political scientist Lisa Young, who is bravely trying to read the entire report, noted last night that “the word ‘death’ appears 6 times. And the word ‘freedom’ appears 262 times.” A telling detail.
As for Mr. Manning, I guess the question now is what he’ll do next to keep himself occupied?
This time last year he was stepping away from his fake “national citizen’s inquiry” into the federal government’s use of the Emergencies Act to end border blockades and city occupations by the Convoy crowd. Whatever happened to that thing, anyway? An “interim report” attracted little attention in September.
Before that, in 2019, Mr. Manning was taken on by then premier Jason Kenney as a member of Alberta’s so-called Fair-Deal Panel, a nine-member committee struck to overcome Alberta’s perpetual case of péquiste envy.
Well-regarded pension expert debunks Alberta pension scheme
The loud thud created when Mr. Manning’s doorstopper dropped yesterday unfortunately drew attention away from the release of a scathing report by pension lawyer Murray Gold on the Smith Government’s Alberta pension plan scheme.
Pension and benefits lawyer Murray Gold (Photo: Koskie Minsky Law).
The report, published by the Alberta Federation of Labour, concludes that “an APP would be smaller and riskier than the CPP. It would also be exposed to the whims of a single government in a way that the CPP is not.” By contrast, changes to the CPP may only be made with the support of two-thirds of the provinces representing two-thirds of the population, which is an even higher bar than the amending formula of the Canadian Constitution.
The report demonstrates that Albertans are not “over-contributing” to CPP, as the government falsely and repeatedly claims. All Canadian workers contribute the same amount to CPP and get the same benefits.
“The Alberta government’s plan hinges on the notion that Alberta would be entitled to pull $334 billion out of the CPP fund – 53 per cent of the total, even though Alberta represents only 12 per cent of Canada’s population and 16 per cent of CPP contributions,” Mr. Gold’s report says. “There is absolutely no way that the federal government and other provincial governments – who, along with Alberta, run the CPP – would ever allow this to happen.
“Without this fantasy number, none of the Alberta government’s claims about lower contribution rates or higher benefits would be possible.”
A week ago, Canada’s premiers ended a meeting in Halifax agreeing that they shouldn’t poach health care workers from one another.
Nova Scotia Conservative Premier Tim Houston (Photo: Screenshot of CPAC video).
There’s a shortage all round, they seemed to be saying, let’s poach from poor countries instead of each other!
Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston seemed to be the one who got the ball rolling on this thought. “I’m not a fan of trying to go to another province and trying to recruit some of their health-care professionals,” he told reporters at the provincial legislature a few days before. “I think there are other places to recruit from.”
To be fair, not all the places where Nova Scotia has been trawling for nurses and other health care professionals are what we still think of as being in the Third World, a term that’s starting to sound seriously dated nowadays.
When the premiers got together three days later, there seemed to be a mood of genial amity on the topic.
Mr. Houston, who appears from out here in Wild Rose Country to be an old-timey Progressive Conservative, was of the opinion the premiers should all just try to get together, smile on each other, try to love one another, right now.
Manitoba NDP Premier Wab Kinew (Photo: Screenshot of CPAC video).
“Trying to poach workers from another jurisdiction is not really supporting each other,” he said at the meeting’s closing news conference. “Actively recruiting health care workers that are already working and engaged in a health care system is something that Nova Scotia’s not going to do.”
“There was a significant unity amongst ourselves to prevent an aggressive act of recruitment campaign in other people’s backyards,” agreed Newfoundland’s Andrew Furey, a Liberal. “We all recognize that health care professionals right now are in high demand. They’re mobile. But Canada has an absolute imperative to continue to provide top-notch care in our own jurisdiction and robbing Peter to pay Paul does not help advance that agenda in any way, shape or form.” (Note to readers: Robbing Peter to pay Paul is a Biblical metaphor that has nothing to do with PayPal.)
Canada’s newest premier, Manitoba’s Wab Kinew, a New Democrat, sounded like he was in accord with that thought, too. “In the absence of that sort of collaboration, we may compete against one another into a future in which none of us can afford to staff our health-care systems, in which none of us can sustainably do so,” he told reporters at the newser.
Not counting Danielle Smith, who we’ll get to in a moment, Saskatchewan’s Scott Moe was the only other provincial premier to speak at the newser about that topic before the moderator shut it down, and he didn’t really have anything useful to say.
Well, I’m here to tell you that this isn’t going to be as easy to do as it might appear to be around the table with all these cordial provincial and territorial premiers.
Newfoundland Liberal Premier Andrew Furey (Photo: Screenshot of CPAC video).
It’s true that not just in Canada, but around the world there’s a shortage of nurses and physicians – with the possible exception of the Philippines, where the government appears to be treating nurses as an export. So until we get serious about educating more nurses and doctors here in Canada, and see the results as graduates trickle into the job market a number of years later, provinces are going to find themselves in competition with one another no matter what their premiers say.
That will require more spending, and possibly more taxes to pay for it, something the modern Canadian premier, regardless of what political party or philosophy he or she is supposedly associated with, will resist – often to the point of doing real damage to the commonweal.
So it also matters a lot what a province’s health care policies are. Even intangible matters like expressions of respect for health care professionals may turn out to be significant.
So whether or not Manitoba goes out and starts putting advertisements on bus shelters near hospitals in Calgary and Edmonton – or better yet, holding job fairs in Red Deer – it’s going to enjoy a significant recruitment advantage over Alberta when it comes to nurses in particular.
Saskatchewan’s Sask Party Premier Scott Moe, who had nothing particularly useful to say (Photo: Screenshot of CPAC video).
Mr. Kinew campaigned and won on a platform of repairing the province’s battered relationship with its health care workers. “We are resetting the relationship right now,” he said during one of his first news conferences after the province’s Oct. 3 election.
Appearing with his new health minister, Uzoma Asagwara, he vowed Manitoba will hire more nurses and physicians and end mandatory overtime for nurses. He indicated he has a schedule for recruitment in mind.
“We look forward to providing opportunities to front-line health care providers, doctors, nurses, to allied health care professionals, to have their voices heard and their expertise respected and to be part of the way we address things moving forward,” Mx. Asagwara said.
“If we want to keep health care professionals, nurses, physicians, engaged in working on the front lines, we need a comprehensive approach which includes, of course, compensation,” Mr. Kinew said at the closing newser in Halifax. “It includes better working conditions.”
Alberta just can’t compete with that. Here, the government is embarking on a massive and incoherent reorganization of the health care system that seems principally designed to exact revenge on Alberta Health Services for enforcing public health regulations during the pandemic and to make bits and pieces of the public system easier to sell off to the private sector in the future.
And there’s been no consultation with nurses – only “briefings.”
Never mind even the middle-term future, many nurses right now don’t know who they’ll be working for in a few months’ time – Alberta Health Services, as they do now, or one of the new bureaucracies being set up by the government.
Confusion reigns in a health care system in deep trouble, and chaos lurks.
Oh, and the United Conservative Party government also wants to wreck the Canada Pension Plan, after already messing with public service pensions, so Alberta health care workers’ retirements appear less secure as well.
And what does Ms. Smith have to say about that? (Other than promising Albertans exactly what the creators of AHS promised them a decade and a half ago – that everything will work out fine … eventually.)
Well, in Halifax she seemed to try to blame past AHS policies and nurses themselves for the shortage of nurses, claiming that in Alberta “we only have 38 per cent of our nurses willing to work full time.”
This is a misrepresentation of the true situation. It’s true that mandatory overtime, cancelled vacations, threatened pay cuts under Jason Kenney, and abuse at work from anti-vaxxers encouraged by the UCP government have all contributed to a desire by some nurses to be able to have more control over their own lives.
But that doesn’t mean they’re not willing to work full time in jobs with reasonable time off, appropriate market-based pay, and a degree of respect. Almost everyone understands the seemingly unplanned chaos now being introduced by the UCP will only make things worse.
If you were a nurse on the Prairies, where would you rather work? Wab Kinew’s Manitoba or Danielle Smith’s Alberta?
No premier’s no-poaching agreement can keep health care professionals from talking to one another!
Danielle Smith’s Alberta: Where bad ideas go to live forever
Service Alberta (and red tape reduction) Minister Dale Nally is off to Texas today to attend the 2023 North American Blockchain Summit.
Dale Nally, Alberta’s Service Alberta minister with responsibility for red tape reduction, when we feel like it (Photo: David J. Climenhaga).
That crypto collapse? Sam Bankman-Fried’s massive crypto fraud? Don’t worry about ’em!
You’d think that a minister of red tape reduction would be needed at home to persuade his cabinet colleagues not to set up massive new bureaucracies to replace Alberta Health Services, but Mr. Nally will be talking to “blockchain experts” instead, about how “to attract blockchain technologies to Alberta.”
On Tuesday and Wednesday, he’ll tour cryptocurrency “mining” operations – which use vast amounts of energy to magically generate an electronic currency that appears to have no purpose other than abetting crime and tax avoidance.
On Thursday, he’ll take part in a cryptocurrency roundtable discussion at the trade show.
In other words, on top of everything else, the UCP’s not giving up on the crypto hustle.
Yes, Alberta’s where bad ideas go to live forever.
The government’s funding of Laith Marouf, a known anti-semite, sparked anger and condemnation last summer as many wondered how Canadian Heritage failed to conduct the necessary due diligence to weed him out as part of its anti-hate program. While government MPs such as Anthony Housefather urged action, then-Diversity Minister Ahmed Hussein was slow to respond and then-Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez inexplicably remained silent. I posted repeatedly on his silence, leading his Parliamentary Secretary, MP Chris Bittle, to suggest that I was racist and a bully. Yet as we have witnessed in recent days, when it comes to antisemitism, silence is not an option. The threat is literally playing out in our streets and campuses and we need everyone – Jews and non-Jews alike – to speak out against it and take action where necessary.
Even after Housefather pleaded with his fellow MPs to speak out, it still took Rodriguez days to say anything. And when he did, he pointedly did not issue a public statement. In fact, repeated requests for the statement he apparently provided to a single news outlet were ignored. The failure to speak out against antisemitism – the notion that it “wasn’t his file” – displayed an utter lack of awareness of the need to counter hate and stand in solidarity with affected communities. That display of weak moral character alone may not be a fireable offence, but lying to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is.
Mr. Peter Julian: So at no point were you informed between July 19 and August 22, even though Minister Hussen was consulting with the department, looking at procedural next steps and confirming the organization’s project funding details. Is that correct?
Hon. Pablo Rodriguez: That’s correct.
That claim was never credible, but there is now evidence it was a lie. I previously posted on an Access to Information request that revealed that his officials were engaged on the issue well before August 22nd. According to a report in the Globe and Mail, Rodriguez was personally copied on emails with titles such as “Laith Marouf and antisemitic hate speech.” These emails, which were not included in the ATIP records, involved multiple colleagues and went to his personal email. Rodriguez might suggest that he didn’t read any of those emails, but when he appeared before the Committee two months later claiming he was not informed about the issue, that was a lie. He was informed, said nothing for days, and then lied about what and when he knew about it.
What kind of person fails to speak out on antisemitism and then lies about it before a House of Commons committee? A person who is not fit to serve as a government minister. Now more than ever we need accountability on matters involving hate and antisemitism. Pablo Rodriguez should resign.
Declutter your inbox with the new “Manage Subscriptions” view in Gmail, where you can easily unsubscribe from unwanted emails.
