FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Apr 26

Why the Fraser Institute’s Interpretation of Public Sector Stats in Canada is Misleading

by bcurry

When we think of government employment and operations, we tend to think of employees working away in government offices — i.e. some huge hidden bureaucracy.  Back in June 2015, the Fraser Institute released a report which noted that the public sector share of employment starting in 1992, declined from 26.1 percent to 22.3 percent by 2003.  Subsequently, it also noted that there had been an increase, with a peak of 24.4 percent reached in 2010 and then a slight decline to 24.1 percent by 2013.  As a result, persons looking at the report would immediately use such information to highlight that one out of four jobs in Canada are in government at different levels: federal, provincial and local.  The fact of the matter is that this perception is somewhat misleading depending on which definition of public sector activity one is using.  They then allude to U.S. stats which suggest that one in eight jobs is in the public sector. This comparison is misleading given the differences in public sector definitions between the two countries and the various activities which employ greater private sector resources in the U.S., such as in higher education and health care.

In Canada, besides public administration, public sector entities are found in the form of numerous government business enterprises (GBEs), active in various industries such as utilities (e.g., hydroelectricity), retail trade (e.g., liquor boards and cannabis stores), transportation (e.g., ports), finance (e.g., deposit insurance), leasing (e.g., convention centres) and recreation (e.g., nature parks).  For example, because of universal health care and health insurance in Canada, the vast majority of medical services are publicly funded, and health practitioners are deemed to be part of the public sector.  In addition, colleges and universities are primarily publicly funded.

Subsequently, the large size of the general government in Canada is primarily because of extensive social protection programs combined with the universal health care and public education systems.  In 2022, Statistics Canada reported that the expenses in 2021 of the 6,135 public sector units (as defined by the agency) amounted to 48.6% of the total gross domestic product (GDP), with consolidated general government expenses alone representing 44.9% of GDP.  These stats would place Canada’s public sector share of the economy in the same allocation as countries such as Great Britain, Sweden and Norway for example.

There is no doubt that the nature and range of industries in which the public sector is involved underlines its economic breadth and influence in Canada.  The public sector represents many workers who provide valuable services to Canadians, including health workers, teachers, firefighters, paramedics, hydro workers, park wardens, police officers, inspectorates, public transit workers, etc., etc.  As one can see, many public sector workers are employed in what are deemed as essential services.  To maintain these services, there has to be an adequate number of experienced and qualified public sector workers.  Wages and benefits have to be competitive with those offered in the private sector in order to attract and retain skilled workers, especially in the current period of labour shortages.

On the one hand, the Fraser Institute is known to be a pro-business entity and tends to take a more anti-government stance in its research and analysis.  On the other hand, in the most recent report released by Statistics Canada in 2021, it noted that public sector expenses (48.6% of GDP) saw a significant reduction from their unprecedented high levels reported in 2020 (58.8% of GDP).  Governments at all levels are attempting to reduce their annual debt levels, back to levels found prior to the pandemic.  It can be anticipated that public sector employment is most likely going to decline in post-pandemic years, particularly with the reduced need for certain services and programs introduced by governments during the pandemic.

To imply that public sector employment in Canada is somehow out of whack, is to ignore the importance of the role of governments in the country at all levels.  Given the scope of the Canadian public sector, the numbers are entirely reasonable and acceptable.

Canada Public Service Public Service US

Leave a comment »
Dec 21

Differences in Governance Systems in Canada and the U.S. Do Matter

by bcurry

Back in high school and in university we were introduced to the two systems of governance in Canada, Great Britain and the U.S.  Canada like the U.K is a parliamentary system, with the normal three levels of governance: the legislature, executive and judiciary components.  As a republic, the U.S. has a similar constitutional makeup, although how each of the members is selected varies greatly.  In Canada, the Prime Minister is selected by which party gets the most seats in the House of Commons.  The PM also sits in Parliament.  Sometimes, if a party doesn’t win the majority of seats to form a government, the party with the most seats can negotiate with another party to form what is referred to as a “minority government”.  Minority governments are tricky because they can be toppled by a “confidence vote” on critical motions such as a budget.  Canada currently has a minority government as a result of the last federal election in September 2021. The PM currently selects the members to Cabinet who are normally members of Parliament, unlike in the U.S. where the President selects Cabinet members who do not sit in Congress.

In the U.S., citizens vote separately for the President and for candidates to the House of Representatives and the Senate, often in what are referred to as “mid-term elections”.  Unlike in Canada where there are mainly five official parties, the U.S. only has two parties: the Democrats and the Republicans.  As a result, Congress can often see a split in control between the House of Representatives and the Senate, as is the case now with the Republicans controlling the House and the Democrats the Senate.  In addition, there are those members who are independents.  The Canadian Senate on the other hand is made up of appointed members (by the Governor General on the PM’s recommendation) who now do not have any party affiliation.  Compared to the American Senate, the Canadian Senate does not have much power, especially when it comes to financial matters such as the budget.  It examines bills referred from the House and can recommend amendments which the governing party can accept or ignore in the final reading before parliament.  While committee hearings before the U.S. Senate can make or break policies or federal appointments, the Canadian Senate’s committees can simply provide reports on selected subjects which the Government most often ignores and get shelved.

Appointments to the Supreme Court are a whole other matter.  In the U.S., such appointments are highly politicized and depend on which party the President and Senate members come from.  In recent years, the majority of Supreme Court justices have been appointed under Republican regimes, resulting in a prevalent conservative court.  In Canada, on the other hand, Supreme Court appointments are more or less apolitical and made to reflect regional, ethnic and affirmative action considerations.  Frankly, given recent decisions by the American Supreme Court (e.g. Roe vs. Wade), I must say that I prefer the more independent Canadian version when it comes to appointing jurists.

There will always be debates over which system is better.  The fact of the matter is that both have their benefits and flaws.  One major concern with the American system is how the President is elected and the role of the “electoral college”.  For example, in the case of Donald Trump, he had smaller percentage of the popular vote than Hillary Clinton and yet won the election.  In both countries, it is especially important to win certain urban and rural areas in order to be politically successful.  For this reason, parties target certain key states in the U.S. and certain key provinces in Canada.  One major difference is how candidates in the election process are funded.  In the U.S. there is no end to the hundreds of millions of dollars that candidates can gather from such sources as Super PACs (political action committees).  For example, this year’s midterm election was expected to set a new spending record, with over $9 billion being raised. This is significantly higher than the previous record of $7 billion, which was set in 2018.  In Canada, contributions to candidates are far less and are regulated by controls enforced by an independent agency, namely Elections Canada.

To change the current governance systems in both countries would require significant constitutional amendments which don’t appear to be on the horizon anytime soon.  I would suggest, maybe just maybe, the time is right for governments to re-examine the governance processes in light of our histories and the continuing changes in both societies.

Canada Conservative Political Groups Elections Federal Election Federal Government Federal Government Judicial System Presidential Election 2020 The Senate U.S. Primaries US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Nov 30

Where Do Provincial Powers Begin and End in Canada?

by bcurry

To better understand the split between provincial and federal powers, given by Canada’s written constitution, one has to understand a little bit of the history.  When Canada became an independent country from Great Britain, the federal government was given a good deal of governance responsibilities.  Canada was formed as a confederation comprised of ten provinces and several territories.  However, the provinces eventually garnered a fair amount of responsibility for certain matters which were not national in scope.  Federally, the government deals primarily with inter-provincial areas such as transportation, banking, and inter-provincial commerce, as well as such international areas dealing with foreign policy, trade, defence and immigration.  So far so good.  However, during World War II, the federal government took control of areas of taxation in order to make war related payments.  These revenue areas were not returned to the provinces after the war. For this reason, the provinces have complained about their heavy reliance on access to federal funding for areas of primary provincial responsibility such as health, education and housing.  In addition, as the years passed, new areas surfaced of great importance such as telecommunications and nuclear energy, something that the federal government determined was in their jurisdiction as part of its constitutional responsibility for the peace, order and good government of Canada.  Over the course of the 20th century, legal interpretations of peace, order and good government more clearly defined the limits of federal authority over the provinces.  Often disputes over who’s responsible for what and to what extent end up in litigation by provinces and the federal government.  Like the old constitution of 1867, the new one of 1982 will remain vague in many areas until time and circumstance permit its interpretation by the courts.

All in all, the provinces continue to have substantial jurisdiction for areas such as education, health and urban affairs.  One area of contention has been the federal introduction of “equalization payments” to the provinces to help ensure that provincial governments across Canada can provide adequate services.  It was expected that the richer provinces would help to subsidize certain areas in the so-called poorer provinces.  For example, Alberta has its oil and gas industry which brings in large revenues to its coffers.  The federal government gets its share of taxes from Alberta’s energy sector and passes most along to the Maritime and other provinces to help provide some of the services that Canadians have come to rely on.  Quebec has also benefited greatly from the equalization arrangement, while Ontario has not.

Now, the current Alberta government is complaining about federal policies and laws that they feel intrude upon their provincial responsibilities or which Albertans are not in agreement with, such as gun control measures and environmental taxes on oil and gas sectors to name a few.  Recently proposed legislation introduced in Alberta would allow its cabinet to direct “provincial entities” — Crown-controlled organizations, municipalities, school boards, post-secondary schools, municipal police forces, regional health authorities and any social agency receiving provincial money — to not use provincial resources to enforce federal rules deemed harmful to Alberta’s interests.  This is a very disturbing development, suggesting even greater polarization between a province and the federal government.  Fortunately, the Alberta government has not gone as far as — like Quebec in the past — to suggest a potential separation from Canada’s confederation.

However, Alberta’s stance appears to be somewhat similar to Quebec’s political moves in the sixties, seventies and eighties where provincial parties promoting Quebec’s independence from Canada had emerged.  Failing to obtain a majority in two referendums on independence, the Quebec movement slowly disappeared over the last decade.  Instead, Quebec has attempted to secure more provincial control over former federal jurisdiction, such in such areas as immigration and public pensions plans.  Indeed, Quebec recently passed several contentious laws dealing with French language rights and secularism in its public sector.  The courts have already begun to examine appeals to such legislation based on possible violations under human and rights laws.

What all this amounts to is the power to govern.  The federal government has to play a fine line between what powers can be shared and what policies best serve all Canadians equally.  There is little doubt that provincial premiers will continue to gang up on the Prime Minister, particularly when to do so is in their interests.  The PM on the other hand has the difficult and delicate task of maintaining a strong national presence in governance in support of the peace, order and good government of Canada.

Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms Defence Education Fairness in Taxation Federal Government Gun Laws Health Care Systen Immigration Policies

Leave a comment »
Sep 28

Prohibited ‘Assault-Style’ Weapons Have No Place in Canadian Society

by bcurry

On December 6, 1989, a man entered a mechanical engineering classroom at Montreal’s École Polytechnique armed with a semi-automatic weapon.  After separating the women from the men, he opened fire on the women while screaming, “You are all feminists.”  Fourteen young women were murdered, and 13 other people were seriously wounded.  The shooter then turned the gun on himself.  After the events of that tragic December, the Coalition for Gun Control was formed in Canada.  Their efforts contributed to the 1995 adoption of Bill C-68, the federal firearm control legislation.  Its stipulations included mandatory registration of all firearms and licensing for firearm owners; a national registry for all weapons; background checks; and verification processes and controls on ammunition sales.

On April 18–19, 2020, a gunman committed multiple shootings in the province of Nova Scotia, killing 22 people and injuring three others before he was shot and killed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).  Two assault-style weapons were used in shootings, although it appears that they were not legally acquired and the gunman was known to police.  Subsequently and effective immediately in May 2020, the federal government introduced legislation to ban a total of 1,500 assault-style firearms for use, sale, import or transport in Canada.  It includes a two-year amnesty period for current owners.  Eventually, there will also be a buyback program, but those details were still being worked out.

This September, in an obvious political move, the provincial government of Alberta announced steps to oppose federal firearms prohibition legislation and the potential seizure of thousands of assault-style weapons.  It intends to ask the RCMP not to take part in the confiscation of these weapons.  Alberta’s chief firearms officer proclaimed: “The planned confiscations represent a fatal approach to reducing violence in Canadian society and are unwarranted and unacceptable infringements on the property rights and personal freedoms of Albertans.”

A survey, conducted in May 2020 exclusively for Global News, found that 52 percent of Canadians polled, living in nine major centres, agree that all types of guns should be made illegal.  The polling was completed between March 24 and April 2, before the above noted mass shooting happened in Nova Scotia.  The poll by the Angus-Reid Institute showed about 80 percent of Canadians also support a ban on “assault weapons.”  Canada is not the only country to ban assault-style weapons.  In March 2019, New Zealand banned all military-style semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles after a deadly shooting killed more than 50 people. 

Interestingly, there is no constitutional right to bear arms as in the U.S.  Indeed, one can Make a case that it is a weak argument in Canada that the banning of such weapons is an infringement on someone’s rights and personal freedoms.  I would argue that, just as owning and driving a motor vehicle, owning a gun is a privilege requiring training in its use, registration and other prescribed requirements for licensed users as regulated by law.  Just as there are restrictions on the ownership and use of a motor vehicle and one’s driving license, so must there be restrictions on acquiring certain types of guns as a matter of public safety.  No one should be surprised that after the Nova Scotia shootings some sort of inevitable government gun control action would occur, especially as the vast majority of Canadians appear to be in support of such initiatives.  During the 2019 federal election campaign Prime Minister Justin Trudeau noted that: “These weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time”.

Although I do not own a gun, like many Canadians I believe strongly that the possession of either handguns or military-style semi-automatic weapons is not a fundamental right.  The fewer these weapons are around and accessible, the better off and safer we will all be.  One only has to look at the American tragic situation involving an increasing number of mass shootings using assault-style weapons every year, including those in schools, malls and workplaces.  Canada should do everything possible to avoid going down the same road!

Canada Federal Government Gun Control Gun Control Gun Laws US

Leave a comment »
Jul 21

Incredible Scenes of Democratic Representatives in Congress Being Arrested During Protests

by bcurry

Earlier this past week during an abortion rights protest over the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, at least 17 Democratic lawmakers were among the 35 people arrested by the Capitol Police for blocking traffic outside the courthouse.  The arrest of lawmakers in this manner is something almost unheard of in Canada.  Canadian legislators tend to be somewhat docile when outside the House of Commons in Ottawa.  The most that Members of Parliament (MP) will do is to attend peaceful protests on the front lawn of Parliament’s centre block, sometimes to speak in support of some cause or another.  I can’t remember the last time that an MP was arrested as part of any protest in Ottawa.  However, back in March 2018, two federal politicians, including Green Party Leader Elizabeth May and New Democratic Party (NDP) MP Kennedy Stewart, were arrested at a protest against Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain federally approved pipeline expansion in Burnaby, British Columbia.

On the other hand, in Washington, such incidences among House Representatives appear to have happened in other cases.  Indeed, it was reported that Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., was arrested last month outside the Supreme Court for protesting.  In July 2021, Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, was arrested at the Hart Senate Office Building for protesting in favor of voting rights legislation.

Protests are protected by the First Amendment of the American Constitution, but like in Canada, there is still the need for protesters to abide by laws.  In the most recent incident, the U.S. Capitol Police tweeted about the situation: “Demonstrators are starting to block First Street, NE. It is against the law to block traffic, so officers are going to give our standard three warnings before they start making arrests.”  In light of the minor violation, those arrested were later released at the scene, with police telling the ABC News they were likely to face a $US50 ($72.48 Canadian) fine.  Among those arrested was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, who became the youngest woman elected to the House of Representatives, and has rocketed to political notoriety.  The arrests of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and the other Democrats resulted in coverage by a large number of news media outlets and extensively by social media sources.  There is little doubt that this type of media coverage involving lawmakers gives a protest a good deal of press, good and bad.

Former charismatic Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who was PM from 1968 to 1979 and from 1980 to 1984, once exclaimed to the house speaker that opposition MPs were nobodies once they were “50 yards from Parliament Hill”.  Of course, that was before social media and daily digital news.  Most recently, several opposition Conservative MPs, including leadership contender Pierre Poilievre, met with the illegal Trucker Convoy which had occupied the streets in front of Parliament for over three weeks in February of this year.  The New York Times wrote that the Conservatives, the only other party to form a government in Canada, were readying for a fight and saw the truckers and their followers not as outcasts but as political currency that can bring in votes — and money.  With his photo-op, Poilievre was depicted as the protesters’ political champion at the time, although as the illegal occupation continued Conservative support was condemned by many Canadians, and most certainly by those living in Ottawa at the time.  No other party MPs met with the protesters, viewing the occupation as being unlawful, eventually being removed by the police and leading to the arrests of dozens of protesters.  The social and economic impact of the occupation ultimately led to the federal government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act to facilitate the removal of occupying vehicles from streets within the Parliamentary precinct in Ottawa.

In general, Canadian legislators tend to avoid participation in protests, many of which occur in the capital on a daily basis.  Even members of the left-wing NDP are normally careful not to participate in protests outside of the legislature, particularly those involving extremists.  The one big difference in Canada is the more apolitical system used for appointing federal justices, including those appointed to the Supreme Court.  With the highly politicized recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court — comprised of four conservative-leaning justices who were appointed during the Trump administration — it is not surprising that protests have erupted outside the Supreme Court.  What’s surprising is the participation by members of Congress in such protests and their subsequent arrests by Capitol Police!  This is something that is unheard of in Canada — perhaps somewhat regrettably in certain cases.  However, time will tell for our “nobodies”.

Abortion Canada Donald Trump Federal Government Federal Government Media Social Media US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Mar 6

Truckers’ Convoy in U.S. Aspires to be More Calm Than Canadian “Freedom Convoy”

by bcurry

On February 23rd, taking its cue from demonstrations that paralyzed the downtown of Canada’s capital city of Ottawa for over three weeks, U.S. truckers embarked on a 2,500-mile (4,000-km) cross-country drive towards Washington, D.C., to protest coronavirus-related mandates and restrictions.  Having arrived in Maryland, organizers of the so-called “People’s Convoy” say they are planning to circle their armada of trucks, cars and SUVs around the Beltway on the morning of March 6th and into the following workweek at the minimum speed limit to slow traffic and get their message out to lawmakers.  The convoy, which recently numbered about 1,000 vehicles, intends to repeat that ritual each day this week until the group’s demands are met.  Organizers have proclaimed that they are law-abiding citizens who are simply exercising their rights to protest.  Unlike in Ottawa, they don’t want to shut anything down and they’re not planning to come into downtown Washington.

However, as in the case of the so-called “Freedom Convoy” in Canada, it’s not exactly clear just what are the ultimate goals of the American protesters.  As in the Canadian case, the convoy also involves a number or representatives of fringe groups, often with far-right links and other unrelated causes.  It seems apparent that there are a number of Trump supporters still asserting that the presidential election was stolen, as well as those from the anti-vaccine movement.  As in the Canadian case, many of the signs and messages can be seen referencing far-right political views and conspiracy theories.  A list of organizations supporting the convoy include those led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a leader in the anti-vaccine movement, Gen. Michael Flynn, the former Trump administration national security adviser, and Rob McCoy, a Republican politician and Southern California evangelical pastor.  In general, the convoy participants do push for an end to government health rules requiring masks and vaccinations, a move that has already begun by governments as new COVID-19 cases have ebbed.  However, as in the case of Canada where provincial governments were responsible for implementing most public health restrictions during the pandemic, many of the mandates were implemented by individual states in varying degrees.

Given what happened in Canada, the Defence Department authorized deployment of about 700 unarmed National Guard personnel from the District of Columbia and neighbouring states to help manage the expected traffic.  Capitol Police said that plans were being drawn up to reinstall the temporary fence that was erected around the Capitol after last year’s January 6th riots in the Capitol.  Like the Canadian protesters, the organizers claim that they just have a message that they want heard and they’re not going anywhere until it’s heard.  Unlike the Canadian truckers’ convoy, they have not also stated clearly any specific protest against the American and Canadian vaccination mandate requirements for truckers crossing the U.S.-Canada border.  The Canadian protest included blockages by vehicles of the Windsor-Detroit and Coutts, Alberta, border crossings that occurred in late January and mid-February.  The negative economic impact of the blockades on trade contributed to the Canadian federal government invoking the Emergencies Act in order to pressure the protesters to remove their vehicles and reframe from further illegal activities.

In Canada, many arrests of leaders and protesters were made both in Ottawa and at the affected border crossings.  In the case of Coutts, Alberta, several guns, body armour and ammunition were seized by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).  The seizure is attributed to militia-style right-wing fringe elements.  In the case of the American truckers’ protest, it is hoped that the organizers will maintain a more peaceful stance.  In light of the decline in new COVID-19 cases and related hospitalization rates, the irony is that both protests against government public health mandates are occurring at a time when many of the restrictions are in the process of being removed.  If the American protest resembles its Canadian counterpart, one will probably see no clear plan and a hodgepodge of multiple and diverse grievances.  Many grievances will once again reflect the general malaise within a large segment of the population, often compounded by a growing mistrust of government and the authorities.  Unfortunately, as illustrated in the Canadian truckers’ protest, these grievances can lead to illegal and sometimes violent actions.

Canada Coronavirus COVID-19 Extremism Extremist Groups Federal Government Federal Government Populism U.S. Canada Border US

Leave a comment »
Feb 24

Unfair Condemnation by American Mainstream Media of Canada’s Invocation of the Federal Emergencies Act

by bcurry

For the first time since its creation, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act, giving the government far reaching powers, allowing the government to freeze financial accounts, press tow truck operators into service and end blockades.  As required, limited to an initial thirty day period, the invocation of the Act was subsequently debated in Parliament.  However, on February 23rd, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau withdrew the law, stating that it was no longer necessary because illegal protests that included blockades at some border crossings and the occupation in downtown Ottawa were no longer considered an emergency.  He said the federal government is confident existing laws and bylaws are now sufficient to keep people safe.  No one’s peaceful “right to protest” was ever affected, as long as no laws were being broken.

Interestingly but not surprising, mainstream media in the U.S. came down hard for the most part on the use of the Emergencies Act to deal with the border blockades and Ottawa occupation by the so-called “Freedom Convoy.”  Mainstream media is a term and abbreviation used to refer collectively to the various large mass news media that influence many people, and both reflect and shape prevailing currents of thought.  Major outlets such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times and Fox News threw in their lot with the truckers — or at least, the truckers’ right to protest.  However, while the Canadian protests where not as violent against COVID-related mandates as occurred in Europe, the protesters did block the Coutts (Alberta) and Windsor-Detroit border crossings for over a week and occupied downtown of the National Capital of Ottawa for over three weeks.  The courts declared that these blockades and occupations were illegal and ordered protesters to reframe from such activities.  In order to carry out the resulting injunctions, the province of Ontario called upon the federal government to provide whatever assistance that it could.  Hence, the invocation of the Emergencies Act on February 14th.   Over two-thirds of Canadians polled approved of the Act’s invocation.

What the Act achieved was to allow all national, provincial and local police services across Canada to collaborate in the removal of illegal blockades and occupations.  Up to then, protesters, often with leadership involving fringe groups, had thumbed their noses at municipal police services.  The Act also went after the funding sources for the protesters’ illegal activities, often provided for by right-wing American sources (U.S.-based crowdfunding websites) initially through GoFundMe and later through GiveSendGo — resulting in millions of dollars worth of support.  More than half of the funding came from American sources, clearly representing foreign involvement in the domestic affairs of Canada.  None of the American mainstream media really caught on to this new phenomenon until GoFundMe froze the funding and the GiveSendGo funding website was hacked into, disclosing several large contributions originating in the U.S.  While the federal government asked Canadian financial institutions to freeze the accounts of the convoy protesters to encourage them to reframe from continuing illegal activities, it was designed to primarily target the accounts of many of the known leaders.  With discontinuation of the powers provided for under the Emergencies Act, the accounts should no longer be frozen for persons reframing from illegal activities.

Indeed, as in any democratic society, the Act was created in 1988 to ensure compliance with Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and was to used as a last resort in the event of national emergencies.  There is little doubt that its use will be challenged by various groups and certain Conservative provincial governments in the courts.  While there appears to be no similar piece of legislation in the U.S., any suggestion that the Act’s invocation removed the democratic rights of Canadians has be overblown and misunderstood by American mainstream media.  While one can appreciate such a reaction by the so-called “alternate media”, I find the editorials in most U.S. media to be an overreach.  At no time during the Act’s implementation was the “due process” under existing laws not carried out.  Those being charged by the authorities under Canada’s Criminal Code will have their day in court, and many were released with or without bail until their appearance in court.  All the normal judicial processes were carried out under very difficult circumstances.  I would hope that most Americans would support this?

Canada Extremist Groups Federal Government Mainstream Media The News Media US

Leave a comment »
Feb 5

Trucker Convoy to Ottawa Turned Quickly from Demonstration to Occupation

by bcurry

As Ottawa enters into its ninth day of the so-called Convoy Freedom 22 demonstration, it has become obvious that it quickly transformed into an occupation of downtown Ottawa and surrounding residential areas.  This has led to accusations of illegal activities on the part of the demonstrators and charges against some of the protesters.  Members of the directly affected community have launched a class-action lawsuit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  It is seeking $5 million in “punitive damages” and another $4.8 million in “private nuisance” damages, citing that the continuous noise from trucks and protester harassment have caused “significant mental distress, suffering and torment.”

On top of which, the crowdfunding platform GoFundMe stopped payments to the organizers of Freedom Convoy 2022 because the protest violates its rules on violence and harassment provisions in its contractual Terms and Conditions.  Over $10 million had been raised to date, although the names of most donators have not been released by GoFundMe.  A number of donors identified themselves in comments as living abroad, in countries such as the United States, Australia, England or Poland.  However, participants in the occupation have displayed symbols of hate including the Confederate flag and swastikas while protesting.  Truckers parked in downtown Ottawa have also made residents miserable by blaring their horns at all hours and protesters have vandalized businesses and harassed residents and employees.  Due to the actions of some demonstrators, numerous businesses have been forced to remain closed during the occupation, leaving many and their workers without revenues.  Interestingly, GoFundMe also has a similar page requesting donations in support of a trucking convoy to D.C.

Tamara Lich, one of the organizers of the protest’s GoFundMe page, posted a video message on Friday evening directing supporters to a new online fundraiser hosted by GiveSendGo, a Christian fundraising site.  This site was blocked by PayPal last year after it was used to raise funds for people who attended the Jan. 6 Capitol riot in the U.S.  Lich was a former leader within the “Wexit” movement pushing for the independence of western provinces, and recently resigned from the fledgling Maverick Party to devote herself full time to the “Freedom Convoy” protest.  While she is not a trucker, she was however associated with what are considered as fringe groups such as the Canadian “Yellow Vest” protest movement.

In addition, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), a Calgary-based nonprofit law firm that has also represented other clients resisting government COVID-19 restrictions and vaccine mandates, announced that it is representing the Freedom Convoy 2022 in Ottawa and has a team of lawyers on the ground providing legal assistance and advice.  Interestingly, on its Web site, the JCCF talks about freedom of peaceful assembly, including “… the freedom of Canadians to peaceful protest and demonstrations on public property.”  JCCF has also published a brochure entitled: “Your Body, Your Choice – The legal right to refuse vaccines and other medical treatments.”  The firm now represents several individuals who are contesting COVID-related public health measures and government restrictions.  Apparently, JCCF relies heavily on donations to support its activities.  Again, one must ask just who contributes?

All in all, Ottawa’s police chief who heads up the response to the occupation of a number of police forces, including the RCMP and Ontario Provincial Police, has implemented a number of new enforcement measures.  Unfortunately, for the citizens of Ottawa, the occupation is expected to continue over the weekend, with protesters being joined by outside groups.  The question is that, in view of the fact that a number of provinces had already planned to reduce COVID-related restrictions in the near future, what do the protesters really have to gain?  The answer is simply “nothing”.  Each day they are loosing whatever support that they initially had because of their actions as occupiers.  This is no longer a peaceful assembly.  Even some members of the Conservative party, who initially appeared to support aspects of the initiative, are now calling on the organizers to end the occupation and go home.

We are a country which respects the rule of law and order as a fundamental principle of our democratic ways.  This does not include infringing on the freedoms of other law-abiding citizens!

Canada COVID-19 Extremism Federal Government

Leave a comment »
Jan 22

It’s Hard to be Optimistic About the Rest of 2022 — Here’s Why

by bcurry

Well, the New Year began much as the old year ended.  Across the board there are numerous reasons for North Americans not to be overly optimistic about the rest of the year.  Several key factors are leading us to this conclusion.

  • The Omicron variant of COVID-19 has created a fourth or fifth wave, depending on who you are talking to.  Although Omicron appears to have possibly peaked, it has once again severely strained our health care systems.  In addition, the unvaccinated continue to represent the largest number of hospitalizations, especially when it comes to patients in our ICUs.  Our health care providers continue to be under a great deal of strain, especially after two years of treating COVID patients.  There is now a tremendous backlog of elective surgeries and treatments.  In addition, although CDC studies show the effectiveness of booster vaccine shots in preventing severe COVID cases, far fewer adults have gotten booster shots to date.  When will we move from a pandemic to an endemic?
  • In most jurisdictions, kids are back for in-person learning in schools.  However, there are still a large number of children under the age of twelve who have not received their first dose of a COVID vaccine.  With the Omicron variant being twice as contagious as the Delta variant, many parents are concerned about the safety of schools and the potential effect of the disease on their children.  Indeed, statistics have shown that more children are being hospitalized due to Omicron.  Questions have been raised about whether in-person learning can continue in the near future.
  • Even with the economy starting to reopen, a number of economic issues have arisen.  Among these is the forecast of continuing hyperinflation over the coming months.  There continue to be supply chain problems, shortages of skilled labour and increasing fuel, food and housing prices.  With the current annual inflation rate running at around six percent, Canadians have not seen such a high inflation rate since 1991.  A survey of consumer expectations showed Canadian households also expect inflation to stay above 3 percent over the next couple of years, above the two percent average considered normally acceptable.  Central banks have little choice but to raise interest rates this year which will have a major effect on government and personal debt payments down the road.
  • Internationally, both the U.S. and Canada, as members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), will have to deal with on-going Russian threats suggesting a possible military incursion into eastern Ukraine.  Although the Ukraine is not a member of NATO, the allied countries strongly believe that there needs to be an immediate and firm reaction to any Russian incursion.  As a warning to Russian President Vladimir Putin, NATO countries are arming and training the Ukraine military and defence forces in preparation for such an event.
  • China’s economy is slowing, a worrying sign for the world.  China’s National Bureau of Statistics indicates that economic output from October through December of 2021 was only 4% higher than during the same period a year earlier.  This is a far cry from previous annual growth rates ranging between 6 and 9 percent in recent years.  The Omicron variant of the coronavirus is now starting to spread in China, leading to more restrictions around the country and raising fears of renewed disruption of supply chains.  Being a major supplier to the North American markets, any continuing slowdown in China’s economy will have a severe impact on U.S. and Canadian businesses and consumers.
  • COVID-19 government relief programs for the unemployed and businesses affected by government-imposed lockdowns and public health measures are being phased out.  This could result in many hardships for lower income individuals and small to medium-sized businesses.  The resulting loss of income due to the pandemic will have an impact on government revenues in the near future.  Many government support programs may have to be reviewed for termination or reduction under expected future austerity measures.

Canada China Coronavirus COVID-19 Economy Economy Federal Government Federal Government Health Care Ukraine US

Leave a comment »
Dec 6

With More Extreme Weather Occurrences, Governments Will Have To Act Faster

by bcurry

With the recent forest fires, hurricanes and severe floods, both Canada and the U.S. are being forced to increasingly provide support to provinces and states for immediate assistance and longer-term recovery initiatives.  However, Canada does not have any federal agency equivalent to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the U.S.  However, recently there has been more interest in Canada to potentially creating a similar federal agency to FEMA given the recent destructive and massive flooding of regions in British Columbia.

FEMA is an agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), initially created under President Jimmy Carter in 1978 and implemented by two Executive Orders in 1979.  FEMA’s primary purpose is to coordinate the response to a disaster that has occurred in the U.S. and that overwhelms the resources of local and state authorities. The governor of the state in which the disaster occurs must declare a state of emergency and formally request from the President that FEMA and the federal government respond to the disaster.  FEMA also provides funds for training of response personnel throughout the U.S. and its territories as part of the agency’s preparedness effort.  While on-the-ground support of disaster recovery efforts is a major part of FEMA’s charter, the agency provides state and local governments with experts in specialized fields and funding for rebuilding efforts and relief funds for infrastructure repair.

However, even FEMA has incurred criticism in recent years, particularly in relation to the impact of hurricanes Katrina that hit New Orleans in 2005, Harvey that hit the Houston area in 2017, Laura that hit Louisiana in 2020, and Ida that hit Louisiana this past summer.  Among the criticism about FEMA is that it takes an inordinately long time to place every displaced resident in temporary housing, sometimes months and sometimes years as in the case of Katrina.  More than three months after Hurricane Ida tore through coastal Louisiana, thousands of residents of the hardest hit bayou communities remain displaced.  This raises the question as the whether supplying temporary or replacement housing for disaster victims is an appropriate role for government?  Most people would agree that it is.

Public Safety Canada helps Canadians and their communities protect themselves from emergencies and disasters related to all kinds of hazards – natural, human-induced and technological – through national leadership in the development and implementation of policies, plans and a range of programs.  The Department maintains a loose network of partnerships with other federal government institutions, provincial and territorial emergency management organizations, first responders and voluntary organizations, and other stakeholders and communities, supporting a whole-of-society approach to emergency management that leverages resources and capacities at all levels across the country.  However, the federal government relies heavily on providing immediate assistance through the Department of National Defence and non-profit organizations such as the Canadian Red Cross as requested.

Given the nature of recent disasters often associated with the impact of climate change, the Canadian government needs to seriously rethink how it handles such future disasters in an efficient, timely and effective manner.  There is a real need for a central agency to do pre-planning in order to prepare for future emergencies.  Preventative measures to deal with climate and environmental related causes will have to be developed and implemented on a long-term basis.  National coordination of such initiatives is a must, and more than sufficient funding needs to be allotted as soon as possible.  After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  National, provincial and local infrastructure needs to be immediately assessed to determine its capacity to withstand imminent future natural disasters.  Providing the means to immediately support displaced individuals and quickly provide temporary housing is essential to the well-being of both Canadians and Americans.

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Climate Change Federal Government Federal Government US

Leave a comment »
«Older Entries
Newer Entries »
Blog at WordPress.com.