[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

A different vegetable will have to be selected.  A lettuce lasts too long. He has been given a deadline of October 28 by the dissidents in caucus.

And btw, the Liberals have dropped to 15% in the polls.

[Sheilbh]

Based on my salad drawer, I can't think of a more ephemeral veg

[Grey Fox]

Lettuces are mostly water, air movement is the enemy.

Like Trudeau, really.

[viper37]

Having an article locked behind a paywall, I understand, but not even providing a snippet of information and having said article entirely disappear from view once you decline to pay to see it, I call this scummy behaviour from our publicly funded newspapers

Anyhow.
Jordan Peterson admits it is 'unlikely' he could successfully sue Justin Trudeau over his Russia claims

For context: PM Justin Trudeau named him and Tucker Carlson as Russian agents sowing dissent in the west.
Obviously, he was very angry and threatened to sue. He asked the PM to put forward his evidence.
Then he backs down and says he can't successfully sue Justin Trudeau.

Always the loud mouth, strong words, no action.

I admit I kinda liked the guy very early on.  But like the other crazy lady on the other side of the pound, I have lost most of the sympathy I had for them.

[Barrister]

I admit I kinda liked the guy very early on.  But like the other crazy lady on the other side of the pound, I have lost most of the sympathy I had for them.

Peterson does seem like one of those figures who is so online it kind of broke him.  Elon Musk is the other easy example.  I thought a lot of the criticism they received was wrong, but they then have fallen in for every right-wing online conspiracy trope you can imagine.

[Barrister]

Alberta premier pledges to protect right of professionals to express personal views
Government to review professional regulatory bodies, introduce legislation next year

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says her government will review professional regulatory bodies and introduce legislation next year to limit how they can police their own members.

In a social media video released Wednesday, Smith said it's not appropriate for the government or any professional association to compel Albertans to "some official version of truth."

"George Orwell's fictional 1984 should remain fiction," she said.

Associations and colleges set standards for their members, including doctors, lawyers, psychologists and engineers, and can discipline those who don't meet those standards.

Smith said groups like the Law Society of Alberta and the College of Physicians and Surgeons have an important role in protecting the public interest.

However, she said some professional colleges in Canada have gone too far.

"What a doctor or lawyer believes or says about politics or religion is not a reflection of their competency to practise medicine or law," she said.

The premier said Albertans need to be confident regulated professionals are competent and practise ethically, but those professionals should also have freedom to express their personal views, especially outside their jobs.

"We will bring legislative changes next year to ensure that professional regulatory bodies are limited to regulating their members' professional competence and conduct, and not their speech," she said.

University of Calgary law professor Lorian Hardcastle wrote on social media that Smith's announcement amounts to "the freedom to spread misinformation without professional consequences."

Smith has long railed against what she called "mission creep" by regulators and complaints she's suggested came from "woke" colleagues.

In DepthHere's what's in Alberta's Bill of Rights — and what Danielle Smith is set to change
Driven by COVID-era grievances, members of Smith's United Conservative Party voted in 2023 to adopt policy aimed at protecting Albertans from censorship.

That included pushing the government to protect health-care professionals from having their licences to practise threatened for expressing opinions, like concerns about vaccines, publicly.

Justice Minister Mickey Amery said Wednesday "many" professionals in Alberta have been investigated or disciplined for expressing political or policy opinions outside of their professional practice.

"They're often subjected to a long, burdensome and expensive disciplinary process based on bad faith complaints from people they have never dealt with professionally," he said.

Amery also pointed to psychologist and media personality Jordan Peterson, who was directed by the College of Psychologists of Ontario to undergo training after complaints about his online comments.

Jordan Peterson agrees to social media coaching after Supreme Court declines free speech case
Amery said the government's review will gather input from professionals and regulatory bodies.

It is to look at whether oversight is going beyond professional competence and conduct when it comes to freedom of belief, opinion and expression, mandatory training not related to professional competence, and vexatious and bad faith complaints.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-professional-regulators-right-expression-1.7361315

TL,DR - Government is going to limit the ability of professional regulatory bodies to discipline members for certain kinds of speech.

So several different points:

-Smith does have a point here.  There have been instances of people being reported to their professional bodies for speech they didn't like.  Jordan Peterson is named and is a valid example.  Here in Alberta Ezra Levant was reported to the Law Society several times despite him not working as a lawyer for a number of years.

-but this seems mostly motivated by Covid stuff.  And surely the College of Physicians and Surgeons should monitor for doctors saying obviously wacky and untrue things.

-there's a complaint to be made that these are supposed to be self-governing bodies - groups like lawyers and doctors are trusted to set up their own rules.  But that's also a privilege, not a right, so government can always take that away.

-in part I kind of have limited sympathy because I live with MUCH more restrictive rules on what I can say in public.

-finally, it's very on-brand for Smith that this was announced on a social media video, not a press conference.

[crazy canuck]

One does not have to "work" as a lawyer to be governed by the law society.  The law society has jurisdiction over all licensed lawyers so long as they maintain their licence. That was the very issue Peterson tried to litigate and lost throughout.  He wanted to continue to call himself a psychologist but to do so he had to maintain is license, and that is what gave the governing body jurisdiction over thim.

[viper37]

Alberta premier pledges to protect right of professionals to express personal views
Government to review professional regulatory bodies, introduce legislation next year

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-professional-regulators-right-expression-1.7361315

TL,DR - Government is going to limit the ability of professional regulatory bodies to discipline members for certain kinds of speech.

So several different points:

-Smith does have a point here.  There have been instances of people being reported to their professional bodies for speech they didn't like.  Jordan Peterson is named and is a valid example.  Here in Alberta Ezra Levant was reported to the Law Society several times despite him not working as a lawyer for a number of years.

-but this seems mostly motivated by Covid stuff.  And surely the College of Physicians and Surgeons should monitor for doctors saying obviously wacky and untrue things.

-there's a complaint to be made that these are supposed to be self-governing bodies - groups like lawyers and doctors are trusted to set up their own rules.  But that's also a privilege, not a right, so government can always take that away.

-in part I kind of have limited sympathy because I live with MUCH more restrictive rules on what I can say in public.

-finally, it's very on-brand for Smith that this was announced on a social media video, not a press conference.

It is a bad policy by Smith, very bad.

It removes oversight by a committee of professionals to place it in the hands of politicians.

Whenever that happens, it is bad.

Jordan Peterson is a very good example:  He was in a conflict with his professional order.  He appealed the decision through the courts.  He lost.

I am not in a position to criticize the decision (decisions?) of the tribunal, I will leave that to the lawyers here, I have not even followed all the cases.

But there is an appeal to be had, it's not a death sentence that is irreversible.

It reminds me of another controversial figure in Quebec, Pierre Mailloux.  He was sanctioned by his professional order, he appealed, and he won part of his case, lost on some other elements.  He regained his full right of practice in the end.

I feel that as long as there is a fair judicial appeal process, I see no reason for political meddling.  If the judicial review process is flawed, than that is what needs to change.

[Sheilbh]

TL,DR - Government is going to limit the ability of professional regulatory bodies to discipline members for certain kinds of speech.

This is the position in the UK-ish - although I'm very much not an expert and equalities law is very complicated.

But broadly it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of political or philosophical beliefs (with some exceptions like political parties, or campaigning organisations). The European law on this which has been applied is broadly that the only political beliefs that are not protected are those "not worthy of respect in a democratic society". Philosophy basically has to be a coherent set of views and beliefs - so a "philosophical vegan" won a claim here because their veganism was a moral and philosophical lifestyle choice which is worthy of respect and not being discriminated against.

There's been a recent string of cases now of gender critical feminists and also some trans rights activists winning employment law cases because of discrimination based on their political or philosophical beliefs - which the courts have decided are worth of respect in a democratic society. That has included the conduct of professional regulatory bodies, but has mainly focused on employers. (This is, I think, a big reason why for all the panic "cancel culture" isn't a thing here: you can't fire people at will and you absolutely can't fire them over their politics.)

Obviously that still sits within the context of wider discrimination law. So, for example, a gender critical worker can sound off about their views on social media and not get fired for that but they are not allowed to discriminate against a trans person (as gender is also protected by discrimination law, as is sex), for example by misgendering or anything else, in work. They could be fired for that as they wouldn't just be expressing views but discriminating against someone else.

I very much doubt the courts would find covid conspiracy theories worthy of respect though.

I have said before but I think for all the stuff in the US about "cancel culture" gone too far etc - my basic view is that the easiest solution to that is robust employment law, where you can only fire people for breach of contract (and even then, not easily).

[viper37]

Samidoun issues cease-and-desist to Trudeau, Poilievre, LeBlanc

Death to Canada!

"We are not terrorists, we were misunderstood."

[Barrister]

So Liberals must be running scared - they have announced a cut in immigration levels, from 485k this year to 398k next year, down to 365k by 2026.

But a couple of things:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/economic-impact-immigration-cuts-1.7362448

So Canada's population actually increased by 1.3 million last year - 97.6% of which was from immigration.  So I'm guessing the number of permanent resident doesn't include the large number of TFWs or international students, so a cut of 100k is actually pretty small.  Government has announced plans to reduce the number of those other categories, but I'm not sure numbers have been attached.

But here's the key:

Population growth 'kept the economy afloat'
But some economists note that higher immigration had economic benefits for Canada, and there could be negative consequences from cutting back.

"If it was not for the population growth that we had last year, the Canadian economy would have been in a recession at the end of 2023," said Charles St-Arnaud, chief economist with credit union group Alberta Central.

With more people coming to Canada, more money is being spent overall, he said — even if each individual has been spending less as they feel the pressures of a more sluggish economy.

A man in a business suit is pictured with an orange, yellow and red wall in the background.
Charles St-Arnaud, chief economist with credit union group Alberta Central, says without immigration, Canada's economy would have been in a recession at the end of last year. (Justin Pennell/CBC)
"That kept the economy afloat," St-Arnaud said, although he acknowledged it was clear that immigration numbers in Canada need to be adjusted due to strains on the housing market and other public services.

Rebekah Young, an economist at Scotiabank, said even a small decrease in GDP due to slowing population growth — or a shrinking population — could have a big impact on the economy.

"Maybe we're talking about shrinking GDP by, you know, a half per cent or three-quarters of a per cent, but you're still talking about shrinking GDP as opposed to growing GDP," she said.

On a per-capita basis we've been in recession for the past year.  Growing population from immigration has kept the top-line GDP growing, but not on a per-person basis.

I know people's eyes glaze over when economists talk about "productivity" - but this is what a lack of productivity means - a shrinking GDP per capita.

[Josephus]

Obviously a populist move, as many fuck trudeau-ists are Trump copyists and see immigration as a bad thing.

[Barrister]

Obviously a populist move, as many fuck trudeau-ists are Trump copyists and see immigration as a bad thing.

With respect, I think immigration levels are a very legit topic for debate.

The article I listed points to the two big reasons - very high immigration levels are impacting housing prices, plus Trudeau has been masking a stagnant economy for several years with high immigration.  The economy might be increasing at 2%, but if population is increasing at 2% at the same time the per capita GDP is unchanged.

Is there an element of nativism, and even racism, in those who want less immigration?  Sure.  But that doesn't mean the topic isn't an important one, and not everyone who wants less immigration is a racist.

[Josephus]

 

I'm not saying it's not worth a discussion. Nor did I say people who are against immigration are necessarily racist. There is a time when lowering immigration levels is a good thing. But I still think this is a populist move on Trudeaus part and one that is short sighted.

As an immigrant myself, I have strong feelings about this.

[crazy canuck]

Elections B.C. has 65k mail in ballots to count. That is a third more than anticipated.  The NDP hold two seats by very few votes.  By Monday we could have a Conservative majority government.