Mediaboss Marketing

OTTAWA - The lightning spread of the Omicron COVID-19 variant is prompting federal politicians to reconsider the wisdom of having several hundred MPs crammed together in the House of Commons.

Government House leader Mark Holland announced Tuesday that the Liberals will greatly reduce the number of their MPs in the chamber and intend to hold entirely virtual caucus meetings for the time being.

Liberals are following the advice of public health officials, who are warning Canadians that now is not the time for mass gatherings and that smaller is better, Holland said, noting that the experience in other countries suggests the Omicron variant is as much as eight times more contagious than the Delta variant.

Its particularly important to limit gatherings of MPs who are coming from all areas in the country and will be returning to all areas of the country, he added.

Holland met with his opposition counterparts to advise them of the Liberals decision but said its up to them to decide whether to follow suit.

A New Democrat official said thatpartys weekly caucus meeting Wednesday will be virtual and an update on the number of NDP MPs allowed in the House will come later in the day.

Bloc Quebecois spokesperson Julien Coulombe-Bonnafous said the Blocs caucus will meet in person Wednesday, respecting all the sanitary measures in force. He added that all MPs and staff who attend are fully vaccinated.

Beyond that, Coulombe-Bonnafous said the Bloc will remain cautious and will adjust, as we have done since the start of the pandemic, depending on developments and public health recommendations.

Conservative whip Blake Richards said his caucus will also meet in person on Wednesday. He made no commitment to take any other steps, other than to say As always, Conservatives will continue to abide by all current public health guidelines.

Both the Conservatives and the Bloc argued last month for a full return to normal, in-person operations of the House and its committees, complaining that the hybrid format used previously during the pandemic allowed cabinet ministers to escape opposition scrutiny.

Over Tory and Bloc objections, Liberals and New Democrats joined forces to approve a resumption of the hybrid format, giving MPs the option of participating virtually in proceedings.

Nevertheless, since the new parliamentary session opened three weeks ago, most of the countrys 338 MPs have been showing up in the Commons in person. They are required to wear masks which must be removed when an MP is voting but the close seating arrangements make it impossible to maintain two metres of physical distance between MPs when the chamber is crowded.

As of Tuesday evening, Holland said the Liberals will allow only 25 to 30 MPs at any given time to be sitting on their side of the chamber, including what he called a robust cabinet presence. The rest will participate remotely via video conference.

He argued that the emergence of the highly transmissible Omicron variant proves the wisdom of retaining the hybrid format.

What is clear as we continue the fight against COVID-19 is that nothing is predictable, Holland said.

One of the things that I said when we were pushing for the importance of hybrid provisions is that we have to remain flexible and adapt as the public health circumstance changes.

Holland said there may be more changes coming to adapt to the wildfire spread of the Omicron variant, including potentially requiring anyone entering the Commons precinct to have received a third booster shot, in addition to the current double vaccination requirement.

He did not rule out the possibility of extending Parliaments six-week holiday break if the Omicron wave of the pandemic gets much worse, as public health experts fear. The break is to begin Friday evening and is currently scheduled to continue until Jan. 31.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 14, 2021.

Note to readers: Corrects name of Bloc Quebecois spokesperson

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

Anyone can read Conversations, but to contribute, you should be registered Torstar account holder. If you do not yet have a Torstar account, you can create one now (it is free)

Sign In

Register

View post:
Omicron rapid spread prompts Liberals to limit number of ...

Brent Stirton, Getty Images

A CBS poll released on New Years weekend shows that four in 10 Democrats consider Republicans to be the enemy rather than just political opposition, and one that threatens their entire way of life.

Even more Republicans feel that way about Democrats. And the numbers are higher still among ideological liberals and conservatives.

The CBS News/YouGov survey included questions on how people feel about the events of Jan. 6, 2021 a year later, including what word or phrase best describes what took place. One question, asked of each party about the other, could say a lot about just how divided Americans will remain in the weeks and months ahead.

The survey found that 43% of Democrats feel Republicans are not simply political rivals but genuine enemies who pose a real threat to their way of life. One year on from the Capitol breach, 57% of Democrats think of Republicans as simply political opposition.

When you look at the results by ideology it climbs, with 51% of self-identifying Democrats who are liberals saying they consider Republicans a threat and an enemy, versus 49% who selected political opposition to describe Republicans.

Republicans felt the same way about Democrats by 48% to 52%. That is, approximately half of Republicans consider Democrats a threat, and half think only that Democrats would prevent Republicans from achieving policy goals.

Looking at the right by ideology, 50% of self-identifying Republicans who are conservatives selected enemy to describe Democrats, and 50% went with simply political opposition.

Its not all bad news, said CBS in its own article about the poll, writing that, not all partisans think of the opposition as enemies threatening their way of life. Those who do tend to be more ideological, though. CBS also notes that few Americans favor the idea of a so-called national divorce.

So theres that.

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Follow this link:
Almost Half of Adults See Other Party as Enemies, Threat

Breadcrumb Trail Links

With Canadians grappling with inflation not seen in a generation, the federal government has decided to throw fuel on the fire.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

On Saturday, the Liberals vaccine mandate for international truckers came into effect, an ill-conceived move that will drive up the price of goods imported from the United States and exacerbate driver shortages and, more so, our national capacity to export Canadian goods.

Even without the mandate, today we have nearly 23,000 openings for professional drivers and counting a vacancy rate already at a record high.

When we think of front-line workers, nurses, doctors and grocery store clerks are usually the first who come to mind. There is another occupation, however, that needs to be added to that list: truck drivers. Throughout the pandemic, tens of thousands of hard-working Canadians have been working round the clock to keep our supply chains moving.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Let me be clear: the Canadian trucking industry is strongly supportive of efforts to increase vaccine uptake among Canadians. Safe and effective, the vaccine is far and away the best way to prevent serious illness or death from COVID-19. The Alberta Motor Transport Association, for instance, partnered with the governments of Alberta and Montana to offer vaccine clinics for cross-border truckers.

Thanks to efforts such as these, the majority of truckers are fully vaccinated. Indeed, the vaccination rates among many Canadian Trucking Alliance members are well above the national average. As we have since the vaccine became available, we will continue to encourage our members to roll up their sleeves. This doesnt change the incremental impacts of putting our MVPs our professional drivers on the bench.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Thats now our reality, thousands of truckers will be sidelined by this policy change. According to our data, the exit rate for the 120,000 truck drivers currently crossing the border will be between 10 and 15 per cent. Late last Wednesday evening, Canadians thought we had a reprieve on this direction, only to be rescinded within 24 hours. This flip-flop leadership just reinforced the confusion within the federal government on this issue.

And that, unfortunately, is just the beginning. The government has signalled that there will be amendments imminently under the Canada Labour Code, mandating any truck or bus drivers who cross a provincial border (federally regulated employees) to require vaccination. While the regulatory language, enforcement measures and penalties are still unclear, this government policy will force a driver whose route runs from Medicine Hat to Swift Current, Lethbridge to Cranbrook, or one side of a border town like Lloydminster to the other to choose between vaccination and working in our industry.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The federal government has snubbed meaningful engagement on this mandate. A consultation paper was posted on Dec. 7 and days later the process was closed to comments. Although Ottawa claimed to have engaged with stakeholders, the government clearly still doesnt understand the severity of the outcome from a policy decision limiting Canadians ability to support bilateral trade or interprovincial mobility. At every step of the way, our industry has pleaded with the government to work with us on solutions, including regularly testing to keep our drivers behind the wheel, to no avail.

By putting politics ahead of common sense, the federal government is throwing up more roadblocks for a critical industry that is already under tremendous stress. As a result, Canadas already fragile supply chains are going to be stretched even further.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

What does that mean for Canadians? Well, get ready for more bare shelves and to open your wallets even wider for what is left. From food, to gas, to consumer goods, things are going to get even more expensive; that is if they make it to the shelf.

The cost of bringing a truckload of fruit and vegetables from California has already doubled during the pandemic due to the existing driver shortage. As Canadian fields lie fallow and covered in snow, produce prices will only go higher.

As is always the case with bad policies and bad politics, its going to be Canadians who are left holding the bag.

Jude Groves is the board chair of the Alberta Motor Transport Association.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive daily headline news from the Calgary Herald, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Calgary Herald Headline News will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Continue reading here:
Opinion: Canadians will pay the price for the Liberals playing politics with trucking - Calgary Herald

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Read more:
TERRY MATTINGLY: Are United Methodist liberals still afraid to act? - The Albany Herald

Breadcrumb Trail Links

A shortage of COVID tests combined with exorbitant fines is stranding Canadian travellers outside their homeland

Publishing date:

It may be unpopular to stand up for travellers during COVID-19, but violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should concern every Canadian. Reports coming out of the U.S. suggest our federal government is de facto denying Canadian citizens a key right : the one to enter, remain in, or leave Canada.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The violation comes in the face of severe testing shortages. Increasingly, Canadians who travel to the U.S. are unable to secure the negative COVID molecular test result that is required within 72 hours of their return home. This even includes those who have pre-booked tests. In response, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and the Canada Border Services Agency are presenting these Canadian citizens with two options: being denied entry or paying exorbitant fines of $6,200 per person to enter the country.

One Canadian woman who drove south with her mother and brother to visit family over the holidays, only to have pre-booked tests cancelled in the face of the shortages, reports border officials told her they could return to Canada only if they accepted the $6,200 per person fine a sum totalling $18,600. The trio offered to quarantine in Canada, but there is currently no quarantine option available. They had to turn back. Its not a choice for us to cross and take the fine, she told the CBC.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should concern every Canadian

Thats the crux of the issue. The fines are so excessive, so punitive that theyre not a real choice when tests are so scarce. They would push most individuals, and certainly most families, into significant debt. If accepting them is the only option to enter Canada when accessing tests is practically impossible, then Canadian citizens are in effect being denied their right to entry. It seems unlikely the practice would survive a court challenge.

The government justifies the fines by pointing to advisories against nonessential travel. However, theyre just that advisories. Even if you think its entirely boneheaded and irresponsible to travel right now, that doesnt change the fact that its every Canadian citizens right to leave and re-enter the country freely. Infringing on this right should be concerning, no matter how one feels about travellers. There are no charter exemptions for schadenfreude.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Its important to point out that these border fines differ significantly from fines levied earlier in the pandemic against travellers who refused to stay in quarantine hotels. In those cases, Canadian citizens werent effectively being denied entry. They were being fined for a choice made once inside the country.

Without getting into the argument over whether its absurd for the Canadian government to insist on tests for returning travellers when theres already ample community spread within our borders, there are two obvious solutions for bringing policies back in line with the charter. The first is to reduce fines to a level the majority of Canadians could afford although even this may be problematic as it could disproportionately bar lower income citizens from re-entry. The second is to offer a realistic quarantine option, which if not followed, can result in larger fines. This must happen until, at the very least, molecular tests return to widespread availability.

While its clearly important to protect Canadians from COVID-19 spread, those measures must adhere to the charter and avoid infringing upon liberties when alternatives are available. The right to freely leave and re-enter Canada is one of the most important and must be reinstated in full, without draconian fines that present only a veneer of choice.

National Post

The big issues are far from settled. Sign up for the NP Comment newsletter,NP Platformed.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

More here:
Sabrina Maddeaux: The Liberals are denying citizens their charter right to re-enter Canada - National Post