Archive for the ‘Liberals’ Category

B.C. election results: What now for the Liberals and Wilkinson after a disappointing finish? – Vancouver Sun

We knew it was an uphill battle, Polak told CTV News, but added there are still many mail-in ballots to count. There is a lot of dust still to settle.

And next door in Langley East, which belonged for years to Liberal Rich Coleman, his controversial replacement, Margaret Kunst, was in a tough fight to keep the riding in her party.

NDP star candidate Fin Donnelly was ahead of the Liberal incumbent in Coquitlam-Burke Mountain.

The NDP had early leads in three of the four Richmond ridings, including Richmond-Queensborough where star Liberal incumbent Jas Johal looks to be unseated.

Most of the Fraser Valley has long been reliable Liberal country. But at press time, both Chilliwack ridings were leaning orange and there was a see-saw battle in Abbotsford-Mission.

In North Vancouver-Seymour, three-term incumbent Jane Thornthwaite, who was caught making sexist comments on a party zoom call, was 1,500 votes behind her NDP competitor.

Former Liberal cabinet minister and opposition critic Michelle Stilwell was 1,000 votes behind in her Parksville-Qualicum riding.

The NDP is also significantly ahead in Boundary-Similkameen, previously a safe Liberal seat.

And the Liberal incumbent in West Vancouver-Sea to Sky appears to have lost to the Green candidate.

There were predictions the Greens would be wiped out this election, but Leader Sonia Furstenau appeared re-elected in Cowichan Valley, as was teammate Adam Olsen in Saanich North and the Islands.

Read this article:
B.C. election results: What now for the Liberals and Wilkinson after a disappointing finish? - Vancouver Sun

John Roberts sides with the liberals on mail-in voting but things may change once Barrett arrives – CNN

Roberts' vote on Monday night, in a ballot dispute in the battleground state of Pennsylvania critical to President Donald Trump's reelection bid, led to a 4-4 Supreme Court deadlock. That left in place a Pennsylvania court decision allowing mailed ballots to be counted up to three days after Election Day, despite familiar yet unfounded claims from Republicans regarding "the taint of" illegal ballots.

It was not the first time Roberts, a 2005 appointee of Republican George W. Bush, has moved left in a highly charged partisan case to cinch the outcome, but it may be one of the last.

The Supreme Court is on the cusp of a transformation, less one week before it likely sees the addition of a conservative jurist, Amy Coney Barrett, and two weeks before a presidential election. Barrett, 48, has a record and approach to the law that puts her to the far right of the 65-year-old Roberts.

Trump, whose reelection fate may hinge on legal rulings, called the court's action on Pennsylvania "ridiculous" and "very strange" in an interview on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday morning.

The President has said he wants Barrett on the court in time to resolve any major election case. "I think this will end up at the Supreme Court," he said last month of the presidential contest. "And I think it's very important that we have nine justices."

The Supreme Court's brief order Monday night, with no explanation of its legal reasoning, belied the dramatic role of the chief justice and the likely internal turmoil that preceded it. The court had been grappling with the state GOP's emergency request to block the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision for two weeks. Democrats, defending the deadline extension and urging the justices not to intervene, highlighted the pandemic-driven demand for mail-in ballots and postal delays.

That Barrett is waiting in the wings may accelerate Roberts' long-held concerns about the institutional reputation of the bench. Trump continues to undermine the independence of the federal judiciary with his rhetorical attacks, and new possible threats have arisen from the other side, as some liberals advocate adding more seats to the court -- at nine for the past 150 years -- to try to diminish its lopsided conservatism.

On Monday night, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. Joining Roberts were the three remaining liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Unprecedented control

Until the September 18 death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Roberts had presided over a 5-4, conservative-liberal bench and sat at the center of the ideological spectrum. That gave him unprecedented control.

Despite his entrenched right-wing views dating to his work in the Reagan administration, Roberts developed a pattern of leaving the fold in highly visible, politically drenched cases. His actions reinforced his own assertion that justices cannot be defined by the president who appointed them.

That pattern counteracted the Trump message that any "Obama judge" or other Democratic appointee would automatically rule against his interests and anyone he appointed to the bench would be on his side.

In June, he spurned the Trump plan to end immediately an Obama initiative that shielded from deportation young immigrants, known as "Dreamers," who had come to the country without proper documentation with their parents.

All of those Roberts' opinions drew Republican wrath, and Monday night's action leaving in place a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision was no different.

Yet, in this tumultuous period as Trump fights a challenge for the White House from former Vice President Joe Biden, there may be a difference.

Roberts did not explain his thinking. (None of the justices did.) So, for other state ballot disputes marching toward the high court, the chief justice has not locked himself into any legal stance regarding state ballot procedures.

The canny Roberts is known for foreseeing cases headed to the high court and keeping his options open. And his overall 15-year record on voting rights is anything but liberal. He authored the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision that gutted a crucial section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act requiring states with a history of discrimination to obtain federal approval for any new voter-ID rule, redistricting map or other electoral change that could affect individuals' right to vote.

Last April, in a Wisconsin case as the coronavirus pandemic was growing, Roberts voted with the familiar conservative bloc to refuse to extend a deadline with absentee ballots. That time, Democrats, as well as dissenting liberal justices, declared the majority had undermined the franchise, especially for racial minorities, the poor and elderly.

Another ballot dispute from the Wisconsin -- a battleground state of the caliber of Pennsylvania -- is now pending before the justices.

Confounding predictions of the Roberts Court role in any major lawsuit arising from the current presidential election would be a new Justice Barrett. The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Barrett this Thursday and a full Senate vote could come as soon as next Monday, just over a week before the election.

Her judicial philosophy is deeply conservative, but she has voted on scant election cases as a judge for the past three years on the Chicago-based 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

Cases like Bush v. Gore, Roberts told senators when he was before them in his 2005 confirmation hearings, "don't come along all that often."

But, as he declined to answer whether he believed the justices should have intervened in that Florida-based dispute, the prescient Roberts asserted, "I do think that ... the propriety of Supreme Court review in matters of disputed electoral contests is a matter that could come up again."

See the original post:
John Roberts sides with the liberals on mail-in voting but things may change once Barrett arrives - CNN

Liberals Are Losing the Journalism Wars – The New Republic

But there is, actually, a liberal version of this scheme, funding innocuous-looking local news sites around the country. That network, called Courier Newsroom, is the brainchild of one of the geniuses behind the utterly disastrous Iowa caucus app. It comprises eight sites, to Timpones more than 1,200. (Before the propaganda business, Timpone worked on algorithmically generated news, which now helps to fill all his sites with content.) Ideally, liberal-minded wealthy people would fund not low-cost content mills but actual top-tier, locally oriented reporting and analysis across the country. But, as mentioned, very few are willing to do this at a perpetual loss.

The left, broadly defined, has a very real need for mass-oriented, unapologetically political media. It will not create or sustain that media with the help of wealthy donors or an ad-based business model. The obvious other answer is subscriptions and paywalls. And, indeed, that is the only model that seems to work, in this environment, for funding particular kinds of journalism and commentary. But that also brings up the other lesson: Once you erect the paywall, people like Brian Timpone are the players who will set up shop outside the walls, to entertain everyone unwilling to pay the toll.

It is a common enough occurrence today to see talented (and gainfully employed) journalists adopt an almost scolding tone in imploring people to subscribe to their favorite news sources. This is understandable: Producing high-quality journalism is expensive, and all of us would like our publications to be self-sufficient. But what these journalists frequently ignore is that subscription models by definition self-select for an audience seeking high-quality news and exclude people who would still benefit from high-quality news but cant or dont want to pay for it.

If people cant pay for local news, or wont actively seek it out, they will inevitably learn about their worldand their communityfrom the news that is readily available and free. When my friends in this industry implore people to pay for news, I always think about how many people would think its perfectly normal to catch a Facebook link to the Lansing Sun instead.

Here is the original post:
Liberals Are Losing the Journalism Wars - The New Republic

The odd friends: The young liberal and the elderly conservative – Al Jazeera English

The waitress at Cracker Barrel looked confused when she stopped at our table. Among the snow globes, animatronic weasels, and ceramic pineapples, Richard and I were yet another random curiosity. A 30-something year-old woman in jeggings and a pixie cut next to her 92-year-old friend with the rodeo belt buckle and scraggly beard.

Richard flashed a gap-toothed grin at the waitress. Hon, can you bring us one of them baskets? With extra biscuits? he asked. He knows I like biscuits better than cornbread. At 92 with his sweet smile and wispy white hair, Richards Hons and Sweeties lack the demeaning quality they might have with a younger man in a position of power. Still, I studied the waitresss face. I started to tell Richard not all women like being called Hon, but the waitresss expression softened into bemusement. Of course, Hon, she said, then headed towards the kitchen.

In an era when the political is personal, people make assumptions about others beliefs based on their appearance. Many of the assumptions one might make about Richard are correct. He is a lifelong Texan and a white evangelical Christian who dropped out of school in the sixth grade. Like 55 percent of men with no college degree, Richard is staunchly anti-abortion rights. He has voted Republican since before I was born, including a vote for Donald Trump in 2016.

If Richard fulfils a stereotype, so do I. Like 51 percent of Americans aged 30 to 49, I supported Hillary Clinton. I identify as a feminist and an atheist. I earned my masters degree from a music school on the East Coast. I organised watch parties for President Barack Obamas election, donated to the Bail Project, and vote Democrat.

Once a week, a Facebook friend brags about ending a relationship with a friend or family member who voted for an opposing political party. I have blocked Republican friends myself, usually for posting memes or rants that incited violence or discriminated against marginalised groups. But Richard and I have been friends for eight years, despite openly discussing our ideological differences.

When the basket of biscuits arrived, Richard reached for one. Then his eyebrows shot up. His hand flew to his mouth. I forgot my teeth, he said, meaning his dentures. We laughed.

I first met Richard in 2012 when he called me about violin lessons. To liberals, America in 2012 was a warm cocoon. Social safety nets like the Affordable Care Act told poor or sick Americans for the first time they mattered. Neo-nazis hid rather than marching down streets brandishing torches.

It was in this year that Richard, at 84 years old, decided to take up the violin. His wife had died in 2011, and he had recently found his grandmothers violin in the attic. The local music shop had given him a list of teachers names and contact numbers. Mine was at the top.

At his first lesson, I handed Richard a copy of my policy and expectations for students. Nodding solemnly, Richard pulled a pencil out of his bag and took notes in neat cursive penmanship. He has practised nearly every day in the eight years and counting he has been my student.

More American millennials than any previous generation have college degrees. Like many people my age, I took for granted that my education would continue after high school. Higher education whisked me from my homogenous suburb onto a campus with peers who had different religions, abilities, ethnicities, cultural backgrounds, and sexual identities. My professors taught me to critically engage with the news, which influences my voting decisions today.

Richard, however, did not attend school past the sixth grade. One of the defining moments in his life occurred when at age 12, he asked his father for a nickel. I havent got a nickel, his father told him. You want money, you go to work. Shortly after, Richard left school and got a job pearl diving washing dishes in a restaurant. He performed manual labour before enlisting in the army. Thirty years later, he retired from the light company where he had worked his way up to foreman.

During that first year of weekly violin lessons, our conversations began to extend beyond the violin. I responded to Richards stories of his late wife, Beverly, with anecdotes from my own recent marriage. Richard reminisced about his military tour of Japan and Korea at the tail end of World War II. I learned to appreciate his sharp wit. Once, Richard mentioned a car he had seen that had crashed into the gates of a cemetery. People are just dying to get in there, he said dryly. With his mischievous smile, he looked like a schoolboy who had just slipped a toad into a classmates desk.

I first glimpsed how much Richards ideology conflicted with mine several months into our lessons. Richard had offered to take my husband and me out for dinner. We met him at Spring Creek BBQ. He wore cowboy boots and a giant silver belt buckle. Richards devout Christianity had never been a secret, but I hadnt realised until then how much his religion influenced his politics. Perhaps I should have. Eight out of 10 evangelical Christians say they plan to vote for Donald Trump in 2020. Once seated, he questioned my husband and me about our nonexistent religious beliefs. You need to think about what happens after you die, Richard urged. Then he passed out anti-abortion rights pamphlets to random diners, who accepted them with polite but confused nods. The title: God Has a Plan for Your Child.

Richard would persist in his efforts to convert us for months. Years later, I would learn to see his determination for what it was: a strong desire to save a young couple he had grown deeply fond of, in the only way he knew how. But once during a lesson, I couldnt contain my annoyance. Are you here to learn the violin or not? I snapped.

Richard paused. I am, he said. Then he looked at me with genuine curiosity and asked what exactly I had against the Bible. I thought of the priest at the church I had attended each week as a child of the blistering sermons condemning gay people and women, but rarely men, who had sex before marriage. I remembered the time I had endeavoured to read the entire Bible as a teenager. I got as far as Sodom and Gomorrah before closing the book forever. What lodged in my developing brain was not the allusions to homosexuality, but a father who offered up his own virgin daughters to be raped by a mob.

I dont think the Bible treats women well. Almost all the stories in there are about men, I told him. I just dont see myself in that book.

Richard sat in silence for a moment. I hadnt yet visited his house and seen the dozens of Bible verses embroidered, carved into wood, or painted in frames on his walls. I hadnt seen the dog-eared King James version on his table, bright tabs and sticky notes poking out from the worn pages. When Richard spoke, he didnt lash out. He didnt defend the belief system that defined his life. He complimented me. One thing I respect about you is you always speak your mind, he said quietly.

For several years, Richards and my opposing beliefs lay between us like a faded stain on the carpet. Present, but rarely discussed. The 2016 election dragged these differences from the periphery of our relationship to where they couldnt be avoided.

Shortly after Trumps victory, Richard and I went out for lunch. Like many liberals, the 2016 election had sent shock waves through my life. Our new president spewed hate and threats atop the most public platform in the world. To me, a woman with serious chronic health issues, many of these threats were not existential. They were life-threatening. I worried about the gay couples I knew. I worried about my friends of colour. Which is why I stopped eating when Richard stumbled upon the topic of gender roles with all the grace of a drunken soldier careening through a field of landmines.

Its in their DNA, he said. God created men and women different. Thats just how it is.

So you think women are put on earth to clean up after you? I asked.

Richard speared a tomato with his fork. I think everyone should do their job and not complain.

Living in a free country does not protect American women from being talked over, underestimated, and disregarded. Four out of 10 American women have been discriminated against at work because of their gender. One in three American women will be stalked, raped, or assaulted. Sexism had dug its claws into my life well before I had the vocabulary to name it. I began picking up after my brothers in elementary school. By high school, I was folding their underwear, scrubbing their toilet, and carrying their dishes to the sink to wash after meals. I will never understand why my time and energy was viewed as disposable, but my brothers wasnt.

After that lunch with Richard, I reacted differently than he had towards me the day I told him I would never believe in the Bible. Deeply hurt, I was unable to see past the rhetoric he had espoused. At his next lesson, I told him that I would still teach him the violin, but we would no longer spend time together as friends. He hung his head, then shuffled slowly to his car.

All lives matter. Her body, her choice. Choose life. Taken at face value, these words are immutable truths. What begins as a reaction to injustice becomes a slogan. These slogans and chants, so necessary to mobilising people and elevating marginalised voices, pull us into their orbit. They grow to encompass a movement, attracting other slogans like paperclips to a magnet. The movement adheres itself to a political party. The party becomes an identity for supporters, even though the average American has neither the time nor resources to become an expert on the nuances of public policy. Instead, we scream slogans across the street or share video clips to our own self-constructed echo chambers. If you believe Black Lives Matter, you must want to abolish the police. If you didnt vote for Hillary, you hate women. Even when our intentions are noble, we stop listening to any voice that doesnt mirror our own. Like spilled red and blue ink, the opposing parties grow larger, separated only by the election on which the future of America teeters.

It took months for my hurt feelings to fade enough for me to see through Richards rhetoric to the person underneath: a man who took over the housework while his wife studied for her nursing degree. A man who married young and worked to support his wife while she finished high school, despite his own lack of education. A man who had been married for 50 years, yet responded with compassion and acceptance when I told him my four-year marriage had ended. Richard had once relayed to me a conversation in which a man in his forties had lamented his lack of a wife.

I just cant find a woman willing to submit to me, the man had told Richard.

Submit? Well, thats not how any marriage I know works, Richard had snorted.

I learned to pay attention to Richards behaviour rather than the slogans he repeated. I had heard racist jokes and comments from liberal friends, only to watch them flood their social media with Black Lives Matter slogans once the movement rose to prominence. Growing up, the most judgemental people I knew always seemed to be devout church-goers. Richards actions paint a consistent picture of who he is as a person: kind, accepting, and empathetic.

Richard and Meghans dog, Wilbur, who loves to snuggle with Richard [Photo courtesy of Meghan Beaudry]Richard never said another derogatory word about women. He became the first man I had ever met who, when confronted with his own misogyny, cared enough about me to change.

It is not easy to see past someones words to their true character. On the campaign trail, Donald Trump spouted promises. Walls to keep America safe. Lower taxes. The return of jobs to our country. Words have the power to wound, but also to uplift and spark hope. Some words, especially when they are words we want to hear, even have the power to veil the speakers true character. I began to see why so many Americans were hoodwinked by him.

My conversation with Richard about gender roles set a precedent. We began to talk frequently and openly about our political beliefs. After some experimentation, we developed a tacit set of rules: Approach conversations with genuine curiosity about the other persons perspective. Treat each other with respect and empathy. This empathy stems from an understanding that vastly different life experiences, many of them painful, have shaped our beliefs.

One of Richards most deeply held beliefs is that abortion is wrong. According to Gallups Values and Beliefs Poll, 46 percent of Americans are anti-abortion rights and 48 percent are pro-abortion rights, with 6 percent undecided. The difficulty in discussing abortion stems from who each camp views as the victim. When anti-abortion rights advocates talk about abortion, they talk about the babies. When pro-abortion rights people talk about abortion, they talk about the women. As a feminist, I cant imagine being forced to carry a child I didnt choose.

Richard and his wife raised just one child a son who never had his own children, who lives 10 hours away and has his own life and health issues. Richard spends Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter with me at my parents house. Richards wife, Beverly, suffered miscarriage after miscarriage before giving birth to their only son. One of their children that didnt survive is buried in a cemetery without a headstone because Richard and Beverly had been too poor to afford one. To come home to a house full of light, laughter, and grandchildren is Richards greatest desire. As I dropped him off after a family dinner one night, I watched Richard slowly shuffle up his driveway. Then I pulled away from the dark empty house. It suddenly clicked why Richard talks about the babies. It was never out of hatred for women.

I have accepted that Richard and I will never be on the same page ideologically. Our friendship and ability to discuss divisive topics hinges not on our differences, but on our similar approach to life. We both believe in treating others with respect. We both harbour a magnetic curiosity towards those who are different than us. I will always be a liberal. But I have learned it is not just liberals who dream of a better America. From my friendship with Richard, I have learned that Americans ideas on how to improve our country often take the shape of their wounds.

Telling stories from the past is either the privilege or burden of the old. Richard revels in this role, peppering his stories with advice like dont buy no strawberries but Driscolls. Never tie two cats tails together and hang them over a clothesline, he warned me once quite sincerely. But I always enjoy his stories and advice the most when Richard talks about the Great Depression and World War II.

The government found out they were spying on us and rounded them up, he said once about Americas Japanese internment camps.

Richards voice hit me like a shovel to the chest. His matter-of-fact tone implied that this was something everyone knew, like the events of Pearl Harbor or the reason for the American Revolution. We like to believe we are free in America. That we are different from countries like North Korea or Russia, who brainwash their citizens with a steady diet of pro-government propaganda. Richards statement summed up American propaganda in one phrase.

Thats not true, Richard. They were Americans, too, I said.

Two years later, I would learn about the Tulsa race massacre for the first time. In school, racism had been portrayed as an evil that Americans had long since vanquished. Video footage of police murdering Black people has long since eviscerated this lie. Since Richards statement, Ive often wondered who I would be if I had no access to reputable news. What would I believe if I grew up under different circumstances?

My focus on Richards actions rather than his rhetoric was most tested the few times he used racially insensitive language.

Racism isnt a personality quirk. It isnt a vestige from a quaint antebellum past, like one-room schoolhouses or horse-drawn carriages. Racism is trauma that lasts for generations. Racism is lost lives and ruined futures.

Im a liberal. A feminist. A believer that science is real, Black Lives Matter, and love is love. But perhaps the piece of my identity most deeply rooted in my heart is teacher. For me, that has always been the identity that makes allyship possible.

I speak up. Richard, we dont say that any more. Its people of colour now.

Richard never argues. OK, he always agrees.

Where do you get your news? I asked recently. No TV hangs in Richards living room. His home is a museum dedicated to his late wife; Beverlys floral curtains and silk floral arrangements remain untouched by Wi-Fi or cable. No copy of the New York Times lands on his doorstep each Sunday. An old radio sits on his kitchen table.

Mostly from what people say, he shrugged. And sometimes the radio.

My heart sank. From the day we met, Richard spoke openly about his lack of education and his humble background. As a teacher, I recognised his fierce commitment to learn shining through the unvarnished front he presented. As an adult, Richard had taken flying lessons and painting lessons. He approaches the Bible the way a scholar of history would. He pores over gardening manuals and maintains an encyclopedic knowledge of the flowers and trees in his garden.

I had convinced him to trade in his flip phone with T9 texting its not a phone, Richard, its an ancient artefact, for a touchscreen Android. He has since become a connoisseur of selfies and of video clips of the American flag in his garden waving in the wind. Richard strikes me as an independent thinker someone who isnt fooled by con men or false political promises. But from our conversation, a clearer picture emerged: an intelligent man, but without the resources to access the news or discern its accuracy.

I scribbled a note to myself to print and bring some news articles to our next meeting. The New York Times. The Atlantic. Maybe a Christian news source with solid reporting. No op-eds just straight news so Richard could form his own opinions.

Richard told me he had listened to the first debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump on the radio.

I couldnt sleep it bothered me so much, he said. (Trump) denied what Joe told him hed said. But everyone very well knows what Trump said. People have ears.

Thou shalt not bear false witness. It says that clearly in the Bible, Richard added with a frown.

As Richard has aged, the lines in our relationship have blurred from teacher to friend to caregiver. I want him to know he always has a place at my Thanksgiving table. That Ill be there in the hospital when he wakes up from his heart procedures. That my family will keep filling his fridge so he can quarantinesafely.

You dont have to tell me, I said. And if you do, well still be friends no matter what. Who do you think youll vote for this election?

I believe in what our forefathers said in the Declaration of Independence. But as culture has changed, my thoughts have changed. Being Christian doesnt mean you have to be Democrat or Republican. It means voting what you believe in, Richard said.

Our friendship has taught me to see past slogans and rhetoric to the person underneath. That actions convey character in a way that words cant. But in this respect, perhaps Richard is miles ahead of me.

I think Trump has accomplished some things, he said with his characteristic respect for our countrys leaders. But those things might have been accomplished anyway through other people. He seems to really support all his friends and companies. Not the little man.

You know, I think I might vote for Joe, he added after a pause. Outside Richards window, his American flag waved in the wind.

Originally posted here:
The odd friends: The young liberal and the elderly conservative - Al Jazeera English

COMMENTARY: Liberals reveal their indifference to Canadians’ access to information rights – Global News

Its interesting how the Liberals have gone from promising transparency in 2015 to deciding in 2020 that Canadians no longer care about transparency.

Its also a convenient excuse for a government that has failed to live up to that initial promise, as though somehow its Canadians who are to blame.

The American political journalist Michael Kinsley once described a gaffe as an instance when a politician tells the truth some obvious truth he (or she) isnt supposed to say. That would be an apt description of the dismissive remarks this past week from Federal Health Minister Patty Hajdu concerning Canadians access to information rights.

The Winnipeg Free Press reported on Wednesday that less than half of federal agencies and departments were fully processing freedom of information requests and that the vast majority of departments had opted against deeming those requests a critical service.

Story continues below advertisement

We already knew the system was not functioning as it should. In June, Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard warned that access to information requests were backlogged due to a lack of resources and that the Trudeau government was failing to provide those necessary resources.

Yet when she was asked about this Thursday in the House of Commons, Hajdus response was to wonder what all the fuss was about.

Not once has a Canadian asked me to put more resources into freedom-of-information officers, she declared.

If Canadians dont care about this issue, then why did the Liberals make it a priority in their 2015 campaign? If the Liberals feel that this is less of a priority because of the pandemic, then that tells us a lot about how they actually feel about access to information.

Trending Stories

Story continues below advertisement

As Maynard herself put it back in June, Openness and transparency in government has never been more important than it is during the pandemic. Access delayed is access denied.

In fact, Maynard took to Twitter on Friday to remind Canadians about these very points and to respond directly to the health minister. Maynard said she was very disappointed in Hajdus comments and noted that she has sounded the alarm on the need for strong leadership in this area and the need for an increase in available resources.

Ironically, this all comes just a few weeks after Canada marked Right to Know Week, which is meant to highlight an individuals right to access government information, while promoting freedom of information as essential to both democracy and good governance.

Clearly, we have work to do in this country.

Story continues below advertisement

By Friday, the minister was furiously backpedalling on her initial remarks. Patty Hajdu herself took to Twitter to concede that, yes, openness and transparency are vital to our democracy and that she would speak with the commissioner to ensure we continue to respond to Canadians access to information requests.

Thats much closer to the answer the minister should have given in the first place, but it still falls well short of an acknowledgement of the problem and a commitment to fixing it. In fairness, though, this shouldnt all fall to the health minister. Wheres the prime minister?

It was Justin Trudeau who vowed in 2015 that he would make information more accessible and require that transparency to be a fundamental principle across the federal government. Instead, we got delay, inaction, and ultimately a worsening of the situation.

In early 2017, the previous information commissioner said the government uses the Access to Information Act as a shield against transparency and is failing to meet its policy objective to foster accountability and trust in our government.

Later that year, when the Liberals finally did present new legislation intended on increasing transparency, the commissioner found that it did the opposite. If passed, she said, the bill would result in a regression of existing rights,

Story continues below advertisement

That same year, an audit commissioned by the group News Media Canada gave the government a failing grade for its handling of access to information. The report found that the federal system was much slower and less responsive than its provincial and municipal counterparts and concluded that the Liberal government has a long way to go if it is to deliver on its promises of transparent government.

Unfortunately, that still appears to be true. Thanks to Hajdus comments, we now have a better understanding as to why that is.

Rob Breakenridge is host of Afternoons with Rob Breakenridge on Global News Radio 770 Calgary and a commentator for Global News.

See the rest here:
COMMENTARY: Liberals reveal their indifference to Canadians' access to information rights - Global News