National Post

Barbra Streisand was the official inspiration behind Bob Dylan’s Lay Lady Lay hit, according to an unearthed 1971 “interview” with late blues star Tony Glover.

The two friends exchanged letters, in which notoriously private Dylan opened up about his songs and career, and now the lost correspondence has been discovered and is set to go under the hammer at a Boston, Massachusetts auction.

The letters reveal Dylan, born Robert Allen Zimmerman, changed his name because he worried about anti-Semitism, and wrote Lay Lady Lay for Streisand — a music myth that the singer/songwriter has never publicly addressed.

It has long been believed Dylan wrote the tune for the 1969 movie Midnight Cowboy, but the singer told Glover he created it as a tune for Streisand, without elaborating on the nature of their relationship.

Experts at R.R. Auction, who are selling the letters, claim the correspondence was supposed to be part of an Esquire magazine article, but Dylan lost interest and the piece was abandoned.

Glover, who befriended Dylan when they were both struggling musicians in Minneapolis, Minnesota, died last year, and his widow put the documents up for auction.

Bidding is to begin online on Nov. 12.

Watch the video or read the transcript for everything you need to know about the fight over the Safe Third Country Agreement.

Canada and the United States signed the Safe Third Country Agreement in late 2002. It came into effect in 2004. The pact was part of a parcel of border security agreements signed between the two countries in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

Most people agree this was something Canada asked for. The agreement applies both ways, but the net effect, or at least the net goal, has always been to limit the number of people entering Canada from the United States who can apply for refugee status.

The idea is that if you’re fleeing persecution or war, you should ask for asylum in the first safe country you arrive in. What that means is that most people who try to cross into Canada from the U.S. cannot seek asylum here. The rules say they should do it in the United States first.

The pact doesn’t apply to people with close family members already in Canada, or to people with valid Canadian travel documents. It doesn’t apply to unaccompanied minors or to most people facing the death penalty in the United States or any other country.

It has also never applied to the entire Canada-U.S. border. That’s the exception that has been making news since Donald Trump was elected president in 2016.

People call it a loophole, but that’s not totally accurate. This has always been the way the agreement was designed to work. If you make a refugee claim at an official border crossing, like the peace arch bridge outside Vancouver, Canada can turn you back, as long as you don’t qualify for one of the exceptions. If you cross into Canada anywhere else along the U.S. border, Canada is still obliged to process your claim.

Why? Well, part of it is logistical. Canada’s southern border is huge and almost entirely undefended. You can’t physically stop everyone from walking over if that’s what they really want to do. And once people are in Canada, you can’t just throw them out again, not without some kind of legal process.
People have always crossed into Canada from the U.S. And vice versa between the official crossings, rarely have they done so in massive numbers.

That changed after 2016. Since then, thousands of people have walked into Canada, a huge number of them at one dead end street in New York state, and asked for asylum. That led to calls from all sides of the political spectrum to modify or even scrap the Safe Third Country Agreement entirely.

Conservatives have long argued that Canada should find a way to apply the agreement across the entire border, either by renegotiating the pact or simply declaring the whole border an official crossing. Refugee advocates meanwhile, say the United States is no longer a safe country, if it ever was, and that it’s morally untenable for Canada to keep turning asylum seekers from the U.S. away.

That argument gained new currency in the summer of 2020, when a federal court judge effectively threw out the Safe Third Country Agreement on those specific grounds. The federal government has since appealed that ruling, which was put on hold until January 2021. If it does come into effect as planned, the government argued, Canada could see a massive new influx of asylum seekers.

What the government may well be doing is buying time until a new administration takes over in the United States. Should Joe Biden replace Donald Trump next January, the federal government will likely argue in a full appeal that the facts on the ground have changed.

But the bar for placing this kind of ruling on hold is a high one. And the lawyers arguing the other side say the government hasn’t come close to meeting it.

What is clear is that the fight over the Safe Third Country Agreement is not going to end any time soon, no matter who wins the presidential election.

National Post

Timeline of the Safe Third Country Agreement

Here’s a timeline around the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) and the issues it has sparked in Canada.

2002: Canada and the U.S. sign the STCA. Its goal is to “manage the flow of refugee claimants.” It acknowledges that both countries offer substantial refugee protections and, therefore, asylum seekers can’t arrive in Canada and then file claims in the U.S., or vice versa — they have to seek sanctuary where they first arrive, with some exceptions. But the deal only applies at formal land, sea or air crossings.

2004: The STCA comes into effect.

2007: A judicial review of the STCA is launched before the Federal Court by the Canadian Council for Refugees, Amnesty International Canada, the Canadian Council of Churches, and John Doe, an anonymous refugee claimant in the U.S. who claimed that if it weren’t for the deal, he would have applied for refugee status in Canada. The Federal Court rules the U.S. refugee record at the time did not meet Canadian requirements, and the designation of the U.S. as a safe country was unreasonable. The decision was overturned on appeal for technical reasons.

2016:

April: Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP begin noticing an increase in the number of people coming into Canada at unofficial border crossings, expressly for the purpose of claiming asylum.

November: Donald Trump is elected as president of the United States, with immigration reform — including a crackdown on immigrants and refugee seekers — one of his key promises.

December: National attention focuses on Emerson, Man., a small town not far from the U.S. border, where asylum seekers are crossing into Canada in frigid winter conditions. Calls begin for Canada to address the STCA, with advocates pointing out that people are crossing irregularly in order to get around the deal: they can file refugee claims in Canada as long as they don’t enter from the U.S. using a formal border point.

2017:

January:

— Trump issues one of his first executive orders as president. Best known as the “Muslim ban,” it barred entry to the U.S. for people from certain countries. But it also lowered the number of refugees to be admitted to the U.S., suspended the refugee admissions program for three months and suspend the acceptance of Syrian refugees indefinitely. Protests broke out immediately, including chaos at airports as travellers were detained and visas revoked. The order would be challenged in court.

— Calls immediately emerge for Canada to suspend the STCA. Federal government says it is monitoring situation.

— Prime Minister Justin Trudeau posts a message on Twitter seen as a response to Trump’s decision: “To those fleeing persecution, terror and war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength.”

— Border crossers in Manitoba report they are fleeing the U.S. over concerns about American immigration policy.

March:

— Federal government prepares for a possible surge of border crossers, as numbers rise not just in Manitoba but in Quebec and Ontario.

— The Liberal cabinet begins mapping out strategies and contingency plans, including the use of the military and empty government buildings to house and process incoming refugee claimants.

— Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen tells MPs that political instability in the U.S. is not necessarily the main driver of asylum seekers, noting that many who crossed into Manitoba had actually been in the U.S. less than two months.

June:

— A surge in asylum seekers crossing into Quebec on what’s known as Roxham Road begins.

July:

— Nearly 3,000 people are intercepted in Quebec alone as number of asylum seekers continues to rise.

— The Canadian Council for Refugees, Amnesty International and the Canadian Council of Churches announce they will again attempt to challenge the legality of the STCA in Federal Court. They are joined by an individual called “E,” a Salvadoran woman who fled her home over fears of gang violence but was turned away from Canada because she tried to file a refuges claim at a formal border crossing. She believes she will not receive refugee protection in the U.S.

August:

— Federal government announces an “ad hoc intergovernmental task force on irregular migration” tasked with managing the asylum seeker influx. It includes provincial representation.

— Members of Parliament from Spanish and Haitian backgrounds are sent to the U.S. to try and dissuade people from coming to Canada through unofficial border points, amid fear of misinformation campaigns circulating in the U.S. that are encouraging people to come north.

December: In all of 2017, 20,593 people are apprehended by the RCMP crossing into Canada between official ports of entry.

2018:

February:

— Federal budget sets aside close to $200 million over two years to deal with processing of asylum claims.

— Trump administration begins practice of separating minors from their families at the U.S.-Mexico border, drawing international condemnation.

July:

— Former Toronto top cop Bill Blair given new cabinet portfolio with responsibility for border security, which will handle asylum seeker issue.

— Parties in Federal Court case file flurry of evidence, pointing to recent changes in U.S. law — including the end of people being able to claim domestic violence as grounds for asylum — as more evidence U.S. no longer safe for refugees. The applicants argue “returning refugee claimants to the U.S. and exposing them there to a serious risk of arbitrary, lengthy detention and refoulment (deportation), Canada violates their charter rights.”

December: 19,419 people are apprehended by the RCMP between ports of entry for all of 2018.

2019:

March:

— Blair says he is talking with U.S. about closing the loophole in the STCA.

— Federal budget invests $1.18 billion over 5 years, starting in 2019-20, and $55 million per year thereafter to “enhance the integrity of Canada’s borders, and to process an increased number of asylum claims in a timely manner.”

July: American decision to severely restrict refugee claims from those who cross into the country via Mexico again sparks demand for Canada to amend or suspend the STCA. Federal government continues to say it stands by the definition of the U.S. as a “safe country” for refugees.

October: Liberals are elected to a minority government. Platform promises effort to “modernize” STCA.

November: Federal Court hearing begins.

— The Canadian Press

OTTAWA – The Liberal government will turn off the spending taps eventually, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said Wednesday, but not until Canada is through the COVID-19 pandemic.

Speaking to the Toronto Global Forum, Freeland outlined the government’s fiscal approach to fighting the pandemic arguing Canada has to spend aggressively to keep the economy going.

“We want to give our businesses and our households a bridge, so that as many of them as possible make it through viable and intact,” she said.

She said the Liberals guiding principle on the economy is that beating COVID is key to a successful financial rebound.

“Our economy will only be able to recover fully once we have defeated the virus.”

Earlier this month, Freeland announced extensions and changes to both the commercial rent subsidy program, as well as the wage subsidy into 2021. She said the pandemic will mean restaurants will have to operate at reduced capacity or even close at times and that businesses can’t get back to normal until there is a vaccine.

“It’s just not practically possible, never mind fair, to ask workers to stay home or businesses to shut their doors without providing them with the financial support they need.”

The government’s last update in the summer projected Canada would run a $343 billion deficit in 2020, pushing the country into more than a trillion dollars in debt for the first time in its history. Those numbers didn’t include some of the expansions to programs the government offered up last month. Freeland said new projections on the country’s finances would be coming soon.

The government has also promised a fiscal update this fall, but no date has been set for that.

• John Ivison: Freeland needs to reset her compass when it comes to Liberal fiscal strategy
• Economists call for improved spending transparency as Trudeau again refuses to set fiscal anchor

Freeland said she is aware that the level of debt is a concern for many Canadians, but said the government can afford it. She said with interest rates so low, even this massive amount of debt doesn’t weigh heavily on the country’s balance sheet.

“Canada’s interest charges as a share of GDP today are at a 100-year low,” she said.

The Liberals have previously set so called “fiscal anchors” to guide their spending. The first in the 2015 campaign was three $10 billion deficits before a return to balance. This was followed by a goal to keep the debt to GDP ratio below 30 per cent.

But during the pandemic, as the red ink flowed across the government’s balance sheet, there has been no discussion of any anchor to their spending.

Freeland made it clear the government would return to a more measured approach after the pandemic.

“I am not among those who think Canada should have a fling with Modern Monetary Theory, which holds that deficits don’t matter for a government that issues debt in its own currency,” she said. “We will resume the long standing time-tested Canadian approach with fiscal guardrails and fiscal anchors that preceded this pandemic.”

She did not specify what those guardrails or anchors would be. She said the government would focus on measures in the months ahead to get through the pandemic and then to relaunch the Canadian economy to bring back as many jobs as possible.

Today, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland shared the economic rationale driving Canada’s response to #COVID19 and outlined our strategy for a robust, lasting recovery.

Read the full speech ⬇️ https://t.co/yvY4whPf66

— Deputy Prime Minister of Canada (@DeputyPM_Canada) October 28, 2020

On Tuesday in the House of Commons, prior to Freeland’s speech Conservative finance critic Pierre Poilievre said the government wasn’t being serious about the country’s finances. And no fiscal anchor would make sense if the Liberal government wasn’t prepared to actually tie it to the boat.

“All those anchors have since been abandoned, in fact we haven’t had a budget in well over a year, the longest period ever,” he said.

Unlike the 2008 recession or other economic shocks, Freeland said there is no one to blame for this pandemic and it would be cruel for the government not to help Canadians weather the storm.

“We didn’t get here because of greed or recklessness. The market isn’t correcting for a flaw. This was a completely exogenous shock,” she said.

She also said supporting families now means they will have the money to spend when the pandemic ends and can bring the economy back swiftly.

“Once the virus is vanquished, our rebound will be more rapid and more robust.”

• Email: rtumilty@postmedia.com | Twitter: ryantumilty

Around the mid-point of her virtual speech to the Toronto Global Economic Forum, Chrystia Freeland stopped and said the thinking she had outlined was “entirely uncontroversial.”

The finance minister was right – protecting Canadians’ health, jobs and living standards by using aggressive federal stimulus is an article of faith for politicians across the spectrum.

Nobody believes Ottawa should have watched families and businesses go broke during the pandemic.

But it was the rest of her speech – and what was missing – that is more problematic.

Freeland said her rural, northern Alberta roots means she is not steeped in the ideas of “helicopter money” but that Canada can afford its current spending spree because interest charges, as a share of GDP, are at 100-year lows.

She said the “terror and triumph” of the debt crisis in the mid-1990s was formative for a generation of Canadians. “But it is a poor general who fights the last war,” she said, implicitly dismissing criticism from those who were in the trenches during those messy battles, people like former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge and ex-TD Bank chief economist, Don Drummond.

Freeland said not one of the factors that drove the fiscal crisis in the 1990s holds true today. “Doing too little is more dangerous and potentially more costly than doing too much.”

That is arguable; the fact that budgetary constraints remain an intrinsic foundation of economics is not.

Today, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland shared the economic rationale driving Canada’s response to #COVID19 and outlined our strategy for a robust, lasting recovery.

Read the full speech ⬇️ https://t.co/yvY4whPf66

— Deputy Prime Minister of Canada (@DeputyPM_Canada) October 28, 2020

Thankfully, she said she has no truck with Modern Monetary Theory, the idea that deficits don’t matter for governments that issue debts in their own currency.

Freeland said the expansive approach to fighting the pandemic “will not be infinite,” which is a relief.

The government will impose limits upon itself, “rather than waiting for the more brutal external restraints of international capital markets.”

But her boss Justin Trudeau has already revealed there will be no fiscal anchor in the fall update – a sentiment she echoed.

Freeland argued against “premature fiscal tightening.”

But that presents a false dichotomy – austerity or remaining adrift without a fiscal anchor.

We have no idea what the government thinks would be a reasonable deficit target going forward (Drummond calculated recently that recurring $100 billion budgetary shortfalls would take the debt to GDP level to 63 per cent and program spending to more than 15 per cent of the economy.)

Nor was there anything in Freeland’s speech to suggest how Canada will lay the foundations for the green, innovative, inclusive economy to which she aspires.

By happy coincidence, the Business Council of Canada released its own economic growth plan on Wednesday, filling in many of the gaps missing in the finance minister’s speech.

The council pointed out that Canada is in far less rosy shape than Freeland would have her audience believe. As a country, what we are producing is not covering what we are consuming, meaning we have a persistent current account deficit, as well as a fiscal deficit. We have an aging population, a problem growing firms to global scale and lagging business investment.

• Finance minister says government will turn off financial taps, but not before pandemic ends
• How do big deficits and ballooning debt impact Canadians? Here's a breakdown
• Economists call for improved spending transparency as Trudeau again refuses to set fiscal anchor

Some of the solutions were in train before the pandemic hit – attracting immigrants with specialized skill sets; retaining international students and increasing the labour force participation of women.

But in other areas, the conditions necessary for a robust recovery are worse than they were just a few years ago.

Canada’s business investment trails the OECD average and is eclipsed by spending in the U.S. “Canada has a reputation (for being) difficult and extremely time-consuming to get large capital projects off the ground,” said the report’s authors.

The latest Bank of Canada monetary report , released Wednesday, offered little comfort on that front. Uncertainty is expected to act as a “significant drag” on investment decisions. The oil and gas sector is not forecast to return to pre-pandemic levels during the projection period – after a 30 per cent contraction in 2020, the Bank expects investment to grow by just two per cent in 2021/22.

Worse, Canadian companies are now expanding outside the country, rather than investing in Canada (direct investment abroad in 2019 outweighed foreign direct investment by $804 billion.)

Other required fixes are long-standing and well-known – increased spending on broadband coverage, enhanced inter-provincial trade (current restrictions act like a 6.9 per cent tariff), more competitive personal income tax rates and streamlining an inefficient regulatory process.

But for all Freeland’s talk that the government has a plan – “We have a compass. We know how to get to a safe harbour and what to do when we get there” – there was very little on Canada’s approach to the digital economy.

It is a subject on which the Trudeau government has, as is its wont, talked a good game but made little progress.

Investment in intellectual property as a share of the economy has actually declined in Canada since 2005, compared to a sharp rise in the U.S.

Earlier this week, some members of the Council of Canadian Innovators, a business group focused on helping tech firms scale up, complained that innovation has barely been mentioned since the government set up its superclusters initiative.

The CCI and the new Business Council report both recommend that the government tilt the playing field toward fledgling tech companies by favouring home-grown firms in its procurement policies.

The Business Council lamented the number of promising companies leaving Canada. “It’s as though we were training high potential athletes, only to send them abroad to win Olympic medals for other countries,” it said.

The report suggested that individual departments and agencies, including the Canada Space Agency and the Department of National Defence, support procurement-led innovation.

“Government cannot avoid decisions about which market outcomes they prefer…Full market neutrality is not possible,” it concluded.

The Liberal government has never been shy about picking winners and losers. It should have no qualms about an industrial strategy that secures anchor clients offering a steady source of revenue for promising firms.

The post-COVID world promises to be one in which states take a more active role to ensure self-reliance. Canada cannot ignore those sea changes.

To this point, the government has been silent on the world beyond the pandemic, apart from an over-reliance on low interest rates as justification to keep spending.

But that is no substitute for sustained economic growth, about which the finance minister had little to say.

With the deficit on track to reach at least $343 billion this year, the cheery scenario she painted is not borne out by the facts.

Closer to the mark is the Business Council’s conclusion: “Canada’s economy is more fragile now than at any time since the 1930s.”

• Email: jivison@postmedia.com | Twitter: IvisonJ

Don Mazankowski, a former deputy prime minister and longtime Conservative powerbroker in Alberta, has died at age 85.

His death was announced in the House of Commons, which observed a moment of silence in his memory on Wednesday.

Mazankowski — often known simply as “Maz” — ran a car dealership in Vegreville, Alberta, before running for federal office in 1968. That began a 25-year career in Parliament that included serving in several top cabinet roles in the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, including finance minister and deputy prime minister. Mulroney called Mazankowski his “minister of everything.”

After retiring as an MP, Mazankowski stayed deeply involved in public policy, including chairing former Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s Advisory Council on Health, and was a key player in the 2003 “Unite the Right” negotiations that produced the modern Conservative Party of Canada.

“He was a giant,” Mulroney told the National Post on Wednesday.

During his time in politics, Mazankowski was a powerful western voice in the Progressive Conservative caucus and a key ally of Mulroney. He’s considered to be among the most influential deputy prime ministers in Canadian history, serving in that role from 1986 to 1993, quarterbacking much of the government’s agenda and advocating the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

“Maz became the chief operating officer of the government,” Mulroney told the  Post. Mulroney said he was often away from Ottawa during this period due to free trade negotiations and the Meech Lake Accords, and Mazankowski became his voice in Parliament.

“He spoke for me and chaired many sensitive cabinet committees,” Mulroney said. “Mazankowski was a House of Commons man. He would take on tough partisan issues … He was a superb leader and politician. He was excellent with cabinet colleagues and MPs.”

Mulroney listed off a long line of government policies that Mazankowski helped shape due to his Western Canadian advocacy, including transferring the National Energy Board headquarters from Ottawa to Calgary and privatizing Petro-Canada and Air Canada.

A  Maclean’s profile of Mazankowski in 1986 said that despite his key role in government, “Mulroney’s new deputy is by all appearances without personal enemies.”

“In Ottawa, Mazankowski at first became part of a group of western Tories with a wild and woolly reputation under the unofficial leadership of fellow Albertan Jack Horner,” the profile read. “But Maz maintained a less rambunctious manner. He became known for dark suits, a ready smile and an earnest speaking style — and for developing respect and friendships in the fractious Tory party.”

Mazankowski was born in the tiny Alberta town of Viking, about an hour east of Edmonton, to parents of Polish descent who immigrated from the United States.

“In 1960 he moved to Vegreville and opened an automotive business with his brother, Ray,” says Mazakowski’s biography on the Alberta Order of Excellence website. “His life and career took on a new direction when he met Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, who was traveling through Vegreville on a speaking tour. Inspired by Diefenbaker’s insistence that the West play a meaningful role in the nation’s business, Don began working behind the scenes in local politics.”

After his retirement from politics in 1993, Mazankowski went on to serve on a wide array of private and public sector boards. He delivered a report on health care reform for Alberta Premier Ralph Klein in 2001 that made wide-ranging recommendations to manage the cost of the health care system.

He also established the Don Mazankowski Scholarship Foundation, served on the board of governors of the University of Alberta, and chaired the Institute of Health Economics and the Canadian Genetics Diseases Network. The Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute, opened in 2009, carries his name.

Mazankowski would also play an important role during the “Unite The Right” negotiations in the early 2000s, serving as a Progressive Conservative emissary during talks with the Canadian Alliance that eventually created the modern Conservative Party of Canada.

He was given a long list of awards, titles, and honorary degrees over his life. He was inducted into the Alberta Order of Excellence in 2003, and in 2013 he was made a Companion of the Order of Canada, the highest level. He was part of a small group to have been given the title of Right Honourable in 1992, an honorific normally reserved for those who served as prime minister, governor general or chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Mulroney called Mazankowski, “the salt of the earth from Vegreville, Alberta.”

“To me, he turned out to be indispensable,” Mulroney said. “Few will match him in history.”

With files from John Ivison

• Email: bplatt@postmedia.com | Twitter: btaplatt

A Canadian senator, who has stirred controversy in the past, violated American law when, in May, she donated to U.S. President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign.

Ontario Sen. Lynn Beyak made a $300 contribution to the Republican National Committee, public records from the American Federal Election Commission show .

In the records, Beyak listed her occupation as retired and her address as a P.O. box on Davis Point Rd.  in Dryden, N.Y., however, no such road or address exists in the rural New York town. Vice News, which first reported the story, also stated there is no Lynn Beyak in the American town.

The senator lives in Dryden, Ont., and Vice reports that a phonebook listing that matches the address in the donation receipt belongs to Beyak.

At the time of her donation, she was still a member of the Canadian Senate.

American federal laws prohibit campaigns from soliciting or accepting contributions from foreign nationals who do not hold U.S. citizenship.

Parsing through financial disclosures, Vice reports that there is no indication that Beyak holds dual citizenship or owns property in the states.

Beyak’s office confirmed to Vice that the senator did send in the political donation, however the money “is being returned in its entirety, simply because (the contribution) was erroneous.”

The RNC must report all returned donations but has not reported returning the senator’s contribution.

Since former prime minister Stephen Harper appointed Beyak to the Senate in 2013, she has had a series of controversies.

• Facing Senate suspension, Sen. Lynn Beyak apologizes 'unreservedly' for posting racist letters online
• Senate votes to suspend Lynn Beyak again despite her apology for posting offensive letters on website

In 2017, the Conservative Senate caucus expelled her after she called for the creation of a program in which Indigenous peoples could receive cash if they relinquished their protected status and land.

In February, sitting as an independent, Beyak was suspended for the remainder of the parliamentary session because she did not complete the anti-racism training she had been directed to undergo.

Beyak’s suspension ended when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau prorogued Parliament in the summer.

Beyak is back on the government payroll, collecting her full $157,600-a-year salary, and has access to Senate resources, CBC reported .

In Canada, senators are appointed until their mandatory retirement age of 75 and it can be difficult to remove a senator from his or her post.

OTTAWA — Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet is urging the federal government to apologize for legislation that remains controversial 50 years after its passage during the October Crisis in Quebec.

In October 1970, the Liberal government under then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau decided to suspend civil liberties by invoking the War Measures Act in response to the kidnapping of a Quebec cabinet minister and a British diplomat by members of the militant FLQ separatist group.

The legislation, passed at the request of the Quebec premier and Montreal’s mayor, saw soldiers patrolling the streets as authorities rounded up hundreds of residents under suspicion of involvement in the abductions.

In a motion put forward this week, Blanchet demanded an official apology from the prime minister for his father’s deployment of the army to arrest and detain without charge nearly 500 Quebecers.

Blanchet said he has not secured support from any other parties.

He criticized the Conservatives for refusing to call for an apology over a law that “attacked the dignity of a whole nation.”

• October Crisis: The discovery of Pierre Laporte’s body 50 years ago still haunts Canada
• Conrad Black: The October Crisis cemented democracy in Quebec

Blanchet also invoked former Progressive Conservative leader Robert Stanfield, who backed the Liberal government in invoking the War Measures Act but later expressed regret over it.

“You cannot pretend to be deeply in love with Quebec without respecting the desire of Quebecers to receive some apologies from Her Majesty’s government,” Blanchet told reporters Wednesday.

Opposition House leader Gerard Deltell confirmed the Conservatives plan to vote against the motion on Thursday.

“For us the October Crisis is first and foremost the death of the deputy premier of Quebec, Pierre Laporte, a guy who had been elected by the people of Quebec who had been killed by terrorists,” Deltell said on his way into the Conservative caucus meeting.

The October Crisis, which culminated in the discovery of Laporte’s body in the trunk of a car, marked the first time the War Measures Act had been invoked in peacetime.

Fisherman in the Caribbean are calling for a state of emergency to be declared, after evidence emerged of an sinking oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, threatening to spill over 1.3 million barrels of oil into the ocean.

The Nabarima, a Venezuelan tanker partly operated by Italian energy giant ENI, was first noticed to be tilting in July. By August, crews discovered that water was leaking into the ship, threatening to sink it.

She is in “very poor condition,” tweeted Eudis Girot, the head of the Unitary Federation of Petroleum Workers of Venezeula on Aug. 31, warning that the tanker held about nine feet of water in her lower decks. Photos with the post showed flooding in various sections of the interior of the vessel.

Last month Gary Aboud, who represents the fishing community in Trinidad, got close enough to the tanker to show the gravity of the risk to the entire Southern Caribbean. “What we found was frightening,” Aboud said in a video posted online on Sept. 7.

The tanker appeared to be tilting at an angle of 25 degrees, Aboud said in the video, while pointing at the ship just a few feet away from him. Currently the ship is held in place by anchor chains, although it isn’t clear how strong the chains are, and how long they will be able to control the tanker. The chains “aren’t enough,” Aboud said, adding that poor weather could cause the tanker to flip.

The situation could also be exacerbated by a particularly active 2020 tropical cyclone season, which has already seen 28 cyclones, 11 hurricanes and four “major” hurricanes.

In his video, Aboud criticized Trinidad and Tobago government officials for a lack of response to the situation, which has now been ongoing for three months. An oil spill of this magnitude could wreck the livelihoods of over 50,000 local fisherman who rely on the sea, cause long term ecological harm to the biodiversity in the nearby coral reef, and pose a broader regional risk, Forbes reported.

“This requires national emergency,” Aboud said. “(I’m) calling on the government of Trinidad and Tobago to wake up and do something.”

International maritime reports have also been calling for action since early September, the Trinidad and Tobago Guardian reported, and government officials have asked for verification from Venezuelan officials on the status of the tanker.

In early September, Trinidad and Tobago Energy Minister Franklin Khan noted that initial reports from Venezuelan authorities described the vessel to be in upright and stable condition.

“The Energy Ministry through the Venezuelan Embassy has offered any assistance, technical or logistical to the Government of Venezuela that it may require. Also, the Minister of Energy is in contact with his Venezuelan counterpart for further updates as they become available,” a spokesman for Khan stated.

According to Khan, Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela have a bilateral agreement which includes an oil spill contingency plan, “in the event of a genuine risk exists or an active spill occurs.” “This is the agreement that will govern the action of the Government,” he said.

Should the spill occur, it will be the fourth major oil spill from Venezuela in the past three months.

In early September, fisherman and experts confirmed that oil was leaking into the sea near Falcón State, in north-east Venezuela, from a cracked underwater pipeline linked to attempts to restart fuel production at a refinery.

The month before, photos showed beaches and mangroves around Moroccoy National Park, on the west-central Venezuelan coast, slicked in oil. The images quickly gained traction online before local officials said a clean up effort was taking place. Research released two weeks later by Simón Bolívar University attributed the oil spill to the incompetence of state authorities working at the nearby El Palito refinery, located 66 kilometres south of the park.

Kim Kardashian has come under fire from followers on her social media pages for sharing posts about a party she held on a private island for family and friends amid the pandemic.

The reality star celebrated her big day with a special instalment of Keeping Up with the Kardashians, filmed prior to the Covid-19 crisis, earlier this month but, taking to the Internet on Tuesday, she shared snaps from her recent festivities.

In the photos, it appears the party was attended by a large number of people in close proximity to one another without wearing masks – despite the ongoing health scare.

In one of the captions of the post, the star said that she had asked all of her guests, including siblings Kourtney and Khloe Kardashian, Kendall and Kylie Jenner and mum Kris Jenner, to quarantine and undergo several “health screens” before she surprised them by flying them to a private island to celebrate her special day. According to the New York Post’s gossip column Page Six, her husband Kanye West joined for the final two days, as he continues his U.S. presidential bid.

“After 2 weeks of multiple health screens and asking everyone to quarantine, I surprised my closest inner circle with a trip to a private island where we could pretend things were normal just for a brief moment in time,” one tweet from Kardashian read.

The tone deaf wording of the message led thousands of Twitter users to post their own version of the same tweet, using Kardashian’s exact words with their own photos. Many of the photos involved horror movies, or movies set on islands, or both.

After 2 weeks of multiple health screens and asking everyone to quarantine I surprised my closest inner circle with a trip to a private island where we could pretend things were normal just for a brief moment in time. pic.twitter.com/PyhfxSGG8e

— Jack Whitehall (@jackwhitehall) October 28, 2020

"After 2 weeks of multiple health screens and asking everyone to quarantine, I surprised my closest inner circle with a trip to a private island where we could pretend things were normal just for a brief moment in time." pic.twitter.com/K0CHPippGX

— The Sims (@TheSims) October 28, 2020

“After 2 weeks of multiple health screens and asking everyone to quarantine, I surprised my closest inner circle with a trip to a private island where we could pretend things were normal just for a brief moment in time.” @KimKardashian #KimKardashian pic.twitter.com/jWXqqitJAs

— Melissa Gilbert (@MEGBusfield) October 28, 2020

After 2 weeks of multiple health screens and asking everyone to quarantine, I surprised my closest inner circle with a trip to a private island where we could pretend things were normal just for a brief moment in time. pic.twitter.com/oo2RLHtN52

— Katy Brand (@KatyFBrand) October 28, 2020

“I realize that for most people, this is something that is so far out of reach right now, so in moments like these, I am humbly reminded of how privileged my life is,” Kardashian had added, but that didn’t stop fans expressing their frustration over her apparent lack of regard for the ongoing public health crisis and its financial impact.

“Very selfish when people are dying and loosing (sic) their jobs,” fired one follower. “Also doubt it very much that all 20+ people that attended isolated prior.”

Another added: “Brilliant observation! This kind of vacation is out of reach for most people COVID-19 or no COVID-19.”

“I haven’t seen ma (sic) family in 4 months because I work a public-facing job and I’m absolutely terrified of the possibility of passing Covid on to my vulnerable parents,” lamented a third fan.

“I hope you had fun pretending things were normal, but spare a thought for those of us staying in the real world.”

FREDERICTON — The man on trial for a 2018 mass shooting in Fredericton says he thought the end of times had begun and he might have to use his guns to fight his way out of his apartment.

Matthew Raymond, 50, is on the witness stand for a second day, testifying in his own defence.

He faces four counts of first-degree murder in the Aug. 10, 2018 deaths of Donnie Robichaud, Bobbie Lee Wright and Fredericton police constables Robb Costello and Sara Burns.

The defence admits Raymond shot the victims but is trying to prove that he should be found not criminally responsible because of a mental disorder.

Raymond told the court Wednesday that he thought the other residents of his apartment complex were all “demons” and that his mother was too and she had shared keys to his apartment. He said he had barricaded himself inside his apartment and interpreted noises he was hearing as threats.

“I thought I’d have to use my gun to fight my way out,” he told the court. “I thought the whole complex were now demons.”

Raymond said he thought people had been coming into his apartment unannounced and that the landlord could enter and take his guns. He said he was not sleeping and thought everyone was against him because he had staged a protest opposing immigration.

• 'I thought the end of times was in full swing,' Fredericton shooter tells jury at murder trial
• Mother of Fredericton shooter says she often advised him to see a doctor for help

Defence lawyer Nathan Gorham showed notes and calculations Raymond had in his apartment. Most had calculations ending with numbers that Raymond said were indications of serpents and demons.

One of the notes read: “You serpents picked the wrong man to test. I am not alone. He’s watching.”

Raymond said the calculations also told him that he was going to have to leave the apartment, “otherwise I was going to die there.”

Raymond said he is unable to interpret many of the calculations and notes today, because he no longer holds the strong belief in demons that guided his actions in 2018.

“I don’t know what the heck this gibberish means,” he said. “It’s gone out of my mind. I don’t believe in it anymore.”

A lawsuit alleges that billionaire investor Bill Gross played the “Gilligan’s Island” theme song on a loop to harass his neighbours after they filed complaints about his large art installation.

Gross, the co-founder of PIMCO — an investment management firm —  who’s worth $1.5 billion , and his partner Amy Schwartz, a former professional tennis player, installed an art piece on the property line of their Laguna Beach home. Their neighbours, Mark Towfiq, a tech entrepreneur, and his wife Carol Nakahara complained to the city that the tall, light-up glass installation — and the netting that protects it — partially blocked their view of the ocean.

The city’s investigation found that the art installation, along with the protective netting, violated city codes and lacked the necessary permits.

In retaliation, Gross began to blare music at all hours of the day in an attempt to get his neighbours to drop their complaints. Now, litigation is working its way through the courts after Towfiq and Nakahara filed a suit claiming they were the recipients of a “targeted campaign of harassment and abuse.”

More bizarre still, Gross and Schwartz beat Towfiq to the legal punch, filing a lawsuit against him on Oct. 13, which accused him of “peeping” on him and his wife, asking for a temporary restraining order. On Oct. 14, Towfiq and Nakahara filed their own lawsuit.

“Mr. Gross is an entitled billionaire who is used to getting his way by bullying coworkers, family and neighbours,” Jennifer Keller, the attorney who represents Towfiq, told CNN Business . “Gross filed his own complaint merely as a pre-emptive strike after learning my clients intended to seek relief from the court.”

Naturally, Gross’ lawyer had a different view of events.

“Mr. Towfiq has harassed and invaded the privacy of Mr. Gross and his life partner Amy Schwartz,” said Jill Basinger, the attorney who represents Gross, to CNN Business.

In response to the musical harassment, Towfiq and Nakahara say they had to stay either with relatives or in a hotel room twice. They were granted a temporary restraining order against Gross and Schwartz on Oct. 15. In the application, Towfiq cites a text message sent to him after he asked Gross to turn down the music.

“Peace on all fronts or (we’ll) just have nightly concerts big boy,” read the message from Gross, according to the application.

The artwork that began all the trouble was installed in 2019. It was created by artist Dale Chihuly and features tall, ornate glass-blown reeds mixed in with fish and squat spheres. Problems began this year, after damages to the piece caused Gross and Schwartz to put up the tall protective netting around the sculpture. The netting was at removed but later put back up. According to Towfiq and Nakahara’s lawsuit, Gross and Schwartz refused to discuss and resolve the problem.

• Billionaire Leon Black says he 'deeply regrets' Jeffrey Epstein ties amid report of $50M in transfers
• Colby Cosh: Billionaire bardolators rejoice — Shakespeare's 'First Folio' comes up for auction

A hearing is set for Nov. 2 to determine if civil harassment restraining orders will be issued. Gross has been given an extension until Nov. 16 to obtain the proper permits for the sculpture. He is “in the process of getting it permitted,” Gross’ lawyers told CNN Business.

In 2014, Gross was fired from PIMCO, the firm he co-founded in 1971. Gross sued the company for wrongful dismissal in 2015. The case was settled for $81 million, which went to Gross’ charitable foundation.

It’s no crystal ball, but when trying to predict when something is likely to happen, one approach is to tap the “wisdom of the crowd” — ask many people their opinions and average their responses.

When a McGill University-led team asked 28 experts, each with an average 25 years experience working with vaccines, when a COVID-19 vaccine is most likely to be available to the general public in the United States and/or Canada, their best-case guess was June 2021 for the soonest, but more likely fall of 2021.

The experts believed there was a three-in-10 chance a safety issue would be discovered only after the first vaccine is approved that would require a boxed warning, and a four-in-10 chance that the first large field study will report a null or negative result.

“Experts predicting that there’s only a 40 per cent chance of a negative result, that to me actually sounds pretty optimistic,” said Jonathan Kimmelman, a professor and director of the Biomedical Ethics Unit at McGill University, and the brief paper’s senior author. Historically, fewer than five per cent of non-pandemic flu vaccines tested in humans ultimately go on to get approved.

Still, “a four-in-10 chance of an undesirable thing happening, those aren’t low odds, either,” said Kimmelman, who has been puzzled by the extreme optimism of credible public health officials like American coronavirus czar Dr. Anthony Fauci who believe an effective vaccine is almost certainly near at hand, that help is on its way to lead us out of the COVID darkness.

• Don't let dropping death rates fool you. COVID is still dangerous
• COVID-19 immunity wanes within weeks, U.K. study finds. Results suggest vaccine needed twice a year

Despite the cheering on of the groups in the vaccine race, it’s not a sure thing that the vaccines reaching phase III trials — the final stage before potential approval — are going to deliver us back to normal. Questions are being raised about proposed FDA and international standards for COVID-19 vaccines, about how good is good enough, about the sheer logistical challenges of distributing a two-dose vaccine and getting it into tens of millions of humans in Canada alone, and about persuading the young and people at low risk of the virus to be vaccinated as an act of solidarity .

Canada is already preparing the logistics for a possible roll-out in the first half of 2021. Ottawa has signed pre-order agreements with AstraZeneca, Moderna, Quebec-based Medicago and other companies for up to 358 million doses of different COVID-19 vaccine candidates.

“Work is underway in collaboration with the provinces and territories to review the capacity and capability of the existing vaccine supply chain,” Health Canada said in an email to the National Post . “Any capacity gaps will be addressed to ensure the safe and timely delivery of vaccines,” the department said, likely in an effort to avoid the massive line-ups and botched shortages during the country’s vast H1N1 flu vaccination campaign in 2009. One of the challenges with two-dose vaccines: how to get people to come back for the second dose.

Will the shots save lives or prevent bad outcomes? We don’t yet know. According to BMJ associate editor Peter Doshi, current trials aren’t set up to tell. More than 200 vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus are under development; 11 are in phase III studies, each involving tens of thousands of volunteers, yet “none of those trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or death,” Doshi wrote last week.

The trials are double blind and placebo-controlled. No one knows who is getting the real vaccine or a pretend one. The studies are designed to end after 150 to 160 COVID infections or “events” have occurred among the study volunteers. A data safety and monitoring board would then look to see whether there were fewer infections among the vaccinated group.

Even mild infections could qualify as an “event,” Doshi wrote. “In Pfizer and Moderna’s trials, for example, people with only a cough and a positive laboratory test would bring those trials one event closer to their completion.”

What we should care about is whether a vaccine is going to prevent deaths, ICU admissions or hospitalizations, and not  mild symptoms, because they don’t matter as much from a public health standpoint, Kimmelman said. “Even if you have 50 per cent protection, we still won’t know whether these vaccines actually move the needle on the things we need to move the needle on.”

The difficulty is, hospital admissions and deaths from COVID-19 are uncommon, and it would require a large population over a longer period to accumulate enough deaths to see a difference between the vaccine and placebo group, Kimmelman said.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has set a minimum target of 50 per cent efficacy for a COVID-19 vaccine, meaning a vaccine would have to be 50 per cent better than a placebo at preventing disease.

In an early-stage study, Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine produced neutralizing antibodies in 45 healthy, 18- to 55-year-olds who received two vaccinations, 28 days apart, the company reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. Side effects — fatigue, chills, headache or muscle aches — occurred in more than half the participants.

Dr. Jacqueline Miller, head of Moderna’s infectious diseases development, told last week’s FDA advisory panel meeting that more than 25,000 people have received both doses of its study vaccine, or a placebo, and that the vaccine was designed to evaluate Americans “at the highest risk of severe COVID disease.” Forty-two per cent of study participants are older adults or people with heart disease, diabetes or other underlying conditions, Miller added.

AstraZeneca’s vaccine, developed with Oxford University, has produced an immune response in both the young and old, Reuters reported this week. Less clear is how well an antibody response translates into how well any vaccine can actually fend off COVID.

“We just don’t know what to expect,” said Medicago president and CEO Bruce Clark. “You start asking yourself very practical questions: If something doesn’t work 50 per cent (of the time), then do we really have something? Maybe we do as an emergency response initially, but a 50-per-cent level we would have to imagine over time has to get better than that.”

But even a vaccine that works half the time offers a shot at knocking down the potency of the epidemic, Clark said, especially if it can prevent severe disease and deaths.

It’s possible vaccines with protection as low as 30 per cent could receive emergency authorization under FDA and international standards. The debate then becomes, how low can you go?

“The problem you could create is the following: You push a low-efficacy vaccine out on the grounds it’s better than nothing. Right now, you’ve got zero. Thirty per cent protection? Better than zero,” said Dalhousie University philosopher and university research professor Francoise Baylis.

“The problem then becomes what if vaccine number two is 50 per cent effective, and you’ve now already invested how much in terms of distribution to get the first vaccine into people? What do you do to the confidence of the general public and those who have already received the vaccine,” Baylis said.

“It’s a really difficult question to know at what point do you say, ‘it’s good enough.’”

It’s also not clear how well the first vaccines will prevent person-to-person spread.

SARS-CoV-2 is a lethal pathogen, Baylis said. “What’s the ideal? The ideal is we totally understand how this virus works, we get a vaccine, we know that it will stop this pathogen from being able to infect humans and we know that it lasts for a specified time, for example, 10 years, and then you get a second vaccine,” Baylis said.

The reality is that anything that gets rolled out is going to be rolled out with uncertainty. “You can’t wait until you truly understand the scope of the problem because people are dying,” Baylis said.

Authorities need to communicate those uncertainties and the public needs to understand and tolerate them, Kimmelman said. “In medicine we license drugs and vaccines all the time, despite lingering uncertainties regarding impact and safety,” Kimmelman said.

We can’t wait for absolute certainty. “The point is to make the best choices we can given the evidence we have and to continue collecting evidence so that we can revise our choices if the data turn southward.”

• Email: skirkey@postmedia.com | Twitter: sharon_kirkey

OTTAWA — A former American envoy to Canada says trade relations between the two countries are unlikely to substantially improve regardless of who wins the U.S. election, suggesting a Joe Biden presidency could be “more protectionist” than the last four years under Donald Trump.

David Wilkins, a former Republican ambassador who served under George W. Bush, said a $700-billion spending package proposed by Biden would include a raft of so-called “Buy American” provisions that would prioritize domestic manufacturers over foreign ones.

The former ambassador and other experts are largely in agreement that Canada’s trade relationship with the U.S. would be less volatile under Biden, after a bellicose Trump administration over the past four years slapped tariffs on Canadian supplies of steel and aluminum, and threatened to tear up the previous North American trade pact.

But Wilkins warned that Biden’s “build back better” plan could point to broadly protectionist instincts, which in turn would “significantly adversely impact Canadian businesses and exports.”

“Despite the tariffs on softwood lumber and aluminum and steel by the Trump administration, I think a Biden Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate, if he does get that, will be much more protectionist than a Trump administration,” said Wilkins, who was taking part in a panel discussion hosted by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday.

The populist economic vision includes $700 billion in subsidies for manufacturing, clean energy, biotech and artificial intelligence, built where possible using U.S. materials and know-how “to ensure that the future is made in America, and in all of America,” the proposal says.

• Derek H. Burney: No matter who wins the U.S. election, there will implications for Canada
• Can Canada continue to please two masters in trade?

The former ambassador’s comments come as Ottawa continues to grapple with Trump’s protectionist trade policies, under which U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer has placed levies on Canadian raw steel and aluminum, citing “national security” concerns.

In September, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland effectively accepted quotas on Canadian exports of unwrought aluminum into the U.S. until the end of 2020, which experts say could restrict the Canadian market should the Trump administration win re-election.

On Sept. 15, hours before Canada was preparing to unveil a number of counter-tariffs aimed at a range of American aluminum products, Lighthizer issued a surprise announcement saying that he would remove all tariffs against Canada. In return, he would limit the volume of raw aluminum Canadian manufacturers can export into the U.S. until the end of the year.

Freeland implicitly accepted the new market caps despite claiming in a press conference that “Canada does not accept quotas.”

Biden’s platform hints at removing so-called “Section 232” national security tariffs against Canada but does not mention aluminum quotas.

Also partaking in the Canadian Chamber of Commerce discussion was David MacNaughton, Canada’s ambassador to the U.S. from 2016 to 2019. He urged all trading partners in the U.S., Canada and Mexico to look past recent trade rifts and to increase ties in order to hasten a pandemic recovery.

“I just hope that everybody doesn’t retreat into their corner of the sandbox and play by themselves because this will cause both health risks and economic collapse,” he said.

All panelists were overall optimistic on the outlook for U.S.-Canada trade, even as disputes over softwood lumber and other products persist. The two countries share common interests on big questions like democratic freedoms, and are deeply dependent on one another in their respective supply chains, they said.

“We’re going be fine traders,” said Thomas Donohue, head of the United States Chamber of Commerce. “When the dust settles we’ll all get back to the business of the Canada-U.S. relationship.”

Donohue and many other industry groups in the U.S. lobbied hard against the Trump tariffs, arguing they would only increase costs for American consumers.

One of the most direct trade-related outcomes from the election is likely to be the future of the Keystone XL pipeline, proposed by Calgary-based TC Energy. Trump has long supported the project and is pushing for its progress, while Biden recently said the pipeline amounted to “tarsands we don’t need” in the U.S.

Also discussed on the panel was what a Biden versus Trump presidency would mean for the relationship between America and China, which has also soured on the trade front after leaders in both countries slapped tariffs on tens of billions in traded products.

The U.S. has been pressing its allies to resist the adoption of Chinese-made technologies, particularly the bid by Chinese telecoms giant Huawei to build a next-generation mobile network in Western nations.

“The reality is that there’s a consensus within the United States about the China situation, and I think that we’re in for at least a decade long struggle in terms of redefining the relationship between the West and China,” said MacNaughton.

• Email: jsnyder@postmedia.com | Twitter: jesse_snyder

Lily talks almost matter-of-factly now about some of her mother’s beliefs, sounding more fatigued by it all than flabbergasted.

“ ‘Nicole Kidman is a Satanist, Hillary Clinton has children hanging in her basement and Reese Witherspoon is eating children,’ ” the Queen’s University student recounts.

And there is no way to persuade the woman she’s wrong, says Lily. “It’s cognitive dissonance. It’s the most heavy case of cognitive dissonance you could ever imagine.”

Yet the 21-year-old is just one among a surprising new cohort: Canadians whose lives have been turned upside down after a family member or close friend became immersed in QAnon and its outlandish conspiracy theories.

With tie-ins to U.S. politics and adherence to bizarre, unfounded accusations against liberal, Jewish and Hollywood elites, the movement would seem like a quintessentially American phenomenon.

But on a growing Reddit forum for relatives and friends of devotees, called QAnonCasualties, numerous Canadians share tales of how the “cult” has fractured their families or marriages.

Unlike in the U.S., QAnon seems to have limited impact on Canadian politics, but relatives say it is exacting a deeply personal toll, throwing once-loving relationships across the country into disarray.

Relatives spend hours watching videos, reading social media posts or talking to other adherents, while angrily rejecting attempts to refute their strange ideas, loved ones say. And though not directly part of the QAnon mythology, believers tend to aggressively reject wearing masks and other precautions against COVID-19, even when it might put family members at risk.

Some say their Canadian family members want to vote in the U.S. presidential election, legally or not, so they can back Donald Trump.

• Folk devils and fear: QAnon feeds into a culture of moral panic
• U.S. House condemns QAnon conspiracy theory; 17 Republicans vote no

Two Canadians affected by the phenomenon agreed to interviews this week, though they asked that their full names not be published, fearing further family strife, ill effects on a business or abuse from Q followers.

Sarah, 35, a southern Alberta entrepreneur, said her parents are unshakeable in their beliefs, showing more faith in YouTube videos by “some guy sitting in his mom’s basement,” than verifiable facts.

“They look at us like we’re the idiots who believe the message from above without questioning it,” she said. “You can come at them with academic articles and news sources from a variety of different places, and all they’ll say is, ‘That’s the elite’s agenda,’ and they don’t believe it because it’s fake news.”

On the Reddit page, another Canadian woman painfully describes how she tried to get her husband to abandon his obsession with QAnon and work on repairing their relationship, to no avail. A few days days ago, she posted that she was going away for a month and undergoing therapy.

“He’s always ranting on the phone, scrolling on Twitter, YouTube on speaker,” she wrote. “He says he loves me and his family but he can’t give up QAnon. It is the hill he will die on … 7 year relationship destroyed with 2 kids under 3, all for this bullsh–.”

Lily says QAnon appears to have spread in Canada. In addition to her own mother, she cites a former boss and his wife, high school friends and fellow university students who have been drawn into the network.

“You’d be surprised how many people are silently watching this sh– in their basement,” she said. “I know people in my personal life who are university educated, in Queen’s Commerce, who are in this. It’s not all hillbillies and hicks and conservative weirdos … That’s the most astounding thing about it to be honest.”

Criticism of the left by the right, and vice versa, is a natural and healthy part of democracy. QAnon is something else. The loosely connected web of conspiracists is convinced that a “cabal” of Democratic Party politicians and other liberal elites are kidnapping, sexually abusing and even cannibalizing children. They see Donald Trump as a sort of saviour working to defeat the evil. The theories have been traced back to an anonymous poster — Q — on the 4Chan website who claimed to be a senior U.S. government official with top-secret clearance.

About two dozen Republican congressional candidates in the Nov. 3 election have voiced support for QAnon, while Trump himself has refused to disavow the movement.

Yet the FBI has called it a potential domestic terrorism threat, and a bi-partisan bill in the U.S. House of Representatives condemned the fantastical ideology.

QAnon has had some peripheral impact on Canadian public life. Before a man was charged with ramming a truck full of guns into the grounds of Rideau Hall, where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is living, the company he owned had posted QAnon material on Instagram. In Quebec, conspiracy theorist Alexis Cossette-Trudel espoused QAnon beliefs on popular YouTube videos, which were removed by the site’s owner recently for spreading misinformation about COVID-19.

A September anti-mask protest in Montreal featured a plethora of QAnon signs and T-shirts.

Lily describes a gradual evolution in her mother’s mindset, from being a liberal, feminist single parent as recently as 2015, to believing vaccines are dangerous, developing a hatred for government and, this spring, diving deep into QAnon.

She’d spend eight to 10 hours a day on her smartphone, alienating most of her extended family and friends, the daughter says.

In March, she insisted Lily come home early from university, warning that the military was planning to force people into quarantine.

“I sobbed,” she recalls. “I have to worry about getting sick and dying, I have to worry about my exams. I have to worry about all these real world things, and then I have to worry about my mother who has joined a cult.”

Sarah said her own parents have always been “alternative” and skeptical of government but also liberal, supporters of alternative energy. But as the pandemic lockdown began this spring, they too embraced QAnon, believing that all Democrats — politicians in another country — were evil and that elites were draining the bio-chemical adrenochrome from babies, another peculiar aspect of the theory.

And they insist COVID-19 is nothing to fear, refusing to wear masks or social distance, even though their daughter is now pregnant and therefore immune-compromised. Sarah says she, her husband and toddler may boycott family Christmas as a result.

The situation is “heartbreaking,” but she said she had one hope for a better future with her parents — Trump’s defeat next Tuesday.

“If he does not … continue to be president I hope it will be a quick fizzle,” she says about the movement. “Because QAnon will have less fuel to add to its fire.”

• Email: tblackwell@postmedia.com | Twitter: tomblackwellNP

OTTAWA — A bill that requires sexual assault training for federally appointed judges has been amended by MPs to also include training on “systemic racism and systemic discrimination” — a change some see as a troubling sign politicians will keep venturing further into judicial training.

The legislation, which has now gone through three versions in four years, has seen widespread debate in the legal community over its constitutionality. Judges are self-governed through independent bodies to insulate them from political pressure, and already have their own training programs, including on sexual assault.

Supporters of the bill argue this is simply Parliament signalling that more must be done to protect the rights of sexual assault complainants and avoid basic legal errors. They note that judicial organizations are still responsible for creating the actual training content.

But critics worry the bill represents politicians trying to inject their policy preferences into judicial training, and that once the door is opened through this sex-assault training bill, future governments will pile on with their own political priorities, such as national security.

As it turns out, MPs have not even waited for the bill to get through the House of Commons before adding to it.

Liberal MP Greg Fergus told the Commons justice committee on Tuesday that his amendments are in order because the bill already required the training to consider the “social context” around sexual assault. The new language specifies that social context includes “systemic racism and systemic discrimination.” It does not include any other topics, and does not define those terms.

“I found that this offered us a good opportunity to…include other groups into the purpose of the bill,” said Fergus, who chairs the parliamentary Black caucus. “Those are the reasons why I proposed some small modifications,” he said, speaking in French.

• Commons gives approval in principle to judges' sexual assault training bill
• Judicial council proposes changes to bill on sex-assault training for judges
• Aiming for all-party support, Liberals table bill on judges' sexual assault training first introduced by Rona Ambrose

The amendments were carried with Liberal, Conservative and NDP support, though they still need to pass in the full House of Commons and the Senate. Only Bloc Québécois MP Rhéal Fortin voted against them, saying they stray too far off track.

“It’s like we’d gone off to buy potatoes at the store, and we returned home with strawberries,” Fortin said in French. “I’m sorry, but that doesn’t work…If we want to work on a different bill than the original one, which was for training on sexual assault, and we want something different on systemic discrimination, that’s fine and well, that can be something we could do. But we’ll have to make another bill completely or reopen the witness list.”

Fortin also argued that the term “systemic racism” is a politically popular phrase right now, but it’s not clear to everyone what it means.

Arif Virani, the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister, responded that there is wide social consensus around the phrase as it applies to institutions, and it “reflects sort of where we are as a nation, as a continent.”

Liberal MP James Maloney said that Fortin’s concerns about judicial independence could also be applied to the original bill, which Fortin supports. “We’ve crossed that threshold, Mr. Fortin,” Maloney said.

The legislation amends the Judge’s Act to require judges “undertake to participate in continuing education” on sexual assault and social context, and requires that the Canadian Judicial Council develop the training “with persons, groups or organizations the Council considers appropriate, such as sexual assault survivors and groups and organizations that support them.” It requires the Council to report to Parliament on when the seminars were given and how many judges attended.

The first version was introduced by former Conservative leader Rona Ambrose in 2017, but it stalled in the Senate in 2019 over concerns of judicial independence. It was largely rewritten in the Senate, mainly by Sen. Pierre Dalphond, a former Quebec judge, who scaled back some of the more intrusive parts of the bill.

However, procedural wrangling kept the bill from advancing and it died on the 2019 election call. Justice Minister David Lametti revived it in February as government legislation, but that bill also died when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau prorogued Parliament in August.

Dalphond told National Post that from what he understands of the amendments, they’re acceptable to him since they only mention systemic racism as one part of the social context, not the whole definition. He also said that in his experience, systemic racism is already an important part of judicial training. But he warned that Parliament must not go too far in attempting to direct the training or influence the content.

“The shorter the better,” Dalphond said about the legislation.

Asked for comment, Ambrose replied with a statement that did not mention the systemic racism amendment. “I know victims of sexual assault are thankful that MPs are working together to get this bill passed,” she said. “I hope it passes without delay.”

Lametti’s office also did not comment directly on the amendment, but said the justice minister “fully agrees with the need to take action to address systemic racism in Canada’s justice system.”

A spokesperson from the Canadian Judicial Council said that “Canada has arguably the best program of judicial education in the world,” and for that reason the Council has always thought the bill is unnecessary.

“That said, the Council is pleased that the (justice committee) appears to have accepted the judiciary’s suggestions on how to improve the bill to ensure it meets its laudable objectives while still preserving judicial independence,” the statement said.

Many in the legal profession are deeply concerned about the precedent the bill sets. Gib van Ert, a lawyer who was executive legal officer at the Supreme Court of Canada from 2015 to 2018, wrote in Maclean’s in February that governments should not be legislating training for judges, because once it starts it might never end.

“Why not put a few more required courses on the judges’ curriculum?” van Ert wrote rhetorically at the time. “Why not train our judges in systemic racism, Indigenous laws and rights, climate change, national security and counterterrorism, border security and unlawful migration?”

His essay turned out to be prescient.

“Of course, judges should learn about sexual assault and systemic racism,” van Ert told the Post on Tuesday. “They already do, through their own judge-led training programs. The problem lies in the training being mandated by politicians. When people go to court they need to feel their judge isn’t just thinking and doing what the government tells them to. They need to believe judges are independent. I continue to think this is a bad precedent.”

• Email: bplatt@postmedia.com | Twitter: btaplatt

EDMONTON — The merger of Cenovus Energy Inc. and Husky Energy Inc., announced Sunday, is going to have a spillover effect into the downtown core of Calgary, where high-rise office space has sat vacant for months and years as the economic downturn and the COVID-19 pandemic have battered the oil and gas industry, clearing out commuter traffic and having a devastating effect on business and culture in the city’s core.

The two companies said Tuesday the merger would result in roughly 2,100 layoffs as Husky joins Cenovus, a $3.8-billion deal that will make Cenovus the third-largest energy company in Canada. It’s not clear what jobs, specifically, might be lost.

“The downtown of Calgary is the goose that lays the golden eggs in terms of the operation of our city and these job losses will hurt in a number of different ways,” said Coun. Evan Woolley, whose ward encompasses half of downtown Calgary.

Tuesday’s news is just the latest blow Calgary in general, and downtown Calgary in particular, has faced. Adam Legge, the president and CEO of the Business Council of Alberta, said the downtown vacancy rate is close to 30 per cent, and any further reduction will mean fewer downtown workers frequenting small businesses such as restaurants and dry cleaners in the city centre.

“Any time we see layoffs of that magnitude, there’s a concern for a whole host of things, including the livelihoods of those affected and what it means for a downtown that is already struggling,” Legge said.

Downtown Calgary, unlike many other large cities, is heavily commercial, with few residential properties. This means, simply, the businesses and organizations downtown rely, in large part, on commuter traffic to put bums in barstools and cash on counters.

“While we started from this incredible high level of downtown commercial activity, it means we had a long way to fall,” Mayor Naheed Nenshi said in an interview.

• Oilpatch primed for more consolidation in wake of Cenovus-Husky deal
• Cenovus, Husky confirm up to 25% headcount reduction as oilpatch layoffs continue

The vacancy’s effects are clear enough, even just looking around. The Plus 15s, the nearly 16 kilometres of pedestrian walkways with 83 bridges that connect buildings in downtown Calgary, are practically deserted.

“What were once bustling networks, particularly in the winter, are quiet,” said Woolley.

In Calgary’s specific case, much of that premiere downtown real estate is — or was — occupied by oil and gas giants.

“To suggest that the oil and gas industry will fill up that vacancy any time soon, or ever, is a faulty assumption. If this isn’t the wakeup call in the sense of the oil and gas industry is not going to save Calgary, then I don’t know what is,” said Dan Harmsen, partner and senior vice-president at Barclay Street Real Estate.

Harmsen said there’s an excess amount of office space in the city that will take years to absorb, but added the situation has led to an attractive rental market, where premium office space can be had for 20 per cent to 40 per cent cheaper than any other city in North America.

Commercial realtors in Calgary have seen some companies outside the oil and gas industry take advantage of lower costs and lease additional space in recent months.

Rachel Notley, the leader of the New Democrats, told the  Post  that this is a trend that isn’t going to stop, even with COVID recovery or as oil prices rebound.

“As it relates to the downtown of Calgary, just generally, what we need to be doing is looking at ways to diversify the economy and attract other businesses back to Alberta and of course to Calgary,” Notley said. “In terms of job creation, what we need to be understanding then is that we have to look for other eggs to put in our baskets — in fact, we need more baskets, is a better way to put it.”

The layoffs at Cenovus-Husky aren’t even the first in recent weeks.

TC Energy, the company behind the Coastal GasLink pipeline through northern British Columbia, announced an unspecified number of layoffs some weeks ago, followed by Suncor, which said it would shed 2,000 jobs over the next 18 months.

In total, the energy industry dropped 23,600 Canadian jobs in just three months this spring.

The downsizing of Calgary’s energy industry, while it has obviously affected thousands of Calgarians directly, has several other spillover effects; the city itself has lost hundreds of millions of dollars because of downtown vacancies affecting property tax returns. That tax revenue, in turn, needs to be made up elsewhere through, say, residential property taxes.

The lack of commuter traffic affects revenues from parking, or bus tickets and passes, for example. And, obviously, having fewer people in office spaces affects other businesses downtown, whether that’s cultural groups and non-profits or bars and restaurants. There has also been an increase in crime downtown, said Woolley.

What is trickier to sort out, though, is the effects more recent layoffs have had because it’s in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, when most people are already working from home and not travelling downtown for work.

Karen Ball, the interim president and CEO of Calgary Chamber of Voluntary Organizations, said there have been effects on volunteerism and the not-for-profit sector because fewer people downtown means that office-based volunteerism and donations — such as the United Way campaigns — are harder to maintain when workers aren’t in the office.

“It’s an unfortunate thing, because, the timing being such, the pandemic has affected everyone in Calgary and certainly in Alberta,” Ball said. “For non-profits it means there’s been an increase in the demands for their services.”

It’s especially acute for the cultural non-profits, most of which are based downtown, she said.

“Of course people working downtown creates a vibrancy 5 to 7 and 7 beyond for bars and restaurants and also live in-person events and so the arts sector is tied to, in some ways, the vitality of the downtown core.”

Still, in spite of the doom and gloom, there are bright spots: On Monday, Suncor announced it would be relocating employees at its branch offices in the Toronto area to Calgary, essentially bringing 700 positions to Calgary.

“Yesterday, Suncor’s leadership spoke with our Downstream employees and let them know that over the course of 2021, we’d be moving our Downstream head office from Mississauga and Oakville to Calgary,” Suncor spokesperson Sneh Seetal said in an email.

Nenshi said that Suncor moving people to the city is good news, evidence of the city’s appealing real-estate market, compared to overheated business markets such as Toronto, something he hopes will bring even more business to the city.

“That’s really the pitch that we’re making to a lot of firms,” said Nenshi.

Woolley, for his part, also remains optimistic: “There is hope, I am a hopeful, optimistic Calgarian, I believe in our city, but it really does speak to the importance of us taking a look at economic diversification,” said Woolley.

With files from Geoffrey Morgan

• Email: tdawson@postmedia.com | Twitter: tylerrdawson

Another incumbent provincial government wins a resounding majority.

But the federal party loses support in two Toronto byelections.

Opinion polls suggest the Liberals would regain their own majority if an election were held today.

Yet, nearly half of the electorate say they don’t want an election next year, or even the year after that.

Justin Trudeau is caught in a Hamlet-like dilemma – should he stay or should he go?

The historic fourth majority for Scott Moe’s centre-right Saskatchewan Party reinforces the message from the recent provincial elections in British Columbia and New Brunswick (in which minority governments won majority status) – voters in the grip of a pandemic want stability.

The Liberals are weighing whether the circumstances that existed at provincial level would hold federally.

Those provinces kept the virus under control but there is no guarantee that voters in the pandemic hotspots of Ontario and Quebec would respond as favourably to an unwanted election.

The byelections in Toronto Centre and York Centre suggest an enthusiasm gap for the Liberals. Former journalist Marci Ien retained Bill Morneau’s former seat for the government but the share of the vote dropped to 42 per cent from 57 per cent last year. New Green leader Annamie Paul came in second, with 32 per cent of the vote.

In York Centre, small business owner Ya’ara Saks had a close shave in her contest with Conservative Julius Tiangson, winning 45.7 per cent of the vote to her rival’s 41.8 per cent – again with a reduced share of the vote.

• Liberals fend off tough challenges in two Toronto byelections as government’s COVID-19 handling put to test
• Pushing back: Why the Trudeau Liberals were prepared to take Canada to an election
• Colby Cosh: Saskatchewan election was first electoral test for Wexit

Trudeau dismissed suggestions that lost support is a sign he needs to change his political strategy. “(Ien and Saks) will help to continue the great work our government is doing,” he told reporters.

On turnouts of 31 per cent and 25.6 per cent respectively, it would be foolhardy to read too much into the results but if you are a young prince, with honour and a crown at stake, it might make you even more cautious.

There is no shortage of voices around the prime minister advising him that he should go to the Governor General and ask her to dissolve Parliament.

Opposition parties worried that the almost hysterical Liberal reaction to this week’s motion, to have the health committee examine Canada’s pandemic response, was a harbinger for a short trip across the grounds of Rideau Hall. Access to future vaccines could be jeopardized and lives endangered, the Liberals claimed, which would constitute suitable grounds for a just war. They may be yet.

But the enthusiasm for hostilities seems to have abated.

Last week, Trudeau appeared hell-bent on going to the polls when he declared a vote on an opposition motion a matter of confidence and did not negotiate support from the NDP.

But sources claim he genuinely does not want an election, something he seemed to indicate when he said on Tuesday that his party would “work with Parliament” on the COVID-19 response inquiry.

The fear of appearing opportunistic seems to have constrained the prime minister to this point, with the result that senior advisers on both sides of the aisle think, if we survive until Christmas, we could be in for a minority government to rival Lester B. Pearson’s second 960 day term of office.

That could change in a heartbeat if the Conservatives overplay their hand. The “anti-corruption” committee proposal last week was very nearly a political Darwin Award winner – an uber-partisan proposal that could have provoked an election which polls suggest new leader Erin O’Toole would have lost.

If this is not to be the Conservative leader’s “Mr. Harper, your time is up” moment (the occasion when former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff proved to be all hat and no cattle), he will have to tone down his language, at least until advertising has introduced him to more Canadians.

For their part, the New Democrats are in no mood or condition to fight an election.

In 2005, Jack Layton propped up Paul Martin’s minority until the Gomery report on sponsorship made the Liberals undesirable bedfellows. Layton subsequently demanded that the government bar the privatization of healthcare, Martin refused and an election followed.

(For the record, Liberals contend the health care story is bunk and the New Democrats merely used it as an excuse to blow up the government after the Gomery report landed).

Jagmeet Singh’s NDP needs an “on-brand” reason to remove its support. But it also needs time and money.

The party will have paid off its 2019 campaign debt by the end of the year and is in the process of opening candidate nominations. But it is still a long way from being campaign ready.

The news that there will be no fiscal anchor in Chrystia Freeland’s fall update suggests a smorgasbord of spending that the NDP will be able to support, buying it some time.

But the government may not want support.

The hawks around Trudeau are urging him to force an election for good reason – the auspices for electoral success diminish in the new year.

The ethics commissioner’s report is likely to further taint Trudeau’s nice guy image; millions of people who received government benefits will discover they are taxable come spring; and, fiscal pressures will force the Liberals to start unwinding temporary relief programs by the summer.

Those are powerful reasons for Trudeau to go to an election now.

But the fact he did not do so when he had the chance suggests it is more likely that we will have a durable minority than a snap election.

• Email: jivison@postmedia.com | Twitter: IvisonJ

OTTAWA – Prime Minister Justin Trudeau warned Tuesday that Christmas celebrations are in jeopardy as he told Canadians to expect a long winter dealing with COVID-19.

Canada has now seen more than 220,000 cases since the pandemic began and the country on Tuesday reached 10,000 total deaths. Trudeau said the coming months would be hard, but pleaded with Canadians not to allow COVID fatigue to set in.

“We are in an unprecedented global pandemic. That really sucks, it’s tough going through the second wave,” he said. “It’s frustrating having shut down all of our lives through the spring, and now be forced to make more difficult choices and knowing there’s going to be a tough winter ahead as well.”

He said Canadians need to keep following public health guidelines to protect holiday gatherings.

“It’s frustrating knowing that unless we are really, really careful. There may not be the kinds of family gatherings we want to have at Christmas.”

Last month in a national address, Trudeau issued a similar warning saying Thanksgiving celebrations would need to be small, but said at the time “we still have a shot at Christmas.”

Trudeau shared that his youngest son had asked if COVID-19 was permanent and was attending a Grade one class where singing was not allowed.

Despite the gloomy outlook Trudeau said he was confident Canadians could rally and turn the course of the pandemic around.

“Vaccines are on the horizon. Spring, and summer, will come and they will be better than this winter,” he said. “Nobody wanted 2020 to be this way, but we do get to control how bad it gets by all of us doing our part.”

• COVID-19 cases surpass 200,000: Conservatives say Trudeau Liberals botching second wave
• Canada 'going in the wrong direction' on COVID-19, Trudeau says as cases rise through most of country

Many of the most recent cases have come from so-called “super spreader” events where large gatherings lead to many cases. Public health officers across the country have also said that when doing contact tracing they are finding infected people have been in contact with dozens of people.

Trudeau said the government had a better understanding of the virus than it did in the spring and could target messages to different parts of the country.

“The federal government will be there to support people right across the country, regardless of the situation, regardless of the advice and the restrictions that have been brought in by public health,” he said.

Conservative health critic Michelle Rempel Garner said the PM’s message was flippant and ignored the reality Canadians were living in.

She said the lockdowns people would face over the winter could have been avoided if the government had invested in more rapid testing.

“Other countries around the world are not having to simply rely on social isolation and economic shutdown. Many countries around the world have deployed technologies like rapid testing, to keep things open,” she said.

Rempel Garner said the government should have developed a better response in the months since the pandemic began instead of relying so heavily on lockdowns.

She said she hoped the House of Commons health committee would be able to get more information and provide sound advice on a path forward after a motion she drafted passed in the Commons on Monday, asking for information and documents about the government’s response so far.

“The measures to prevent the spread of COVD-19 shouldn’t be static. They should evolve as best practices emerge and as we get data on what’s working and what isn’t.”

She said everyone should be following public health advice to keep gatherings small, wear masks and limit the spread of the virus, but said the government had to take some responsibility for helping with COVID fatigue.

Canada’s deputy chief public health officer, Dr. Howard Njoo, said the rising cases in the past few weeks were alarming, but so far the system was managing.

“At this point to date, we have not overloaded the health care system. But you can see in certain parts of the country, we are starting to cancel elective surgeries because beds are being filled up by COVID-19 patients.”

But he said staff were tired after the long fight with the virus.

“Many of them are exhausted after what they went through in the spring,” he said. “We depend on them in our time of need when we’ve become sick and I think now they depend on us to do the right thing.”

• Email: rtumilty@postmedia.com | Twitter: ryantumilty

Newly confirmed conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett faces a barrage of politically fraught cases in her first days on the job, as the court weighs election disputes and prepares to hear a challenge to the Obamacare health law.

In brief remarks at a White House ceremony on Monday night, Barrett declared her independence from U.S. President Donald Trump and the political process, even as the president stood behind her.

“The oath that I have solemnly taken tonight means at its core I will do the job without fear or favour and do it independently of the political branches and of my own preferences,” she said.

Her confirmation as successor to liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last month, creates a 6-3 conservative majority on the high court.

Barrett, a federal appeals court judge and legal scholar, is Trump’s third selection for the court, enabling him to remake it in dramatic fashion as part of his success in moving the broader federal judiciary to the right since taking office in 2017. Trump’s other Supreme Court appointees are conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, and Barrett now joins the conservative bloc on the court, comprised of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, all Republican appointees.

But just who is Justice Barrett, what are the major issues she may be called to rule upon, and how might she decide?

Background

Barrett grew up in a suburb of New Orleans and attended a Catholic girls’ high school before graduating from Rhodes college in Memphis, Tennessee, and Notre Dame Law School in South Bend, Indiana. Her lack of the Ivy League pedigree typical of Supreme Court justices was one reason Trump chose Yalie Kavanaugh over her for the last vacancy on the court, according to a person familiar with the president’s thinking.

After law school, Barrett clerked for two conservative judges: Washington federal appeals court judge Laurence Silberman and the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. She returned to Notre Dame as a professor in 2002 and taught there full-time until Trump appointed her as a judge to the federal appeals court in Chicago in 2017. She still teaches at Notre Dame part-time.

Barrett identifies as Catholic and has often spoken publicly of the importance of faith in her life. In a 2006 Notre Dame Law School commencement speech, she urged graduates to direct their legal careers towards “building the Kingdom of God.” Barrett is also a member of a small, mostly Catholic “charismatic covenant community” called People of Praise that has adopted some Pentecostal practices such as prophesy and speaking in tongues.

During her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee two weeks ago, Barrett, a favourite of Christian conservatives, irked Democrats by sidestepping questions on abortion, presidential powers, climate change, voting rights, Obamacare and other issues.

Now confirmed to the court, she will be tasked with ruling on some of those same issues.

Here is a look at how she may lean.

Election

Formally sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts on Tuesday, Barrett joins the court with two election issues already awaiting her from key battleground states, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

Firstly Trump, who nominated her, has said he expects the court to ultimately decide the result of the election between him and Democrat Joe Biden. The Supreme Court has only once decided the outcome of a U.S. presidential election — the disputed 2000 contest ultimately awarded to Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore.

Trump has said he wanted Barrett to be confirmed before Election Day so she could cast a decisive vote in any election-related dispute, potentially in his favour.

The justices already have tackled multiple election-related emergency requests this year, some related to rules changes prompted by the coronavirus pandemic.

On Monday night, the conservative justices were in the majority as the court on a 5-3 vote declined to extend mail-in voting deadlines sought by Democrats in Wisconsin.

Last week, in a stark sign of how Barrett’s appointment could affect such cases, the court split 4-4 in a case from Pennsylvania, handing a loss to Republicans hoping to curb the counting of mail-in ballots received after Election Day.

Republicans on Friday asked the court to block the mail-in ballot counting in Pennsylvania, knowing that Barrett was about to be confirmed.

The conservative majority even before Barrett’s appointment has generally sided with state officials who oppose court-imposed changes to election procedures to make it easier to vote during the pandemic.

Obamacare

One week after the election, the court on Nov. 10 hears a case in which Republicans including Trump are asking the court to strike down the 2010 Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.

The Obamacare case is the third major Republican-backed challenge to the law, which has helped roughly 20 million Americans obtain medical insurance. It also bars insurers from refusing to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions.

Republican opponents have called the law an unwarranted intervention by government in health insurance markets. The Supreme Court previously upheld Obamacare 5-4 in a 2012 ruling. It rejected another challenge by 6-3 in 2015.

Barrett has criticized previous rulings upholding Obamacare but said during her confirmation hearing she had no agenda to invalidate the measure.

In Biden’s statement after Barrett’s confirmation, the former vice president said Trump has been “crystal clear” about wanting to “tear down” the Affordable Care Act.

During Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearing two weeks ago, Democrats focused on both Obamacare and election cases in voicing opposition to her confirmation and urged her to step aside from both. Barrett refused to make such a commitment. Justices have the final say on whether they step aside in a case.

Abortion

Barrett’s past writings and remarks on the intersection of faith and the law could again become a flash point, raising questions about whether she would overturn Supreme Court precedents on abortion rights.

Whereas Justice Ginsburg, her predecessor, was a champion of preserving a woman’s right to an abortion, Barrett says abortion is “always immoral” and has already ruled as a circuit court judge to restrict the procedure.

Barrett, a Catholic mother of seven, wrote in a 1998 law review article that abortion and euthanasia “take away innocent life.”

She joined an opinion that suggested support for two Indiana abortion laws: a requirement that clinics bury or cremate fetal remains, and a separate ban on abortions based on the fetus’s race, gender or risk of a genetic disorder such as Down syndrome. Barrett said the full Seventh Circuit should have reconsidered part of a three-judge panel’s decision to strike down the two measures.

The Supreme Court later revived the fetal-remains provision but refused to hear Indiana’s bid to reinstate the second law.

On the court, Barrett will be a new face for originalism, which focuses on the original meaning of the Constitution’s words and casts doubt on Roe v. Wade. Yet it’s not 100 per cent clear that she would overturn Roe. v. Wade; in a 2013 speech, she expressed doubt that the key 1973 decision on abortion would ever be overturned.

Until now the biggest skeptics of reproductive rights on the court have all been men. In 2014 when the court ruled 5-4 that companies can refuse on religious grounds to offer their workers the free birth control promised under the Affordable Care Act, five men were in the majority and all three female justices dissented.

Policing

In her three years as a federal appeals court judge, Barrett has consistently sided with police or prison guards accused of using excessive force, a Reuters review of cases she was involved in shows.

Barrett has written opinions or been a part of three-judge panels that have ruled in favour of defendants in 11 of 12 cases in which law enforcement was accused of using excessive force in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The Reuters review illustrates Barrett’s record on police use of force at a time of reckoning in the United States.

In five cases, the panel on which Barrett took part considered a request by police or corrections officers to be shielded from the lawsuits alleging excessive force through a controversial legal defence known as qualified immunity. The court granted those requests in four of the five cases.

A Reuters investigation published two weeks before George Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police found that the immunity defence, created by the Supreme Court 50 years ago, has been making it easier for cops to kill or injure civilians with impunity.

The report showed that federal appellate courts have been granting police immunity at increasing rates in recent years.

Barrett last year threw out a lawsuit by three Black men who sued Chicago cops for pulling them over while investigating a drive-by shooting near a school. The men, who had nothing to do with the shooting, said they were targeted because of their race, citing the “racialized nature of the mockery and threats” made by one of the officers. The driver, Marcus Torry, told the cops that he was complying because he feared police brutality.

Barrett granted the officers qualified immunity because it was not “clearly established” that the officers’ actions were unreasonable, noting that the plaintiffs matched the description of the suspects “in number, race and car colour.”

In other cases, she has shown a willingness to side with plaintiffs.

In 2019, she wrote a ruling rejecting immunity for a police officer who used false statements in making the case against a murder suspect. She also joined a ruling denying immunity for officers who were accused of falsifying evidence that caused a man to be jailed for two years.

German police have tweeted that a 600-person “fetish party” that they broke up probably ended “unsatisfactorily” for the attendees, after cops said it was “time to go home.”

Alte Münze, a converted performance venue and club, hosted the party as an open-air event in the Mitte district, a borough of Berlin. Attendees purchased tickets in advance for the gig, which   allowed for a maximum of 250 people.

Police, though, shut the party down, saying that it had reached 600 attendees, many of whom were — ironically enough — not wearing masks or following COVID-19 distancing precautions.

Für ca. 600 Gäste einer Fetisch-Party in #Mitte endete diese vermutlich unbefriedigend.
Wir lösten die Feier in Amtshilfe für das @BA_Mitte_Berlin auf. Die Kolleg. der @bpol_bepo machten anschließend nochmal deutlich, dass es Zeit ist nach Hause zu gehen.#GemeinsamGegenCovid19 pic.twitter.com/sGwzHFN3L3

— Polizei Berlin Einsatz (@PolizeiBerlin_E) October 24, 2020

Alte Münze posted a statement on its site condemning the police response, arguing that the party had stayed well below the 5,000 person government-mandated maximum for outdoor events.

“It was always our top priority while planning to be compliant with the current guidelines to contain the coronavirus,” the statement read.

The statement also criticized the language in the tweet from the Berlin police, saying:

“The event served as a meeting point for the community. We find it reprehensible to declare this a ‘fetish party.”

Germany is currently caught in the midst of a rising second wave of COVID-19. On Sunday, the country registered more than 10,000 new cases for the fourth day in a row, bringing the total to 430,000 cases since the pandemic began.

• Rob Breakenridge: As Alberta's COVID cases rise, Jason Kenney's keep calm and carry on advice is not much of a public health strategy
• Chris Selley: Patty Hajdu should've been fired even before she was caught not wearing a mask

COVID-19 restrictions in Berlin include an 11 p.m. curfew on pubs and restaurants and a limit of 10 people for gatherings in public areas.

“We must call especially on young people to do without a few parties now in order to have a good life tomorrow or the day after,” said German Chancellor Angela Merkel in a statement on Oct. 14.

The popular Germany Christmas markets — as many as 2500 across the country — are also being shut down in anticipation of the spread of COVID-19. Frankfurt became the latest city to announce the cancellation of its market. The city joins Berlin, which already announced the cancellation of its famous Christmas market at Gendarmenmarkt.