Canada's brief spring of pandemic-imposed political harmony seems to be winding down - CBC.ca | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Politics

Canada's brief spring of pandemic-imposed political harmony seems to be winding down – CBC.ca

Published

 on


An international polling firm recently asked citizens of each of the G7 countries to identify their most reliable source of information about the novel coronavirus outbreak. In France, Germany, Italy and Japan, the top choice was “TV news,” while the largest number of Americans chose their doctors and health care providers.

In Canada, a plurality — 30 per cent — said their most trusted source was “government/politicians,” a figure rivalled only by the 28 per cent of British citizens who said the same about their political leaders. In the United States, just 10 per cent identified government and politicians as their preferred source of information.

Whatever goodwill Canadian officials have won over the last two months could become all the more valuable now as the country moves into a new phase of the crisis. But that trust and unity also might become much harder for governments to maintain — particularly if we’re already seeing the start of the first real political divisions of the pandemic.

The recent uptick in support and approval for elected leaders doesn’t necessarily mark a reversal of the long-term trend toward declining levels of trust in Western societies. “When we’re anxious,” one American political scientist said recently, “we need to put our trust in someone to protect us.”

How governments earn trust

But it does at least suggest we’re still capable of trusting political leaders. And there are also probably some good reasons for this warming trend in public trust.

Non-partisan health officials — people with real expertise — have been put front and centre by Canadian governments to explain what is happening and what needs to be done. Federal and provincial political leaders have repeated consistent messages that echo the experts’ advice. Citizens have been asked to make significant sacrifices, but governments have cushioned that hardship with extra support that has, for the most part, been delivered expeditiously.

Each of those pieces reinforces the other to build trust and hold things together. A sense of common cause — “stronger together” — might one day be remembered as the defining feeling of the first two months of the pandemic in Canada.

But what if shutting down most of the economy and largely confining people to their homes was the easy part?

How safe do you feel, Canada?

Maintaining public trust will be even more vital now. Though the premiers and the federal government have started to lay out plans and principles for “reopening” society, the resumption of economic activity is going to depend on people feeling it’s safe enough to go into stores, restaurants and schools.

As British Columbia Premier John Horgan pointed out this week, “all of the businesses that have been shuttered could open tomorrow and if the public, the consuming public, is not confident in their personal well-being, they’re not going to enter those establishments.”

To that end, the Ontario government has released a series of new guidelines for businesses and has promised that provincial inspectors will enforce those standards.

“Today is a glimmer of hope,” said Ontario Premier Doug Ford, and he’s “optimistic” that in the near future more businesses will be able to open up safely. 0:52

Still, the potential for new outbreaks remains; federal modelling continues to assume that there will be periodic bumps in the infection rate throughout the fall and winter. Enhanced testing and contact tracing may limit the impact of those outbreaks, but Alberta Premier Jason Kenney said this week that his province’s plan will be subject to change and, in some cases, restrictions may have to be re-imposed.

We’re sharing the costs — but not the risks

While provinces aligned their approaches to shutting down schools and businesses fairly quickly, there is a risk now that provincial approaches could start to diverge — as exemplified by Quebec’s relatively aggressive plan to reopen schools in May.

Just as the virus has exposed vulnerabilities in the health care system, particularly for elderly Canadians in long-term care centres, the reopening could also expose inequalities in work and life — between those who have access to child care and those who don’t, those who can afford to stay home and those who can’t, and those whose jobs put them at greater risk and those who are relatively safe. Already, there have been serious outbreaks in a meat processing plant in Alberta and among migrant workers at a farm in Ontario.

A masked staffer works a Walmart checkout line. The pandemic’s effects are being worsened by economic inequality, since many Canadians can’t afford to stay away from jobs that put them at risk of infection. (Bobby Hristova/CBC)

“I think there will be an emerging divide between people who can choose when and how much to change their social distancing and those who can’t,” said Jennifer Robson, a professor and policy analyst at Carleton university and one of a number of academics to be consulted by the federal government.

Political tensions start to rise

There’s also a political split opening up over the possibility that government aid to the unemployed might be discouraging people from returning to work.

Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister said this week that his province is “fighting against a federal program that is actually paying people to stay out of the workforce right now” — an apparent reference to the federal supports that provide up to $2,000 per month to those who are out of work because of COVID-19.

In fact, for most Canadians, the most powerful incentive to stay home probably will continue to be a highly contagious and deadly virus. But if a significant number of businesses aren’t able to find people willing to work, the role and design of government aid could become a significant point of contention.

The tools that have served governments well so far — transparency, regular updates, readily available financial supports and actions based on an abundance of caution — might continue to be useful in the weeks ahead. Opinion polling also suggests that Canadians are in no great rush to reopen the economy.

But the longer this virus is with us, the more things will emerge with the potential to grind away at public trust and break things apart.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Politics

Trump is consistently inconsistent on abortion and reproductive rights

Published

 on

 

CHICAGO (AP) — Donald Trump has had a tough time finding a consistent message to questions about abortion and reproductive rights.

The former president has constantly shifted his stances or offered vague, contradictory and at times nonsensical answers to questions on an issue that has become a major vulnerability for Republicans in this year’s election. Trump has been trying to win over voters, especially women, skeptical about his views, especially after he nominated three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn the nationwide right to abortion two years ago.

The latest example came this week when the Republican presidential nominee said some abortion laws are “too tough” and would be “redone.”

“It’s going to be redone,” he said during a Fox News town hall that aired Wednesday. “They’re going to, you’re going to, you end up with a vote of the people. They’re too tough, too tough. And those are going to be redone because already there’s a movement in those states.”

Trump did not specify if he meant he would take some kind of action if he wins in November, and he did not say which states or laws he was talking about. He did not elaborate on what he meant by “redone.”

He also seemed to be contradicting his own stand when referencing the strict abortion bans passed in Republican-controlled states since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Trump recently said he would vote against a constitutional amendment on the Florida ballot that is aimed at overturning the state’s six-week abortion ban. That decision came after he had criticized the law as too harsh.

Trump has shifted between boasting about nominating the justices who helped strike down federal protections for abortion and trying to appear more neutral. It’s been an attempt to thread the divide between his base of anti-abortion supporters and the majority of Americans who support abortion rights.

About 6 in 10 Americans think their state should generally allow a person to obtain a legal abortion if they don’t want to be pregnant for any reason, according to a July poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Voters in seven states, including some conservative ones, have either protected abortion rights or defeated attempts to restrict them in statewide votes over the past two years.

Trump also has been repeating the narrative that he returned the question of abortion rights to states, even though voters do not have a direct say on that or any other issue in about half the states. This is particularly true for those living in the South, where Republican-controlled legislatures, many of which have been gerrymandered to give the GOP disproportionate power, have enacted some of the strictest abortion bans since Roe v. Wade was overturned.

Currently, 13 states have banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy, while four more ban it after six weeks — before many women know they’re pregnant.

Meanwhile, anti-abortion groups and their Republican allies in state governments are using an array of strategies to counter proposed ballot initiatives in at least eight states this year.

Here’s a breakdown of Trump’s fluctuating stances on reproductive rights.

Flip-flopping on Florida

On Tuesday, Trump claimed some abortion laws are “too tough” and would be “redone.”

But in August, Trump said he would vote against a state ballot measure that is attempting to repeal the six-week abortion ban passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

That came a day after he seemed to indicate he would vote in favor of the measure. Trump previously called Florida’s six-week ban a “terrible mistake” and too extreme. In an April Time magazine interview, Trump repeated that he “thought six weeks is too severe.”

Trump on vetoing a national ban

Trump’s latest flip-flopping has involved his views on a national abortion ban.

During the Oct. 1 vice presidential debate, Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social that he would veto a national abortion ban: “Everyone knows I would not support a federal abortion ban, under any circumstances, and would, in fact, veto it.”

This came just weeks after Trump repeatedly declined to say during the presidential debate with Democrat Kamala Harris whether he would veto a national abortion ban if he were elected.

Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, said in an interview with NBC News before the presidential debate that Trump would veto a ban. In response to debate moderators prompting him about Vance’s statement, Trump said: “I didn’t discuss it with JD, in all fairness. And I don’t mind if he has a certain view, but I don’t think he was speaking for me.”

‘Pro-choice’ to 15-week ban

Trump’s shifting abortion policy stances began when the former reality TV star and developer started flirting with running for office.

He once called himself “very pro-choice.” But before becoming president, Trump said he “would indeed support a ban,” according to his book “The America We Deserve,” which was published in 2000.

In his first year as president, he said he was “pro-life with exceptions” but also said “there has to be some form of punishment” for women seeking abortions — a position he quickly reversed.

At the 2018 annual March for Life, Trump voiced support for a federal ban on abortion on or after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

More recently, Trump suggested in March that he might support a national ban on abortions around 15 weeks before announcing that he instead would leave the matter to the states.

Views on abortion pills, prosecuting women

In the Time interview, Trump said it should be left up to the states to decide whether to prosecute women for abortions or to monitor women’s pregnancies.

“The states are going to make that decision,” Trump said. “The states are going to have to be comfortable or uncomfortable, not me.”

Democrats have seized on the comments he made in 2016, saying “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions.

Trump also declined to comment on access to the abortion pill mifepristone, claiming that he has “pretty strong views” on the matter. He said he would make a statement on the issue, but it never came.

Trump responded similarly when asked about his views on the Comstock Act, a 19th century law that has been revived by anti-abortion groups seeking to block the mailing of mifepristone.

IVF and contraception

In May, Trump said during an interview with a Pittsburgh television station that he was open to supporting regulations on contraception and that his campaign would release a policy on the issue “very shortly.” He later said his comments were misinterpreted.

In the KDKA interview, Trump was asked, “Do you support any restrictions on a person’s right to contraception?”

“We’re looking at that and I’m going to have a policy on that very shortly,” Trump responded.

Trump has not since released a policy statement on contraception.

Trump also has offered contradictory statements on in vitro fertilization.

During the Fox News town hall, which was taped Tuesday, Trump declared that he is “the father of IVF,” despite acknowledging during his answer that he needed an explanation of IVF in February after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law.

Trump said he instructed Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., to “explain IVF very quickly” to him in the aftermath of the ruling.

As concerns over access to fertility treatments rose, Trump pledged to promote IVF by requiring health insurance companies or the federal government to pay for it. Such a move would be at odds with the actions of much of his own party.

Even as the Republican Party has tried to create a national narrative that it is receptive to IVF, these messaging efforts have been undercut by GOP state lawmakers, Republican-dominated courts and anti-abortion leaders within the party’s ranks, as well as opposition to legislative attempts to protect IVF access.

___

The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Saskatchewan Party’s Scott Moe, NDP’s Carla Beck react to debate |

Published

 on

 

Saskatchewan‘s two main political party leaders faced off in the only televised debate in the lead up to the provincial election on Oct. 28. Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe and NDP Leader Carla Beck say voters got a chance to see their platforms. (Oct. 17, 2024)

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Saskatchewan political leaders back on campaign trail after election debate

Published

 on

 

REGINA – Saskatchewan‘s main political leaders are back on the campaign trail today after hammering each other in a televised debate.

Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe is set to make an announcement in Moose Jaw.

Saskatchewan NDP Leader Carla Beck is to make stops in Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert.

During Wednesday night’s debate, Beck emphasized her plan to make life more affordable and said people deserve better than an out-of-touch Saskatchewan Party government.

Moe said his party wants to lower taxes and put money back into people’s pockets.

Election day is Oct. 28.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 17, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version