Nova Scotia election: Liberals say province’s immigration levels are too high

SURREY, B.C. – Election officials filed into an industrial building in Surrey, B.C., to begin a judicial recount for the most narrowly won riding in British Columbia’s election, starting with 28 extra ballots found to have gone unreported days after the vote.

The recount will decide if the NDP’s one-seat majority stands, after it claimed victory in Surrey-Guildford with a margin of 27 votes over the B.C. Conservatives, giving Premier David Eby’s party 47 seats in the legislature.

Jill Lawrance, executive director of electoral operations at Elections BC, told reporters officials would be counting 19,090 ballots in the judicial recount, which includes more 1,600 votes that were cast outside of the riding.

She says the recount — which is being done by 10 teams of two counters and two scrutineers — is expected to roll into Friday, and begins by examining envelopes that contain the 28 ballots that Elections BC said were unreported because of a data-entry mistake.

A makeshift courtroom was constructed using wooden desks and grey room dividers where Supreme Court Justice Kevin Loo called the session into order this morning, before addressing workers and the hand-count began.

The teams of counters, who lined tables along the perimeter of the warehouse, were paired with scrutineers from the New Democrats and the B.C. Conservatives and could be seen holding ballots in the air and agreeing on each vote.

Lawrance said teams “make their best assessment of the intent of the voter.”

“If scrutineers raise an objection, both parties come to the table and if they agree on the vote, the judge has indicated he doesn’t need to see it,” Lawrance explained Thursday.

“But if there’s a disagreement about who that vote should count for, that ballot will be brought to the judge, he will look at the ballot, hear arguments from both sides and determine who the vote should count for.”

Eby said in a statement Wednesday that the judicial recounts will ensure every vote is counted. After those recounts, he said B.C. residents want to see “urgent action” on priorities including affordability and housing, health care, and building a strong economy.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 7, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

QUEBEC – The Quebec government says it wants every Quebecer to have access to a health professional by the summer of 2026 — just before the next provincial election.

Health Minister Christian Dubé made the announcement in Quebec City on Thursday, as part of his effort to improve Quebecers’ access to health care.

Quebec Premier François Legault campaigned in 2018 on a promise that all Quebecers would have access to a family doctor, but the government later conceded that wouldn’t be possible and is now focused on access to a broader range of health professionals, such as nurse practitioners.

The proportion of Quebecers with access to a family doctor dropped from 82 per cent in 2019 to 73 per cent in 2023, according to the province’s statistics agency.

Dubé says improving Quebec’s health-care system has proved to be harder than he thought it would be when he took on the file in 2020.

The minister announced Sunday that he plans to table legislation that would require new doctors trained in Quebec to practise in the province’s public system for a certain number of years after graduation.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 7, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — The Australian government announced on Thursday what it described as world-leading legislation that would institute an age limit of 16 years for children to start using social media, and hold platforms responsible for ensuring compliance.

“Social media is doing harm to our kids and I’m calling time on it,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said.

The legislation will be introduced in Parliament during its final two weeks in session this year, which begin on Nov. 18. The age limit would take effect 12 months after the law is passed, Albanese told reporters.

The platforms including X, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook would need to use that year to work out how to exclude Australian children younger than 16.

“I’ve spoken to thousands of parents, grandparents, aunties and uncles. They, like me, are worried sick about the safety of our kids online,” Albanese said.

The proposal comes as governments around the world are wrestling with how to supervise young people’s use of technologies like smartphones and social media.

Social media platforms would be penalized for breaching the age limit, but under-age children and their parents would not.

“The onus will be on social media platforms to demonstrate they are taking reasonable steps to prevent access. The onus won’t be on parents or young people,” Albanese said.

Antigone Davis, head of safety at Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, said the company would respect any age limitations the government wants to introduce.

“However, what’s missing is a deeper discussion on how we implement protections, otherwise we risk making ourselves feel better, like we have taken action, but teens and parents will not find themselves in a better place,” Davis said in a statement.

She added that stronger tools in app stores and operating systems for parents to control what apps their children can use would be a “simple and effective solution.”

X did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday. TikTok declined to comment.

The Digital Industry Group Inc., an advocate for the digital industry in Australia, described the age limit as a “20th Century response to 21st Century challenges.”

“Rather than blocking access through bans, we need to take a balanced approach to create age-appropriate spaces, build digital literacy and protect young people from online harm,” DIGI managing director Sunita Bose said in a statement.

More than 140 Australian and international academics with expertise in fields related to technology and child welfare signed an open letter to Albanese last month opposing a social media age limit as “too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively.”

Jackie Hallan, a director at the youth mental health service ReachOut, opposed the ban. She said 73% of young people across Australia accessing mental health support did so through social media.

“We’re uncomfortable with the ban. We think young people are likely to circumvent a ban and our concern is that it really drives the behavior underground and then if things go wrong, young people are less likely to get support from parents and carers because they’re worried about getting in trouble,” Hallan said.

Child psychologist Philip Tam said a minimum age of 12 or 13 would have been more enforceable.

“My real fear honestly is that the problem of social media will simply be driven underground,” Tam said.

Australian National University lawyer Associate Prof. Faith Gordon feared separating children from there platforms could create pressures within families.

Albanese said there would be exclusions and exemptions in circumstances such as a need to continue access to educational services.

But parental consent would not entitle a child under 16 to access social media.

Earlier this year, the government began a trial of age-restriciton technologies. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, the online watchdog that will police compliance, will use the results of that trial to provide platforms with guidance on what reasonable steps they can take.

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said the year-long lead-in would ensure the age limit could be implemented in a “very practical way.”

“There does need to be enhanced penalties to ensure compliance,” Rowland said.

“Every company that operates in Australia, whether domiciled here or otherwise, is expected and must comply with Australian law or face the consequences,” she added.

The main opposition party has given in-principle support for an age limit at 16.

Opposition lawmaker Paul Fletcher said the platforms already had the technology to enforce such an age ban.

“It’s not really a technical viability question, it’s a question of their readiness to do it and will they incur the cost to do it,” Fletcher told Australian Broadcasting Corp.

“The platforms say: ’It’s all too hard, we can’t do it, Australia will become a backwater, it won’t possibly work.’ But if you have well-drafted legislation and you stick to your guns, you can get the outcomes,” Fletcher added.