adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

Borders, Politics and the First National Parks in South America – NC State News

Published

3 years ago

 on


Giant waterfalls, colonial ambitions, government schemes that do the opposite of what was intended, and an encrypted World War 2 document from the secret police: for a historian, South American politics and environmental conservation are fertile ground.

Intrigued? We were too. That’s why we took the opportunity to talk with Frederico Freitas about his new book, “Nationalizing Nature: Iguazu Falls and National Parks at the Brazil-Argentina Border.” Freitas is an assistant professor of digital and Latin American history at NC State. (And if you want to hear about the encrypted document, you’ll have to read our interview – it didn’t make it into the book.)

The Abstract: Your book examines the various roles that national parks have played along the border of Brazil and Argentina, starting with when they were established in the 1930s. What drew you to this subject?

300x250x1

Frederico Freitas: I was in my second year in the Ph.D. program in Latin American history at Stanford University, and I needed to define a topic. I applied to Stanford to do research on environmental history, and I knew I wanted to do something related to the history of deforestation in Brazil. (I am from Brazil originally.)

Brazil is huge, larger than the contiguous United States. So, to define my topic, I had to first find a specific area within the country and a time period. In this brainstorming process, I recalled a trip I made while touring with a punk rock band in South America in the early 2000s. At some point on that trip I had to cross the border, entering Brazil from Argentina. I remember being struck by the sharp contrast between the two sides of this border. The Argentine side was still totally covered by forests. But when I entered Brazil, the only thing I saw was croplands. It dawned on me that a border area would be a great place to understand the process of deforestation in Brazil in the 20th century.

That border region, which is known locally as the “Triple Frontier,” was even more interesting because it harbored a third country sharing international boundaries with Brazil and Argentine, Paraguay. So, I set myself up to write an environmental history of this tri-border area.

Before the 20th century, the entire region was covered with subtropical forests. There was little difference between the various sides of this borderland. Jump to 1960, and you see the landscape at the Brazilian side of the border already converted into farms and cities. Argentina and Paraguay, however, were still covered by forests (although in Argentina, some of these forests were planted for industrial uses). Jump again to the present. The Paraguayan side of the border has followed Brazil’s path and is mostly taken up by crop production. Argentina, however, is still relatively forested. These various stages of land cover change across both time and different sides of the border seemed an ideal case study to understand and compare the process of deforestation in these three countries.

However, as I started doing preliminary research on this project, I noticed these enormous patches of forest that seemed impervious to the changes happening outside them – logging, deforestation and conversion to agriculture. These forested patches were the Iguazú National Park in Argentina and the Iguaçu National Park in Brazil, two of the oldest national parks in Latin America (created between 1934 and 1939). They are known for harboring the world-famous Iguazu Falls. But they extend inland far beyond the falls, a fact that is not known by the majority of the millions of tourists who visit the falls every year. How did these parks manage to preserve the forest? Latin America is full of examples of protected areas where the protections are never actually implemented.

I was intrigued.

I decided to shift my focus to the parks themselves. They would offer me a clear narrative thread from which I could analyze changes at the borderland and the evolution of territorial and conservation policies in these two countries.

TA: And what made you decide this was something you wanted to pour yourself into for a years-long book project?

Freitas: I did not have much of a choice. Years-long book projects based on extensive archival research is the standard form of producing knowledge in academic history. Historians prize deeply researched long-form monographs that take years to complete. That does not mean historians do not produce short articles. They do. But the book form is the gold standard for delivering research within the discipline. It is different from other fields, economics or political science for example, where it makes sense to publish in articles research that speaks directly to the order of the day. Historians provide new insight on what already happened, and the past is not going anywhere. So we have time to dive deeper into specific topics.

TA: History often gives us powerful insights into the present. What makes the history of these parks so timely today?

Freitas: The history of these parks is so timely because it offers parallels to things happening right now. Just to give Brazil as an example, in recent years, the international community has witnessed the alarming growth of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon and the Bolsonaro administration’s refusal to do anything about it.

In 2019, for example, ranchers set several protected areas in the Amazon ablaze in a coordinated effort to undermine the country’s environmental protection system. The recent history of the Brazilian Amazon is marked by the advance of the settlement frontier and the attempts by different Brazilian administrations to curb such advances by creating protected areas and indigenous lands.

The national parks in my book are not in the Amazon rainforest – they were established far away in the south, at the border between Brazil and Argentina. But the region where they are located experienced a similar process of frontier expansion, deforestation and conversion to agriculture in the 1950s and 1960s. And yet the parks there, which were created before the arrival of most settlers to the region, managed to withstand these changes. They left this border area with enduring patches of subtropical forests. In an era of climate change, these densely forested preserves are increasingly crucial as carbon sinks. Thus, I believe that understanding the Iguazú and Iguaçu parks’ history can give us insight into the present – and future – of other forested areas in Latin America. One of the main insights is that, at least in Brazil and Argentina, the state was capable of enforcing the laws that established these parks as protected areas when it invested resources to do so.

TA: What were Brazil and Argentina trying to accomplish when they created these parks in the 1930s?

Freitas: This is where things get interesting when you look at the past – a lot of time, you find people were doing things for surprising reasons.

When you study the history of national parks in the United States, the country that created the first national parks, you see a story of parks being created to preserve wilderness for the public and future generations. The United States established its first national parks in the West in the late 19th century. One of the new parks’ justifications was to prevent settlement in desired landscapes such as the Yellowstone Caldera or the Yosemite Valley. Things were quite different at the Brazil-Argentina border in the 1930s.

In this area, the two countries shared a geological feature they wanted to preserve, the majestic Iguazu Falls, located right at the two countries’ border. But each country also wanted to promote the settlement of their side of the border. The area was still sparsely populated and covered with forests in the 1930s when the parks were created. Each country feared that an influx of immigrants from across the border could threaten their hold of this frontier area. So they adopted a policy of using the national parks to promote colonization with their own citizens on their sides. In a way, Brazil and Argentina used parks to do the opposite of what the United States had done with its parks. They used parks to attract settlers from their densely populated Atlantic seaboards to populate these sparsely inhabited borderlands. Argentina and Brazil pioneered national parks as tools of frontier development and border control. Brazil already had a colony it had founded in the late 19th century close to where it would establish its park, the town of Foz do Iguaçu. So Brazilian authorities funneled national park funds into a series of infrastructure works that had nothing to do with conservation and tourism, but that would attract settlers. They built highways, airports, hospitals, power plants. Argentina was even more radical in its approach, reserving a section inside its national park to create a town for settlers. The Argentina national park service would end up selling plots of land to incoming settlers inside its park, a policy repeated in other border parks throughout the country.

TA: But by the 1970s, military regimes in both countries were effectively waging war on settlers in those parklands. Why was that? What happened between the 1930s and the 1970s?

Freitas: During this period, four things happened that helped to turn the tide against the settlers who were living inside parklands. First, there is a generational change inside the national park agencies in both Brazil and Argentina. This new generation of government officials opposed the idea of having people living inside national parks. The second change is the formation of an international consensus about what constituted a national park. In the 1950s and 1960s, conservationists and organizations such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) started promoting a narrow definition of national parks. This new definition included the notion that people should not live inside these protected areas. Such an idea impacted Latin America, particularly Argentina. The country decided to remove settlers from its parks and retrace park boundaries to separate the towns and farms it had established from their protected areas.

Another change was in the status of the borderland itself, which was more relevant to Brazil. In the 1960s and 1970s, much of the area outside the Iguaçu National Park in Brazil had been settled by farmers from other parts of the country. Government officials no longer feared losing control of the borderland in case of an influx of immigrants from neighboring countries. Finally, the political context provided park authorities with the tools to swiftly remove settlers from the parks. Brazil and Argentina spent most of the 1960s and 1970s under the rule of military dictatorships. The national parks agencies used authoritarian tools established during these years – from legislation for the relocation of people to extra-judicial intimidation methods – to remove settlers from the two parks. By 1980, the two border parks had, together, removed about 6,000 settlers from their territories.

TA: Your work draws, in part, on remote sensing research to shed light on changes in the landscape of these parks – and what drove those landscape changes. What did your research uncover?

Freitas: The remote sensing study focuses on the Brazilian national park, the larger of the two parks. It is based on aerial imagery produced by the local state government in the 1950s and 1980s, plus historical satellite imagery generated by the Corona program, a series of U.S. spy satellites launched in the 1960s. The remote sensing study helped me to understand a series of essential processes.

The first is the timeline of settler occupation inside the Brazilian park. Unlike Argentina, Brazil never officially allowed settlers inside their parks. Still, for a series of reasons that I discuss at length in the book, settlers ended up occupying the park anyway. The remote sensing study helped me understand that settlers entered the park mostly between the late 1950s and late 1960s, decades after the park was established. It also showed that the process of settler removal that started in 1970 had, in fact, actually attracted more settlers to the national park. Specifically, when the news of possible compensation from the government spread in the communities outside the Brazilian park, some people decided to squat on parklands in hopes of being expelled and claiming such benefits.

I also used remote sensing to measure the area affected by settlements inside the park. I calculated how much forest had been regrown inside the national park since the settlers’ removal in the 1970s. Finally, remote sensing allowed me to understand changes outside the Brazilian park and the pace of deforestation in the region. I saw that the area outside the park reached the apex of deforestation in the 1980s. Since then, there has been an increase in reforested patches inside farms due to greater enforcement of conservation laws in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

TA: After spending so long working on this project, are there any key themes or ideas that really stuck with you from the work?

Freitas: One of the main themes in my research is the importance of nationalism and geopolitics in the making of these two parks. When park boosters in Brazil and Argentina started lobbying to create these two parks before the 1930s, their goal was to beat the neighboring country in being the first to establish a national park on their side of the border. Each side wanted a national park to claim their share of the binational Iguazu Falls. This attitude, where park authorities in the two countries saw the parks as the last line of defense against their international neighbor, continued in different ways, all the way to the present. Such geopolitical reasoning justified the use of the parks as tools for frontier colonization by the two countries. This mentality was also present in the 1970s, when Argentina and Brazil’s military dictatorships suppressed resistance to settler removal. The military framed its actions as a matter of national security due to the parks’ location at a sensitive international border.

TA: One last question. When historians work on book projects, they pore through hundreds of sources – letters, diaries, reports, news stories, etc. – and find all sorts of wonderful facts that don’t necessarily fit into the book. What’s the most bizarre, interesting or humorous fact that you uncovered that didn’t make its way into the book?

Freitas: One of the most interesting anecdotes that is not in the book comes from a document that I got from the secret police archives in Brazil. It was a 1943 cable received by the local secret police office at the border. The document seemed promising, but there was a problem: the text was encrypted. It struck me that it was one of the few encrypted documents I ever found in this archive. The document was in a folder with other cables that talked about Nazi infiltration from Argentina. I thought breaking its code would uncover some unheard conspiracy about Nazis in South America at the height of WWII.

When the cable was sent, Brazil had sided with the Allies and declared war against Germany. Argentina, on the other hand, was officially neutral but close to the Axis. I have no training in cryptography and had no idea how to break the code, so I did the most obvious thing: I asked the internet to do that for me. I posted the cable on Twitter, asking if anyone could help me with that encrypted message. A month later, a random anonymous user whom I had never met before managed to decrypt it. Unfortunately, the cable revealed to be rather banal – it was an inquiry on whether the local customs had apprehended contraband coffee crossing the border to Argentina.

Editor’s Note: If you’d like to learn more about “Nationalizing Nature,” Freitas has written about it for the Cambridge University Press blog and on his own site. He has also made interactive maps related to his remote sensing research.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Politics

Politics Briefing: Premiers warn Ottawa against 'overreaching' and setting conditions on funding – The Globe and Mail

Published

30 mins ago

 on

April 20, 2024

By


Hello,

Canada’s premiers and territorial leaders are pressing the federal government to refrain from overreaching into provincial and territorial jurisdictions, particularly in such areas as housing, health care and education.

“Every government should have the right to receive ongoing financial compensation representing their fair share. This includes provinces and territories that reserve the right to require unconditional federal funding,” Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston, chair of the Council of the Federation, wrote in a letter today.

300x250x1

Houston, speaking for the premiers and territorial leaders, warned the federal government against “overreaching into provincial and territorial jurisdiction.”

The premiers’ letter, available here, said this week’s federal budget provided an opportunity to promote affordability, increase productivity and invest in economic growth for Canada.

“However, to fully deliver for Canadians we must return to a cooperative approach, where governments work together so that the unique needs and priorities of Canadians are respected and responded to in the most efficient way possible.”

The letter comes as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government have launched a housing program with billions of dollars available to provinces or municipalities ready to work with Ottawa, but conditions are attached.

In Victoria, Trudeau responded to the letter, defending federal action on issues of concern to Canadians

“I’d always rather work with provinces, but if we have to, I will go around them and be there for Canadians,” Trudeau told a news conference.

“I am unabashed about saying I am ambitious to solve problems for Canadians right across the country.”

Houston said the federal budget was announced after provinces and territories had released their respective budgets, with initiatives that will impact their spending plans.

“There was limited and inconsistent outreach from the federal government in advance to ensure priorities and objectives of [provinces and territories] were considered,” said the letter.

“Premiers are concerned that new federal programs, created without long-term funding commitments, will eventually be downloaded on provinces and territories, increasing the financial burdens borne by their taxpayers.”

This is the daily Politics Briefing newsletter, written by Ian Bailey. It is available exclusively to our digital subscribers. If you’re reading this on the web, subscribers can sign up for the Politics newsletter and more than 20 others on our newsletter signup page. Have any feedback? Let us know what you think.

TODAY’S HEADLINES

Quebec follows Ottawa and raises amount of capital gains subject to tax: Ottawa announced increases in its budget Tuesday, and Quebec now says it will tax two-thirds rather than one-half of capital gains, which are profits made on the sale of assets. Story here.

Ottawa to force banks to identify carbon rebate by name in direct deposits: Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault says Canadian banks that refuse to identify the carbon rebate by name when doing direct deposits are forcing the government to change the law to make them do it.

New Brunswick man kidnapped in Congo, held for more than four months: Premier Blaine Higgs has sent a letter to Minister of Foreign Affairs Mélanie Joly urging Ottawa to redouble its efforts on behalf of Fredrick (Freddy) Wangabo Mwenengabo, a Canadian citizen born in Congo, who was kidnapped in the eastern city of Goma in December.

Dominic LeBlanc says he supports PM, but doesn’t deny report on organizing leadership bid: LeBlanc is a lifelong friend of Justin Trudeau. On Wednesday, The Globe and Mail reported that he held a meeting with a former Liberal cabinet minister to lay the groundwork for a leadership campaign should Mr. Trudeau step down. Story here.

‘To us, that border doesn’t exist’: Alaska Indigenous groups want a say in B.C. mining projects they fear could hurt their livelihoods. A border stands in the way – but they hope a Canadian court ruling strengthens the case for ignoring it.

Chinese ambassador ends his posting in Canada: Cong Peiwu, Beijing’s envoy to Ottawa since 2019 – through much of the strained ties between China and Canada – has informed the Department of Global Affairs and other diplomatic missions in the capital that he’s heading home, sources say.

Federal Addictions Minister to meet with B.C. counterpart as backlash continues on decriminalization: A statement from the office of Ya’ara Saks, the federal Minister for Mental Health and Addictions, said she would be meeting with B.C.’s Jennifer Whiteside next week to discuss fallout from the province’s drug policies, including decriminalization and safer supply. Story here.

Poilievre won’t commit to keeping new social programs like pharmacare: CBC reports that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is depicting the government’s latest budget as a threat to the country’s future, and suggesting a number of new social programs will get a second look if he leads the next government.

TODAY’S POLITICAL QUOTES

“I really believe in capitalist democracy. I have lived in other systems actually and they’re pretty awful.” – Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, in Toronto, today at a news conference in a lab.

“Limp, wet and utterly useless, paper straws and Liberal governments are not worth the cost.” – Conservative MP Corey Tochor during Question Period today.

“That’s the price of Pierre” – NDP MP Peter Julian, in a statement today, referring to the implications of federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s policies on pharmacare, dental care and support for corporations.

THIS AND THAT

Today in the Commons: Projected Order of Business at the House of Commons, April. 19, accessible here.

Deputy Prime Minister’s Day: Private meetings in Toronto, and Chrystia Freeland toured a research lab and discussed her budget’s impact on research labs.

Ministers on the Road: Members of the federal cabinet are out across Canada, holding events to emphasize aspects of the federal budget, including research funding. Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Gary Anandasangaree, International Development Minister Ahmed Hussen and Filomena Tassi, Minister for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, are in Hamilton. Employment Minister Randy Boissonnault, is in Saskatoon, with Labour Minister Seamus O’Regan. Health Minister Mark Holland is in the Ontario city of Waterloo, hosting an event at the University of Waterloo. Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay highlighted student-research investments at the University of Prince Edward Island’s Canadian Centre for Climate Change and Adaptation in St. Peter’s Bay. Mental Health Minister Ya’ara Saks hosted an event at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg. Justice Minister Minister Arif Virani made a research funding announcement at the University of Calgary.

Meanwhile, Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly, on the Italian island of Capri, attended the final day of the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting.

In Ottawa: Governor-General Mary Simon participated in the unveiling of a heraldic badge granted to the Rainbow Veterans of Canada by the Canadian Heraldic Authority.

Commons Committee Highlights: Heather Jeffrey, president of the Public Health Agency of Canada, and Stephen Lucas, deputy health minister, were scheduled to appear before the afternoon special committee on the Canada-China relationship.

New member of intelligence committee: Darren Fisher, a Liberal MP from Nova Scotia, has been appointed to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, says the Office of the Prime Minister. The committee, created in 2017, includes MPs and Senators from various parties who review national-security and intelligence activities carried out by the government.

Unanimous consent: MPs have given unanimous consent to a motion on antisemitism advanced by Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, and, says a spokesperson for May, inspired by a May. 22 Globe and Mail editorial. The motion, given consent Thursday, read: “That the House unequivocally condemns antisemitism, and in particular rejects the idea that Jewish Canadians are responsible for the actions of the State of Israel.”

PRIME MINISTER’S DAY

Justin Trudeau, in Victoria, met with students to highlight federal budget measures, and made an announcement on budget measures related to Canadian research and education.

On Saturday, Trudeau was scheduled to meet at CFB Esquimalt Naval Base Headquarters with visiting Polish President Andrzej Duda, who is making stops in Vancouver, the Victoria area, and Edmonton through Monday.

LEADERS

Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre participated in a fundraising event in the Southern Ontario town of Milton.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May travelled to her B.C. riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands, and attended the Beacon Community Services Volunteer Long Service ceremony and luncheon.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, in Richmond, B.C., joined food-service workers outside Vancouver International Airport who have recently voted for strike action.

No schedule released for Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet.

THE DECIBEL

On today’s Decibel podcast, Bill Curry, The Globe’s deputy Ottawa bureau chief, discusses the ArriveCan app and what was learned from Kristian Firth’s appearance at the House of Commons. Firth was the first person in over a century held in contempt of Parliament and ordered to answer MPs’ questions. His company, GC Strategies, was awarded millions of dollars to help develop the app. The Decibel is here.

OPINION

Reconciliation: How to build up an Indigenous economy

“Investigations from both media and government into the ArriveCan app have laid bare much rot at the heart of the federal government’s procurement. There have been concerns about how costs can balloon out of control, or how middlemen can pocket millions of dollars for doing little work. Another troubling thread has been the apparent exploitation of a program meant to support Indigenous businesses.” – The Globe and Mail Editorial Board

The foreign interference inquiry features a parade of senior Liberals protesting too much

“We are partway through the mandate of the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions, a.k.a. the Foreign Interference Commission, which is to say we are all the way through the only part that matters. – Andrew Coyne.

Jewish students are being forced to weigh a new factor when choosing universities

“This time of year, Grade 12 students are making big decisions about what comes next. Parents’ Facebook feeds feature proud announcements about where their child will attend university in the fall. It’s lovely. But for Jewish parents, a new factor has entered into the mix: Where can we send our kids that will be safe?” –Marsha Lederman.

Danielle Smith’s Bill 18 is as cynical and nefarious as it gets

“Alberta Premier Danielle Smith must awaken each morning and think: what fresh havoc can I wreak today? What’s remarkable is that she continues to get away with just about ev–deologue on the loose, free to indulge her libertarian, Justin Trudeau-despising whims as she wishes. She gets away with it largely because conservative politicians in Alberta have trained the populace to despise Ottawa, too, or at least “liberal” Ottawa.” – Gary Mason.

Here’s what a ‘fairness for every generation’ budget would have actually included

“Canada’s “Fairness For Every Generation” budget was quite clearly designed to promote the perception of fairness, rather than its realization. It’s a marketing document, as federal budgets are, through which a government with a certain degree of gall can claim that “it would be irresponsible and unfair to pass on more debt to the next generations,” while also introducing $52.9-billion in new spending, with the cost to service the national debt ($54.1-billion) now surpassing health transfers to the provinces ($52.1-billion).” – Robyn Urback

Got a news tip that you’d like us to look into? E-mail us at tips@globeandmail.com. Need to share documents securely? Reach out via SecureDrop.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Iran news: Canada, G7 urge de-escalation after Israel strike – CTV News

Published

22 hours ago

 on

April 19, 2024

By


Canada called for “all parties” to de-escalate rising tensions in the Mideast following an apparent Israeli drone attack against Iran overnight.

G7 foreign ministers, including Canada’s, and the High Representative for the European Union released a public statement Friday morning. The statement condemned Iran’s “direct and unprecedented attack” on April 13, which saw Western allies intercept more than 100 bomb-carrying drones headed towards Israel, the G7 countries said.

Prior to the Iranian attack, a previous airstrike, widely blamed on Israel, destroyed Iran’s consulate in Syria, killing 12 people including two elite Iranian generals.

300x250x1

“I join my G7 colleagues in urging all parties to work to prevent further escalation,” wrote Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly in a post on X Friday.

More details to come.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Politics Briefing: Labour leader targets Poilievre, calls him 'anti-worker politician' – The Globe and Mail

Published

2 days ago

 on

April 18, 2024

By


Hello,

Pierre Poilievre is a fraud when it comes to empowering workers, says the president of Canada’s largest labour organization.

Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, targeted the federal Conservative Leader in a speech in Ottawa today as members of the labour movement met to develop a strategic approach to the next federal election, scheduled for October, 2025.

300x250x1

“Whatever he claims today, Mr. Poilievre has a consistent 20-year record as an anti-worker politician,” said Bruske, whose congress represents more than three million workers.

She rhetorically asked whether the former federal cabinet minister has ever walked a picket line, or supported laws to strengthen workers’ voices.

“Mr. Poilievre sure is fighting hard to get himself power, but he’s never fought for worker power,” she said.

“We must do everything in our power to expose Pierre Poilievre as the fraud that he is.”

The Conservative Leader, whose party is running ahead of its rivals in public-opinion polls, has declared himself a champion of “the common people,” and been courting the working class as he works to build support.

Mr. Poilievre’s office today pushed back on the arguments against him.

Sebastian Skamski, media-operations director, said Mr. Poilievre, unlike other federal leaders, is connecting with workers.

In a statement, Skamski said NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has sold out working Canadians by co-operating with the federal Liberal government, whose policies have created challenges for Canadian workers with punishing taxes and inflation.

“Pierre Poilievre is the one listening and speaking to workers on shop floors and in union halls from coast to coast to coast,” said Mr. Skamski.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mr. Singh are scheduled to speak to the gathering today. Mr. Poilievre was not invited to speak.

Asked during a post-speech news conference about the Conservative Leader’s absence, Bruske said the gathering is focused on worker issues, and Poilievre’s record as an MP and in government shows he has voted against rights, benefits and wage increases for workers.

“We want to make inroads with politicians that will consistently stand up for workers, and consistently engage with us,” she said.

This is the daily Politics Briefing newsletter, written by Ian Bailey. It is available exclusively to our digital subscribers. If you’re reading this on the web, subscribers can sign up for the Politics newsletter and more than 20 others on our newsletter signup page. Have any feedback? Let us know what you think.

TODAY’S HEADLINES

Pierre Poilievre’s top adviser not yet contacted in Lobbying Commissioner probe: The federal Lobbying Commissioner has yet to be in touch with Jenni Byrne as the watchdog probes allegations of inappropriate lobbying by staff working both in Byrne’s firm and a second one operating out of her office.

Métis groups will trudge on toward self-government as bill faces another setback: Métis organizations in Ontario and Alberta say they’ll stay on the path toward self-government, despite the uncertain future of a contentious bill meant to do just that.

Liberals buck global trend in ‘doubling down’ on foreign aid, as sector urges G7 push: The federal government pledged in its budget this week to increase humanitarian aid by $150-million in the current fiscal year and $200-million the following year.

Former B.C. finance minister running for the federal Conservatives: Mike de Jong says he will look to represent the Conservatives in Abbotsford-South Langley, which is being created out of part of the Abbotsford riding now held by departing Tory MP Ed Fast.

Ottawa’s new EV tax credit raises hope of big new Honda investment: The proposed measure would provide companies with a 10-per-cent rebate on the costs of constructing new buildings to be used in the electric-vehicle supply chain. Story here.

Sophie Grégoire Trudeau embraces uncertainty in new memoir, Closer Together: “I’m a continuous, curious, emotional adventurer and explorer of life and relationships,” Grégoire Trudeau told The Globe and Mail during a recent interview. “I’ve always been curious and interested and fascinated by human contact.”

TODAY’S POLITICAL QUOTES

“Sometimes you’re in a situation. You just can’t win. You say one thing. You get one community upset. You say another. You get another community upset.” – Ontario Premier Doug Ford, at a news conference in Oakville today, commenting on the Ontario legislature Speaker banning the wearing in the House of the traditional keffiyeh scarf. Ford opposes the ban, but it was upheld after the news conference in the provincial legislature.

“No, I plan to be a candidate in the next election under Prime Minister Trudeau’s leadership. I’m very happy. I’m excited about that. I’m focused on the responsibilities he gave me. It’s a big job. I’m enjoying it and I’m optimistic that our team and the Prime Minister will make the case to Canadians as to why we should be re-elected.” – Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc, before Question Period today, on whether he is interested in the federal Liberal leadership, and succeeding Justin Trudeau as prime minister.

THIS AND THAT

Today in the Commons: Projected Order of Business at the House of Commons, April. 18, accessible here.

Deputy Prime Minister’s Day: Private meetings in Burlington, Ont., then Chrystia Freeland toured a manufacturing facility, discussed the federal budget and took media questions. Freeland then travelled to Washington, D.C., for spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group. Freeland also attended a meeting of the Five Eyes Finance Ministers hosted by U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, and held a Canada-Ukraine working dinner on mobilizing Russian assets in support of Ukraine.

Ministers on the Road: Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly is on the Italian island of Capri for the G7 foreign ministers’ meeting. Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge, in the Quebec town of Farnham, made an economic announcement, then held a brief discussion with agricultural workers and took media questions. Privy Council President Harjit Sajjan made a federal budget announcement in the Ontario city of Welland. Families Minister Jenna Sudds made an economic announcement in the Ontario city of Belleville.

Commons Committee Highlights: Treasury Board President Anita Anand appeared before the public-accounts committee on the auditor-general’s report on the ArriveCan app, and Karen Hogan, Auditor-General of Canada, later appeared on government spending. Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Gary Anandasangaree appears before the status-of-women committee on the Red Dress Alert. Competition Bureau Commissioner Matthew Boswell and Yves Giroux, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, appeared before the finance committee on Bill C-59. Former Prince Edward Island premier Robert Ghiz, now the president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Telecommunications Association, is among the witnesses appearing before the human-resources committee on Bill C-58, An act to amend the Canada Labour Code. Caroline Maynard, Canada’s Information Commissioner, appears before the access-to-information committee on government spending. Michel Patenaude, chief inspector at the Sûreté du Québec, appeared before the public-safety committee on car thefts in Canada.

In Ottawa: Governor-General Mary Simon presented the Governor-General’s Literary Awards during a ceremony at Rideau Hall, and, in the evening, was scheduled to speak at the 2024 Indspire Awards to honour Indigenous professionals and youth.

PRIME MINISTER’S DAY

Justin Trudeau met with Ottawa Mayor Mark Sutcliffe at city hall. Sutcliffe later said it was the first time a sitting prime minister has visited city hall for a meeting with the mayor. Later, Trudeau delivered remarks to a Canada council meeting of the Canadian Labour Congress.

LEADERS

Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet held a media scrum at the House of Commons ahead of Question Period.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre attends a party fundraising event at a private residence in Mississauga.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May attended the House of Commons.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, in Ottawa, met with Saskatchewan’s NDP Leader, Carla Beck, and, later, Ken Price, the chief of the K’ómoks First Nation,. In the afternoon, he delivered a speech to a Canadian Labour Congress Canadian council meeting.

THE DECIBEL

On today’s edition of The Globe and Mail podcast, Sanjay Ruparelia, an associate professor at Toronto Metropolitan University and Jarislowsky Democracy Chair, explains why India’s elections matter for democracy – and the balance of power for the rest of the world. The Decibel is here.

PUBLIC OPINION

Declining trust in federal and provincial governments: A new survey finds a growing proportion of Canadians do not trust the federal or provincial governments to make decisions on health care, climate change, the economy and immigration.

OPINION

On Haida Gwaii, an island of change for Indigenous land talks

“For more than a century, the Haida Nation has disputed the Crown’s dominion over the land, air and waters of Haida Gwaii, a lush archipelago roughly 150 kilometres off the coast of British Columbia. More than 20 years ago, the First Nation went to the Supreme Court of Canada with a lawsuit that says the islands belong to the Haida, part of a wider legal and political effort to resolve scores of land claims in the province. That case has been grinding toward a conclusion that the B.C. government was increasingly convinced would end in a Haida victory.” – The Globe and Mail Editorial Board.

The RCMP raid the home of ArriveCan contractor as Parliament scolds

“The last time someone was called before the bar of the House of Commons to answer MPs’ inquiries, it was to demand that a man named R.C. Miller explain how his company got government contracts to supply lights, burners and bristle brushes for lighthouses. That was 1913. On Wednesday, Kristian Firth, the managing partner of GCStrategies, one of the key contractors on the federal government’s ArriveCan app, was called to answer MPs’ queries. Inside the Commons, it felt like something from another century.” – Campbell Clark

First Nations peoples have lost confidence in Thunder Bay’s police force

“Thunder Bay has become ground zero for human-rights violations against Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Too many sudden and suspicious deaths of Indigenous Peoples have not been investigated properly. There have been too many reports on what is wrong with policing in the city – including ones by former chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Murray Sinclair and former Toronto Police board chair Alok Mukherjee, and another one called “Broken Trust,” in which the Office of the Independent Police Review Director said the Thunder Bay Police Service (TBPS) was guilty of “systemic racism” in 2018. – Tanya Talaga.

The failure of Canada’s health care system is a disgrace – and a deadly one

“What can be said about Canada’s health care system that hasn’t been said countless times over, as we watch more and more people suffer and die as they wait for baseline standards of care? Despite our delusions, we don’t have “world-class” health care, as our Prime Minister has said; we don’t even have universal health care. What we have is health care if you’re lucky, or well connected, or if you happen to have a heart attack on a day when your closest ER is merely overcapacity as usual, and not stuffed to the point of incapacitation.” – Robyn Urback.

Got a news tip that you’d like us to look into? E-mail us at tips@globeandmail.com. Need to share documents securely? Reach out via SecureDrop.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending