Conservative leadership rivals Jean Charest and Pierre Poilievre, who have been trading sharp rhetorical blows during the campaign, are now at odds over child-care policies.
Mr. Charest, the former Quebec premier, said that as prime minister, he would keep child-care deals that the Liberal federal government has signed with the provinces and territories and also expand access to the Canada Child Benefit to the beginning of the second trimester of pregnancy.
Both ideas were among a series of policies released on Tuesday revolving around child care.
In a statement, Mr. Charest’s campaign said child-care costs don’t begin after birth so eligibility for the Canada Child Benefit would be moved to the second trimester of pregnancy to give families a financial cushion.
The campaign also said that a Charest government would introduce a rebate of up to 75 per cent of child-care expenses for lower-income families whose children do not use subsidized daycare, and make rebates payable monthly.
But Mr. Charest’s plan was quickly dismissed. On Tuesday, the Poilievre campaign said in a statement: “When Jean Charest was Liberal premier in Quebec, he did nothing to support choice in child care and discriminated against families that did not use state-based care.”
The campaign added that Mr. Charest “also made life for expensive for families” by raising the Quebec sales tax, fuel tax and bringing in a health tax.
Referring to the federal Liberal child-care plan, Mr. Poilievre’s campaign said it promises affordable daycare, but he will wait to see if the latest promises are any different before announcing plans to reduce costs and expand choice for all parents.
Meanwhile, Conservative candidate Patrick Brown, mayor of Brampton, Ont., targeted Mr. Poilievre – and the Prime Minister – in a statement on the child-care issue.
“Unlike Pierre Poilievre, I would honour agreements signed with the provinces on affordable daycare, and unlike Justin Trudeau, make sure those daycare spots are actually built out. I would also recognize that Canadians need choice in how to raise their families,” said the statement.
Mr. Brown made several commitments on the issue, including a system of tax credits and direct contribution to “value the labour provided by extended family members in raising children.” He also said he wants to make it easier for extended family members living abroad to come to Canada to provide child care for new Canadian families. In addition, he said he would ensure that parents working in gig-economy jobs or who have started small businesses have equal access to parental leave benefits as others currently do.
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
EX-AFGHAN INTERPRETERS SEEK MPS’ HELP – Former Afghan interpreters for the Canadian military pleaded with MPs on Monday to “listen to our cries” for help, saying family members stranded in Afghanistan are running from safe house to safe house to escape Taliban reprisals. Story here.
BY-ELECTION RESULTS RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT QUEBEC LIBERAL PROSPECTS – Quebec Liberal Leader Dominique Anglade Tuesday shouldered part of the blame for her party’s dismal performance in Monday’s by-election in Marie-Victorin, saying her message is not getting through and many Liberals simply sat out the vote. The results come ahead of a provincial election set to take place on or before Oct. 3 this year. Story here from The Montreal Gazette.
VALIDITY OF ALBERTA VOTE QUESTIONED – Alberta’s United Conservative Party is more than a month away from declaring the results of its leadership review, but the validity of the outcome is already under scrutiny. Story here.
GREENSPON DEFENDING LICH – A high-profile criminal defence lawyer in Ottawa has been hired to defend one of the leading figures of the trucker convoy. Lawrence Greenspon will represent Tamara Lich, the organizer behind a $10-million GoFundMe supporting the convoy, as she seeks to change some of her bail conditions. Story here from CTV.
REGULATOR NOT EQUIPPED TO OVERSEE LEGISLATION: CRITICS – Former leaders of Canada’s broadcasting and telecom regulator say the body is not able to oversee the implementation of the federal government’s legislation requiring major tech giants, such as Google and Facebook, to pay Canadian media outlets for news content that appears on their platforms. Story here.
`I DON’T CARE’: MOE ON SASKATCHEWAN HIGH CARBON EMISSIONS – Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe is standing by comments he recently made over the province’s environmental record. During a speech, Mr. Moe said that “A lot of folks will come to me and say, ‘Hey, you guys have the highest carbon emissions per capita.’ I don’t care,” said Moe. Story here from CBC.
ONTARIO’S NDP AND LIBERALS OUTLINE ELECTION OFFERS – Ontario’s NDP is promising to implement a minimum wage of $25 an hour for registered early childhood educators if the party forms government. Story here. Meanwhile, the Ontario Liberals have announced that they would establish $10-a-day before and after school care, provide a parental leave top up and bring back pay transparency legislation in a slate of election platform items aimed at women. Story here.
CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP RACE
LEADERSHIP DEBATES SCHEDULED – Candidates for the leadership of the federal Conservative Party are to participate in debates on May 11 in Edmonton and May 25 in Montreal. The first debate will be in English and the second in French. Party organizers are reserving the right to add a third debate in early August. Details of the debate schedule were released Monday. A week ahead of each debate, candidates are to receive a list of debate topics to be covered in questions. Details of the style and format of the debates will be released later in April. Candidates are also being asked to prepare a two-minute introduction video, to be played ahead of the debates.
THIS AND THAT
TODAY IN THE COMMONS – The House is adjourned until Monday, April 25, 2022 at 11 a.m. (EDT).
SENATE ACTION ON CPR TAX EXEMPTION – The Senate has adopted a resolution authorizing an amendment to the Constitution of Canada that ends a century-old tax exemption for the CPR enacted when the province was formed in 1905. “To continue with a tax exemption in the 21st century, which was granted to the CPR in the 19th century, would be fundamentally unjust, unfair, unreasonable and an undeserved economic hardship on the residents of Saskatchewan” Senator David Arnot, from Saskatchewan, said in a statement. “I am so pleased that this inequity has been corrected.”
THE DECIBEL
On Tuesday’s edition of The Globe and Mail podcast, health reporter Carly Weeks, having followed vaccination uptake in Canada since the beginning of the pandemic, talks about how there’s been a lack of clear messaging around boosters, why more Canadians should be getting a third (or even fourth) dose and what a COVID-19 vaccination schedule may look like in the future. The Decibel is here.
PRIME MINISTER’S DAY
In Edmonton, the Prime Minister held private meetings, was scheduled to do a live interview on 92.7 CKJS’s Good Morning Philippines, made an announcement highlighting federal budget tax cuts for small businesses and visited a local small business. The Prime Minister was also scheduled to visit a nature-based solutions lab to focus on investments in green technologies. At 8 p.m., an interview with the Prime Minister is scheduled to air on CBC’s This Hour Has 22 Minutes.
LEADERS
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh spoke at the South Asian Canadian Legacy Project launch at city hall in Surrey, B.C., and was scheduled to speak virtually to the annual general meeting of the NDP in the riding of Edmonton Griesbach.
OPINION
The Globe and Mail Editorial Boardon why paying people to buy an electric car is a really expensive way to cut emissions: “And a subsidy to buy a car is regressive, since the money only goes to those wealthy enough to own a car, and is in part paid for by poorer taxpayers riding the bus. There’s also the problem of “free ridership” – that some people who got taxpayer cash for buying an EV were going to buy one anyhow. In such cases, the subsidy is expensive, regressive and not even buying any emission reductions.”
Gary Mason (The Globe and Mail)on Pierre Poilievre preparing to upend Canadian politics: “Many have written Mr. Poilievre off as someone who can win the leadership of his party, but not the country. While I might have been inclined to share that view a few months ago, I don’t any more. There is a reason that thousands are flocking to his campaign rallies. In a recent swing through British Columbia, his events were packed – more than 1,000 people crammed into halls at several stops. Even university students are turning out in droves. Some people have lined up for an hour after one of his speeches to get a picture with him. There is something happening here that is genuine. It’s easy to roll your eyes at Mr. Poilievre’s statement that he is starting a movement, but it has that certain feel to it.”
Simon Miles (Contributed to The Globe and Mail) on why Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should stand with Ukrainians by flying to Ukraine: “If Mr. Trudeau were to follow Ms. von der Leyen and Mr. Johnson in meeting with Mr. Zelensky in Kyiv, it would demonstrate Canada’s commitment to supporting Ukraine as it fights to maintain its sovereignty in the face of Russia’s onslaught, while also reminding Canadians why Mr. Putin remains a foe worth actively opposing. Mr. Trudeau physically standing by Mr. Zelensky, not long after satellite imagery and intercepted communications seemed to confirm Russian war crimes in Bucha, would show the world that Ukraine’s partners are uncowed and united with resolve in the face of Russian belligerence.”
Bessma Momani (Contributed to The Globe and Mail) on when the war in Ukraine will end:“The uncomfortable truth is that this war is also gaining steam within Russia, where it is portrayed as a conquest that must be won. In a country with dizzying state narratives that pump out increasingly more incredulous news designedto confuse, the result is often deference. Certainly, someRussians arechallenging state narratives, and many have paid with their lives trying to challenge disinformation. But we would be mistaken to assume this war will ignite a backlash, or more incredulous claims of an overthrow of Vladimir Putin. Over the years, the President has masterfully worked to consolidate his power and politically insulate himself from potential opposition, and bought acquiescence from competing power centres.”
Don Martin (CTV) on how the personal antipathy between Jean Charest and Pierre Poilievre is damaging the Conservatives beyond repair: “The clash between Jenni Byrne of the Pierre Poilievre campaign and Tasha Kheiriddin from Jean Charest’s team was toxic, personal and consumed with burning all the bridges which could reunite the party after the September 10 vote. Policy differences were ignored amid a barrage of accusations and allegations flying over their rival’s failing fitness to hold the job. After being accused of lying amid a cross-talk cacophony of bitter disagreement, Kheirridin nicely summed up the theme of the segment. “When you start scorched earth, eventually you’re going to get it back.” So there you have the sorry state of the race to become Canada’s Official Opposition Leader, traditionally a launch pad to the prime minister’s title.”
It’s scorched earth with a month to go before the FIRST debate even starts raising the temperature to a boil.
Steve Paikin (TVO) on whether the fourth time is the charm for Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath: “Horwath is about to embark on her fourth campaign as leader, a rather astonishing feat at a time when most political parties are happy to jettison leaders who fail to win it all in their first attempt. While only the most cockeyed optimists would forecast an NDP majority government emerging from the June 2 election, it’s not at all crazy to consider the notion of the NDP forming a minority government, if Horwath can come second, deny Ford’s Tories a majority, and get the presumably third-place Liberals to back her. Admittedly, that’s a lot of ifs.”
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.
NEW YORK (AP) — In a new video posted early Election Day, Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in the television program “Baywatch” – red one-piece swimsuit and all – and asks viewers to vote.
In the two-and-a-half-minute clip, set to most of “Bodyguard,” a four-minute cut from her 2024 country album “Cowboy Carter,” Beyoncé cosplays as Anderson’s character before concluding with a simple message, written in white text: “Happy Beylloween,” followed by “Vote.”
At a rally for Donald Trump in Pittsburgh on Monday night, the former president spoke dismissively about Beyoncé’s appearance at a Kamala Harris rally in Houston in October, drawing boos for the megastar from his supporters.
“Beyoncé would come in. Everyone’s expecting a couple of songs. There were no songs. There was no happiness,” Trump said.
She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland – but she endorsed Harris and gave a moving speech, initially joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland.
“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said.
“A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said at the rally in Houston, her hometown.
“Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”
Harris used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.
Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.
Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.
Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.
Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.
My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.
Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.
My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.
To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.
Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…
The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.
The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.
The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.
Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.
In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.
If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.
Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.
PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.
Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.
Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.
“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.
Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”
The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”
Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”
The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.
In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.
Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.
In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.
A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.
In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.
Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.
What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.
But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.
Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.
“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.
