Reviews and recommendations are unbiased and products are independently selected. Postmedia may earn an affiliate commission from purchases made through links on this page.
Debuting a freshly-shaven face for the first time since before the pandemic, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau downplayed suggestions Wednesday that he’s gearing up to call a federal election despite a ramp-up in post-Parliament political posturing.
The Senate adjourned for the summer leaving two key Liberal bills unpassed on Tuesday: a bill to stamp out the harmful practice of LGBTQ2S+ conversion therapy, and a contentious broadcast regulation update. Those bills will die if an election is called before they make it through the Senate.
Asked whether he could commit to not calling an election until those bills become law, the prime minister couldn’t say yes, suggesting his government is angling to have the Senate recalled in the coming weeks instead.
With Parliament not set to resume sitting until the week of Sept. 20, the prospect of the government falling on a confidence vote has been taken off the table. That hasn’t quelled any of the inside-Ottawa speculation that the puzzle pieces are increasingly falling into place for Trudeau to decide it’s time to go to the polls.
The Liberals are experiencing high polling numbers, COVID-19 case counts are on a steady decline prompting more provincial reopenings, and the vaccine rollout is on track to have enough doses delivered by the end of July to fully vaccinate all who are eligible well before the end-of-September target.
Asked by CTV News during a funding announcement on Wednesday whether he could commit to not calling an election over the summer, Trudeau also dodged, drawing attention to the realities of being a minority government despite the makeup of the House of Commons having little impact on the summer political season.
He also signalled an intention to “take time this summer to consult Canadians,” in his first in-person press conference after his 14-day quarantine following his trip to the G7.
“We will continue to work hard every day for Canadians, continue to listen to Canadians, continue to talk about what we need to do all together to build back better and recover our economy, and that’s what I’m going to stay focused on,” Trudeau said, echoing a sentiment expressed by his deputy earlier in the day.
During a press conference expressing relief that the budget implementation bill was one of the pieces of legislation to make it out of the Senate, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said that while there now seems to be “light at the end of the tunnel,” her focus remains on the “once in a generation” effort to drive an economic comeback.
“It feels very much like pre-election,” said Liberal strategist and Proof Strategies’ senior vice-president of government relations in an interview with CTV News.
“I don’t think you’re going to see a government that can push this off to the fall now, there’s so much expectation, the government’s own communications with the importance of passing certain bills within the last two weeks, speaks to the fact that they don’t seem to think that they’re going to be sitting this fall.”
The downplaying from Trudeau and Freeland of a looming election call isn’t convincing the Conservatives, who put out a pair of messages Wednesday that signal they too are preparing for an election call.
In a tweet, Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole posted a photo of himself out for a run, with the caption: “It’s in moments like this when everything is clearest for me. Now, more than ever, Canada needs a new government with a real plan to secure the future and get our country moving again. Hang on Canada; the recovery you deserve is coming.”
And, in a fundraising email from “2021 Conservative Campaign National Campaign Manager” Fred DeLorey, the party says: “The battle for the next election has already begun, and your support is more important than ever…. We know the Liberals are busy preparing for an election, and we need to show that we are ready to take on this fight!”
The Conservatives have already set up a studio inside the Westin Hotel in downtown Ottawa where O’Toole has recently been delivering his addresses from, which the party is ready to use during the campaign, pending the feasibility of resuming the usual campaign bus and plane tours.
Senior consultant with Crestview Strategy and Conservative strategist Andrew Brander said that throughout the pandemic, O’Toole has had “such a difficult time over the past few months resonating with Canadians in terms of introducing himself to them.”
From his perspective, O’Toole is trying now to define himself and who he will be as a leader in contrast to Trudeau, saying he thinks O’Toole is “really trying to show Canadians a different type of conservativism.”
WILL C-6 BECOME A WEDGE ISSUE?
Already the Liberals are fundraising off Bill C-6 being held up in the upper chamber, fuelling the prospect that the legislation will be used as a wedge against the Conservatives in the campaign, despite O’Toole’s personal support for the bill.
Less than 12 hours after the Senate adjourned, the Liberal Party sent out a fundraising email “from the desk of Justin Trudeau” touting the “progressive” legislation that managed to pass, while putting the blame for the conversion therapy bill not passing squarely on the Conservatives’ shoulders.
While O’Toole has recently voiced his support for the LGBTQ2S+ community, more of his MPs voted against the conversion therapy bill than there were Conservative MPs who supported it. And, it was Conservative senators who denied the unanimous consent needed to allow a committee to study the bill over the summer, according to the government, despite members of that caucus expressing a desire for a study so they could suggest potential amendments.
During his press conference, Trudeau said he didn’t think it was a “coincidence” that Bill C-6 didn’t pass given the Conservative opposition to it.
“Disappointed is too weak a word that the Senate did not see fit to get this one done,” was how Freeland responded to a similar question.
There is more to the story of the now years-long inability to outlaw conversion therapy than Conservative obstruction. While the government pushed the argument that LGBTQ2S+ folks should not be subjected one day longer to efforts to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, the bill and its aims have faced roadblocks before, including from the government.
When calls were made by then-NDP MP Sheri Benson in the last Parliament for the government to step up and do more to protect minors from the practice, the Liberal response was that while conversion therapy was “akin to torture,” it was essentially a provincial issue. Then in 2019, it became an election promise. The first iteration of the bill died with Trudeau’s 2020 prorogation.
While it was quickly revived in the current session, it moved slowly despite NDP saying they would have helped pass it quicker to avoid what ended up being attempts from Conservatives to delay the bill.
After coming back onto the government’s priority bill list at the start of Pride month, it reached the Senate by a vote of 263 to 63, with a day to spare before the House adjourned for the summer last week.
Also weighing in on the state of the conversion therapy policy, the NDP issued a statement noting that despite all of the “platitudes,” conversion therapy remains legal.
“The bill to ban the extremely harmful practice that has hurt thousands of Canadians has stalled in the Senate because the Liberals didn’t make it a priority,” read the statement from NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh’s party headquarters. “New Democrats had our hand out. Liberals simply weren’t interested in getting this done. If Justin Trudeau chooses to call an election to suit his own political agenda this bill may never become law.”
The 11-page bill proposes five new Criminal Code offences including advertising and profiting off, or forcing a minor to undergo conversion therapy. It leaves the door open to allow adults who willingly want to pursue what has also been called reparative therapy under limited circumstances.
MacEachern’s view was that as a wedge issue it will be a problem for the Conservatives as it casts his party as “exactly what Erin O’Toole said they weren’t going to be like.”
“There’s an old saying in politics that once you’re explaining, you’ve lost. If the Conservatives have to explain why they voted against banning conversion therapy, they’ve already lost,” MacEachern said.
Speaking against the bill on Monday, and suggesting it go to committee to examine how the “issues” with the bill can be resolved through amendments, Conservative Sen. Don Plett cast doubt that the Liberals’ motivations with advancing the bill were little more than “crass political manoeuvring.”
“Banning coercive conversion therapy is the right thing to do, but instead of drafting a bill which clearly articulates those parameters that could have passed unanimously, the government chose to try to make it a wedge issue by making this bill overly broad and ambiguous,” he said, repeating concerns about the bill that his party has been pushing for months.
In a tweet Wednesday responding to the pushback over what the Senate didn’t pass, Plett said “on the eve of a risky election that only they want,” Trudeau is “playing politics in the Senate.”
“The legislative agenda is the responsibility of the gov’t” he said.
While Bill C-10, the contentious Broadcasting Act bill, has also been held up at committee stage, there was widespread support across groups in the Senate to dedicate a more fulsome study to the questions over free speech and the regulation of users’ content, in the fall.
In rejecting calls from Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault to fast-track it, Senators have spoken about how “imperative” it is for the Senate to hear from those who this bill will impact directly and assess for themselves the effects of the proposed legislation. However, at this point the earliest that the committee is expected to resume study of Bill C-10 would be the week before the House is scheduled to resume in September, if an election isn’t called.
Trudeau said Wednesday that his government is now in talks with the Senate leadership to see what could be done to continue their work over the summer.
Politics: The Minders and Mandarins of Capitalism – The Wall Street Journal
James R. Otteson’s “Seven Deadly Economic Sins” (Cambridge, 305 pages, $27.95) is a fine effort to introduce readers to the basic principles of market economics. The hamartiological framing—the “sins” are bad assumptions about how markets work—is part of the author’s effort to make the subject more engaging than a typical treatise on economics. It works. Mr. Otteson, a professor of business ethics at Notre Dame, writes with an apt combination of casual wit and rigorous logic.
I only regret that the book had to be written at all. There was a time in this country’s history—if the reader will allow a bit of declinist gloom—when America’s political class understood by instinct that wealth in a market economy comes about by voluntary exchanges in which all parties benefit. We do not live in such a time. About half of this country’s high-level elected officials appear to believe that some Americans have money because they took it from other Americans (the rich got rich “on the backs of workers” is a common trope). And so it is left to scholars such as Mr. Otteson to spell out the difference between zero-sum and positive-sum economic relationships.
A transaction based on extraction or theft is zero-sum (1 – 1 = 0). A transaction based on a mutual exchange is positive-sum (1 + 1 = 2). Wealth in most societies before about 1800, he reminds us, was based on the former model; wealth in market economies is based on the latter. What we need is someone able to explain to our well-intentioned politicos that the wealth they want to reallocate came about from mutually beneficial positive-sum transactions and not from zero-sum extraction. The way to diminish poverty and aid the disadvantaged is therefore not to punish positive-sum exchanges by taxation, but to allow more of them.
Other chapters in the book treat the “Good Is Good Enough Fallacy,” or the idea that every beneficial end is worth pursuing by all available means; the “Progress Is Inevitable Fallacy,” or the idea that a certain level of prosperity is guaranteed no matter what we do; and the “Great Mind Fallacy,” or the idea “that there is some person or group that possesses the relevant knowledge to know how others should allocate their scarce time or treasure.”
This latter point isn’t new—you can read the gist of it in Friedrich Hayek’s essay “The Use of Knowledge in Society” (1945) or Thomas Sowell’s book “Knowledge and Decisions” (1980)—but Mr. Otteson helpfully elucidates it in terms of individual experience. The experts may know that high-sugar carbonated drinks are on balance bad for your health, but they cannot know if you, in your circumstances, should or shouldn’t have a Coke. Most people would agree with that observation, but it is remarkable how many government policies are premised on its antithesis. City bans on unhealthy habits, state subsidies for favored industries, tax breaks meant to encourage virtuous behavior—these and a thousand other state-backed strategems assume the authorities and their experts understand immeasurably complex circumstances that they can’t possibly understand. But the alternative—allowing the people who do understand them to make their own decisions, even if they’re wrong—isn’t so satisfying to our governmental minders.
“The Power of Creative Destruction” (Belknap/Harvard, 389 pages, $35), translated by Jodie Cohen-Tanugi, is a full expression of the Great Mind outlook. Not that the authors—Philippe Aghion, Céline Antonin and Simon Bunel, all associated with the Collège de France—are socialists or militant redistributionists. They are mandarins. They recognize that you can’t pay for the modern welfare state or enjoy high levels of prosperity without robust economic growth. But capitalism, in their view, is constantly menacing itself and requires the aid of sage policy makers to prevent its collapse.
The authors are heavily influenced by the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter. In “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy” (1942), Schumpeter contended that capitalism was doomed by its own logic. The capitalist system depends on a constant succession of entrepreneurs dislodging established firms—a process he called “creative destruction.” But eventually, he saw, yesterday’s innovators become today’s monopolists and learn to use the levers of power to prevent further innovation. Growth diminishes; a dissatisfied public demands welfare-state protections and restrictions on entrepreneurial activity; and capitalism, deprived of growth, slowly transmutes into socialism.
Clearly some parts of that analysis are valid, although Schumpeter was mistaken, in my view, to think of capitalism as a “structure” that can’t adapt to the demands placed on it by an intermittently irrational public. Mr. Aghion, Ms. Antonin and Mr. Bunel share Schumpeter’s overdefined understanding of capitalism. “Capitalism must reward innovation,” they write, “but it must be regulated to prevent innovation rents”—rents meaning profits accruing to incumbent firms—“from stifling competition and thus jeopardizing future innovation.”
And what sort of regulations do they think will encourage innovation, foster competition and save capitalism from itself? You may have guessed already. Industrial policy: tariffs and other protections, subsidies to viable industries and firms, “investments” in R&D and higher education, and so on. What capitalism needs, if I may put their argument in my own words, is more public officials ready to heed the advice of centrist academic economists.
The book is rife with charts and graphs, and the authors cite a bewildering array of highly specialized studies. Much of this technical argumentation strikes me as overdone. I appreciate, for instance, the conclusion that lobbying and barriers to entry are likelier than innovation and competition to aggravate inequality. But people who think markets worsen inequality are committed to an unfalsifiable ideology and won’t be moved by any combination of graph-packed quantitative studies.
Love and death in a utopian community, the remorseless business of slavery, a passion for peacocks, updating Sir Gawain and more.
“The Power of Creative Destruction” is an impressive book in its way, but the authors don’t acknowledge the—to me—obvious objection. Once you afford governmental bodies the power to manage the economy, you also give established firms the tools with which to insulate themselves from competition. Wouldn’t it be easier and more effective to deprive incumbent firms of any special privileges and let them figure out how to survive? Then again, if we did that, we wouldn’t need so many mandarins.
Book review: Border politics serve up racism, human exploitation – Vancouver Sun
Border & Rule: Global Migration, Capitalism, and the Rise of Racist Nationalism
Harsha Walia | Fernwood Publishing (Halifax and Winnipeg, 2021)
$27 | 320pp
Borders are far more than lines on paper.
As local organizer, activist and scholar, Harsh Walia demonstrates in her passionately felt, deeply researched and closely reasoned new book, Border and Rule, that borders can serve as lethally intricate mechanisms of imperialism, colonialism, racism, sexism and class exploitation.
They work to divide workers and undermine international solidarity, while inscribing cartographies of privilege and oppression on the long-suffering face of the Earth.
And yet in mainstream discussions, borders are only questioned when heart-rending images of migrant children huddling miserably in U.S. border holding pens or drowned on the shores of the Mediterranean inspire brief and self-congratulatory spasms of outrage and pity among comfortable observers on the “right” side of the borders.
Walia, who has spent much of her adult life doing the hard work of organizing solidarity activity and saving lives of those threatened with deportation back to the dangers they are fleeing, is understandably dismissive of such liberal responses. She points out that centuries of imperial conquest, colonial occupation and gendered, racist segmentation of the workforce have set the stage for the current global crisis, which saw over 80 millions of our sisters and brothers driven forcibly from their homes last year, according to the United Nations, while hundreds of millions more have been forced to migrate by climate disasters, poverty and famine. Such disasters are, Walia persuasively argues, not so much “natural” as created by economic and social relations (aka predatory and racialized capitalism and a world order designed to serve the needs of the rich over the needs of the rest of us).
Walia’s analysis is dense and complex, and her language occasionally overburdened with abstraction. But even where her thought is difficult, it is always worth the time it takes to grasp.
This is a remarkable book that reflects a lifetime of activism and reflection on the author’s part — Walia has been in the news lately, resigning as executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association after a controversial social media post on arson committed at several Catholic churches. Still, this book is rich with learnings for us all.
Her core argument, that “a political and economic system that treats land as a commodity, Indigenous people as overburden, race as a principle of social organization, women’s caretaking as worthless, workers as exploitable, climate refugees as expendable and the entire planet as a sacrifice zone must be dismantled,” will challenge and inspire readers.
Tom Sandborn crossed a border to live in Vancouver in 1967. He welcomes your feedback and story tips at email@example.com
Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion delivered straight to your inbox at 7 a.m., Monday to Friday by subscribing to our Sunrise newsletter here.
CLICK HERE to report a typo.
Is there more to this story? We’d like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Jason Kenney's longing for Alberta's pre-COVID politics – iPolitics.ca
Pandemic? What pandemic?
In Premier Jason Kenney’s Alberta, the pandemic isn’t just retreating, it has been defeated.
“Such a joy to connect with Albertans during Canada’s first major event after the pandemic,” said a jubilant social media post last week from Kenney after he visited the Calgary Stampede.
Saying “after the pandemic” was no slip of the keyboard. Kenney chose his words carefully, including being sure to point out the Stampede was the “Canada’s first major event.”
Alberta was the first province to lift virtually all pandemic restrictions on July 1; the first to get more than 70 percent of eligible citizens vaccinated with one dose; and, now, the first province to declare we’re in a post-pandemic world.
This is Alberta exceptionalism, Kenney style.
And, boy, does Kenney need to be seen as exceptional these days. His popularity plummeted during the pandemic – from a high of about 60 per cent in support in 2019 to around 30 per cent now, according to the most recent polls.
The pandemic, of course, is not over – as health experts are quick to point out.
The number of cases and hospitalizations have fallen dramatically in Alberta (and other jurisdictions) thanks to vaccinations, but the pandemic is still with us, even if it is a shadow of its former self.
At the same time, countries including France are re-imposing restrictions as the number of Delta-variant cases surge and experts talk ominously of a fourth wave among the unvaccinated.
Ironically, Kenney’s optimistically misleading view of Alberta being in an “after the pandemic state” might actually put the province at risk of enduring more variant cases. The province’s vaccine rollout, doing so well just weeks ago, has stalled. After hitting 70 per cent of Albertans with their first dose a month ago, the rate has increased by a trickle to just under 75 per cent despite the government announcing a vaccine lottery with cash prizes and exotic vacations.
There are a multitude of reasons for the slower uptake including lack of access to clinics in rural areas and suspicion of the vaccines — but you have to think that Kenney talking about the pandemic in the past tense has some people wondering why they’d bother to get a shot now.
Therein lies a Catch-22 for Kenney among his Conservative supporters who have rankled at pandemic restrictions from the beginning.
Tell them the pandemic is over and they’ll see no reason to get vaccinated. Tell them the pandemic is not over and he’d have to maintain pandemic restrictions, further aggravating his conservative base.
For the base, the big issue is politics, not pandemics.
Right-wing voters are disappointed in Kenney, not just because he imposed what they considered draconian COVID-19 measures, but because he backed off on his war with the federal Liberal government during the pandemic.
Well, that war is back on.
Kenney is holding a referendum vote this October, in conjunction with Alberta’s municipal elections, asking Albertans if they want the federal equalization program scrapped. Never mind that it’s a federal program paid for by federal tax dollars, Kenney is arguing that equalization is unfair to Alberta (even though Kenney himself was part of the Harper federal cabinet that amended the equalization formula a decade ago).
Kenney has dusted off the anti-Trudeau rhetoric, once again accusing the prime minister of “openly campaigning against Alberta” in the last federal election, even though the federal government bought the Trans Mountain pipeline and has committed to twinning the pipe so Alberta can get more energy products to the West Coast for shipment internationally.
But Kenney is loath to give his political nemesis any pats on the back. This reluctance reached petty heights, or lows, on July 7 when the prime minister held a news conference in Calgary with Mayor Naheed Nenshi to formally announce the city’s $5.5-billion Green Line LRT project. Neither Kenney nor anybody from the Alberta government attended the news conference even though the province is kicking in $1.5 billion.
Kenney’s office said the announcement was just a rehash of previous announcements. That’s true – but when has a politician ever shied away from re-announcing projects when there are headlines to grab?
Kenney apparently didn’t want to be seen helping boost Trudeau’s profile on the eve of a possible federal election.
On a more practical front, Kenney’s anti-Trudeau feelings could prove costly to Alberta’s parents, particularly those in the large urban centres, who are keen on the federal government’s $30-billion plan for a $10-a-day daycare system.
Both British Columbia and Nova Scotia have signed on to plans tailored to their provinces and Alberta insists it is in negotiations, but Kenney’s initial response in April was to dismiss the federal plan as a “nine-to-five, government-run, union-operated, largely-urban-care” system. Predictably, the Alberta government is also upset with the federal government’s plan announced this week to begin consultations on a “Just Transition” plan to help Canadian workers energy workers get ready for a future less dependent on fossil fuels.
“The federal government’s intention to hastily phase out Canada’s world-class oil and gas industry is extremely harmful to the hundreds of thousands who directly and indirectly work in the sector, and will be detrimental to Canada’s economic recovery,” said Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage Tuesday in a deliberate misreading of Ottawa’s intent.
But that’s the tone of the Alberta government in 2021 when it comes to dealing with the federal Liberals: partisan, pugilistic and plain ornery.
It’s a throwback to 2019 before the pandemic hit.
In that respect, Kenney is right. Politically speaking, Alberta is indeed in a post-pandemic world.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.
Investing inside a corporation: what you need to know – MoneySense
Calgary real estate predicted to moderate this year, with hot spring demand – Calgary Herald
Art exhibits return to Callander’s Alex Dufresne gallery – BayToday.ca
Silver investment demand jumped 12% in 2019
Europe kicks off vaccination programs | All media content | DW | 27.12.2020 – Deutsche Welle
Iran anticipates renewed protests amid social media shutdown
News23 hours ago
Global Affairs Canada 'engaging' with staff in Austria following reports of 'Havana syndrome' symptoms – CTV News
Politics23 hours ago
Jason Kenney's longing for Alberta's pre-COVID politics – iPolitics.ca
Media21 hours ago
Current's 2021 Public Media Salary Survey – Current
Science24 hours ago
Why some scientists want to rebrand shark attacks as 'negative encounters' – CBC.ca
Tech15 hours ago
OnePlus Nord 2: An impressive 5G phone at an affordable price – CNET
Investment24 hours ago
Newcomer SageBlan backs up its belief in Montreal tourism with heavy investment – Montreal Gazette
News22 hours ago
Unmarked grave findings in Canada prompt reckoning among U.S. churches – CBC.ca
Science22 hours ago
DeepMind puts the entire human proteome online, as folded by AlphaFold – Yahoo Movies Canada