Appointment of Collin May as Alberta human rights chief is ‘a significant problem’

by David J. Climenhaga

AlbertaPolitics.ca blog

July 19, 2022

Despite the flaws in her argument, Rajan Sawhney is the first and only UCP leadership candidate to speak out against the appointment of the Calgary lawyer.

UCP leadership candidate Rajan Sawhney.


United Conservative Party leadership candidate Rajan Sawhney yesterday issued a statement saying “it is a significant problem” that the new chief of the Alberta Human Rights Commission made “pejorative comments about Islam” in a 2009 book review published by a right-wing website.

In her statement, Sawhney called for further investigation of the comments made by May, who the UPC appointed to the job on Thursday, despite news and commentary about his 2009 book review.

This hardly seems necessary since his review can still easily be found online at the C2C Journal website, and because May has publicly admitted that he wrote it.

Moreover, she seems to suggest the uproar about May’s appointment may indicate that media reports are not to be trusted. Whatever flaws Alberta’s media may exhibit, the few journalists and commentators who covered this story can plead not guilty to that charge for the simple reason that May has confirmed the accuracy of everything he is reported to have said.

Still, despite the flaws in her argument, this is an important development because Sawhney is the first and so far the only UCP leadership candidate to speak out against May’s appointment, even if she is a long shot to win the leadership race.

She has set the bar – albeit a rather low one – for the other candidates to lead the UCP to live up to. Or not to live up to, in which case no UCP supporter should complain if this remains an issue through the leadership race and into the election campaign that follows.

The former transportation minister said she had taken the time to read the review herself and found that the author largely accepted an interpretation of Islam “which takes a highly controversial and negative view of the faith of tens or even hundreds of thousands of Albertans.”

“These comments have created considerable and understandable hurt within the Muslim community, but also among all Albertans who value our pluralistic society,” she said, noting that “it is a significant problem when the person who expressed those unacceptable views is responsible for adjudicating human rights issues.”

This is an important point because even though May says he has changed his opinion of Islam since he wrote the review 13 years ago, that does not alter the natural perceptions of his views as bound to bring the proceedings of the commission into disrepute.

It would have behooved the UCP Government to remember, as Lord Chief Justice Hewart famously said in 1924, it “is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”

As Sawhney observed yesterday, “no person of Muslim faith would have confidence that they are being treated neutrally by the Human Rights Commission if the Chair has pre-existing and negative views of that person’s faith.”

“This allegation of bias is also a reminder that the vetting of prospective candidates for sensitive and important jobs in government must be thorough,” she added, quite rightly.

Mind you, Sawhney was in cabinet when May was first appointed to the commission in a lesser role, so she should have some first-hand insight into how he was chosen the first time. Perhaps Cabinet simply accepted the minister’s recommendation without reflection or question.

Whatever vetting there was of May, it was disgracefully lax. It would almost be better if no checks had been made at all, which, while negligent would at least not have raised the additional possibility of malice in his selection.

DAVID J. CLIMENHAGA
author of the AlbertaPolitics.ca blog, is a journalist and trade union communicator who has worked in senior writing and editing positions with the Globe and Mail and the Calgary Herald.... More by David J. Climenhaga

'Authoritarianism 101': Trump Plot to Purge Civil Servants If Reelected Draws Alarm

"Schedule F, Do not underestimate the destruction this will cause," said one critic.

U.S. President Donald Trump looks on during an event at the White House on April 18, 2019 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

JULIA CONLEY

COMMON DREAMS

July 22, 2022

Government watchdogs on Friday warned that a plan by former President Donald Trump to drastically remake the federal workforce should he win the presidency in 2024 would "utterly destroy" public service in the United States.

"This is truly the implementation of a fascist takeover of our government."

As Axios reported Friday, central to Trump's plans for a second term is the reinstatement of his executive order known as "Schedule F," which established a new category of federal employees.

Under the executive order, which Trump signed just days before losing the 2020 election, thousands of federal workers who have served under presidents from both major political parties could be reclassified as "Schedule F" employees, eliminating their employment protections.

Trump could purge as many as 50,000 members of the nonpartisan workforce who he deems to have influence over policy decisions, leaving them with no recourse, and fill their jobs with "loyalists to him and his 'America First' ideology," according to sources who spoke to Axios.

Max Berger of pro-labor media organization More Perfect Union suggested Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis would also be likely to reinstate Schedule F—which was quickly rescinded by President Joe Biden in January 2021—if he runs for president and wins.

The executive order amounts to "authoritarianism 101," Berger tweeted.

Schedule F "would effectively upend the modern civil service, triggering a shock wave across the bureaucracy," wrote Jonathan Swan at Axios. "The next president might then move to gut those pro-Trump ranks—and face the question of whether to replace them with her or his own loyalists, or revert to a traditional bureaucracy. Such pendulum swings and politicization could threaten the continuity and quality of service to taxpayers, the regulatory protections, the checks on executive power, and other aspects of American democracy."

The plan would go "beyond 'deconstructing the administrative state,'" said the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, which advocates for regulatory protections for the economic system, public health, and other sectors. "It's a plan to utterly destroy it."

While pushing to reinstate Schedule F should he take office again, Swan reported, "Trump has reduced his circle of advisers and expunged nearly every former aide who refused to embrace his view that the 2020 election was 'stolen'"—suggesting he is likely to seek out government employees who share that view.

Although Biden rescinded Trump's order, U.S. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) has remained concerned that Schedule F will be reintroduced in 2025 under a Republican administration. He authored an amendment to the defense spending bill that would prevent "any position in the competitive service from being reclassified to an excepted service schedule that was created after September 30, 2020, and limits federal employee reclassifications."

The House passed Connolly's amendment on July 14 in a 215-201 vote, but Republicans in the Senate plan to block its passage, Axios reported.

"Congress [must] codify protections against this evil plan to place political allies of Trump throughout the government," said Fred Wellman, host of the podcast On Democracy. "Do not underestimate the destruction this will cause."


Walter Shaub, senior ethics fellow at the Project on Government Oversight, called on the White House to go beyond simply halting Trump's executive order and work with Congress to ensure legislation is passed protecting federal employees regardless of their political beliefs.

"Administration officials are aware of the issue," said Shaub. "But as with every other needed democracy reform, this administration has time and again proven it is not up to this crucial moment in history."


The reinstatement of Schedule F would result in a "reckless, lawless administration," said Georgetown University professor Don Moynihan.

"How bad could Schedule F be? The people planning to use it to take control of the executive branch have shown themselves comfortable with breaking the law in ways that undermine American democracy," said Moynihan, pointing to Trump ally Jeffrey Clark, an attorney who is being investigated by the FBI and Congress and who the former president wanted to install as attorney general.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

'A Beacon of Hope': UN Chief Lauds Deal to Export 20+ Million Tons of Ukrainian Grain

The agreement, said António Guterres, will "bring relief for developing countries on the edge of bankruptcy" and "help stabilize global food prices which were already at record levels even before the war."

United Nations (Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan attend a signature ceremony in Istanbul on July 22, 2022. (Photo: Ozan Kose/AFP via Getty Images)

JESSICA CORBETT

July 22, 2022


United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres on Friday celebrated an agreement by Russia and Ukraine to free up over 20 million tons of grain exports at blockaded Black Sea ports amid soaring food prices and fears of famine.

"Let there be no doubt—this is an agreement for the world."

Since Russia invaded Ukraine in late February, world leaders including Guterres have warned about the impact on the world's food chain. The Black Sea Grain Initiative was signed at a ceremony in Istanbul attended by the U.N. chief, Russian and Ukrainian ministers, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Guterres thanked Turkey's leader for facilitating the negotiations that produced the agreement, and told the Russian and Ukrainian representatives that "you have overcome obstacles and put aside differences to pave the way for an initiative that will serve the common interests of all."

"Today, there is a beacon on the Black Sea. A beacon of hope, a beacon of possibility, a beacon of relief—in a world that needs it more than ever," he said. "And let there be no doubt—this is an agreement for the world."

"It will bring relief for developing countries on the edge of bankruptcy and the most vulnerable people on the edge of famine," Guterres continued. "And it will help stabilize global food prices which were already at record levels even before the war—a true nightmare for developing countries.

Related Content

Surging Prices Amid Ukraine War Have Pushed 71 Million People Worldwide Into Poverty

"The initiative we just signed opens a path for significant volumes of commercial food exports from three key Ukrainian ports in the Black Sea," he explained. The warring parties also reached an agreement to get Russian food and fertilier to global markets.

The New York Times reported on how the export operation will work:

Ukrainian captains will steer vessels packed with grain out of the ports of Odesa, Yuzhne and Chornomorsk.

Using passages that are not mined, they will pilot the ships to Turkish ports to be unloaded, and the grain will then be shipped to buyers around the world.

The returning vessels will be inspected by a team of Turkish, U.N., Ukrainian and Russian officials to ensure that they are empty, and not carrying weapons to Ukraine, a key Russian demand.

A joint command center with officials from all four parties will be set up immediately in Istanbul to monitor every movement of the flotillas.

The newspaper also noted that "no broad cease-fire has been negotiated, so the ships will be traveling through a war zone," and attacks at the ports or inspection issues could imperil the 120-day deal, which officials hope will be renewed on a rolling basis.

Guterres, in his speech Friday, also acknowledged that in Ukraine, "conflict continues. People are dying every day. Fighting is raging every day."

"The beacon of hope on the Black Sea is shining bright today, thanks to the collective efforts of so many," he added. "In these trying and turbulent times for the region and our globe, let that beacon guide the way towards easing human suffering and securing peace."

Leaders at humanitarian groups cautiously welcomed the agreement.

"The lifting of these blockades will go some way in easing the extreme hunger that over 18 million people in East Africa are facing, with three million already facing catastrophic hunger conditions," said Shashwat Saraf, the International Rescue Committee's East Africa emergency director.

"Let's be clear—this will not end or significantly alter the trajectory of the worsening global food crisis."

"The next and significant step must be fully funding the humanitarian response in the region, to stave off the worst impacts of the drought and prevent a catastrophic, unprecedented famine from fully engulfing the region by the end of the summer," Saraf added.

Tjada D'Oyen McKenna, CEO of Mercy Corps, said that if the deal is respected, it "will help ease grain shortages, but let's be clear—this will not end or significantly alter the trajectory of the worsening global food crisis."

"Unblocking Ukraine's ports will not reverse the damage war has wreaked on crops, agricultural land, and agricultural transit routes in the country; it will not significantly change the price or availability of fuel, fertilizer, and other staple goods that are now beyond the reach of many, particularly in lower-income countries; and it will certainly not help the majority of the 50 million people around the world inching closer to famine stave off starvation," she said.

Highlighting conditions from Afghanistan, Colombia, and Guatemala to Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, McKenna argued that "we must recognize that our global food systems were already failing and record numbers of people were edging toward poverty and hunger due to the economic pummeling of the Covid-19 crisis and the impacts of climate change."

Along with providing emergency assistance, she said, "urgent action must be taken to strengthen agricultural food systems: Scale climate-resilient agricultural production and boost support for local agriculture by providing smallholder farmers the information, financial, and regulatory support they need to help their communities and countries reduce reliance on imports."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Russia and Ukraine sign grain export deal: What you should know


Russia and Ukraine have signed a landmark deal with the United Nations and Turkey on resuming grain shipments in an attempt to ease a global food crisis in which millions face hunger.

Russian defence minister Sergei Shoigu and Ukrainian infrastructure minister Oleksandr Kubrakov each signed separate but identical agreements with UN and Turkish officials on reopening blocked Black Sea delivery routes.

Kyiv officials said they did not want to put their name on the same document as the Russians because of the five-month war that has killed thousands and displaced millions of Ukrainians.

Here is what you need to know:

What is the objective of the deal?

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24 led to a de-facto blockade of the Black Sea, resulting in Ukraine’s exports dropping to one-sixth of their pre-war level. Both Kyiv and Moscow are among the largest exporters of grain in the world, and the blockade has caused grain prices to rise dramatically.

The deal aims to help avert famine by injecting more wheat, sunflower oil, fertiliser and other products into world markets, including for humanitarian needs. It targets the pre-war level of five million metric tonnes of grain exported each month.

The UN World Food Programme says some 47 million people are now in a stage of “acute hunger” due to fallout from the war and experts have long warned of a looming global food crisis if Ukrainian grain exports remained blocked.

Ukraine also needs to empty its silos ahead of a coming harvest, while more exported fertiliser will avoid lower global yields for coming harvests.

Russia and the UN also signed a memorandum of understanding committing the latter to facilitate unimpeded access to global markets for Russian fertiliser and other products.


© Provided by Al Jazeera

When will grain exports resume?

According to Russia’s Shoigu, grain exports could restart in the “next few days”.

“Today we have all the prerequisites and all the solutions for this process to begin in the next few days,” Shoigu said after signing the deal.

Al Jazeera’s Diplomatic Editor James Bays, reporting from the UN headquarters, said it could be a “couple of weeks” before the first shipment of grain leaves Ukraine.

“There will be a test of implementation in the coming weeks,” Bays said, noting the backlog of millions of tonnes of Ukrainian grain in the country. “It is going to take some time to get all of that grain out – experts estimate probably about four months,” he added.

The deal is valid for four months or 120 days and will be automatically renewed unless the war ends.

Which ports are included?

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the accord would open the way to commercial food exports from three key Ukrainian ports – Odesa, Chernomorsk and Yuzhny.

A UN official told Reuters the deal included a “de facto ceasefire” for the ships and facilities covered.


A worker loads a truck with grain at a terminal during barley harvesting in Odesa 

[File: Igor Tkachenko/Reuters]

How will the deal be implemented?

Guterres said there will be a Joint Control Center (JCC) in Istanbul, which will schedule and monitor shipments.

According to one UN official, the JCC will be staffed by officials from the UN and probably military officials from the three countries involved, Reuters reported.

Though Ukraine has mined the waters near the ports as part of its war defences, there is no further need for de-mining. Rather, Ukrainian pilots will guide the ships along safe channels in its territorial waters, with a minesweeper vessel on hand as needed but no military escorts.

Monitored by the JCC, the ships then transit the Black Sea to Turkey’s Bosphorus Strait and off to world markets.

All sides have agreed there will be no attacks on these entities. If a prohibited activity is observed, it will be the task of the JCC to “resolve” it, the official said without elaborating.

In response to Russian concerns about ships delivering weapons to Ukraine, all returning ships will be inspected at a Turkish port by a team with representatives from all parties and overseen by the JCC. The teams will board vessels and assess their cargo before they can return to Ukraine.

‘A beacon of hope’: How the world reacted

Russia

Defence minister Shoigu has said Moscow will not take advantage of the fact that the ports will be demined and opened. “We have made this commitment,” he said.

Ukraine

Foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba said Kyiv trusts the UN, not Russia, to uphold the deal.

“Ukraine doesn’t trust Russia. I don’t think anyone has reasons to trust Russia. We invest our trust in the United Nations as the driving force of this agreement,” Kuleba said at an online press briefing.

United Nations

Guterres said there was now a “beacon on the Black Sea” after the “unprecedented” agreement was finalised.

“A beacon of hope … possibility … and relief in a world that needs it more than ever,” he added.

Turkey

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the pact will “renew hopes for peace”.

“With the ship traffic that will start in the coming days, we will open a new breathing tube from the Black Sea to many countries of the world,” he added after the deal signing.

European Union

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell says the deal was a “critical step” in helping reduce global food insecurity.

“EU remains committed to help Ukraine bring as much of its grain into global markets as possible,” he wrote on Twitter.

United States

The US called on Russia to allow Ukrainian grain to be exported quickly and voiced hope that the Turkish-brokered deal was well-structured enough to monitor compliance.

“We fully expect the implementation of today’s arrangement to commence swiftly to prevent the world’s most vulnerable from sliding into deeper insecurity and malnutrition,” White House spokesman John Kirby told reporters.

Ukraine-Russia grain deal to include control centre, inspections


Issued on: 22/07/2022 

01:24 Russian and Ukrainian delegations meeting along with UN and Turkish negotiators in Istanbul, Wednesday, July 13, 2022. © Turkish Defence Ministry via AP

Text by: FRANCE 24


Ukraine and Russia are set to sign a deal in Istanbul on Friday to reopen Ukraine's Black Sea ports and release Ukrainian grain exports, according to Turkey. Here are some details of the measures likely to be adopted in the agreement.

Following nearly two months of tough negotiations, Ukrainian and Russian officials are expected to sign the Black Sea ports deal at a ceremony in Istanbul’s Dolmabahçe Palace in the presence of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.

Some of the measures negotiated by the two sides:

Control centre based in Istanbul

A coordination and monitoring centre will be established in Istanbul, to be staffed by UN, Turkish, Russian and Ukrainian officials, which would run and coordinate the grain exports, officials have said.

Ships would be inspected to ensure that they are carrying grains and fertiliser rather than weapons. It also makes provision for the safe passage of the ships.

The control centre will be responsible for establishing ship rotation schedules in the Black Sea. Around three to four weeks are still needed to finalise details to make it operational, according to the experts involved in the negotiations.

Inspections on departures and arrivals in Turkey

The inspection of ships carrying grain was a Russian condition to ensure vessels would not simultaneously deliver weapons to Ukraine.

These inspections will not take place at sea as was once envisaged due to practical reasons, but will be carried out in Turkey, probably in Istanbul, which has two major commercial ports at the entrance to the Bosphorus (Haydarpasa) and on the Sea of Marmara (Ambarli).

Conducted by representatives of the four parties, the inspections will done upon the departure and arrival of ships.

Securing shipping lanes

Russians and Ukrainians are committed to respecting shipping lanes free of military activity in the Black Sea.

Under the agreement, if demining is required, it will have to be carried out by a "third country". Details of the third party have not yet been specified.

From Ukraine, the ships will be escorted by Ukrainian vessels (probably military) leading the way out of Ukrainian territorial waters.

Four-month duration, automatic renewal

The agreement would be signed for four months and automatically renewed. If 20 to 25 tonnes of grain are currently outstanding in silos in Ukrainian ports, and at a rate of eight tonnes evacuated per month, this four-month period should be enough to clear the stocks.

A condition related to Russian grain and fertilisers

A memorandum of understanding must accompany this agreement, signed by the UN and Russia, guaranteeing that Western sanctions against Moscow will not affect Russian grain and fertilisers, directly or indirectly.

This was a Russian prerequisite for signing the agreement.

What is the remedy against inflation?

by Mario Seccareccia

July 19, 2022

From the Monetary Policy Institute: Has the Bank of Canada already abandoned its new mandate a mere six months after its adoption?

Credit: Michelle Spollen / Unsplash


On July 13, the Bank of Canada raised its policy interest rate by an aggressive 100 basis points, making it the biggest hike in almost a quarter century. Given its 2 per cent inflation target and an inflation rate at 7.7 percent in May, it was hardly surprising to see another rate jump.

At the end of January, the Bank officially removed its so-called “exceptional” forward guidance — which kept its policy interest rate pegged for over two years at 0.25 percent since the beginning of the pandemic — and since, we have seen a subsequent revision of its forward guidance. Now, the target overnight/policy rate would have to reach its estimated non-inflationary “neutral” interest rate range of between 2–3 percent mid-point. This would ensure that Canada’s inflation returns to its 2 percent target by 2024.

Hence, given the official forewarnings, the upward path taken for its policy interest rate, which started in early March with an initial mild increase of 25 basis points, was certainly predictable. However, the speedy acceleration of the policy rate increases, which have been bringing its policy rate prematurely closer towards its “neutral” level in 2022, is a surprise. Its policy rate first went up by 50 basis points each time in April and again in early June, and now we observe what Governor Macklem refers to as a “front-end loading”: a 100 basis-point jump in July!

This essentially multiplies its overnight rate tenfold — to 2.5 percent within approximately five months. We are told by the Governor that the recent more aggressive measure was needed to prevent inflationary expectations from becoming entrenched in the price/wage setting process since the overall inflation has now become generalised with the Bank’s “core” measures of Canada’s inflation rate having recently jumped from 3.9 percent to 5.4 percent.

One can easily become entangled within the technical universe of the Bank of Canada. Indeed, many policy analysts in Canada have been swayed by the Bank’s repeated assertion that, as a modern inflation-fighting central bank, it can well plan and clinically engineer a programmed disinflation within the next two years. However, given the blunt instrument that it disposes, it may well face a credibility problem. The Bank recognizes that there are some extremely serious risks with the adoption of this hawkish interest-rate experiment, which, sadly, we have seen before with the “mother” of these interest-rate increases being the famous “Volcker shock” in the United States, over four decades ago.

Viewed superficially from its decision on July 13, it would seem that the Bank is currently betting that it can initiate a significant “shock” effect so as to prevent the increasing inflationary expectations from becoming “entrenched” and that it can manage a smooth disinflation or “soft landing” without significantly damaging the country’s fragile growth as the Canadian economy struggles to come out of the COVID-19 crisis.

Unfortunately for the Bank’s communication strategy, not everyone believes this — not even the financial community! A revealing example is the evolution of the Canadian dollar immediately following the announcement of the 100-basis points hike, which, instead of the expected currency appreciation (as the textbooks would predict with a large interest-rate increase), the loonie actually dropped to a 20-month low vis-à-vis the US dollar immediately following the rate increase!

Contrary to those who explain this decline in the Canadian dollar on the expected rise in the US Federal Funds Rate by 75 basis points later in July, I believe the principal reason is the fear that this hawkish Bank of Canada behaviour could generate yet another recession in Canada, especially after just having suffered the terrible damages from Covid-19 over the last two years.

Visibly, there are many who believe that the Bank will not manage this programmed disinflation in Canada particularly well. In fact, as recognized in a recent study by David Macdonald at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, there is no historical precedence over the last half century that our central bank can manage significant rate hikes of the magnitude that we have witnessed cumulatively over the last few months without causing a serious recession. While the Bank actually does predict slower growth for 2023 and 2024 because of the slow return towards increasing austerity, researchers at the Bank do not predict the negative growth that Macdonald’s historical evidence actually suggests.

In light of this, a few obvious questions all Canadians should be asking are: why is the Bank not considering such empirical evidence? And why is it willing to risk what predictably can be a “hard landing” with an expressed desire to return to higher unemployment levels after just a very short interval over the last few months of unusually low unemployment and high vacancy rates?

After all, this growing labour market tightness may well be merely a special feature of an economy recovering from the ongoing pandemic rather than a normal feature of an economy that is overheating. Some recent work would suggest that we are still far from the type of full-employment rates of unemployment that, for instance, had prevailed in the early postwar period in Canada.

Moreover, has Governor Macklem forgotten or deliberately overlooked the new mandate of the Bank of Canada that was adopted by the Trudeau government just a mere six months ago in December 2021? Is he ignoring the evidence that its discretionary interest-rate policy might create a significant recession accompanied by predictably much higher unemployment? While the priority for the Bank of Canada remains its 2 percent inflation target, it cannot officially disregard the potential impact that its interest rate policy can have on the unemployment rate — which after all does have an official mention in its new five-year monetary policy mandate. The risks of a hard landing have been completely ignored with its aggressive “front-end loading” of the Bank’s interest-rate increases.

Also, in its official statement, the Bank does correctly recognize that the principal drivers of the inflation rate in Canada are “global factors such as the war in Ukraine and ongoing supply disruptions”. Yet, in the same breath, it concludes that “domestic price pressures from excess demand are becoming more prominent.” But what precisely is the evidence that the demand-side factors are taking on a “more prominent” role in pushing upward the inflation rate?

As stated above, the historically-high job vacancy rate may merely be symptomatic of specific labour-market problems connected with our recovery from the pandemic and not an indicator of generalized excess-demand problems in the product markets. Much of the empirical evidence produced in the United States, which includes work done by some US Fed economists, would suggest that demand-side factors are not at all predominant in explaining product price increases and that the inflation rate has actually become somewhat unresponsive to demand-side indicators, such as the unemployment rate, thereby revealing a relatively flat Phillips Curve.

If the inflation rate is not very responsive to rising unemployment, and if most of the inflation is related to supply-side problems that the Bank cannot control, such as international oil price increases, then why inflict the pain of higher unemployment on the Canadian economy? Given the high sacrifice ratio of getting the inflation rate down even marginally, why should wage earners bear the burden of the Bank’s anti-inflation policy?

The only logical conclusion that one can derive from this hawkish policy is that the Bank is deliberately taking side against labour by preventing wages from rising and catching up with the inflation rate. To achieve that, it must increase the unemployment rate significantly so as to weaken the bargaining power especially of organised labour. Much of the evidence from the United States points to significant rises in profit markups of business enterprises throughout 2021 and early 2022. Labour has been very slow to redress that widening gap between prices and wages by demanding higher wage increases that have significantly lagged behind price increases.

Even in Canada, we have seen wage increases lagging significantly behind inflation. For instance, as late as in May, consumer prices grew by 7.7 percent while average hourly wages grew by 3.9 percent. Seeing that wage increases are beginning to accelerate with a jump to 5.2 percent in June, the Bank has decided to make full use of its interest-rate lever to prevent this wage catch-up. The potential effect of the interest rate hike is to slow down significantly the economy and generate higher unemployment. When looked at from the angle of labour, such a policy must raise a fundamental moral question of controlling inflation for whom?

In sum, what if the Bank succeeds in controlling wage growth but the inflation rate continues to be sustained by international factors over which the Bank actually has no control? Why would it de facto be taking side by imposing the burden of the inflation on workers? One must remind the Bank that during that whole era of “inflation first” monetary policy since the 1980s, workers saw their share of national income decline significantly even though, over the longer term during that era especially before the Global Financial Crisis, wages were actually growing more or less commensurate with consumer prices. As is well known, the reason why the share of labour declined over those decades was because real wages were flat while the economy’s productivity grew, thereby expanding the shares of profit and interest income earners at the expense of labour’s share.

On July 13, 2022, in its fight against inflation, the Bank is not only offering the prospect of a familiar decline in the share of labour, which working people in Canada had suffered already to a very great extent since the 1980s, but it is also offering a predictable decline in real wages over the coming years. When looked at through the looking glass of its incidence on ordinary working Canadians, there is a fundamental moral problem to which the Bank seems to be noticeably insensitive. In the current context, it is wrong to raise interest rates so quickly whose only predictable outcome is higher unemployment that will slow down wage growth so as to prevent a wage-price spiral that would otherwise become an inflationary “add-on” domestically to the imported international supply-side inflation over which admittedly the Bank of Canada has no control.

As raised elsewhere, surely one ought to consider a more equitable solution to this wage-price spiral than this biased “class war” outcome in which an important agency of the federal government has chosen to take side against labour.

Reference:
Seccareccia, Mario (2022), “Can the Pursuit of Fiscal and Monetary Policies Achieve a Meaningful Full-Employment Objective without Inflation? Learning from the Canadian Historical Experience, including the Recent COVID-19 Crisis”, Paper presented at the XXII Seminar of Fiscal and Financial Economics, Public and Private Credit: National and Global Experiences in the Current Crisis, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City (March 30).

This piece originally appeared in the Monetary Policy Institute.

Landlord-tenant relations reach a boiling point over A/C units

by Nick Seebruch

RABBLE.CA

July 21, 2022

In a time of rising rental rates, reno-victions is a term that has quickly entered the vernacular, but now it seems to come in a new summer flavour: A/Cvictions.

Residents outside the building shortly after they received eviction notices.

 Credit: @BhutilaKarpoche / Twitter


As a humid heatwave hangs heavy in the air across much of Ontario, residents of one apartment building in Toronto must choose between air conditioning and affordability.

Last month, dozens of residents living at 130 Jameson Ave., a multi-residential high-rise apartment building in Toronto’s Parkdale neighbourhood, received notices of eviction. The reason given for these notices was that these residents had air conditioning units in their homes.

There were at least 50 residents who received such notices. Resident Shelly Dunphy has lived in the building her entire life, she says she was practically born there, and she told rabble.ca that this was the first time that air conditioning units caused an issue.

In an email obtained by rabble from Myriad Property Management, who manage the building, the company states that operating air conditioning units are not covered by the tenants lease agreement.

“We conduct annual inspections of all the units in 130 Jameson. During that time, we note any deviations to what is allowable under that tenant’s lease. This could include air conditioners and other additional appliances not included in the lease agreement,” the email reads.

Myriad goes on to state that tenants are then given two weeks to choose to either pay them a fee for the unit, or to enter into an agreement with the electricity company to pay for the costs of the air conditioner. If the tenant chooses neither of these options, then they are served with a notice of eviction, known as an N5.

“We are doing nothing that is not proscribed in the RTA and enforced by the LTB,” Myriad states, referring to the Residential Tenancies Act which is enforced by the Landlord Tenant Board. “It was not, has never been, and will never be our intent to evict someone without providing them the opportunity to remedy the situation in a reasonable manner and amount of time.”
A matter of gentrification

Dunphy said that this is an example of a landlord attempting to evict tenants in order to put properties back on the rental market at a higher rate.

“Local rents in the neighbourhood have doubled in the past 10 years,” Dunphy said. “Once this happens to us, other buildings in the neighbourhood will be next.”

Myriad’s tactic is a different flavour of a similar strategy that has been seen more frequently in different years, reno-victions.

Under the RTA, a landlord can only raise a tenant’s rent once a year, and only at a maximum rate of 1.2 per cent year-over-year.

However, a landlord can set the rent on a vacant property as high as the market can bear. In times when property values are rapidly rising and housing is at a premium, unscrupulous landlords have an incentive to evict tenants in order to get a bigger financial return from their rental units. One condition under which a landlord can evict a tenant is if the landlord states that renovations must be done to the unit in order for it to remain habitable.

If a tenant receives a notice of eviction from their landlord for the purpose of renovations, the tenant can still return to the property once the renovations are completed under their original rental rate as stated in the RTA. To do this, a tenant must inform their landlord of their intentions in writing and must also refuse any financial compensation offered by the landlord.

In the meantime, the tenant will still have to find other accommodations at their own expense until the renovations are completed. The tenant can also dispute the need for renovations entirely in front of the LTB, but it currently takes the LTB an average of 131 days in order to fully hear and rule on a case.

While the housing market continues to cool in Toronto, Torontorentals.com stated in their June report that the average rental price in the city in May was 16.5 per cent higher than it was just the year prior.

In May of 2019, the average two-bedroom apartment cost $2,204 a month to rent; by May of this year, that price rose to $2,584 a month.
Putting the brakes on a runaway rental market

Ontario NDP MPP Bhutila Karpoche represents the Parkdale neighbourhood in the Ontario Legislature. In October of 2021, she co-sponsored a bill to stop skyrocketing rents in the province.

The Rent Stabilization Act would have limited the amount a landlord could raise the rent on a vacant property to 1.2 per cent.

“People are being forced out of their neighborhoods, away from their support systems, because of rising rents,” said Karpoche’s fellow Toronto NDP MPP Jessica Bell, who also co-sponsored the bill. “They’re being reno-victed by landlords looking for an excuse to get them out because they’re allowed to hike rents as much as they like in between tenants.”

Karpoche told rabble that tenants receiving eviction notices for having air conditioning units was just another form of reno-viction.
Province should protect tenants from the heat

“I think the landlord should withdraw these eviction notices,” Karpoche said. “It is really important that tenants have ways to protect their health and safety during heat events.”

During the winter months, the RTA stipulates that it is a landlord’s responsibility to maintain a minimum temperature of 21 degrees in a rental unit. Karpoche is calling on the Ontario government to implement a maximum temperature regulation so that tenants are protected from extreme weather events in both the summer and in the winter.

In July of 2021 Kiri Vadivelu of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) Scarborough called on the government of Ontario Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford to intervene, explaining that it was not unusual for landlords to block tenants from installing air conditioning units.

“Heat is a serious health issue, and tenants need to be able to stay cool,” said Vadivelu. “But many landlords are charging illegal fees and harassing tenants that have window air conditioning units, which is putting people’s health at risk.”

Dunphy said that she was organizing with some of her fellow tenants at 130 Jameson to fight the notices from Myriad and that they are getting help in doing so from the Parkdale Community Legal Services. She encouraged her fellow residents not to sign the new agreement with the landlord.

This article is part of rabble’s series “The Boiling Point.” The Boiling Point examines the ways increasingly high temperatures due to the climate crisis are affecting our summers in Canada on a social, institutional, and ecological level. The series also explains how Canadians can take action against climate change and make real differences in their communities. Follow more stories here.

NICK SEEBRUCH
Nick Seebruch has been the editor of rabble.ca since April 2022. He believes that fearless independent journalism is key for the survival of a healthy democracy. An OCNA award-winning journalist, for... More by Nick Seebruch

Call on Your MP to Protect Our Oceans and Stop Deep Sea Mining Before It Starts

EDITOR MESSAGE

MININGWATCH. CA
1 June 2022, 

Mining could soon begin in one of the most fragile ecosystems on the planet: the deep seabed. And while Canadian companies are at the forefront of efforts to expand this destructive industry into our oceans, the Canadian government has largely remained silent. Canada is failing to join a global movement calling for a moratorium and has no official position on deep seabed mining in either domestic or international waters. That needs to change.

The ocean is already being threatened by pollution, overfishing, climate change, and biodiversity loss. Frontline communities, scientists, and organizations are all warning that deep seabed mining could cause catastrophic biodiversity loss that could never recover on a human timescale. We know that our oceans depend on healthy ecosystems to store carbon, provide habitats, and recycle nutrients. While much work needs to be done to restore the health of our oceans, deep sea mining is a new and tangible threat that we can stop before it starts — but we have to act quickly.

It’s time for Canada to protect our oceans. Call on your Member of Parliament to oppose deep seabed mining and to support policies that will protect the seabed along Canada’s coasts and in the international waters that belong to all of us.

https://miningwatch.ca/blog/2022/6/1/call-your-mp-protect-our-oceans-and-stop-deep-sea-mining-it-starts

CTHULHU SAYS

Ban octopus farming in Canada!

— Several countries have plans to begin commercial octopus farming within the next year. Farming carnivorous animals like octopuses places even more strain on the oceans because it means taking another species out of the ocean to feed them. There is no reliably humane way to slaughter octopuses on a commercial scale. Petition starter Karina is asking the government to ban commercial octopus farms in Canada, as well as the import of farmed octopus, so octopuses aren’t raised to simply die a painful death. If you agree with Karina, sign the petition now.

Ban octopus farming in Canada!

72 have signed Karina H’s petition. Let’s get to 100!

Octopuses are some of the most intelligent animals. They play, they’re curious, and they’re solitary creatures that need lots of stimulation. While they are subjected to cruel practices all across the world, the biggest threat they face is factory farming. Factory farming octopuses is something that’s just getting started. The first one plans to sell farmed octopus in 2023, and hopes to farm 275,000 of them each year. It claims that it will help wild octopus populations by getting people to eat their farmed octopuses instead. Octopuses can’t thrive in a farmed setting, and humane methods of slaughter on such a huge scale would be very difficult. Not only that, but this farm and future farms could pollute the environment, spread diseases to the local wild octopus populations, and contribute to overfishing. Not only that, but it could cause demand for octopus meat to skyrocket as people develop a taste for it. If we really want to help octopuses, we have to eat less of them and impose stronger regulations on the fishing of wild octopus.   This petition calls for Canada to ban farmed octopus and the importation of farmed octopus. Canada already has some laws protecting octopuses, so banning farmed octopus is not a huge demand.

Sign now with a click

Visit petition page

New Analysis Confirms High Risk, Threats Posed by B.C.'s Booming Mining Sector

NEWS RELEASE
14 July 2022, 

British ColumbiaWaste Rock and Tailings
Source: BC Mining Law Reform – SkeenaWild Conservation Trust

Risks escalating due to more frequent catastrophic climate change-related weather events

The waste created by British Columbia’s accelerating mining boom is a growing threat to communities and watersheds throughout the province, according to a new report released today. The increase in extreme weather events brought on by climate change intensifies this threat: severe flooding is one of the main causes of tailings dam failure at mine sites around the world.

The report, by Dr. Steven Emerman, a respected geophysicist and international expert specializing in groundwater and mining, coincides with the publication of an interactive online map that fills a knowledge gap by providing communities with easier access to critical information about the risks that billions of cubic metres of toxic liquid mine waste, called tailings, pose to them and the environment.

The tailings are known to contain a range of toxic elements including arsenic, cyanide, mercury, selenium, and other heavy metals harmful to human health and the environment. They are stored behind some of the highest dams in the world – and there are plans to build even more throughout B.C.

NEW DATA + ANALYSIS

Dr. Emerman analyzed B.C. government and industry data for 86 mine sites with tailing: 57 mines that are closed or under care and maintenance, 18 that are operating, and 11 proposed.

Among Emerman’s key findings are:The death toll following a failure at many of the highest risk dams could be in the hundreds and could irreparably destroy salmon habitat, commercial farms, and vital infrastructure.
Communities in the Fraser River watershed, including Abbotsford, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Delta, Richmond, Surrey and Vancouver are at risk. For example, a dam breach at just one of the tailings facilities at Highland Valley Copper in the Fraser Basin, with a dam capacity equal to 480,000 Olympic-size swimming pools, could devastate communities far downstream.
The quantity of tailings currently being stored at B.C. mines is conservatively estimated to be 2.5 billion cubic metres, equivalent to the volume of one million Olympic-size swimming pools. This volume is expected to increase by 75 per cent with the addition of 11 new mines.
Catastrophic flooding has become a regular event in B.C. and has the potential to destabilize tailings storage facilities in high rainfall areas. This is a major cause of dam failures globally.
Several large tailings storage facilities in B.C. are in high-risk earthquake zones, which adds to the threat of dams being breached.
Recent B.C. government data shows the number of operating coal and metal mines in B.C. will double over the coming years to meet the growing demand for raw materials to transition the global economy away from carbon.

BIGGER DAMS MEAN BIGGER THREATS TO PEOPLE AND WATERSHEDS

The height of B.C. tailings dams has grown exponentially in recent years, allowing mines to add hundreds of millions of cubic metres of tailings to storage facilities. B.C. already has some of the highest tailings dams in the world. Several proposed new mines would add to the total.In southern B.C. the owners of the Copper Mountain copper mine near Princeton on the Similkameen River plan to increase the height of one tailings dam to 260 metres – 60 metres higher than Vancouver’s tallest building the Shangri-la tower. This would make the Copper Mountain Mine tailings dams the second and third tallest in the world. The sheer volume of the mine tailings looming over the Similkameen is deeply concerning, earning the Copper Mountain Mine a ranking in the “Dirty Dozen” mines for poor environmental practices and non-compliance with B.C.’s environmental regulations.
In northern B.C., the tailings dam at the proposed KSM mine near the Alaska border could rise to 239 metres – 38 metres taller than the Shangri-la tower – and hold back up to 1.15 billion cubic metres of tailings, equivalent to the capacity of 460,000 Olympic-size swimming pools.

The interactive online map and report were commissioned by the BC Mining Law Reform network in partnership with SkeenaWild Conservation Trust.

QUOTES

“Dr. Emerman’s analysis shows the level of risk British Columbians and our U.S. downstream neighbours face from existing and planned mining operations in the province. Mining companies need to be reducing their tailings volumes—not increasing them—and designing tailings facilities to meet internationally accepted safety standards and withstand increasing climate change impacts. It’s on the B.C. government to ensure this happens before we face another major mining disaster.” Adrienne Berchtold, Ecologist & Mining Impacts Researcher, SkeenaWild Conservation Trust

“The Mount Polley mine disaster was a wake-up call to B.C.’s mining companies and the province. This map and report show that the risks to the environment and communities from tailings dams are still high and growing. More action is needed to follow through and get B.C. on a path to zero failures—from cutting the inventory in half, to phasing out certain mine dam construction methods. The government needs to act now to improve safety standards as mining continues to expand in the province.” Jamie Kneen, Canada Program Co-lead, MiningWatch Canada, Co-Chair of BC Mining Law Reform

REACTION TO THE REPORT

First Nations Energy and Mining Council (FNEMC)

"FNEMC has profiled in our analysis how dozens of First Nations communities could be impacted by tailings failures just in Northern British Columbia. This new report from BC Mining Law Reform (BCMLR) and SkeenaWild illustrates how the risks to First Nations in British Columbia are growing. FNEMC is deeply concerned about the management of tailings facilities in B.C., especially in light of more flooding from climate change. The B.C. government must engage directly with Nations that could be impacted by a failure of a tailings dam to avoid the disaster we’ve already seen with Mount Polley.

“FNEMC also welcomes BCMLR's new interactive online map which will fill the knowledge gap to help equip communities with information about mining activity in their territories."

See:

Online Interactive Map

Report by Dr. Steven Emerman: 

The Risk of Tailings Dam Failure in British Columbia: An Analysis of the British Columbia Existing and Future Tailings Storage Database

Primer on the report and map

Is Poilievre’s pledge to make Canada ‘the freest nation on earth’ the silliest campaign promise on earth?

by Rick SalutinJuly 22, 2022

You do not “make” a people or nation free. They free themselves. The notion that Poilievre must himself free(er) us reeks of arrogance.

So what’ll he devote his effort to as PM — housing? Climate? Health? No: making us even freester (since we’re already freest). How gloriously pointless. Credit: Pierre Poilievre / Instagram

Tory leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre’s pledge to make Canada “the freest nation on earth” may be the silliest campaign promise on earth. Why? Well, to start, we’re already almost there. There are indeed insipid freedom rankings by right-wing think-tanks like Cato and Fraser, beloved of right-wingers like Poilievre, that batten on “personal” and “economic” freedoms — e.g., can you do anything you want and get rich as hell (or alternately, live in a cardboard box under a bridge, if that’s your thing)? From this dubious data they tote up a comparative Freedom Index.

And Canada ranks #8 of 165, a mere .36 of a point behind Switzerland, which is surely a statistical tie. In fact, because those ahead of us are all smaller, less diverse, therefore easier to govern, etc., I’m giving us the lead.

The whole exercise has all the indignity of august Canadian universities grovelling and sweating over where they stand in the innumerable global uni rankings that now jostle for space. So by Poilievre’s own right-wing standards, Canada’s already ahead of almost everyone — including the U.K. and U.S., ranked 14 and 15. So what’ll he devote his effort to as PM — housing? Climate? Health? No: making us even freester (since we’re already freest). How gloriously pointless.

But let me pause to calm down and say why it’s basically idiotic.

You do not “make” a people or nation free. They free themselves. Either by literally rebelling, or replacing their leaders. We don’t require Poilievre to fire the gatekeepers, as he likes saying, who are either elected or appointed by those who were. We vote them out and it’s done. The notion that Poilievre must himself free(er) us reeks of arrogance and smells of top-down leaderism.

“Freest” as a comparative adjective is bizarre. Freedom’s not about checked boxes. You could do the same with love: most loved on earth, in town, on your street — but why would you? Everything varies with what you value about freedom: getting to shoot your mouth off, or be crazy rich, or endanger others by refusing to be vaxxed and exposing them to you.

Or alternately, being able to achieve freedom only alongside others, as Percy Shelley wrote: “What art thou Freedom? O! could slaves / Answer from their living graves … Thou art clothes, and fire, and food / For the trampled multitude— / No — in countries that are free / Such starvation cannot be…”

It essentially comes down to freedom for me (“personal freedom” à la the indexes) or freedom through commonality, as in Shelley — or FDR’s New Deal. Note in passing that the foundational revolutionary French demand for Liberté immediately appended equality and fraternity.

But let’s skip directly to the germinal event in the current blahblah about freedom in Canada: the truckers’ convoy which Poilievre embraced. In fact, it was less truckers than truck owners who could bring and stay in their rigs. Actual truck drivers were largely absent, since they were on the road working.

The freedom demanded there was almost all “personal”: snarling traffic, blaring horns till residents felt deranged. And an ultimatum to end COVID mandates — which BTW never forced anyone to get vaxxed, but did prohibit participation in public situations to protect others’ freedom not to get sick.

So some people’s “freest” might easily be other people’s utter hell. Such complexities do not simple campaign slogans make.

During the civil rights years in the U.S., there was an anthem called “Oh Freedom!” When the singer sang, Over me, others echoed, Over me — because we were fighting for freedom over us all. I had a dear friend who occasionally slipped into schizoid phases and if we were out walking and singing that, he’d sometimes chime back, Over you. He took it literally. It was delightful.

I feel as if Pierre Poilievre responds, Over you, to calls for freedom, especially from those he favours. He’s a personal freedom kind of guy who doesn’t view freedom as a necessarily shared activity. Nor does he have the excuse of being endearingly nuts. It’s just the way he thinks.

This column originally appeared in the Toronto Star.

The inconvenient anti-choice record of ‘pro-choice’ Pierre Poilievre

by Joyce Arthur

rabble.ca

July 19, 2022
The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) keeps a list of anti-choice Members of Parliament and has always rated Poilievre as anti-choice.

It's reasonable then to wonder if Poilievre’s pro-choice assertions are made for political reasons and to question if they are genuine or trustworthy.

Pierre Poilievre is the current front runner for the Conservative Party leadership, and he might owe his leading position in part due to recent claims that he is pro-choice on the abortion issue. But how credible are these declarations, given that Poilievre has been a long-time anti-choice advocate?

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) keeps a list of anti-choice Members of Parliament and has always rated Poilievre as anti-choice and continues to do so. Fourteen years ago, Poilievre opposed giving Dr. Henry Morgentaler the Order of Canada. Since then, he has consistently voted in favour of anti-choice private member bills and motions, with just one exception – he voted against Bill C-233 in 2021 (to ban sex selection abortion).

Based on this history, it’s not enough for Poilievre to suddenly start making pro-choice comments in public, because this could be a political gambit to secure the leadership spot. It was the same story with previous Conservative Party leader Erin O’Toole, who claimed to be pro-choice but had courted the anti-abortion movement during his leadership bid, was willing to welcome private member bills on the issue and allow a free vote, and had himself voted in favour of such bills in the past.

Pierre Poilievre notably insisted that he is “pro-choice” and “pro-choix” at the French language debate in May 2022, but it was January 2020 when he first changed his tune. The anti-choice group Campaign Life Coalition explains that Poilievre “abandoned his past pro-life beliefs during the previous leadership race when he was considering running, deciding that the ‘pro-life’ label was no longer useful.” In January 2020, Poilievre told a journalist: “On this issue, I stand with [Stephen] Harper. I do not want to reopen the abortion debate.” If Poilievre’s position is the same as Stephen Harper’s, it must be noted that ARCC has always designated Harper as anti-choice.

It’s reasonable then to wonder if Poilievre’s pro-choice assertions are made for political reasons and to question if they are genuine or trustworthy. After all, Poilievre knows that a public anti-choice stance will not give him the credibility he needs for a victory.
There’s just too many other reasons to doubt Poilievre’s pro-choice claims

Like Erin O’Toole, Poilievre would allow private member bills against abortion to be introduced and would allow a free vote. In a majority Conservative government, such a bill could pass despite his promise to not let that happen. If Poilievre was truly pro-choice, he should instead promise that he would forbid any member of his party from introducing private member bills that challenge human rights.

Poilievre was silent after the draft Roe v. Wade decision was leaked in the U.S. and has not spoken up since to defend abortion rights. He has never discussed the steps he would take to improve abortion access across Canada, such as through more rigorous enforcement of the Canada Health Act to ensure abortion care is available in every region of Canada. A current Lead Now petition with over 20,000 signatures is calling on the Conservative Party leadership to affirm its support for access to abortion and reproductive services. Where is Poilievre’s voice on this issue?

Poilievre has pledged his support for compelling “freedom of expression” on university campuses. This is a dog-whistle to the anti-choice movement and other right-wing groups so they can freely spread propaganda and hatred. Anti-choice groups have a long history of battling to establish their presence at campuses across Canada, such as by applying for club status and funding, displaying graphic imagery, and holding events that spread misinformation.

Outspoken anti-choice MP Garnett Genuis has recommended that social conservatives vote for Poilievre as their second choice after Leslyn Lewis. While Campaign Life Coalition disagrees, anti-choice group RightNow gave Poilievre a respectable passing grade of 68% in their survey. In other words, he’s got a lot going for him in social conservative circles.

Indeed, Poilievre has a generally right-wing voting record on other issues, as indicated by Campaign Life Coalition. He was an opponent of same-sex marriage until publicly changing his stance at exactly the same time he switched from anti-choice to pro-choice. He has recently supported the Freedom Convoy and opposed COVID-19 vaccine mandates, and appears to still oppose the right to medical assistance in dying.

In June 2022, ARCC actually removed five Members of Parliament from its list of anti-choice MPs because they reached out to the group, provided evidence that they were solidly pro-choice, and indicated they had been misled by Bill C-225 in 2016, which would have established some fetal rights (each had voted in favour of only that bill, or an earlier similar one, Bill C-484). These MPs plan to exercise greater caution for future similar bills and are now aware of ARCC’s arguments against Bill C-225.

Poilievre has never reached out to ARCC either now or in the past. But if he were to ask the group to designate him as pro-choice, ARCC would refuse. Given the evidence listed above, he has a considerably higher bar to scale than the MPs that were recently removed. And as a potential party leader, ARCC would apply a higher standard.

In sum, voters should not trust Poilievre’s convenient flip-flop on his abortion views. If he ever became Prime Minister, not only would he allow free votes on private member bills that challenge reproductive rights, it’s likely he would take other regressive steps. For example, he could end the Liberal government’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Fund, withdraw Canada’s foreign aid for reproductive health including safe abortion, and let anti-choice groups continue to spread misinformation and undermine rights, while preserving their charitable tax status.

The best-case scenario is that a Prime Minister Poilievre might do nothing at all on the abortion issue – including not lifting a finger to improve access to abortion care despite the dire need. That’s simply not good enough.

Canadians expect pro-choice politicians to take pro-active steps to defend abortion rights and make sure that every citizen who needs abortion care can access it without barriers, no matter where they live or who they are.

JOYCE ARTHUR
Joyce Arthur is the founder and Executive Director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, a national pro-choice group in Canada. More by Joyce Arthur