Canada
Canada’s 2024 federal budget: What’s in it for rental housing and homelessness?
I’ve written a blog post titled “Canada’s 2024 federal budget: What’s in it for rental housing and homelessness?”
The English version is here: https://nickfalvo.ca/canadas-2024-federal-budget-whats-in-it-for-rental-housing-and-homelessness/
The French version is here: https://nickfalvo.ca/le-budget-federal-2024-quels-sont-les-avantages-our-le-logement-locatif-et-litinerance/
Canada’s 2024 federal budget: What’s in it for rental housing and homelessness?
I’ve written a blog post titled “Canada’s 2024 federal budget: What’s in it for rental housing and homelessness?”
The English version is here: https://nickfalvo.ca/canadas-2024-federal-budget-whats-in-it-for-rental-housing-and-homelessness/
The French version is here: https://nickfalvo.ca/le-budget-federal-2024-quels-sont-les-avantages-our-le-logement-locatif-et-litinerance/
We Asked for Science. We Got Sustain-a-Babble.
Editor’s Note
CASSE encourages members and readers to hold their government agencies to account on the conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. Last week, Brian Czech presented Gag-Ordered No More to the Canadian Association for the Club of Rome, concluding with recommendations for engaging agency directors. We follow up this week with a letter from the Qualicum Institute (British Columbia) to Canada’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change, The Honourable Steven Guilbeault, MP.
Canadian citizens can petition a Minister of the Crown via a Member of Parliament (MP). The minister must respond to each petition within 45 calendar days. In December 2022, MP Rachel Blaney, on behalf of the Qualicum Institute, petitioned Minister Guilbeault to acknowledge the conflict between economic growth and environmental protection, and to apply the principles of steady-state economics in the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change.
What follows is the Qualicum Institute’s rebuttal of Minister Guilbeault’s response. Headings were inserted by CASSE.
The Rebuttal Letter
Canada features many geographies of majestic beauty. (Trevor McKinnon, Unsplash)
To the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada:
The Qualicum Institute (QI) petitioned Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) (Petition 441-01068—Environment. Editor’s note: The link also includes the Minister’s response to the petition.) to pursue a real solution—a move towards steady-state economics—to address the dangerous and escalating climate and biodiversity crises. Steady-state economics, grounded in science, is an economic model that respects physical and ecological limits. There are many experts across a wide array of disciplines who understand and know how to apply ecological economics and who can help keep humanity within the safe operating limits of planet Earth.
We believe it is your job and responsibility, on behalf of all Canadians, to assemble these experts to deal quickly and efficiently with the limiting factors of the climate and biodiversity crises: population and economic growth. Empower these experts and let them begin the transition towards a steady-state solution!
The escalating, threatening crises we face are the direct result of overpopulation, over-development, and ecological overshoot caused by the continued pursuit of economic growth. This isn’t an accident—economic growth requires never-ending expansion in order to grow GDP. It’s an economic model that doesn’t respect and isn’t grounded in physical or biological reality.
Specifically:
- Economic growth is an exponential function
- A 3% growth rate, the target rate of most governments, doubles the size of the economy, and thus resource and energy use, roughly every 23.5 years
- Physical and biological laws dictate that economic growth can only occur by liquidating the natural world on which we depend; absolute decoupling of resource use from GDP is a fantasy
- Scientific data show that exponential GDP growth is occurring lockstep with exponential resource use and climate and biodiversity breakdown. In fact, GDP is actually a measure of environmental impact—our collective ecological footprint—and not a measure of our well-being.
If the Canadian Government’s overarching goal is to grow the economy, then attending conferences, such as the climate and biodiversity Conferences of the Parties (COP), developing policies, protecting natural areas, signing agreements, and funding initiatives, won’t and can’t work. Truth in government matters and we don’t accept the sustain-a-babble provided in your government’s reply to us.
The Reality: Climate
For example, you wrote that “the 27th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which took place in Egypt in November 2022, and the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which took place in Montreal in December 2022, have demonstrated the increasing global focus on these issues.”
Figure 1. Annual mean atmospheric CO2 concentration levels from Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, overlain with the various climate conferences, scientists’ warnings and, in particular, the formal United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conferences of the Parties (COP) and their 28 Climate Change Conferences. (Qualicum Institute based on data from NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory)
We are well aware of all the global meetings that have taken place over the years and the increasing global focus on the issue, which always appears to be of the highest concern. That is until you consider the resulting actions this so-called global focus has generated. Look at how effective these globally focused meetings have been (Figures 1 and 2)! Some focus! Some effective actions!
Despite the scores of climate meetings that have been held, there has been a continual increase in CO2 emissions (Figure 1). These emissions, and their relationship to economic and population factors, have been discussed in many IPCC reports over the years. But the 2014 IPCC report specifically identifies the primary drivers of emissions: “Globally, economic and population growth continue to be the most important drivers of increases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. The contribution of population growth between 2000 and 2010 remained roughly identical to the previous three decades, while the contribution of economic growth has risen sharply (high confidence).”
In your response to us, however, you ignored our specific concerns and did not explain what the Canadian Government has done and is doing to address the two primary emissions drivers. In fact, neither economic growth nor population growth nor steady state economy appear in your response to our Petition yet those are the principle points we fully expected you to address!
The Reality: Biodiversity
Regarding the biodiversity crisis, you wrote, “The [Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity] Framework addresses the direct drivers of global biodiversity loss: land- and sea-use change; direct overexploitation; pollution; invasive species; as well as climate change given that we cannot solve the climate crisis without nature, nor can we solve the nature crisis without stabilizing the climate.”
Figure 2. The Living Planet Index showing an average relative decline of 69% across the studied animal populations, overlain with the various biodiversity conferences, conventions, scientists’ warnings and, in particular, the formal Convention on Biological Diversity Conferences of the Parties (COP) and their 14 Biodiversity Conferences. (Qualicum Institute based on data from Our World in Data)
But—and we emphasize this—the Framework does not address the actual direct or primary drivers of global biodiversity loss according to the current science, which are, again, economic and population growth. The so-called “direct drivers” you mention are merely symptoms of continuous economic growth. As Ripple et al. (2017) note,“economic growth is one of the two major causes of the environmental crisis, along with population growth.” And Pacheco et al. (2018) emphasize that “A transition to sustainability cannot be achieved if our economic system is not radically changed, simply because limitless economic growth is impossible within a limited planet.” Many scientists have echoed these concerns, which makes us seriously question the contention that your government “follows the science.”
The myriad biodiversity meetings over the years that you speak of have paid off in similar results to the climate crisis meetings, in this case an average relative decline of 69% across the studied animal populations since the 1970s (Figure 2). Would you seriously call this “the successful conclusion of [any of] the COP or other such meetings”? We certainly wouldn’t.
You talk of “an ambitious goal” and that budget 2021 investments are setting the stage to support efforts to conserve 30% of land and waters by 2030. But we have known biodiversity loss was a major issue since at least the 1970s, so taking these small, gradual steps now is too little, considering what the science is telling us. Ecological studies have shown that at least 50% of all regional ecosystems need to be restored, preserved, and protected—both land and marine systems—in order to provide sustainable ecosystem services for humanity and all other life forms that share the planet with us. According to Dinerstein et al. (2019) it’s important we “protect at least half of Earth by 2050 and ensure that these areas are connected.” There is a “need to fast-track the protection and restoration of all natural habitat by 2030. A GDN [Global Deal for Nature] that will ensure that we have at least 50% intact natural habitats by 2030 is the only path that will enable a climate-resilient future and is one that will offer a myriad of other benefits.” Protecting only 30% is insufficient and doesn’t follow the science, especially at this late date when time is our least abundant resource.
Ditch the Myth of Absolute Decoupling, Move to a Steady State Economy
If the Government of Canada moves towards steady-state economics and addresses the primary drivers of the climate and biodiversity crises— economic and population growth—it would show Canada as a global leader in true sustainability and, more importantly, give humanity a chance of long-term survival. Then, many of the other actions you describe in your response might add up to make a difference. However, if the government continues to choose to ignore the primary drivers of the climate and biodiversity crises— economic and population growth—the good actions you describe will be overwhelmed and swamped by the exponential growth.
Moreover, we were totally confused by your statement that “Canada is one of many countries demonstrating strong economic performance while decreasing the GHG intensity of their economy.” This is the same decoupling myth that your government used in its reply to our initial petition to the Auditor General of Canada (No. 408 dated 27 May 2017). Since this seems to be your government’s attempt to allow the continuation of economic growth by attempting to decouple that growth from GDP, you might take notice that we debunked that possibility at length in our comments to your predecessor’s reply to that petition with Minister McKenna: Where is the Science? (Dawe et al. 2022).
While there has been some success in relative decoupling, in order to be sustainable, absolute decoupling must occur and that has not been shown to be possible. Hickel and Kallis (2020) found through “Examining relevant studies on historical trends and model-based projections … that: (1) there is no empirical evidence that absolute decoupling from resource use can be achieved on a global scale against a background of continued economic growth, and (2) absolute decoupling from carbon emissions is highly unlikely to be achieved at a rate rapid enough to prevent global warming over 1.5°C or 2°C, even under optimistic policy conditions. We conclude that green growth is likely to be a misguided objective, and that policymakers need to look toward alternative strategies.” Fletcher and Rammelt (2017) describe decoupling “as a ‘fantasy’ that functions to obfuscate fundamental tensions among the goals of poverty alleviation, environmental sustainability, and profitable enterprise that it is intended to reconcile. In this way, decoupling serves to sustain faith in the possibility of attaining sustainable development within the context of a neoliberal capitalist economy that necessitates continual growth to confront inherent contradictions.”
The Government’s Poor Performance to Date
Finally, we have noticed that the crises of climate change and biodiversity loss have all been handled by your government reluctantly and in an inefficient manner. There seems to be no understanding of the relevant scientific information. This seems to us due to the government’s pathological reliance on an economy dependent upon growth and debt at the expense of humanity and the other lifeforms on Earth. Your government has relied on a faulty human construct—neoclassical economics—designed not by scientists but by conventional economists.
Parliament: Do the right thing for Canada and the planet! (Chelsey Faucher, Unsplash)
“Neoclassical economics does not even acknowledge the costs of environmental problems and the limits to economic growth, [and thus] it constitutes one of the greatest barriers to combating climate change and other threats to the planet” (Nadeau 2008). The assumptions of neoclassical economics are inconsistent with reality and the current science and fail to recognize that the global and local economies lie within the biosphere and its limits (Moldan, Janoušková, and Hák 2012; Rockström et al. 2023). As Kosoy et al. (2012) point out, “The simple, but to many unthinkable, fact is that you cannot get to a flourishing or even sustainable Earth if you start with the assumptions of neo-classical economics.”
The climate and biodiversity crises are global issues and both have been driven to the crisis point by governments engaging in confirmation bias and clinging to the demonstrably false human construct of economic growth, a construct facilitated by population growth and growth in per capita consumption. We cannot see any improvement regarding either crisis without dealing with economic growth. This would entail, among other things, going through a period of degrowth of both population and consumption as we move towards a steady state economy, an economy in balance with the regenerative and assimilative capacities of the biosphere. Listening further to conventional economists who, in no small way, have brought us to this point, rather than ecological (not environmental) economists, will only exacerbate the crises, leading us in the direction of a 4° C global temperature anomaly and leaving us with a depauperate planet, where many species, including perhaps humans, cannot survive.
If we ever hope to have a sustainable society, governments must follow the science and commit to a solution that lies within the physical and biological laws of the universe. As our leaders, we fully expect the Canadian Government—especially ECCC—to respect and be led by the science and to support a move towards the only truly sustainable solution to these crises: a steady state economy.
Can you make this commitment?
Sincerely,
Neil K. Dawe, President and Terri D. Martin, Secretary
On behalf of the Board of Directors
Qualicum Institute https://qualicuminstitute.ca/
Neil K. Dawe is President, and Terri D. Martin is Secretary, of the Qualicum Institute in British Columbia.
The post We Asked for Science. We Got Sustain-a-Babble. appeared first on Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy.
‘Adopting Canada’s Progressive Conservative Strategy Won’t Save Rishi Sunak’s Party’
Across Britain, political commentators have been singing Pierre Poilievre’s praises. Poilievre, Leader of Canada’s Progressive Conservative Party, now leads Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the polls by a 17-point margin. In all likelihood, he will be the next prime minister of Canada.
At first glance, Poilievre seems like UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s foil – something many commentators in Britain have picked up on.
Both are young Conservatives who rose to prominence in 2022 – one as opposition leader, the other as Prime Minister. Both have ascended in similar economic and political climates – in which issues like COVID, immigration, inflation, and an overheated housing market were front and centre.
Both moved the needle some 20 points for under-thirties – but only one, Poilievre, moved it in the right direction.
Perfect opposites, Poilievre has ushered in a new and almost unprecedented category of young Conservative voters, while Sunak has nearly eliminated them – with only one in 10 Brits under 40 reportedly planning to vote Conservative in the next election.
It is tempting to suggest – as many British columnists have – that Sunak and the Conservatives should be modelling their political calculus on Poilievre. But this is a misreading of the political situation in Canada.
Poilievre’s policy approach and rhetoric hasn’t won over Canadians in any meaningful sense. Rather, Canadians have fallen out of love with Trudeau in a big way. What’s more, endeavours by Sunak’s Conservatives to descend into populism have mostly backfired.
There is no understating how disliked Trudeau is by many Canadians. Two-thirds look upon him unfavourably, and half believe he should resign before the next election.
Because Canadian news doesn’t travel particularly well, this is easy to overlook. To some on this side of the Atlantic, Trudeau still appears the fashionable young progressive – or the beloved, beady-eyed “Calvin Klein model” – he appeared to be in 2015.
At the moment, the country finds itself embroiled in a $60 million dollar corruption scandal that led to a precipitous decline in Liberal favourability when the news surfaced last November. Colloquially known as 'ArriveScam’, the scandal involves what appears to be reckless overspending on a mid-pandemic app created by government contractors, which was meant to speed up border declarations. But his is just one of a long string of scandals that has plagued Trudeau's administration.
Canada’s souring on the Liberals, then, has little to do with what Poilievre has done well and everything to do with what Trudeau’s administration has done poorly, unethically and scandalously.
No doubt, Poilievre is a skilled politician. But the economic and social vicissitudes of recent years have made the opposition’s job in both Canada and the UK a sinecure.
Just like in Canada, Labour’s success in the polls is in no small part owing to the Conservatives floundering, what with 'Partygate’, Liz Truss’ fall from grace, and a unlawful Rwanda plan all weighing heavily on the minds of the British electorate.
Those who believe Sunak has something to learn from Poilievre often raise housing affordability, which has long been the sine qua non of Poilievre’s campaign. Yet, in all likelihood, Canada and Britain’s respective housing crises would be in similar shape with Poilievre or Keir Starmer at the helm. The post-pandemic inflationary run that drove up housing prices in countries like Canada and the UK was mostly unrelated to which party was in power.
When commentators suggest that Poilievre’s message is resonating with Canadians, what they really mean is that his rhetoric has struck a chord. Some might recall a video of Poilievre that went viral last year, in which he calmly rebuffed a journalist while eating an apple. The video is paradigmatic of Poilievre’s approach to politics. That is, he incessantly calls for 'common-sense’ government without wading too far into the weeds of what that might entail.
Is that what Brits want of Sunak? Because Poilievre’s brash, populist tone surely resembles that of another British politician – the one who claimed to be “made of Gregg’s” – who fell sharply out of favour with voters by the time he stepped down in 2022.
Even if that is what British Conservatives want, Sunak couldn’t pull it off. The Prime Minister is a technocrat through and through, not a populist. He promised a government of “integrity, professionalism and accountability” but has not delivered. An eleventh-hour embrace of populism by the Conservatives is only likely to set the party back further.
Jonah Prousky is a London-based Canadian commentator. He has written for Canada publications including the Globe and Mail, CBC, Toronto Star, Canadian Affairs, and Calgary Herald
U.S. Government Seeks “Unified Vision of Unauthorized Movement”
As the immigration crisis continues and the Biden administration pursues a muscular enforcement strategy with an eye to public opinion and the 2024 presidential election, the Department of Homeland Security prospers. One obscure $6 billion program has grown silently: a network of over 1,000 surveillance towers built along America’s land borders, a system that it describes as “a unified vision of unauthorized movement.”
A broad outline of the Biden administration’s plan to solve the immigration crisis in America was unveiled this week, including 5,800 new border and immigration security officers, a new $4.7 billion Southwest Border Contingency Fund, and more emergency authority for the president to shut down the border when needed. Moving forward on these programs will “save lives and bring order to the border,” President Joe Biden said in his State of the Union address last week.
Homeland Security’s Fiscal Year 2025 budget request, released yesterday, includes $25.9 billion to “secure the border,” mostly through more government agents and more (and more capable) technology. Hidden in the fine print is the $6 billion tower surveillance program, one that has been in the works and growing since 2005 for years.
The system is called Integrated Surveillance Towers, and it is projected to reach “full operational capability” in 2034, a network of over 1,000 manned and unmanned towers covering the thousands of miles that make up America’s northern and southern borders. IST includes four ever-growing programs: Autonomous Surveillance Towers (AST); Integrated Fixed Towers (IFT); Remote Video Surveillance System Upgrade (RVSS-U); and the Northern Border RVSS (NB-RVSS). The deployment of various towers have been going on so long, some are already obsolete, according to the DHS 2025 budget request.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, IST detects and identifies “threats in near real time,” plugging up one gap that allows for “the exploitation of data collected by sensors, towers, drones, assets, agents, facilities, and other sources informing mission critical decisions in the field and at Headquarters.” Modern technology, including AI and “autonomous capabilities,” the Border Patrol says, is key to “keeping front-line personnel safer, more effective, and one step ahead” of border enemies.
Towers are currently being built and netted together by Elbit America (part of Israel’s Elbit Systems), Advanced Technology Systems Company, and General Dynamics. Defense Daily reported in September that DHS plans to acquire about 277 new IST towers and upgrade about 191 legacy surveillance towers in the latest set of contracts. A January press release from General Dynamics celebrates the distinction of being named one of the three recipients of a piece of a $1.8 billion indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract: “The Consolidated Tower & Surveillance Equipment (CTSE) system consists of all fixed and relocatable sensor towers, and communications and power equipment necessary for CBP [Customs and Border Protection] to perform surveillance along the southern and northern borders of the United States.” The company says it may take up to 14 years to complete.
The network of towers hosts various day and night capable cameras and radars, and can also be equipped with other sensors, including cellphone communications intercept devices, to paint a picture of hostile terrain below. The main focus of DHS today is to net all of the towers into “a single unified program” and integrate AI into the ability to detect movement and activity to create a “common operating picture.”
Though billions have been spent on the IST program, government auditors have consistently questioned whether it actually reduces unlawful border crossings. A General Accountability Office assessment from 2018 concluded that the DHS was “not yet positioned to fully quantify the impact these technologies have on its mission,” that is, whether the towers actually help to stem the flow. The GAO then recommended that DHS establish better metrics to “more fully assess … progress in implementing the Southwest Border Technology Plan and determine when mission benefits have been realized.”
A new GAO report issued last month updates progress on the IST program and says that finishing the network in Texas has been a problem. “According to the IST program manager,” the report reads, “… ease of access and willingness of property owners are key factors when considering sites for tower placement. The program manager stated that sites in the Laredo and Rio Grande Valley sectors … are still challenging because these areas need permissions from multiple landowners and road access may be an impediment.”
Though the vast majority of undocumented immigrants cross the southern border at just a handful of locations, homeland security equally seeks to cover the entire Canadian border with towers, according to DHS documents. And not only that: Homeland security is eyeing the California coast and the coastal Atlantic for future expansion, portending a ubiquitous nationwide system of ground surveillance.
ResearchAndMarkets.com’s November report on “Border Security Technologies”says that the market will exceed $70 billion globally in 2027, rising from $48 billion in 2022. “The adoption of AI-integrated surveillance towers will be critical to driving growth, with the total value of camera systems globally expected to reach $22.8 billion by 2027; up from $10.1 billion in 2022. Surveillance towers are capable of creating a virtual border, detecting, identifying, and tracking threats over great distances.”
“AI-integrated surveillance towers are at the centre of growing concern by campaign groups regarding their potential to analyse the behaviour of the general population, possibly infringing upon people’s human rights. These concerns may slow adoption unless addressed,” the report says.
The post U.S. Government Seeks “Unified Vision of Unauthorized Movement” appeared first on The Intercept.
South Africa to file legal action with ICJ against UK, US, for war crime complicity
Nation whose case put Israel formally on trial for genocide joins Nicaragua in turning its sights on accomplices in genocide
South Africa’s legal team at the ICJ last month
A team of almost fifty South African lawyers is preparing a legal case to bring to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ top court, against the US and UK, for their complicity in Israel’s array of war crimes in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
South Africa’s successful ICJ case against Israel last month led to Israel being put formally on trial for genocide and resulted in a string of binding orders on Israel to stop its slaughter of Gazans and even to protect Palestinians from harm, as well as to ensure adequate aid reaches the strip’s 2.5 million people, many of whom are now starving and homeless.
Israel has flouted the rulings, continuing and even intensifying the mass murder and blockade, and is being supported in its flagrant disregard for international law by the UK and US, who are providing both material and financial aid, and giving political cover by refusing to condemn Israel’s actions or to call its crimes what they are, instead casting doubt on the mass deaths and brutality and denigrating the Court’s ruling.
South Africa joins Nicaragua in taking action against the UK and US. The Central American nation has also filed a case against Germany, Canada and the Netherlands.
The team of lawyers, which already numbers around fifty, is likely to grow further as more lawyers are set to join from other nations. Wikus van Rensburg, who is leading the action, said that it was time for the US and other complicit nations to “be held responsible for [their] crimes”.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Nicaragua brings ICJ case vs UK, Germany, NL, Canada for complicity in Gaza genocide
While individual UK politicians face potential personal liability for collusion in Israel’s slaughter, UK government as a whole is now also on hook
The Nicaraguan government initiated proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) yesterday against the UK, Netherlands, Germany and Canada for complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza by providing the Israeli occupation with weapons and support used in the killing of Palestinians.
A statement by the Nicaraguan government notes that it had warned these states of their likely complicity in “flagrant and systemic violations” of the Genocide Convention, urging them to immediately stop providing Israel with weapons and tech that were likely to be used in violation of the Convention and that the ICJ’s ruling against Israel last month had put a duty on all countries to stop supplying Israel with the means to conduct its slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza.
The ICJ ordered Israel not just to stop its own killing of Gazans but to “take all measures” to prevent their deaths and to improve the dire humanitarian situation.
UK PM Rishi Sunak, so-called ‘opposition leader’ Keir Starmer and other senior politicians have already been warned by the International Centre for Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) that it will prosecute them for their personal liability for colluding in and providing cover for Israel’s mass murder of Palestinian civilians.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Transnational Francoism
Bàrbara Molas discusses Transnational Francoism: The British and The Canadian Friends of National Spain as part of the TORCH Network Conversations in Identity, Ethnicity and Nationhood. Bàrbara Molas is a PHD Candidate in History at York University
Canadian Election Shows Neoliberals CAN be Defeated
Australian progressive movements know that this federal election will be a crucial marker for many core issues: climate, jobs, inequality, fair taxation, globalisation, and more. The re-election of the Turnbull government, which has kept intact the harsh agenda of Tony Abbott but put a new face on it, would mark a setback for all of these campaigns. Yet while mobilising as energetically as possible during the campaign, and welcoming the visible erosion in public support for Coalition trickle-down policies, activists naturally worry that the government may be re-elected anyway.
Canada held a federal election on October 19 last year, and the results – while far from perfect – confirm that activist movements really can affect electoral outcomes. Moreover, the results prove that the influence of progressive movements is felt in ways that go beyond the traditional “horse race” between parties, and can reach more deeply into political culture and “common sense” values. This post will briefly review the Canadian result, and consider several lessons arising from that experience for Australian progressives.
The Canadian Electoral Landscape
Canada was ruled from 2006 through 2015 by a hard-right Conservative government led by Stephen Harper. There were numerous parallels between the Harper agenda and Australia’s conservative leaders (first John Howard, then Tony Abbott). Indeed, the Conservatives borrowed liberally from the calculated, opportunistic electoral strategies of their Australian counterparts – right down to contracting the services of Lynton Crosby (the so-called “Wizard of Oz,” architect of several Australian Liberal campaigns) as a key advisor.
Harper was limited to a minority mandate during his first two terms (in 2006-2008 and 2008-2011), and hence his legislative power was constrained accordingly. But in 2011 he prevailed with a majority, and that is when the full force of his harsh agenda was imposed on Canadians. Under Canada’s first-past-the-post electoral system, majority governments can be attained with a surprisingly small share of the vote: Harper won his in 2011 with only 39% popular support. Vote-splitting and harsh competition among the opposition parties (including the centrist Liberals, the social-democratic NDP, and the Greens) helped facilitate this perverse outcome. Harper’s majority tenure was marked by a sharp pro-business shift in economic policy (especially favouring the petroleum industry), fierce attacks on union rights and labour standards, regressive tax changes (including lower corporate taxes, huge loopholes for financial investors, and tax subsidies for stay-at-home parents), and great damage to Canada’s once-respected international reputation (including teaming up with Abbott to sabotage global climate negotiations).
Anyone with a progressive bone in their body knew that if Harper was re-elected (especially with another majority), these painful changes would be cemented for decades. Harper’s growing arrogance and corruption within Conservative ranks undermined his political momentum going into the election. But his carefully calculated platform, strong campaign skills, and the siren call of further regressive tax cuts, still posed a dangerous threat. Progressives agreed that preventing another Conservative victory was a political priority of historic proportions. And for most, that goal superseded any loyalties to a particular political party.
Activist strategies were further influenced by a continuing no-holds-barred battle among the opposition parties. The NDP was emboldened by strong performance in 2011 under the charismatic Jack Layton (who tragically died shortly after the election), and had its sights set (not very realistically) on forming government for the first time. New leader Thomas Mulcair engineered a substantial move to the centre, hoping to further cement the party’s credibility as a “government in waiting.” Meanwhile, the Liberals, consistent with their own history, portrayed themselves as more progressive than they actually are (“run from the left, rule from the right,” is the slogan that sums up Liberal strategy!). The Greens have never held more than two seats in Parliament, but often attract enough votes (high single digits) to prevent riding victories by the other parties. Amidst this continuing and unrepentant in-fighting between the opposition parties, activist movements understandably tried to rise above this battle of party logos. Most focused their electoral efforts on exposing and damaging Harper, and mobilising an “anything but Conservative” sentiment.
The Economic Context
The Conservatives’ chances were further damaged by the poor performance of Canada’s economy in the period leading into the election. The much-vaunted oil boom, led by enormous bitumen projects in northern Alberta, went bust along with global commodity prices. Where Harper had once boasted of Canada as a new “energy superpower,” by 2014 the costs of Canada’s unthinking extractivism (including painful de-industrialisation, an overvalued currency, and terrible environmental performance) were increasingly apparent. Canada’s economy actually slipped into an official recession in the first half of 2015 (defined as two consecutive quarters of shrinking real GDP), due primarily to the sharp contraction in energy-related business investment.
Poor economic numbers posed a sharp contrast to the traditional assumption (promoted so loyally by the commercial media) that Conservatives are “naturally” the best economic managers. Progressive campaigns pounced with strong arguments that a change in direction (emphasising job creation, physical and social infrastructure, environmental investments, and more) would strengthen Canada’s economy. This helped voters break out of the traditional “economy versus values” frame that has traditionally benefited Conservatives. (One example of this work was a major project by Unifor, Canada’s largest private sector trade union, proving that Canada’s economy in fact performed worse under Stephen Harper than any other government in the postwar era.)
The Union Movement and the Election
Canada’s union movement also played an important role in defeating the Harper Conservatives. They directed major resources into educating and mobilising union members, tying their campaign to key union and labour issues. Here, too, the strategy was nuanced, influenced by recognition that defeating Harper was the top priority. Most union campaigns focused on the ideas and issues at stake, rather than explicitly instructing their members to vote for a particular party. (A few unions still advocated voting for the NDP as their main message.) By linking Harper’s rule to attacks on unions, the rise of inequality, and the failure to create jobs, unions were able to maximise their credibility as a genuine but largely non-partisan voice for workers’ interests during the election. (In this regard, the unions’ campaign was reminiscent of the successful “Your Rights at Work” campaign run in Australia by the ACTU and its affiliates in 2006-07.)
A Stinging Defeat
Lasting nearly 12 weeks, the official campaign was the longest in modern Canadian history (Harper hoped a long campaign would benefit the Conservatives, who had the strongest financial base of any party). After many twists and turns (all 3 major parties led the polls at some point during the campaign), momentum shifted decisively to the Liberals in the last days. This was because anti-Harper voters eventually decided the Liberals had the best chance of unseating the government, and hence shifted their support there – causing a self-reinforcing snowball effect. Mulcair’s conservative economic platform (he consciously positioned the NDP to the right of the Liberals on several key issues, including balancing the budget and rejecting higher taxes on rich Canadians) squandered the NDP’s chance to capitalise on Canadians’ strong desire for change. The Liberals won a majority (with 39% of the vote, almost exactly as Harper did in 2011), the NDP lost over half its seats and a third of its vote, and the Conservatives remain a strong, unapologetic opposition (winning over 30% of the vote despite negative anti-Harper sentiment across the country).
The new Liberal government, under the charismatic Justin Trudeau (son of Pierre Trudeau, perhaps Canada’s most progressive Prime Minister), acted quickly on several high-profile issues: including appointing a cabinet with full gender equity, dramatically shifting Canada’s stance at the Paris climate talks, and fully revoking two of Harper’s anti-union bills. However, after picking that low-hanging fruit and cementing its aura as an agent of “change,” the longer-run character of this government remains unclear and contested. Liberals have strong connections with big business, and are not likely to fundamentally shift the direction of Canadian policy without strong active pressure from the same movements and campaigns that made such a difference in the election. Nevertheless, the defeat of Harper is a huge positive step for Canadian politics and policy, and opens the door to further issue-based activism and further victories.
Lessons for Australia
Some key lessons from the Canadian experience, that may be relevant in the Australian campaign, include:
- It is essential to challenge the economic credibility of the neoliberal government, and show concretely that most Australians would be materially better off with a change in direction. This undermines the traditional assumption that neoliberals know best how to “manage” the economy, and that any change in direction would risk Australians’ jobs and prosperity. The failures of neoliberal policy are abundant, and provide plenty of ammunition for this effort; these arguments work best when described in concrete material terms (jobs, incomes, security, equality), not in economic jargon (“confidence,” “rationalism,” “efficiency”).
- The ongoing battle of ideas in society is not synonymous with, and in many ways more important than, the electoral competition between parties. If progressive campaigns succeed in shifting the goalposts of received “common sense” around key issues and values, they can force politicians of all stripes to change their orientation accordingly to keep up. The Coalition government’s enactment of limits on tax preferences for high-income superannuation funds is an example of this effect.
- And by making an independent, non-partisan appeal to core values, and emphasising the importance of those values to the future quality of life and cohesiveness of society, activist movements can do great damage to the credibility and appeal of the ruling agenda.
This is not to deny the importance of partisan activism in successful election campaigns. Of course we need principled progressive parties to support the demands of the activist movements, assemble composite platforms, and meaningfully challenge the right to govern of the existing government. But parties will naturally be guided by their own immediate interests and calculations. That’s where the ongoing activism of issue-oriented campaigns and movements is essential if we are indeed to create “losing conditions” for a conservative government.
This article originally appeared in Australian Options magazine, and is reprinted with permission. Jim Stanford has a longer commentary on the “battle of economic ideas” during the 2015 Canadian election, at http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2015/11/03/election-2015-and-the-battle-of-economic-ideas/ .
The post Canadian Election Shows Neoliberals CAN be Defeated appeared first on Progress in Political Economy (PPE).