"Not now, maybe later": Carney's cautious approach to electoral reform sparks debate
Live Events
Reuters
Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney delivers a speech at a rally in Fanshawe College during his Liberal Party election campaign tour in London, Ontario, Canada April 25, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Osorio
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
Liberal Leader Mark Carney , speaking to reporters on Friday, expressed openness to revisiting electoral reform in the future, but stressed that it's not a priority in the current political climate. He also sought to differentiate himself from his predecessor, Justin Trudeau , stating he would not "tip the scales" if he were to pursue reform.'Government is about making priorities and given the scale of the economic crisis that we're facing, the security crisis we're facing, our commitment to supporting Canadians through a range of social programs… Candidly, it is not in the platform,' Carney stated in Sault Ste. Marie, effectively placing electoral reform on the back burner for the time being.His words, while pragmatic to some, have reignited the long-simmering debate about Canada's electoral system , a debate that has seen broken promises and deep divisions.'I think… a prime minister should be neutral on these issues, so that a process — if a process is developed — that they are objective and not to be seen to tip the scales in one direction or another,' Carney said. 'I think that… looking back on what happened previously, that probably is part of what stalled progress on it,' he added.The shadow of Trudeau's broken promise looms large over this issue. His 2015 pledge to make that election the last under the first-past-the-post system ultimately crumbled, leaving many voters feeling betrayed.The subsequent all-party committee report, recommending a switch to proportional representation via referendum, revealed deep divisions among the parties.While the Conservatives and Bloc Québécois signed off on the report, the NDP and Greens, while agreeing with the conclusion, questioned the need for a referendum.The Liberals, meanwhile, released a supplementary report suggesting Trudeau's self-imposed 2019 deadline was too "rushed."Ultimately, Trudeau abandoned his promise, citing a lack of consensus. 'A clear preference for a new electoral system, let alone a consensus, has not emerged,' he wrote in a mandate letter in February 2017. He later admitted his preference for a ranked ballot, stating he "never flinched in (his) desire for ranked ballots' and that he opposed proportional representation because it would benefit fringe parties.In his resignation speech, Trudeau expressed regret for not moving forward with reform. 'I do wish that we'd been able to change the way we elect our governments in this country so that people could choose a second choice or a third choice on the same ballot,' he said.'Parties would spend more time trying to be people's second or third choices and people would be looking for things they have in common rather than trying to polarize and divide Canadians against each other.'Carney, while acknowledging the potential for future reform, emphasized the current priorities.'There may be a point' where a re-elected Liberal government may have advanced on 'other immediate, pressing priorities' like Canada's relationship with the U.S. and that 'those more structural issues in our democracy could be addressed.'In French, he reiterated that he is 'open' to the idea but that now is not the moment to engage in the process.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
37 minutes ago
- Time of India
U.S. states would struggle to administer food stamp benefits under Republican tax bill
A Republican tax bill proposal could shift $22 billion in SNAP costs to states, potentially forcing them to cut eligibility or leave the program. State officials express concerns about absorbing these costs, which could impact millions of recipients. The bill also expands work requirements, potentially removing millions more from SNAP. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads States would struggle Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads U.S. states will not be able to fully administer food stamp benefits for millions of the nation's poor if a proposal in the Republican tax bill forcing them to shoulder billions of dollars in new costs is signed into law, according to state officials, local government associations and policy than 41 million people receive benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the nation's largest food aid program, which cost about $100 billion in 2024. The tax bill passed on May 22 by the U.S. House of Representatives and backed by President Donald Trump would shift some $22 billion in administrative and benefit costs to state and local governments, according to a Reuters of the move say it will promote accountability and reduce waste in the program. But states fear it will backfire."No state is going to be able to simply absorb that," Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, a Democrat, told from North Carolina, Oregon and Michigan also said their states did not have the resources to easily take on the spending requirements in the proposal, which is now before the states could be forced to shrink SNAP eligibility or to leave the program altogether, according to letters sent in May to Congressional and agriculture committee leadership from state and county legislatures and health officials."Shifting the financial burden of SNAP onto states is fiscally unsustainable and risks harming the very individuals and families the program is designed to support," said one letter from the National Conference of State letters were sent by the National Association of Counties, National Association of County Human Services Administrators and the American Public Human Services Association. USDA spokesperson said that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins supports Trump's agenda and that the agency will continue to provide technical assistance to have long supported reduced spending on SNAP, arguing that the program creates a dependence on federal support and should be more narrowly targeted to the most could not reach a representative from the Republican Governors Association or from Texas, Florida or Georgia, the Republican-led states facing the highest SNAP costs The House bill would require states for the first time to pay for a portion of SNAP benefits beginning in 2028, with their payment share from 5% to 25% tied to the state's error rate, a USDA measure of how accurately states determine eligibility and benefit that would amount to more than $20 billion in spending, according to a Reuters analysis of data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The bill would also require states to immediately pay 75% of the cost of administering the SNAP program, up from their existing 50% obligation, adding another $2 billion to the sum, according to USDA states facing the most new spending would be California ($3.7 billion), New York ($2.1 billion), Florida ($1.7 billion) and Texas ($1.2 billion).The state spending requirements would push 1.3 million people off of SNAP in an average month, because some states would modify eligibility requirements or stop administering SNAP, according to a May 22 letter from the Congressional Budget Office to House and Senate agriculture committee does not have the ability to support $850 million in new SNAP spending and may need to restrict eligibility or reduce benefits if the House bill passes, said Elizabeth Hertel, director of the state Department of Health and Human would struggle to absorb more than $477 million and the state is planning for what they would do if forced to take on the spending, said Claire Seguin, director of the division of the Oregon Department of Human Services that administers Carolina is already budget constrained and "there isn't really a way to backfill" more than $650 million in new SNAP spending, said Department of Health and Human Services secretary Dev Sangvai, who did not provide details on what steps the state would take if the provision York also cannot absorb its projected costs, Barbara Guinn, Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, told Senators during a June 4 forum on the SNAP most states must balance their budgets and cannot accrue debt to offset new spending like the federal government can, shifting SNAP spending to states risks drawing down resources from other public programs like Medicaid, said Eric Mitchell, president of the Alliance to End Hunger. The bill would also expand work requirements for some SNAP recipients and restrict states' ability to waive those requirements when unemployment ticks up, which together would push another 3.2 million people off of SNAP in an average month, according to the CBO.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump wants to 'liberate' Los Angeles, residents say 'no thanks'
* LA's Little Tokyo residents reject Trump's 'liberation' plan * Residents say troops are making situation worse * Protesters scatter into Little Tokyo at night, causing unrest June 11 - U.S. President Donald Trump says he sent in the National Guard and Marines to "liberate" Los Angeles from the violence of protesters, but some residents of Little Tokyo, a neighborhood hit hardest by the unrest say "no thanks" Mr President. A dozen people who live, work or frequent the neighborhood, where Japanese is heard spoken as frequently as English in shops and restaurants, on Tuesday told Reuters that Trump's use of the military was inflaming the protests against recent immigration raids in Los Angeles. "The president sending in the National Guard and Marines has only made things worse, it's made the protesters go crazy," said Sulieti Havili, who lives nearby and helps run a Pokemon club with over 6,000 members that routinely plays in Little Tokyo. "They are doing nothing to protect this community." Havili, 25, who was out picking up trash in Little Tokyo with her Pokemon club partner Nolberto Aguilar, 42, said it was clear to her that Trump sending in thousands of military personnel had "brought out the worst in the protesters" and only served to aggravate the situation. Aguilar added that Trump's deployment of troops was thwarting the will of most Los Angeles citizens and local leaders, fanning the flames created by ICE immigration raids, that he said targeted law-abiding immigrants. The Trump administration says its immigration raids are rounding up de facto criminals for lacking proper documents to stay in the United States. California Governor Gavin Newsom has said the use of military personnel to combat the protests had "inflamed a combustible situation" and warned that "democracy is under assault." Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has said that Trump's use of troops was a deliberate effort to create "chaos." The Trump administration strongly rejects the accusations and says their actions were needed in the face of local and state leaders inability to get the situation under control. 'INSTIGATING' ACTION Little Tokyo, a charming neighborhood with shops selling Japanese goods and restaurants serving up some of the city's finest sushi, abuts the federal buildings where protesters have gathered for five nights in a row. For the past two nights, when police and National Guard troops have forcibly dispersed protesters in the early evening, demonstrators scatter into smaller groups into Little Tokyo, which has been covered with anti-ICE and anti-Trump graffiti. Running skirmishes well into the night in the neighborhood has seen police use booming flash-bangs and firing other "less lethal" munitions at protesters. Several of those interviewed in Little Tokyo asked that they not be named, saying they feared reprisals - from the federal government. Many were immigrants themselves or had family members who were not born in the U.S., and feared making themselves or their loved ones targets of ICE. One of those was Anthony, who works at a tea shop in the neighborhood. "There is no question that the president sending in thousands of National Guard and 700 Marines has done nothing but make the protesters more aggressive," he said. "It's instigating the protesters and making things worse." Samantha Lopez, a descendent of Filipino immigrants who works at a Korean ice cream parlor in Little Tokyo, said she felt empathy for the demonstrators but rejected any acts of vandalism or violence they carry out. Still, she blamed the use of military personnel for creating the unrest. "It's just poor handling of protests that stay peaceful until they're confronted by officers," Lopez said. "It's bad for business, and it's bad for this neighborhood."
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
As US trade truce gets back on track, some Chinese exporters are 'slowly dying'
Reuters U.S. and China flags are pictured at Lancaster House, on the second day scheduled for trade talks between the U.S. and China, in London, Britain, June 10, 2025. Jacky Ren, who owns a kitchen appliance factory in China, says exporters in his industry are now selling at a loss to keep their U.S. clients, with little power to say "no" to requests for lower prices on products facing higher tariffs. If an exporter does not take such orders, Ren said, "you will die immediately. So, people think it's better to die slowly." U.S. and Chinese officials agreed on Tuesday on ways to restore a trade truce and roll back duelling export restrictions, including on rare earths, where China has a near-monopoly in production and major leverage in the negotiations. But in the meantime, the pain from U.S. tariffs is deepening in China, especially among smaller exporters such as Ren's Gstar Electronics Appliance Co., which did not move part of their production abroad after U.S. President Donald Trump imposed tariffs in his first term in office. The growing pressure on companies to sell at a loss or to cut wages and jobs to stay afloat gives Washington a pain point to press Beijing in coming weeks and months as talks continue between the two sides to rebalance their trade relationship. "If it lasts more than three or four months, I think many of these small and medium-sized enterprises will not be able to bear it," said Zhiwu Chen, chair professor of finance at the University of Hong Kong. "This is definitely a bargaining chip for the United States." This week's talks in London are expected to bring the two sides back to where they were after an initial discussion in Geneva last month, when they agreed to cut back tariffs from triple-digits to levels that are still damaging for both sides, but at least allow trade flows to resume. U.S. levies on Chinese goods remain 30 percentage points higher than last year. In April, when tariffs were at their highest, the number of loss-making Chinese industrial firms rose 3.6% year-on-year to 164,467 - a whopping 32% of the total, official statistics show. Industrial capacity utilisation dropped to 74.1% in the first quarter of this year - when Washington began raising tariffs - from 76.2% in the last quarter of 2024, according to Chinese government data. It remains near record lows. And while China's overall export growth rate of 4.8% in May might be interpreted as a sign of resilience - even as U.S. exports shrank by more than 30% - the intense competition among Chinese manufacturers looking for a slice of the subdued external demand is evident in falling prices. "People forget, but the current tariff level is already quite painful," says Alicia Garcia-Herrero, chief economist for Asia Pacific at Natixis. "This is a weakness" for Beijing, she said, but cautioned "it's not a big card" for Washington, which has its own worries over high inflation and product scarcity. Beijing was also confident it can bear more pain than its rival, she said. DELAYED WAGES Before the meeting in Switzerland, Beijing had grown increasingly alarmed about internal signals that Chinese firms were struggling to avoid bankruptcies, including in labour-intensive industries such as furniture and toys, Reuters reported last month. The subsequent rollback in tariffs may have saved China from a nightmare scenario of mass layoffs, but analysts say millions of jobs remain at risk. Candice Li, a marketing manager for a medical devices maker in southern China, says her employer has not paid wages for the past two months due to cashflow issues caused by new demands from U.S. clients who want to protect themselves from the tariff uncertainty. Li says U.S. buyers no longer offer an advance deposit for their orders and demand to only make payments 120-180 days after delivery. And because other Chinese firms accept such terms, her employer is not in a position to fight back. "They have us under their thumb," Li said. "It looks calm on the surface, but it's really hard to do business now." "The company can't even manage to pay wages," she said, adding a quarter of the staff left as a result. "It's really hard to keep the company running." To be sure, not all Chinese firms are under such strain. In the short term, neither the United States nor other countries can significantly reduce their reliance on supply chains from an economy that produces about a third of the world's goods. The pain is being felt mostly among small firms in sectors that don't make essential products, such as Christmas decorations or where China can easily be replaced by other producers - for instance, in household appliances and other low-to-mid-range electronics. Across the economy, industrial profits in China still rose 1.4% year-on-year in January-April, according to official statistics that capture data from firms with annual revenue of at least 20 million yuan ($2.78 million). China's headline resilience has been helped by U.S. importers frontloading orders ahead of higher tariffs, while Beijing ramped up fiscal spending and cut interest rates, said Shuang Ding, Standard Chartered's chief Greater China and North Asia economist. But as these mitigating factors wane in coming months, Beijing might grow increasingly uncomfortable, analysts warn. "They still rely on low-end manufacturing sectors, in particular exporting sectors, to support their general macroeconomy," said He-Ling Shi, economics professor at Monash University in Melbourne. "The American government has to react to pressure from industries. China's central government ... doesn't need to react immediately, but in the long term, it's still a big concern."
