FIRST READING: The new public safety minister doesn't appear to know stuff
Article content
Article content
Article content
Article content
In yet another check against the likelihood that the Carney government will be building any oil export pipelines, on Friday Prime Minister Mark Carney said that nothing's getting approved without 'a consensus of all the provinces and the Indigenous people.' The statement misrepresents the power of the federal government; obviously Ottawa is able to do things without first getting unanimous approval from all 10 provinces and also an undefined share of the country's 630 First Nations. But with the statement, Carney is effectively making it harder to build a pipeline than to amend the Constitution. For big decisions (such as abolishing the Senate), the Constitution requires the virtually impossible threshold of obtaining unanimous consent from all the provinces – but without any similar benchmark for unanimous Indigenous consent.
Article content
Article content
Article content
In a recent interview with podcaster Joe Rogan, FBI Director Kash Patel alleged that Canada is an emerging hub of fentanyl production, in part due to U.S. efforts to combat fentanyl smuggling coming in from Mexico. Patel said the component parts to manufacture illicit fentanyl come almost exclusively from China, and were now increasingly being routed through Canada. 'Instead of having the Mexican cartels going right up the southern border and into America, do you know what they're doing? They're flying it into Vancouver, they're taking the precursors up to Canada, manufacturing it up there, and doing their global distribution routes from up there because we've been so effective down south,' he said. B.C. Public Safety Minister Garry Begg dismissed the allegations in a statement to CTV News. 'It's no surprise that Trump's appointee would use his position to continue the president's narrative to justify his tariffs,' he said. 'Their Drug Enforcement Agency's National Drug Threat Assessment report in 2023 and 2024 didn't even mention Canada.'
Article content
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
24 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
The politics of paying for politicians
For most employees, a compensation discussion goes this way: the worker makes the case they deserve a certain amount of money and the boss decides. For too many politicians, they're making the case to themselves. They are, unsurprisingly, often successful. There is such a clear conflict of interest that it's amazing this pattern continues. But it does. In March, Toronto city councillors voted to boost their annual compensation to about $170,000 after flights of high rhetoric that included the city budget chief urging fellow councillors to 'be brave.' The bravery that is, to approve your own raise. The councillors found the extra bravery to make the increase retroactive to the start of the year. Then, last month, Ontario politicians shoved a raise through the legislature with unseemly speed. With cross-party support, a bill boosting compensation and creating a Member of Provincial Parliament defined-benefit pension plan was approved in minutes, with neither debate nor recorded votes. Base-level MPP compensation rose to about $157,000, which is 75 per cent of a federal Member of Parliament's pay. It was also retroactive, to February's provincial election. In fairness, Ontario MPP salaries had been frozen since 2009, a situation that disproportionately affected opposition politicians. The government was able to reward its members with ministerial or associate minister roles – these come with extra money and about half of Tory MPPs currently have such titles – while those on the opposition benches didn't enjoy these bump-ups. But there are right and wrong ways to remedy a situation. The proper amount to pay politicians is a difficult question. A starting point is that politics must pay enough that it is not a job that can be done only by people who are otherwise wealthy. That would skew representation and leave most of the population unable, practically speaking, to run for office. Public office should also attract the best and brightest of society. Depending on what job a prospective politician would otherwise do, that may involve some level of pay cut. But it should not mean so severe a haircut that choosing public service is a punitive decision. That said, pay should not be so high that politicians are motivated to stick around strictly for the money. Political turnover is good for democracy and the incumbent advantage is strong enough that many can stay as long as they like. Are there ways to thread that needle? Yes, and it can be done without politicians rewarding themselves. One approach would be to link politician wages to metrics over which they have influence. That could mean compensation for provincial politicians rises when the economy grows, for example, or that city councillors get a raise if homelessness levels decline. School board trustee pay could be linked to education outcomes. In British Columbia, opposition leader John Rustad argues for tying raises for Members of the Legislative Assembly to average salary increases in the province. Another approach is to benchmark politicians against each other, as Ontario is doing. Corporate compensation is often set this way, based on analysis of peer jobs. But that can lead to galloping upward pressure. And elected positions are hard to compare. Should politicians with more constituents get paid more? Is the size of budget being managed relevant? Do politicians in a whipped-vote party system not have to work as hard? Should councillors in pricey cities make more? Whatever the method, the fairest way to land on appropriate compensation is to rely on a third-party group. In Ontario, the city of London goes through an independent review process every four years. The current group, volunteers paid an honorarium whose names were proposed by city staff, will report in October its recommendations around salary, severance, workload and staffing support. Council will then vote on the report. Crucially, though, that vote in London won't change the salaries of the current council. The changes would take effect for the next term of office, meaning that voters still have a chance to weigh in. It's possible they will feel that some councillors aren't worth a raise. This is a good approach, making the public the ultimate arbiter of whether a pay bump is warranted. Politicians boosting their pay immediately or, worse, retroactively, is clearly unacceptable. If they insist on doing that, their bosses – voters – should send them packing. Punt back them into the private sector.
CBC
24 minutes ago
- CBC
Is Windsor-Essex ready for a guaranteed basic income? This senator says it's time
Social Sharing Windsor had the dubious distinction of having the second highest unemployment in the country last month — and that's among the reasons our community would benefit from a universal basic income, according to a Canadian senator. In late May, Sen. Kim Pate introduced Bill S-206, which calls upon the federal government to develop a financial framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income. "How can we actually weave a safety net that leaves no one behind?" Pate said. "This bill is one strand in a social and economic fabric that would help us rebuild." Statistics Canada says Windsor's unemployment rate in May was 10.8 per cent. Only Peterborough had it harder with an unemployment rate of 11.7 per cent. And the situation could worsen in the near future: Pate says the growing reality of job losses due to the trade war and artificial intelligence technology means talking about a guaranteed income in Canada is more relevant than ever. "At a time like now, when we're facing the threat from the United States, when we're facing the threat of A.I., when we're facing challenges to industry — it strikes me that it's a perfect time for us to develop a plan that actually leaves nobody behind," Pate said. Lorraine Goddard, CEO of United Way/Centraide Windsor-Essex County, also believes the community would benefit from a guaranteed livable basic income — because she feels the current system isn't providing people with the support they need to improve their situations. "Social assistance programs keep people in poverty. They don't give people enough to live," Goddard said. "You're just living moment to moment in deprivation mode." "I see so many families and children really struggling... If you could help a family get that basic income, get them stabilized, let them help their children get through school successfully — then you could see, in 10 years, a transformation in this community." It's not the first time Pate has advocated for a guaranteed basic income. In 2021, she introduced a similar bill — S-233. But progress on that bill ended with the prorogation of Parliament in January 2025. "It died on the order paper," Pate admitted. Bill S-206 is entering its second reading in the Senate. It will need to survive multiple readings in the House of Commons to become law. It's still too early for Pate's idea to involve actual numbers and policy. But in 2017, the Province of Ontario experimented with a pilot project that provided a basic income to around 4,000 low-income people in Hamilton, Thunder Bay, and Lindsay. That project offered approximately $17,000 a year to single individuals, and $24,000 to couples. The amount was reduced by 50 cents for every dollar earned through work. Pate said a federal program could have a similar system — adjusted for the current economy. "Let's streamline this process," she said. "Make it universally accessible to people once they drop below a set income. Let's provide the resources the people need to rebound out (of poverty). Not just stay stuck in it." Critics like Franco Terrazzano, director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, believe that such a program is something the country simply can't afford. "You've got to remember: The federal government is broke. It's more than a trillion dollars in debt," Terrazzano said. A universal basic income in Canada would be "massively expensive," Terrazzano said. "Even in the best case scenario, this would cost Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars every single year... This would be big time tax increases for Canadians who are already struggling." Indeed, in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's study of Bill S-206, the gross cost of implementation is estimated at $107 billion. But Pate pointed out that the PBO's estimate is for the gross cost: The net cost could be as low as $3 billion, taking into account potential long-term savings in existing social assistance, health care, and the legal system. As an example, Pate cited the work of Canadian economist Evelyn Forget, who found that low-income people in a Manitoba community were inducing massive costs at their local emergency room — because they didn't have preventative health care and proper nutrition. "If we looked at what we actually spend now on those initiatives, the administration alone would cover a lot of costs," Pate suggested. "[The PBO] has very much said we would likely see many cost savings, particularly in health care and the criminal legal system." According to Terrazzano, the reality is that "if you pay people not to work, fewer people will end up working." Meanwhile, Pate believes the main obstacle to adopting a guaranteed livable basic income isn't finding the funding or the political will — it's adjusting attitudes. "The biggest barrier to implementing this kind of approach is the view that poor people somehow will waste the money or defraud the system," Pate said. "It's the stigma that attaches to poor people, the presumption that it's their own fault... a presumption that there are some people who deserve to be supported — and some who don't." Patrick Clark is a Windsor civil lawyer who earned his master's degree in political science from the University of Windsor with a 2021 paper titled The Answer to Poverty: A Universal Basic Income in Canada. Four years later, Clark says his views on the issue haven't changed: "That's the big key, moving forward: To put in place a system that essentially helps those who no longer can help themselves. "Right now, we have a situation where there are a lot of people who are unable to cover their basic needs — while we see the corporations at the top continue to increase prices. You'll find people falling further and further behind."
CBC
39 minutes ago
- CBC
N.W.T. officials provide update on major infrastructure projects, and some rising costs
The Northwest Territories government says construction on two of its biggest infrastructure projects could start by 2028, and that one of those projects is now expected to cost more than $2 billion. Strategic Infrastructure Minister Caroline Wawzonek and her team updated Yellowknife city council Monday on three key projects, which are at different stages. The Mackenzie Valley Highway, an all-season road from Wrigley to Tulita and Norman Wells, is one of the two major projects that could see construction begin by 2028, with a goal to finish in three to four years. "Mackenzie Valley Highway, which is already being sort of built in stages ... is likely to be ready for construction first," Wawzonek said. In recent years, Sahtu communities have faced supply issues due to low water levels disrupting barge service for essential goods. One government official told Yellowknife city council on Tuesday that those communities expressed "great urgency" to see the road, expected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars, built faster. One of the other projects is the Slave Geological Province Corridor, an all-season road northeast of Yellowknife through a mineral-rich region to the Nunavut border. It would have the potential to link to the proposed Grays Bay Port and Road project. No construction start date has been set, but the government says it's in talks with the Tlicho government and Yellowknives Dene First Nation to partner on the project. Wawazonek said the third project — the Taltson hydro expansion — could move ahead concurrently with the two road-construction projects because it's "a different kind of project." The Taltson expansion would link the South Slave's hydro plant to Yellowknife's Jackfish diesel plant, running a cable under Great Slave Lake from east of Fort Resolution, boosting renewable power capacity. The project was initially estimated to cost one billion dollars but now, according to Wawzonek, the "rough estimation" has more than doubled the cost. It's a jump she says isn't unusual for projects of such a scale. "I mean, we're into the billions, somewhere between $2 billion and $3 billion," Wawzonek said. The minister said the cost estimates were reasonable. "When I hear some of the numbers coming out of the nation-scale projects from our friends to the south and provinces, these three are not that outrageous. They're a lot for us," Wawzonek said. She said territorial officials also met recently with the Canada Infrastructure Bank to explore funding options. If things fall into place, the territory is aiming to start construction for the Taltson project in 2028, and have the first power by 2033. The government says it will create a 120 MW unified system that can support the territory for the future, both economically and from a cost-of-living perspective. Bit of optimism Yellowknife Coun. Steve Payne said that with the territory's diamond mines all expected to close within the next few years, these infrastructure projects could create some optimism among residents. "The last while we've people have been walking around with their head down, looking at or thinking about the end of diamond mines, and people are feeling pretty down," Payne told the territorial officials at Monday's meeting. Wawzonek said there is optimism about the territory's minimal resource sector, but it's important to help unlock some of that potential with needed infrastructure. "We can't play, you know, we're going to wait for them to build and then give them the infrastructure. We've tried that and it didn't go very well," Wawzonek said. She says the territory also stands to benefit from a renewed focus on Arctic security, among federal officials in Ottawa.
