I had just begun reading a biography of Martin Luther King when the not guilty verdict was rendered in the Gerald Stanley murder trial. As is now widely known, Stanley shot and killed an Indigenous youth named Colton Boushie at close range after a vehicle containing Boushie and four others entered Stanley’s farm yard near Biggar, Saskatchewan in August 2016. An all-white jury acquitted him of any offence, buying his lawyer’s argument that Stanley’s handgun must have fired by accident. Continue reading Martin Luther King informs Gerald Stanley trial
The minimum wage in Ontario was increased from $11.40 to $14 an hour on January 1 and will rise to $15 a year from now, and that means that the sky is falling according to a coalition of business groups called Keep Ontario Working (KOW). The name implies everything — by raising the minimum wage Premier Kathleen Wynn will kill jobs. Alberta will increase its wage to $15 in October 2018 and there have been similar predictions of doom there.
In Ontario, KOW released a flawed analysis which claimed that the increases would lead to $23 billion in new business costs, place 185,000 jobs “at risk” and cost each Ontario household $1300 a year. The latter figure turned out to be a basic calculating error which would have been caught by most high school students. Beyond that the study used a proprietary economic model which lacked transparency and could not be peer reviewed. In other words, they threw out numbers but did not back them up.
The KOW document focused almost entirely on the costs to business while ignoring the beneficial effects of raising the incomes of 1.5 million Ontario workers, a number equivalent to 25-30 per cent of the workforce. The vast majority of these workers are not, as the business lobby implies, teenagers living at home but rather a variety of adults and a demographic skewed toward women and new immigrants.
Even at the newly-minted rate of $15 an hour, a full time worker will in 2019 make only $600 a week, or $31,000 a year. However, this amounts to a raise of about $5,000 a year and is of enormous importance to the individuals and families involved. It will have beneficial effects beyond that as well, because almost everything low income earners make is spent almost immediately in the local economy.
Fast and furious
Still, the response to wage increase has been fast and furious. The business lobby has used its privileged access to newspapers and the media to peddle its message that the increased wage will mean layoffs and other cutbacks that will actually hurt the employees it is supposed to help. The chief economist for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CBIF) wrote sarcastically about Premier Katherine Wynn in The Globe and Mail. Essentially, he accused her of being a liar who created “unfulfillable expectations” with the minimum wage hike.
Time is never right
We have heard all of this before. In 20 years of journalism, communications work and in politics, I do not recall even once when the CFIB, the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation or the Fraser Institute supported a hike in the minimum wage in any province. For them, the time is never right. Nor is it ever right for improvements to the Canada Pension Plan, in which employers and their workers would contribute jointly toward retirement security.
The business lobby insists on each occasion that improved wages or pensions are “job killers” and they predict ruin and woe as they did when Finance Minister Paul Martin improved the Canada Pension Plan in the 1990s. The lobby was proven completely wrong when the economy took off soon after. They were wrong again in B.C. in 2011, when the provincial government raised the minimum wage by an amount equivalent to Ontario’s current increase. Despite the foreboding of lobbyists, in the following year B.C. added 50,000 jobs.
Will they confess?
Jobs and economic growth depend on many factors, and wages are just one of them. But don’t expect the business lobby to confess to alarmism and self-interest if in the case of Ontario they are proven wrong once again.
It is fitting near year’s end, although worrisome, to learn that the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has set its Doomsday Clock to two-and-a-half minutes before midnight, closer to potential nuclear calamity than at any time since the 1980s. They point, for example, to North Korea’s continuing efforts to develop nuclear weapons, as well as bellicose counter threats being made by the US government. They point as well to the escalation of tensions between the US and Russia. “Wise public officials should act immediately, guiding humanity away from the brink,” the atomic scientists say. “If they do not, wise citizens must step forward and lead the way.”
Peace prize for ICAN
One group of citizens has stepped forward and for their efforts they were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2017, which was presented in Stockholm, Sweden on December 10th. The International Committee to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) is a coalition of civil society organizations from more than 100 countries. ICAN’s fifteen Canadian partners include the Anglican Church of Canada, Physicians for Global Survival, the Rideau Institute and the Canadian Quakers. Since its founding in 2007, the group has worked to convince United Nations member states to create a legally binding treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons.
ICAN says the effort was urgent because there had been two decades of “paralysis” in multilateral efforts toward nuclear disarmament. There are an estimated 15,000 nuclear weapons in the arsenals of states that possess them. All of those countries continue to modernize their weapons and intend to keep, rather than eliminate, them.
Prohibition treaty adopted
Despite this opposition, the civil society campaign was successful at the UN and in July 2017 the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was adopted by 122 member nations. The treaty would prohibit nations from developing, testing, producing, manufacturing, transferring, possessing, stockpiling, using or threatening to use nuclear weapons, or allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territory. A nation that possesses nuclear weapons may join the treaty, so long as it agrees to destroy them in accordance with a legally binding, time-bound plan. Similarly, a nation that hosts another nation’s nuclear weapons on its territory may join, so long as it agrees to remove them by a specified deadline. Once the treaty has been ratified by 50 states, the ban on nuclear weapons would enter into force and become binding under international law for all the countries that are party to the treaty.
Nuclear states oppose
However, the so-called “big five” states on the UN Security Council – the US, Russia, China, France and Great Britain – have shown no interest in co-operating or in adopting such a treaty. They all possess nuclear weapons and want to keep them and they want to control the agenda. The US, for example, placed pressure on its NATO allies to boycott the UN’s entire treaty-making enterprise. Unfortunately, the Canadian government allowed itself to be bullied. In 2016, then-Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion claimed that a ban on nuclear weapons without the support of nuclear weapons states was a foolish and utopian dream.
But ICAN and other campaigners, including the Canadian civil society partners, point to earlier initiatives whose success appeared unlikely but which were ultimately accepted even by the big powers. These include treaties to ban biological weapons (1972), chemical weapons (1993), landmines (1997), and cluster bombs (2008).
The Canadian government continues to claim that it supports the abolition of nuclear weapons, but that is belied by its opposing the UN’s historic treaty in July. Canada continues to insist, along with its nuclear-armed allies, on an incrementalist approach to abolition that has failed for nearly 50 years. Our government also ignores a House of Commons resolution, passed unanimously in 2010, calling for Canadian leadership on nuclear disarmament. The Trudeau administration claims to “be back” at the UN but is back-pedalling on the pressing nuclear question as the clock threatens to tick down to midnight.
A somewhat briefer version of this piece was published on the website of the United Church Observer on December 8, 2017.
Those old enough to recall it will remember that the 1988 federal election in Canada turned into an epic battle over a proposed Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United States. The ruling Conservatives and corporate Canada campaigned for it, saying that it would provide untrammeled access to the vast American market and provide a new era of jobs and prosperity for Canadians. Without the deal, they said, this country would become a stagnant economic backwater. Continue reading Canada and the NAFTA negotiations, irony among stakeholders
When they were campaigning for election in 2015 Justin Trudeau’s Liberals promised that they would adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but it appears that they are now less eager to do so. Continue reading Bill C-262: Canada must implement UN declaration on Indigenous rights
Canadians are witnessing two post-hostage dramas and there are lessons to be learned from each. In October, after five years in captivity, Canadian Joshua Boyle, his American wife Caitlin Coleman and their three young children were rescued from their captors by Pakistani troops after a shootout in Pakistan’s rugged border area with Afghanistan.
On the same day, Canadian Amanda Lindhout was in an Ottawa courtroom facing a Somali man who she says was one of her hostage-takers during 460 days of captivity in the east African country in 2008-09. Continue reading Hostages Joshua Boyle, Amanda Lindhout were reckless
Finance Minister Bill Morneau wants to close loopholes that allow highly paid professionals to reduce their taxes by incorporating and then using various small business tax breaks to shelter their income. These loopholes are legal but unfair. They amount to potentially more than $1 billion annually in lost revenues to the government. That money could be used toward pharmacare, affordable housing or building green infrastructure. Morneau argues that he wants to create an improved tax system but some of the reaction has been hysterical. Continue reading Business lobby hysterical on Bill Morneau’s tax reforms
Soon, members of the New Democratic Party will begin electronic and mail-in voting to select their new leader. The race features four competent and principled candidates in MPs Charlie Angus, Niki Ashton and Guy Caron, as well Ontario MPP Jagmeet Singh, and it has become increasingly interesting. But the wider question is whether the NDP will be relevant in Canada’s political future? I contend that it will be. In the interests of transparency, I should mention that I served as an NDP MP in the late 1990s. Continue reading Note to pundits: the NDP leadership race matters