SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
justin trudeau
Climate Policy on Thin Ice: A Lesson from Canada
Canada’s experience with its carbon price-and-dividend system for fossil fuels has important implications for the rest of the world, including the United States.
May 12, 2025
The recent news coverage of Canada’s elections was all about the spectacular backfiring of President Trump’s strong-arm tactics—tariffs and the pipe dream of Canada becoming the “51st state” sparked the Liberal Party’s stunning come-from-behind victory under its new leader, Mark Carney. But behind the headlines, the Canadian elections also carry a profound cautionary tale about the political mishaps that can befall even the best-designed climate policy.
Until Trump barged onto the scene, climate change was the single most visible issue in the election campaign. Carney, the former UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, called it an “existential threat.” His Conservative Party opponent, Pierre Poilievre, instead pledged to roll back regulations on fossil fuel emissions and scrap Canada’s most ingenious climate policy: its carbon price-and-dividend system.
Under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2019, the Canadian government had introduced a price on carbon pollution and recycled the revenue straight back to households—the first enactment anywhere of the “carbon dividend” policy widely advocated in the U.S. by economists from across the political spectrum.
Dividends make it possible to use this tool while protecting the living standards of working families.
The policy succeeded in reducing emissions while at the same time raising the incomes of most Canadian households more than enough to offset the impact of the carbon price—a win-win for the environment and the people. Yet Poilievre’s vow to “ax the tax” became so popular among voters that Carney himself scuttled the policy upon replacing Trudeau as Liberal Party leader in March.
Why did a successful climate policy go down to defeat in the court of public opinion?
The policy’s aim was to give consumers and businesses an incentive to reduce emissions while letting them choose what worked best for them. Returning the revenue directly to the public safeguarded the purchasing power of ordinary households, a prerequisite for ensuring equity and political durability. Most Canadian families came out ahead—an analysis by the Canadian government found that about 80% of households experienced net income gains, their dividends being boosted by the outsized carbon consumption of the most affluent consumers.
Predictably, Trudeau’s conservative opponents denounced the policy. Poilievre incorrectly labeled it a “tax” and blamed the policy for any and all fuel price increases, including those triggered by the worldwide spike in oil prices after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, while remaining notably silent on the return flow of the carbon revenue back to households.
The Trudeau administration meanwhile did little to publicize the benefits of the policy to consumers, evidently assuming Canadians would figure out themselves that they were receiving dividends and that they more than compensated for the carbon price. This lack of visibility was compounded by how the payments were delivered. Initially they were buried in income tax returns. When this changed to electronic bank deposits, they were inscrutably labeled, appearing on statements simply as “Canada Fed” or a random string of numbers and letters. The neglect of messaging proved to be the policy’s Achilles heel.
Canada’s experience has important implications for the rest of the world, including the United States. Although it may seem hard to imagine in our present political moment, sooner or later climate policy is all but certain to return to the nation’s political agenda. When it does, carbon pricing will re-emerge as a key tool for curbing emissions.
Dividends make it possible to use this tool while protecting the living standards of working families. The Healthy Climate and Family Security Act introduced in December by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is a good example of legislation that would do precisely this. But to win and maintain public support for the policy, transparency is crucial: the dividend that households receive must be just as visible as the gasoline prices they pay at the pump.
In Canada, Carney has promised to continue the carbon price for heavy industrial emitters, while offering incentives for consumers to reward “green choices” such as purchases of electric vehicles. But carrots alone will not bring about a clean energy transition. Climate catastrophes have already begun. If we want to keep them from worsening, the take-home lesson from Canada is that any serious climate policy will require an equally serious commitment to making its benefits clear and present.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ontario 'Ripping Up' Contract With Musk's Starlink as Canada Targets Trump Allies in Trade War
"Canada didn't start this fight with the U.S., but you better believe we're ready to win it," Ontario Premier Doug Ford said.
Feb 03, 2025
Ontario Premier Doug Ford said Monday that his government will exclude American companies from provincial contracts and cancel a massive deal with Elon Musk's Starlink satellite internet service in retaliation for U.S. President Donald Trump's imposition of 25% tariffs on Canadian goods.
"Starting today and until U.S. tariffs are removed, Ontario is banning American companies from provincial contracts," Ford—who leads the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario—said on social media.
"Every year, the Ontario government and its agencies spend $30 billion on procurement, alongside our $200 billion plan to build Ontario," he continued. "U.S.-based businesses will now lose out on tens of billions of dollars in new revenues."
"They only have President Trump to blame," added Ford, who once professed his "unwavering" support for the Republican during his first White House term. "We're going one step further. We'll be ripping up the province's contract with Starlink. Ontario won't do business with people hellbent on destroying our economy. Canada didn't start this fight with the U.S., but you better believe we're ready to win it."
"I don't care if it's a toothpick. We need to purchase from Canada and Ontario."
Last November, Ontario and Starlink signed a C$100 million (USD$68.6 million) deal to provide high-speed internet service for around 15,000 eligible homes and businesses in remote rural communities in northern parts of the province by June 2025.
However, Ford on Monday accused Musk—who gave Trump's campaign tens of millions of dollars and heads the president's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—of being "part of the Trump team that wants to destroy families, incomes, destroy businesses" by waging a trade war.
"He wants to take food off the table of people, hard-working people, and I'm not going to tolerate it," Ford said of the world's richest person. "We just aren't going to be using American companies."
"And no matter if we are building a hospital, if we're building anything, if we're building a dog house, I want to make sure we are using Ontario steel, Canadian products, Canadian wood, Ontario wood," he added. "I don't care if it's a toothpick. We need to purchase from Canada and Ontario."
Ford also ordered the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) to remove U.S.-imported alcohol products from store shelves in retaliation for the tariffs.
"Every year, LCBO sells nearly $1 billion worth of American wine, beer, spirits, and seltzers," he said on Sunday. "Not anymore."
Musk reacted to the loss of the Starlink contract with Ontario with a two-word post on his X social media platform saying, "Oh well."
Ford's move followed Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's announcement Saturday of retaliatory tariffs targeting Republican-led states and Trump allies after the U.S. leader said he would impose levies of 25% on Canadian and Mexican imports and 10% on goods from China.
"Canadians understand that we need to respond to this," explained Trudeau, who is set to resign once his Liberal Party selects a new leader. "We need to respond in a way that is appropriate, that is measured but forceful, that meets the moment."
Trump singled out Canadian energy for a reduced 10% tariff. On Monday, he announced a deal with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum to pause U.S. tariffs for one month in exchange for the deployment of 10,000 Mexican troops to the country's northern border to target drug trafficking and, according to Trump, prevent migrants from entering the United States.
Frustration with Trump's policies and actions—which include ongoing calls to make Canada the "51st state"—was on display over the weekend as Canadian fans attending National Basketball Association and National Hockey League games against visiting U.S. rivals loudly booed pregame performances of "The Star-Spangled Banner."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Harris, Trudeau, and the Fall of Our Noeliberal Saviors
What is that lesson that corporate-friendly so-called "centrists" refuse to learn? That you cannot save democracy while preserving the very economic and political arrangements that have hollowed it out.
Jan 08, 2025
Justin Trudeau's resignation and Trump's looming return on the anniversary of January 6 mark not just the resurgence of the far-right, but perhaps final collapse of centrist delusions.
There's a bitter poetry to the timing. On January 6, 2025—exactly four years after Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol in a violent attempt to overturn democracy—two events crystallized the profound failure of liberal centrism. In Ottawa, Justin Trudeau, once the global poster child for progressive liberalism, announced his resignation as Canada's Prime Minister. Meanwhile in Washington, Donald Trump prepared to return to power, having decisively defeated another supposed liberal savior in Kamala Harris.
The convergence of these events represents more than just the latest episode in the ongoing crisis of liberal democracy. It marks the definitive end of an era defined by a particular political fantasy: that charismatic centrist leaders could somehow save liberal democracy from its own contradictions while preserving the very system that produced its decay.
The Liberal Savior Myth
At the heart of contemporary liberalism lies a seductive myth: that the right combination of charismatic leadership, technocratic competence, and moderate politics can save democracy from its enemies while avoiding fundamental social transformation. This "liberal savior" narrative has dominated centrist political imagination for the past decade, manifesting in figures from Emmanuel Macron to Pete Buttigieg.
The limits of liberal centrism proved fatal. Unable to deliver material improvements in people's lives while preserving the interests of their donor class, these supposed saviors watched their support collapse.
The myth operates on two levels. First, it suggests that individual leaders—through force of personality, rhetorical skill, or managerial expertise—can resolve deep structural crises without challenging the underlying power relations that produced them. Second, and more insidiously, it promotes the idea that liberal democracy itself can be saved simply by defending existing institutions rather than radically democratizing them.
This mythology reached its apotheosis in Justin Trudeau. Young, photogenic, and armed with progressive rhetoric, he seemed to embody everything liberals believed could defeat the populist right. Here was a leader who could speak the language of social justice while reassuring financial markets, who could kneel at Black Lives Matter protests while expanding oil pipelines, who could champion feminism while maintaining corporate power structures.
The same template was later applied to figures like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, both presented as the noble defenders of democratic norms against Trumpian barbarism. Yet in each case, the fundamental contradiction remained: you cannot save democracy while preserving the very economic and political arrangements that have hollowed it out.
The Rise and Fall of Justin Trudeau
Trudeau's trajectory is especially revealing. In 2015, he rode to power on a wave of optimism, presenting himself as the progressive antidote to conservative rule. With his carefully cultivated image of youthful dynamism and performative embrace of diversity, he became the archetype of what liberals imagined could defeat the rising tide of right-wing populism. International media swooned over his "sunny ways" and apparent commitment to progressive causes.
The reality never matched the image. Behind the woke platitudes and photo ops, Trudeau's government consistently served the interests of Canadian capital. His administration expanded oil pipelines despite climate crisis rhetoric, continued selling arms to Saudi Arabia while claiming to champion human rights, and used federal power to crush labor resistance, as seen in his government's draconian response to postal worker strikes.
The contradictions only deepened over time. While Trudeau spoke eloquently about reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, his government aggressively pursued resource extraction projects on unceded territories. He campaigned on electoral reform but abandoned it when he couldn't secure a system favorable to his party. His supposed feminist credentials were exposed as hollow when he forced out strong women in his cabinet who challenged his authority during the SNC-Lavalin scandal.
The Myth of the Liberal Savior
This gap between progressive aesthetics and neoliberal governance isn't a bug but a feature of the liberal savior model. Figures like Trudeau fundamentally misunderstand democracy as a system to be preserved rather than radically expanded. Their project was always about maintaining the status quo through a kind of repressive tolerance – allowing just enough progressive window dressing to deflect demands for structural change while keeping the fundamental power relations of capitalism intact.
This gap between progressive aesthetics and neoliberal governance isn't a bug but a feature of the liberal savior model.
The same dynamic played out in the United States. After Trump's 2020 defeat, Democrats assured voters that "normalcy" would be restored under Joe Biden. When his presidency floundered, they turned to Kamala Harris as the next great hope for defending democracy against Trump's return. Yet as with Trudeau, the limits of liberal centrism proved fatal. Unable to deliver material improvements in people's lives while preserving the interests of their donor class, these supposed saviors watched their support collapse.
The liberal savior myth rests on two fundamental delusions. First, that individual leadership qualities—whether Trudeau's charisma or Biden's experience—can overcome the structural crisis of legitimacy facing liberal democratic institutions. Second, that these institutions can be preserved in their current form while addressing the deep inequalities and democratic deficits that fuel right-wing populism.
The Structural Crisis of Liberal Democracy
This approach was always doomed to fail because it refused to acknowledge that liberal democracy's crisis stems from its own internal contradictions. The same free market capitalism that centrist leaders champion has hollowed out democratic institutions, atomized communities, and created the precarious conditions that drive authoritarian appeals. No amount of symbolic progressivism or calls to preserve norms can resolve this fundamental tension.
The same free market capitalism that centrist leaders champion has hollowed out democratic institutions, atomized communities, and created the precarious conditions that drive authoritarian appeals.
The failures of figures like Trudeau reveal the bankruptcy of what have called "repressive democracy"—a system that maintains the formal structures of democratic governance while emptying them of substantive content. Under this model, democracy becomes primarily about managing dissent rather than enabling genuine popular power. Elections serve more to legitimate existing power structures than to facilitate real political transformation.
This crisis has only deepened in recent years. As economic inequality has soared and climate chaos intensifies, liberal democratic institutions have proven increasingly incapable of addressing fundamental social problems. The response from centrist leaders has been to double down on technocratic management while wrapping themselves in progressive rhetoric—a strategy that has now definitively failed.
Beyond Liberal Democracy: Building Socialist Alternatives
The real question is not how to save liberal democracy, but how to transcend it through the creation of genuine democratic alternatives. This requires moving beyond both right-wing populism's false promises and liberal centrism's managed decline. Instead, we need a democratic socialist vision that expands democracy into all spheres of life—economic, social, and political.
This means building power from below through militant labor movements, tenant organizations, and community groups that practice genuine democratic decision-making. It means fighting for universal public goods and democratic control over the economy. Most importantly, it means rejecting the liberal belief that democracy is primarily about preserving institutions, and embracing it as an ongoing project of collective liberation.
The real question is not how to save liberal democracy, but how to transcend it through the creation of genuine democratic alternatives.
Practical examples of this alternative vision are already emerging. The recent wave of labor militancy across North America shows how workers can exercise democratic power outside traditional political channels. Municipal socialist movements are experimenting with participatory budgeting and community control. Indigenous land defenders are modeling forms of democratic governance that challenge both liberal capitalism and right-wing reaction.
Trudeau's fall and Trump's return should serve as the final nail in the coffin of the liberal savior myth. The choice we face is not between liberal democracy and authoritarianism, but between the expansion of genuine democratic power or its continued erosion under the twin forces of right-wing reaction and centrist accommodation. The only way to defeat the far right is to build democratic socialist alternatives that actually address the crisis of democracy at its roots.
The future depends not on enlightened leaders preserving the status quo, but on ordinary people organizing to fundamentally transform it. The fall of figures like Trudeau should not be mourned but celebrated as an opportunity to finally move beyond the dead end of liberal centrism and begin the real work of democratic reconstruction.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Beware Elon Musk and His Attempts to Steer the World Toward the Neo-Fascist Right
It will not be the first time in history that someone is seduced by the thrill of unconstrained power, although it may be the first time that so much of it is concentrated in one unelected megalomaniac.
Jan 07, 2025
Elon Musk repeatedly asserts, without evidence, that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer covered up the abuses of young girls by gangs comprised largely of British Pakistani men, in cases that date back to before 2010 when Starmer was head of Britain’s public prosecutions.
“Starmer was complicit in the RAPE OF BRITAIN when he was head of Crown Prosecution for six years,” Musk posted to the top of his account on Friday. “Starmer must go, and he must face charges for his complicity in the worst mass crime in the history of Britain.”
In fact, Starmer, who heads the Labour government, did not cover up abuses. Instead, he brought the first case against an Asian grooming gang and drafted new guidelines for how the Crown Prosecution Service should deal with cases of sexual exploitation of children, including the mandatory reporting of child sex offenses.
But Musk’s real power these days comes from his proximity to and presumed influence over Donald Trump, soon to be President of the United States.
Musk also calls Jess Phillips, the Labour government’s under secretary for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, a “rape genocide apologist” because she pushed back on calls for a national inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Oldham, a town near Manchester.
In fact, Phillips, who has long campaigned for women’s rights, has called for a local investigation by Oldham authorities rather than the central government. Women’s rights supporters say Musk’s labeling Phillips a “rape genocide apologist” is threatening her safety.
Yesterday, Starmer warned publicly that Musk’s baseless accusations “crossed a line,” adding that “once we lose the anchor that truth matters, in the robust debate that we must have, then we are on a very slippery slope.”
Musk’s Global Reach
Musk’s lies about the left-wing British government and his support for far-right groups are parts of an emerging pattern. Musk is also:
- Boosting the far-right party in Germany with neo-Nazi ties, known as Alternative for Germany (AfD), before elections early next month. Musk signaled his support for AfD in mid-December, writing in a post on X that “only the AfD can save Germany.” He also penned an op-ed in a German newspaper recently, describing the party as the “last spark of hope” for the country. Musk is planning an online “discussion” on X with the AfD’s leader and candidate for chancellor, Alice Weidel, amplifying the party’s neo-Nazi ideology.
- Attacking the Italian judiciary for curbing Italian Prime Giorgia Meloni’s hardline anti-asylum immigration policies. Musk has met regularly with Meloni, who has called him a friend, and appeared at a youth event for Meloni’s party.
- Urging support for Britain’s far-right MP Nigel Farage’s anti-immigration Reform U.K. Party. Musk says he might donate upward of 100 million pounds ($127 million) to Farage’s group.
- Demanding Britain “free Tommy Robinson,” the far-right founder of the English Defence League—an Islamophobic nationalist group—and anti-immigrant agitator who, Musk charges, is in jail for “telling the truth.” In fact, Robinson is in jail because he was found to have defamed a teenage Syrian refugee and then defied a British court order by repeating the false claims. (Robinson has been previously jailed for assault, mortgage fraud, and traveling on a false passport to the United States, where he has sought to establish ties with right-wing groups.)
- Allowing on X inflammatory lies of a kind that incited anti-immigrant riots in Britain last July, following the killing of three girls in a mass stabbing in the town of Southport. After Britain arrested more than 30 people, Musk condemned the government for what he called an attack on free speech.
- Calling Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau an “insufferable tool” over comments Trudeau made in support of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, and predicted he “won’t be in power for much longer.” (Yesterday, Trudeau announced he will resign.)
Where Musk Is Getting This Power
As the richest person in the world, politicians everywhere now recognize his capacity to pour money into their parties and political campaigns, as he did by investing a quarter of a billion dollars to get Trump elected.
He also owns X, formerly Twitter, which (as of December 2024) has 619 million monthly active users. He has manipulated X’s algorithm to boost his own posts, which now reach 210 million.
But Musk’s real power these days comes from his proximity to and presumed influence over Donald Trump, soon to be President of the United States.
Musk has hardly left Trump’s side since the election, meaning that Musks’s opinions (amplified by his social media platform) cannot be ignored by politicians around the world who are trying to decipher Trump’s opinions.
One prominent member of Germany’s center-left Social Democratic Party is asking that Germany determine “whether [Musk’s] repeated disrespect, defamation, and interference in the election campaign were also expressed in the name of the new U.S. government.”
This combination—the richest person in the world, owner and manipulator of the biggest political messaging platform in the world, with direct influence over Trump—puts Musk in the position of being able to move other nations toward the neo-fascist right.
Why Musk Is Doing This
Not for money. As it is, he has far more than any human can utilize.
Partly, it’s ideological. He calls himself a “free speech absolutist,” which puts him at odds with Europe’s and Canada’s aggressive responses to hate speech online. (Britain, Musk says, “is turning into a police state.”)
But the roots of Musk’s neo-fascism probably go deeper.
I am no psychoanalyst, but I imagine that as an immigrant from South Africa, Musk is especially triggered by poor people of color moving into white nations. His father smuggled raw emeralds and had them cut in Johannesburg.
Part of his shift to the radical right also comes from Musk’s transgender child. As Musk told conservative commentator Jordan Peterson, “I lost my son, essentially,” claiming she was “dead, killed by the woke mind virus. I vowed to destroy the woke mind virus after that.” (Musk’s daughter, Vivian Jenna Wilson, now 20, told NBC News that Musk was an absent father who was cruel to her as a child for being queer and feminine.)
On X, Musk continuously criticizes transgender rights, including medical treatments for trans-identifying minors, and the use of pronouns if they are different from what would be used at birth. He has promoted anti-trans content and called for arresting people who provide trans care to minors. Last July, Musk said he was pulling his businesses out of California to protest a new state law that bars schools from requiring that trans kids be outed to their parents. After Musk bought X, then known as Twitter, in 2022, he rolled back the app’s protections for trans people, including a ban on using birth names (known as “deadnames” for transgender people).
Perhaps the major reason for Musk’s recent effort to push other nations to the neo-fascist right is his newfound thirst for right-wing global politics. After effectively (at least in Musk’s mind) winning the presidency for Trump by spending more than $250 million and unleashing a maelstrom of pro-Trump and anti-Harris lies over X, he now seeks even more of an authoritarian rush.
It will not be the first time in history that someone is seduced by the thrill of unconstrained power, although it may be the first time that so much of it is concentrated in one unelected megalomaniac.
What Should Be Done About Musk?
For the time being, particularly under Trump, there is little that we in America can do to constrain Musk except by boycotting Tesla and X.
Canada and Britain and other European nations, meanwhile, should, at the very least:
- Enact laws and regulations to prohibit non-citizens (like Musk) from financing activities that could affect their elections.
- Maintain, if not strengthen, laws and rules against hate speech, and ensure that they are applied to social media companies, such as Musk’s X.
- Refuse to contract with Musk’s Space X and its Starlink satellite division, or with Musk’s other corporations (Tesla and the Boring Company).
- Disengage from any joint ventures or technology transfers involving Musk, including xAI, his artificial intelligence company.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Trudeau Is Finished': Canadian Prime Minister Resigns After Support Collapses
"Conservatives are jumping at the opportunity to take from you and give more to CEOs," said the head of Canada's social democratic political party. "You will pay the price of Poilievre's cuts."
Jan 06, 2025
After nearly a decade leading the Canadian government, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced Monday that he will resign after his center-right Liberal Party selects a new leader—acquiescing to calls that he should make way for new leadership ahead of a federal election later this year.
Speaking to reporters in Ottawa, Trudeau said "I care deeply about this country and I will always be motivated by what is in the best interests of Canadians. And the fact is, despite best efforts to work through it, parliament has been paralyzed for months after what has been the longest session of a minority parliament in Canadian history." He also added that the country's parliament will be suspended until the end of March while a new leader is chosen.
Trudeau's announcement comes as he faces declining public opinion polling, President-elect Donald Trump's threat of 25% tariffs on Canadian imports, and the departure of the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland less than a month ago.
In her strongly worded resignation letter in December, Freeland wrote that Trudeau had told her he no longer wanted her to serve as finance minister and that she and Trudeau had found themselves "at odds" over the best way forward for Canada.
"The incoming administration in the United States is pursuing a policy of aggressive economic nationalism, including a threat of 25% tariffs. We need to take that threat extremely serious. That means keeping our fiscal powder dry today," Freeland wrote. She also warned against "costly political gimmicks" that the country could "ill afford."
Freeland and Trudeau were reportedly in disagreement over some of the prime minister's proposed policies to tackle the country's cost-of-living crisis. The resignation was followed by calls from across the political spectrum for Trudeau to resign.
That is not the first time Trudeau has faced significant calls to step down in the past 6 months. In October, at a closed-door caucus meeting, Liberal Party members urged him to resign to avoid diminishing the party's chances in the next election.
Jagmeet Singh, the head of Canada's New Democratic Party—a social democratic political party that is to the left of the Liberals—reacted to Trudeau's resignation, writing "Justin Trudeau has let you down, over and over. He let you down on the cost of groceries. He let you down on fixing health care. It doesn't matter who leads the Liberals. They don't deserve another chance."
"Conservatives are jumping at the opportunity to take from you and give more to CEOs," he continued. "You will pay the price of [Conservative Party leader Pierre] Poilievre's cuts."
Polling shows that Poilievre, who has aligned himself with U.S. President-elect's far-right brand of politics, would likely win a majority government elections were held today.
MP Niki Ashton, an NDP lawmaker representing parts of Manitoba, also didn't mourn Trudeau's exit but warned about a Conservative government and the "anti-worker" agenda of Poilievre.
"Trudeau is finished," Ashton said, describing the Liberal leader as one "who only helped people when forced to by the NDP."
"But we know, Poilievre will be a disaster," she added. "We can't let that happen."
With Trudeau out, the Liberal Party must now select an interim leader, followed by.a leadership race to find a permanent replacement, which is expected to feature Freeland. A federal election must be held by October 20, 2025, but could be held sooner if a snap election is called.
Trump reacted to the news of Trudeau's resignation on Truth Social by saying that if Canada merged with the United States then the country would be free from tariffs, taxes would decrease, and it would be secure from what he claimed were threats from China and Russia. "Together, what a great Nation it would be!!!" he wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Calls for Trudeau to Resign as Exiting Canadian Finance Minister Warns of Trump Tariffs
"He has to go. Right now, Canadians are struggling with the cost of living," said the New Democratic Party leader. "And instead of focusing on these issues, Justin Trudeau and the Liberals focused on themselves."
Dec 16, 2024
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau quietly defied mounting calls for his resignation on Monday, asking Dominic LeBlanc to serve as finance minister after Chrystia Freeland resigned from the post with a scathing letter that sounded the alarm about U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's threat to impose economically devastating tariffs on Canada and Mexico.
Ahead of a Liberal caucus meeting, some members of Trudeau's own party joined Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet, Conservative Party of Canada Leader Pierre Poilievre, and New Democratic Party (NDP) Leader Jagmeet Singh in urging him to step aside. Federal elections must be held by October but some want them called immediately.
"Today, I'm calling on Justin Trudeau to resign. He has to go," said Singh. "Right now, Canadians are struggling with the cost of living. I hear it everywhere I go. People cannot find a home that they can afford. They can't buy their groceries. And on top of that, we have Trump threatening tariffs at 25%, which put hundreds [of] thousands of Canadian jobs at risk."
"And instead of focusing on these issues, Justin Trudeau and the Liberals focused on themselves," he continued. "They're fighting themselves instead of fighting for Canadians. For that reason, today, I'm calling on Justin Trudeau to resign. He has to go."
Yet, Trudeau seemed determined to stay, addressing his caucus meeting—where the press could see him through windows for some time—but not the public, after appearing at LeBlanc's swearing-in ceremony. LeBlanc, a longtime Liberal member of Parliament who will retain his role as minister of intergovernmental affairs, calmly took questions from reporters after being sworn in.
LeBlanc identified cost-of-living concerns as his No. 1 focus as finance minister, described Trump and Trudeau's recent meeting at Mar-a-Lago as a conversation between "two leaders focused on a number of priorities" including border security, and called Freeland a friend and "somebody that I admire as a colleague."
On the day that Freeland was set to deliver the delayed Fall Economic Statement to Parliament, she wrote in a resignation letter that after a Friday meeting in which Trudeau told her that he no longer wanted her to serve as finance minister, "the only honest and viable path for me is to resign from the Cabinet."
The Associated Press reported that "a Liberal party official said Freeland was offered a position as minister in charge of Canada-U.S. relations without portfolio and without a department. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter, said the position would have been in name only and wouldn't have come with any of the tools Freeland previously had when she negotiated trade with the United States."
At least one member of Parliament was among those framing the development as Trudeau forcing Freeland, who also served as deputy prime minister, out of the Cabinet. According to CBC:
When asked about the timing of Freeland's resignation, NDP MP Charlie Angus didn't mince words.
"What the f--k? How does a prime minister, on the eve of a statement that we've been waiting for for months, deep-six his finance minister and think that things are going to be normal?" Angus said.
"We've got a prime minister missing in action and now his deputy prime minister, his finance minister has jumped ship. The prime minister needs to show up and explain how this gong show is allowed to happen."
As The Guardian pointed out, "Freeland and Trudeau have reportedly disagreed over proposals for temporary tax breaks and other spending measures, which were meant to shore up political support, but risked forcing Freeland to miss her spending goals."
In Freeland's resignation letter to Trudeau—which she also shared on social media—she acknowledged that "for the past number of weeks, you and I have found ourselves at odds about the best path forward for Canada."
The former finance minister wrote that "our country today faces a grave challenge. The incoming administration in the United States is pursuing a policy of aggressive economic nationalism, including a threat of 25% tariffs."
"We need to take that threat extremely seriously," she continued. "That means keeping our fiscal powder dry today, so we have the reserves we may need for a coming tariff war. That means eschewing costly political gimmicks, which we can ill afford and which make Canadians doubt that we recognize the gravity of the moment."
"That means pushing back against 'America First' economic nationalism with a determined effort to fight for capital and investment and the jobs they bring," she added. "That means working in good faith and humility with the premiers of the provinces and territories of our great and diverse country, and building a true Team Canada response."
Although Freeland is leaving the Cabinet, she made clear that she is not resigning as a Liberal member of Parliament and attended the caucus meeting. She also wrote that "I am committed to running again for my seat in Toronto in the next federal election."
Despite Freeland's exit from the Cabinet, the Fall Economic Statement was delivered to Parliament on Monday. Reuters reported that "Canada's fiscal deficit for the year ended March came in at C$61.9 billion ($43.45 billion), more than half of what was projected last year, missing one of the three key fiscal objectives... Freeland had set to achieve."
Much of the extra spending is due to one-time expenses—C$4.7 billion ($3.3 billion) related to the Covid-19 pandemic and C$16.4 billion ($11.52 billion) for Indigenous payouts—Reuters noted, but even without that, the deficit would have been around C$40.8 billion, ($28.66 billion), higher than the previously forecast C$40 billion ($28.1 billion).
In an apparent nod to Trump's demands, the fiscal update said that "the government is committed to Securing Our Borders and combating criminal networks that seek to move illicit goods, drugs, and people across our shared border with the United States."
The statement did not say anything about the proposed C$250 ($175.63) "Working Canadians Rebate," which was expected to provide relief to nearly 19 million people and cost an estimated C$4.68 billion ($3.29 billion).
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Anti-Worker' Trudeau Forces Arbitration on Union in Industry-Backed Bid to Start Trains
"The Liberal government's decision to undermine 9,300 Canadian rail workers with binding arbitration sends a message to big corporations: Being a bad boss pays off," said the leader of the New Democratic Party.
Aug 23, 2024
The Canadian government on Thursday moved to end a lockout of workers at the country's two major rail corporations by forcing the two sides into arbitration, drawing sharp criticism from the union, which is challenging the move, and left-leaning political figures, including an ally of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Canadian National (CN) and Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) locked out about 9,300 engineers, conductors, and yard workers starting Thursday morning, shutting down the vast majority of the country's freight operations—a major disruption to the national economy and supplies chains across North America. The two sides had failed to reach a labor agreement after months of negotiating.
Labor Minister Steven MacKinnon made the announcement Thursday afternoon, referring the arbitration to the Canada Industrial Relations Board and ordering previous collective bargaining agreements to be extended until the CIRB process is complete. He said he expected trains to be running again within days.
The government's move was widely seen as a victory for company executives and a loss for 9,300 workers, whom worker advocates say were effectively stripped of their right to collectively bargain.
"By resorting to binding arbitration, the government has allowed CN and CPKC to sidestep a union determined to protect rail safety," Teamsters Canada Rail Conference (TCRC) president Paul Boucher said in a statement. "Despite claiming to value and honor the collective bargaining process, the federal government quickly used its authority to suspend it, mere hours after an employer-imposed work stoppage."
Teamsters Canada Rail Conference's announced Friday it would challenge the constitutionality of the government move.
Jagmeet Singh, leader of the left-leaning New Democratic Party, which Trudeau's centrist Liberal Party relies on for voting support in Parliament, was blisteringly critical of his strategic ally following the government's announcement.
"The Liberal [government's] decision to undermine 9,300 Canadian rail workers with binding arbitration sends a message to big corporations like CN and CPKC: Being a bad boss pays off," Singh wrote on social media. "Justin Trudeau's actions are cowardly, anti-worker, and proof that he will always cave to corporate greed."
The Liberal govt's decision to undermine 9,300 Canadian rail workers with a binding arbitration sends a message to big corporations like CN & CPKC:
Being a bad boss pays off
Justin Trudeau's actions are cowardly, anti-worker, & proof that he will always cave to corporate greed. pic.twitter.com/p7U1mE4hlv
— Jagmeet Singh (@theJagmeetSingh) August 22, 2024
Singh, a member of Parliament from the Vancouver metropolitan area, had warned Trudeau earlier in the week not to intervene, arguing that there was an ugly history of the Canadian government doing so in favor of industry interests. Trudeau and other government officials had said, before Thursday afternoon, that they preferred the two sides hash out their differences at the negotiating table.
However, the train stoppage led to mounting industry pressure, not just from the rail companies but also broader business interests who expressed concern about the impact on Canada's export-driven economy. Media outlets in Canada and the U.S. focused on the potential downsides of a protracted stoppage. Half of the Canada's exports are moved by rail, according to a railway industry lobby group, and more than $700 million USD worth of goods move on the country's tracks per day.
"The two major railways in Canada manufactured this crisis, took the country hostage, and manipulated the government to once again disregard the rights afforded to working-class Canadians," said Boucher, the union leader. "The TCRC is deeply disappointed by this shameful decision."
Rail operations remained in a complicated limbo on Friday as TCRC seemingly figured out how to react to the government's move. Initially, the union announced that while the CPKC work stoppage was ongoing, pending CIRB action, its CN members would resume work—and the company's trains began running across Canada at 7:00am—but later in the morning the union issued a 72-hour strike notice to CN.
The labor dispute centers on worker hours and conditions, and has parallels to a U.S. dispute in 2022, in which the U.S. government also stepped in to force a deal, angering many union leaders and working-class advocates.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Canadian Rail Companies Lock Out Workers. Union Says They're Holding the Economy 'Hostage'
"The railroads don't care about farmers, small businesses, supply chains, or their own employees," a union president said. "Their sole focus is boosting their bottom line, even if it means jeopardizing the entire economy."
Aug 22, 2024
Both of Canada's major freight rail companies—key cogs in North America's supply chains—locked out workers and shut down operations on Thursday due to a labor dispute over worker hours and conditions, as a union leader said the companies were holding the Canadian economy "hostage."
The unprecedented stoppage comes with high stakes for the 9,300 affected engineers, conductors, and yard workers—and the country's export-driven economy. The two companies, Canadian National (CN) and Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC), own almost all of the tracks and haul more than $700 million USD worth of goods per day.
The Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, which represents the affected workers across both companies, said the two corporations had refused many of its "good faith" offers.
"Neither CN nor CPKC has relented on their push to weaken protections around rest periods and scheduling, increasing the risk of fatigue-related safety issues," the union said in a statement.
Paul Boucher, the union's president, said that "CN and CPKC have shown themselves willing to compromise rail safety and tear families apart to earn an extra buck. The railroads don't care about farmers, small businesses, supply chains, or their own employees. Their sole focus is boosting their bottom line, even if it means jeopardizing the entire economy."
🚂 The men and women who keep our CN and CPKC trains running want decent working conditions that ensure safety for us all🚨. It’s time to give them our support.💪#Canlab pic.twitter.com/bGXQC1yuo1
— Teamsters Canada (@TeamstersCanada) August 21, 2024
Boucher said in a video statement on social media that the companies were holding Canada's economy "hostage" in an attempt to get the federal government, led by Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, to force a binding arbitration agreement on the workers, an idea that business groups such as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce support.
So far, Trudeau's government hasn't done so and has instead pressured the two sides to come to a deal.
"Millions of Canadians, of workers, of farmers, of businesses right across the country are counting on both sides to do the work and get to a resolution," Trudeau told reporters Wednesday.
The Liberals, a centrist party, rely on the votes of the smaller New Democratic Party in Parliament. NDP was founded in part by organized labor and has warned Trudeau not to force the rail employees back to work.
"For too long we have seen Liberals and Conservatives interfere in these types of labor disputes to the advantage of the employer, to the detriment of the worker," Jagmeet Singh, NDP's leader, told reporters on Monday. "That is wrong, and we will oppose that."
In 2022, the U.S. federal government did take such action in a railway labor dispute. The U.S. Congress and President Joe Biden forced railworkers into an agreement that four key unions didn't agree to—angering many working-class Americans and progressive advocates, who argued that the right to strike had been nullified by the government intervention.
Canada has previously seen such federal interventions—or the threat of them, which can force workers' hand in negotiations—but in the past, disputes have occurred with just one of the major rail companies or the other, with their contracts expiring in alternating years.
This time, the timing has allowed for an industry-wide dispute, and a larger transportation disruption, including not just freight rail but also some passenger rail services that operate on lines owned by the two companies. There are no traffic controllers on the CPKC tracks, so passenger rail can't operate, The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported.
The companies have used the disruption as part of the rationale for government action. CPKC openly called for binding arbitration on Thursday, saying in a statement that an agreement is "not within reach" and that the union "continues to make unrealistic demands that would fundamentally impair the railway's ability to serve our customers with a reliable and cost-competitive transportation service."
The union argues that CPKC wants to "gut the collective agreement of all safety-critical fatigue provisions" and CN is trying to extend work days in western provinces, raising what the union calls a "a fatigue-related safety risk," The Guardian reported.
CN's net income for 2023 was $4 billion USD, while CPKC's was $2.9 billion USD.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Canada Must Switch Its Loyalty From Big Oil to Renewables
The only real hope of avoiding climate disaster lies in dramatically ramping up the transition to clean energy by building new wind and solar farms at breakneck speed.
May 22, 2024
The opening of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion this month—widely celebrated in the media—reminds us that Canada is still very much in the grip of Big Oil.
That $34 billion expansion was financed by Ottawa, and it amounts to a massive public subsidy for the oil industry—at a time when we should urgently be financing renewable energy, not fossil fuels.
The renowned U.S. climatologist James Hansen famously said the oilsands were such a “dirty, carbon-intensive” oil that if they were to be fully exploited, it would be “game over” for the planet.
Over the past four years, Ottawa has provided $65 billion in financial support for oil and gas, but only a fraction as much for renewable energy.
Yet here we are, applauding the tripling of the pipeline’s capacity to carry oil from the oilsands, even as that moves us closer to “game over.”
A report this month revealed that the world’s top climate scientists believe the world is headed in a frightening direction—toward more than 2.5°C degrees of warming, charging past the international target of 1.5°C, beyond which fires, floods, and heatwaves become seriously unpredictable.
Today, we’re at just 1.2°C of warming, and look at the mess we’re in. Already this season, wildfires are burning out of control in B.C. and Alberta.
Climate scientists have been clear: The only real hope of avoiding climate disaster lies in dramatically ramping up the transition to clean energy by building new wind and solar farms at breakneck speed.
But this isn’t happening, even though the price of wind and solar power has become very competitive. That was supposed to be the trigger point at which the market would begin working in our favour, with renewables cheaper than fossil fuels, facilitating the transition to clean energy.
Renewables keep getting cheaper. The price of solar power has plunged by 90%, yet Big Oil remains dominant.
That’s because, with its long-established monopoly and extensive government support, Big Oil is far more profitable—and therefore more attractive—to major financial investors than the struggling, competitive firms that make up the budding renewable sector, notes Brett Christophers, a political economist at Uppsala University in Sweden.
Clearly, given the climate emergency, we can’t just leave the vital task of transitioning to renewables up to the whims of financial investors, whose only interest is maximizing their returns.
Governments must become a lot more involved, and they have to switch their loyalty from Big Oil to renewables.
The Biden administration has moved in this direction, with sweeping measures aimed at doubling renewable capacity in the U.S. over the next decade. Meanwhile, the Trudeau government is locked into serving the immensely powerful oil industry.
Over the past four years, Ottawa has provided $65 billion in financial support for oil and gas, but only a fraction as much for renewable energy. Its main program for subsidizing renewables provides less than $1 billion a year, says Julia Levin, an associate director with Environmental Defence.
The extent of Ottawa’s willingness to accommodate Big Oil became clear in 2018 when it took over the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion, rather than let the project collapse after its original backers threatened to pull out amid intense environmental opposition.
Now Ottawa is planning to spend $10 billion, possibly much more, subsidizing Big Oil’s futile but costly efforts to reduce its carbon emissions through “carbon capture and storage”—despite ample evidence the technology is highly ineffective at reducing such emissions.
This enables Big Oil to pretend it’s serious about reducing emissions, lulling Canadians into believing we’re making progress on climate, when we’re really just spinning our wheels and wasting a lot of public money in the process.
For years, there was the comforting thought that, when the horrors of climate change truly became clear, humans would be smart enough to figure out a solution. That turned out to be true. It’s just that we haven’t figured out how to override the powerful so we can implement the solution.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Small Step Forward': Canadian Parliament Backs Ending Arms Exports to Israel
"While imperfect, this is a tangible victory on the road to a Canadian two-way arms embargo with Israel," said one advocacy group.
Mar 19, 2024
Canada's Parliament on Monday approved a nonbinding resolution calling on the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to cut off the country's arms exports to Israel, demand an immediate cease-fire and the release of hostages, and support international legal efforts to hold perpetrators of war crimes accountable.
The measure, led by Canada's New Democratic Party (NDP), passed in a 204-to-117 vote after private negotiations between Trudeau's Liberal government and the NDP produced significant changes to the original text, including the removal of language calling for "sanctions on Israeli officials who incite genocide."
The final motion, which Conservatives opposed, calls on Trudeau's government to "cease the further authorization and transfer of arms exports to Israel to ensure compliance with Canada's arms export regime," "sanction extremist settlers from Canada," and "demand unimpeded humanitarian access to Gaza," among other steps.
"We are dismayed by the failure of Canada's Liberal government to stand up for what is right, for the rule of international law, for humanity, for peace," NDP MP Heather McPherson, the lead sponsor of the original motion, said in a speech ahead of Monday's vote. "Canadians are horrified by a brutal assault on Gaza where over 30,000 civilians have been killed, they were horrified on October 7 by the vile terrorist attack on innocent civilians in Israel by Hamas terrorists, and they are horrified now by the way [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's extremist government has responded."
2/14
Today, the Liberals and Conservatives have an opportunity to join the NDP and uphold the values of Canadians – to show that Palestinian lives matter as much as any other lives. That Palestinian rights are human rights. And that children – all children - deserve peace. pic.twitter.com/RhtowYsEDp
— Heather McPherson (@HMcPhersonMP) March 18, 2024
Michael Bueckert, vice president of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME), said in a statement that the amended measure does not "go nearly as far as we had hoped for, but it is nonetheless a small step forward for ending Canadian complicity in Israel's genocidal war in Gaza."
"The watering down of the NDP resolution weakens the significance of Parliament's vote, even if it was a major concession forced by the Liberal government to ensure its passage," Bueckert added. "With the passage of this motion, the government has effectively promised to adopt a clear policy to restrict exports, including for already-issued permits, not just a temporary pause on approvals. While imperfect, this is a tangible victory on the road to a Canadian two-way arms embargo with Israel. The NDP must not rest on its laurels and continue to fight Canada's relationship with the Israeli military-industrial complex."
Bueckert said Trudeau's government "must immediately implement the democratic will of Parliament by adopting these demands, and ignore the backlash from those who seek to vilify this motion, including the far-right Israeli government itself."
The motion's passage comes days after the Toronto Star reported that the Trudeau government "stopped approving exports of non-lethal military goods and technology to Israel two months ago amid deepening concerns about possible human rights violations."
"Since Jan. 8, applications for permits to allow Canadian companies to ship tens of millions of dollars worth of non-lethal goods and technology, such as night vision goggles, have been temporarily put on hold because of the difficulty in establishing whether the material could be used in human rights violations," the Star reported, citing unnamed senior government officials.
Data from Global Affairs Canada indicates that Canada exported at least $28.5 million worth of military equipment to Israel in the three months after October 7. A coalition of human rights groups noted in a letter last month to Canada's foreign affairs minister that Canada has exported more than $140 million worth of military goods to Israel over the past decade, "including military aerospace components as well as bombs, missiles, explosives, and associated parts."
"There is substantial concern that some of these weapons could be enabling Israel's operation in Gaza," the groups wrote. "In addition to direct exports, Canadian-produced technology has also been supplied to Israel by first being integrated into US-produced systems, including components incorporated into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which Israel has used in its bombing campaign across Gaza."
United Nations experts have called for an immediate arms embargo on Israel, warning last month that "state officials involved in arms exports may be individually criminally liable for aiding and abetting any war crimes, crimes against humanity, or acts of genocide."
The National Council of Canadian Muslims said Monday that it is "pleased to see that a historic vote on the NDP motion on Palestine is likely going to result in historic change for Canada."
"While we recognize that some would have liked the original motion to stay fully together," the group added, "we believe that the NDP did the right thing by tabling the original motion and pushing to make sure that Canada voted in favor of Palestine today. That is history."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy