The latest from the federal NDP's leadership campaign as tomorrow's showcases approach - and as members begin to fill out their ballots.
- The Star's editorial board has been meeting with the candidates, resulting in articles about Niki Ashton's determination that the NDP not be outflanked by Liberal rhetoric on the left and Guy Caron's pitch as the candidate who can win in Quebec, as well as Martin Regg Cohn's column arguing that Jagmeet Singh stands above his fellow candidates. Canadaland is interviewing the candidates, beginning with Guy Caron. Andrew Autio reports on Charlie Angus' take on the campaign so far and his position as voting begins. And Joanna Smith discusses Jagmeet Singh's familiarity with racism (and the need to respond with grace and purpose).
- Caron has released his nation-to-nation platform for reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. And the Star's editorial board offers its support for decriminalizing drug possession as mentioned by Singh - though it neglects to note that both Ashton and Caron also expressed interest in the idea.
- Eric Grenier follows up on the significance of the endorsements made so far, while Campbell Clark picks up on Angus' surprising lack of support within the current caucus. Angus did add a potentially significant endorsement from Libby Davies as one of the NDP's most-admired voices from the left. And Joel-Denis Bellavance reports on Alexandre Boulerice's decision to stay neutral - which is particularly interesting based on the view of one of the NDP's most prominent Quebec MPs that any of the candidates can succeed in his home province.
- Maura Forrest reports on a glitch which saw some members receive more than one ballot.
- Christo Aivalis offers his review of all of the candidates, while Alex Ballingall offers profiles from the Star.
- Finally, Ballingall discusses how the leadership candidates fit into the NDP's overarching goals as a party, while Jeremy Appel offers his take as to the impact of each candidate on the 2019 campaign. And Dennis Gruending highlights how the leadership campaign will affect Canada's broader political scene.
Showing posts with label alexandre boulerice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alexandre boulerice. Show all posts
Saturday, September 16, 2017
Thursday, September 07, 2017
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Matthew Hoffmann discusses the reality that addressing climate change will require substantial changes to how we currently live - but that we don't have a reasonable choice but to put in the work to make the transition.
- Michael Wolfson writes that the Libs' plans to limit some tax goodies for incorporated businesses are entirely fair to doctors and to other high-income workers. But Jeremy Nuttall points out Alexandre Boulerice's apt observation that a loud fight over one small tax loophole is providing cover to leave many more to be exploited.
- Meanwhile, PressProgress highlights new research (PDF) from the CCPA showing how unequally income is distributed in Ontario - with the top 10% of the population taking in more than the bottom 60%. And Rajeev Syal reports on UK research showing that many workers are struggling with poverty and unable to meet their basic needs.
- Finally, CBC reports on the findings (PDF) of the B.C. Employment Standards Coalition showing how far too many workers are vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. And Lynn Desjardins discusses the push to include improved work protections in NAFTA - though Brent Patterson warns that the Trudeau Libs may instead join the Trump administration's race to the bottom in the name of "harmonization".
- Matthew Hoffmann discusses the reality that addressing climate change will require substantial changes to how we currently live - but that we don't have a reasonable choice but to put in the work to make the transition.
- Michael Wolfson writes that the Libs' plans to limit some tax goodies for incorporated businesses are entirely fair to doctors and to other high-income workers. But Jeremy Nuttall points out Alexandre Boulerice's apt observation that a loud fight over one small tax loophole is providing cover to leave many more to be exploited.
- Meanwhile, PressProgress highlights new research (PDF) from the CCPA showing how unequally income is distributed in Ontario - with the top 10% of the population taking in more than the bottom 60%. And Rajeev Syal reports on UK research showing that many workers are struggling with poverty and unable to meet their basic needs.
- Finally, CBC reports on the findings (PDF) of the B.C. Employment Standards Coalition showing how far too many workers are vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. And Lynn Desjardins discusses the push to include improved work protections in NAFTA - though Brent Patterson warns that the Trudeau Libs may instead join the Trump administration's race to the bottom in the name of "harmonization".
Saturday, April 15, 2017
Leadership 2017 Links
The latest from the NDP's federal leadership campaign. (As always, see the reference page for general information.)
- Mylene Crete reports on Alexandre Boulerice's endorsement of Peter Julian - which offers another important piece of evidence that the party's contingent of Quebec MPs and organizers sees Julian as a viable candidate to succeed in the province.
- Cory Collins talks to Niki Ashton about the need to build Canada's progressive social movement as one of the NDP's key priorities. And in the process, Ashton answers some of the foreign policy questions which Yves Engler still wants included in the party's debates.
- Meanwhile, Eleanor Davidson interviews Ibrahim Bruno El-Khoury about his outsider perspective on the state of Canadian democracy.
- Elliot Ferguson reports on Charlie Angus' rallying for pay equity (among other elements of fair employment). Guy Caron participated in OCAP's debate on a basic income - and his side seems to have moved opinions in its favour. Jagmeet Singh introduced legislation to better protect temp agency workers in Ontario. Ashton stopped into Alberta (including Red Deer) on her Economic Justice tour. And Julian has been encouraging supporters to work on helping British Columbia's NDP win the ongoing provincial election.
- Finally, Engler also wonders whether there should be more bold ideas being discussed in the NDP's campaign - though I'd hardly share his view that the Cons' example of being offensively extreme for its own sake is one worth following.
- Mylene Crete reports on Alexandre Boulerice's endorsement of Peter Julian - which offers another important piece of evidence that the party's contingent of Quebec MPs and organizers sees Julian as a viable candidate to succeed in the province.
- Cory Collins talks to Niki Ashton about the need to build Canada's progressive social movement as one of the NDP's key priorities. And in the process, Ashton answers some of the foreign policy questions which Yves Engler still wants included in the party's debates.
- Meanwhile, Eleanor Davidson interviews Ibrahim Bruno El-Khoury about his outsider perspective on the state of Canadian democracy.
- Elliot Ferguson reports on Charlie Angus' rallying for pay equity (among other elements of fair employment). Guy Caron participated in OCAP's debate on a basic income - and his side seems to have moved opinions in its favour. Jagmeet Singh introduced legislation to better protect temp agency workers in Ontario. Ashton stopped into Alberta (including Red Deer) on her Economic Justice tour. And Julian has been encouraging supporters to work on helping British Columbia's NDP win the ongoing provincial election.
- Finally, Engler also wonders whether there should be more bold ideas being discussed in the NDP's campaign - though I'd hardly share his view that the Cons' example of being offensively extreme for its own sake is one worth following.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
On dividing lines
For the most part, Joan Bryden's report signals that there isn't much controversy left arising out of Alexandre Boulerice's comments about niqabs in the civil service. But it's worth asking whether the trial balloon floated by Boulerice serves any purpose whatsoever:
In addition to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, individual rights are also protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act, which prohibits discriminatory treatment based on national or ethnic origin and religion unless there's a bona fide requirement which justifies that treatment.
In the case of a civil servant, that would mean that any prohibition against wearing a niqab would have to be justified by evidence that having a covered face prevents an individual from performing a job. And nothing in the current discussion suggests that's an even remotely reasonable position.
The effect of a commission would then be at best to confirm the existing standard, and at worst to establish some new threshold which prioritizes an explicit distaste for minority cultural practices ahead of the current balance between individual beliefs and practices and bona fide job requirements.
Which is to say that Boulerice's call for a commission should be dismissed as quickly as any call to discriminate based on niqabs in particular. He's entitled to his personal views, but not to try to use public policy to require individuals to conform to them. And the NDP should take the important opportunity to be the only party standing up for that principle in stark contrast to the Cons and Libs, rather than looking for some arbitrary dividing line of its own.
Update: Haroon Siddiqui makes a similar point.
[Edit: fixed wording.]
Martin added that he has no problem with Boulerice's suggestion that a pan-Canadian commission — along the lines of Quebec's Bouchard-Taylor commission in 2007 — should be created to find a consensus on how far the country should go to accommodate minority cultural and religious practices.Dewar is right to note that there's no apparent problem to solve which would merit study by a commission. But even if there were some complaints being raised about face coverings, we also shouldn't ignore the fact that there are existing answers as to how much accommodation is required.
However, Dewar, whose riding is home to many civil servants, said there is no issue to resolve; he's never had a single complaint about public servants covering their faces.
"Why would you have a study on something that doesn't exist?"
In addition to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, individual rights are also protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act, which prohibits discriminatory treatment based on national or ethnic origin and religion unless there's a bona fide requirement which justifies that treatment.
In the case of a civil servant, that would mean that any prohibition against wearing a niqab would have to be justified by evidence that having a covered face prevents an individual from performing a job. And nothing in the current discussion suggests that's an even remotely reasonable position.
The effect of a commission would then be at best to confirm the existing standard, and at worst to establish some new threshold which prioritizes an explicit distaste for minority cultural practices ahead of the current balance between individual beliefs and practices and bona fide job requirements.
Which is to say that Boulerice's call for a commission should be dismissed as quickly as any call to discriminate based on niqabs in particular. He's entitled to his personal views, but not to try to use public policy to require individuals to conform to them. And the NDP should take the important opportunity to be the only party standing up for that principle in stark contrast to the Cons and Libs, rather than looking for some arbitrary dividing line of its own.
Update: Haroon Siddiqui makes a similar point.
[Edit: fixed wording.]
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Thomas Walkom points to Ontario's experience with Kellogg's as yet another example of the dangers of basing economic policy on blind faith that handouts to big business will benefit workers and the general public:
- Kady O'Malley rightly criticizes the do-nothing fall session of Parliament - though it's worth pointing out which party both delayed the start of the session and held a majority which was wielded to stop nearly anything from getting done. And Alison singles out for shaming the Cons' Ethics Committee members who refused to allow an investigation into the Cons' Senate cover-up, and also went in camera to avoid any public committee votes on the issue.
- But of course, if we want a functional Parliament, it's probably incumbent on advocates for change to show they have some respect for the institution and its underlying purposes. Which means that Justin Trudeau's excuses that he'd rather be a full-time campaigner than an MP likely point in the wrong direction.
- Finally, Gloria Galloway reports on Don Drummond's conclusion that even equal funding won't be enough to allow First Nations schools to meet the standards expected by Canadians in general. But the real need for more should at least provide an impetus to move toward closing the gap which currently sees First Nations schools grossly underfunded (while federal and provincial governments point fingers at each other rather than doing anything to address the problem).
- Thomas Walkom points to Ontario's experience with Kellogg's as yet another example of the dangers of basing economic policy on blind faith that handouts to big business will benefit workers and the general public:
Like Kellogg, the auto companies justify their apparent double-dealing by citing the need to boost profits.- CUPW identifies what's at stake as the Cons encourage Canada Post to make its service less useful and more expensive, while Chantal Hebert points out that the government responsible is nowhere to be found in answering for the eliminate of door-to-door delivery and a massive price increase. And Alexandre Boulerice already has a petition in place to stop the service cuts.
Indeed, in market terms, their actions are perfectly rational.
Why not take whatever you can from governments when subsidies are on offer? And why not stiff those same governments if, later on, you can make more by operating elsewhere?
For governments, however, open-ended corporate subsidies are not as rational.
From Massey-Ferguson to Kellogg, Ontario governments have sunk money into companies that either couldn’t or wouldn’t maintain employment in the province.
What are the alternatives? One is to do nothing and let the free market work its destructive magic. As Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne is finding out, and as Stephen Harper has already discovered, this is politically untenable.
The other is to insist on having government, or even workers themselves, play a role in managing publicly subsidized companies.
- Kady O'Malley rightly criticizes the do-nothing fall session of Parliament - though it's worth pointing out which party both delayed the start of the session and held a majority which was wielded to stop nearly anything from getting done. And Alison singles out for shaming the Cons' Ethics Committee members who refused to allow an investigation into the Cons' Senate cover-up, and also went in camera to avoid any public committee votes on the issue.
- But of course, if we want a functional Parliament, it's probably incumbent on advocates for change to show they have some respect for the institution and its underlying purposes. Which means that Justin Trudeau's excuses that he'd rather be a full-time campaigner than an MP likely point in the wrong direction.
- Finally, Gloria Galloway reports on Don Drummond's conclusion that even equal funding won't be enough to allow First Nations schools to meet the standards expected by Canadians in general. But the real need for more should at least provide an impetus to move toward closing the gap which currently sees First Nations schools grossly underfunded (while federal and provincial governments point fingers at each other rather than doing anything to address the problem).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)