Mediaboss Marketing

Open this photo in gallery:

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre speaks at the National Prayer Breakfast in Ottawa on May 7.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press

Ever since the Liberals unveiled their surprise increase in the capital-gains tax in last months budget, the question on everyones lips has been: what will Pierre Poilievre say about it?

Well, maybe not on everyones lips. But certainly on some peoples. Conservatives, for instance. After all, conservatives are supposed to be against taxes and tax hikes, of all kinds. And leaders of the Opposition are supposed to oppose.

Surely the Conservative Leader would have to take the bait. Otherwise he would have to explain to his followers why he had once again failed to oppose the governing Liberals on a major question of economic policy as he had failed to do on subsidies for electric vehicle batteries, for example, or on the ban on replacement workers.

Well, the days have just flown by, and at last we have our answer. Intriguingly, its: What are you asking me for? Only instead of a craven abdication of leadership, the talented Mr. Poilievre has managed to turn it into a boast, even a philosophical credo.

In a striking piece in Fridays National Post, Mr. Poilievre acknowledges that, indeed, investors and business leaders have been pressing him to lead the charge on the capital gains issue. Why, theyve fairly been blowing up my phone.

They yelp: What are you going to do about this?

My answer: No. What are you going to do about it?

Whoa. Who saw that plot twist coming? But theres a point to it. Business, he complains, has been too content to roll over in the face of Liberal attacks on investment and entrepreneurship. Gutless executives prefer to suck up to the Liberals, relying on their useless and overpaid lobbyists rather than taking their case directly to the voters.

Got a beef, then, with the Liberals? Youre on your own. Why should I sell your bleat?

This represents an evolution in the populist, anti-corporate pose Mr. Poilievre has been trying to strike of late. Read quickly, it might even look like Mr. Poilievre is giving business a bit of tough love, urging them to show greater self-reliance, less dependence on government.

And its true: business has been all too willing to cozy up to the Natural Governing Party over the years, accepting destructive and intrusive government regulations as the price of government handouts. Any leader that put a stop to this sordid exchange would earn the thanks of a grateful nation.

But if that was what Mr. Poilievre meant he could have said so. He might have said:

Dont bother coming to a Conservative government for handouts, because we wont give you any.

And dont waste your time lobbying a Conservative government, either. Were going to do whats right for Canada, whether business likes it or not.

So: You mind your business, and Ill mind mine. Ill stay out of business, and you stay out of politics.

But that is not what he says in the piece, is it? He doesnt say he will stop giving handouts to business. And far from telling businesses to stay out of politics, hes effectively demanding they enlist on his side.

On the one hand, he warns that he wont take up any of their policy proposals unless business has already sold the public on it:

[Business] will get nothing from me unless they convince the people first When they start telling me about your ideas on the doorstep in Windsor, St. Johns, Trois-Rivires, and Port Alberni, then Ill think about enacting it.

On the other hand, on those policies he does take up, he wants business to provide him with political cover:

If I do pursue your policy, I expect that you will continue to advocate for it with those same Canadians in those same neighbourhoods until the policy is fully implemented.

As campaign messages go, its pretty nervy: I wont lift a finger for you if it involves the slightest political risk to me. But I expect you to carry water for me, for as long as it takes.

Its not that he wants business to stop sucking up to the Liberals, in other words, so much as that he wants them to start sucking up to the Conservatives: preparing public opinion for policies he can then adopt in safety, and campaigning for them and by implication him until they have been adopted.

Notice the language, too. I, me, my. If I pursue your policy. I expect. Start telling me.

I get it: hes on a roll. He obliterated his rivals in the leadership race. Hes 20 points ahead in the polls. Not only does he not owe business any favours, but hes in a position to start issuing demands.

But I cant be the only one left with the impression that it all seems to have rather gone to his head.

More here:
Opinion: Poilievre to business: stop sucking up to Liberals and start sucking up to me - The Globe and Mail

The families and CEOs behind Canadas largest grocery retailers have donated more than $150,000 to the Liberal and Conservative Party over the last two decades, data from Elections Canada shows.

That puts the owners of Loblaw and Empire among the top political donors in the country, according to a political financing expert.

Corporations have been banned from giving to federal parties since 2004, but that hasnt stopped billionaire families like the Westons (owners of Loblaw) and Sobeys (owners of Empire) from frequently giving the maximum annual amount allowed.

These families split the spoils fairly evenly between the Conservative and Liberals, indicating they think of donations as a down payment to ensure corporate-friendly policies from both parties.

Donations buy influence with politicians, Duff Connacher of Ottawa-based Democracy Watch said. Psychologists have shown the best way to influence people is to give them a gift or do them a favour. Even small gifts create an unconscious sense of obligation.

In the midst of a cost-of-living crisiswith historic visits to food banks and one in four children suffering from food insecuritythe practices of the grocery giants have come under intensified public scrutiny, sparking a boycott movement against Loblaw this month.

Loblaw, Empire, and Metro control nearly two thirds of the entire retail food market in Canada and pulled in record profits topping $6 billion in 2023, aided by widespread price-gouging.

While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and opposition leader Pierre Poilievre have taken turns accusing each other of cozying up to the corporate elite, Conservatives and Liberals have both consistently obliged their grocery donors.

The Liberal government forked over $26 million to Loblaw and Costco for new fridges and appliances. Under the former Conservative government of Stephen Harper, grocery retailers started pocketing tens of millions of dollars in subsidies intended to make food more affordable in Canadas north.

Neither party has advocated for stricter rules to ensure Loblaw cant repeat its tax evasion scheme of the 2000s, when it deprived the federal government of nearly $400 million in revenue by stashing money in Barbados.

For the past few years, the New Democrats have pushed for a windfall tax on the record profits of grocery giants. Justin Trudeau initially rejected the idea, calling it simplistic, then shifted to vaguely threatening to implement it, without following through. Meanwhile, the Conservatives have expressed constant opposition.

Alongside their history of donations, the corporate grocers have recently turned to a PR blitz, claiming they are innocent of the accusations of profiteering and putting the blame instead on higher costs of supplies.

But a study last year by economist Jim Stanford found clear evidence that they have used the cover of inflation to raise food prices well beyond their costs.

According to StatsCan data, grocery retail profits in 2023 doubled from what they were pre-pandemic, and their profit margins massively increased too. And it wasnt because Canadians were buying more food. Canadians are actually buying fewer groceries than before the pandemic, Stanford concluded, but paying much more for them.

Yet neither the Liberals or Conservatives have advocated for restraining the ability of corporate retailers to squeeze huge profits from the most basic essentials of life. Committed to a shared neoliberal political consensus, both parties pretend the state cant use its enormous power to intervene in the marketplace to alter profiteering behaviour.

According to Conacher, donations often buy inaction from governments, but it can be harder to track that.

Most of the battle is over whether these companies will be strongly regulated, he said. If voters or citizen groups are clamouring for reforms, what big business is looking for is inactionand politicians can do them a favour by simply not doing anything.

That may be one reason why weve seen the Liberal government resort exclusively to coaxing and cajoling.

They gathered grocery CEOs for a gabfest in Ottawa where they elicited a promise to stabilize prices. Theyve made tweaks to the countrys competition law that lawyers have described as window dressing. Theyve pushed for a toothless, voluntary, industry-developed grocery code. And theyre courting foreign multinational companies to enter the Canadian market to bring down prices (though Walmarts entry in the 1990s didnt particularly help do that).

I have faith that they will come to the table with solutions, Industry Minister Franois-Philippe Champagne said of the grocery giants in the fall without any plausible reason. As of the first quarter of 2024, Champagne has his definite answer: their record profits have only kept rising.

Poilievre has released no details about what his grocery reforms would look like. Instead, hes claimed incorrectly that higher prices and food bank use are entirely a result of the governments carbon tax. (Economist Trevor Tombe has estimated that the tax is responsible for a fraction of an one per cent increase).

Meanwhile, the PR firm of Poilievres chief advisor, Jenni Byrne, has been exposed for lobbying on behalf of Loblaw in Ontario.

Neither party has ever suggested the kind of policies that would make a genuine impact: price controls to prevent companies from jacking up prices, regulations that would bar them oligopolistic price-fixing and vertical domination, or a publicly-run, non-profit grocer that could provide affordable alternatives and genuine competition.

Records on federal political donors have only been kept since 2004, when Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien brought in a ban on corporate donations in the wake of the sponsorship scandal.

Since then, members of the Weston family have given $34,036, the Sobey family $110,262, and Metros CEOs Eric La Flche $6,179.08, relatively evenly split between the two main parties.

Instead of stopping big money from flowing to the main political parties, the ban on corporate donations has only obscured it, according to Conacher.

The pattern has been clear, he said. When business donations have been banned, suddenly executives, their spouses, and sometimes their kids are giving, substituting for what the business used to give. The only way to stop that is to dramatically lower the donation limit to what an ordinary voter can afford, no more than 100 dollars.

Individuals are currently allowed to give a maximum of $1,700 yearly to a federal party, along with another $1,700 to local riding associations, nomination contestants, and leadership candidates.

Giving to both Liberals and Conservatives isnt just a feature of these family food empirestypically all of Canadas wealthiest have given to both political parties.

The last time Canadian Business published its list of the top 100 richest families, 56 donated to the Liberal Party and 61 donated to the Conservative Party (with many giving to both).

Its a long-standing corporate insurance policy that appears to be continuing: a way to guarantee pro-corporate government regardless of which party is in power.

The kind of journalism you appreciate

The Breach's coverage reaches hundreds of thousands of readers and viewersno paywall, no ads. That's because our sustaining members contribute an hour of their wages per month to help us create independent, bold, transformative journalism. Join us today!

Original post:
Grocery giants paid for friendly Liberal, Tory policy with decades of donations The Breach - The Breach

Open this photo in gallery:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau makes his way to question period on April 30 in Ottawa.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press

Its 2024, and Justin Trudeaus Liberal government has tabled the foreign-interference bill that would have been so useful in 2019.

A new offence for foreign interference, with serious jail time as the penalty, would have been in effect before the last election. A foreign registry would not just be on the drawing board, but in place and working years before the 2025 election. Now it will almost certainly come after the vote.

The Canadians from diaspora communities who were intimidated by proxies of foreign governments or police and felt like there wasnt much of a response when they called the cops maybe theyd already feel more secure.

But Mr. Trudeaus government hemmed and hawed and delayed. Then there was a year and a half of troubling headlines and half a public inquiry and, finally, legislation about foreign interference.

By now, even the Liberals have to wonder how much trouble they might have spared themselves if they had just done this stuff sooner. Only the screaming urgency of political necessity made them act, and by the time they did, political damage had been done.

Even the hodgepodge of security measures in this bill have been on the to-do list for a long time.

Five takeaways from the foreign-interference commissions report

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has for years complained that a few words in the 1984 CSIS Act accidentally set up legal barriers for them to collect easy-to-obtain information about foreigners from sources outside Canada. Mondays bill proposes to fix that with the addition of one word.

If anything, the message carried by Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc and Justice Minister Arif Virani was not that they were taking the initiative to protect Canadians as a new age dawns, but rather that they were finally updating outdated laws. Mr. LeBlanc noted the CSIS Act was written before the digital age and Mr. Virani remarked that it changed sabotage laws that date from the 1950s.

Still. Finally, some important measures are on the table.

The new foreign-interference offence is an attempt to make it possible to prosecute interference that has been hard for Canadian authorities to pursue.

In the past five years, U.S. prosecutors have charged a number of Chinese nationals and Americans with intimidating Chinese expats in the U.S. in an attempt to coerce them to return to China and face arrest.

In Canada, prosecuting the same act has required proving harm to national interest, but the new bill removes that condition, making it easier to prosecute the offence of inducing someone to do something with threats or intimidation at the behest of a foreign state.

Thats a step up in consequences for working with a foreign states secret police. Now, Chinese Canadians or Iranian Canadians who feel intimidated might feel something will happen if they call the cops.

The bill would create a foreign-agent registry, requiring transparency from people who arrange with foreign governments to lobby, do public relations, or disburse funds for a foreign government in an attempt to influence Canadian politics or government.

Thats a long-awaited transparency measure that is supposed to tell us who is acting for a foreign government in Canadian politics and make it possible to prosecute those who do it secretly without registering.

But even after all this time, the bill did pull a punch in that it does not allow for the government to demand registration for a broader set of activities by people working for states that are deemed more serious threats.

Britains 2023 National Security Act created a similar registry but also established a second tier of registration, for a broader set of activities, for people working on behalf of countries designated as threats so that, for example, a private investigator hired by that country would have to register.

Its been a long wait. Kenny Chiu, the former B.C. MP who was targeted by a misinformation operation during the 2021 election campaign, faced attacks over his calls for a foreign-agent registry. That was three years ago.

Now the bill must wind through Parliament, and a bill this complicated which also adds new secrecy provisions to criminal trials dealing with national-security issues should not be rushed. Even if it passes through Parliament this fall, the registry would only be set up in another year, in late 2025.

But a lot of time got away, and the Liberals big national-security update is now an exercise in cleaning up a mess.

Original post:
Opinion: The Liberals' delays on foreign interference carry profound costs - The Globe and Mail

Last month, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell called Gaza a graveyard for tens of thousands of people and also a graveyard for many of the most important principles of humanitarian law".

The reality may be even worse. I fear it may become the graveyard of liberalism itself.

Three decades ago, liberalism was the lead chariot in the procession of the liberal democratic project. New democracies were emerging in Europe; the Soviet Union had crumbled, and Russia was in transition; the Berlin Wall had fallen; and South Africa's apartheid regime was collapsing. Even China exhibited signs of change.

Liberal democracy appeared invincible, both in practice and in theory. There appeared to be no real competition as it stood out as a triumphant and principled form of governance.

Ask any well-versed liberal arts student and they will recite that liberalism is a political and philosophical ideology centred on the principles of individual liberty, equality and limited government.

They will point out that it emphasises the protection of individual rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, religion and assembly, as well as the rule of law and democratic governance.

While advocating for a market-based economy with private property rights, free trade and minimal government regulation, liberalism also promotes social welfare programmes to alleviate disadvantages and ensure equal opportunities for all citizens.

Additionally, liberalism supports the idea of pluralism, tolerance and diversity, aiming to create societies where individuals can pursue their own interests and live according to their own beliefs without undue interference from the state.

The essence of liberalism lies in its commitment to the rule of law and human rights.

Sounds amazing, so whats the problem, you may be asking?

Those observing the plausible genocide without a propaganda lens over the last six months have had front-row seats on a systematic erosion of liberal values and ideals. Gaza has exposed western hypocrisy and double standards, and it has shaken liberalism to its core.

Both domestic and international commitment to the rule of law, human rights and a rules-based order are being undermined by, arguably, the most powerful lobby in the world. Pro-Israeli lobbies have hijacked most western liberal democracies.

Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of the Israel-Palestine war

The whole world is now privy to the shameless pimping of western politicians previously documented in Congressman Paul Findley's 1985 book They Dare to Speak Out and reinforced by the 2007 book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, by political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

As an anonymous commentator wrote: People think Gaza is occupied, but in reality, Gaza is free but the whole world is occupied.

Liberal elites and leaders who joined millions in support of free speech and proclaimed Je suis Charlie in solidarity with the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo after terrorists killed 12 people at its Paris offices in 2015 to try to shut it down, are now calling for suppression of free speech.

War on Gaza: Western powers never believed in a rules-based order

By a vote of 377-44-1, the US House passed a resolution that the "slogan, 'from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free' is antisemitic and its use must be condemned". Of course, the statement is not threatening or condemnable if you substitute Palestine'' with Israel, as you see being done by many Israeli supporters and in the Likud manifesto.

The University of Southern California, in an unprecedented move, cancelled its Muslim valedictorian, Asna Tabassum, who minored in genocide studies, from delivering her address because of alleged threats from pro-Israeli groups. They cited unspecified security concerns.

I thought the idea was to never give in to what are clearly terrorist demands.

To make matters worse, due to the fallout, in another unprecedented move, the university subsequently cancelled all other speakers and honorary doctorate presentations during convocation. Where are the Je suis Asna calls from liberal elites and institutions?

Hundreds of students and faculty at Columbia, Yale and New York University have been arrested peacefully (in the words of the police chief) protesting against the killings by Israel. Another 200 mostly Jewish protesters were arrested in front of Senate majority leader Chuck Schumers Brooklyn residence, where they gathered for the seder, a ritual that marks the second night of the Passover holiday celebrated as a festival of freedom by Jews worldwide. No free speech mobilisation by liberal elites anywhere to be seen.

Those who championed freedom of expression are now banning the keffiyeh, the traditional Palestinian headdress, because it is making some people uncomfortable. Last week, the Ontario legislature banned the headdress, forcing a scheduled meeting between legislators and pro-Palestinian protesters to be held outside the legislative buildings because the activists had donned their keffiyehs.

Israeli military dog tags, Israeli flags and other political symbols, of course, are not political in the same way.

The situation is no different in many European countries.

Who thought that liberalism was so fragile and malleable by those who seek to subvert it for their own illiberal goals, namely promoting ethnic cleansing by the ethno-nationalist and racist state of Israel.

In the wake of the mass killings of the Second World War and the Holocaust, the new liberal world order enacted human rights treaties and enacted humanitarian laws to make sure that such massacres and abuses were "never again" repeated.

Rising out of the horrors of the Second World War we saw the establishment of the United Nations and the drafting of the international bill of human rights that would obligate "every state to recognise the equal right of every individual on its territory to life, liberty and property, religious freedom and the use of his own language".

The bill consisted of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

We also saw the enactment of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which sought to improve the legal protection of non-combatants, medical personnel, medical facilities and equipment, and wounded and sick civilians.

Despite these advances claimed by liberals, today we are witnessing war crimes, crimes against humanity and plausible genocide, according to the International Court of Justice, being live-streamed to our devices.

If liberalism cannot offer a moral and ethical form of governance, then what good is it? What are the grandiose declarations, pronouncements and treaties good for?

In the midst of such an unprecedented attack on a corralled civilian population by a western colonial implant and ally, if liberalism shows no will, ability or desire to protect civilian life, regional security, a nation's own national interests and global order, then its mission-defining claims of principle and competence collapse.

Liberal intellectuals have long claimed the moral high ground by championing justice whether it be in favour or against western interests. Why is the Israeli situation different? When blind loyalty becomes the sole or primary consideration, then what makes liberalism different from tribalism?

Why is the Israeli situation different? When blind loyalty becomes the sole or primary consideration, then what makes liberalism different from tribalism?

When global security and safety can be sacrificed at the altar of friendship and similarity, then what becomes of the Wests claim to authority as a political and military custodian of a rules-based international order?

Might and dominance can be mistaken for right, but let's not forget that dissenting minorities, the oppressed and colonised may conclude that their only choice is to resist by any means necessary, and revolution is always a higher likelihood.

Even domestically, history has proven that societies that combine responsiveness to the will of their people with robust protections for individuals and minority groups are in the best position to strike a flexible and sustainable balance among these competing forces.

We can only hope and pray (sorry are we still allowed to do that?) that this is some sort of glitch or malfunction, and liberal elites and intellectuals will wake up from their slumber and remind liberal politicians that the very raison detre of the liberal democratic project is under threat of collapse.

It is almost too late, but there may be a sliver of hope.

How liberal elites respond to the Gaza challenge and salvage whatever shreds of credibility remain will dictate the legacy of liberalism.

Liberals must stand up for their principles or forever hang their heads in shame.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Read the original post:
Gaza is the greatest test liberalism has faced since 1945. And it is failing - Middle East Eye

OTTAWA NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh is slamming the federal Liberals for giving nearly $26 million to Costco and Loblaw for energy-efficient appliances.

In 2019, the Liberals faced heat from Conservatives after the government announced it was giving $12 million to Loblaw for energy-efficient refrigerators and freezers.

Newly released data from Environment and Climate Change Canada shows Costco was also given more than $15 million for fridges and to reduce emissions.

Loblaw was given more than $10 million.

The payments were made to the two grocery chains between 2019 and 2023.

Singh says while people are deciding what they can afford in grocery aisles, the Liberals are deciding how many millions of dollars to hand out to grocery giants.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 8, 2024.

The Canadian Press

View original post here:
NDP leader slams Liberals for giving nearly $26M to Costco, Loblaw in recent years - Yahoo News Canada