Monday, September 25th, 2017

Hey Friends, I’m sorry to have been MIA (AFK?) in these past few weeks. I’ve been super busy adjusting to school and figuring out how I could do Maple Memos in tandem with my other obligations. The solution: a once-a-week newsletter catching you up on the top 2 or 3 Canadian politics stories of the week. I think typically this will be a Sunday thing but I’m sorry! I am desperately in catch-up mode! Thanks for understanding and here we go!

Trudeau at the UN

Trudeau at the UNGA, Quartz

Trudeau’s address to the United Nation’s General Assembly (UNGA) was unprecedented. This is because for the first time, a Prime Minister addressed Canada’s Indigenous issue on the world’s most visible stage. As nicely put by The Canadian Press’s Alexander Panetta, “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau used the brightest stage in international politics to shine a light on the darkest corners of Canada's story.” He spoke to our Colonial legacy of abuse and neglect and he talked about the challenges we still face.

Trudeau was asked why he chose to “air Canada’s dirty [domestic] laundry” when the wider world seems like it may be at its most chaotic. He retorted, saying that this is an International Issue and he’s got a point. Canada’s indigenous population is lagging according the UN’s 2003 development goals. Many Canadians lack rights set out in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, such as access to clean water, right to fair trials (or not being disproportionately represented in prisons and having meaningful criminal investigations shrugged off by authorities), as well as a variety of other rights. Seeing as many Canadians are deprived of UN declared rights, therefore Trudeau is correct when saying we have a serious international offense on our hands. (Zimonjic, CBC News)

Lots praised Trudeau, including many Canadian Indigenous leaders. The generally consensus was approval of the changed tone Trudeau was striking on the international stage. Natan Obed, who is the president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, said this:

"Often Canada touts itself as being this wonderful country with no blemishes at all in the international realm. It is refreshing to see a prime minister be on ... such a large international stage and admit there are huge challenges for basic respect of rights of Indigenous peoples in Canada and also pledge to do something about it." (Zimonjic, CBC News)

However, not everyone was happy with Trudeau’s “display.” For one, many we’re peeved that Trudeau didn’t speak to other important international events. Conservative MPS thought that issues, like the potentially existential North Korea dilemma, we’re a little bit more important in this context. Others, thought that this was another example of Trudeau talking the talk but not walking the walk.

CETA Takes Effect

European Cheeses, www.gourmetcheesedetective.com (LOL)

What is CETA?

CETA, or the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement, is a free trade deal between the EU and Canada. It finally took affect on September 21st, after being first conjured up in 2009. That was a long time ago, 8 years to be exact, but unsurprisingly MASSIVE trade deals take time. For one, 98% of tariffs are to be removed. You can imagine there’s a lengthy and super bureaucratic process for examining, negotiating, and regulating 98% of economic exchanges between the EU (28 countries) and Canada. (Subramaniam, Vice) Secondly, this deal was super controversial and lots of actors worked for its demise (albeit ineffectively). This includes too very different groups working with very different motives: populist groups AND lobby groups that represented sectors of economies likely to be harmed in this deal. It also includes the governments that listened to them, namely Wallonia. Wallonia is a region in Belgium that had the power to block Belgium from ratifying the deal. It is also a region similar to the “rust belt” of the US. Arguably, globalization has not been kind to Wallonia and so it initially blocked CETA to protect itself. However, Canada and the European Council finally agreed to exempt Wallonia’s dairy industry from the deal and so they have complied. (Dendrinou, WSJ) Since this temper-tantrum, knots have been tied, European countries have ratified and we’re finally on our way to all the French cheese your stomachs can handle.

What does this matter to me?

For one, see above, FRENCH CHEESES! But don’t forget about Belgian chocolates or the Italian meats. Essentially all the European goodies that usually cost a small fortune will be more available to you, at a lower price (score!). (Non-food ones too but I don’t care).

In addition, depending on where you stand on the globalization debate, this could be a huge boon for the Canadian economy. The Canadian government expects benefit for key sectors like forestry, mining, auto-manufacturing, and the communication industry. Ultimately, the government predicts a 20% increase in bilateral trade and this is HUGE in the face of NAFTA negotiations. (Smith, National Post) Diversification of Canadian trade is key, seeing as ¾ of our exports go to the US and currently, the deal that created this co-dependence (NAFTA) is under attack. (The OEC) This is my opinion but I think that if you like the general economic wellbeing of Canada, CETA is in your interest.

Any strings left untied?

Some. But not ones considered “economically significant” by a Canadian government official. Essentially a controversial dispute mechanism is in question. (What is it with Canada and controversial dispute mechanisms. Ladies, am I right?)

Friday, August 18th, 2018

Conservative Canada Distances Itself from Alt-Right Opinions

Andrew Scheer has distanced himself from The Rebel, a controversial right-wing media organization. He did so by calling the organization “obnoxious” and saying he will do no more interviews with them, “until the editorial directions … changes.”

Since the events in Charlottesville, Virginia this past weekend, Scheer has been facing enormous pressure to denounce the outlet. Coverage by one of their top reporter’s Faith Goldy, was seen as sympathetic to White Nationalists who organized the rally. Even though the organization has fired the journalist behind the worst of the content, petitions continued to call for Conservatives to “cut ties.” (Maloney, Huffington Post)

Rebel is a news organization began in 2015, by the Rebel’s “commander,” conservative critic, Ezra Levant. They have been controversial since their foundation but garnered peak attention earlier this year when they (noisily) opposed an anti-Islamophobia bill and called for NDP Premier of Alberta, Rachael Notely to be “locked up.”

Scheer has close connections with the organization. During his Conservative leadership race, he granted 3 interviews to The Rebel. (It is important to note that he was not the only Tory to do so.) One of those interviews was a video interview with the Faith Goldy. It was also revealed after his win, that his campaign manager was a director for the organization.

 Other Conservative leaders, like those running for the United Conservative Party in Alberta, have verbally distanced themselves from the party too. (Levitz, Toronto Star)

Wednesday, August 16th, 2017

Charlottesville, Trump’s Response and What It Means for Canada

Charlottesville , The Mercury News

 This was wild, bring me up to speed?

Over the weekend, a group of white nationalists rallied in a park in Charlottesville, Virginia. The group initially met to protest the removal of a statue of a confederate general, Robert E. Lee. However, they showed up with torches, clubs, and flags displaying Confederate and Nazi symbols. What started simply as a demonstration quickly spiraled into violent clashes with counter-protesters. Ultimately, 3 people lost their lives, including Heather Heyer, one of many hit by a white nationalist ramming his car into the counter protesters. (The Skimm)

In moments of tragedy, people often look to their leaders to unify the country and condemn those responsible. This meant that all eyes were (warily) on Trump Saturday, waiting for his response. By most accounts, he majorly flubbed. He condemned violence on “many sides,” which critics said resolved the neo-Nazi’s of too much of the blame that should be entirely theirs. Confirming the criticism, The Daily Stormer, an American neo-Nazi website had to say about Trump’s response: “No condemnation at all. When asked to condemn, [Trump] just walked out of the room. Really, really good. God bless him.”(Wang, The Washington Post)

This response drew outrage from virtually everybody, even the Republican leaders who have remained strong Trump-Supporters (think: Paul Ryan).  Given this external pressure, and pressure coming from Internal White House officials, Trump gave another statement. This time he called racism “evil” and condemned White Nationals, the KKK, and Neo-Nazis alike. Regardless, people said “damage is done,” which apparently pissed him off enough, that in a press-conference, Monday, he blew his top. He accused the media of never being satisfied. He said that both sides were to blame. He called the counter-protestors the “alt-left” and “very, very violent.” He said that the group of White Nationalists include some “fine people” and essentially he just dug himself into an even deeper hole. (Barbaro, The New York Times)

I would highly recommend listening to some of the conference if you have a chance because it is surreal.

 What does this mean for Canada?

I know I talk about “Canadian Exceptionalism” a whole lot on this blog, but bear with me. It’s important.

A nation having an “Exceptional” view of itself means that it perceives itself as different from or superior to other nations, given its history, power, or values. In Canada’s case, we think of ourselves as “exceptionally” tolerant, liberal, and progressive. Too often this thinking fogs our view and allows us to believe that we are immune to acts of hate similar to what happened in Charlottesville. But we’re not… and Charlottesville is an important lesson from a country that recently thought the same.

For many, Obama’s win in the 2008 election, signaled that the US had entered a post-racial period. Less than 10 years later, actual neo-Nazis feel emboldened enough to not wear masks to violent rallies.

And I know what some must be thinking: “the US was always worse than we were, they had actual slavery Gillian. Not Canada, Gillian, we we’re the light at the end of the Underground Railroad.” But intolerance and hate crimes are happening here and we need to talk about them.

Just today anti-Semitic graffiti turned up on park benches in Winnipeg. (Caruk, CBC) And we can’t forget that only a couple of months ago, right-wing, domestic terrorism took the lives of 6 in a Quebec mosque. (Globe and Mail)

Trump is symptom of something that has been bubbling under the surface of the American political system for a long time. However, he is also a catalyst. By not immediately condemning white supremacy in the strongest terms, Trump has signaled that this was okay and normal. The language coming from alt-right media shows us that Trump’s comments emboldens them. As Canadians, it is incredibly important to understand that this resonates North of the border too.

Monday, August 14th, 2017

NAFTA Discussions Officially Start this Week

Trump and his Chief NAFTA Negotiator, John Melle, Global News

What’s happened now?

Even though it may seem like we’ve been talking about NAFTA forever, official discussions between the three North American countries are only just beginning this week. On Wednesday, Canada’s top-dog diplomat, Chyrstia Freeland will join her American and Mexican counterparts to participate in the first round of negotiations.

Remind me? How did this start?

In recent years, NAFTA as a concept has been relatively uncontroversial. However, that all changed come September of last year, when Donald Trump returned the spotlight to the deal. Back on the campaign trail, Trump called the deal America’s “worst trade deal” and promised to tear it to shreds.

And what exactly has changed since the last time we talked about this?

The deal is still going to be re-negotiated. However, now the major goal of the diplomats at the table seems to be modernization rather than a total return to the drawing table.  I say this given 2 updates that have occurred since the last time we discussed NAFTA.

For one, America’s Chief NAFTA negotiator has been revealed and surprisingly he is a NAFTA-sympathizer (note: not a Nazi-sympathizer).  In past, John Mellehas praised NAFTA. In fact, on the deal’s 12th birthday, he reportedly said, “NAFTA partners today are not only better customers of one another, but better neighbors, more committed partners and more effective colleagues.” Discovering that Melle would be leading the US, caused sighs of relief across the country. However, even though Melle is a confirmed NAFTA fan, Canada is not in the clear just yet. Melle is well versed in his field, and he is a realist. He recognizes that everyone is guilty of some protectionist-behaviours, including Canada. So while he is not a proponent of ripping up the deal all together, he will not concede to Canada willy-nilly. We will have to wait and see how this will all play out. (Panetta, CBC)

Secondly, we are more aware of the Trudeua government’s key priorities following a speech Freeland gave to OttawaU, Monday. Most importantly, the dispute mechanism (read about it here) has prevailed as Canada’s most important priority. Freeland has even gone so far to suggest that Canada would be willing to walk away from the talks if it is not maintained. Another priority, Canada outlined as crucial is protection for Canada’s dairy industry. (Financial Post) Otherwise, Freeland’s rhetoric was optimistic. She discussed ways the deal could be modernized like adding environmental protections, reducing bureaucratic nuisances and better coordinating regulations. (Financial Post)

And why is this important?

NAFTA is a big big deal for the Canadian economy. Almost ¾ of our exports go to the United States. (The OEC) Therefore, changes to NAFTA could create massive reverberations through our economy.

These updates suggest that we maybe have less to worry about than we initially perceived. Melle’s appointment is especially telling, seeing as he would have had to be approved by Trump. Perhaps we can speculate that his presence at the negotiating table reflects the president’s weakened position on the matter.

Freeland’s tough rhetoric is suggestive too. While Canada may have been tough on issues like the dispute mechanism and dairy all along, the rhetoric-switch to "updating and modernizing" rather than simply defending is notable. Perhaps it suggest Canada is feeling emboldened. Perhaps, they feel this way seeing as Trump is facing chaos manifested as impending nuclear war and the return of Nazism. I think it would be fair to argue that right now, NAFTA is not Trump’s biggest priority. However, it is still too soon to tell.

P.S. Be prepared to talk about NAFTA a lot in the coming days!

Thursday, August 10th, 2017

For the Government, Increasing Number of Canada-US Border Crossers Merits New Border Camp ⛺️

What happened?

A border camp has been built to accommodate asylum seekers heading North across the US-Canada border. The new camp is meant to augment other recently-created resources that were built to house and process the swelling number of border-crossers. These individuals, 70% of them Haitians, have been travelling on foot from New York to Quebec and have been coming at a notably higher rate since the inauguration of Donald Trump.

Donald Trump has a harsh position on immigration, both legal and illegal. His policies target a number of diaspora groups, one of them being the 580,000 Haitians living in the US. Currently, he is threatening to endthe humanitarian program protecting Haitians from deportation.

The reason that it seems to be mainly Haitians travelling, and not one of the other groups targeted by the Trump administration, is because there is a swarm of misinformation available online that suggests that Haitians have an easy time getting permanent residency in Canada.  (Kassam, The Guardian) (Perreaux, Globe and Mail)

What is the political significance for Canada?

Likely none if this remains a trickle. However, if the number of border crossings continues to grow, this could morph into a refugee issue (think Germany) that would potentially anger Canadians, create divides, and ultimately change Canada’s political climate.

Canadians like to tout around how tolerant and welcoming we are. And in many ways we're right. “No country brings in as many immigrants as we do, on a per capita basis, from as many different places.” (Ibbitson, Globe and Maill) Canada’s community-sponsored Syrian refugee program was a hit with progressives globally. And even our most (viable) conservative party fights like hell to win over immigrant communities. (Think Stephen Harper and  his push for votes in Toronto Suburbs).

However, a lot of the reason our politicians are able to sponsor “generous” immigration policies, is because our borders let us be picky with who actually makes the cut. Ibbitson points out that Canada’s borders are made up of three oceans and the US, who up to this point, sent few "illegal" migrants our way. This means that almost all of the migrants Canadians interact with on a daily basis are here because they passed the Canadian government’s stringent vetting process. Most of our migrants came as law-abiding, well-educated, and economically promising individuals. We are happy with our immigrant experience because we have control over it, unlike Western Europe and the United States who have millions flooding their borders uncontrolled.

If many more start travelling Northbound from the US, our positive perception of immigration might falter. We might see increasing pressure on politicians to close off borders and shield citizens with restrictive policies. This means that unrestrained migration has the potential to challenge one of Canada’s core values, tolerance. Who knows what the wider implications of that could be??

Wednesday, August 9th, 2017

Pyongyang Releases Canadian Pastor After 2 Years, a Diagnosis, and a Donald Trump Outburst 💥

Hyeon Soo Lim, Toronto Star

What happened?

Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea (NK), has released a Canadian pastor, Hyeon Soo Lim, on “sick bail.” Lim was only 2 years deep into the life sentence he was given in 2015 for anti-state activities. Lim’s church, in Mississauga, ON, has said that Lim has visited NK over a hundred times in the last twenty years and has helped set up orphanages and nursing homes. However, NK didn’t exactly appreciate Lim’s “help” and have accused him of trying to use religion to spoil the North Korean system. They also accused him of assisting the US and South Koreaabduct North Koreans. Now, NK is letting Lim go due to health problems caused by high blood pressure. The decision came Wednesday, following negotiations with Canada’s National Security Advisor, Daniel Jean, in Pyongyang.

(National Post) (CBC News) (Kim and Blanchard, Globe and Mail)

Why is this important?

North Korea is a hot button issue right now, and for the US it’s a particularly sore one. Lim’s release was announced just hours after Donald Trump vowed any provocations from NK would be met with “fire and furry.” Trump said this in response to a leaked US security report that showed that NK is way closer to being able to hit the continental-US with missiles than previously thought. In response, NK announced that its considering an attack on a US military base in Guam. And to top it all off, over the weekend, the UN just agreed to slap NK with some fresh sanctions. Things are heating up.

While there is no obvious connection between Lim’s release and what’s happening between Washington and Pyongyang, NK was almost-certainly conscious of tensions when considering Lim’s case. Releasing a prisoner of a US alley, could mean a number of things. It could signal that NK is being spooked by Trump’s rhetoric and is using Lim as a “peace” offering to cool tensions with the West. NK could be using Lim’s liberty as something to point to, to convince the UN to go easy on further sanctions. Or Lim could be returned, in a less than ideal condition, like US citizen Otto Warmbier, and tensions could sour even further.

Friday, August 4th, 2017

Ottawa Argues that Venezuela Crisis is Another Reason to Introduce Canada Magnitsky Act, Could Spoil Relations with Russia Further

Sergei Magnitsky in his coffin, russian-untouchables.com

What Happened?

The federal Liberal government is looking to introduce a bill, Bill S-226, that gives it the power to impose sanctions on the individuals responsible for human rights abuses globally. They are leveraging their legal inability to target individuals responsible for the Venezuelan Crisis, to do so. Currently, Ottawa has the authority to place economic sanctions on the nation as a whole, under the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA). However, they do not have the power to target individuals. Many argue that broad sanctions, like those available through SEMA, unnecessarily harm the country’s population who have to live with the economic degradation. Instead, the government is hoping to punish the individuals actually at fault for crisis in Venezuela, and they hope that introducing Bill S-226 will accomplish this. (Zilio, Globe and Mail)

 Tell me more about this Bill? Why is it called Canadian Version of the Magnitsky Act?

 Bill S-226 was initially unveiled in May by the Senate. It was introduced as a response to Russia’s annexation of the Ukraine. In full the bill is known as the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act and it “would freeze assets and impose travel bans on foreign nationals responsible for gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” (Guly, The Ukrainian Weekly) However, while initially conjured to target Russian officials, the bill would be applicable to human right’s violators globally.

The bill is being touted as the Canadian version of the Magnitsky Act because it closely resembles the US law known as such. The American Magnitsky act was signed by President Obama in 2012 as a response to the death of Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky. In 2008, Magnitsky had discovered a series of tax frauds that indicted numerous Kremlin officials. He was arrested and even though no charges were laid against him, he was held in jail until his “mysterious” death. Investigators have since found that he was held in “inhumane conditions” with no access to lawyers or medical care. The American Magnitsky Act, punished his abusers by blocking them from entering the US and freezing any of their assets held by US banks. (Horton, The Washington Post)

 What are the Implications?

Right now, Bill S-226 is being touted as a method to target Human Rights abusers in Venezuela. However, both the bill’s namesake and its initial introduction were initially about Russian officials, not Venezuelan ones. Even though the bill would ultimately have global applications, in its embryonic stages, this bill is about Canada’s relationship to Russia.

Already, Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has called the bill “openly hostile move” against Russia and said that, “should the Canadian Parliament approve this punitive legal act, it would seriously damage relations between our countries, which are not experiencing the best of times already.” (Guly)

By using the Venezuela crisis to appeal to the sympathies of Canadian government officials, we potentially forget the political implications Bill S-226 would have for the Canada-Russia relationship. Currently, tensions between the West and Russia are what pundits are calling the “hottest” since the Cold War. Thus, it is important to think thoughtfully about implications of such bill and truly consider how this affects global stability. Venezuela is an important issue that Canada potentially has a role to play in. It may be effective and beneficial for Canada to impose Magnitsky-style sanctions against Russian individuals. However, it is important to not conflate these two issues and explore the implications separately.

Wednesday, August 2nd, 2017

Ontario’s Top Court Protecting Rights of Hells Angels

What happened?

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that a Hells Angel Member, Frank Strauss, had his rights violated by a police officer. As a result, the court unanimously decided to drop all charges against him.  (Paul, The Record)

The rights violation occurred when the police office in question, intruded on Strauss’s property and picked the lock of his barn without a warrant. The officer found 17 guns and more than 4,000 rounds of ammunition.  

If this was the end of the story the case would have been fairly open and shut. The evidence would be declared unusable and we would all have moved on with our lives. However, the case was complicated when a tip to police set off a second investigation into Strauss. This time the officers went in with a warrant and they found even more guns and ammunition, plus a fat stack of cash and copious amounts of drugs. A lower court tried to capitalize on this second bust and sentence Strauss to 11 years.

That’s when the case was elevated to Ontario’s top court. This court argued that using any evidence against Strauss would do more harm to the justice system’s reputation than letting him go. This rational is the foundation for Section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter. Section 24(2) is looking to preserve the reputation, effectiveness, and authority of the Canadian Justice System. It mandates that judges look at if using illegally obtained evidence will harm the court less than allowing suspects to go free, on a case-by-case basis.

The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the lower courts decision and sided with Strauss. They decided that because his right to not be searched without due reason was violated, his charges would be dropped. They did so because they believed that given the seriousness of the charges facing Strauss, using illegally-obtained evidence would disrepute the justice system and do more harm than help. (Fine, Globe and Mail)

Why Does This Matter?

The concept that rights belong to all is taking a bit of a beating right now in our current political environment. This is true in Canada where the government is under fire for apologizing to Khadr. And it is true globally; think about all the countries that are strongly considering abandoning their nationals that have travelled abroad of to join terrorist organizations.

Seeing that the Canadian court system is protecting the rights of accused criminals may not seem like a good thing to everybody. However, it indicates that for the most part, judicial institutions in Canada are healthy and still functioning as intended. They are still working to ensure that all people’s rights are protected (subject to reasonable limitations that are justifiable in a free and democratic society).

Tuesday, August 1st, 2017

Trudeau Under Fire for Remarks on Indigenous Senator, Patrick Brazeau 🥊

Montreal Gazette

What happened?

Trudeau is being criticized for comments he made about his opponent in a for-charity boxing match fought in 2012. His opponent, Patrick Brazeau, is Indigenous and at the time, he was a Conservative Senator. The comments were made earlier this month in an interview Trudeau did with Rolling Stone magazine. (Galloway, Globe and Mail)

 Tell me a bit about this boxing match?

The fight was a charity event and is often hailed as a turning point in Trudeua’s political career . At the time, he was only a backbencher MP for a tiny electoral district. Canadians typically saw him as an insignificant figure on Parliament Hill. However, unbeknown to those very Canadians, Trudeau was thinking strategically about his political trajectory. For Ottawa, the fight was charged with symbolism and Trudeau used it as a gambit to launch himself to political importance. He went in as an undiscussed Liberal underdog, but came out a symbolic hero for the Liberal Party. In 2012, the party was in shambles, and the Trudeau-name represented everything they had been and no longer were. His opponent, Brazeau, was the youngest ever senator with a colossal figure that symbolized the power of the Conservative party. So, when Trudeau won, Liberals were ecstatic to have at least one win over the opposing Conservative Party. Some even prophesized that the match represented the turning fate of the Liberal Party. (Woolf, The Guardian)

 What did Trudeau say? And what about everyone else?

In the spread, Trudeau spoke openly about how he used the match strategically to achieve his political goals. He revealed that his opponent, Brazeau, was chosen for the best optics. People are pissed.

Trudeau’s comment was: “It wasn’t random. I wanted someone who would be a good foil, and we stumbled upon the scrappy tough-guy senator from an indigenous community. He fit the bill, and it was a very nice counterpoint. I saw it as the right kind of narrative, the right story to tell.”

This comment has sparked a strong backlash. Comments have flooded in from social media accusing Trudeau of continuing a colonial narrative. One Twitter user said “White guy in power & entitlement looks 4 an #Indigenous human to beat up so he looks like a strong white dude. How precious & colonial supreme.” Another said: “Trudeau literally using indigenous people as political props.”

However, I think the comment that most eloquently summarizes why people are upset with Trudeau comes from Algonquin-American artist, Jay Odjick. He said “Canada, your leader went to US media today saying that when he needed a villain to fit his narrative, an indigenous person was a good fit.” (Kassam, The Guardian)

Earlier today, Trudeau himself appeared on CBC Radio One to say he regretted the comments.

Why does it matter?

Trudeau made reconciliation with Canada’s Indigenous communities one of his major campaign themes. While lots of his policies have been stalled, many applaud Trudeau for elevating the issue to the Canadian mainstream. (Harper, Toronto Star) They see him as a clear upgrade from Harper.

However, now people are wondering if that goal has been jeopardized by his Rolling Stone interview. While Trudeau has renounced his comments and said they didn’t “contribute to the positive spirit of reconciliation,” it is unclear if the interview will further damage the working relationship.

In addition, these comments have opened the doors for criticism into what Trudeau is actually doing for First Nations people in Canada. Yes, Trudeau has made Indigenous issues a Canadian talking point, but now people are beginning to wonder if there is any substance behind his words. He is now almost two years deep into his reign, and lots suggest that there has been little tangible progress made.

Monday, July 31st, 2017

Saudi Arabia Gets Violent with their Population Using Canadian Weaponized Vehicles

A cap of the video that allegedly shows Canadian equipment, Globe and Mail.

What Happened?

Late last week, videos surfaced online that allegedly showed the Saudi government using Canadian-made armoured vehicles against their citizens. Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chrysita Freeland, immediately went looking for clarification and is now having her officials investigate. However, many military experts are already saying that they are confident that the vehicles in the videos are in fact Canadian Gurkha RVPs made in Newmarket, Ont.

The government is already facing calls from both the NDP and Conservative parties to cancel the deal. It is unclear how Freeland and the rest of the Trudeau government will respond if the equipment is confirmed as undeniably Canadian. Exporting weapons to Saudi is lucrative for the government and employs an estimated 3,000 Canadians. However, it would be difficult to side-step Canada’s weapons export-control rules that disallow arms exports if there is a chance the buyer could use the equipment against their own populations.  Doing so would bring harsh criticism for the government. This is likely why Stephen Dion, the Liberal Foreign Affairs minister before Freeland, went out of his way to assure Canadians that any exports would be cancelled if used for human rights abuses. Now the government might feel bounded by these words. However, if this issue does not escalate, they could turn a blind-eye to this one isolated event and continue the sale. (Chase and Fife, Globe and Mail)

Why does Saudi have Canadian-made equipment in the first place?

Despite Conservative criticism now, the deal was a bipartisan project really.

In 2014, the Harper government initially signed a deal with Saudi that agreed to sell them military vehicles for $15 billion. In 2016, the Trudeau government, who had assumed power by this point, also approved the deal. (Balca, CTV) 

What does this mean for Canada?

Balancing human rights and other goals is always tricky for the Canadian government. Governments risk facing massive backlash for their foreign policy decisions but they rarely pay for it at the voting ballots. This is because people don’t tend to prioritize foreign policy when they are voting. Those who do are not regionally concentrated, giving the government no electoral incentive to act justly on the world stage.

When it comes to the Saudi arms deal, Canada has a long history of turning a blind eye. Even earlier this year, when the Liberals we’re finalizing the deal, there was evidence that the equipment would be used to harm Saudi civilians. Regardless, they signed on and they likely did this because there would be electoral benefits of doing so. The deal creates 3,000 jobs in a few concentrated areas. Because of this concentration, those benefiting from the deal have the power to punish governments by swaying whole electoral districts, if they choose to cancel it. (Kim Richard Nossal, The Politics of Canadian Foreign Policy)

Despite a lack of electoral motivation to act justly, there are a variety of other factors that might encourage Trudeau’s government to pull out of the deal. One is the desire for peace in the Middle East. Another, is that being seen as a fair, moral player abroad is positive for the government’s soft power. Most simply, a motivating factor could be that ministers in Trudeau’s cabinet are moral people who don’t want harm to come to global citizens.

It will be interesting to see how the Trudeau government navigates this situation. However, implications could be big as Saudi creates another sore point for opposition parties to criticize the sitting government.

Wednesday, July 26th, 2017

Justin Trudeau, a Bigger Heart-Throb than Justin Bieber? 💋

Rolling Stone

Trudeau has made the cover of the August issue of Rolling Stone Magazine. Swoon. The spread declares  Trudeau a, “progressive, rational, forward-thinking leader.” It applauds his outspoken feminist beliefs. Celebrates his natural hair colour (@realDonaldTrump). Wrapped up and presented with the front-cover question, “Why Can’t He Be Our President?” For many, this was another opportunity to circulate the below photo on social media. For others, it was a chance to criticize Trudeau on his actual substance behind all the PR glitz.  (Rizza, Toronto Star)

Why in the World are We Talking About this?

Surprisingly, it might actually matter. Already, the Conservative Party is pushing that this could damage Canada’s credibility in NAFTA discussions. In addition, the spread has created an easy opportunity for criticism of Trudeau’s policies that could hurt his popularity during this rocky Khadr/NAFTA patch.

We’ll see how this will unfold in the coming days (and you bet I want to talk about). However, all we know for now is that Trudeau has great soft power with progressive internationals and for this his PR team deserves a major raise. (Toronto Sun)

 

Please note all I had to google was "Trudeau Butt" to find this.

Major Liquid Natural Gas Project Cancelled in British Columbia 🚗

What happened?

News broke, Tuesday, that one of B.C.’s most ambitious liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects, the Pacific NorthWest LNG, has been cancelled. The plan was to build a liquefaction and export facilityfor of B.C.’s natural gasses headed to various Asian markets. The project, which was owned by Malaysian company, Petronas, was expected to cost $36 billion and create 4,500 jobs in the province. (Jones, Globe and Mail)

Cancelled, Why?

Out loud the B.C. provincial government and the Petronas corporation are blaming poor market conditions.

In private, many more are blaming government regulations. The project was approved by Ottawa last year, seeing that it could meet the government’s stringent regulations. (Think environmental protections and various deals with Indigenous groups). At this point, global energy prices were already shaky and some groups were calling for the government to give the project a boost by minimizing costly regulations. However, these calls were ignored. In the last few weeks, conditions on the project were jacked up further by the new NDP Party in B.C. More regulations mean more expenses and more waiting time for Petronas. This comes after three years of federal review and legal opposition from aboriginal populations and environmental groups. Now, it seems like the group has thrown in the towel and said “enough regulations”.

And what are the wider implications?

The most obvious implication is the damage it does to the economy. Canada has lost both a major infrastructure project and export opportunity. However, the effect is felt most intensely in B.C where exports are being threatened and 4,500 jobs were supposed to be created. Currently, B.C. is having their economic prosperity threatened by the softwood lumber disputes. Losing thousands of jobs is really bad news for the province, especially the new and unstable provincial government that had hoped the project would foster B.C.’s economy, a key campaign promise. (Cattaneo, Financial Post)

In addition, the failure arguably hurts the environment. Natural gas is often touted around as an environmentally friendly alternative to traditional energy sources. This is because “global warming emissions from its combustion are much lower than those from coal or oil”. (Union of Concerned Scientists) Natural gas is not the best alternative but it’s a improvement, and for now Canada’s energy demands outreaches what more green energy sources (think wind or solar) can actually provide. This is not to say that because the natural gas project failed more oil rigs will pop-up all over the place. However, it does mean that existing ones may not close anytime soon, given demand not being supplemented by green-er sources.

Tuesday, July 25th, 2017

Ottawa Declares Dispute Mechanism a NAFTA Negotiation No-Go-Zone ⛔️

CTV News

What’s up?

NAFTA again. This time though, Ottawa has hit back.

Trudeau’s government has come out and said that it will not participate in NAFTA negotiations at all if Washington poo-poos the its dispute settlement panels. Earlier this month, the Trump administration had declared they intended to do just that. They did this by targeting the dispute mechanism in a list of objectives published in earlyJuly. Instead of panels, the US wants all disputes to be settled in their courts.

If Canada is true to its word and does walk out of negotiations, NAFTA will remain the same. Unless, of course, Trump actually fulfills his campaign promise and pulls the US out of the deal all together.

Wait, tell me about the dispute settlement panels? Why are they so controversial?

NAFTA’sdispute settlement panels are the final mechanism used to resolve any disagreements on trade rules between NAFTA countries. The panel is made up of representatives, usually judges or lawyers from both involved countries. They review claims by companies or industries that believe a country’s trade rules unfairly victimize their business. And whatever the panel says is binding.

The Trump Administration says the panels are biased against the US. For evidence, they point to the softwood dispute of the 1990s and 2000s. This time the panel ultimately sided with Canada but the decision was close.

However, Canada disagrees. A Canadian lawyer has noted that the US pointing to the softwood lumber dispute is anecdotal. This lawyer, notes that in reality most dispute decisions are easy and nearly 77% of the time the bipartisan panel acts unanimously. Thus, Canada maintains that the panels are a fair, effective way to manage disputes.  (Fife and Chase, Globe and Mail)

What does this mean?

Canada taking a strong stand to protect the NAFTA dispute mechanism is significant both for policy and politics. For policy, defending the panel is an important step to protectCanadian businesses. If Ottawa were to allow decisions to be made in US courts, it is likely that more resolutions would favour US businesses. If Canada wages a fight and wins, they are working to protect both the livelihoods of small business owners and in the aggregate, the Canadian economy as a whole. This is significant for people lives and for Trudeau’s future electability.

Politically, Ottawa’s stand is significant because it sets the tone for future negotiations. And the tone they picked is bold. Drawing a red line like this is politically a high risk but high reward move. If Ottawa pisses off Trump enough for him to pull out of NAFTA entirely, the outcome would be really damaging to the Canadian economy. (Read why here). However,  Canada believes that the dispute mechanism is worth that risk. If Trump doesn’t pull out, Ottawa will have won one important battle and demonstrated their political will to Trump. Signalling that Canada can’t be pushed around is an important soft power move that will potentially soften Trump’s negotiating objectives. It will demonstrate that his tough guy rhetoric won’t get him very far and given the importance of Canadian Trade to many US businesses, Trump is running out of leverage. This is likely why he and his administration have been softening on the “pull out at all costs” position they had during the campaign.

Monday, July 24th, 2017

Sorry, today is so late and so little! Busy day today but will be back on my politics game tomorrow xo! 

Alberta’s Little-c Conservatives Put Aside Differences and Join to Create a Unified Big-C Conservative Party 🤝

What happened?

Over the weekend, two of Alberta’s conservative parties, The Wildrose Party and the Progressive Conservatives, agreed to amalgamate. An overwhelming 95% of the rank-and-file members who voted, supported uniting. Regardless, merging the two parties will not be easy. Wildrose members are much more socially conservative than their Progressive Conservative counterparts and the two parties have a tumultuous history. There is some worry that the race to determine the party’s next leader could be irrevocably divisive. This decision will happen on On October 28th,  when members vote for the leader they want to  represent them in Alberta’s 2019 election.

(Global News)

What does this mean for Alberta?

If all goes well, uniting is likely to give the conservative movement a boost in the next Alberta election. Having two parties represent the same ideology means that they split the support of conservative voters in the province. In 2015, conservative parties received 52% of the votes, while the winning-NDP party only received 40%. However, because Wildrose and Progressive conservatives share votes, their 24% and 28% votes did not win either of them the majority of the votes. Arguably vote-splitting allowed the NDP party to come to power for the first time in Alberta’s history.

(Cryderman, Globe and Mail)

Friday, July 21st, 2017

Thunder Bay Leadership Crisis Darkens 👮

Breaking news! Keith Hobbs, the mayor of Thunder Bay and his wife have been charged with extortion and obstruction of justice. These charges stem from his behaviour surrounding the deaths of Indigenous teenagers earlier this year. However, little other information has been released. (Friesen, White, Ross, Globe and Mail)

Wait, what happened?

Two Indigenous teenagers, Tammy Keeash and Josiah Begg, died in Thunder Bay’s waterways this year. They were the 6th and 7th Indigenous teenagers to die like this since 2000 and Indigenous leaders are not happy with how police are handling the investigations. They have criticized the competence of the local police and called for the RCMP to be brought in to investigate. Now, the Thunder Bay police are under scrutiny by the Office of the independent Police Review Director, which is examining the way these cases were handled. (Friesen, Globe and Mail) In addition, the Chief of Police was charged with breach of trust and obstructing justice earlier this year. Now, the mayor is being indicted in this issue. He had previously expressed support for police and objected to politicized “finger pointing” by indigenous groups.

Wider Implications?

Canada does not have a stellar record when it comes to investigating the deaths of its Indigenous population, not even close. For example, one report indicates that only half of the cases of missing and murdered Indigenous women have been solved. This is intrinsically problematic, as Indigenous populations are as deserving of justice as any other Canadian citizens. However, it also has wider reverberations. For one, by not investigating Indigenous cases as thoroughly as others, the relationship between police and indigenous populations is further soured. A negative relationship causespolice to racially profile indigenous people more often. Then in a cyclical fashion, cases become even more difficult to solve, as trust between potential witnesses and police is damaged.

Canadian ISIL members ⚖️

Experts believe that the Canadian government is going to have to figure out what to do with Canadian ISIL members soon. The government has estimated that there are about a 100 Canadians who have travelled to join ISIL, including women who have since had children.

Bring me up to speed?

ISIL has recently lost their hold on Mosul, a city in Iraq, that the terror group claimed as their “caliphate” in 2014. (Reuters) Iraqi forces took back the territory earlier this month. It is up for debate if the defeat of the caliphate signals the looming end of the terror group (Read about it here and here). However, it does mean that there will be an increased number of ISIL members captured and taken into custody. This will include members with Canadian citizenships. Just this week, an unconfirmed report suggests that 2 female Canadian ISIL “fighters” have been seized by Iraqi forces.

Some experts say Ottawa will have to repatriate any Canadian ISIL members to Canada and prosecute them here. UWaterloo professor, Lorne Dawson, says this is the usual protocol for other “Canadian[s] who [have] gotten in trouble abroad.” He makes the case that it is these individual’s Charter right to be protected from torture and other mistreatment by foreign governments.

However, there is likely to be little public sympathy for these individuals and the government could face a backlash similar to the when they made the controversial payment to Khadr. Even though these individuals will be prosecuted and could face up to life in prison, many Canadians are likely to say “tough.” (Blackwell, National Post)

What’s the significance?

Canada is a county that prides itself on its Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, debates like this and the one surrounding Khadr demonstrate that the Canadian psyche is not always as Rights based as we tend to believe. While some might argue that terrorist have forfeited their rights by participating in terrorism, Queen’s professor, Johnathon Rose made this interesting point on Twitter, “The anger of those toward Khadr reminds me that some believe rights should be qualified [only] to some which defeats the point of rights.” Others add to this argument by saying that it is important to hold the government to account when it comes to the rights of terrorists, so that Ottawa does not feel comfortable complacency when heading down the slippery slope of rights.

Another short Update:

Governor General appointee Payette seemingly in the clear after revelations that she had expunged assault charges on her file. Both Trudeau and Conservative Party leader, Andrew Scheer, have come out with statements supporting her appointment.

Thursday, July 20th, 2017

NAFTA + Khadr: Major Themes Collide 💥

Alright break-it-down: Who’s Khadr?

This month the Trudeau government made a controversial $10.5-million payout to a Canadian citizen by the name of Omar Kadhr. Kadhr was a child solider in Afghanistan. He was sent to Guantanamo Bay for killing an American soldier. While there, the 15-year-old, Khadr was subject to various torture methods, including sleep deprivation. Canadian CSIS officials participated in his interrogations, knowing that he was being tortured. In 2010 the Canadian Supreme Court condemned this action and declared it unconstitutional and offensive to the most basic Canadian standards. This month, the Trudeau government formally apologized to Khadr for breaching his Canadian Charter Rights. This apology included the controversial sum.

And NAFTA?

NAFTA, or the North American Free Trade Agreement, is a trade deal between the US, Canada, and Mexico, that is currently under fire. The deal was initially signed in 1994 and most experts say that it has generated enormous wealth for all three countries involved. However, with the election of the trade-hesitant Donald Trump, the deal’s future is unclear. Trump’s position has flip-flopped over the past year. During his campaign, he called for NAFTA’s defeat. However, since being elected he has rolled back that position and indicated that he would be willing to renegotiate the deal rather than scrapping it all together. This week, his government released a list of demands that suggested a tough America-first negotiating position that would skew the deal in the US’s favour. Negotiations are set to begin on August 16th.

How are these things related?

Many Conservatives MPs are critical of Trudeau’s Khadr settlement and some have even begun to smear the decision in the US. One Conservative MP appeared on Fox News to chastise Trudeau’s decision; another published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal called “A Terrorist’s Big Payday, Courtesy of Trudeau.”

Many from Trudeau’s party think that this will hurt Canada’s position in NAFTA negotiations with the US.  Multiple MPs from Trudeau’s Liberal Party have now taken to social media to criticize their Conservative counterparts. For example, Trudeau’s Environment minister, Catherine Mckenna, tweeted “Dangerous game #CPC is playing. Cda-US relationship should be above domestic politics. We should all be on the same team focused on trade.”(Stone, Globe and Mail)

Why is this significant?

Khadr and NAFTA are both potentially game-changing issues for Canada. Together, they could cause even bigger reverberations. 

For one, it is unclear how the Khadr issue will affect NAFTA negotiations. The spat between Liberals and Conservatives could potentially weaken a Canadian bipartisan position. Or the American position could be worsened. Trump and Trudeau have a relatively good relationship, for now. Trump has even said that Trudeau is “doing a spectacular job.” However,  the Khadr issue has the potential to sour the relationship. While it is unclear how Trump will feel about it, he will likely know about the Khadr issue, seeing as he gets most of his news from Fox, where the Conservative MP torched Trudeau’s decision. (Ivison, National Post)

In addition, for many the Khadr issue signals the end of the “Honeymoon period” for Trudeau. Over 70% of surveyed Canadians said they didn’t approve of Trudeau’sdecision.(Stone, Globe and Mail)  If NAFTA negotiations get dragged even further into the Khadr issue, Trudeau could face a serious backlash, threatening his relatively untainted run thus far.

Assault Charges and the New GG 📋

What Happened? 
 

iPolitics has found that Julie Payette, Trudeau’s pick for Canada’s new Governor General, has a second-degree assault charge on her file. And no, this charge didn’t come from the Queen. This charge occurred in 2011, when Payette was living in Maryland. However, the charge has since been expunged. Some sources suggest that the victim was her then-husband, however this has not been confirmed.

Payette has called the charge “unfounded” and was quick to point out that it was dropped almost immediately. The office of the Prime Minister has said “no comment” and refused to confirm prior knowledge of the event. (Siekierski, iPolitics)

Why is this significant?

The Governor General of Canada is one of the top figureheads of the country. As a result, Prime Ministers cherry pick candidates that reflect “Canadian Values.” Trudeau emulated this desire when he said Payette embodies “truly Canadian traits.” Given these new revelations, many are questioning if Payette is really fit to represent Canadians. There are no reports that Trudeau is reconsidering his choice yet, however, this would not come to a surprise for many.

Wednesday, July 19th, 2017

📢Call to Arms for Trudeau, re:NAFTA

What’s the story?

On Monday, the White House released an extensive list of objectives that will frame the US’s position on NAFTA re-negotiations. The list features a notably “America First” tone and speaks little to the mutual benefit possible for all involved states (Mexico, Canada, the US). Read about it here and here.

PM Trudeau is now facing pressure from numerous Canadian officials to release a list of objectives in response. These calls come from many sources, including ministers in both opposition parties who have insisted that Trudeau’s government appear before parliamentary committees for questioning. Other officials include Canadian Provincial Premiers, like Saskatchewan’s Brad Wall. Wall praised the federal government for their preparation to-date but he also urged the government to prepare for a trade war if need be. (Chase, Morrow, Cryderman, Globe and Mail)

Why does it matter?

Calling Trudeau to arms reflects the importance of NAFTA to the Canadian economy. And NAFTA is a big big deal for the Canadian economy. Almost ¾ of our exports go to the United States. (The OEC) Therefore, changes to NAFTA could create massive reverberations through our economy. Read more about the potential impact of renegotiating NAFTA here.

Negotiating power between Canada and the US is uneven. This is because Canada is far more dependent on sending exports across the border than the US is. Even though Canada is the US’s biggest trading partner, America only exports 16% of their goods to us. (The OEC)

Thus, Canadian officials are urging Trudeau to be prepared given the potential impact and Canadian vulnerability.

Canada Food Guide 🥕🍎

What’s the Story?

The Canada Food Guide is being revamped for the first time since 2007. The guide, which was initially released in 1942, is incredibly influential throughout the country. It is the federal government’s 2nd most requested document and is preached by teachers and doctors all across the country. The latest version is expected to be released sometime this coming year.

What changes are expected?

According to Hasan Hutchinson, the Director General of the Office of Nutrition Policy, we should expect major changes to the guide. Even the future of the Four Food Groups is at stake.

Specifics of the policy are yet to be confirmed, with many still being debated. However, major thematic changes have been announced. This includes:

• No hard-to-follow serving sizes. Think “one half cup” or “2 ounces”. This reflects Health Canada`s goal to make the Guide simpler, after criticism of the 2007 version for being too complex.
• A new focus on environmental concerns and encouragement to eat local.
• An improved recognition of the diverse food cultures in Canada. In past, the guide tried to be more inclusive by sorting items like couscous and pita within the defined four food groups. However, many food traditions don’t feature all four food groups but remain healthy options.

(Hui, Globe and Mail)

Isn’t this a Politics Newsletter? How is this Politics?

Past versions of the food guide have been ruthlessly criticized for being political. For example, many have accused the Dairy Industry of having undue influence over past versions. These critics claim that dairy is given an overinflated presence in the food guide because the industry has massive lobbying power; not because there is scientific proof that dairy is necessary. Other businesses that have had influence in the past include Coca-Cola, Pepsi Inc. and the Vegetable Oil Industry of Canada. (Freedhoff, Globe and Mail) However, this time around Health Canada has committed to not meeting privately with any representatives from affected food industries. Regardless, expect to hear some noise from food companies across the country.

Tuesday, July 18th, 2017

NAFTA 🐄

What happened?

Yesterday, the White House released a list of demands that will preface their position in the NAFTA negotiations likely to start next month. The list features more than a 100 US objectives. (The Financial Post) 

What are some of the demands?

The demands from the US are far reaching, touching everything from the Canada-US softwood lumber dispute to increasing US companies access to the Canadian telecommunication market. They include:

• A reduction in the US Trade deficit in goods (either increasing US exports, or reducing Canadian and Mexican ones).
• More market access for US agricultural products. However, the document does not indicate if the US will target Canada's controversially protected dairy market.
• Fewer restrictions on US telecommunication companies, so that they may compete with their protected Canadian counterparts like Rogers or Telus.
• The abolition of  bi-national panel to hear complaints about unfair trade concerns. This panel was originally a Canadian demand, back in NAFTA's infancy. If this we're to pass, Canadian companies would have to appeal to US courts to be heard.  
• More opportunities for American companies to bid on public projects in Canada and Mexico. However, the list also indicates that the US does not plan to reciprocate. Instead, the demands make clear that states will still be allowed to prefer American firms for their public projects.

(Morrow and Chase, Globe and Mail)

What does this all mean?

Given the wide reaching nature of the demands and the vague language used, the list offers few concrete clues of what the US is actually aiming to achieve. One Canadian official said it will be difficult for the Canadian government to know what the White House will demand until negotiations officially start. 

However, The American demands do indicate a broad desire to swing NAFTA in a more US-friendly direction. This doesn't come as a surprise after months of Trump's anti-free trade talk. In fact, earlier in the day, Trump said, "We're going to end up having a level playing field. If the playing field were slanted, like, a little bit towards us, I'd accept that also."

Overall, though many Canadian trade experts believe that Americans chose to use vague language because this leaves negotiating room for all three states. Americans could have chosen to specify how they will measure progress. 

(Morrow and Chase)

Cemetery for Quebec Muslims Loses on a Vote ⚖️

What happened?

The development of a Muslim cemetery in Saint-Apollinaire, Quebec has been rejected following a vote held Sunday night.  The project was defeated by those who lived adjacent to the proposed site for the burial ground.

Centre culturel islamique de Québec, a Quebec Muslim community, has been trying to establish a cemetery for their dead for the past 20 years. However, the project became increasingly urgent following a brutal shooting in a mosque that left 6 dead, this January. (Ingrid Peritz, Globe and Mail)

Lots in the community believe that the” No” vote was inspired by fear and intolerance. This includes Mohamed Labidi, the president of the Mosque attacked in January, and Saint-Apollinaire’s mayor, Bernard Ouellet. (Kate McKenna, CBC News)

 A spokesperson for the Muslim community has said that they are not willing to give up. He said that potential next steps include a court challenge, if need be. (Peritz)

Wider implications?

Many believe that this vote highlights growing Islamophobia in Quebec. It comes after a brutal attack against a Mosque in January and the 2015 election that was partially decided on a niqab ban. Thus, this vote is significant because it demonstrates that Canada is not immune to intolerance (even if we sometimes like to think that we are). 

However, the cemetery hasn’t been put to bed entirely, just yet. The Muslim community still has the opportunity to challenge the vote in court. If they choose do so, legal experts think that a win is a real possibility. If they do win, this story could serve as an example of how Canada has created institutions that successfully protects minorities, even in the face of social intolerance.

Monday, July 17th, 2017

Hello! I am super excited to be launching the first ever Maple Syrup Memo! I am not sure what the shelf-life of this project is just yet, but I hope that at minimum somebody derives some value from it, even if that somebody is me. (Ideally, I build an empire and get filthy rich... However, if the worst case scenario is that this fails in a couple of months and at least I learned something, that sounds pretty good to me too.)

British Columbia Forest Fires 🔥

What's going on?

The bout of forest fires that have been running rampant across British Columbia this summer, have now forced nearly 40,000 individuals to evacuate their homes. This is not unprecedented in BC's history. In the 2003 wildfire season, a total of about 50k were displaced. However, it is still early in the 2017 forest fire season and there are still at least 160 fires burning (15 that, experts say, continue to pose threat to communities). The crisis experienced a new climax this Saturday, July 15th, when the entire population of William's Lake, nearly 10,000 were ordered to evacuate. (Andrea Woo, Globe and Mail)

What are the larger implications?

If 40,000 displaced isn't enough for you, this crisis has a number of significant reverberations that you might want to hear about (you might also want google, "tendencies of sociopaths" and take a good hard look at yourself).

For one, the economic impact of this disaster is likely to be monumental. Last year's Fort Mac fire, that forced 90,000 Albertans to flee, is now being estimated to have cost nearly $9 billion. The huge price-tag came from things like damage to private and public infrastructure and lost revenue opportunities for industry. (Wallis Snowdon, CBC News) While the crises are not mirror images of one another, local economies like Williams Lake will face many of the issues that Fort Mac dealt with in the months following their forest fire. 

In addition, the environmental degradation of such crises is severe. Forest Fires damage whole ecosystems. They release millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and create harmful air pollution by burning toxin-heavy construction materials, cars, and furniture. Read more about the impact here: Stephen Leahy, The Guardian.

U.S. Firms Reportedly Like Canada-US Free Trade 💕

What's going on?

A recent poll conducted by Nanos, indicates that more than 1/2 of American businesses think the US economy is better off because of free trade with Canada. These numbers come just as the White House is finalizing their official NAFTA negotiating objectives, expected to be released sometime today. 

So NAFTA is safe?

We're still not so sure on that one just yet. For one, American businesses report feeling notably more positive about US-Canada Free Trade than North American Free Trade.

In addition, the Trump administration has been unclear of the position they will ultimately take when negotiations begin. Trump has promised to tear up the bill if he doesn't get a better deal for American workers. However, he also later assured PM Trudeau that he is only seeking minor adjustments to the deal. American VP Pence has also recently asserted that the re-negotiation would ultimately benefit all three states. Talks between Mexico, The US, and Canada are expected to start days after August 16, the first day Trump is legally allowed to begin NAFTA discussions. (Michelle Zilio, Globe and Mail)

However, given the flip-floppy nature of Trump's position on NAFTA following his election, such a poll is possibly a positive sign for pro-Free Traders. Trump has more recently seemed hesitant to pull the plug on NAFTA all together, and polls like this potential encourage him further down that path. 

Canadian Housing Market 🏡

What's the happening?

Canadian home sales flopped hard this month; In fact, they dropped more than they have in over 7 years. Canada wide sales dropped nearly 7% in June, compared to May. And in the GTA that number was more than 15%. (Craig Wong, Macleans)

Why did this happen?

There are a couple of possible reasons. For one, these numbers come following the Bank of Canada's recent interest rate hike. Interest rates were raised for the fist time in seven years, from 0.5 to 0.75 per cent. This means that mortgage interest rates have been hiked in response. (Janet McFarland, Globe and Mail)

In addition, in April, the Ontario Government move to cool the housing market by introducing a number of policy changes, like a 15% tax on foreign buyers. Canadian Real Estate Association chief economist, Gregory Klump suggests that these changes have encouraged home buyers in the region to asses how the housing market will react before taking further action. (Wong)