Written by Graeme Moore
Instead of huffing and puffing about who’s likely to be better at pushing back the Tangerine Tyrant’s tariff turmoil and his annexation fantasies, here are some issues we think we should be talking about this election:
EI Benefits – true wage Replacement
Currently, EI Benefits penalizes workers who, through no fault of their own, are without work, without income. EI Benefits are not a real wage replacement. Workers are penalized by:
• the one-week ‘deductible’ in getting EI Benefits;
• the allocating of separation earnings (such as severance pay, termination pay, vacation pay) towards EI Benefits, thereby delaying benefits;
• the cap of 55% of their previous earnings;
• the cap of $695 a month.
Workers, many of whom live payday to payday, have their income reduced by 45% and, if applicable, capped at $695 a month. The monthly cap really penalizes high income workers. The monthly cap aligns with their previous weekly earningsm not their monthly.
Workers’ needs do not change. They need to keep paying rent, mortgages, loans, and other debts, and services plus, of course, their bare necessities, like food. They are caught between servicing their debt and keeping food on the table and their vehicle in their driveway. Losing one’s job comes with a heavy financial penalty. What is already a challenge living payday to payday almost becomes an impossibly.
EI Benefits must be a real wage replacement.
We advocate for:
• Abolishing the waiting period
• Ending allocation of severance earnings
• Eliminating the monthly cap
• Raising the cap to 90% of wages at the time of cessation of employment
The Arms Race – The Purchase of 88 F-35s and 12 Submarines
Canada has currently agreed to purchase eighty-eight warplanes (F-35), fifteen destroyers (the River class) and is considering buying twelve submarines, in part, as its commitment to NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organizion). Even if deliveries go as currently scheduled, these weapons will not arrive any time soon. For example, Canada will get four warplanes in 2026, six in 2027, six in 2028, and with shipments continuing until the final shipment in 2032. The first of the submarines is expected in 2037.
The warplanes will neither deter nor defend against probable armed aggression. Simply put, there are too few. Actually, Canada will have fewer warplanes with the F-35. Besides, the F-35 is gaining a reputation of being an unreliable and an underwhelming warplane, a ‘hanger queen’. Further, by 2037, it is likely there will be a further iteration of warplanes, meaning Canada will be one iteration behind the then apex of warplane.
12 submarines are an unjustifiable increase in current capacity (four). Further, since the first will arrive in 2037, it will probably arrive in a different military environment, one incompatible with submarines. 15 destroyers are also an unjustifiable increase in current capacity (twelve of a smaller vessel – Halifax class frigates).
Military expenditures come at the expense of civilian needs. Currently, there are more pressing and urgent essentials than buying warplanes, destroyers and submarines.
Eisenhauer’s caution against the military-industrial complex continues to be applicable now as it was in the early 1960s. Especially since the two mainstream parties promote the acquisition of weapons as being good for the economy, a boost to Canada’s opportunities to export weapons.
We advocate cancellation of the purchase of F-35s, and a reduction in the number of destroyers and submarines.
Other issues we should be talking about, but aren’t:
• NATO – Why is Canada in NATO? NATO’s original purpose was to keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down – now it seems that the Americans want out, the Russians want in, and Germans are rearming. Why comply with the arbitrary target of 2% of GDP go towards military expenditures? Why belong to an alliance when one member, the USA, militarily threatens another member, Denmark? That the United States may invade Greenland should cause Canada to head for the door. Why continue to treat Russia as if it were the USSR? Why persist in fantasying that the Red Army will invade Western Europe?
• FAIR VOTING – Why don’t we have democratic voting? Why do we still have “First past the post”? Only two other jurisdictions (US and UK) have the same system. In the recent federal election, a candidate won with 50% plus one vote. How can this outcome be democratic? An almost equal number of voters wanted to be represented by another candidate. Why don’t we have proportional voting? “First past the post” is anti-democratic, promotes duopoly in the legislature, whereas proportional voting provides voters with the choice of many parties with varying platforms.
• GOVERNMENT – Why do we have a Senate? Why does an unelected body have a say over decisions made by politicians elected by the people? Also, why are we a monarchy? It is a vestige of a times now long past. Canada should become a republic. Why is the Executive in the Legislature? The Legislature is captive of the Executive. There is no separation of powers. There is no check and balance between the two entities. As long as the Cabinet supports the Prime Minister, and the Caucus the Cabinet, a Prime Minister can do whatever a Prime Minister wants to do.
• FAIR TAXES – Why don’t we have truly progressive income tax, one with a high marginal rate. Why are the rich not paying their fair share? Why isn’t there a stock transfer levy? Why isn’t there a robust estate tax, one which will mitigate against inherited wealth? The offspring of billionaires ought not to become billionaires because they inherited a fortune.
• HEALTHCARE – Why are we not adequately funding healthcare? Why are our governments trying to tank our healthcare? The cure for present issues of healthcare delivery is funding, not privatizing.
• BUSINESS – Why do we not have aggressive protection against monopolies, oligopolies? Both economic conditions improperly enrich businesses at the expense of consumers. Corporations should be restricted to using their business acumen to increase their market share and prohibited from buying or merging with their competitors. Businesses that are too big to fail should be broken up because when they fail, the public covers their losses.
