Trump, war and the prices you pay

Jen Pedersen, foreign policy expert and advisor, took her passion for international politics through a PhD, publishing analyses on regional conflicts included Yemen and Liberia, becoming a Broadbent Institute Fellow, and into advising the Federal NDP on foreign affairs.

Jen talks with Nikki and Tom about the implications for Canadians in Trump shifting the global power system farther from multilaterialism and rules and more toward great power dominance and instability. A key implication has been the wave of global inflation triggered by Trump's Iran War at a time when Canadians are already feeling prices have increased too much, too fast.

Jen discusses possibly reasons why Carney and Poilievre backed the Iran War despite the pocketbook costs to Canadians and how that endorsement squares with Carney's words in Davos. She also helps with some thinking about how Canada could work with other progressive movements and governments in The Americans to counter-act Trump's shift to unilaterialism and his use of it to spread instability.

Nikki updates us on two new modern treaties in BC even as controversy over the Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples continues, and Tom focuses on a nine-month lockout in Windsor that has worrying consequences for other workers.

Transcript

Welcome

Tom Parkin 0:25

Welcome to Left East to West with me, Tom Parkin.

Nikki Hill 0:28

And me Nikki Hill. And just to be sure, no, we are not tracking your data to make you pay more at the checkout today.

Tom Parkin 0:36

Yeah, the that surveillance pricing thing really crashed into public awareness this week, didn't it? Let's talk about that. And uh there's been this weird not knowing how much the Iran war inflation wave is gonna is gonna hurt people. And so that's a theme. Let's uh let's we'll talk about that. And we've got the perfect guest to do that. Jen Peterson, Broadbent Institute Fellow and Foreign Affairs Advisor. She's gonna help us understand Carney's Davos speech. Why did Carney and Poilievre support an attack on Iran? We'll talk about all those kind of things.

Nikki Hill 1:11

But first of all, we're gonna start with below the fold, taking a look at a couple of important stories that didn't make national headlines.

Nikki on DRIPA and new treaties in BC

Tom Parkin 1:28

Nikki, BC Premier Eby has been very much above the fold the last few weeks over proposed changes to BC's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, DRIPA. But there are also some interesting below the fold advances on treaties this week. So get us uh the info on that story.

Nikki Hill 1:46

Yeah, so we've had quite the wild ride in BC politics and probably the last couple of weeks. We even started last week with the prospect of an early election. We're actually more than two years out technically, but that was after Premier Eby said that amendments to the declaration declaration act would be a confidence vote in the legislature. So if not supported, could trigger an election in BC, knowing that the opposition BC conservatives are already opposed to any changes because they just want the act to be repealed, which has been quite centered in their ongoing leadership race here. So they're in the middle of the leadership race. It has been like very focused on some of this anti-dripper rhetoric and policy change, and that's been carrying over into the legislature. Over the past little bit, the premier had been saying when asked by the media that he did have the full support of caucus and enough support in the legislature to win a vote if it came to that and then announced we'd have a confidence vote on changes. And those are ranging initially from amendments to suspending certain sections. So we had a, you know, First Nations leadership bodies, of course, high concern here. So press conferences opposing some of the proposed changes. These are really important relationships in reconciliation, implementing the Declaration Act. And that led to a lot of government caucus meetings and indications that there actually wasn't enough support in the caucus. And important to note, we have, you know, three Indigenous members uh who are MLAs in the government caucus. So really tricky space here for them. By last Monday afternoon, the government house leader came out to talk to the media, indicated that when the legislation does be is brought forward in this session, which ends at the end of May, maybe extended into June, that it no longer will be a confidence vote. So all of us out here had a deep sigh of relief about no early election prospect anymore, but also not putting DRIPA into the public discourse and political discussion continuously and in terms of an election ballot box issue. So it's a pretty big shift we've had. Um, and then interestingly, the SNAP election prospect also caused a bunch of ripples in the BC conservative leadership race because candidates, of course, panicked that we might actually end up in elections, started putting forward prospects on how to truncate the race. So there are a lot of, I think now, still ripple effects and dynamics there going on as they get into some of the final weeks in that process.

Tom Parkin 4:05

Sounds all kind of chaotic and uh just like dropping a big stone into the water and watching all the impacts on the shoreline and that's it. Sounds like uh chaotic kind of stuff.

Nikki Hill 4:18

Yeah, it's been a whirl. I think you know it's it's a really complex issue. Um thankfully, you know, we have the pressure off an election and of course having the this sort of important discussion within the context of an election. But I think there's still debate on how government is going to um propose changes and continues. These are really challenging dynamics, not just for provincial relations with First Nations leadership bodies who have been very integral to implementing the Declaration Act, but also with ongoing misinformation about private property rights being spread through the species leadership campaign for the conservatives. You know, and the premier has said that government has no choice here, that they're protecting the province from unlimited, it's quotation, legal liability created by the Court of Appeal decisions in different ways in the past six uh to eight months here. So, you know, this declaration act, I think it was brought in uh by the previous government, but um, Premier E. B, previous being under Premier John Horgan, Premier EB was the attorney general at this point. Really a pride point, I think, for the new Democrat base of voters as well. But that being said, it's not actually top of mind for most voters if we look at recent polls, um, unless those polls are specifically digging into confusion around private property rights, which again is largely being driven by misinformation and largely around the conservative race. So, you know, British Columbians, like all Canadians, are showing the polls that they're still mostly concerned with cost of living, healthcare, housing, more than DRIPA. But an interesting thing here is probably why we're seeing it still in um becoming in the disinformation side of the conservatives, is that the BC conservative voters have much higher concern than the general public does. And, you know, it's hard to say at this point if that's because the party's been driving these messages, as have their candidates, or if that's you know, a real concern that's now permeated into the public discussion and feeling about will they or won't they lose property rights. Spoiler alert, um indigenous leaders are saying very clearly that that has not been on the table. That's not the intention. And so private property rights here are an ongoing challenge, I think, to communicate. But what we actually want to talk about is what got less attention, so fell a bit more under the fold, which is what we focus on in this segment. And um, as all of these shifts and tensions were going on, it was also a week in BC where two treaties were planned to be introduced in the legislature and were. And so I think, you know, BC's lack of treaties is uh a core component of why we have these ongoing court cases. And so negotiating them and legislating them is, you know, seen as a critical step forward by many, if done in the right form. And if you aren't aware why BC is different in this regard from your province or territory, most land here was isn't covered by a treaty and was never actually ceded to Canada. So it's going back in history to when BC joined Canada in 1871, the province didn't actually recognize Aboriginal title, believe there was no need for treaties apart from the existing Dougler treaties Douglas treaties. But that is a longer history lesson. We're gonna try to bring in someone with some expertise in in the weeks ahead because this issue's not going away.

Tom Parkin 7:33

Think there was also a little panic before because thinking the Americans might take BC too. So, you know, get it in quick and kind of kind of let's not uh let's not dot the I's and cross the T's, you know?

Nikki Hill 7:43

Anyway, yeah, yeah, exactly.

Tom Parkin 7:45

Let's get into that someday. That's good. That's an interesting thing.

Nikki Hill 7:47

We'll have to get it, go back into the Wayback Time Machine too. Um, so let's look at into treaties. So two treaties introduced this week is pretty monumental. So we had the Comax First Nation Treaty legislation announced on last week. We had the result of 30 years of negotiations. So, you know, you get to these very historic times. And then we had the Ketzellus Treaty as well the next day, decades in the making again. Actually, interestingly, it was the uh former BC conservative leader John Rustad, whose ousting led us to this current leadership race for the conservatives, who started the process of that treaty when he was the minister responsible under the previous BC Liberal government. So, you know, these aren't new. These are underway for they do take decades to finalize and negotiate. Uh so both of these agreements here, they provide land, financial compensation, self-governance powers, including some expanded authority over resources, social services, and in some cases, aspects of justice. So there's it's not the end of the process. They have to go through provincial ratification. This was introducing legislation and then could come into effect in a couple of years. But I think, you know, what's really interesting is they are the first modern treaties to reach this stage in more than a decade. Um, so this, I feel like there's uh a feeling in general that this is renewed momentum on reconciliation, even as we have these broader tensions around Indigenous rights and land title and the province's approach to impending related legislation here. Catellis is only the ninth first nation in BC to have a modern treaty. I think that, you know, when I see that number, it's pretty surprising, especially when we look at other jurisdictions. Um, but there are, you know, we should, we should say as well that this week we have seen additional complications around neighboring nations' assertions on overlapping territory, and we still have to get through federal ratification. But I think, you know, for these nations, these are huge steps forward for them in actually getting to the legislature. I've been in the legislature for treaties that have come in in in the past and like the time this week, you know, huge ability to have ceremonies, honor those First Nations contributions and culture, and I think really meaningful to be present for them. Um, the other interesting thing under the fold this week on treaties has been the appointment of former BC Liberal Cabinet Minister George Abbott and former MLA of 17 years to head up the BC Treaty Commission. So, you know, I think uh as that appointment happened as well, Abbott was again noting that this is a time for momentum in treaties, and and as we can see from these two this week. But, you know, I think sort of going back on how we combine all of these issues, uh, whether it's treaties or DRIPA, quarter reconciliation is that government-to-government relationship. And we have definitely seen some fractured relationships here in in the past month or few months as government and First Nations have been trying to address these emerging issues coming out of court cases and still move forward on commitments together. So I think we are in this phase where the project here for BC, and it's no small endeavor. I don't envy the government or or First Nations who are trying to participate in these processes, but there is a real need for a path forward that ends some of this fracturing and creates certainty. And we're also seeing, I think, um, external attempts to cut through the disinformation about Dripa. There's a new site. I don't actually know who set it up, but it's impressively comprehensive. Uh, someone probably with some great academic and research skills set it up. It's called DripaFacts.ca. So if you're actually looking to cut through the noise, go check out DripaFacts.ca and it and it's a great source of information on what's going on and what's true and what's not.

Tom Parkin 11:29

Probably somebody frustrated with the misinformation dis. I mean, I I definitely I want I would I would like to look at that because I personally feel quite confused about DRIPA. And I know a lot of it is because I'm seeing inform information that's not right. I'm I'm seeing misinformation. Um but there's so much. It's like, you know, how do you sift um to to say, okay, well this is just untrue and junk. Uh this is here for just, you know, to get people going, um, versus stuff that is uh in fact. Anyway, I I uh I know that these these are you know confusing to times, but it's good to you know, it's good to see that there is still some momentum uh on getting streams going forward. That's that's progress.

Nikki Hill 12:17

Yeah, yeah. So it's been I think you know these are gonna be interesting times. We'll try to get someone on to come talk about it in in the weeks ahead and break it down a bit more. Um, but I think definitely you're seeing people want to help cut through that that misinformation that has been experienced the last bit, and I'm happy to see those signs.

Tom Parkin 12:36

Let's do that.

Nikki Hill 12:37

Okay, Tom, you have a very different story that's been building in the Ontario labor movement for a while, but one that perhaps more labor

Tom on the Titan Tool and Die Lockout in Windsor

Nikki Hill 12:45

activists need to hear about in terms of what it means to their workplaces.

Tom Parkin 12:48

Aaron Powell Yeah. In in Windsor, Ontario, uh 27 workers at Titan Tool and Die are locked out. Usually companies lock out workers or take a strike when they want to force contract concessions. And this one is a little bit different. Uh and and and it shows a real, I think, evilness on the company's uh owners. Uh it shows how courts are stacked against workers and and how the Ford PCs will back the worst corporate behavior, even as they claim to be the most pro-worker government that the universe has ever seen in all time. Titan workers do specialty metal stamping and fabrication. So they take somebody's idea for a better metal part, they design it, and then they use precision equipment to stamp out a prototype so that it can be uh tested out before going to full production, or they go or do sort of a short-run custom production, that's that sort of thing. Uh last August, the company, from their head office in Michigan, forwarded the union 15 pages of contract concession demands and then locked out the workers uh when they didn't accept it. And nine months later, uh they are still locked out. The company won't say what plans it has for the plant, whether they will or won't even keep it open if the workers uh do negotiate a new collective agreement. And that is kind of at the heart of what is weird uh and and and kind of sleazy about what's going on here. Uh during the lockout, Titan brought in scab labor to take materials and equipment out of the plant and load them into trucks. Uh local 195 of uh Unifor rallied local labor supporters to uh help the 27 workers block those trucks from taking away the tools they need to do their job, the real guarantee of of the possibility of even negotiating anymore. Um But Nikki, I'm sure you'll uh you'll understand what happened next in this story.

Nikki Hill 14:42

Yeah, I'm guessing the owner's lawyers went to court, got a judge to tell the workers they were the ones breaking the law.

Tom Parkin 14:48

Yeah, yeah. The the workers did block the trucks for a night, but the next day a judge issued an injunction, an injunction requiring, even while negotiations are supposed to be happening and the company isn't declaring a closure, that workers must let the trucks leave with their work equipment, the equipment that is essential to them doing their job. So no laws broken by locking out workers, by bringing in scabs, by shipping out essential equipment during a labor dispute, all while refusing to say if the workplace would reopen if the contract was settled. But obviously this is uh bad corporate behavior. But what is less obvious in this one and what is that super sleazy thing I was uh talking about is what this company seems to be trying to do shutting down the plant while not admitting to that in order to avoid paying the severances and post-retirement benefits that they had uh put in the they had signed in their own collective agreement with workers. So apparently, as long as Titan's owners keep the company on lockout, the plant isn't legally closed. So the contract language around closure and severance uh that language is not triggered. So in theory, if they can keep the lockout going forever, they never have to pay what they promised. Or if workers just get frustrated and quit, the company never has to pay. So the local MPP and uh Ontario NDP leader Mark Stiles visited the picket line last weekend to raise the profile of this conflict. And honestly, that's where I uh I'd heard of this before, but I read more about it, and this is where I thought, you know, this is this is really does deserve more attention. They visited with media to raise publicity about it and urged the Ford government to pass legislation to close this lockout loophole. Shaw actually made the point that uh an anti-scab law would have prevented the equipment from being removed, and maybe the the jobs could restart, or or at least the company would need to negotiate a proper closure so that they could take their equipment. Um but the response from the Minister of Labor, David Picini, was just to say that he will always stand up to protect workers uh and he had a mediator standing by, and and that was it. That was it. Right. Uh you know uh some of these folks have been at this plant for a long time, so uh thirty and forty years, I understand, by what I've read in the news. Ah, wow. Uh yeah. So imagine being a 30-year Titan employee, maybe a man mostly men at this plant, in his fifties, yeah, uh having your job taken from you, having your severance taken from you, your equipment taken from you, and getting treated like garbage by the people you made money for, and then listening to this minor bird of a minister. Um if this company can successfully use this tactic against Titan workers to rob them of their severance in Windsor, then other companies will use this more against other workers in other places. I don't think that's what Canadians want. But this is dare this story is buried so far below the fold. No one will see this problem until it comes to hit them. Or unless people like us, Nikki and others start championing championing this story and supporting these workers to get this law fixed.

Nikki Hill 18:05

Well, I mean, particularly while we're in this time where you know we were just talking about polls and the context of DRIPA, but I think across the country we're seeing Canadians concerned about economy, jobs, cost of living, right? So I think this is the time where that certainty for people is more important than ever and the precarity of life. So yeah, I think you want to see leaders who are stepping in to do protection of workers when we're dealing with all of these changes.

Tom Parkin 18:31

Yeah, I and I wonder really how long the Ford government could hold the line on everything's great and don't look. Um if if this does get some traction, if the Ontario Labor movement builds a little bit of a campaign, part of the problem here is is of course Unifor, it's uniform, they're not in the Ontario Federation of Labor. Um but that shouldn't stop good labor people from rallying together, nor should it stop the New Democrats from making a case of this. This is about workers, number one. Um and this is about people having their you know their rights taken away um uh after a long time of service. I just find this story uh frustrating and abhorrent. Anyhow. Okay, let's take a quick break and be right back with Jen Peterson.

Jen Pederson: Trump, war and the price you pay

Tom Parkin 19:20

Jen Peterson, welcome to Left East West. Thanks so much for joining us.

Jen Pederson 19:25

Thanks so much for having me.

Tom Parkin 19:26

Yeah. You you took your passion for international politics through a PhD and have gone on to publish research and analysis on international arms trade and some hotcot conflicts like Yemen and in uh Liberia. You've been a foreign affairs advisor to NGOs and MPs, and now you're a broadband institute leadership fellow and uh policy advisor to the federal NDP and global affairs. So you're joining us today from Ottawa, yes? And Jen, has uh spring finally come to the nation's capital?

Jen Pederson 19:58

It finally has. The crocuses are out, and we can hear the song sparrows today, which is really lovely.

Tom Parkin 20:04

Okay, this is usually the part where Nikki gets jumps in and talks about how crocuses came out in January or something, and and then that's the end of the show.

Nikki Hill 20:13

We're gonna tulip now. Well, thanks for joining us, Jen. And so for you and for our listeners, we don't normally focus on foreign affairs on this show, although our very first episode was on defense, and so in some ways. Um, but we're more about affordability, building industries and jobs, and investing in public services. So we know that of course Canadians are following what's going on in the world more than ever right now, and the impact in in terms of voting, political choices, and how we're thinking about politics right here at home. And because that's largely because we have Trump now, and that has changed the dynamic so much as you know, attacking our jobs, launching wars with global economic blowback. So here I just want to talk about making the case here. How does the world we are in affect the country that we're trying to build? And with if our focus is here in Canada, why do we need to engage out there with the geopolitical climate?

Jen Pederson 21:11

I think we've always needed to focus on the global picture. You know, Canada's economy has largely been dependent on the United States, but the rest of the world. And when the world goes well, Canada goes well. Um, I think for a long time we were insulated from some of the conflicts happening in the world. But with the US no longer a reliable ally or trading partner, that's no longer the case. You know, there's no demands for us as Canadians from Trump, the the golden dome, which is just bananas, you know, defense spending, um, critical minerals questions, the tariffs. So these all have massive massive domestic implications. Um and I think there's also implications for where Canada is to be placed in the world now that the US is withdrawing from multilateral multilateral institutions, right? Um Canadians are gonna be increasingly vulnerable. To the US withdrawing from support for Ukraine, for uh development, canceling USAID, you know, closing USAID entirely, which means that we're potentially more more vulnerable, I think, to global health crises. Um, you know, this is all going to affect us quite quite a lot.

Tom Parkin 22:18

Uh yeah, in in this current Iran war, uh it seems, you know, this connection between uh what what is happening inside our country, inflation and jobs, and what's happening outside of our country in war, really that connection seems to be quite strong in this case. And I I think that the thing that puzzles me, Jen, and I I want you to help me if I if you can explain. Uh it just seems ridiculous to me that the Trump administration didn't expect Iran to bomb energy infrastructure and choke shipping lanes. That would cause a wave of fuel price hikes and a significant economic damage uh early uh around the world. And so by the same, it seems ridiculous to think that our government didn't also expect this uh once they were informed of what was happening. But you know, despite that, the prime minister uh and conservative leader Pierre Polyev endorsed Trump's attack. So, you know, the part I'm asking you to help make sense to me is why the joint support for a war with such disastrous effects on Canadians, a war Canada was never even consulted about, and that the Canadian government did not, does not know the goals for.

Jen Pederson 23:39

I think that's an excellent question. And I think uh I don't have an answer to that as to why, right? Um I think a lot of Canadians were really shocked, actually, especially since this happened after the Davos speech. They were shocked that Kearney came out so quickly in support of this war. And I think he got a lot of blowback for it, uh, rightfully so. Um there's no appetite among Canadians for this kind of war. Uh I mean, there is for like a small group of folks, but uh for the majority of people are saying, like, we've seen this before, we know what the consequences are. And if we think about the consequences specifically just for Canadians, you know, beyond the human toll, the environmental toll in the Middle East, the consequences that we're now seeing in the next couple of weeks and months, it's not just the rising gas prices, it's also uh fuel for aviation industry may run out soon. The fertilizer shortages, including, you know, nitrogen, that could lead to food insecurity. We are seeing helium shortages that could affect not just, you know, the building computer chips, but also MRI machines, right? And there's Canadians waiting for MRI. So I think there's real reasons um why Canadians should be a little bit worried about the effect on supply chains, the effect on shipping, um, given that our global economy is so so complex and that we are dependent on a lot of this. Um, you know, and Carney's inability to support international law in certain cases is just a travesty, right? It he's picking and choosing where the UN Charter matters, where it doesn't, you know, where Canada's gonna speak up and where it doesn't. And I think we expect that from Polyev. You know, he has like a little bit of a mega ideology, I think, and certainly in his caucus, if not um him alone. But but we expect from Kearney some kind of um support for uh rules, right? Especially after Davos. And we haven't seen that with with respect to Iran.

Tom Parkin 25:37

Aaron Powell Can I just throw one, Nikki, if you don't mind. Can I just throw one supplementary in here on this point? Is thinking very politically. I mean, you're in in the in the in the world of being a political advisor on uh foreign affairs. Is this do you think it's possibly because we know what Pierre Polyev's position will be on these kind of things? It will be yes, sir. Uh yes, Mr. Trump, I'll follow you any any any war. And so Mr. Kearney just kind of adopts that position because it's one more way of bigfooting the conservatives, which seems to be the overall strategy of this government, whether it's on economic, now social policy in some ways. Um I'm just not seeing the upside for politically.

Jen Pederson 26:19

Yeah, and I'm actually not sure that Polyev would even have been a factor in this particular case. I mean, there are some domestic constituencies that would have been requesting um support for Kearney for this. But what's very interesting too is to see the contrast between his support for Iran and then his clarity on the Lebanon conflict, you know, like a month later where he said, well, this is clearly an illegal invasion. You know, the consistency there is that Kearney has done nothing to stop either of them, right? And will never call out Israel. In particular, it never applies sanctions. Um, but it is very interesting to see the difference in how he is talking about Lebanon versus Iran. I suspect it's possible that because the Lebanese Canadian population is so large, like up to 400,000 people, there are so many Canadians who are so affected by this war, who have lost family members, who have lost, you know, their families have lost their homes. Um I wonder how much that is playing into it. But then there's a lot of Iranian Canadians now who are deeply upset as well by Canada's inaction. So these are these are questions that we have asked, you know, from the New Democratic perspective for years, and we don't have clear answers on.

Nikki Hill 27:34

Yeah, and let's talk a little bit about some of like building that out on some of the larger connections on on how conflicts elsewhere are raising risks for Canadians. So, you know, of course, we've seen the Gaza genocide, we've got the abduction of the Venezuelan president, Trump's uh aborted attempts to take Greenland, threat us, the blockade of trade to Cuba, and then now the Iran war. So there's sort of two questions here. One, what is the through line in these unilateral actions by Trump that should raise concerns for Canadians? And second, with the exception of Greenland, what accounts for silence or support from Carney and Polyev when the consensus has been that Canada is always best served by multilateralism?

Jen Pederson 28:18

These are great questions. I think the through line, first of all, for explaining Trump's actions is complete disregard for international law, complete unpredictability. Um, it's like the Wild West, apparently, you know, in the White House, like there's no rules and uh whatever happens, happens, you know, because there's people who will profit from it in Trump's circle, right? Like it's none of this is actually for the American people or for the good of the world, right? And I think Canadians are rightfully concerned that because these actions are so unpredictable, you know, Canada could be next. We have to be uh pretty aware of that. And and there's a cost to Canada as these conflicts continue. There's the economic cost, not just currently, and as we're seeing with uh Iran, but also if we think about the decades of reconstruction that are gonna have to happen, either in Gaza or Lebanon or wherever, and who's gonna pay for that? Largely gonna be donors like Canada, right? Um, there's the human cost where so many Canadians have lost loved ones, uh including, for example, in Ukraine. There's legal implications that one day Canada may be found complicit in some of these conflicts, including uh especially in the genocide in Gaza, if we look at the International Court of Justice's um uh advisory opinion and and you know our obligations under the genocide convention. And then there's this other very real challenge that I worry about that insecurity breeds more insecurity. And because there is no path to a sustainable peace in any of these situations currently, because we have no kind of savior coming in to say, like, everything's gonna be okay, it's gonna get worse. So it's gonna get worse for folks there, and it's gonna get worse worse for us here. And I'm not surprised by the silence of Kearney and the liberals on some of this. Um, their refusal to take action on the genocide in Gaza or call out the United States role in that over the last three years has been, you know, a blatant contribution to the decline of the rules-based international order. Um, and the conservatives have never stood for international law. So, you know, I'm I'm deeply worried about all of this. I think it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Nikki Hill 30:23

Yeah, and I think it's it's that sort of uncertainty that now Canadians never felt from below the border. I was, you know, I think was really struck. There was the wild story from the the royal biographer who said that Trump only really changed position on annexing parts of Canada close to the border, where I sit in BZ, not so far from the border, because you found out that we were part of the Commonwealth. So, you know, you're like these the precarity of these decisions sitting so close to us as Canadians, too, I think is raising a lot of concern for people when we see some of these other conflicts.

Jen Pederson 30:56

And when you see folks like like Pete Heggseth, you know, and uh quoting what he thinks is a Bible verse and it turns out to be, you know, a line. Fiction fiction, right? Yeah. And you're like, well, wait, you're not sending your best and brightest here.

Tom Parkin 31:10

I was told that uh at the beginning of his first term that they sat uh I don't even know if this is true, but it's a good story anyway. It sounds true that they set uh Donald Trump down and made him watch all of Lawrence of Arabia movies so that he could understand some of the dynamics in the state. Oh wow in the formation of the states after the first world war. And it's like, well, that's how he learns, right? Anyway.

Nikki Hill 31:33

And now pulp fiction. Okay.

Tom Parkin 31:35

Yeah. Yeah. But it almost feels, Jen, like uh instability is the point or in the or is the purpose. Because instability everywhere creates a powerful America in relativity, you know, in related to that chaos. Um it can do whatever it wants, it can freedom of action.

Jen Pederson 31:53

And it's not just that, it's it's that instability breeds profit for a lot of these people in Trump's circle. Whether you're bombing or building, I guess. Yeah. They're making a lot of money out of off this, you know, as people suffer.

Tom Parkin 32:04

Yeah, and and we can see in our laws uh on arms exports uh uh some tension between our interests in mutual sorry, in multilateralism uh and stability, and that kind of great power interest in unfettered scope of action to impose instability. Um there's recently been a lot of attention on loophills, loopholes in the Canadian law on arms exports, and um that means a lot of our the arms that we export are, I'm understanding, aiding uh the foreign direction of the great destabilizer. Um could you just explain this and how this I I think you've maybe been right in the middle of this, right?

Jen Pederson 32:49

Yeah. So I've worked on this issue for the better part of 10 years with uh with the NDP, off and on. Um starting uh especially when I was the foreign affairs critic and we were dealing with the uh Saudi Arabia LAF deal, right? The general dynamics deal that became very controversial. Yeah. Um and then we were able actually to um amend the Liberals' arms trade treaty legislation when it came in in 2018 when the Liberals finally agreed to uh to um to accede to the arms trade treaty where the conservatives hadn't. So this has been a problem for decades. The that our arms exports to the United States are not, do not fall under the same export controls as our arms exports to other countries. And that exists since like a the defense production agreement of the 1950s. What that means is that probably about half of Canadian arms exports, and we're talking military goods and technology, we're talking parts and components, we're not just talking like full systems. Um, they cross the border a number of times because our defense production is so integrated. And we have no idea what what that is. We don't know the value, we don't know what the contracts are, it's not reported to parliament, the specifics specifics of that are not controlled. There's no parliamentary oversight. Um, and so this has become a bigger issue in the last few years, specifically because of all of this stuff that was going through the United States and then on to Israel or to other governments that abuse human rights or commit war crimes. Um, that because that does not fall under the same export controls, it means the minister is not looking and approving at each of one of those, right? And Jenny Kwan bought brought uh an NDP bill. She brought a bill a few months ago, it came for a vote a few weeks ago, and all it would have done was made the US exports consistent with our exports to everywhere else. That's it. Just like bringing it in line with our obligations under the arms trade treaty and with our existing controls. And the liberals and conservatives would not support it. They voted it down. There were some liberals that voted with it, uh, and we're so grateful for them. But overall, there is no appetite among the liberals or conservatives to make any changes to Canada's defense production, especially now under um this current regime with uh with Kearney. Um, and one of the big concerns we have too is this new defense industrial strategy that Kearney announced, you know, last month or the month before, is includes in it a provision to um water down or streamline arms export controls. So we're expecting that more stuff will go on to um questionable governments than before. And just to note, it's it's the US, like we're currently like Rochelle, which is based in Ontario, is sending armored vehicles to the United States government and they're being used by ICE, right, in in communities, right, to suppress um to the to to attack basically American citizens. So that's the kind of thing we're worried about. We have no control over that and that the government won't act on it.

Tom Parkin 35:52

So so equipment, military equipment that's made in Canada could be shipped and um that couldn't be shipped to a country or to because uh that's our foreign policy is to not trade arms with that country, not uh export to that country, but then it could go to the United States and still go to that country because the United States does it. Is is that right? So it bypasses our own foreign policies as it sounds.

Jen Pederson 36:19

Yeah, but well, something that maybe a minister would deny an export permit for um in uh in Canada, like as a direct export, you know, if it goes to the United States and the United States is the designated end user and then it becomes part of something they ship elsewhere, you know, we have no control over that. And we never know about it either. Like that's the other thing is in the United States, Congress has a lot more oversight of their arms exports. We have none in Canada. Yeah.

Nikki Hill 36:46

Interesting. And and we talked a little bit about uh Davos in in Kearney's speech. I think you know it got a lot of praise, but I think it it also saw a little bit of a sigh of relief from those progressives that may have loaned their votes to Kearney and the liberals last time to say, oh, we did this right. And some praised it internationally, a lot of praise as support for middle power-seeking alliances and more of a rules-based system against Trump's great powers model. I think there's certainly words in there to support that case and give people some hope that perhaps there there are solutions. But others called it a praise it as a call to the end of the fiction that Canada supports a rules-based approach and embrace the ideas that Canada will judge the same actions differently depending on who commits them. So, do you think the words in that speech are now in hindsight contradictory, misunderstood? How did you interpret the speech? And I think the other dynamic we're in this week is you know, a majority for the Kearney government. So do you think we'll see some of the those words fit actions as well?

Jen Pederson 37:50

Great questions. Um, I was not a fan of Kearney's Dabo speech, but mainly not because it wasn't a good speech. It was a very good speech and it was for the intended audience. People really liked it. Um but having worked on these issues for the last 10 years and seen the liberals act in some cases and not act in a number of other cases where the NDP's been pushing and pushing and pushing, I was so frustrated when he correctly identified the rupture in the international world order and did not admit that the liberals have contributed to that rupture, right? By picking and choosing. You know, and and I think it's important that we we do admit like the rules-based international order has never worked for the global south. It was always kind of selective based on who who uh applied it. Um, but Canada has helped its decline. Um, so that made me frustrated that that we weren't seeing those absences. And and when I think about, you know, post-ABOS, like what does Carney mean for our foreign policy? What is it? We don't have a defined foreign policy, we don't have a national security strategy, you know, the feminist foreign policy is dead. Um we are not really sure what values he's applying, right? At the UN General Assembly this week, Canada um did a speech uh condemning Iran and Iran's retaliation in the Middle East and didn't mention Israel, didn't call out their violations of international law. Um, Canada won't apply sanctions in cases of, you know, the war in Lebanon. Um Kearney is building new trade agreements with many countries, but some of them are they're like there's no human rights provisions. When we think about, you know, Canada's relationship with countries like the United Arab Emirates, we're selling weapons to them, and those weapons are being sold on to the RSF in Sudan and being used in that genocide, right? And and we have asked the government to do something about that, and they won't. Um, and then I think as a final point, this 5% increase in in defense, or sorry, the 5% of GDP in defense is coming at a time when we need so many more investments in like affordability for Canadians, housing, healthcare, and so on. They haven't fully justified that. And at the same time, they're making a $2 billion cut to our international development funding, which goes to support civil society holding governments to account. It goes to work on women's rights issues, girls' education. You know, so why are we why are we doing it this way? We don't have a sense of what Kearney's foreign policy values are. Um, and that is worrisome to me.

Tom Parkin 40:25

Yeah, sometimes I've noticed about him he he likes to hold back a little bit and give himself that freedom of action by being very non-committal until late in the process. Um so it's hard to judge him on uh what he says because he often doesn't say very much. Yeah. Uh you know, that's uh that's a contrast with Mr. Trump, who we're gonna just pivot to now, who says a lot. Um last month, and you never know what the hell it means. Uh last November, the Trump administration released a new national security strategy, and at the core of it was uh a strategic opposition to China and a rejection of international rules and human rights in favor of a great powers approach. It called for working with other unnamed great powers, presumably uh Russia in that particular passage, as a partner when required, and explicitly told Europe to accommodate, to accommodate Russia on Ukraine. But I think the part that concerns us the most has got to be this uh Monroe doctrine revival, uh the claim that the Americas are his hemisphere, uh China not welcome, nobody else welcome uh from other hemispheres, but obviously it's i i it's it's China that he's thinking about. Uh it says the US will, quote, reward and encourage the region's governments, political parties, and movements broadly aligned with our MAGAs principles and strategy, unquote, uh, which seems to signal a pretty blunt disrespect for national sovereignty. And we're going through an Alberta separatism ballot soon, maybe. Um, it sets out a goal of controlling resources and critical supply chains in the Americas. Um so we've seen these big uh political trends and stories in the America uh in response to this, both for and uh against um Trump, uh and align with Trump and align you know, in this thing about enlist, right? He wants to enlist people. Um what do you think um what do you think that means for the political party? What has it meant for the political parties and movements in North and South America who are uh parties that base their approach on human rights and and national sovereignty? How is that kind of shaking out in the aftermath of this everybody on coming to terms with understanding what he's what he's saying and what he's doing?

Jen Pederson 42:59

Mm-hmm. Yeah. Well, I think it makes it even more urgent for left-leaning parties to organize well and to win elections. Um I think, you know, that right, like this survival of of democracy is at stake in a lot of cases. And you you do see, especially in the Americas, uh, this, you know, pro-Trump, um pro-Trump, no Trump, uh falling down the lines of right-wing parties versus progressive parties, right? Um I think someone like Claudia Scheinbaum in Mexico has has managed that relationship pretty well so far. Um, you know, she's she's been quite critical, especially on the case of uh abuses of uh migrants who are detained in the states and more vocal on that lately. But she's also worked with the Trump administration, you know, on the stuff with cartels, for example. So once they're in government, they have to walk that fine line in a similar way to what I think Carney is sometimes doing. Um I don't know. I'm I'm worried about this this national security strategy and the impacts for can you know potential implications for Canada, especially when he talks about the critical minerals, like what does that mean for us, um the cooperation with Russia that is was not well received by a lot of folks in Europe, right? Like that is uh deeply alarming to a lot of uh to a lot of friends there who are working in different, you know, progressive and centrist governments. They're very worried about this. So I'm I'm not sure um how this is gonna go. One thing I was thinking about when when um thinking a little bit about how people organize against Trump is there's this new uh group of states in the global south called the Hague group. And it's not specific to Trump, right? But they're associated with the Progressive International. And so you have like um Colombia, for example, and Bolivia, um and working with other states in the global south, like South South Africa. They're specifically focusing on Palestinian international law right now, but we may increasingly see some like-minded states, governments, political parties on the left doing that kind of organizing work and solidarity work on specific thematic issues. And I think the Progressive International is one place that we should start looking a lot more. Um, the we had at the Broadbent Institute uh progress summit, you know, the head of Progress International come. And I think that's maybe um that's maybe uh, you know, we need to be building those movements more, right? Among all of us because we're all in this together.

Tom Parkin 45:28

And there and there are definitely parties and many governing parties, like Shine Baum's uh Marina Party or uh the uh Lula in Brazil, a country of what, I don't know, 300 million, 250 million, uh big country, Mexico, big country, Canada, big country. Um and then if you can get you know some of the smaller ones like the Colombias, which currently has a progressive government, Venezuela, oh you don't know. Um Chile seems to be going the other way, right? Um got the madman in uh m in Argentina, sorry, what's his I'm suddenly forgetting? Javier Melee. Miele. Um so a real mixed bag, um, you know, uh uh but people we can work with uh seems to me, and have something in common with.

Jen Pederson 46:15

Yeah, and a lot of these countries have really strong civil society movements, right? Like labor, uh, you know, human rights movements, environmental movements as well. And so it doesn't have to be just political parties. Like we need to be building much more solidarity, I think, among all of us who are looking to create a better, a better world, right?

Nikki Hill 46:33

Maybe that's really you know the f the far right's doing that, and I think people miss how much that that organization is and and not on that. Although I did notice in in the past uh days where in Europe some of the progressive leaning uh governments are coming together to talk about addressing the far right rise. So, you know, I think we're seeing that coalescing that can hopefully continue.

Tom Parkin 46:56

I was gonna say, uh, Nikki, you know, next week we got B. Brooks coming on. And often a lot of good conversations happen within the global labor movement around jobs and prices and things like that, and what are we gonna do? So that might be uh that being one more place where these conversations can happen and we can develop strategies.

Nikki Hill 47:17

Absolutely. Yeah. Okay, Jen, we've got one last question for you before we break, and and thanks so much for joining us today. Just a tiny question. So thinking very politically, where do you see after all this conversation some of the spots where the labor movement and the and the federal NDP could focus Canadians on to best press the case for human rights and a peaceful world that's good for the prosperity of Canadians? Or I guess the inverse, which is that a global regime that's based on unilateralism and great power control actually hurts our futures. What are the opportunities here for the NDP?

Jen Pederson 47:54

Well, I think there's a number of opportunities. And at a federal level, you know, we're a small but mighty caucus. Um doing our best to push back on a number of these different issues. Um, labor has always been so helpful also in developing our human rights policies. And I have to say, you know, whether it's the CLC or Unifor or whatever other um uh union, they all have great human rights experts who are often helping us to really um join with folks globally and make sure that we're pushing for good jobs for everybody, for protection for workers for everyone, you know, environmental protections and so on. So um I think that will absolutely continue. And um, you know, as we were saying just a few minutes ago, I think increasingly there's there's movements of folks working together to try and unite on specific issues. Like so for Palestine, for example, we have seen labor movements in many countries, you know, um standing up now on that. We've seen dock workers in Europe refuse to unload weapons destined for Israel, for example. So we can start to do some of those, you know, collective actions. And I think for the NDP, we've always been pretty clear that you know, the promotion of human rights and solidarity, it's part of our values, but it's part of Canadian values too, right? And so can continuing to ask these questions like who profits from war, who profits from chaos and insecurity, um, what should a Canadian foreign policy based on human rights and and you know, protections for everyone, what should that look like? Um, who, you know, how are we also protecting Canadians at this time whose key concerns are about affordability, how they're gonna pay their mortgage? You know, like all of this stuff uh is kind of interlinked. Um, so we have a lot of advocacy to do, a lot of work to do on all of it, but hope everyone will listening will join us in doing that important work.

Tom Parkin 49:44

Yeah. Well, thanks for the excellent work that that you're doing. And it's been a real delight having you on the show and be able to talk about these issues and connect, you know, the the what seems like a very troubled world right now to um home base. You know, issues of yeah, how do you pay the mortgage, how do you pay the rent, how do you buy the groceries, how do you put gas in the tank.

Nikki Hill 50:04

Yeah, yeah. Yeah, thanks for joining. Thank you so much for having me. Okay. Good to see you.

Tom Parkin 50:11

Okay, yeah interesting, uh interesting interview with Jen. And really touching on, you know, things that are so far away, but you know, really connect with home base. And I think that's you know, uh I think that's a tough case to make politically, but maybe a little easier now because we see these impacts of foreign wars on us. What do you what do you think?

Nikki Hill 50:36

Yeah, I think it's such an interesting time because I think in in all of our discussions today, too, we're coming back into these pressures largely being brought in from global forces, but still Canadians are so centered on what's uh I think that what's happening around their kitchen table. But but it's because of some of these global forces that they're seeing these impacts. And we're seeing this increased, um, this increased conversation about affordability and cost of living. So it's sort of like as we keep going back to how the changes we've had in the world since Trump has come in, one one person really, let alone all the other ongoing conflicts and and geopolitical pressures since the pandemic, things like healthcare. I think if we do keep coming back to, you know, how do Canadians understand where that change is was happening in their lives and and where that impact is. So it's like maybe we don't think about these foreign affairs issues very often, but they're definitely um what sure what are actually the conversation that it that is impacting us.

Tom Parkin 51:34

Mm-hmm. Yeah, it's interesting. Another theme that we've talked about today a little bit uh has been that uh big tech uh kind of issue. And one of the things I've thought about with this war, maybe this is just maybe I'm a little off base on this, but it's my perception that um a lot of people died in this war uh in Iran. Um but it seems to be a war mostly about drones and bombing infrastructure and things. It it it's it's as if you know, we created this world, we humanity, created this world uh with these strands of communication and supply chains, um, and we thought they were robust, but then we found out they're actually extremely fragile and it didn't take much. And that's what it's almost like that's the target. People get killed on the way to the target. Um, and really that's kind of not the news, which is um bizarre to me. It feels weird. Uh and it's just this kind of weird sense for me anyway. I feel like between that and the you know, the the tech surveillance pricing and these kind of things, it's like uh it's kind of this system that's running against us. Um and we're not in control of it very much, and it's not working out all that great.

Nikki Hill 52:52

No, and I feel like we're in a repeat conversation, you know. I think there was like all this surprise here in VC in 2021 when we had huge atmospheric rivers and flooding in our, you know, the highway literally broke and supply chains broke, and we're like, oh, supply chains and infrastructure are important to be proactive on, right? So yeah, I agree. We're um it's almost like people are still existing in an old world order right now, as as even though and partly that's probably just the pace of change and the uncertainty and trying to grapple with it when you are just thinking about, you know, can you afford to drive to work or or pick up groceries?

Tom Parkin 53:27

And then of course the question of you know, what do we do about it? We we can't stop. Exactly. It's the what do you do about it? Yeah, when there's no we're not we're not uh empowered to or we're you know, and this part of the conversation, I guess, with Jen is you know, how do we try and get our hands around the potential of uh containing this crazy guy?

Nikki Hill 53:48

Um, and acknowledging the fine line that that that leaders are are walking when whenever it comes to anything touching Trump. So yeah, we are in complex times.

Tom Parkin 53:58

Yeah. So okay. Well anyway, um I like that interview. I uh it was uh interesting conversation. And let's take a break though, and we'll come back with uh Love It or Heave It.

Nikki: loving the babies

Tom Parkin 54:21

Okay, before we wrap up, uh we've come to that part of the show we call Love It or Heave It about something you love and want to keep or something you'd like to heave and forever forget. What have you got this week, Nikki?

Nikki Hill 54:34

I'm going with some good news this week in the BC legislature. So we have uh two current BC cabinet ministers celebrating some baby news. Uh adding on the Minister of Post-secondary Education and Future Skills, Jesse Sunner, announcing she's expecting her first child this summer, being really open about her process with her partner and their journey to get there, which I think is always refreshing for you know the public to see from politicians. And so we also have uh infrastructure minister Bowen Ma has announced her news a while ago and but took to social media to celebrate both of them. That's funny. But I just want to put a little pin into a quick look at last week's episode where we talked about the BC legislature bringing in some new legislation for local government officials for parental leave, which uh would continue to come in for a more consistent approach across the province. Because what normally happens here for a cabinet minister, and over 50% of uh this government's cabinet ministers are women, which is a huge celebration. What normally happens is they have a brief leave and someone else covers off for them. And so, you know, as we talked about, there's a really slim majority here in DC. So the legislature goes until the end of May, possibly a little bit into June if it gets extended, then it's got a break until October. So with these slim majorities, administers are, you know, sort of have that pressure to get back and and to be back on the job for votes. So there's gonna be, you know, a high pressure situation during some good news. There was um the very impressive uh had Darlene Rochford, who comes from the labor movement, elected in the last election, made a lot of news because with the slim majority, and there was a really important confidence vote on the budget, managed to get on virtually and vote for the budget last year, six hours after giving birth. And and knowing Darlene, I know there was nothing that was gonna stop her from doing that.

Tom Parkin 56:31

No, no pain too too much to bear to get in there and vote, I guess.

Nikki Hill 56:35

No, not for Darlene Ratchford. So but you know, I think um a lot of people's response to was that uh as much of a force as she is, it would be great to see our elected officials be able to take that parental leave that we fight for for other people as well. And so, you know, big love to those new young new democrats coming from the cabinet members who are pregnant. But I think we'd really love to see where we get to a time where they get that leave and and some of those rights that other people get when they're taking parental leave that they're fighting for for others.

Tom Parkin 57:05

Yeah, it's it's an interesting problem as we discussed last week. It's you know, being an MLA, you're you're a representative. So it that there's kind of two forces tearing. One is yeah, you are a worker and you're you're working, and some of them work pretty damn hard, thankfully. Um but on the other hand, they're elected and they're they're elected to do a job. So there is a tension there and uh finding your way through it. Not I guess, well, we haven't found it yet.

Nikki Hill 57:29

But no, not yet. Not yet. Not yet, and not with slim majorities, probably in the near future. But yeah.

Tom: loving watching conservatives defend grocery prices

Nikki Hill 57:38

Okay, Tom, what are you loving or heaving this week?

Tom Parkin 57:41

Uh well Nikki, ever since we started this podcast, I've been harping on about food prices and that there's something systemically wrong. So I am loving seeing conservatives lose their minds and show their collective uselessness as some key new Democrats across the country start to advance some ideas about how we make food cheap again. Uh, a couple months ago, you raised uh Premier Wad Canoe launching an investigation into the causes of rising grocery costs and possible solutions. We've also recently talked about how a few weeks ago Mayor Olivia Chow in Toronto City Council directed the city administration to investigate if a public grocery store model could be created to help control prices. Federal NDP leader Avi Lewis has been on the issue and the emerging problem of so-called predatory pricing that we talked about at the top of the show, which is when companies track your data and then use it to increase the checkout price, just you know, special, special for you. Um last month, the Canoe government in Manitoba tabled a bill to outlaw predatory pricing. And uh last week, Ontario NDP leader Mart Stiles pushed something similar, asked Doug Ford to adopt what uh his good friend Wob uh has done, has has done. But um the other part of this is I am also just loving watching the conservatives lose their mind about this whole thing. Last week, Doug Ford condemned Toronto's move on groceries and opposed Marit's predatory pricing proposal, but really no reason why. Like except it's socialism, you know. Um no explanation. AM Talk hosts and Globe Mail editorials have also taken similarly content-free, highly ideological opposition. And and what I particularly love about their lick splittled hysteria is just how much it sells the very idea that they're trying to defeat. Like I said last week, we don't know if a different way of doing things can be better at keeping food prices in check. But I think we can say with certainty that the conservative opposition even taking a look and them tying themselves to the boat anchor claim that what's going on today is the market working as it should. Well, that is reason enough to keep pressing, keep investigating, and keep showing who's on the side of Canadians buying the groceries and who's not.

Nikki Hill 1:00:08

Yeah. Well, and I think like it's it's this pivot point too. You know, one thing we didn't talk about is is BC in in in the midst of all of um the reconciliation discussions also brought in a task force around looking at the impacts of the war in the Middle East on British Columbia and pushing Canada as well. So interesting where it's like seeing jurisdictions saying, okay, we understand there are going to be impacts on people and businesses and and how do we get ahead of them? And I think that's where the public appetite is right now. Like they can feel that impact on their pocketbook, telling them that there's nothing to see here and no, your your grocery prices are fine if if somebody's changing them on you. Uh, I don't think is actually on the right track with where the public is feeling the pressures for their families.

Tom Parkin 1:00:52

No, I mean I don't think the public feels that big tech and big grocery stores are on their side at all and trying to help them. I think the general feeling is the they're trying to use we're trying to use our own data against us to screw us. And that's uh just an overwhelming feeling right now. So um anyway, well, you know, anyway, it's good to see people tackling this thing and trying to put some ideas forward. And I think I think the New Democrats are um gonna get some traction if they uh They looks like it, yeah. Yeah. Well, on this kind of stuff.

Nikki Hill 1:01:22

So Yeah, traction and also it's amazing to watch some of the conservatives just walk right into it. So there we go. It's great.

Tom Parkin 1:01:28

I love that part the best. Okay,

Thank you!

Tom Parkin 1:01:31

that's our show for this week. But uh Nikki will be back next Monday with uh Canadian Labor Congress President B. Brusk, who will talk about her next steps uh as delegates to the CLC Convention Gather in Winnipeg for Monday, May the 11th.

Nikki Hill 1:01:48

Looking forward to it.

Tom Parkin 1:01:49

Okay, have a great week.

Speaker 1:01:53

Thanks for joining Left East to West with hosts Nikki Hill and Tom Parker. We'd love to hear your comments, ratings, follows, and shares. It helps people find us. To become a Left East to West community member and to help us reach even more Canadians, subscribe using the link in the show notes. You can watch us on YouTube or listen wherever you get your favorite podcasts. Just search for Left East to West and subscribe. I'm Doug Hamilton signing off for Left East to West. We'll see you next week.