Need to Know: Growing crime is a growing problem for Carney

But I wouldn’t bet on it. When Poilievre explicitly said he would use it to fix our criminal justice system during the election, Carney called it a “dangerous step” that would send Canada down “a slippery slope.” If/when a prime minister ever uses it, expect our pundit and academic class to frame it as the end of democracy in Canada. Crime is not going away as a political issue, and the Conservatives are making a smart bet on this. Carney may have signalled the right things on this, but at some point, he will have to deliver on these promises. Fixing bail may be easier said than done for Carney, and Poilievre is smart to continue to hammer on this issue. How conservatives can actually empower Canadian workers By Falice Chin, The Hub’s senior Alberta producer Conservatives are right to recognize why unions are tempting allies. As Bryce McRae argued recently, they train the trades, build our infrastructure, and still command unusual public trust. But Sean Speer has cautioned that conservatives risk losing their way if they get too cozy. The truth is that unions are not always engines of progress. They are institutions built to resist change, and that backward pull draws out the worst from both the Left and the Right. Seniority clauses are the clearest example. Unions that enshrine the “last in, first out” principle end up protecting those already at the top of the ladder while forcing the youngest, newest workers out first. For the Left, that exposes a hypocrisy. Progressives often talk about overcoming systemic inequity like racism and sexism with a deliberate effort to recruit more women, immigrants, and people of colour. Yet those same new hires from “equity-seeking” groups are often the first to go in a mass layoff situation. It’s a wonder that unions still have such a grip on the Left. Perhaps it’s because, amid performative signalling on international issues—whether Palestine or climate justice—they keep their place on the Left’s side of the barricades. But strip away the banners, rules that entrench insiders and punish newcomers remain the same. For the Right, this system betrays meritocracy, rewarding time served rather than productivity. At a time when the Conservative Party of Canada is trying to appeal to “generation screwed,” it seems counterintuitive to embrace institutions that often make it harder for young Canadians to get ahead. Either way, regressiveness wins at the expense of opportunity. Unions also tend to flatten pay scales so that high-output workers and low-output workers are treated more or less the same. On the Left, this encourages complacency in the name of fairness. On the Right, it tempts politicians to tolerate mediocrity in exchange for labour peace. In both cases, the instinct to flatten smothers excellence and discourages innovation. On that point, unions resist new technology and workplace reforms that might threaten established workers. For the Left, this means clinging to a nostalgic vision of work even if it undermines their employers’ competitiveness and jobs (workers’ own self-interest) in the long run. For the Right, it means compromising on free enterprise and productivity in order to chase short-term wins. The pattern is consistent. Regressiveness locks in yesterday’s model at the cost of tomorrow’s prosperity. This instinct is no friend to either camp. And the real losers are taxpayers, consumers, and the very workers—especially the younger ones—who should be driving Canada’s future. Conservatives can empower workers by supporting: Open competition instead of closed tendering. Portable benefits and modern apprenticeships that empower individuals, not just insiders. Rewarding merit and productivity, not flattening output. Canada’s future depends on building, but it also depends on building smarter. Whoever wants to be in charge should back workers directly without fortifying regressive institutions. The Eby government’s big gamble on the union issue By Kirk LaPointe, The Hub’s B.C. correspondent  Frugality is not in the BC NDP playbook. Nor is alienating its union support. Yet here we are in this strange space. The B.C. General Employees’ Union (BCGEU) has long been a wide-breadth workhorse of public- and private-sector labour in the province. Health-care workers, corrections officers, clerks, wildfire crews, liquor and cannabis outlet staff, and lab technicians are among its diverse membership of 95,000. At a most serious juncture in economic circumstances, it finds itself in a sharp rift with the government of Premier David Eby, far apart on a contract settlement as a strike escalates. To no one’s surprise, the fault line is money. The province has been spending at historic levels, but has chosen the negotiations as the largest test case yet of its newfound “Balanced Measures Mandate” that it realizes it has long needed. It recently settled a contract with hospital workers that it hoped would serve as a model for these talks, but its wage offer to BCGEU (4.5 percent over two years) is a third of the union’s demands (which the government says amounts to 14.75 percent, considering cost-of-living adjustments). There are several proposed adjustments on the table, too. Inflation has cooled from its pandemic peaks, but cost-of-living pressures haven’t disappeared. Moreover, the Eby government has until now shown no sign of restraint. When it releases its next financial statement in October, it is expected to have the country’s highest per capita deficit, a new record for B.C. Maybe $15 billion, give or take a few. Much is made of the fact that Eby inherited a surplus as premier in 2022 from his predecessor, but he also inherited a treasury dented by pandemic supports, climate disasters, and the rising costs of health care and housing initiatives. His administration is also staring down expensive capital obligations in transit expansion, wastewater upgrades, and school builds that will tie government hands for years. And it has no particular prosperity plan—that, too, isn’t in the NDP playbook. Any contract that significantly lifts base wages for the BCGEU risks triggering a cascade of demands across the broader public sector. Teachers, nurses, and police are all watching. The strike has been targeted to date within sectors and regions, but will expand with time, and the pressure will also be a test case of the government. If Eby can demonstrate that his government can negotiate a prudent, disciplined agreement with a large bargaining unit, he sends a clear message to the rest. Otherwise, it’s the floodgates. Strangely, whereas the federal Conservatives have courted organized labour, the B.C. Conservatives have not. They are obviously conflicted in their concerns about provincial spending and hardly want to encourage large settlements, nor extend any olive branches to unions. But public opinion is to date on the union’s side. A recent Leger poll found that three-quarters believed it was reasonable to expect a settlement to keep up with the cost of living. Nearly double (37 percent, versus 19 percent) side with the union over the government. The last time the BCGEU flexed hard, it brought liquor distribution and wildfire readiness to the brink. An extensive strike in the current climate, when British Columbians are already sour about affordability and anxious about service levels, would put the government in a bind. This explains the government’s gamble. Eby is betting that ordinary British Columbians, though sympathetic to public workers, will side with fiscal prudence when framed against rising taxes, deficits, or cuts elsewhere. We are three years away from a scheduled election date, so there will be another negotiation before another vote. How Eby and the BCGEU navigate these talks will set the tone for years  of public-sector bargaining, and for the political fortunes of a premier who is learning that progressive ideals still run up against the arithmetic of a finite budget.