Speaker:

Greetings, friends. My name is Jess McLean, and I'm here to provide you with some blueprints

Speaker:

of disruption. This weekly podcast is dedicated to amplifying the work of activists, examining

Speaker:

power structures, and sharing the success stories from the grassroots. Through these discussions,

Speaker:

we hope to provide folks with the tools and the inspiration they need to start to dismantle

Speaker:

capitalism, decolonize our spaces, and bring about the political revolution that we know

Speaker:

we need. All right, well, Ashwin. is back in the studio. That must mean we're talking about

Speaker:

we're shit talking about Kearney again. I'm sure. Yeah, I'm sure he's got lots to contribute.

Speaker:

But for some reason, I thought with this budget on the table about to be passed or not passed,

Speaker:

we have yet to unpack it. And who better to do it with me than the same person we unpacked

Speaker:

Kearney's first 100 days. Welcome back to the studio. Do you want to say hello to the audience

Speaker:

before we start going through the numbers? Sure. Thanks for having me again, Jessa. It's a pleasure

Speaker:

to do this. uh Yeah, we did some serious work some time ago to really parse through Carney's

Speaker:

policies some time ago. um And I guess now we're sort of doing an appraisal of that. um And

Speaker:

yeah, I guess just for the audience, hi, I'm Ashwin. uh host of the International Solidarity

Speaker:

Podcast, which you can find on YouTube, Spotify, Apple podcasts. We'll link all of that as well

Speaker:

in the show notes, depending on where you're listening from. Yes, I'm excited to do this

Speaker:

with you. I actually this morning was going through the actual budget. It's this big, long

Speaker:

PDF, uh lots of glossy photos, tables. And, you know, I was surprised at what they were

Speaker:

willing to put in print. I think people would also be surprised some of the language that

Speaker:

they use. I mean, it's not that far off from the throne speech nonsense and some of the

Speaker:

other speeches we've heard Carney give and the promises that he's made, but just to appear

Speaker:

in a budget document. You'll see what I mean as we kind of go through the knot section by

Speaker:

section. I could go line by line. I told you that this morning. was like, it is enraging,

Speaker:

to be honest, when you go through the details. if you went line by line, there is a discussion

Speaker:

to be had about all of these choices that they've decided to make. So, mean, like broad sweeps,

Speaker:

you're looking at $141 billion in new spending, and the Conservatives will definitely be pointing

Speaker:

out, and are, that that means a $78 billion deficit. So this is the only sticking point

Speaker:

Conservatives have. because everything else is just yummy yummy yummy. ah It is everything

Speaker:

they ever dreamed of. is military spending. It is stronger borders. It is fewer spending

Speaker:

on the public realm, right? They talk about public sector jobs as being some sort of disease

Speaker:

almost, like they've spread and inflated over the years and we've got to stop that and...

Speaker:

uh you know, it's a very, very, very right-leaning budget. So, ah I think people need to know

Speaker:

the details though because a lot of the feedback we're getting from the talking heads, like

Speaker:

the leaders, even the progressive leaders, is rhetoric, right? They're right. It is a

Speaker:

billionaire's budget and it does almost nothing for the working class except give us austerity,

Speaker:

but the devil is in the details, as they say, yeah? Yeah, well, I mean, Definitely concerning.

Speaker:

lot of similar things that we did talk about uh in our last episode. A major focus on,

Speaker:

okay, three things, I guess. A major focus on military spending or so-called defense.

Speaker:

That's one of the biggest things there. I think what will also concern a lot of people

Speaker:

is the cutting back on green spending in different domains. There's a lot to say about that.

Speaker:

I've been thinking about the question of ecological transition, climate change a lot more these

Speaker:

days. And we're really seeing sort of a divergence. Not to get too much into this right now, but

Speaker:

you can sort of see, or at least I would see, and I think a lot would agree with me, 2019

Speaker:

as sort of a high watermark of the climate movement. that's when this was really taken up in the

Speaker:

mainstream. Greta Thunberg movement and all this kind of stuff and where the liberal elite

Speaker:

would sort of score points off of recognizing climate change at a minimum as opposed to their

Speaker:

conservative opponents. These days, in the post-COVID, post-2020 era, there's been a lot,

Speaker:

let's just say there's been a lot more convergence between the liberal center and the right

Speaker:

on the climate issue. In the global south, it's a different story, Like maybe we can get into

Speaker:

this later, but China is really sort of leading the role on the question of green transition.

Speaker:

You know, those are the two things so far, military and green spending. And then the third thing,

Speaker:

which is related to sort of this, this cutting back on the green agenda is, uh you know, it

Speaker:

started with Carney's bill C5, but you know, the, there's a continued push to expand. uh

Speaker:

energy and infrastructure projects. And obviously, you know, this is relying on Canada's existing

Speaker:

strengths, which are in fossil fuels. So uh whatever uncertainty came up with uh the US

Speaker:

tariffs, they're looking to make up for it and try to, guess, de-risk from that or de-risk

Speaker:

those sectors of the economy by boosting spending and boosting, uh you know, fast tracking infrastructure

Speaker:

and energy projects, trying to get, you know, energy products to new market, that kind of

Speaker:

thing. So those three things are sort of, you know, top of mind for me. There's a lot of

Speaker:

other stuff. mean, you know, immigration uh is a big issue and, you know, we can get to

Speaker:

that. uh Healthcare spending, public service spending. I'm starting to get into these, but

Speaker:

uh yeah. So maybe I'll leave it at that and pass it back to you, Jessa. One of the things

Speaker:

I'm gonna, sorry, I would be remiss if didn't correct you on your post-COVID comment, because

Speaker:

we are yet to be post-COVID, but. Yes. Yeah. I find, I think when it comes to Carney and

Speaker:

when people started lapping up Carney at the beginning, we're very excited, right? We were

Speaker:

lamenting on that even a hundred days in. going, why, why are you still excited about a banker

Speaker:

winning? But one of the things was his apparent commitment to climate change, right? If they

Speaker:

had read the book, they had drank the Kool-Aid and they thought at least he would be a leader

Speaker:

here, right? And that's sometimes what sets the liberals apart from the conservatives if

Speaker:

they will tell us that they are climate champions, at least, rather than denying it. But the

Speaker:

spending here is uh anything but. ah I also wanted to, know, folks, I read it so you didn't

Speaker:

have to, but unfortunately I'm going to reread some of it back to you because it's like red

Speaker:

flags. The entire budget opens with the kind of language, the whole budget is peppered with

Speaker:

this language of fear. So the priority has shifted from being this green energy leader to just

Speaker:

being an energy leader and a weapons manufacturer leader and in all the worst sectors possible,

Speaker:

a resource extraction, like trying to find new resources that we've not yet dug up yet,

Speaker:

you know, to be competitive with. it's just, it's quite horrifying. Nothing kind of says

Speaker:

it more than the opening line, Sarah, where it says, world is changing profoundly and in

Speaker:

real time. We are no longer living in an era of calm, but of significant change. The nexus

Speaker:

between energy security, economic security, and national security is clearer than ever.

Speaker:

And I mean, the writing isn't bad. uh And it really does sum up the entire budget where

Speaker:

they will try to defend almost everything they do and tie it back to national security. You

Speaker:

know, even in the comments where we're tightening our belts, every department is going to have

Speaker:

to find savings, there is a giant disclaimer, except of course, for those that are protecting

Speaker:

our sovereignty and our borders, right? And so, Yeah, they keep doing this. They'll do

Speaker:

it throughout when they're talking about the border, when they're talking about military

Speaker:

spending, even when they're talking about being competitive in taxation. And they make specific

Speaker:

reference to Russian aggression when they open up the section on military spending and ensuring

Speaker:

Ukrainian sovereignty. That is in the very first paragraph of where they go on to explain why

Speaker:

they're going to spend 89 billion dollars on our military. It is that paradigm shift.

Speaker:

Now we have the dollars and cents to prove it. They are putting the money behind all of that

Speaker:

nationalist military talk. I guess that goes hand in hand, Jessa, with Ukraine becoming

Speaker:

the uh 14th province of Canada. don't know if you've seen in, obviously this is in jest,

Speaker:

but I have been spared, obviously. in many city halls, you know, now alongside all the

Speaker:

provincial flags, at least is the case in Ottawa, they fly the Ukraine flag. oh hence Ukraine,

Speaker:

the 14th province. But yes, you know, national security around Russia and things fear-mongering

Speaker:

about that. Just wanted to chime in there. Go ahead. Sorry. No, that's exactly it. seems

Speaker:

to be this, it's become this, it's apolitical. Like it's mentioned in the budget as though

Speaker:

it is like our own sovereignty. Like it is, it goes hand in hand with that introduction

Speaker:

on military spending and being accountable to our allies, right? And increasing our GDP

Speaker:

spending. So let's talk about the military spending a little bit. They say $89 million.

Speaker:

What does it all mean? It's spread up all over the place, but he was quick to meet his promise

Speaker:

on NATO spending, right? He got us to 2 % faster than he said he would. There's a few other

Speaker:

promises he made on the campaign trail that you can nitpick on. Really just like he didn't

Speaker:

invest as much as he said, otherwise he's kept all his promises, but NATO, he's trying to

Speaker:

impress them over there. That military spending is also very important to Trump. And so there's

Speaker:

a lot of concessions in this budget that you'll see that are clear concessions to Trump, including

Speaker:

the money spent at the border. you know, yeah, so the $81 billion has earmarked to the military.

Speaker:

He's already spent $10 billion. I mean, he just started this. He hit the ground running.

Speaker:

Some folks will, I have in my comments going, well, the military's working class. He's spending

Speaker:

$20 billion raising their salaries and improving their healthcare. that is a stretch. don't

Speaker:

know if you want to hit on that at all Ashwin, but yeah, it will be well-trained. we say that

Speaker:

there was $141 billion in total of new spending in this budget? Is that right? That's correct.

Speaker:

Okay. So in that case, you know, if we're spending 81.8, let's say $82 billion in new spending

Speaker:

over the next ah five years, and that's what's earmarked in this budget, that's more than

Speaker:

50 % of the new spending in this budget. That's, you know, by rough calculation, almost 60 %

Speaker:

of the new spending in this budget. So that's really concerning. And then at the same time,

Speaker:

guess, you know, we can and we should continue to focus on military spending. and the implications

Speaker:

of that, there's a lot to say about that. I also think it's, we can't see that in isolation,

Speaker:

this new spending on military from, in isolation from, you know, the cuts in other parts of

Speaker:

the budget, right? So there are, you know, uh most public service departments are seeing

Speaker:

a 15 % budget cut, okay? And that's obviously, you know, with the exception of the Department

Speaker:

of National Defense, the RCMP, the CBSA, okay, nightmare blunt rotation. ah And then, you

Speaker:

know, in addition, uh you know, the Department of Women and Gender Equality, if I'm not wrong,

Speaker:

and Indigenous Services and Crown Indigenous Affairs have also been spared of these 15 %

Speaker:

cuts. But that's explicitly following, and this was reported by the breach, explicitly following,

Speaker:

um you know, uh protests and discontent and resistance posed by those uh groups and social

Speaker:

movements over the summer. So So, mean, yeah, so the military spending comes directly at

Speaker:

the expense of public services and, you know, workers in the public service. There's more

Speaker:

to say on that about how that sort of, what impact that's going to have on the labor movement.

Speaker:

That, you know, that is certainly an interesting question. Jess, I don't want to go on too long.

Speaker:

I wanted to see if you had anything to say at this point. Oh, no, that's why I invited you

Speaker:

here. But, you know, when we're talking about the military spending as well, I think it's

Speaker:

important to include the fact that, you know, he's bolstering up the border and he's just

Speaker:

kind of generating a whole lot of, like a different mentality. I think I thought I would get a

Speaker:

lot more support when I pointed out online the level of military spending. And I was astonished

Speaker:

at the amount of people, even leftists, who would argue, you know, we're going to have

Speaker:

to be able to defend ourselves. This is part of arming the working class. There wasn't as

Speaker:

much pushback. Did someone actually say that? It's part of arming the working class. Oh,

Speaker:

Jesus Christ. Sorry, go ahead. Yeah, like that these who do you think is in the military?

Speaker:

Like those are working class people. And it's like, We don't control the military. We're

Speaker:

nowhere near anything like that. This is not what it'll be used for. We're an imperialist

Speaker:

nation and it'll be used for those ends and they're almost as clear as much when they're

Speaker:

telling you in this budget where they're looking to be ready to deploy. Like they're talking

Speaker:

about the Middle East and they're talking about fighting Russia. At no point are they actually

Speaker:

even talking about like really protecting Canadians. You know, they don't they It's such a fucking

Speaker:

stretch, the arguments for it, but the point is like, yeah, this first budget is supposed

Speaker:

to be also a litmus test of like how much we're going to push back on it. And my fear is

Speaker:

the same thing that we pointed out when the election was on that none of the parties really

Speaker:

objected to increased military spending when they were campaigning. They all had it in.

Speaker:

their campaigns, just varying levels of increased military spending. And it's like the be all

Speaker:

end all. One thing to point out as well is Carney's not just, you know, buying new submarines and

Speaker:

jets and, you know, preparing us for battle or defense, sorry, Department of Defense.

Speaker:

But he is creating a military industrial complex. He, you know, we're talking about just like

Speaker:

billions of dollars is going into so at least we can make these fighter jets at home. And

Speaker:

again, you'll get pushback from folks like, well, these will be unionized jobs. And they

Speaker:

use that language in the budget. You know, this is how many jobs it'll create every time we

Speaker:

do this, that, and the other thing. And it's like, well, that's true. They will get well-paying

Speaker:

jobs. Some of the money there is earmarked to increase the salaries of folks in the military,

Speaker:

workers. So it's, I'm afraid that they've been able to write this budget in a way that

Speaker:

it's appealing just enough to people that they're not as shocked perhaps as you and I are of

Speaker:

how detrimental this is going to be, right? Like, and what this sets the tone for. So.

Speaker:

They want to build a military industrial complex. There is a department that they're going to

Speaker:

create specifically to make sure that these companies don't have any red tape, that the

Speaker:

procurement process is streamlined, that they are more integrated with the armed forces,

Speaker:

right? These private military or weapons manufacturers are more integrated with our own military.

Speaker:

First thing I thought when I read that uh was about the, I thought to the arms embargo.

Speaker:

And it helped explain the such resistance the liberals have been to actually realizing a

Speaker:

real arms embargo, you know, with no loopholes. And now you know why, because their whole budget

Speaker:

is really framed around growing that industry, right? Where we would have liked to seen a

Speaker:

uh green new deal, A shift to green energy, be leaders in some clean industries. ah But

Speaker:

instead, the whole theme is, manufacturers are going to make bank. Some infrastructure

Speaker:

companies for sure will, there's a lot of investments going into infrastructure, building ports and

Speaker:

whatnot. And there will be construction jobs to be had, but I'm worried people won't see

Speaker:

the danger in all of it. Maybe you can help highlight some of the detriments here. Yeah,

Speaker:

I maybe want to start by coming back to the idea that the Canadian military is working

Speaker:

class. And you know, it might be, right? Like there are a lot of incentives for folks to

Speaker:

join um the armed forces in one way or another, right? You certainly get um benefits that

Speaker:

aren't, you know, provided as public goods such as education, etc. and health care to the vast

Speaker:

majority of Canadians. That's how they sort of recruit people. you pointed out like the

Speaker:

working class is not in charge of the Canadian military. Canada is probably not even in charge

Speaker:

of the Canadian military. mean, I've heard from and you know, I say that with a bit of exaggeration

Speaker:

because you know, I've heard from at least one person who, you know, has been in the military

Speaker:

and has worked sort of joint operations with the US military, is not uncommon. uh Canada

Speaker:

and the US collaborate in NORAD and of course in NATO and all this kind of stuff. And uh

Speaker:

that person talks about what that working relationship is like with the US military and it's complete

Speaker:

subordination. It's complete subordination on the Canadian side. so there needs to be further

Speaker:

sort of clarification on this. uh Canadians, I think, have you know, less of an idea of

Speaker:

what role the Canadian military plays in the broader world, right? There are themes of peacekeeping

Speaker:

and all this kind of stuff, but that sort of obscures uh the little brother role that uh

Speaker:

Canada plays alongside the US in maintaining empire and maintaining, uh you know, US led

Speaker:

imperialism on a world scale. Canada is really, you know, a supporting character in that. It's

Speaker:

a subordinate supporting character in that. Um, you know, almost entirely serving us

Speaker:

interests, right? I mean, you can't even compare, uh, you know, a country like Canada of one

Speaker:

10th, population, um, of the U S and so the U S really sees Canada as strategic because

Speaker:

it's it's Northern buffer, right? The people, the population, you know, can be hand waved

Speaker:

away, but, um, Canadian military presence, you know, north of, uh, the continental us

Speaker:

and of course, alongside Alaska. That's of strategic importance to the US and increasingly

Speaker:

so um with the melting of um glaciers in the Arctic, uh opening up new shipping routes

Speaker:

that are posed to primarily advantage uh commerce in China and in Russia. The Arctic uh sea

Speaker:

route opens up new trade routes between China and Europe in particular. That's a particular

Speaker:

concern. to the US, the US uh and the West more broadly, but the US wants to keep Europe within

Speaker:

its orbit and resist as much as it can Eurasian integration. That's also part of what the

Speaker:

Ukraine-Russia war is about. I'm sort of going in all sorts of directions here, but two more

Speaker:

things, I guess. When it comes to uh defense spending and things like that, like the thing,

Speaker:

and I'm very concerned that people supposedly on the left are, you know, are can be neutral

Speaker:

to this or even cheer this on. But defense spending in Canada, most of that is going to U.S. weapons

Speaker:

companies, right? And Trump, you know, around the world has been has been trying to get people

Speaker:

to to to, you know, uh to buy more U.S. weaponry because he's he's also a spokesperson for that

Speaker:

industry. Right. And a lot of manufacture weapons manufacturing in Canada as well. A good percentage

Speaker:

of it is uh our branch plans of US weapons companies. uh you know, that's not to say

Speaker:

that we should have our own sovereign imperialist, you know, weapons manufacturing at all. uh

Speaker:

a lot of this defense spending, even when we think of the the 82 billion dollars in new

Speaker:

spending in this budget, a lot of that is going straight to, you know, American companies when,

Speaker:

you know, at a time when supposedly Mark Carney was elected to go against the US and there's

Speaker:

a lot of popular sentiment against the US. And I think rightfully so. you know, Carney's acting

Speaker:

uh in sort of direct opposition to the popular sentiment and to what, you know, people want.

Speaker:

And the last thing I'll say on, you know, supporting the so-called Canadian military is that, uh

Speaker:

you know, it's not about Canadian defense. It's not about working class interests, okay?

Speaker:

If the Canadian military is primarily an appendage to and, you know, in supportive of US led

Speaker:

imperialism around the world, that is no friend of the working class in Canada. Because,

Speaker:

and this is, this is a really important point. And those of us on the left or otherwise need

Speaker:

to sort of wrap our heads around this. There is no, we cannot afford division between the

Speaker:

working classes in the West and the vast masses of the oppressed people in the global South.

Speaker:

that division is, you know, it's a fatal one. It only uh benefits the ruling class, the

Speaker:

transnational Western capitalist elite. And here's the reason why the Western working class,

Speaker:

the, you know, sorry, the Western ruling class, okay, whether that's in the US or in Europe

Speaker:

or in Canada. And, you know, obviously, uh you know, they've been increasingly interlinked

Speaker:

since the neoliberal period. They draw their strength from uh continuing to suppress wages

Speaker:

uh in the global south and to wage war and destruction in the global south. That cheapens the labor

Speaker:

in the global south. That cheapens the raw materials, the inputs, you know, for their production

Speaker:

in the global south, you know. And so the destruction of the rest of the world by war making is really

Speaker:

where our ruling classes draw their strength from. And so that's the connection. If the

Speaker:

working class sees its class enemies as the Canadian ruling class and political elites,

Speaker:

the American, the Western ruling class, where do you think it draws their strength from?

Speaker:

It draws their strength from suppressing popular discontent and popular revolt in the global

Speaker:

South. the prime example of this is in West Asia. We cannot divorce. the genocide in Palestine,

Speaker:

uh you know, from working class struggles in the imperial core in the West because, you

Speaker:

know, the destruction of people is there and the destruction of uh societies in West Asia

Speaker:

from being able to rebuild themselves, to build sovereign capacity, that directly, uh you know,

Speaker:

benefits and continues the reproduction of the Western ruling class. And that's why...

Speaker:

nationalist sentiment and the elbows up movements, you know, is such a problem, right? Because,

Speaker:

and it's happened in the labor union over and over again, where, you know, Canadian workers

Speaker:

are needing to be, you know, distinguished beyond American workers. And it helps build a real

Speaker:

nationalist insular uh mentality where Canada first. And so That's how they will pave the

Speaker:

way for a lot of these policies. You know, the defense spending seems obvious, right? Defend

Speaker:

our nation and our sovereignty. But even in the pipelines and all of these national interest

Speaker:

projects, right? They're framing them as though they are something that the working class

Speaker:

absolutely needs, the Canadian working class, and will benefit from. And the reality is not

Speaker:

just that, obviously, the rich will just get richer because none of these things are passed

Speaker:

down to us. ah But also that most of these pipelines are owned by American companies as

Speaker:

well. So even though you're saying you're fast tracking these in order to make us more independent

Speaker:

financially, as well as militarily, which you've just debunked, it's completely bogus. It's

Speaker:

all bogus, right? None of it is aimed at protecting Canadians. just because we brought up the

Speaker:

pipelines, it's worth kind of maybe talking a little bit more about the climate spending

Speaker:

or lack of. It should have been in my big ticket items. I've kind of separated my notes into

Speaker:

big ticket items and cuts. And this definitely falls under fucking cuts. Their departments

Speaker:

were gutted for the most part and will probably continue to be, but it's the amount of money

Speaker:

and infrastructure spending that is earmarked for ports. It's all basically for LNG. extraction

Speaker:

and shipping and exporting, right? As well as resource extraction. I mean like two billion

Speaker:

dollars just to, you know, again like I said start finding new gems, new resources to

Speaker:

mine. And one of the things I think that it's a thing I don't think much many people

Speaker:

will pay attention to because it's kind of you have to read the line items and kind of go

Speaker:

into the little details. But It seems to be a turning point where Carney is less interested

Speaker:

in stopping climate catastrophe as to maybe uh preparing for it. And that's the language

Speaker:

that they use in the budget. It's like they talk about being prepared for natural disasters.

Speaker:

They don't actually really link it to the fact that those will increase due to climate change,

Speaker:

but that we need to be more prepared for them. But then if you look in the line by line items,

Speaker:

the only thing that they have or will spend in the next four years is $258 million on

Speaker:

leasing four planes for four years that will help fight forest fires. And then they will,

Speaker:

they haven't earmarked any money for it, but tell their departments to start working with

Speaker:

insurance companies to better prepare them and find out what they need so that they won't

Speaker:

go insolvent during these years of heightened natural disasters. And So that's a quarter

Speaker:

of a billion dollars spent on preparing the whole entire country to face what we know

Speaker:

is going to be more heat domes, more flooding, more impacts from hurricanes. I mean, I'm

Speaker:

missing some, I'm sure, you know, the impacts that we're going to feel, the forest fires

Speaker:

and whatnot. But they put no money behind it at all. And on top of that, you know, they've

Speaker:

cut environmental services and this red tape, whenever you see red tape throughout that budget,

Speaker:

means environmental testing, means labor laws, it means all these codes that people have

Speaker:

worked to mitigate the impacts of capital on the land. Or, you know, things that slow down

Speaker:

a project are usually things that are done for safety or environmental purposes and like

Speaker:

the realities that you face. m you know, it's uh at all cost kind of mentality. Absolutely.

Speaker:

And um this is increasingly like how our governments respond to crisis, I think really tell us a

Speaker:

lot. saw how it was with COVID, you know, that was a disaster. It continues to be a disaster.

Speaker:

There's no, you know, tracing mechanism. They stopped collecting the data for God's sake

Speaker:

on that, which is ridiculous. I mean, other parts in the world, more sane parts in the

Speaker:

world, right? In ah Asia, I know, in East Asia and Southeast Asia, this continues to be the

Speaker:

case where at least you track it, at least there are still numbers that you can find on

Speaker:

it anyway. But it's the same thing with the climate crisis, right? And increasingly, I

Speaker:

think, for those of us that consider ourselves socialists, this is something we need to keep

Speaker:

front of mind where we see the forces of capital ah versus the forces of progress being increasingly

Speaker:

bifurcated on the climate question, right? Climate and our response to ecological crisis is really

Speaker:

what's going to define the battle between moving towards socialism or staying in a kind of dead

Speaker:

zombie walking capitalism. Yeah, I could say more, but Jess, go ahead. Well, I think one

Speaker:

of the things that kind of points to that is like, the obvious gifts he's giving to big

Speaker:

oil and gas in the budget where it's just like it's a clear signal to them. For example, folks

Speaker:

worked for years to it for a greenwashing legislation. It was to limit the kind of advertisements

Speaker:

that big oil and gas and other industries could put out that really misled people as to how

Speaker:

green those energies really were. LNG, you know, is still fighting that fight, but it's

Speaker:

not even a budget item. It didn't cost them. It didn't save them. They didn't save any money

Speaker:

by undoing it. And they just gave that to the industry. So they're open to just start bombarding

Speaker:

us again with all of these ads like we're seeing from Ford. Everyone's so worried about Ford's

Speaker:

ad about tariffs, but what about the one he has about the Ring of Fire? Where he's basically

Speaker:

saying the only way to save Ontario is to completely strip the Ring of Fire, know, parts of Northern

Speaker:

Ontario, Indigenous land of natural resources, right? And uh he's going to get a hand here

Speaker:

in the budget too from Kearney. He's promised to help with that. Of all of the campaign

Speaker:

promises I think that he made, he followed through on, this is one where a lot of people

Speaker:

will feel misled. And if there is going to be any pushback on the budget, I would think it

Speaker:

would be around these green items, unfortunately. Like I would love the anti-war movement to

Speaker:

be like, what the fuck, you know, like, and rise up and really push back on this imperialist

Speaker:

agenda. But the Climate crisis uh folks, uh climate justice folks, are the ones who kind

Speaker:

of probably held the sway of balance in the last election that held hope that Carney would

Speaker:

have done something. Unfortunately, the Greens, with only one MP, they're not going to hold

Speaker:

sway on this budget too much and May has waffled back and forth. You know, she originally came

Speaker:

out and said, absolutely not. Like, this is nothing. They've pushed the emissions commitments

Speaker:

back to 2050. 2050. know, complete undoing of all the promises like even liberals have

Speaker:

ever made. And uh so I don't know where she's standing now because a lot of the parties

Speaker:

seem to think that they could spend this one week or two weeks from seeing the budget to

Speaker:

the vote to try to wheel and deal. Like I imagine they were trying to wheel and deal the entire

Speaker:

time, but this is what he came out with. And I think it's a farce that they're kind of coming

Speaker:

to us and pretending that they could somehow negotiate with the liberals and make amendments

Speaker:

that would somehow change the entire theme of this budget, right? Which is basically cut

Speaker:

from every fucking department, cut from the environment and spend it on war. And I know

Speaker:

some people are pointing out bright spots. Like I have some of them, I gave them some credit

Speaker:

where credit was due, but then I look back at them. Like the housing, the whole build Canada

Speaker:

homes that people are really excited about. We need fucking homes, we need affordable homes.

Speaker:

He wants, you know, they're like these prefabricated, made in Canada homes that you can critique

Speaker:

or not. It's not the point. They've earmarked $13 billion for that. Well, that sounds like

Speaker:

a lot. Only when you compare it to the fact that they're spending $19 billion just on training

Speaker:

the military and better ammunition facilities, like better ammunition training facilities,

Speaker:

19 billion versus 13 billion for fucking homes, homes. And then they're taking 300 million

Speaker:

from the health transfers to the province when none of us can get an appointment. It's

Speaker:

two years for any specialist appointment. And they thought now would be a good time to cut

Speaker:

from health care so that we could spend $20 billion on making sure that army cadets are

Speaker:

better paid and incentivized to join the armed forces. Like there's some such glaring deliberate

Speaker:

choices. And I'm wondering what the masses will react like, because we've had a week and

Speaker:

I've not seen a whole lot of pushback. The pushback to this budget might come from the climate

Speaker:

folks and not as much from, you know, the anti-military folks or the anti-imperialist kind of movement.

Speaker:

And I think, you know, that sort of speaks to, you know, needing to increasingly connect

Speaker:

those two, you know, in our movements on the ground and to take, you know, to, I guess not

Speaker:

seed. the ground on, I guess, environmental consciousness, climate change, and the need

Speaker:

for ecological transition to the center, to the liberals, uh small-l liberals, right?

Speaker:

We sort of have to take that up as well on our side, uh more than usual. But do we think military

Speaker:

spending and war-making is green? What do we think the impact of greater military spending,

Speaker:

greater war-making, even think about these planes, okay, there's... a lot to say about

Speaker:

the Gaza genocide, okay, massive destruction. uh Imagine all the cement and concrete of

Speaker:

the buildings destroyed, what that does in terms of leaching into the ground. Also, we

Speaker:

can't think of the environment as outside and humans as uh separate from that. The whole

Speaker:

point, the whole understanding of ecology is sort of a relational uh aspect between, we

Speaker:

are, environment. We are nature, okay? Like, you know, we are part of the ecosystem. And

Speaker:

so when we talk about ecocide in Gaza, for example, like, obviously, that includes the people as

Speaker:

well. Like, that is a climate change, or I guess that's not climate change, but that is

Speaker:

an ecological concern. So, you know, I guess what I'm trying to do here is draw, you know,

Speaker:

connections between, you know, being anti-war and being anti-imperialist in specific and,

Speaker:

you know, the environmental or ecological justice uh side of things. uh And so what I was going

Speaker:

to say even before that is even think about one of these F-35s or one these planes that

Speaker:

has to fly over Gaza, you know, or the drones that continue to buzz. uh You know, how much

Speaker:

in the case of the planes, how much fuel does that take? You know, and then they did that

Speaker:

constantly every single day for two years. I mean, you know, yeah, and obviously, so

Speaker:

that's why I prefaced it in that way. That's not to, you know, diminish the human lives

Speaker:

lost, but even if you think about the most remote and isolated example of a military plane flying,

Speaker:

as if the fuel doesn't come from somewhere and is not being burnt and contributing Maybe

Speaker:

it's LNG fuel, so it's cleaner. Yeah, there you And it's Canadian, Ridiculous. And so

Speaker:

there really needs to be a greater connection on this. And I think the one thing I'll say

Speaker:

on this is because also it's top of mind in the news. I'll try to be brief on this, guess,

Speaker:

so we can move on. those of us on the left, I think, need to critically rethink uh our

Speaker:

understanding of other parts of the world, get to know the global South better, but in particular,

Speaker:

China. we cannot accept at face value what we've been told by our own media, the same

Speaker:

media that has lied to us for more than two years about the Gaza genocide. We can't expect

Speaker:

to believe all the same things that they tell us about China. I'll keep my, I guess, remarks

Speaker:

uh restricted to ecological transition as it relates to China, right? And I said this is

Speaker:

top of mind in the news because of the EV tariffs, okay? Like China, in addition to being a leader

Speaker:

in the renewables, renewable energy sector, battery manufacturing, in other sort of green

Speaker:

sectors, it's now the world leader of uh electric vehicles. And sure, we know that electric vehicles

Speaker:

are not the solution to everything in Canada. We'll have to reorient our urban and suburban

Speaker:

spaces around public transit for it to be sustainable. There's arguments around degrowth. All of

Speaker:

that aside for a moment. China has really developed its EV production capacity. mean, we've always

Speaker:

been familiar with the US uh auto companies, the German auto companies, the Japanese and

Speaker:

the Korean auto companies. Now, the biggest auto manufacturer in the world uh is China.

Speaker:

a uh good portion of that is EVs and an increasing portion of that is EVs now. And why is it

Speaker:

that out of US national security concerns, they've blocked Chinese EVs from entering the US market.

Speaker:

So we have to do that as well. We can't have Canadians According to Carnian, course, according

Speaker:

to Big Boss, the US, Canadians shouldn't have cheap electric vehicles that we hopefully

Speaker:

no longer have to pump gas into. We'll lessen the cost of living. Think about how many cars

Speaker:

people cycle through over a certain year span, right? And all of them being gas guzzling.

Speaker:

um If you can have a high tech, sustainable and cheaper car that's EV, but it just so happens

Speaker:

to be Chinese, apparently we can't have that. You know, that's sort of the ongoing issue

Speaker:

uh being discussed between Canada and China. China's retaliated to Canada's tariffs on

Speaker:

China's EVs by China placing tariffs on a lot of canola products coming from Western Canada.

Speaker:

So there is a chance that, know, Carney might back down and back off of those tariffs on

Speaker:

Chinese EVs. That would be a good move. That would also be a move in Defiance of the US,

Speaker:

know, the US would likely not be be happy about that But you know, let's have that as a starting

Speaker:

point, right if we're so if we're so, you know Carney wants, you know Canada to be a leader

Speaker:

in clean energy or green energy that kind of why don't we start with that and and you know

Speaker:

coming back to what I said on on you know about the Western left, know the the left in the

Speaker:

West and the left in Canada needs to reorient around China like a lot of us are not even

Speaker:

familiar around like the pace of change in China is so fast that a lot of us haven't been able

Speaker:

to grapple with the fact that there are real strides being made in green transition in

Speaker:

terms of technology, in terms of manufacturing, that if we're serious, if we're serious about

Speaker:

green transition in Canada, and we know that the capitalists are not, right, because their

Speaker:

source of strength is oil and gas. That's one of the major sectors in Canada. But if we're

Speaker:

serious as working people, as the popular forces in Canada about green transition, There should

Speaker:

be some talk about greater cooperation with China. Otherwise, what are we going to manufacture

Speaker:

from start? Our own green technology, our own green energy, our own, you know, Canadian

Speaker:

made and Canadian branded EVs. Are we going to do that? Doesn't seem like it in the next,

Speaker:

you know, couple of years. So, you know, this budget, not with this budget. And so there's

Speaker:

a there's a major need to sort of rethink the our understanding and relationship with

Speaker:

China, particularly on the green question. Carney's budget does talk a little bit about exporting

Speaker:

food and, you know, taking our energy out to market, but it's really, I think, a lost opportunity

Speaker:

considering what he thinks his mandate is, right? But all in all, he always, he ran as and

Speaker:

is now ruling as really a conservative. And so, you know. China, China, China, they have

Speaker:

to play a certain villain role. Russia is playing that very role in order to facilitate this

Speaker:

type of spending. Before we kind of get into, you know, we'll speculate on where we think

Speaker:

this budget is going to drop in terms of the vote and a little bit of the reactions that

Speaker:

we've been getting, I'm gonna skim through another, just a couple of the line items.

Speaker:

$1.7 billion to hire more RCMP officers. This was always promised. It's not a surprise. Another

Speaker:

$90 million just to make sure their cadets are paid more as well. Now this is earmarked under

Speaker:

the border security hoopla in the budget, but you can bet your bottom dollar will be used

Speaker:

to make sure that those national uh interest projects are safe from protesters and indigenous

Speaker:

land offenders. ah That is notoriously what they're used for. And since we know that those

Speaker:

are ramping up, you know, with $51 billion in infrastructure, ah they're not clear on the

Speaker:

details of that infrastructure spending, although it does include ports, roads, transit. There's

Speaker:

uh a high speed rail, Quebec to Toronto, that they're going to speed up in terms of building.

Speaker:

But you can bet again, a lot of that infrastructure spending is going to go towards facilitating

Speaker:

those projects. Right? That the ports are not for travelers. Those ports are for goods for

Speaker:

the most part. And, um, I have a feeling even the investments to the meteor, meteorological,

Speaker:

meteor. I knew this would give me trouble. No, that's it. Meteorological. Thank you.

Speaker:

Uh, agency in Canada. They are getting like one point something billion dollars and I have

Speaker:

feeling that's just like better radar and satellite. That we'll know the big storms are coming

Speaker:

em and any possible Russian jets. other terms of big line items that benefit us, there's

Speaker:

almost none. again, unless you count those housing dollars, but that's a pittance compared to

Speaker:

what the cities need, what the provinces need in order to build these houses. You know, we're

Speaker:

talking about, this is a federal budget that's supposed to go right across the country. and

Speaker:

then one big thing we did an episode about, they're spending a billion dollars on an AI

Speaker:

fund. So this is something Carney's very passionate about. He's willing to, it's not as much money

Speaker:

as he promised he would spend on it. but he's saying he's gonna get a lot of private investors.

Speaker:

So we know he's just absolutely intertwined with this industry and he's going to use it

Speaker:

to facilitate more layoffs in the federal, in the public sector. I'll link to the episode

Speaker:

and all the reasons why that's not a great idea. We don't have time to unpack that right now.

Speaker:

um But tax cuts also, you know, this is a line item that it counts under spending, it's lost

Speaker:

revenue. Ashwin, he's not even going to tax luxury yacht sales. Like, tell me you are...

Speaker:

That was not necessary. No, it's like the greenwashing legislation. You could do other things under

Speaker:

the table that would benefit the Westons of the world that we would never even really know

Speaker:

about. That would mean serious digging and number crunching and like tax rebates and like they

Speaker:

can get their money. But this is openly telling Canadians to start worshipping billionaires

Speaker:

again or that he is of that class and like we will not tax them. They will not have to pay

Speaker:

for this. We are going to entice people to come, you know, be tax competitive as though

Speaker:

billionaires will flock here and that's a good thing. um But yeah, so middle class tax cuts,

Speaker:

people might start to get really excited about that. You know, we're running a giant deficit.

Speaker:

But we're also offering tax cuts at the same time. I know, you know, it's expensive living.

Speaker:

We can't afford shit. But you know, the people who can't afford shit are going to save like

Speaker:

$20 a year on those tax cuts. The people who make like $300k a year, they're going to save

Speaker:

a lot more. So again, even the things that seem to look like tiny little green flags, they're

Speaker:

really not. And like, I hate being that person, but all of that eventually comes out of the

Speaker:

services. we used to rely on. I don't know if anybody relies on them anymore. And there's

Speaker:

absolutely no money earmarked for the disability benefit to increase over the next four years.

Speaker:

we've got money for the CBC and Eurovision. I'm not a hater of CBC, but they are getting

Speaker:

a big influx of funding. And they're just greenwashing a genocide as well. uh Eurovision

Speaker:

is being considered, but not another dollar for disabled folks and less money for healthcare.

Speaker:

So I don't know how the conservatives are talking about not voting for this. That's what you

Speaker:

guys love deficits. Don't lie. I was just going to quickly say Eurovision. That thing is, is

Speaker:

actually insane. Like, are we part of Europe? Like, do we want to, you know, and again, why

Speaker:

can't we exactly. that's what I was coming to. Like this is just a, a plain old racist kind

Speaker:

of thing, right? Like the Israelis are European, the Canadians are European, you know, like,

Speaker:

I mean, you know. Western vision. Yeah, there you go. And if, you know, I guess, you know,

Speaker:

don't hide it. That's OK. You know, better for us to to to see the truth. Why would Canada?

Speaker:

Anyway, that was a passing comment. They are. They're saying the quiet parts out loud now.

Speaker:

They don't care. Yeah. Yeah. They just don't care. Other kind of cuts just other cuts that

Speaker:

people should know about, you when we say public sector layoffs, we're talking 40,000 jobs,

Speaker:

mostly unionized, well paying benefit jobs, that we're talking like that's more than 10

Speaker:

% of the workforce. uh That's huge. One story that you know, will link the podcast for the

Speaker:

breach or the the transcript, whatever folks will consume there. But Martin Lukacs relayed

Speaker:

an interesting story that I'm just going to quickly recap for folks because I think it

Speaker:

spoke volumes that, you there's already been lot of layoffs at Public Health Agency of

Speaker:

Canada and they're facing more the same kind of cutoffs, the 15 % across the board. They're

Speaker:

going to be heavily hit, which is crazy in a time like these. However, they showed up

Speaker:

to work the other day to see a job fair in the lobby of their building where they worked,

Speaker:

a single employer job fair. And I asked my partner, I go and know, I've been ranting about

Speaker:

the budget and I go, who do you think the employer was that was enticing them to leave their job

Speaker:

or, go elsewhere? And he just looks at me, the military. Nice, you got it right. call

Speaker:

it the Department of Defense here. We don't call it Department of War just yet, but yes,

Speaker:

yes. So like, if nothing screams paradigm shift, then, hey, nurses, pick up a gun. know, who

Speaker:

needs healthcare workers, who needs doctors, we're going to start training our bureaucrats

Speaker:

so they can fire straighter and we're going to give them better bullets. And somehow that's

Speaker:

going to help your daily lives because the Russians are coming. And I can't make this up. Like

Speaker:

you, you could go and read it 400 pages yourself, but quite literally that's what it says.

Speaker:

I mean, I'm paraphrasing obviously, but it's, it's, it's just, um, it's quite something.

Speaker:

It's quite something. And it seems like none of the parties really like it, but still the

Speaker:

vibe seems to be that it's good. They're all gonna, it's gonna pass. Do you want to speculate

Speaker:

or do you? What will happen likely Monday? We were, we were talking about this like before

Speaker:

hitting record. And honestly, I'm not so sure. mean, there are things sort of seem to be in

Speaker:

place in terms of, you know, how, you know, In addition to the Liberals, there are two

Speaker:

other votes that are needed, but if all the other parties are already in place, unless

Speaker:

something sort of changes, then I don't know, I'm not sure. I know. So, yeah, May, it doesn't

Speaker:

matter what she does, not really, unless there's another floater somewhere. This is a confidence

Speaker:

vote for folks who just took at the lay of the land. That means if this budget doesn't pass,

Speaker:

we go to an election. All right. And, the NDP, you know, they're arguing publicly and whether

Speaker:

or not this is true, but they're $23 million in debt. They do not want to go to an election.

Speaker:

They probably won't even be eligible for certain loans because they're not official party status.

Speaker:

They're counting on rebates coming back from the last election. But as far as I know, they

Speaker:

did not hit the threshold in most of the writings and they sure as hell didn't hit it nationally.

Speaker:

So don't know how many rebates they're actually going to get. And those rebates should actually

Speaker:

go back to the locals who spent the money and need to spend it again if they do call for

Speaker:

an election or vote no. Saying what I've said, it's hard to imagine that the Workers' Party

Speaker:

or the most progressive choice would vote for this or even abstain, but... Don Davies, he's

Speaker:

the interim leader for the NDP right now. And like he went online on his social media feed

Speaker:

and already started bragging about some local spending that was in the budget for his writing

Speaker:

of Filipino Community Center. And he did an entire video like announcing it, like celebrating

Speaker:

it and taking credit for it. So he had been in discussion in regards to the budget and

Speaker:

seemed to got what he was asking for, right? Then they had a chance to vote down the budget

Speaker:

in that back and forth that they do in the House with amendments. Conservatives asked for an

Speaker:

amendment after Polio fucked up and he didn't even get to do his amendment first, but who

Speaker:

cares about that. But either way, they finally did make an amendment. If it passed, it would

Speaker:

mean that the budget did not, um and they voted it that down. So the media started reporting,

Speaker:

it looks like the NDP. are gonna support the liberal budget after all and Don Davies came

Speaker:

out and said, no, we haven't decided that yet. They're gonna be in a caucus retreat, I guess

Speaker:

like as we speak over the weekend here and it's gonna be something we're all holding

Speaker:

our breath for. The conservatives say they will not support it. They absolutely won't support

Speaker:

it. So it is like these two votes, although, you know, the reason they only need two votes

Speaker:

is because an MP immediately saw this. this budget and cross the floor. He loved it so

Speaker:

much. um, whether that happens again, whether they fail to whip the conservative vote, who

Speaker:

knows? Who knows if the conservatives would want to go to an election with Pierre PouliƩ

Speaker:

at this point, the way he's being received, uh, he's, you know, just fucking up all over

Speaker:

the place. He's not very, doesn't seem very popular, struggled to even get his writing

Speaker:

in the first place. And it's Nobody seems election ready at this point. And if everything they

Speaker:

say is true, all this fear mongering and we're, ready for a Russian invasion and the Americans

Speaker:

are just wreaking havoc with our economy and there's fentanyl streaming over the border

Speaker:

that needs to be stopped right now, then like, is that the environment to send it to an election?

Speaker:

Can you go back to your base and explain why we're going to go back to the polls again?

Speaker:

That would be a bit of a tough sell. So I mean, if I were to hedge my bets today and perhaps

Speaker:

look like a fool next week when folks are listening to this, I would say it does pass for the

Speaker:

reasons that, you know, almost everyone campaigned on a lot of this to begin with. It's not that

Speaker:

far of a stretch from the shift we started to see during the election. You know, maybe we

Speaker:

just wanted to come back to the stuff in the budget regarding immigration and refugees

Speaker:

and That's that, you there are provisions in this budget to cut the number of refugees

Speaker:

coming in. That's, know, it's interesting as a side note that, you know, I'm seeing a lot

Speaker:

more anti refugee, you know, I mean, I guess anti migrant more broadly, but anti refugee

Speaker:

and specific rhetoric, you know, you hear here and there that, you know, the refugees, they're

Speaker:

getting so many benefits from the government. What do I get that kind of thing? um You know,

Speaker:

I would say to those folks, you're looking in the wrong place. Look at your boss. Look

Speaker:

at, you know, the companies that employ you. Look at, you know, uh how much you have to

Speaker:

pay at the grocery store and those people who have monopolies, right? The Westons of this

Speaker:

world that are ripping you off anyway. So they're cutting, uh you know, the number of refugee,

Speaker:

the refugee intake. They're also cutting in half international students coming to Canada.

Speaker:

And I think they are uh cutting in half as well. the number of permanent residents that

Speaker:

are admitted. And these are some things that I maybe briefly want to talk about with international

Speaker:

students. It's interesting. The international student economy, which I've written about to

Speaker:

some extent, has really been an exploitative scheme that is essentially a wealth transfer

Speaker:

from the global south and India in particular to Canada. At one point, I think in 2023, uh,

Speaker:

something like two thirds or 60 something percent of, um, uh, post-secondary, uh, post-secondary

Speaker:

institutions operating income in Ontario was coming not from international students more

Speaker:

broadly, but specifically Indian international students. I mean, that is ridiculous. of course

Speaker:

that know, that's right. That's right. And, you know, you know, they, they essentially

Speaker:

collect rents off of, you know, super high unregulated international tuition rates. with those super

Speaker:

high international tuition rates, what they do is reinvest that into marketing schemes

Speaker:

in places like India and other global south countries to attract people. And, you know,

Speaker:

a lot of these students are ripped off by uh by these recruitment agents as well, not to

Speaker:

mention when they get here. uh But the thing about the international student economy is

Speaker:

that it created like sort of a hyper precaritized because of everything that I'm saying about

Speaker:

the cost of tuition, about the cost of travel, about the cost of living here, it created

Speaker:

a hyper-precaritized underclass of workers that we would see everywhere in the essential sectors

Speaker:

of the economy. So what's going to happen now that the international uh student tap is being

Speaker:

halved? There are two things. One, who's going to do... uh It's interesting to see where

Speaker:

uh labor is going to come from. In these most fundamental sectors of the economy, you can

Speaker:

obviously think of Tim Hortons, can think of others, restaurant and services, uh logistics,

Speaker:

trucking, this kind of stuff. uh But you can also think of what's gonna happen to the universities

Speaker:

and post-secondary education because for the past at least a decade, and certainly more

Speaker:

than that, as post-secondary institutions uh across the country have been receiving less

Speaker:

and less provincial funding. what they've been doing instead is ramping up how much they

Speaker:

charge international students, their international tuition rates. So international tuition rates

Speaker:

have been, or international tuition has uh been increasingly making up a greater share of the

Speaker:

revenues that post-secondary institutions uh generate. And so essentially when you cut the

Speaker:

number of international students in half, uh that directly impacts the operating budgets

Speaker:

of post-secondary institutions. Are the provincial governments going to come in and fill in that

Speaker:

gap? Obviously not. So what's going to happen to uh post-secondary education? So this is

Speaker:

another terrain on which uh struggles can be waged. Why is it that we rely on people from

Speaker:

the global south to fund our uh public services? Quite literally, there's a term for that. It's

Speaker:

called social imperialism, where you get social services by doing the imperialism. The other

Speaker:

thing is with PR cuts, Permanent residencies are, you know, is being cut in half. I'd maybe

Speaker:

just like to quickly read a bit of the statement from the Migrant Rights Network. You know,

Speaker:

this is their, uh you know, their response to uh Carney's budget. So I'm just gonna read

Speaker:

here, quote, by not increasing permanent residency targets, Budget 2025 continues to deny rights

Speaker:

and protections to the people who sustain our communities and who are already living and

Speaker:

working here." Unquote. I want to read another line, but that's an important point. With international

Speaker:

students, you're cutting the tap or you're halving the tap. so, you know, the number of people

Speaker:

coming in is half. But with permanent residency, these people are already here. In a lot of

Speaker:

cases, they've met their requirements and they've just been waiting. I know people personally

Speaker:

over the past years They've been in this pool waiting, they've met the requirements, they're

Speaker:

contributing to the economy. Unlike what a lot of people say, they're paying their taxes.

Speaker:

If you spend money on a Tim Hortons coffee, you're paying taxes in this country, okay?

Speaker:

So, they're here, they're contributing to the economy and yet the number of PR spots is continuing

Speaker:

to shrink, which means a lot of these people are going to have to return back to wherever

Speaker:

they had come from. And I know several people who are- already been in this case, people

Speaker:

that were that are in my community that were close to me that they never ended up getting

Speaker:

PR and their current visa, you know, is essential was going to expire or had expired already.

Speaker:

And that that gives people two choices. Either you have to go back and restart your life elsewhere

Speaker:

as you know, as is the case with some people that I know, or you go underground and you

Speaker:

become undocumented, which is uh even worse. So just reading another section of the statement,

Speaker:

uh quote, while permanent residency targets remain at 380,000. This represents only a fraction

Speaker:

of the 3 million people currently residing in Canada on temporary permits. The vast majority

Speaker:

are excluded from equal rights and protections because they do not have PR, permanent residency,

Speaker:

creating a two tier system that facilitates labor exploitation. Rent inflation went up

Speaker:

4.5 % year over year, despite a massive reduction in study permits in 2023 and 2024. but the

Speaker:

federal government continues to cut study permit spots further. So three million people in,

Speaker:

know, having temporary permits in a pool chasing less than half a million permanent residency

Speaker:

targets. that's, ah you know, that's a crime, that's atrocious. And it leaves the people

Speaker:

remaining open to higher levels of exploitation. So they try to frame this as international

Speaker:

students were also getting not a fair deal in terms of the educations they were getting

Speaker:

and the money that they were spending. And they'll frame it often as they're trying to

Speaker:

prevent this exploitation when in fact they're just making it easier. I can't remember if

Speaker:

you mentioned it or not, but it was also a 10,000 cut in the amount of refugees coming here.

Speaker:

That should enrage folks as well, not for the reason that there's so many more instances

Speaker:

around the globe where refugees are being created. usually through complicity or direct action

Speaker:

from Canada in terms of, you know, our resource extraction projects and our participation

Speaker:

in what's going on in Palestine and whatnot. But they are the United States. So the United

Speaker:

States has almost completely cut off the ability to apply as a refugee there. They're taking

Speaker:

almost only white South Africans, I kid you not, and they are openly hostile to all. migrants

Speaker:

in their borders with what's going on with ICE. And at this point, rather than opening

Speaker:

our doors and saying, you know, come here and contribute to our communities, uh we are closing

Speaker:

our doors as well. And Europe is doing the same thing. You can only imagine what this

Speaker:

is going to mean for folks that are trying to flee economic, climate and military disasters

Speaker:

at home. So There's a lot of red lines in this budget that should be enough for a party

Speaker:

like the NDP. I can't speak for the other one's pieces. You know, like I don't expect the

Speaker:

conservatives to do anything noble, but the NDP, there's seven of them. There's not much

Speaker:

to lose at this point, right? Yes, another election would probably bankroll them, but like there's

Speaker:

zero principles existing here within. within the party, within the whole legislature at

Speaker:

this point. So like who will stand up for refugees and migrants? Apparently nobody, because nobody

Speaker:

has flagged that as a major concern. Who's gonna stand against the imperialist machine

Speaker:

that Carney's creating and the industrial complex? Like nobody seems all that bothered by that

Speaker:

either. You know, they are focusing on important things like the fact that oil and gas will

Speaker:

still be subsidized or, you know, have subsidies. And there's projects that are gonna go through

Speaker:

unceded territory that will be a detriment to our entire environment. But none of these

Speaker:

seem to be red lines. don't see any party, one party holding on to anything or really

Speaker:

highlighting anything that's critical. Like the Bloc is talking about Quebec's not in

Speaker:

the budget. um It's a big disappointment, I think, watching folks wrangle around. the

Speaker:

budget and the possible votes, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. um I want to read

Speaker:

a statement. Migrant Rights Network are always on top of it. And uh you read some great quotes.

Speaker:

The Wilderness Committee did a great breakdown of the climate policies and the impacts versus

Speaker:

the promises that had been made. But one of their quotes, I think, sums up the budget really

Speaker:

well. It says it reads like a war plan against people and the planet. And I don't think there's

Speaker:

any other better way to describe what that is. And I would have thought a lot more people

Speaker:

would have just rejected it outright. You know, even I guess just I think this is a moment

Speaker:

this should signal to us, you know, the need to get to higher stages of organizing to, you

Speaker:

know, ramp up our uh resistance to to measures like this to show opposition. mean, obviously

Speaker:

it works right when. You know, the capitalists, they're very organized, right? Like the oil

Speaker:

and gas sector and all this kind of stuff. And of course, you know, it's a different story

Speaker:

with them. have institutional access, they have resources, all this kind of stuff. So that's

Speaker:

sort of what we're up against. But this really does show the greater need for organizing

Speaker:

around these key elements, right? There are so many cuts to public goods, right? uh We

Speaker:

didn't even talk about how even the fact that there's no, you know, barely any spending

Speaker:

on new social goods, that means already a kind of effective cut because of inflation, right?

Speaker:

The prices of things have gone up. So obviously if there's not more money in the budget to

Speaker:

account for that inflation, then if the effective social services being provided is actually

Speaker:

being clawed back. and following up on the immigration thing, in a lot of Western countries,

Speaker:

including Canada, much of the economy, much of the fundamental sectors of the economy are

Speaker:

run by immigrant labor. And so what is the move here on the part of Carney? you know, so essentially

Speaker:

you have a right-wing backlash against immigration. uh The economy is bad. Housing is bad. you

Speaker:

know, quote unquote Canadians uh turn, turn against uh immigrants and scapegoat immigrants.

Speaker:

Carney then responds by reducing immigration, which is you know, our pool of cheap labor

Speaker:

in Canada, which then, you know, continues to pose a danger to the Canadian economy by shrinking

Speaker:

it, right? That makes the economy worse, which then, you know, feeds the cycle again, you

Speaker:

know, that sort of just just feeds the cycle of scapegoating immigrants or whomever else

Speaker:

wants more, it strengthens the right. The other thing I want to say is that the cutting of

Speaker:

public, you know, public servants and public sector jobs, that's Very important too, because

Speaker:

that's sort of the bulk of the labor movement in Canada is in the public sector. So if you

Speaker:

cut those jobs, you're essentially undercutting and undermining as well by proxy the labor

Speaker:

movement in Canada. And then the last thing I want to say is at the beginning, you talked

Speaker:

about how this is really a right. And throughout, this is really a right wing agenda. Supposedly,

Speaker:

the conservatives should actually be happy with a budget like this. um And that is the liberals

Speaker:

trying to undercut the conservatives and try to stake out their ground. That's going to

Speaker:

force the conservatives to move further to the right. And of course, this is still a neoliberal

Speaker:

budget, i.e. that these are still massive handouts to the capitalist class and to the elite while

Speaker:

uh drying up and clawing back uh from regular people, making life less affordable to live

Speaker:

for regular people. uh what's that gonna do? That's going to create a lot more disaffection.

Speaker:

That's going to strengthen the right. When you've had a liberal government now for, since 2015,

Speaker:

up till the present 10 years, um that's going to induce, so we're in for an even bigger

Speaker:

kind of rightward shift. So the rightward shift alongside the undermining of the labor movement

Speaker:

via cuts to the public sector via, or in addition to, you know, the cuts in immigration that

Speaker:

then shrinks our economy. These are in addition to the cuts to healthcare, uh other cuts here

Speaker:

and there. This is really sort of uh bringing us to close to a breaking point. we, uh as

Speaker:

the left and as the multiracial kind of working class, we need to have a sense of what the

Speaker:

road ahead is for us. the exact kinds of things that we should be responding to and what is

Speaker:

the organizational infrastructure thus needed to respond to that? For me, it's hard to imagine

Speaker:

that it lay in electoral politics, you know, seeing what we're seeing with the amount of

Speaker:

energy that we need to expend in order to get anywhere. I mean, even talking about those

Speaker:

departments that were able to stave off the 15 % budget. by like massively organizing and

Speaker:

backroom dealing, whatever happened there. Like they're still facing cuts like exactly

Speaker:

like you explained. And it's thinking of the conservatives having to go further right.

Speaker:

Particularly, I start to imagine if we went to an election, right, if this budget is voted

Speaker:

down. And then we had to watch the liberals and the conservatives then out campaign each

Speaker:

other again to the right, right? And it just starts to get worse and worse. And then I

Speaker:

start finding myself, do I start cheering for this budget? Could it be worse than this budget?

Speaker:

And I obviously could always be worse. mean, the breach again made a great point there

Speaker:

that we'll steal from them. But quite often the first budget isn't the most shocking budget.

Speaker:

Anyone in Ontario knows this to be true. uh Doug Ford's budgets have gotten worse and worse

Speaker:

every year. So, you know, the amount of pushback that they face right now, not just online

Speaker:

items, right? Like, not just like, oh, well, can you include a little bit of spending on

Speaker:

this and then I can consider supporting it? No, like go back to that wilderness committee

Speaker:

quote, like this says something and it's the wrong something. It's so far from the type

Speaker:

of messaging and narrative and focus even on the economy that we actually need that any

Speaker:

politician worth their salt should be doing everything to shut it down. But also this just

Speaker:

adds another thing for the movements to have to tackle. And I can understand why maybe

Speaker:

folks aren't spending a whole lot of energy specifically on the budget. because it's just

Speaker:

kind of like part of a larger problem that, you know, we're facing from all levels of politicians,

Speaker:

uh increased austerity and kind of a technocratic rule. it is the trend across Canadian politics,

Speaker:

global politics, as much as we like to separate ourselves from the South. although I don't

Speaker:

look forward, I definitely don't want to cover another election. Please, please, no. Um,

Speaker:

I mean, even covering the NDP leadership race a little bit has, has been just shaking my

Speaker:

head. But the one thing I did want to say. And folks are always assuming I'm with Eve's

Speaker:

campaign. He came on the show. I defend his right to, you know, play shenanigans with NDP

Speaker:

brass. Like the more they fuck with them, the happier I am. Honestly, I care not if you follow

Speaker:

the rules, like at all, obviously, like the podcast, but the fact that. When he came on

Speaker:

the show, he was adamant to me. mean, the messaging has shifted a little bit, but he's like, look,

Speaker:

I don't think I'm going to win. I don't even think they'll let me in the race. I want to

Speaker:

make sure we are challenging imperialism. I don't think anybody out there is going to make

Speaker:

a big enough deal about what Carney's about to do about this shift in military spending

Speaker:

and aggression that Canada is going to be contributing to. and I want to be at least that one voice.

Speaker:

Like if there's any way to bring this issue to the federal level, like on a national level,

Speaker:

or people are paying attention, then I'm going to use this opportunity. And the fact that

Speaker:

anybody now looking back at what this budget is doing, like stealing from folks to pay for

Speaker:

the military, and you can't give any credit to that campaign for trying to do that, while

Speaker:

watching all the other ones just talk the same lines over and over again about how they're

Speaker:

just going to center working class people and yet that means nothing. Some of them are coming

Speaker:

out with policies and whatnot but not one of them has even attempted to beat into this massive

Speaker:

paradigm shift that's clearly happening in front of us, right? You think little piecemeal things

Speaker:

and nationalized grocers. Well that's fucking great but with what money and under what circumstances

Speaker:

was this rise of fascism and this massive increase in militarism? You know what I mean? Like that

Speaker:

is an issue that you just can't pretend is not going away. And I think because they don't

Speaker:

know where a lot of Canadians sit, we're not seeing enough people challenge that, right?

Speaker:

They're typical politicians weighing cost benefit analysis. And where Eve is just like, I don't

Speaker:

give a fuck. I don't give a fuck. Like you don't like me, obviously I've lost you anyway. This

Speaker:

is what I'm going to talk about over and over and over again until you all pay attention.

Speaker:

And um I wish that his campaign had been taken a little bit more seriously, or maybe he had

Speaker:

gotten in the race like officially earlier. I'm not like coming down on their strategy

Speaker:

at all, but just that is missing from the conversation. And if there was ever really value for, you

Speaker:

know, the NDP now, it would be to be at least that lone voice against this shift, right?

Speaker:

A clear voice, even if it meant losing first. Because I think like not that I want many

Speaker:

people flocking to you, but it would help build the base back up, right? Like to stand out

Speaker:

with some sense of principle, something different. The same way the conservatives will try to

Speaker:

be like, no, we are far more right-wing than that. I mean, they're going to be fucking stretched

Speaker:

to find another dollar to spend on things that they would rather, right? Like what they would

Speaker:

make greater cuts to the health transfers. um Good luck with that. So yeah, it's um... It's

Speaker:

a telling time for Canadian politics. And I think it would be a good time to have somebody

Speaker:

really stand a front to this rather than let it just, I think it'll be kind of a non-event.

Speaker:

It's going to pass next week and that will be our new reality of spending for four years.

Speaker:

And we're fucked. Like that's, I'm sitting at the kitchen table reading through this line,

Speaker:

especially the climate. And I'm like, we're fucked. We're fucked. They're not even going

Speaker:

to prepare anybody for floods or fight like nothing. They're like, We will have soldiers.

Speaker:

We'll have more soldiers. We're fucked in one way, but I always I never want to because I

Speaker:

feel like in the West we're we're already so like blackpilled and we're already so, you

Speaker:

know, pessimistic about stuff. And I don't I also don't want that to drive us into complacency

Speaker:

because, you know, there is a role that we can play and we don't have a choice. We have

Speaker:

to organize against this. And there are wins, right? I mean, even just the small wins that

Speaker:

we mentioned about the you know, the mobilization against 15 % budget cuts at the Department

Speaker:

of, you know, the Department for Women and Gender Equality and, you know, Indigenous

Speaker:

services, that shows that, you know, there is a certain level of agency that can exercise,

Speaker:

that can be exercised by us, by the masses, uh and we should use that. And the way we use

Speaker:

that is by better organizing and, you know, uh being more effective in our organizing.

Speaker:

And so that's really the task uh ahead, you know, and this is you know, we have to, you

Speaker:

know, in our organizations and our, you know, understanding of things, we have to uh resist

Speaker:

the capitalist timeline, which is, oh, what's gonna happen tomorrow? And what's gonna happen

Speaker:

the day after and the next quarter, but we have to, you know, look ahead a couple of years,

Speaker:

right? The healthcare cuts are starting 2028, or, you know, they really take their impact,

Speaker:

you know, by the end of the decade 2030. So we should have some sense of what, you know,

Speaker:

what life for regular working people will look like by then and construct our horizons for

Speaker:

organizing around that. And of course there are challenges with that, there are immediate

Speaker:

challenges, but um yeah, we need to get to work, I guess. Absolutely. The only thing we

Speaker:

can do is use the conditions that we have uh to our benefit. This should be a time where

Speaker:

the movements could coalesce with each other. They've all been screwed in this budget. And

Speaker:

on top of that, you have you know, his promises to crack down on hate speech. And we know what

Speaker:

that really means. If you've listened to the show, it means dissent. And he's promised,

Speaker:

you know, a clear way for these projects to go through, which means cracking down on the

Speaker:

environmental movements, the climate justice movements, seeing them as a threat to the national

Speaker:

interest and framing them as such. And so, yeah, if there was ever a time to just morph all

Speaker:

of the movements into one the way that folks attempted to do withdraw the line or are attempting

Speaker:

to do withdraw the line where you know our enemies are common the issues are varied and the legislation

Speaker:

we need and the changes we need are kind of all over the place it's a laundry list but

Speaker:

the one thing the shortest list of all is like our list of enemies right it is capital it

Speaker:

is industry it is imperialism I know I just said three things, but it's really all the

Speaker:

same thing, right? And so getting people to stop punching down is, you know, a start in

Speaker:

terms of organizing, right? Finding a way for people to punch up tenant organizing is a great

Speaker:

example of that where there is a clear enemy for folks to mobilize around. Sometimes it's

Speaker:

not always so clear cut. So, but carny, we could just put a face on it for now. It could just

Speaker:

be carny. And his banker buddies, Peter Thiel, uh is starting to get demonized uh deservingly.

Speaker:

So we'll have a few more faces to add to the Weston wall of shame of oligarchs and technocrats

Speaker:

that gotta go along with their ideas. That is a wrap on another episode of Blueprints

Speaker:

of Disruption. Thank you for joining us. Also, a very big thank you to the producer of our

Speaker:

show, Santiago Jaluc Quintero. Blueprints of Disruption is an independent production operated

Speaker:

cooperatively. You can follow us on Twitter at BPEofDisruption. If you'd like to help us

Speaker:

continue disrupting the status quo, please share our content. And if you have the means, consider

Speaker:

becoming a patron. Not only does our support come from the progressive community, so does

Speaker:

our content. So reach out to us and let us know what or who we should be amplifying. So until

Speaker:

next time, keep disrupting.