Monthly Archives: September 2020

Roundup: An address to the nation following the Throne Speech

Posted on by

It’s Speech from the Throne day, which is always exciting, though it’ll be a much sparser affair given the pandemic. What is stranger is the fact that prime minister Justin Trudeau plans to take to the airwaves in the evening, around 6:30 PM, apparently in a bid to talk about the urgency pandemic and the emerging second wave, because we’re back to exponential growth in new cases in four provinces. After all, last night in the UK, Boris Johnson gave a public address to announce a second lockdown was going to start, so 2020 is going really well.

Meanwhile, there still is no agreement among MPs on how voting will work once the new session begins, and it sounds like the test for the proposed remote system did not go very well. Currently the parties seem to have some kind of an accord on a rotation system, but Trudeau and the Liberals keep pushing for hybrid sittings and remote voting while the Conservatives (rightfully) remain skeptical. But nobody is talking about the most practical solution, which is sequestering MPs and creating a bubble around Parliament Hill for them. I mean, if the NHL can do it, why can’t MPs, given how much more important Parliament is than the hockey playoffs.

Speaking of the importance of Parliament, MPs from the Liberals and NDP are balking at the availability of priority testing for them and their families at that Gatineau clinic, insisting that they’ll take spots away from other people who need it in the long queues for tests. And then the Conservatives went ahead and used unapproved serological tests yesterday provided by a lobbyist who is trying to get Health Canada to approve them – never mind that these tests don’t determine current infections, but only the presence of antibodies from past infections. This while they howl for the government to approve more rapid tests, even though the truncated approval process in the US has meant that faulty tests got approved there, which Health Canada is trying to avoid.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A difference in Supreme Courts

Posted on by

There’s been a fair amount of chatter the past couple of days about how everyone on both sides of the border seemed to know who US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was, but most Canadians would have no idea who any members of our own Supreme Court are. While some blame this on American “media saturation,” I think it’s more than that (though media saturation is a factor). Rather, the partisan jockeying around the composition of the American Supreme Court means that there is far more investment in who is on the bench and what their ideological leanings are, coupled with a willingness on the part of that Court’s justices to become media figures.

The Supreme Court of Canada is largely devoid of the partisan balancing act of its American counterpart, and Canada’s relative lack of particularly conservative schools of legal thought means that we have a much more homogenous legal community, which finds for less polarization on the top court – though the McLachlin era of many unanimous decisions has largely come to an end and dissents are more frequent – which is not such a bad thing. This isn’t to say that our court isn’t political, because it is – it is very much a political actor in the Charter era – but it is generally not partisan in that regard. As for the willingness for celebrity, most Canadian Supreme Court justices eschew the limelight, and very rarely grant interviews (not the case in the US), though the new Chief Justice, Richard Wagner, is a little more open with media and has taken to holding a year-ending press conference every June, which has not happened before now. Nevertheless, those are some of the reasons why Canada’s court and its personalities are not media spectacles like they are in the US, and that’s really not such a bad thing.

Meanwhile, here’s a look at how the Supreme Court of Canada is adapting to ensure in-person sittings for the duration of the pandemic.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Turner and what has changed since

Posted on by

Former prime minister John Turner passed away over the weekend at age 91, and while you can read about his life here and here, for example, there were a couple of things I wanted to mention about his time in office. Thanks to the problems with the leadership selection processes in this country, Turner didn’t have a seat when he won the Liberal leadership and was sworn in as prime minister. He was only in office for eleven weeks, never meeting the House of Commons, and was defeated in an election shortly thereafter, though he did win a seat and stayed on as leader of the opposition for six years. Most of the tributes to him this weekend have not talked about his reputation for being “handsy,” barring the famous bottom-patting incident with party president Iona Campagnolo, though Susan Delacourt says that he was respectful and wasn’t patronizing to women reporters, who were still rare in the day.

What I think is most interesting, however, was that Turner fought an election in 1988 on the question of free trade, and Turner was bitterly opposed, saying that this would turn Canada into a colony of the United States, and that there would only be doom ahead. The then-Progressive Conservatives were the pro-trade party, and won the day with a majority parliament. Here we are a little over thirty years later, and the situations have reversed themselves – now it’s the Liberals who are champions of free trade and open markets, while the modern iteration of the Conservatives are turning into protectionists who are pushing a “Canada First” plan. It’s amazing how things can change so much in that long (particularly when parties abandon ideology for the sake of populism).

I also am curious how they plan to conduct a state funeral for Turner given the current pandemic restrictions. One supposes that they could have him lie in state within a space like the Sir John A Macdonald building on Parliament Hill, and that the funeral will be televised with a lot of people in masks, but it will no doubt be a challenge for all involved.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another brave demand for money without strings

Posted on by

Four nominally conservative premiers convened in Ottawa yesterday to once again bravely demand that the federal government give them more money for healthcare and infrastructure, and to not attach any strings to it. In total, they demanded at least $28 billion more per year for healthcare, $10 billion for infrastructure, and retroactive reforms to fiscal stabilization that would give Alberta another $6 billion. Of course, two of those premiers – Jason Kenney and Brian Pallister – were in the Harper government when health transfers were unilaterally cut, to which we must also offer the reminder that the numbers at the time show that provincial health spending was not rising nearly as fast as the health transfer escalator, which means that the money was going to other things, no matter how much the provinces denied it. As well, most provinces have not actually been spending the current infrastructure dollars that are on the table for one reason or another (some of which have been petty and spiteful), so why demand more when they already aren’t spending what’s there.

As for Alberta’s demand for retroactive fiscal stabilization, one should also add the caveat that the current formula asserts a certain amount of moral risk for provinces who rely too heavily on resource revenues for their provincial coffers – that they should be looking at other forms of revenue (like sales taxes) so that they aren’t so exposed to the vagaries of things like world oil prices. Retroactively changing the formula means that the federal government becomes their insurance for the risks they undertook on their own balance sheets, which hardly seems fair to the other provinces in confederation, who have to pay higher provincial taxes.

And then Kenney dropped this little claim:

This is patently untrue. The province still has tremendous fiscal capacity because they still have the highest per capita incomes in the country and the lowest taxation. Sure, that fiscal capacity has diminished, but not that much. The province’s deficit is a policy choice because they refuse to implement a modest sales tax that could actually pay for the services that Kenney is now in the process of slashing, having ordered up a report to tell him that they have a spending problem instead of a revenue problem. Err, and then he spent billions on a money-losing refinery and another pipeline that will actually make said refinery an even bigger money-loser. So no, the quality of healthcare in his province isn’t being jeopardized by the state of his economy – it’s because he won’t stabilize his revenues (and because he’s launching an ill-conceived war against the doctors in his province in the middle of a global pandemic, because he’s strategic like that).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Blaming the wrong government

Posted on by

It appears that Conservative leader Erin O’Toole has decided to use his need for a COVID-test after one of his staffers tested positive in order to be performative about the whole affair. Despite there being a dedicated testing services available to MPs and their families (because yes, Parliament is an essential service), O’Toole and family apparently opted to attempt the public route, which in Ottawa has been backed up for days because of a lack of testing capacity. O’Toole then put out a press release to blame the federal government – not for inadequate capacity, which is the domain of the provinces, and O’Toole couldn’t possibly be seen to criticize Doug Ford and his lack of appreciable action on the pandemic – but because rapid testing hasn’t been approved by the regulators at Health Canada. Hours later, Michelle Rempel, the new Conservative health critic, doubled down and demanded that Cabinet force Health Canada to work faster (and misusing an analogy about the bourgeoisie and “let them eat cake” in the process).

There are a couple of problems with O’Toole’s demands, and one is that Cabinet should be interfering in the work of a regulator, which sets up all kinds of bad precedents – you know, like the one the Conservatives set when they fired the nuclear safety regulator because she refused to restart a nuclear reactor during a crisis of isotope production. The other is that Health Canada has good reason not to approve these tests as they are, because they produce false negatives more often than the regular tests, and that creates a false sense of security among people who may be spreading the virus. “Oh, but the FDA approved it!” people say, ignoring that it’s an emergency approval that relies on self-reported results and not independently verified ones, which again, should be concerning – not to mention that infections in the US are still spreading rapidly. The fact that Health Canada is doing the job that the FDA didn’t shouldn’t mean that we’re “falling behind” – we’re doing the due diligence that they’re not.

As well, I’m not exactly mollified by the notion that O’Toole attempting the public route when he had an option available already because it’s the kind of performative “We’re like real people” nonsense – especially if it took a spot away from another local family who doesn’t have access to the private test that O’Toole did. It’s not heroic or setting a good example – it’s political theatre that could hurt other people in the process.

Continue reading →

Roundup: It’s all coming back to me now

Posted on by

As Jason Kenney continues his bellicose demands for a revival of the Energy East project, it seems that his arguments have a certain familiar ring to them. Wait for it…

Anyone who has paid any attention to the Energy East demands for the past few years will note that there is a definite NEP 2.0 sensibility to them – especially the notion that in the name of “energy security,” we should repurpose this pipeline/build a new segment to the port of Saint John, where there is a single refinery that can handle limited amounts of heavy crude, and that the Irvings should either be forced to accept said Alberta heavy crude at a cost of an additional $10/barrel than they can currently import cheaper, lighter crude from abroad that their current refinery can handle, and that consumers in Atlantic Canada should be made to pay more for their gasoline for the privilege of it coming from Alberta – because I’m not sure that Alberta is going to accept the $10/barrel discount on their crude when they already are suffering from low global oil prices that have made many new oilsands projects economically unviable. Never mind the similarities of this scheme to the original NEP, for which Alberta has created a grand myth about the Great Satan Trudeau (even though the resulting closures in the industry had more to do with the collapse in global oil prices and global recession that happened at the same time) – the cognitive dissonance will not hold.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Energy East distraction

Posted on by

After wide reporting that Jason Kenney’s poll numbers have been tanking and that he’s currently tied with the provincial NDP, it was predetermined that Kenney was going to have to start coming up with something new to blame the federal government about in order to whip his voter base into a new round of irrational anger. He also, apparently needed to provide some cover to his friend Erin O’Toole after O’Toole’s meeting with the Quebec premier, and so Kenney’s distraction of choice was going to be Energy East, and blaming the federal government for its demise. Of course, that’s not true at all, and energy economist Andrew Leach has the receipts.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giving Legault the farm

Posted on by

Erin O’Toole paid a visit to Quebec premier François Legault yesterday, and immediately promised to give away the farm to Legault if he were to become prime minister – capitulating on Bill 21 and letting Legault expand it (in spite of the Conservatives insisting that they are all about religious freedom), signing over the language rights of federal industries in the province, and promising more provincial transfers with no strings attached, all in the name of “provincial autonomy.” At the same time, O’Toole danced around the question of pipelines, which Legault opposes and O’Toole is in favour of shoving down the throat of a province in spite of his talk of “autonomy,” so his record of policy incoherence continues unabated. (As an aside, it seems to me that giving Quebec everything it demands wouldn’t actually win O’Toole Bloc votes, but rather empower the Bloc to say that they were so effective that they got everything the demanded).

This exchange with Legault made some waves in Alberta, where the visions of Energy East continue to evade reality. So while Rachel Notley tries to score points against O’Toole, and her UCP opponents try to score their own points, here’s energy economist Andrew Leach calling out both sides on how wrong they are.

On the subject of Alberta’s oil patch, here is Leach laying out why the province over its past six premiers have engaged in a $26.4 billion boondoggle around building a refinery in the province and assuming all of the risk from their private sector partner, and will almost certainly wind up losing a hell of a lot of taxpayers’ money in the process. For everyone who insists that the province doesn’t subsidize the oil and gas sector, this is proof enough that such a claim is false, and it should enrage everyone in the province that their trust has been betrayed in such a way.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Liberal caucus boards the BI train

Posted on by

Ever since the creation of CERB at the beginning of the pandemic, the Basic Income crowd has believed that this is their chance to finally get what they’ve been asking for. Most of it remains in the realm of lollipops and unicorns, with a lot of handwaving away the difficulties associated with a basic income, but here we are. To that end, it seems that the Liberal caucus has made this their top priority for the party’s upcoming policy convention, which means that it has a fairly good chance of getting adopted as party policy. Of course, in the current day and age, a party’s policy book isn’t really worth the paper that it’s printed on because the leader’s office now controls everything, most especially the campaign platform (you know, what the party’s policies are supposed to inform), so I wouldn’t put too much stock in this, but it’s certainly an indication of where their heads are at.

To that end, economist Lindsay Tedds, who has been studying the implementation of Basic Income programmes, is unimpressed with this turn of events. Why? Because there are a lot of things in the federal government’s wheelhouse when it comes to better implementing current social supports programmes that they’re simply not doing, because of the ways in which they rely on the current tax system – which is a problem when a significant portion of marginalized people can’t access those benefits because they don’t file taxes. And if you’re going to implement a Basic Income, you would think you’d want to get these kinds of things sorted first so that it becomes easier to do any kind of BI.

Economist Mike Moffatt also makes the point that there are far more effective things that the federal government could spend money on that would get better outcomes than spending it on basic income, because of the supply side problems that adding more money into the system won’t fix, but will simply drive up things like rental costs.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1304769768961048577

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1304770683881299969

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1304772615752617986

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1304782580466712577

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1304784277041709056

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exit one arm of WE

Posted on by

The big news yesterday was that WE Charity is folding their Canadian operations – and putting a hefty share of the blame on the political situation around the whole WE Imbroglio. Never mind their pre-existing problems, convoluted structure, reported financial problems with some of their properties, problems with their board of directors and the resignations therein, and the fact that their whole modus operandi of voluntourism and White Saviour complexes turned into an existential problem for the organization – no, it’s so much easier to blame the slow-motion scandal around them that laid bare many of those pre-existing problems. (For a history of the organization, Maclean’s has a great longread here).

In response, the NDP are crowing that this means that the pre-existing problems that WE faced, exacerbated by the pandemic and the Imbroglio, just proves that the Liberals were trying to help them out all along – erm, which is a bit of a leap. The Conservatives, meanwhile, have demanded that WE still turn over all of the documents that the committee has requested (which WE’s lawyers laughed at given that the committee does not currently exist). And Liberal partisans all over social media are wailing and gnashing their teeth that this organization that did so much good was being killed by the petty partisan games of the opposition. (And, erm, they didn’t actually do that much good, and they are still carrying on their US and UK operations, as well as their for-profit arm – only the Canadian charity arm is being folded).

Meanwhile, Matt Gurney makes the very salient point that this whole situation happened because the Liberals were inept enough not to ensure that Justin Trudeau and Bill Morneau do the simplest of steps and recuse themselves from any decisions involving WE because of their personal investment in the organization and its causes. It’s possible Morneau would still have his job as he wouldn’t have made his continuation in the role untenable (thought I have previously contended that even before this all blew up, he was probably overdue to be shuffled because he wasn’t terribly suited for it), and Trudeau wouldn’t be in as precarious a situation as he is (though the cultural problem of not caring about the rules and letting the ends justify the means because they mean well would still be there) if they had simply been a little more aware of what they were doing. Alas, they weren’t, and here we are.

Continue reading →