Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

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 →

Roundup: O’Toole hears the siren song of cheap outrage

Posted on by

He’s barely a week into the job as Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, and Erin O’Toole is already starting to beak off about official residences, and my head is on the verge of exploding. When asked about the CBC story that Stornoway – the official residence of the Leader of the Opposition – is due to get $170,000 in needed repairs before O’Toole and family move in, O’Toole started going off about how he only wanted the very minimum of work done and that he doesn’t even want furniture in his kids’ bedrooms because he wants to use the furniture that their grandfather built in Nova Scotia, and I was both outraged and exasperated.

Let me be clear – the National Capital Commission needs to put work into upkeep of these heritage residences or else they will start to degrade. Everyone was so afraid of necessary upkeep at 24 Sussex for so long that it has literally become a crumbling shitpile, and nobody can decide what to do with it now. Stornoway managed to avoid that fate because when Preston Manning refused to move in, the NCC was able to do the heavy-duty renovations that the residence needed to bring it back up to spec, but 24 Sussex has never had that opportunity, and look where it got us. Nevertheless, this persistent politicization of official residences and casting them as “personal benefits” for political leaders is outrageous to the point of being offensive. These are not personal benefits – they are official residences who belong to the Queen in Right of Canada. And you can bet that a lot of journalists and Liberal partisans on Twitter dug up everything O’Toole said about 24 Sussex and the renovations to Harrington Lake to paint him a hypocrite, but dear sweet Rhea, mother of Zeus, this is such self-defeating behaviour. Stop it.

I will also add lay a certain amount of blame for this on the media, because the impulse is always to write these stories as cheap outrage. The CBC headline is quintessential cheap outrage: “Stornoway getting $170K in taxpayer-funded repairs before Erin O’Toole moves in.” This is the kind of thing that gets Canadians’ hairshirt parsimony and tall poppy syndrome riled up, and suddenly it’s a scandal – no matter how reasonable the costs, or necessary the work. And that’s exactly why 24 Sussex is a crumbling shitpile, and why our government aircraft are so old that they have to constantly refuel, and why the avionics on some of them are so old that they are banned from several major airports. It’s embarrassing, but cheap outrage is like crack to so many journalists’ brains that they can’t help themselves, and we collectively set ourselves back another decade on doing what needs to be done. We need to do better, and stop going for the cheap dopamine hits that these stories give because it’s self-destructive.

Continue reading →

Roundup: PBO on thin ice

Posted on by

Comments made the Parliamentary Budget Officer over the weekend should have him very nervous for his future, as he is straying far beyond his mandate. The PBO, Yves Giroux, was in the media saying that current deficit levels are “unsustainable” within one or two years, which both misreads the current situation, and is venturing into opining on policy choices, which is not his job.

As an Independent Officer of Parliament, he has a certain degree of latitude for doing the job he is tasked with doing, which is to provide costing for proposals on demand by parliamentarians – something which can be a very creative exercise at times – and to provide independent fiscal forecasts of federal budget numbers – also something which has been made redundant because the Department of Finance doesn’t publish their forecasts any longer as the current practice is to take the average of the top twenty private sector forecasts and use those in budget documents. But he’s not invulnerable – Independent Officers can still be fired for cause, and Giroux seems to be flirting with that line.

It’s possible that Giroux doesn’t understand just what he’s doing when he’s answering these media requests, but it’s not the first time that he’s said dumb things in the media, such as a few weeks ago when Bill Morneau resigned that it was akin to “changing pilots mid-flight” (apparently unaware that this is actually standard practice on long-haul flights). He’s supposed to be a lot more circumspect, by virtue of his position, and not offer up any kind of opinion on policy choices. He is not there to second-guess the government and its actions – this is not a technocracy. He is supposed to provide cost estimates when asked, and provide independent forecasts (and as we saw in the election, sometimes he has trouble with the former when he simply put certain parties’ promises on his letterhead without actually doing any analysis of them). Offering opinions on policy choices impacts his ability to be independent, which he should know if he had any particular sense about him. I suspect that someone – perhaps a former PBO who is feeling particularly charitable – needs to pull him aside and to tell him to stop answering all of these media requests, and if he does accept them, to stick to the very narrow contents of his reports. His predecessors largely did not have this problem. Other Officers of Parliament do not have this problem. He needs to undertake to rectify it.

Continue reading →