Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

Roundup: Pallister makes a gamble

Posted on by

Manitoba premier Brian Pallister announced yesterday that he was going to implement a carbon price after all – sort of. In a dare to the federal government, Pallister says he’ll stick with his originally planned $25/tonne price, and not raise it like he’s supposed with the rest of the country, but he would also reduce the province’s PST to compensate. Revenue neutrality can be a very good thing, but the point of having a common carbon price across the country is to have a level playing field so that provinces don’t undercut one another – which Pallister frequently ignores as he instead battles straw men about the efficacy of the province’s environmental plans (many of those mentioned having nothing to do with reducing GHGs).

While Pallister is confident that the Supreme Court of Canada will rule against the federal government on the upcoming carbon price challenges – which is a pretty risky gable to take – he’s daring the federal government to do what they said they would, which is to continue making up the federal carbon price with a separate carbon levy on top of the provincial one, which would continue to be rebated to taxpayers by the CRA. None of this makes much sense as a strategy other than the fact that it lets him proclaim that he’s lowered the PST in order to get the plaudits for that.

Meanwhile, here’s Dylan Robertson with some additional context:

Continue reading →

Roundup: Putting Freeland on the case (again)

Posted on by

With more attention turning to what’s happening around COVID-19, prime minister Justin Trudeau has created a new Cabinet committee to handle the situation, and he’s put Chrystia Freeland in charge of it. An important addition to the committee is Kirsty Duncan, who may no longer be in Cabinet but is nevertheless sworn in as a privy councillor, and the fact that she has expertise in pandemics and once studied the Spanish Flu epidemic, so chalk one up for bench strength there. Freeland says the response has to be both “whole of government” and “whole of country,” and her role as intergovernmental affairs minister is certainly part of that – given that provinces deliver healthcare for the bulk of the country – but one suspects this is also about having a reassuring communicator on the issue (because as we all know, this government can’t communicate its way out of a wet paper bag).

To that end, while certain opposition voices are demanding travel restrictions (which are proven not to work) or enhanced screening measures at airports, what we’re hearing from the health minister and the Chief Public Health Officer is largely that containment can only delay an outbreak – which is not a bad thing, because if it can be delayed by six weeks or so, that would get our healthcare system past peak flu season, which frees up beds and resources. And thus far, we have been lucky that all of the cases in this country can be traced to travel-related causes and not community transmission, which means that the measures taken to date have been working, but again, delay is the watchword. It should also be noted that we have largely avoided panic, which is pretty good (torqued headlines about demanding people start stockpiling notwithstanding).

With that in mind, the military has been ordered to being pre-pandemic planning out of an abundance of caution, given that they need to be able to continue to operate in the case of a crisis.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Party positions and individual agency

Posted on by

The weaponization of private members’ business continues unabated in Parliament, as the Conservatives put out an attack yesterday that claims that the Liberals want to “legalize” hard drugs because maverick backbencher Nathaniel Erskine-Smith tabled a private members’ bill that calls on the decriminalization of small personal amounts in order to better treat addiction as a public health issue and to not criminalize people with addictions – something that has worked in some countries. The lie, of course, is both in claiming that this was official government policy, and that it was calling for legalization – because who cares about truth or facts when there is fear to be mongered?

The bigger problem here? What it does to how private members’ business is treated in the House of Commons, and more to the point, there is a very big potential for this to blow up in Scheer’s face because of Cathay Wagantall’s sex-selective abortion bill currently on the Order Paper. And yes, let’s not be obtuse about this – the media feeds this particular weaponization, both in how they made this kind of abortion bill an Issue during the election, and how we both demand that MPs be both independent and yet castigate the leader for “losing control” when any MP shows any glimmer of independence. (And for the record, Scheer has not said anything about Wagantall’s bill, other than to have his spokesperson say that he “discouraged” such bills).

https://twitter.com/althiaraj/status/1234901634272178182

I know that everyone is going to be cute about these bills, and how if they get tabled the party “must” support the position because everything is so centrally controlled, and so on, but this is part of what poisons the system. Insisting that everyone be marching in lockstep from other parties ensures that the same insistence is made about your own party, and it removes any agency from MPs. They’re MPs, not gods damned battle droids. If we want drones to simply read speeches into the record and vote according the leader’s office, then why do we even bother with MPs? Why bother with parliament at all? The Conservatives’ release is embarrassing, and they should be ashamed of themselves for it (which of course would imply that they’re capable of shame, but I have my doubts about that one too).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rights, title, and ratification

Posted on by

We got a few more details yesterday about the agreement reached with the Wet’sutwet’en hereditary chiefs on Sunday, despite a few TV hosts somewhat obtusely demanding to know what it meant for the Coastal GasLink pipeline – despite the fact that it was stated over and over again that this agreement did not have anything to do with that, and that the matter was unresolved. The crux of the agreement was an agreement on how rights and title would be extended for the Wet’suwet’en going forward, meaning that with any future projects, there would be clarity as to who would need to be consulted – which means the hereditary chiefs – and given the new impact assessment process that the Liberals instituted (under the infamous Bill C-69), those consultations begin at the earliest possible moment for these project proposals so that affected First Nations can be brought in from the get-go. What I found especially interesting was that Carolyn Bennett said that this was in accordance with UNDRIP principles, as free, prior and informed consent (which again she stressed was not a veto). And one imagines that this kind of agreement would be a template for others when it comes to unceded territory across the country.

As for Coastal GasLink, work apparently resumed on aspects of the project, but given that some of their permits were pulled by the province’s environmental assessment agency with a demand for more consultations, one supposes that the work is on areas that are outside of Wet’suwet’en territory. Meanwhile, one of the elected chiefs who is in favour of the project was doing the media rounds in Ottawa yesterday, and he said that while his people were discussing the ratification of the new agreement, he said that he was also willing to give up the economic benefits of the pipeline is that was what his people decided that they wanted as part of those discussions. We do know that matriarchs who were in support of the project were also in the meeting between Bennett, her BC counterpart and those hereditary chiefs, so the discussion within the community is very much alive, and we’ll see in a couple of weeks when the ratification process is supposed to be concluded, what the future holds for the pipeline.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An agreement, and a start to further discussions

Posted on by

On the fourth day of negotiations, federal Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Carolyn Bennett, her BC counterpart, and the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs have come to an agreement regarding land title rights for Wet’suwet’en territory, which has been an open issue for decades. It will need to be ratified by the Wet’suwet’en nation after a period of consultation, but it is a step. This does not, however, completely solve the issue with the proposed Coastal GasLink pipeline – the vocal group of hereditary chiefs remain opposed (while those in the community who support the project feel they aren’t being heard), but this remains an issue where the community needs to come together and use the feast system under their laws to resolve these disputes, which hasn’t been happening. It will also require further discussions with the RCMP about their operations in their territory, but again, there seems to be some progress made.

Meanwhile, a discussion among legal experts is ongoing regarding the efficacy of using legal injunctions when there are land rights protests going on, because they can be too much of a blunt instrument. Some are suggesting that the injunctions be structured to allow for mediated consultation instead of heavy-handed orders to stop their protests, as has been done in some provinces when it comes to labour disputes. And a prime example of something unhelpful is the bill recently tabled in Alberta to further penalize protesters with heavy fines (which is already likely unconstitutional), but there does seem to be a definite mindset behind that kind of legislation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: See you at the Supreme Court

Posted on by

In the wake of the Alberta Court of Appeal reference decision on the federal carbon price, both Jason Kenney and his justice minister have been performing a particular song and dance for the media’s consumption, demanding that the federal government immediately remove said “unconstitutional” price, and demanding a rebate for all Albertans under threat of personal lawsuit.
Couple of things:

  1. This was not a court order. It was a reference question, so there is no actual weight to the finding of unconstitutionality. And federal justice minister David Lametti said as much in a letter responding to his Alberta counterpart telling that he would see him at the Supreme Court of Canada.
  2. There is already a rebate. In fact, most people get more back than they pay into it – and they are scheduled to receive the biggest rebates in the country. Demanding refunds is actually a bit gross, because it’s wilfully misrepresenting how the system works.
  3. Suing members of the federal Cabinet is not how the system works. And we actually saw said provincial minister’s old law professor take to Twitter to say that she taught him better than that. So there’s that.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/1232874850563260416

Meanwhile, Manitoba is threatening to continue with their challenge to the federal carbon price if they don’t get a deal on the very same thing from the federal government. While the federal government says that they haven’t received a new proposal from Manitoba, you can bet that the province wants to continue pitching a price that won’t rise, which isn’t going to be on because it’s about ensuring a level playing field across the country, and not letting premiers undermine one another in a race to the bottom.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An abortion bill to position around

Posted on by

The Conservatives’ abortion legislation problem has come home to roost early in the new parliament as MP Cathay Wagantall tabled a bill to ban sex-selective abortions, under the (bullshit) excuse that it reflects Canada’s commitment to gender equality. And because she’s 31 on the order of precedence for private members’ business, this will come up likely late spring or early fall. (Private members’ business is determined by lottery, and arrives on the Order Paper in batches of 30). And all eyes are on Andrew Scheer, who stated during the election that he would vote against any measures to attempt to re-open the abortion debate.

Why does this matter? Because the list of approved candidates for the Conservative leadership closed last night, and social conservatives have played kingmaker in both the last federal leadership contest, as well as the last Ontario one, which was done under the same rules. Already we’re seeing positioning among candidates, such as Erin O’Toole criticizing Peter MacKay for saying he would whip his Cabinet to vote against such a bill, saying that he would never whip anyone, Cabinet or backbench, on “moral issues.” It’s a completely transparent ploy – O’Toole is trying to ensure that he gets second-ballot support from the social conservatives when their preferred no-hope candidates get dropped off of the ranked preferential ballot. That’s how Andrew Scheer won, and it’s how Doug Ford won.

Meanwhile, it looks like it’ll be seven entrants in the race, though some approvals may yet be pending. Of those seven, three qualify as social conservatives, so the “frontrunners” like MacKay, O’Toole and maybe Marilyn Gladu will want the second and third votes from those no-hopers in the hopes of pushing them over the top. So this dynamic is very present in the leadership race, as Wagantall has put it on the table for them to debate around her.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A failed attempt at fundamental reform

Posted on by

Fair warning that this is going to be super wonky and a dive into parliamentary nerdery, but it’s important to how our democracy functions. It seems that the government’s attempt to better reconcile our budget cycle and Estimates process has been declared a failure, and the deeply flawed system that has grown up over a number of years has once again returned, and that’s a huge disappointment because it was an important change that they were attempting.

Part of the problem here is that we don’t have a fixed budget date, but the Estimates cycle operates by a fixed calendar. What this has tended to mean is that the budget can be pushed back after the Main Estimates, which means that all of the spending that Parliament is supposed to approve winds up being reflective of the previous year’s budget, and then it’s up to the Supplementary Estimates later in the year to update the spending to what was in this year’s budget – a system that makes it difficult if not impossible to track spending, particularly as the accounting used in the Public Accounts at the end of the fiscal year is different still from both the budget and Estimates. If Parliament’s key function is to study these spending plans and expenditures and hold the government to account over them, it is a nigh-impossible task (which is one more reason why MPs have given up on doing it, and simply turned it over to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which is a Very Bad Thing). It was Scott Brison’s pet project when he was at Treasury Board to try and better align these cycles, but that was easier said than done, particularly given some of the sclerotic processes within our civil service, and their attempt to try and get some money out the door faster with a $7 billion fund (derided by the Conservatives as a “slush fund” despite there being a list of approved items that accompanied it) never wound up actually working, and much of that money went unspent even though it was supposed to mean things happened faster. It’s a failure all around – both with this government and within the broader civil service.

I am hoping that the Liberals have taken what lessons they can from this and take more steps to rectify some of the problems, including assigning a fixed budget date so that the civil service can adjust their own cycles and processes to reflect this and the Estimates cycle can then reflect what is in the budget (and aligning the Public Accounts with these cycles would also help). This is at the very heart of how our parliament is supposed to operate, and if we can’t get this right, it’s a very, very bad sign for the health of our system.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Kenney looking to weaponize populist anger

Posted on by

It was Throne Speech day in Alberta yesterday, and while Kenney temporarily toned down his bellicosity for the sake of decorum, the speech was still full of strange promises. While Kenney promised to reduce unemployment, he nevertheless cited the report he devised to show that spending was too high while ignoring the province’s revenue problem, meaning more cuts are still likely. He also hinted at government investment in resource projects, which is mighty odd for someone who claims to support the free market (and this thread shows some of the context of Peter Lougheed’s investments in the sector which Kenney invoked). He also tabled the first bill, which promises fine for interrupting “critical infrastructure” – such as the rail blockades – because that’ll help.

The one thing that caught my attention most of all, however, was a proposal for recall petitions that would not only target MLAs, but also municipal councillors, mayors, and even school board trustees. I cannot stress enough how boneheaded an idea this is, because it will do absolutely nothing to enhance the practice of democracy, and will in fact weaken the representative democracy – along with their plans to allow citizens to petition referendums on whatever they want. Why they are even more concerning in the current context is because I am certain that this is about Kenney looking to weaponize populist anger against anyone who stands in his way. He has a cadre of paid shitposters, both in his office and in his $30 million a year “war room” that he can deploy against anyone in the province who stands up to Kenney – most especially the mayors of Edmonton and Calgary. Even if there is a high enough bar set to trigger these, as in BC, it nevertheless undermines the practice of Responsible Government and the confidence conventions inherent in our system. We already have accountability mechanisms – they’re called elections. Recall is not only an Americanism that does not fit with our system, I have no doubt that this is about portraying dissent as illegitimate, and using recall legislation as a threat. This will only increase the ugliness that is creeping into our politics, and that Kenney is gleefully throwing these things out there is a very big problem.

Meanwhile, to top it all off, Teck Resources appears to be trolling some particular voices like Kenney who have been caterwauling the past few days, as they announced they are investing in a solar facility at a reclaimed coal mine in BC. Oh, the delicious, delicious irony of it all.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reverberations and court references

Posted on by

The fallout from the Teck Frontier decision reverberated yesterday, whether it was with disappointed local First Nations, or industry groups giving the usual lamentations about investor confidence. More blame was thrown around, most of it at Justin Trudeau’s direction which seems to be in direct contradiction to what the company’s CEO said in his withdrawal letter, which talked about partisan bickering between levels of government, while also talking about how they supported carbon pricing and the emissions caps – in other words, largely siding with the federal government as the provincial government tore up the comprehensive and reasonable plan that the former NDP government had put into place with a great deal of thought and consultation, which introduced all manner of uncertainty into the market and put them into direct conflict with the federal government unnecessarily – but they also made the gamble that Andrew Scheer would win the last federal election and they wouldn’t have to worry about carbon pricing or strict regulations any longer, and well, that didn’t happen. Of course, it didn’t stop Kenney, Scheer or others from making up things wholesale in order to keep the blame on Trudeau, after they already overly raised expectations for the project (in part by lying about what its promises actually were). In conversation yesterday, a fellow journalist made the supposition that Teck may have been afraid of federal approval at this point because the expectations for it had been built so high when they knew they couldn’t deliver on it, in large part because the price of oil is simply far too low for the project to be viable, not to mention that it’s hard to attract financing as global investors are looking for climate-friendly projects these days.

In pundit response, Heather Scoffield points to the lack of the next stages of the federal climate plans, combined with Alberta’s battling those plans, as factors making us unattractive to investors. Scoffield also blames a lack of leadership for why it’s taking so long to get those needed plans in place. Max Fawcett considers Teck Frontier a metaphor for an Alberta past that won’t come back, and that the withdrawal of the application should be a wake-up call for those who are trying to bring that past back. Kevin Carmichael calls out Teck’s CEO for playing martyr while sabotaging the kind of conversation over energy and the environment that the country needs to have, but now won’t because the deadline is off the table and we have degenerated into assigning blame.

And then, as if things couldn’t get any more interesting, the Alberta Court of Appeal released their 4-1 decision that said that the federal carbon price was unconstitutional, in direct opposition to the decisions from Ontario and Saskatchewan (both of which will head to the Supreme Court of Canada next month). But that being said, there is a curious amount of overtly political editorialising within said judgement, from one of the concurring judges in particular, which I am assured by a law professor will be a field day for the Supreme Court of Canada when this ruling makes it to them.

https://twitter.com/molszyns/status/1232059249158545408

https://twitter.com/molszyns/status/1232074971918168064

https://twitter.com/molszyns/status/1232161066898968576

https://twitter.com/molszyns/status/1232054682140340225

https://twitter.com/charlesrusnell/status/1232124886937550849

Continue reading →