Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

Roundup: Ginned up outrage over accounting rules

Posted on by

My tolerance for ginned-up outrage is mighty thin, and it was exceeded yesterday as a certain media outlet ran a completely bullshit story about how in the last fiscal year, $105 million of Veterans Affairs’ budget went unspent and was returned to the consolidated revenue fund rather than simply kept in the department for the following year as the government “promised” to do following a completely inane NDP Supply Day motion a year previous. The story is one hundred percent not worth anyone’s time, and we have a media outlet who has decided to waste precious resources into putting a disingenuous framing mechanism around an NDP press release and calling it accountability.

To be clear: the whole premise of this “outrage” is the fact that the NDP have deliberately ignored how accounting and budgeting rules work in order to dial up a fake controversy for the sake of scoring outrage points in the media. The unspent money from Veterans Affairs is because they’re a demand-based department – they estimate how much they’ll need to deliver services to veterans every year, and if the funds don’t all get spent, then the law states that money goes back to general revenue, and reallocated in the following year’s budget. This does not mean there is deliberate under-spending – it means that they overestimated what the demand for services would be in an abundance of caution. And yes, there are backlogs in the department, but when you have capacity issues because they can’t hire enough qualified staff at the drop of a hat (after the previous government let hundreds of them go), you can’t just throw that “leftover” money at that problem. Pretending that it works otherwise is frankly dishonest.

One of the journalists at said outlet took exception to my calling out the disingenuous framing and insisted that the government shouldn’t have promised not to keep the funds in the department if they didn’t intend to keep the promise – and I would almost accept that as a valid argument except for the whole promise in and of itself was the result of shenanigans. The NDP’s whole Supply Day motion last year was illusory outrage, and government explained over and over how accounting rules and demand-based departments work, but if they voted against the (non-binding) motion, they would be voting against veterans and it would be bad optics. The path of least resistance is to vote for it and just keep following the rules. Because what is the alternative – vote for it, and then bring in new legislation to contort the accounting rules for this one-off bit of faux outrage over a non-scandal that is the direct result of a party that deliberately misstated how said accounting rules work in order to try to generate headlines? How is that a productive use of anyone’s time or energy? It would be great if we could get certain media outlets to engage in some critical thinking and not fall for this kind of transparent spin, and then gin it up as though it were a real scandal. We all have better things to do.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Expecting a regulatory overhaul

Posted on by

I’ve been keeping my eye on the Orphan Well issue in Alberta from a distance, somewhat in part because of everything I learned about the problem when writing about the Supreme Court of Canada challenge around how the obligations to clean them up interacted with federal bankruptcy law. As it turns out, the Supreme Court said no, companies can’t offload these environmental problems in order to salvage other assets, so Alberta was left with a problem as the huge problems with the way their regulatory system operates has been left with a very big problem. The province’s energy regulator (which has long been accused of being captured by the industry) is finally admitting that their system for determining liabilities has been flawed all along, and the province is saying they’ll be releasing new regulations soon, but we’ll have to see how much more stringent they’re going to be with the provincial government constantly worried that they’ll unduly harm the industry in its weakened state (which is another reason why Kenney has been pressing for those so-called “equalization rebates” from the fiscal stabilization fund in order to put toward remediating orphan wells – because why not get the federal taxpayer to deal with the remediation of environmental liabilities that the province deliberately under-funded in order to keep the good times rolling (and their tax base unsustainably low).

Meanwhile, the number of smaller oil and gas companies who haven’t been paying their taxes to municipalities or rents to farmers and landowners is climbing, leading to a great deal of frustration in the province, and there are calls essentially for these smaller companies to be allowed to go bankrupt so that larger ones can take them over, and they’ll be better capitalized to deal with their environmental liabilities, as happened in Texas several years ago. Then again, seeing as the provincial government and their federal counterparts seem to be so much more beholden to the smaller oil and gas players than they are the big ones (for whom they will deride as being big corporations, because don’t forget they’re right-flavoured populists), so we’ll see how far that line of argument gets them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Teck Frontier drama for naught?

Posted on by

There is a lot of agitation around the Teck Frontier oilsands mine, with the Alberta government and their federal counterparts howling for it to be approved immediately, and environmentalists, and certain other parties (like the Bloc) demanding the federal permits be denied. The problem? That even if it were approved, the CEO says they may not be able to build it because oil prices are too low for it to actually make any money, so this could all be for naught.

Meanwhile, here is Andrew Leach with a thread on its economics, and pushing back on the rhetoric around its emissions profile, wherein Jason Kenney and others have misconstrued what the company has actually said in order to make the project look less emitting that its plans say it will be.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No metric to measure success

Posted on by

The inevitable has happened with this government’s too-clever-by-half branding of their associate finance minister, and she has essentially been caught out by the easiest trap imaginable. The Conservatives submitted an Order Paper question asking for a definition of “middle class” by which the government could measure the success of its efforts at ensuring their prosperity, and lo, they were told that there is no measure that the government uses. Which is kind of embarrassing for a government that prides itself on data and metrics – that’s one of the reasons why they actually bit the bullet and decided on the Market-Basket Measure of poverty as their official definition, because that allowed them to track the success of their programmes in alleviating it (and yes, programmes like the Canada Child Benefit have had a measurable impact using these kinds of data). But what they can do for poverty, they can’t do for the Middle Class™.

Of course, we all know that it’s because “middle class” isn’t an economic definition to this government, but a feel-good branding exercise. It’s the Middle Class™ And Those Working Hard To Join It, because we all know that everyone thinks they’re middle class (whether or not they have ponies), and most especially people on the wealthier end of the scale in this country. It’s all about a feeling, or a hand-wavey metric about having kids in hockey (an upper-class pursuit in this country). And this lack of a definition is exactly why this minister is the Minister of Middle Class™ Prosperity®, because it means nothing. It’s a trademarked slogan, transparently winking to Canadians about how this is how they plan to address the discontent underlying the populist movements taking place across the government – hoping that if they can reassure these voters that they’re being care of and not left behind, that they’re being heard, that somehow, it’ll keep the populist forces at bay. I’m not sure that it will work, but it’s blatantly happening, so we should all be aware that this is part of their plan.

Continue reading →

Roundup: “True Blue” O’Toole

Posted on by

Erin O’Toole made his official entry into the leadership race yesterday by way of a video that takes swipes at “cancel culture” and celebrity activists – the kinds of keyboard warrior buzzwords that are pretty much the domains of O’Toole’s new campaign staffer, Jeff Ballingall, of those “Canada Proud” etc. sites.

At a rally in Calgary later in the evening, O’Toole said that Peter MacKay would turn the party into Liberal-lite, which I have yet to see any actual evidence of (MacKay is not really a Red Tory, guys – he’s not. Stop pretending he is). It also struck me that he kept reiterating the kinds of comforting lies that the party likes to tell itself about issues like the plight of the energy sector, where the woes are blamed on the Trudeau government and not changing market forces (seriously, the shale revolution in the US is a pretty big driver of these changes). He did say that he would march in a Pride parade, and justified it with his military background, which is a bit funny given that he hasn’t marched in one to date, which makes his sudden conviction around it mighty suspect. His opposition to carbon pricing continues to dig the party into its current environmental rut, and his talk of deficits remains completely economically illiterate – all doubling down on the party’s current positions, because that’s apparently what will make him a “true blue” Conservative. I’m not sure how this grows the party’s base, but what do I know?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Coronavirus case in Canada

Posted on by

We can expect a bunch of questions around the first two suspected cases of coronavirus being treated in Toronto when the Commons returns for Question Period tomorrow, and it’s a question of how much we’ll see any kind of politicking being played around it. The line is that we’re not expecting an outbreak in the country – but we’re already at a situation where the suspected case was symptomatic on a flight so that means tracking down the other passengers.

Over the past week, we’ve seen a lot of interviews with former officials, political or bureaucratic, who dealt with SARS and MERS, and they insist that lessons have been learned in Canada, even though we don’t know how this coronavirus will compare. That said, the Ontario government already slashed Toronto Public Health’s funding, so that just may come around to bite them in the ass.

Amidst this, Matt Gurney is decidedly more pessimistic about the preparations and says that the facts we know around this suspected case mean that the system didn’t work, and that’s going to be a problem going forward. He has a point, but we’ll have to see how the response changes in the days ahead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The glitter of Gold in the Senate

Posted on by

At long last – and indeed, at virtually the last possible minute – prime minister Justin Trudeau finally – finally! – named a new Leader of the Government in the Senate yesterday, independent Quebec senator Marc Gold. This wasn’t actually a surprise to those of us who’ve had our ears to the ground, but amidst the speculation of who Trudeau would name, many of them allegedly said no when they were asked (or at least said they did). The next question is who Gold can convince to come aboard as his deputy and whip (or “liaison” as they like to call themselves), because he won’t be able to replicate Senator Peter Harder’s too-clever-by-half trick of getting a former Conservative as his deputy and a former Liberal as his whip, so that he could insist that look, he was so non-partisan and independent in the middle of the two. Gold does sound like he plans to continue Harder’s half-pregnant fiction that he can be both independent and government “representative,” and has repeated the eye-rolling line that he “represents the government in the Senate and the Senate to the government.” Because no, that’s not actually how this works.

In an interview with CTV’s Power Play, Gold largely stuck to platitudes when asked how he will get big pieces of legislation through the Senate, insisting that the Senate will “rise to the occasion” and have “lively debate,” but would not say anything about things like, oh, negotiation. I will note that it was heartening to see that he did understand that the role of the Senate was to have a longer-range view and the less-partisan perspective, and kept insisting that it was a complementary body to the House of Commons, but his talk about the danger of it being an “echo chamber” of the Commons was a bit more off the mark. But countering this was the fact that he also seems to accept the false notion that these so-called reforms that Trudeau has been pushing somehow “returns” it to its raison d’être, which is not true in the slightest. It was never supposed to be non-partisan, and the more that people keep saying it is, misreading both the original debates on Confederation and the Supreme Court of Canada reference decision, the more it shows that we have an uphill struggle to keep these would-be reformers from doing lasting damage to the institution out of their well-meaning ignorance.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Promising an improper bill

Posted on by

As part of his press scrums coming out of pre-sitting caucus meetings, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh declared that the party’s first private members’ bill would be to make universal pharmacare a reality. And apparently no one in the media pushed back against this, because let me tell you, it’s a whole lot of hand-wavey bullshit, and it quite literally goes against the rules of Parliament.

For the uninitiated, private members’ bills have a very limited scope, and they are not allowed to spend public funds. To spend public funds, you need a Royal Recommendation, which only the government can provide. (It would have been nice if The Canadian Press article could mention that fact rather than simply say that PMBs have a tougher time passing). You can’t make pharmacare a reality without money, and given that it’s an area of provincial jurisdiction, it’s likely any bill would be unvoteable. In his release, Singh says he wants to legislate the necessary criteria by which provinces will get funding for the programme, which is a very interesting way to go about negotiating something that is in their area of jurisdiction. (Also, Singh’s constant line that Trudeau is somehow acting on the bidding of Big Pharma ignores that they are not happy with him, particularly over the changes the government made to the Patented Medicines Price Review Board – essentially, Singh is lying for the sake of a talking point he’s borrowing from the Justice Democrat crowd in the US). Singh also says that restoring the health transfer escalator will bring the provinces onside, which holy cow is a lot of money, but also ignores that the escalator was rising faster than healthcare spending, so it meant provinces were using that money for other things. But it’s only money, right?

You can’t just handwave this. I point this out over Twitter, and every NDP apologist under the sun insists that a) this is about keeping pressure on the government, and b) that the Liberals have somehow backed away from their campaign promise, which is false. The campaign promise was a $6 billion “down payment” while they negotiate with the provinces, because it’s largely provincial jurisdiction. They committed to following the Hoskins report, and already started with the creation of some of the necessary organizational tools necessary. A few days ago, the health minister said she couldn’t guarantee that it would happen during this parliament because it’s contingent upon negotiation with the provinces – provinces who are publicly reluctant, and we haven’t even broached the subject of how to negotiate a national formulary, which is a Very Big Deal and integral to any pharmacare system. And yet Singh was out promising that this could be done by 2020, because since when are these kinds of negotiations a problem? Yeah, that’s not how this works, kids, and lying about what Trudeau promised in order to justify Singh’s promises doesn’t make you a hero.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1220070604872671232

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ambrose rules out a return

Posted on by

It was a day of a lot of movement within the Conservative leadership race, with big repercussions to come. Early in the day, we got word that two more names were added to the Conservative race – rookie backbencher Derek Sloan, and failed leadership candidate (and aspiring narcissist) Rick Peterson. Sloan has already come out and said that he’s open to having a debate over abortion, and he’s putting forward this absurd notion that they need to stop being apologetic about being Conservative – which would be great if the party actually put forward conservative ideas like market-based solutions to problems rather than just populist pandering. Shocking. Peterson, meanwhile, is continuing his schtick that his business success is going to translate to political success, even though he did abysmally in the last election and couldn’t secure a nomination to run in the election, which shows you just how profound his organizational skills are. Nevertheless, expect him to position himself as the “Western” candidate in the race.

And then the big bombshell – Rona Ambrose announced that she is officially out of the race. It wasn’t a surprise really, especially as word has been circulating in Conservative circles that she hasn’t made any phone calls or secured any kind of organization while she considered her options. Nevertheless, it now opens the race wide open because a lot of people who had been holding their breath and waiting for Ambrose to make a move can now make their own moves. It also means that currently, Marilyn Gladu is the only woman in the race, which can’t be healthy for the party either. (It also makes me wonder who the Red Tory in this race is going to be, because it’s not actually Peter MacKay).

And just minutes after Ambrose made her announcement, another would-be candidate, former staffer Richard Décarie went on Power Play to expound on his social conservative views. It went as well as can be expected.

While most of the other candidates quickly came out to condemn these comments, there are a few things to note here – Décarie is worth following because he has attracted some organizational heft, particularly from those who were behind Tanya Granic Allen in Ontario, and it’s not insignificant, and when you recall that Brad Trost did come in fourth the last time around. There is a particularly strong social conservative organization within the party, and they do a lot of fundraising and organizing, and that can’t be overlooked when it comes to a leadership race, where those to factors are going to count for a lot more.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The reality of negotiation

Posted on by

As was ever thus, the Twitter Machine erupted with fury and disingenuous outrage when health minister Patty Hajdu told reporters that she couldn’t guarantee that a national pharmacare programme would be in place at the end of the current parliament (for which we don’t know when that will be, as a hung parliament rarely lasts beyond two years.

“Some of that will be predicted by, predicated by, the responses of the provinces and territories,” said Hajdu, because *mind blown* healthcare is largely the domain of the provinces and any pharmacare system would have to be negotiated with them – in particular, a national formulary, which is going to be extremely complicated to ensure that existing plans don’t get left behind or that the new national plan isn’t worse off than any existing ones that it would replace.

What is especially irritating are all of the voices crying out that this just means the Liberals were lying on the campaign trail, which is false and ridiculous – Trudeau spent the campaign not overpromising on this file, but rather kept saying that it was contingent on negotiation with provinces, which is why their fiscal plan only called for a “down payment” on such a programme rather than the whole thing, but nevertheless, the promise was to go by the principles of the Hoskins Report, which they have bene doing thus far. The NDP, by contrast, insisted that this could be done by 2020, and whenever anyone brought up the fact that the provinces may object, the line was largely that why would anyone say no to federal dollars? It’s absurd, of course, because provinces are rightfully afraid that they would be stuck with an expensive programme to run if the federal government suddenly cut out transfers or funds to it because they suddenly had other priorities (which has happened in the past).

And to that end, we have a bunch of premiers who are balking at it, Quebec and Alberta want to be able to opt-out with compensation, and Ontario is instead insisting that the federal government pay for drugs to treat rare diseases – the most expensive kind, and the ones where costs are rapidly escalating. So of course they want the federal government to pay for them rather than to share the burden. It’s predictable, and for anyone to be shocked and appalled that the Liberals have to deal with this reality is really, really tiresome.

Continue reading →