Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

Roundup: Performative outrage and scapegoating

Posted on by

A couple of headlines this weekend made me roll my eyes, and they’re on a related subject. The first was Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe lamenting that federal-provincial legal battles are the “new normal” in Canadian intergovernmental affairs. The problem? That pretty much 99 percent of these cases are frivolous and examples of provincial governments throwing tantrums – and this is not just the various court references about the carbon price backstop, but also BC’s initial challenge to say that they have the power to regulate what goes through a federally-regulated pipeline. They’re futile bids that are the equivalent of shaking one’s fist at the clouds in order to performatively look like they’re being tough, and all it does is waste time, resources, and throw uncertainty into the business climate. If anything, being performative for populist reasons is the “new normal” and the courts are just pawns in the whole affair, which is really unfortunate.

The second headline was a Calgary professor who says that the anger in Alberta is being dismissed as “alienation” when it’s “abuse” by the federal government toward the western provinces – which is patently absurd. Most of Alberta’s problems are related to the collapse in the world price of oil (which has to do with a global supply glut), and the fact that the province has long refused to adequately diversify their economy (because oil money is so addictive). But when things like pipeline projects are being made to respect the constitutional obligations to properly consult Indigenous peoples – as opposed to simply bulldozing over their rights as what used to be the case – that’s “abuse”? Really? That the imposition of a federal carbon price that oil companies have been asking for as part of a market-based solution for the serious climate crisis this planet is facing is “abuse”? Seriously? No, it’s not abuse. The province has obligations to live up to, and scapegoating Rachel Notley and Justin Trudeau for the problems stemming from the world price of oil is populist bilge, and professors who rationalize it are part of the problem.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A victory for carbon prices

Posted on by

In a 3-2 decision, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has ruled that the federal carbon price backstop is not only constitutional, but it also qualifies as a regulatory charge and not a tax, which means that the way it’s being applied is also constitutional. Predictably, Scott Moe has vowed to take this to the Supreme Court of Canada (and a 3-2 decision made this a certainty if the political element wasn’t there already), while Catherine McKenna, predictably, called it a victory for the planet.

In terms of analysis, here is the long thread from economist Andrew Leach’s reading fo the decision, and his commentary on what the dissenting judges got wrong is particularly illuminating. As well, economist Lindsay Tedds’ wheelhouse is the whole difference between taxes and regulatory charges, so she has some comments here. I would note that the majority decision is going to be some of the precedent that Ontario’s Court of Appeal will look at as they’re drafting their own ruling on the Ontario reference, and if New Brunswick, Alberta, and Manitoba proceed with their own challenges, it will help to inform them as well. But with it headed to the Supreme Court of Canada – as Ontario’s will inevitably as well, and everyone knows it – it may not make any more sense for those other provinces to carry on their own challenges as it’s unlikely that they’ll make any more novel arguments, and it would seem to be swifter for all involved to let the SCC process happen sooner than later (though it certainly won’t happen before the next election, and there is a hope among opponents that a Conservative win will render the whole issue moot if they scrap the federal law beforehand).

Jason Markusoff notes that while the court victory is a modest win for the Liberals, the continued carbon tax crusading by Kenney and Ford isn’t winning them much applause from the blue-chip Toronto corporations that they’re looking to attract with their “open for business” shtick. (Here’s a hint: Stop creating uncertainty by cancelling established environmental plans and creating political risk by cancelling projects and immunizing yourselves from litigation). Andrew Coyne, meanwhile, asserts that the ruling is a victory for common sense – as well as the planet.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Kenney’s a federalist, but…

Posted on by

Jason Kenney made his triumphant return to Ottawa yesterday, now bearing the title of premier of Alberta, and he went before a Senate committee to a) bluster, and b) warn that if he didn’t get his way that separatist sentiment would rise in Alberta, even though he insisted that he’s a federalist, but this was somehow beyond his control. Erm, except an actual federalist wouldn’t give oxygen to these swivel-eyed loons, nor would someone who was actually concerned about the state of the federation feed them a diet of lies and snake oil to keep them angry for the sake of electoral gain.

Part of Kenney’s bluster was his threatening to launch court challenges against Bill C-69 if it gets passed in its current form, because he claims it intrudes on provincial jurisdiction – but he’s also said a lot of bogus things about the constitutionality of his promises (up to and including his threat about holding a referendum on equalisation, which he is also now equivocating on in the media), so I’m not sure he’s got a lot of credibility to spare in this legal analysis. But these kinds of threats also put me in mind a certain sense of contagion with the court cases around the carbon tax, and according to one environmental lawyer that I interviewed recently for an upcoming article, there is a sense that the provinces are trying to lay out markers in the area of shared jurisdiction, and this may be more of that – provinces trying to grab more power for their own sake.

The thing that really bothers me about Kenney’s “I’m a federalist, but…” line is that he doesn’t seem to care how dangerous it is, and how very antithetical it runs to his so-called “open for business” shtick. Do you know what drives away business investment (beyond destroying certainty by promising to tear up the environmental regime that they were partners in developing and increasing the political risk by constantly threatening lawsuits)? Separatist sentiment. Ask Quebec what it did for them, when all of those national headquarters fled Montreal for Toronto (remember when Montreal used to be the financial capital of Canada?) and their housing market plummeted? Yeah, not sure that’s something that Kenney should be trying to repeat, even if he’s using it as a threat. Beyond that, he can’t just say “I’m a federalist, but…” and not take some responsibility for the anger he’s stoked knowing full well that he can’t deliver on those promises, which will just cause that anger to fester. I know some people are trying to claim that he’s simply trying to channel that separatist sentiment into more harmless paths, but he’s courted it rather than smacked it down. “I’m a federalist, but…” just winks to them, and it’s beyond irresponsible.

Continue reading →

Roundup: PEI’s alarming adventures

Posted on by

Yesterday, the lieutenant governor of PEI gave the nod to PC leader Dennis King to attempt to form a government, and the whole thing is going to make my head explode because dear sweet Rhea, mother of Zeus, nobody has a clue what they’re doing. Not one of them. It’s alarming. (Side note: While the media have been saying that there would be a PC minority government, or that King was premier-designate, none of that became fact until today, and media outlets not only jumped the gun, but were attempting to short-circuit the process, which is a very bad thing).

Where to begin? How about the fact that the lieutenant governor, Antoinette Perry, was giving a media statement about her decision? Because no, she absolutely should not. And King? He says that he’s thinking about naming members of other parties to Cabinet, before preparing his Speech from the Throne and first budget “in consultation” with said parties. Again, this is utter insanity. Unless you have a formal coalition, you can’t have members of other parties in Cabinet because of Cabinet solidarity. Otherwise, they would just be de facto floor-crossers, which again, if that’s what you want then just go ahead and poach them, but be honest about it. As for King saying that he hopes that by “consulting” on the Throne Speech and budget that the opposition won’t oppose them for the sake of opposing them, well, he seems to be missing the whole point of the opposition, particularly with the budget. The opposition’s job is to argue why the government doesn’t deserve Supply to carry out their programme – they are supposed to be making that case. Having all parties vote for it defeats the purpose of why we have an opposition.

And then there’s Green leader Peter Bevan-Baker, who may or may not actually be leader of the opposition, given that he’s talking about some kind of supply-and-confidence agreement with the government rather than being the opposition. And you can’t be both Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition while signing a supply and confidence agreement to prop up said government. It doesn’t work like that, because it blunts your ability to hold them to account because you need the threat of being able to remove confidence to do so. And it’s astounding that he doesn’t seem to get that basic constitutional role or function. I know that people somehow think that “cooperation” or “collaborative” governments should be the way things work, but they’re wrong, because that does away with accountability, which is at least as important. When everyone is accountable for decisions, then nobody is accountable, and that will be the death knell of our political system. It would be great if Bevan-Baker understood that simple bit of civic literacy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Suspension as a first step

Posted on by

The Senate’s Conflict of Interest and Ethics Committee has considered the Senate Ethics Officer’s report into the conduct of one Senator Lynn Beyak and found her response to be wanting. Because she has refused to acknowledge wrongdoing and hasn’t removed the racist letters from her website, let alone apologise for posting them, they are recommending that she be suspended without pay for the remainder of the current parliament (meaning that it would end when parliament is dissolved and the writs drawn up for the election). Part of the thinking is that the time away – without pay or access to Senate resources – will give her time to think about her actions, and they suggest that the sensitivity training about racism and Indigenous history should be out of her own pocket. And if she still refuses to take action, they’ll look at having Senate administration take the letters down from her site (though nothing would stop her from moving them to a site that she hosts on her own), and if she still refuses action, well, they can revisit her fate in the next Parliament.

A couple of things to consider in all of this. First – it may help to re-read my column on the subject – is that they are likely recommending suspension because they will be very reluctant to recommend full expulsion without exhausting all avenues, and to afford her every single bit of procedural fairness and due process they possibly can in order to ensure that if it comes to that, that they will be on unshakeable ground. Setting a precedent for the removal of a senator should be done very, very carefully, and it has been argued in some circles that the reason why Senators Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau remain in the Chamber are because the need to be politically expedient in their suspensions and not affording them proper fairness essentially made it impossible to recommend expulsion in the future because they could plausibly argue that they hadn’t been afforded the due process. Consider that lesson learned with how they are dealing with Beyak.

I can’t stress enough that recommending expulsion is an extraordinary step, and they can’t just do it because she’s an unrepentant racist (even though she doesn’t see herself that way) – especially because part of the whole reason the Senate has such strong institutional protections is because Senators are supposed to be able to speak truth to power without fear of repercussion. But it’s clear that this isn’t what Beyak is doing, and they need to go to great lengths to prove it and to provide enough of a paper trail to show that there is no other choice to deal with her than expulsion, because this is a very dangerous precedent that they would be setting. More than anything, the measures they are recommending are done in the hopes that she does the honourable thing and resigns, though it remains to be seen if she will get that hint (given that she refuses to believe that she’s done anything wrong). This will be a slow process. People will need to be patient. Demanding her immediate removal will only make things worse.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Beating one’s chest over China

Posted on by

The current dispute with China doesn’t seem to be getting better, as the canola issue is apparently about to be compounded with things like soybeans and peas, and word has it that the Chinese government has been compiling a list of Canadian targets within the country that could face further retaliation, because we all know that this is about the arrest and extradition of Meng Wanzhou. While Trudeau says that more help for canola farmers is coming “in a few days,” China is taking its time in visa approvals for the scientific delegation Canada is trying to send in order to get answers from them on the supposed pests they found in our canola shipments.

Enter Andrew Scheer, who has declared that Justin Trudeau hasn’t done enough, and he demanded that a new ambassador be appointed (because that can happen at the drop of a hat), that the government launch a trade complaint against China at the WTO, and that the government pull its investment from the Asian Infrastructure Bank (never mind that Canadian companies are starting to win bids through it). Because beating one’s chest is obviously the way to deal with China, and there would be no possible consequences for doing so.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1123023732610613249

One gets the impression from watching this that Scheer – or whoever is advising him – has no serious ideas for how to deal with complex situations like this. I mean, Scheer has also insisted that he somehow could have gotten a better New NAFTA deal and that he could have somehow gotten the steel and aluminium tariffs lifted by now, which is ridiculous, and yet here he is, demonstrating how “serious” he is about foreign policy, this time with China. Even more risible is the way in which he characterises the current government’s position as “appeasement.” Erm, except appeasement would have meant that they would have freed Meng by now, or did that “crafty” thing about warning her before she could have been arrested so that she could have avoided the trip altogether (as certain former political players in this town later told the media that the government should have done). You would think that the person who wants to lead the country would try to be a bit more serious about his foreign policy, but this is where we are.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Untenable ideas that get print

Posted on by

There were a couple of pieces over the weekend that had me scowling a little, mostly because they don’t seem terribly well thought-through when you actually delve in a little. One of them was a piece in Maclean’s that used polling data to posit the idea of a Green Party-NDP merger which is a bit silly because the parties are nothing alike in the slightest. The premise that they both claim to care about the environment and appeal to youth is flimsy on its face, because the Greens aren’t really that “progressive” of a party seeing as the federal party came into being with a lot of disaffected Red Tories in their mix, and if you delve into some of their non-environmental policies, there’s not a lot of millennial progressivity in there. (Seriously, it’s a dog’s breakfast of things, as they discovered in the last election when it turned out that a bunch of their social policies were written by men’s rights activists, given that there is a lack of adult supervision when it comes to policy development in that party). Add to that, the party cultures are essentially night and day – the NDP are centralizing and are about solidarity at all costs (and they rigidly enforce it), while the Greens are decentralized to the point of practical incoherence. I get that there is going to be a bit of a fad in political circles right now that believes that Alberta “proved” that mergers work given the Progressive Conservative + Wildrose Alliance “merger” into the UCP was prototypical, but that would be looking at quantitative data over qualitative – and the UCP is still young.

The other piece that deserves some consternation was Justin Ling’s op-ed that suggested that co-leaders would be a great thing for parties to deal with the problem of presidentialised leadership politics, and look how great it’s working for Quebec Solidaire. Err, except the solution to our presidentialised leadership politics in this country isn’t to share power, but rather to restore the selection and firing process to the hands of caucus. The biggest flaw in Ling’s argument, however, is that it’s antithetical to the way in which our system is structured, which is that it’s about giving advice to the Queen (and by extension, the Governor General/lieutenant governor). That requires a single voice – which is why Cabinet Solidarity is a Thing – and it’s also to create a single point of accountability. If you have dual leadership, then it becomes harder to pin blame. It also has more than enough potential to create factionalisation within parties more than we have already, as different parts of the caucus align themselves behind one co-leader or the other in power struggles. As with so many of these kinds of reform ideas, they sound interesting on the surface, that’s about it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Anger over vilified legislation? Shocking!

Posted on by

Over on the Financial Post’s op-ed pages, Senator Richard Neufeld worries about all of the angry Canadians the Senate’s energy committee is hearing from over Bill C-69. I have no doubt that they are hearing from angry people, because there has been a massive disinformation campaign around this bill from the start. The Conservatives and their provincial counterparts in Alberta have dubbed it the “no more pipelines” bill, even though it’s nothing of the sort. Neufeld worries that the bill means that we can never have any more major projects in this country, which is absurd on the face of it, but hey, there are narratives to uphold.

I’ve talked to a lot of environmental lawyers about this bill, and the potential amendments that it could merit. It is certainly not a bill without flaws, and the government seems to have acknowledged that (and apparently there is some kind of gamesmanship being played right now, where the government has a list of amendments they want to introduce at the Senate committee via one of their proxies but they won’t release them ahead of time for some reason). This having been said, there seems to be no acknowledgment of a few realities – that the current system that the Harper government put into place isn’t working and has only wound up with litigation; that we simply can’t bully through projects past Indigenous communities anymore, because Section 35 rights mean something; and that the bill sought to eliminate a lot of heavy lifting by putting more consultation on the front end so that projects could be better scoped, and that it would mean not needing to produce boxes of documents that nobody ever reads in order to check boxes off of lists as part of the assessment process. This is not a bad thing.

But like I said, there are problems with the bill, and Neufeld lists a few of them in passing while trading in more of the myths and disinformation around it. But so long as that disinformation campaign goes unchallenged – and this includes by ministers who can only speak in talking points and can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag because they’re too assured of their own virtues that they don’t feel the need to dismantle a campaign of lies – then the anger will carry on, and when this bill passes in some amended form (and it’s likely it will), then it will simply become another propaganda tool, which should be concerning to everyone – including those who are weaponizing it, because it will blow up in their faces.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Undaunted by the facts

Posted on by

The Parliamentary Budget Officer issued a report yesterday that confirmed what the federal government has been saying – that yes indeed, because the federal carbon price backstop is legislated that 90 percent of proceeds must be returned to individual households, that the vast majority of Canadians will be better off as a result, and yes, this includes both direct and indirect costs, and he did a whole analysis based on input and output-based pricing, and confirmed it all with StatsCan data. The federal government might as well have said “I told you so.” But did this force a mea culpa from the Conservatives that perhaps they were wrong about the whole thing? Nope. Instead, both Andrew Scheer and Ed Fast, his environment critic, issued released that cherry picked a couple of pieces from the report, divorced of proper context, to say that it “proved” their false narrative about said price. Because of course they did. And did we see any fact checking about their statements? Not anywhere that I could see. Which is your preview of the coming election – that fact-free shitposts will continue to spin lies, and they will largely get away with it, even after they’ve been debunked.

Meanwhile, the Globe and Mail reports that Andrew Scheer and several of his campaign team were meeting up with oil and gas executives to help plot the demise of the Liberals in the coming election. And before you get any ideas about this being old boys with cigars in backrooms, it should be noted that these were executives from fairly junior companies and not the big players, who do support carbon pricing (for which Jason Kenney wants to go to war with them). (As an aside, one of these junior company executives is a fairly robust troll on Twitter, so that should give you a taste of what this was about). Much like Kenney’s rhetoric, the players at this conference discussed using litigation as a tool to fight their critics, but one has to wonder how they possibly think this is going to appeal to the centrist voters they need in key battlegrounds like the 905 belt around Toronto, let alone to have any hope of winning seats in Quebec. You would think that a meeting like this just confirms for Canadians the caricatures that they have about the energy industry and its lobbyists, and doesn’t really engender sympathy for the pain that the industry is feeling at present. But maybe I’m just missing something.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Vetting judges? Oh noes!

Posted on by

Yesterday the Globe and Mail had a story about how the current government will run potential judicial nominees through the Liberal party’s voter database as part of the vetting process, which was followed by an analysis of how many appointees were Liberal donors. This first came up weeks ago when yet another Jody Wilson-Raybould-related leak revealed that she was trying to “depoliticize” the appointment process by not providing certain information to PMO when she passed along recommendations, which is a problem – not that it was framed that way. This current story follows up on that, and has a few framing issues of its own. There are a few things to unpack in this, but first of all, I’ll let Adam Goldenberg point out a few issues with this analysis:

https://twitter.com/adamgoldenberg/status/1121013782795497478

https://twitter.com/adamgoldenberg/status/1121013787128156160

https://twitter.com/adamgoldenberg/status/1121013789766369280

https://twitter.com/adamgoldenberg/status/1121024056663400448

With this in mind, I have a few thoughts of my own – first of all is that I think Goldenberg is correct in his reminder that vetting includes political vetting – and the party’s database (as Susan Delacourt noted on Power Play) contains more than who donated – they will collect all manner of information as part of their construction of voter profiles, so it makes sense that they would also run potential appointments through this. (The fact that parties don’t have stringent privacy rules around their databases is a discussion for another day). Why? Because the prime minister is ultimately politically accountable for all Governor-in-Council appointments, and that includes judges. And so long as the prime minister is politically accountable, I think it’s reasonable that his office does whatever vetting they deem necessary – and there’s nothing in here to indicate that they’re checking to ensure that they’re voting for Liberal partisans, which we need to keep in mind.

The other aspect of his story that makes me a bit queasy is the implication that there is favour being shown to Liberal donors – and the math bears out a little bit that while seventy percent of appointees hadn’t donated to anyone, twenty-five percent of them donated to the Liberals, which is disproportionate to other parties. But we also need to remember a few things, the primary one being that we need to stop treating political donations as a bad thing. The donation limits in this country are quite small – you’re not going to bribe someone for $1200, let’s face it – and we donations are a form of engagement. Engagement is a good thing. The more we stigmatize past political donations – and those donations could be for a variety of reasons, such as an acquaintance running in a local campaign, or because they wanted the tax receipt – the more we send the message that engagement is bad, which is the very opposite of what we should be doing in a country where we already have abysmal levels of engagement, whether it’s taking out party memberships, donating, or volunteering (and yes, Samara Canada has done research on this). Pearl-clutching stories like this just reinforce this narrative, which is bad for democracy.

Continue reading →