Tag Archives: Bank of Canada

Roundup: The big climate reveal

Posted on by

Yesterday was the big day, where Justin Trudeau unveiled the final details of his carbon pricing plan, and how the rebates would work for the provinces subject to the carbon backstop, which are going to be Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, with the Yukon and Nunavut also kicking in slightly later. (You can find breakdowns here). The Conservatives and their provincial premier allies immediately chimed in to predictably call this some kind of scam, and that nobody believed the rebates would happen, and so on, and so on. Also of note is that Trudeau’s nominal ally, Brian Gallant in New Brunswick, has also grumbled about the carbon price (but if he loses and Blaine Higgs forms government, he too is opposed to it). Manufacturers and small businesses are grumbling, despite the fact that there will be rebates for small and medium-sized businesses under the scheme. Also getting larger rebates will be people in rural communities, given that they have higher carbon costs (and it’s no secret that the Liberals have a harder time winning votes there).

https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/1054753060336078848

With this in mind, here are some noted climate economists who can put some of yesterday’s announcement into proper perspective. (Additional thread from Kevin Milligan here, and Nic Rivers here).

Meanwhile, here’s a look at whether Trudeau can escape the problems of Stéphane Dion’s Green Shift, with points to Trudeau being a better communicator (but I’d argue that journalists prefacing every explanation of the Green Shift with “it’s complicated” didn’t help either). Chris Selley notes that this is the issue that could make or break Trudeau in the next election, which is why he needs to get it right. Paul Wells drops a bit of reality on the language that Scheer and Ford are using, and wonders whether the carbon backstop rebates will start catching on with other provinces.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Keeping up with vacancies

Posted on by

Of all the places where the current government seems to have lapsed in their basic competencies, the most obvious tends to be their appointments process, and most especially when it comes to making judicial appointments. I’ll grant you that it’s more difficult than it can seem, especially when you are not only balancing the need for new judges with specific skillsets and linguistic capabilities (because you do need a certain number of minority-language speaking judges in every province), before you get to the issues of diversity, and the laudable goals of getting more women and visible minorities on the bench. What has made it more difficult is a process that relies on application rather than nomination, and this continues to be an ongoing saga. And while the courts have been adapting in the post-Jordandecision landscape by ensuring that criminal trials are getting precedence, it means that civil trials are falling to the wayside, and that has its own set of problems.

The Star delves into this problem, with a particular focus on Toronto-area vacancies, where they are chronically behind the number of judges they should have, and where the number that just got appointed will be offset by retirements within weeks. (As an aside, there is a push to get the complement of judges in the GTA increased further, because the total number has been deemed to be insufficient by the local bar). And what is perhaps most disconcerting here is that the minister keeps insisting that there needs to be broader culture change in the court system, not just more judges (when seriously, they’re looking for a full complement to start). I’m not sure that anyone disputes that culture change needs to happen, but the appointments are a pretty low bar that a government should be able to meet. And yet.

This having been said, there is some talk now that we may see more frequent appointments being made as cabinet starts meeting more regularly as Parliament resumes, given that Cabinet needs to approve these names for appointment. So maybe that will happen. But given the pace at which these things have happened, you’ll forgive my skepticism.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A sudden focus on birth tourism

Posted on by

So that was the Conservative policy convention. There wasn’t a lot of drama, post-Bernier, and most of the reactionary and social conservative policy resolutions got voted down in the end, including those related to abortion. What did wind up being contentious was a resolution around stopping automatic birth citizenship, which was supposedly aimed at stopping “birth tourism” but would have the alternate effect of creating stateless individuals, which is contrary to international law. Mind you, the Liberals didn’t help any when they started talking about how this meant revoking existing citizenships (which it wasn’t), and then certain Conservative partisans started complaining that this was being unfairly cast as xenophobic (I’m not sure that’s really an unfair assessment), but there you have it. Incidentally, MP Deepak Obhrai came out against this. There was a bit of other drama when opponents of supply management stole the briefing binder for dairy lobbyists and found proof therein that regardless of what was decided, Scheer would use his prerogative as leader to ensure the policy was untouched. When this hit social media, his people insisted that no, that’s erroneous information, they had it wrong, but remember that leaders’ prerogative is pretty much how every party operates since we’ve started privileging leadership over the grassroots, but people seem to keep forgetting that.

https://twitter.com/cforcese/status/1033749144689684480

https://twitter.com/cforcese/status/1033750378221920264

https://twitter.com/cforcese/status/1033757371338772480

Here’s a sit-down interview with Scheer to get his thoughts on policy positions that the convention was debating over the weekend, and another where he refuses to say if the Bernier split worries him. Scheer does complain that it’s hard for ordinary people to learn his name because he’s not suave and photogenic like Trudeau (never mind that a lot of what people in other countries remark about Trudeau is regarding his stances and policies, not just his looks). That said, it’s his party now, and it remains to be seen what his mark will inevitably be on it.

Meanwhile, the first poll about how people would vote with a theoretical Bernier-led party in the mix is out, and it would take enough votes away from the Conservatives and NDP to give the Liberals a bigger margin of victory. But remember, it’s early days and it’s pretty much the equivalent of putting “a pony” as the choice in the polls and people will immediately respond to it based on what they’re projecting rather than the reality, but that’s not unexpected.

Good reads:

  • Trilateral NAFTA might resume this week, but without Chrystia Freeland as she is on a diplomatic tour in Europe until Friday.
  • There are concerns that Shared Service Canada is gearing its procurements to favour multi-nationals over home-grown companies for contracts.
  • Families of fallen soldiers want public access to the rebuilt Afghanistan war cenotaph.
  • CRA’s tax evasion tip line netted some 32,000 leads last year.
  • Kevin Carmichael doesn’t think that there will be another interest rate hike in September.
  • Susan Delacourt sees problems with the conservative coalition that Andrew Scheer should be cementing at this point in his leadership.

Help Routine Proceedings expand. Support my Patreon.

Roundup: A tough day for the Alliance

Posted on by

The talk of the day is NATO, as well it should be, as the alliance is in danger of falling to tatters as Donald Trump picked fights (and this is without mentioning the problems of increasingly autocratic governments in Turkey, Hungary and Poland), though Trudeau apparently managed a side-meeting with Trump to talk trade. Trump did have a point about Germany getting natural gas from Russia (a point that Canada agrees with, though he didn’t necessarily articulate the concerns accurately), but the rest of it, particularly his new demand that NATO partners start contributing up to four percent of GDP on military spending? It’s ludicrous, because he doesn’t actually understand what he’s talking about, especially when he tries to frame it as though they’re paying into some kind of NATO fund that the US pays the lion’s share of – that’s not how the Alliance works, and very little of the US’ military spending goes toward NATO operations.

Canada, meanwhile, announced that we’ll be taking on a new role in Iraq to “train the trainers,” with more personnel and helicopters in the region, something that Trudeau may be hoping will be a bit of a distraction to Trump to show that even though we’re not meeting our GDP spending targets, we’re doing more than our share in contributing (particularly if you look at a country like Greece that meets the target because of salaries and benefits, but doesn’t contribute to missions or meet its equipment goals). IT’s partially why percentage of GDP is such a poor measure of contribution, because outputs are better measures than inputs. Nevertheless, Trudeau did reaffirm our commitment to the 2 percent of GDP goal, even though we’re not going to double spending to meet it anytime soon (though on a practical level, we’re having trouble getting DND to spend the money fast enough, so more money wouldn’t help with that capacity issue). Incidentally, Trudeau elaborated on some of this in his Q&A session, the highlights of which can be found here.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne lists Trump’s falsehoods and insults to the alliance while keeping an eye on next week’s meeting with Putin. Paul Wells takes a careful review of how Canada’s relationship with the Trumpocalypse have progressed from good to utter meltdown, and while he looks into Trump’s psyche, Wells also notes the disturbing trend toward authoritarianism that is creeping into more Western democracies, and that Trump is on the “winning” side of this trend – something that should absolutely be alarming to everybody because it signals the decline of liberal democracies.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On track for a final cannabis vote

Posted on by

Over in the Senate, some of the drama around the cannabis bill has resolved itself and we can look forward to some structured, orderly report stage and third reading debate leading up to the June 7thfinal vote. And yes, before you say anything, the Conservative senators are playing along and have been swearing up and down that they will respect this date and not try to play any games and delay it further. (They also know that they’ve burned a hell of a lot of political capital on unnecessary fights lately and aren’t keen to burn any more).

To recap, part of the drama has been that the Conservatives still plan to move amendments at Third Reading, which is their right. But they wanted this as part of the structured plan, and the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, wasn’t playing ball, and wanted the Social Affairs Committee – which funnelled all of proposed amendments from the four other committees that studied the bill and voted on them there – to have a look at those amendments first. And the Conservatives, rightfully, refused. And then members of the Independent Senators Group started giving quotes to newspapers about how they were open to real amendments and not those that were “superficial, tactical, unenforceable, or would only serve to delay this bill.” That, and throwing more shade about how they believed the Conservatives were just playing games, because the modus operandi seems to be that anything the Conservatives do is partisan and therefore bad, but anything they do out of a shared belief is not partisan and just fine, which is a lot of bunk. And some of the Independent senators are getting downright condescending in trying to make that particular case. Suffice to say, peace has broken out after the ISG got over their issues about the amendments, and they now have a plan for debate that will carry them through to the vote on the 7th.

Meanwhile, there is talk about whether the amendments to C-46 – the impaired driving bill – will survive a full vote in the Senate after the likely unconstitutional provisions around random alcohol testing. ISG “facilitator” Senator Woo is hinting that they would vote to reinstate the provisions. I will add, however, that I am not absolutely not buying their supposition that senators were trying to simply embarrass the government by returning the omnibus transport bill to the Commons a second time because it was their own Independent senators who insisted on those amendments. Sometimes senators insist on amendments because they think they’re in the right – which is a novel concept, I’m sure.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On the state of federal disarray

Posted on by

Yesterday, Manitoba premier Brian Pallister took to the airwaves to declare that the Canadian federation is in a state of disarray, much like Alberta’s wannabe premier Jason Kenney declared that “Canada is broken” earlier in the week. And on the face of it, one could point to places where things don’t appear to be working, where you have a nation of fiefdoms of provinces who make their own rules and who don’t talk to one another – why we don’t have proper interprovincial free trade – and all of the petty bits of provincial protectionism that still exist, 150 years later (thanks in large part to the Judicial Council of the Privy Council, which was the final court of appeal in the early days of confederation, who undermined the Founding Fathers’ goal of a more robust federal government).

But this all aside, I have to look at Pallister, Kenney, and the rest, and point out to them that they’re absolute hypocrites for saying that the country isn’t working when they’re ones who make and continue to make contradictory demands about what is and is not federal jurisdiction. In the very same breath, they’ll demand that the federal government exert its constitutional authority to get a pipeline built, while simultaneously decrying that the federal government’s imposition of a carbon price is unconstitutional – never mind the fact that the carbon price is part of the political deal that is aimed at getting that pipeline approved. In other words, exert your authority only on things that I like, but not the things I don’t. It’s so self-serving and gross, but they play too cute by half about it. Every single one of them, handily handing off responsibility to the federal government when it suits them, and using the courts as a political tool to engage in political theatre – which, by the way, is abusing the courts.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/989987469197131776

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/989988567962152960

To that end, Alberta premier Rachel Notley is offering up a very real warning – that using the courts in these ways could open up much bigger problems that would cause interprovincial gridlock, all because BC premier John Horgan is looking to protect his minority government’s confidence deal with the Green Party. And as far as reasons go for trying to further exacerbate the state of the federation, it’s not a very good or noble one, no matter how much one wraps themselves in the cause of the environment or First Nations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The struggle of independent senators

Posted on by

Despite the news being a day-old yesterday, the departure of Senator David Adams Richards from the Independent Senators Group got a bunch of tongue wagging, and even more wannabe comedians making lame jokes about Senate independence. Richards stated repeatedly over the past two days that he wasn’t pressured to vote or do anything by the ISG, but wanted to be “truly independent,” though I’m not sure he quite understands what he’s signing up for. Amidst this, the memo written by Senator Gold to his ISG colleagues about his conflict with just how independent they can be without defeating government bills also hit the news (despite the fact that I wrote about this in my weekend column), which got even more wannabe commentators to start opining about who is really independent in the Senate without having a clue about what is going on. (I will credit Althia Raj as being the only person who did have a clue yesterday, so there’s that).

So, to recap, the Independent Senators Group don’t whip votes or force attendance but organize for the purposes of logistics and to advance the cause of Senate modernization. Logistics include things like allocating office space, and also things like committee assignments, because of the way the Senate operations work, spots are divided up between caucuses, and the ISG is granted their share of committee seats. Any senators outside of the three caucus groups have a much tougher time of getting those committee seats. This is something that Richards is going to face if indeed he wants to do committee work. If he doesn’t, well, that’s going to be an issue because much of the value of the Senate comes from their committee work, which is superior to committee work coming out of the Commons by leaps and bounds.

As for the struggle for how independent Senators should be, part of the problem is that they’re getting a lot of bad and conflicting information, much of it coming from the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, who is deliberately misconstruing both the history of the Senate, the intent of the Founding Fathers, and how the Senate has operated for 150 years. Part of this stems from the fact that he refuses to do his actual job – he won’t negotiate timelines with the caucuses because he thinks that horse-trading is “partisan,” and he wants to ensure that government bills can’t get defeated by means of a Salisbury Convention so that he doesn’t have to do the work of counting votes to ensure that he can get those bills passed. And the Independent Senators are caught in the middle of this, too new to understand what is going on, and getting a lot of bad advice from people who are trying to force their own ideas of what the Senate should look like, and they’re afraid of accidentally defeating a government bill and having public opinion turn against them as being anti-democratic, and the like. So there are serious issues being contemplated, and the commentary coming from the pundit class right now, who think they’re being clever but who actually don’t have a clue about what they’re talking about, helps no one. And if people want to grab a clue, I have a collection of columns on the topic they can read up on.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Convention resolutions to be forgotten?

Posted on by

Coming out of the Liberal policy convention, the party’s top five resolutions were pharmacare, mental health, decriminalizing small amounts of drug possession, decriminalizing sex work, and protecting pensions. Some of the resolutions are controversial to members of caucus, and there’s no guarantee that any of these will show up in the party platform (or the Order Paper beforehand) despite its what the grassroots members allegedly want (big caveats here given how centralized and top-down this process has become under their new constitution), but maybe there will be pressure to implement them. Maybe. Trudeau doesn’t seem keen on decriminalization talk while the marijuana bill is still being debated (and he’s expending political capital on it).

Their big exciting Obama-connected guest (because that’s what the Liberals and NDP have grasped onto for the past eight or nine years) was David Axelrod, who said that the party needs to show that they are still change-makers and not the status quo, while he and Gerald Butts talked about political life. Dr. Danielle Martin, who makes the case for healthcare in the US, spoke about the need for universal pharmacare in Canada. Among the ministers who got up to speak to delegates, Ahmed Hussen talked about being racially profiled while he encouraged Liberals to combat racism. Trudeau’s own speech to the faithful included its share of digs at the Conservatives as still being the party of Harper, so good thing they can still draw on that particular bogeyman. New party president Suzanne Cowan spoke about how they all needed to be fundraisers going forward. And hey, the rank-and-file members were expressing some particular concerns about the rash of self-inflicted wounds that the party keeps enduring.

And because it wasn’t all sunshine and roses coming out of the convention, MP Francis Drouin is now facing an allegation of sexual assault from an incident that happened during the convention, and he’s put out a statement to say that an allegation has been made and he’s cooperating with the investigation – nothing else. It’s probably worth noting that there were harassment workshops at the convention that both Justin Trudeau and Kent Hehr attended, and the facilitator of said workshops noted that Trudeau simply listened and took notes throughout, which impressed her. So we’ll see what transpires from here.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Notley’s unconstitutional threats

Posted on by

In Alberta, Rachel Notley’s NDP government had a Throne Speech yesterday that promised all manner of action to try to pressure BC’s NDP government when it comes to the Trans Mountain pipeline problem. Notley, however, decided to take some of Jason Kenney’s bluster and make it her own, promising the ability to block oil shipments to BC that they need for their domestic use. The problem? The Trans Mountain pipeline is regulated by the National Energy Board, meaning it’s federal jurisdiction, and that neither province can do anything to block it or affect what it carries. She’s also echoing the comments that the federal government needs to lean harder on BC, never mind that the NEB has quasi-judicial authority on the issue, and the fact that all BC has done to date is announce a study, or that the federal government has repeated “This pipeline will get built.” It’s a bunch of chest-thumping and borrowed demagoguery that ignores the historical context of what Peter Lougheed threatened in the 1980s, and is rank hypocrisy in that they’re threatening unconstitutional action to combat BC’s threatened unconstitutional action. It’s time for everyone to grow up.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Imagining a competent committee

Posted on by

One of the most interesting pieces I read this weekend was a lament by financial journalist Kevin Carmichael, who imagined a parallel universe where a competent House of Commons finance committee could actually question the governors of the Bank of Canada about monetary policy decisions in the interests of accountability, rather than just juvenile point-scoring. And lament is really a good word for it, because this is the kind of thing that our committees should be doing – but they don’t. It’s all about who can try and get their party positions validated than dealing with the issue at hand, which in this case is the reasoning why the Bank of Canada is setting the rates where they are. As Carmichael points out, the Bank does hold press conferences and reporters can ask questions, and some of those journalists have a clue about what they’re asking, so that helps – but it would be great if our MPs could do the same. (Traditionally, senate committees tend to be where the serious questions get asked, but I’m not sure if the Bank appears before them regularly or not, and I haven’t had enough chance to see if the cohort of new independent senators has taken up the mantle of seriously questions – the kinds of questions that put fear into deputy ministers – just yet). Suffice to say, it’s a piece I encourage people (especially MPs) to read, and look at the kind of committees we could have, if enough MPs took the exercise as seriously as they should be.

Continue reading →