Tag Archives: Border

Roundup: Sore loserism and entrails

Posted on by

If you had any money riding on who would be the first to whine that Thursday’s election result was a signal that we need electoral reform, and if you chose Elizabeth May, well, collect your winnings. I spent much of Friday responding to this nonsense, but I will reiterate a couple of points – that if you blame the system because your party did not do better, you’re already missing the point. We’ve seen it happen time and again that when a party has a message that resonates, it’s the non-voters who come out, not the committed party base, and we had increased turnout on Thursday night which meant that people were motivated to throw the bums out. Similarly with Trudeau in 2015 – a significant uptick in voter turnout because they had something that they wanted to vote for/throw the bums out. This matters, and whinging that the system isn’t fair is missing the point entirely. The system works. It needs to be allowed to function the way it was intended. What doesn’t help is using a false number like the popular vote in order to make it look like the system is unfair in order to justify your disappointment is the epitome or sore loserism.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1005214910966452224

In terms of reading Thursday night’s entrails, here’s Paul Wells taking a detailed look at the three campaigns and how each succeeded and failed in their own ways. CBC has a look at how Ford’s use of simple and vague messaging made him look sensible to an angry population. Robert Hiltz looks at the ways in which the Liberals defeated themselves by their craven attempts to hold onto power. Nevertheless, Wynne’s surprise concession days before the election may actually have saved the seats the Liberals did win, according to exit polling done, so that particular strategic calculation may have actually paid off.

Jen Gerson wonders if Doug Ford’s win isn’t akin to a Monkey’s Paw curse – getting what you wish for at a terrible price. Andrew MacDougall wonders what Ford’s win means for modern conservatism given that Ford isn’t really a small-c conservative, nor were his outlandish promises. Similarly, Chris Selley looks at the phenomenon of Ford Nation, the Harper Conservatives that surround him, and the way that Andrew Scheer has suddenly attached himself to the cause. Andrew Coyne (once you get past the griping about the electoral system) warns politicians and pundits not to overread Thursday’s results (hey federal Conservatives and your crowing in QP on Friday – this especially means you), and further wonders if Ford will pull a “cupboard is bare” routine to keep carbon pricing to use the revenues. Jason Kirby mocks up what Ford’s first speech might look like, by referencing earlier speeches about bare cupboards.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford’s win, and echoes of 2011

Posted on by

So, that was an election, Ontario. I’m sure we’ll be full of hot takes, followed by the ritual lamentations about vote-splitting, and there will be a bunch of sanctimonious claptrap about “strategic voting,” but in the meantime, I am reminded of 2011. Why? Because with a Progressive Conservative government and an NDP official opposition, we may find that for the next little while, we’ll see a number of those MPPs talking about how great it is that there’s some real choice in visions in Ontario, and isn’t it great that those mushy-middle Liberals are out of the picture? And while we got a bunch of that in 2011, we also quickly found that the NDP MPs that did get elected in their big wave were not all up to par, and they went on an aggressive lockdown orchestrated by the leader’s office (or interim leader, as the case quickly proved to be). And it was that lack of real competence that ensured that the Liberals still in the chamber quickly became the grown-ups in the room. Question Period didn’t really start until then-interim leader Bob Rae stood up, and he ran circles around both the opposition and the government, frankly. And I suspect that it had something to do with how the Liberals were able to rebuild as quickly as they did – because people quickly started to clamour for a centrist vision that they could rally around. But it also didn’t happen without a lot of hard work, and a leader who emphasised the importance of that. We’ll have to see where the Liberals in Ontario land. As of the time I’m writing this, there is enough fluctuation still that we’re not sure if they will keep official party status at eight seats, and with Kathleen Wynne’s resignation as party leader, that leaves it open to see how these Liberals will get their acts together to provide that centrist voice (which was somewhat lacking under Wynne – who did win her own seat, incidentally). And in the meantime, here’s some advice from Jean Charest about rebuilding a devastated party.

Meanwhile, in hot takes, Justin Ling looks at the hard time that Doug Ford will have when it comes to trying to dismantle the cap-and-trade system in the province as well as fight the federal carbon price backstop, while Chris Selley notes that this is a bit of a blank slate because we have no coherent vision of what the party’s vision really is after their unrealistic platform. John Ivison asserts that this is the dawn of a new era of combative federalism, with Ford voting against everything coming from Ottawa. Paul Wells looks at the immediate problems for both Ford and Justin Trudeau coming out of last night’s election.

Continue reading →

QP: A digression to the LRT

Posted on by

With the G7 meeting ramping up in Quebec City and Charlevoix, Quebec, Justin Trudeau was away from QP, and so was Andrew Scheer, as has been his wont lately. Candice Bergen led off, reading the same questions about the government not immediately imposing retaliatory tariffs on the US. Marc Garneau read that it was essential that they get this right, so they had a few days to respond. Bergen demanded that all tariffs collected by these retaliatory measures went to those impacted, and Garneau relied with the same assurances that they were there to defend steel and aluminium workers. Bergen switched topics to TPP ratification, and this time Mélanie Joly said that they had worked hard to improve the bill and it would be tabled shortly. Gérard Deltell reiterated the question in French, and got the same response in French. Deltell then repeated the earlier question about using whatever tariffs were collected to support affected workers, and Garneau reiterated earlier response in French. Guy Caron led off for the NDP, railing that fossil fuel subsidies weren’t being eliminated, among other sins, and Catherine McKenna responded with plans to implement a plastics charter at the G7 meeting. Caron demanded funding for green jobs rather than fund a pipeline, and McKenna insisted that they have stood up for the environment while growing the economy. Rachel Blaney reiterate the question in English, and McKenna listed the measures that they have taken — pricing carbon, phasing out coal, investing in public transportation and clean tech. Another round of the same yielded the same response.

Continue reading →

QP: Concern trolling about tariff compensation

Posted on by

In advance of the arrival of French president Emmanuel Macron, Justin Trudeau was present for QP, along with all other leaders. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and in French, he read some Supply Management concerns. Trudeau replied with the well-worn talking points about how they created Supply Management, would defend it, and took a shot at Maxime Bernier while he was at it. Scheer then switched to English to ask about where the budget contained any contingency funds for possible tariff relief. Trudeau noted that they ensured they had retaliatory measures ready to go, but the wanted to consult to ensure there were no unintended consequences. Scheer concern trolled about the size of the deficit and how much higher it might be with measures to help industries affected by the tariffs, to which Trudeau reminded him that the choice in the election was cuts and austerity or his government’s investments. Scheer said that the budget was built on the back of “borrowing and tax cuts” — getting applause from the Liberals — before he corrected himself and said that he wanted tax cuts for those affected by the tariffs paid for by the revenues of retaliatory tariffs. Trudeau reminded him that they gave a tax cut to the middle class. Scheer then pivoted to demand that the TPP be ratified before the House rises, to which Trudeau praised their record and that they would introduce a bill before the House rises. Guy Caron led for the NDP, railing about the Trans Mountain purchase and retention bonuses for its executives. Trudeau dispatched his lines about growing the economy while protecting the environment. Caron railed that the pipeline was against the principles of UNDRIP, and Trudeau noted that he sat down with affected First Nations communities yesterday, and that he listened to all points of view. Alexandre Boulerice repeated the first question in French, and got the same response in French. Nathan Cullen then stood up to sanctimoniously expound about fossil fuel subsidies, and he got the same response about the environment and the economy. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, this election won’t be good for electoral reform

Posted on by

I know that I really shouldn’t give bad columns more coverage, but I can’t help myself, because this is just the first of many that we are doubtlessly going to see in the coming months – that a Doug Ford win on Thursday could get the ball rolling on electoral reform, at least in Ontario. It’s a specious argument, but it’s attractive to a certain class of voter and wonk, so brace yourselves, because this red herring will be coming at you hard in the coming month.

Part of the problem with this particular column is that it doesn’t really make the argument why electoral reform is the logical follow-through for a Ford-led government, because most of the complaints have to do with how Ford won the leadership instead of Christine Elliott. This is not the fault of the electoral system – it’s the fault of our very broken leadership selection system and would largely be corrected if we returned to the system of caucus selection of leaders that our system is designed for. If we had that in place, Elliott would likely have been chosen because she was in caucus at the time that Patrick Brown challenged for the post (while he was still a federal MP, in case you’d forgotten). That would be two dark chapters in the Ontario PC party that could have been avoided, but I digress. The argument here should be that the Ford gong show should be an object lesson in how we need to restore proper leadership processes, where caucus can select and remove leaders in order to ensure that there is proper accountability and more importantly that leaders can’t throw their weight around, that caucus has more power to keep the leader in check. Sadly, that’s not the argument we got.

The balance of the column is a bunch of whinging that parties got majority mandates with less than 40 percent of the popular vote – never mind that the popular vote is a logical fallacy. It’s not a real thing – it’s an extrapolation that magnifies the sense of unfairness by those whose parties did not win, but it’s not a real thing because general elections are not a single event, they’re a series of simultaneous but separate elections for individual seats, and yes, that matters greatly in how the system works, how parliaments are formed, and in the agency afforded to individual MPs.

The other implicit argument being made in pieces like these, though this pieces doesn’t come out and say it, is that proportional representation will likely deliver us a series of coalition governments by nice leftist parties, and we’ll get solar panels on roofs, and great social programs, and no divisive politics because they’ll be forced to cooperate. Won’t it be great? Err, except that’s not what happens, and if anyone thinks it’ll be nice leftist coalitions in perpetuity, they should perhaps look at what’s going on in Europe right now, and how the populist mood there and in North America would have consequences in our own elections that wouldn’t be mitigated like our current brokerage system does, and that could be an even bigger problem. But that’s not the established electoral reform/PR narrative, even though it should be.

Continue reading →

QP: Pushing back on partisanship

Posted on by

While the prime minister was off in Alberta and BC to offer reassurances around the purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline, Andrew Scheer was in Ottawa for a change. Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, reading concern about the three weeks that it will take for Canadian retribution for US tariffs to come into effect. Ralph Goodale responded by saying that the US tariffs were insulting, before reading condemnation about Scheer’s partisanship over the issue. Scheer took swipes at the government’s apparent inaction and again demanded again to know why it would take three weeks for retaliation to come into effect, and Goodale again read more condemnation of Scheer’s partisanship. Scheer insisted that his pointing out the failure to implement the retribution was in the national interest and was his job in holding government to account, before he changed to the Kinder Morgan retention bonuses — conveniently ignoring the “retention” part. Bill Morneau stood up this time to say that Scheer was coming out against Canadian workers on this project. Scheer tried again, and Morneau responded that he wouldn’t comment on what a private company does, before reiterating that the Conservatives apparently don’t care about the jobs this would create. Scheer switched to French to concern troll about Supply Management, to which Marie Claude Bibeau stood up to insist that the government was resolute in the defence of Supply Management. Alexandre Boulerice led for the NDP, railing about the Trans Mountain pipeline, to which Morneau reminded him that this was about Canadian jobs. Boulerice insisted this project ignore First Nations’ rights, and to this Jim Carr assured him that they did consult, more than was required. Georgina Jolibois took over the question in English, hammering on the UNDRIP angle, to which Carr noted the co-development of the monitoring committee and that it was food for shared prosperity. Nathan Cullen got up to sanctimoniously lament that the government was pitting one First Nation against another — which erupted in cries of shame — to which Carr wondered if Cullen had consulted with the First Nations that were in favour of the project.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Undead electoral reform concerns

Posted on by

With BC’s electoral reform referendum on the horizon, and vague promises around it from the Ontario NDP as the election draws to a close, we’re apparently talking proportional representation again. Sigh. Over the weekend, Jean Chrétien made the particular case in his idiosyncratic way that the reason why it’s a bad system, and the core of his argument is that it doesn’t force people to engage with voters. Door knocking to win a riding? Democratic. Being a party wonk who gets in because they’re on a list? Not very democratic. It’s a way of looking at the practical inputs and outputs of the system that most people gloss over when they whinge about the popular vote (which, I will remind you, is a logical fallacy because general elections are not one single event, but 338 separate but simultaneous events) and how “unfair” it seems when viewed through this skewed lens.

As for this referendum in BC, it’s a bit of a dog’s breakfast with its two-stage vote – the first vote as to whether to keep First-Past-the-Post or to adopt a system of proportional representation; the second stage being to choose between three systems – mixed-member proportional with some regional weighting, dual-member proportional, and a hybridized system where urban ridings would have single-transferable-votes, and rural ones would have some kind of proportional system akin to MMP. But there are problems with all three choices – the regional weighting associated with their version of MMP exists nowhere in the world so we don’t know the outcomes; the dual-member proportional is a theoretical system dreamed up by some University of Alberta system that exists nowhere in the world and we really have no idea if or how it would actually work; and the split urban-rural system would never pass constitutional muster. If BC’s attorney general thinks that the Supreme Court would allow different voting systems based on where you lived, I suspect that he’s dreaming, and it would have to be one hell of an excuse to try and save this with Section 1 of the Charter (being that it’s a reasonable curtailing of your rights and freedoms in a free and democratic society). So, good luck with that.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne is no fan of the two-stage referendum and would rather simply prefer a single ballot where status-quo was an option like they did in PEI. Where Coyne goes wrong is when he said this as successful in PEI – it really wasn’t. They had to go some five ballots before a PR system squeaked through by the narrowest of margins with unusually low voter turnout for a province that typically takes voting very seriously. Colby Cosh, meanwhile, quite properly lambastes the whole affair as being completely gamed, because aside from the way in which they’re dubiously counting the second ballot if one system doesn’t get a majority from the start, there are still too many unknowns in the three proposals, including whether the proportional lists would be open or closed – a very huge consideration in how PR systems work, and which goes to the heart of holding governments to account in these systems. In other words, this BC referendum is shaping up to be a boondoggle from the start, which is not good for our democracy in the slightest.

Continue reading →

QP: Bothered by bonuses

Posted on by

While a torrential downpour descended on the nation’s capital, he third-last week of the spring sitting got underway. Andrew Scheer led off in French, mini-lectern on desk, decrying the “failure” of the government to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline and the revelation that executives were getting million-dollar bonuses. Justin Trudeau took up a script to read about their decision to stand up for workers, but would not comment on the internal workings of a company. Scheer switched to English to repeat the question, with added verbosity. Trudeau had no script this time to reiterate the same thing, and adding that public investment has long been necessary to develop resources in Canada. Scheer switched topics, offering some revisionist history in saying that they immediately supported the government in retaliating against the imposition of US tariffs, but worried that our measures wouldn’t come into effect until July 1st. Trudeau reminded him that they wanted to consult to ensure that no Canadians would be inadvertently hurt by these measures. They went another round of the same, and Scheer switched topics again to Iran, and the recent tweets by the Supreme Leader, to which Trudeau took up a script to read some pro forma condemnation of Iran’s actions. Ruth Ellen Brosseau led for the NDP, reading some condemnation about those Kinder Morgan bonuses, and Trudeau, sans script, gave the response about the $15 billion Canada loses annually by not getting a world price for oil. Brosseau worried that the pipeline trampled on the rights of First Nations, to which Trudeau suggested that they did a lot of consulting on the issue. Georgina Jolibois reiterated the question in English, and Trudeau said that they listened to all First Nations, including those who disagreed with them, and they tried to do what they to allay concerns. Nathan Cullen got up to reiterate the question of Kinder Morgan bonuses with added sanctimony, to which Trudeau repeated the $15 billion talking point and the fact that it fit within their climate plan.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Justifying a belligerent tone

Posted on by

Two days after the American tariff announcements, and I found myself still struck by the tone that the federal Conservatives have adopted with this, squarely blaming Trudeau rather than the uncertainty engine known as Trump, and engaging in the same kind of disingenuous narrative-building to justify their stance. In particular, they have been trying to claim that when Trudeau made his tour of steel and aluminium plants earlier in the year, that it was a “victory tour,” which is vastly different from how I remember it. Back then, it was about reassurance and the prime minister wanting to tell them that he had their backs and given that the government was ready for these tariffs to happen and had a package of retaliatory measures ready to go, it means that they didn’t take the reprieve for granted – entirely negating the premise of the Conservatives’ attack lines. Not that facts matter. They are also insistent that the Trudeau government has allowed itself to get “distracted” by the feel-good chapters around labour and gender in NAFTA negotiations, which again, is novel if you pay the slightest amount of attention to what’s been going on. But this isn’t about truth – this is about building their narrative that Trudeau is a dilettante who is incompetent and that the Conservatives are the real grown-ups in the room (despite evidence to the contrary). And because people have let Scheer and company lie with impunity on all sorts of files for months now, they feel emboldened to take this course of action, despite how gauche or out of step with other conservative voices in the country it may be, because they see this as their long-term game plan. And we’ll see if any of those voices call them out on it.

As for the impact of the tariffs, it turns out that they could have a far less detrimental impact on Canada’s aluminium industry because it exports more product to the US than we do steel, and America’s own smelters are older and less efficient than Canadian ones, meaning that these tariffs won’t do anything to help support the US industry, and American producers say that they could do more harm than good. Steel, of course, is a different story. The whole tariff issue, meanwhile, could mean that the lock that the American arms industry has on our military procurement may be at an end, and that our Forces may start looking to Europe for equipment instead – something that may actually be more affordable, but the tendency had been to buy from American producers under the guise of “interoperability” with American forces. As for the American companies facing retaliatory tariffs, well, they’re still learning about them, but most don’t seem too concerned. At least not yet. And many Republicans and businesses are lashing out at Trump for the move – including anchors at Fox Business.

In further reaction, Andrew Coyne believes that the sheer size of the US economy means that our retaliation will come to nothing, and even if we coordinate with other countries, we’re unlikely to change Trump’s mind, so better to work to contain the US presidency. Susan Ariel Aaronson suspects that the tariffs will weaken America’s national security interests rather than strengthen them, as Trump has used as the excuse to enact them, while Andrew MacDougall thinks that Trump’s move may benefit Doug Ford, who pledges to lower taxes and cut red tape that may appeal to people who think this can help keep Ontario’s economy competitive.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The first salvo of a trade war

Posted on by

It looks like we’ll officially be in a trade war with the United States, thanks to the decision of the American government to slap steel and aluminium tariffs on us as a direct consequence of NAFTA not being renegotiated (under the guise of “national security” concerns), and the Canadian government has opted to retaliate. And we also learned that a NAFTA deal was on the table, but because we refused the five-year sunset clause (as well we should have because it would present too much uncertainty to industry), the Americans walked away from the deal. So that’s a pretty big deal.

The tariffs could have pretty big knock-on effects on our economy, and it won’t really help the American steel industry, which is already operating pretty much at capacity, so much of Trump’s justification evaporates. And Canada’s retaliatory measures, calculated to be dollar-for-dollar on the US-imposed tariffs may sound like an odd list that includes things like yogurt, candy, pizzas and pens, it’s all carefully calculated to target the industries of swing states and key American legislators as they start heading toward mid-term elections. The objective of course is to put pressure on them, who should in turn put pressure on Trump. In theory. We’ll see.

Meanwhile, Aaron Wherry looks at how Trump is ignoring the basics of statecraft and getting away with it with impunity. Paul Wells suspects it’s time to start snubbing Trump rather than appearing eager to get a deal accomplished, since that’s what he’s more focuse don in the first place. Stephen Saideman says that Canada needs to retaliate somehow, lest it feed Trump’s perception that “maximal pressure” works in negotiations.

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/1002189314107703297

Continue reading →