The the budget lock-up going on not far from the Hill, and the Conservatives looking to go into full procedural meltdown mode in response to this morning’s justice committee meeting. Andrew Scheer stood up to decry the committee meeting results, demanding to know what the prime minister was covering up. Justin Trudeau stood up and read a script saying that he took responsibility for the erosion of trust between his office and Jody Wilson-Raybould, that the committee heard testimony, that they gave an extraordinary waiver of confidence, and the decision was ultimately hers all along. Scheer disputed this in English, but Trudeau repeated his response sans-script in English. Scheer again disputed that Wilson-Raybould could not speak, and wondered why she wasn’t being allowed to “finish her story.” Trudeau insisted that he did waive the confidentiality so that she could speak fully, and called the Conservatives desperate to talk about anything other than the economy because they know it would show their plans failed. Scheer retorted that the PM was desperate to talk about anything other than this scandal, and repeated his demand. Trudeau repeated that the Conservatives didn’t want to talk about the economy because they didn’t have a plan. Scheer wondered what was so bad that the PM was trying to hide it, and Trudeau stuck to his insistence that the Conservatives were afraid to talk about the economy. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and he read that appointing Anne McLellan was a weak response to what happened, and demanded a public inquiry. Trudeau gave a pained performance about the NDP not standing up for workers, as the government was standing up for jobs and workers. Singh switched to French to list the resignations that happened in recent weeks before repeating his derision of McLellan, and Trudeau dismissed the talk of “politics” in favour of listing the good economics gains his government made. Singh, in French, remained sceptical of the appointment, and Trudeau wondered aloud what people in Quebec would think about Singh not caring about their jobs. Singh took another shot at McLellan in English, and Trudeau listed all the steps they took in order to make matters public.
Tag Archives: Canadian Forces
Roundup: Procedural warfare denied (for now)
If the Conservatives were hoping for procedural tactics to try and delay the budget speech on Tuesday, well, they were outplayed by the government, who used their ability to control the timing of those Estimates votes to Wednesday instead of Monday. If you recall, the plan was for the Conservatives to force line-by-line votes on the Supplementary Estimates, so that they could delay the budget speech, which I will also remind you is a tactically stupid move, and doesn’t prove any point. And yet here we are. This having been said, I fully expect them to try some kind of dilatory tactics including a privilege motion of some variety on Tuesday in order to move the budget speech, because they’ve tried it before in the past, but once again, we’re a long way from the times that people who were good at this kind of thing were in charge.
Well, the procedural flaw in CPC's plan for voting on the Estimates has now been revealed. The Gov is simply going to move the last Opposition day from Monday to Wednesday, giving the Opp a short day for debate as well.
— B. Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) March 17, 2019
The last Opposition day is the last allotted day of the Supply Period. Was supposed to be Monday. Rules changed a few yrs back to allow for an Opposition motion on the last allotted day. Previously it was only the Estimates. Opposed Votes require divisions.
— B. Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) March 17, 2019
Meanwhile, you can expect the next two days to be replete with bleating admonishing that the Liberals are going to try to use a “shock and awe” budget to drown out the Double-Hyphen Affair, as though the past five weeks of breathless reporting will evaporate in a single night. Come on.
Roundup: Objections to the waiver
At first it seemed like today was going to be the big day. Jody Wilson-Raybould had agreed to meet the justice committee to tell “her truth.” On his way into Cabinet, Justin Trudeau said he was “pleased” that she would be able to appear at committee. The committee agreed to give her the thirty minutes she requested off the top instead of the usual five or ten for an opening statement. Some MPs wanted to try and get the hearing moved from after QP to beforehand (never mind that it’s when all of the parties hold their caucus meetings) in order to be able to ask the PM any questions that might arise from the testimony. And then, surprising probably nobody who paid attention, Wilson-Raybould sent another letter to committee, expressing her “concerns” that the Order in Council that waived solicitor-client privilege wasn’t enough for her to tell the full story.
Here’s JWR’s letter expressing concerns: #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/cAvJG9CI2b
— Vassy Kapelos (@VassyKapelos) February 27, 2019
At this point, it’s starting to feel like a game – that Wilson-Raybould’s attempt to keep controlling the narrative is running out of runway, given that Michael Wernick called her out and Justin Trudeau went and waived solicitor-client privilege (unnecessarily, if you listen to some of the legal commentary out there), and now she’s trying to sow doubt that she’s still not completely free to speak, in order to keep up the narrative that she’s the victim or the hero, distracting from her poor record as justice minister. And it’s starting to feel like the more song and dance that she keeps putting up in order to keep from speaking, the less there is to what she has to say. But maybe I’m getting cynical after a decade on the Hill.
Meanwhile, former litigator Andrew Roman takes a deeper look into the portents of doom for SNC-Lavalin if they were subject to prosecution and even a ten-year ban from federal contracts, and finds them to be less dire than advertised, which makes any alleged wrongdoing by the government to protect them all the more baffling.
Roundup: No inquiry (for now)
Another day, and a few more incremental pieces to add to the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould Affair. There were reports that Justin Trudeau met with Jody Wilson-Raybould about the company two weeks after the Public Prosecution Service declined to offer them a deferred prosecution agreement (but we have no details). Wilson-Raybould attended caucus, and Trudeau apologized to her for not forcefully condemning the remarks about her, or the political cartoons that portrayed her bound and gagged. (We also heard that when it came to Wilson-Raybould addressing Cabinet on Tuesday, she apparently waited outside for two hours while some ministers argued that she be allowed to be heard. So that’s curious – and pretty unprecedented). Later in the day, the Liberals voted down the NDP’s Supply Day motion to call for an independent inquiry on the whole affair – the party line being that they don’t think it’s necessary at this time with the Ethics Commissioner and justice committee processes in place – but two Liberals did break ranks to vote for it. It should be no surprise that it was Nathaniel Erskine-Smith and Wayne Long (but could We The Media quit framing these kinds of things as “cracks in party unity” or nonsense like that? That’s why parties develop iron fists). After the vote, Wilson-Raybould stood up to put on the record that she abstained because the vote was about her personally, and she didn’t want to be in perceived conflict (which immediately created cries from the opposition that the PM should also have abstained), but she said she wanted to “speak her truth” as soon as she could. So that got more tongues wagging, naturally.
My comments on today's opposition motion. #cdnpolihttps://t.co/FPJLxGilSv pic.twitter.com/7wi3KjChGe
— Nate Erskine-Smith (@beynate) February 20, 2019
Emerging from this whole issue are the metaphysics of how the federal justice minister has a separate hat as Attorney General, and how the two roles can sometimes clash, particularly when it comes to political consideration. To that end, Colby Cosh delves further into this dichotomy and why that may be part of the cause of this whole affair to begin with. There are also a couple of worthwhile threads to read on it – one from Adam Goldenberg (one-time Liberal staffer and former law clerk to then-Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin) that argues that the Act requires a political consideration for deferred prosecutions in order for political accountability, while another litigator, Asher Honickman, disputes that – but agrees that the situation has a lot of nuance.
For context, here is an exploration of the role that Gerald Butts played in Trudeau’s PMO. Here’s the updated timeline of events as we know them so far. Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column explores how a Commons committee could run an investigation into an affair like the current one, but notes they’re not well suited to do so, and also details where it would break down into a partisan sideshow.
In punditry, Chantal Hébert makes the salient point that Wilson-Raybould is more in charge of the current situation than the prime minister is, which is an interesting dynamic.
Roundup: Flippant suggestions stepping on the message – again
There weren’t any official new developments in the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould controversy yesterday, but we did get a few more drips of information, like how prime minister Justin Trudeau had a one-way teleconference call with the caucus in the wake of Jody Wilson-Raybould’s departure, with the main message being that he still wished her well and didn’t want her booted from caucus. Not helpful was justice committee chair Anthony Housefather who somewhat flippantly suggested that perhaps Wilson-Raybould was replaced because she didn’t speak French at a time when a great many legal issues are coming up in Quebec – only to apologise later and clarify that he said it in relation to the baseless speculation that is rampant, not because it was a serious suggestion (except he did repeat it in a couple of different interviews, but I’m sure it sounded good in his head at the time). Because this party never ceases to stop stepping all over its own message, and can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag. Every. Single. Time.
NEW: Anthony Housefather on Jody Wilson-Raybould's demotion: "there's a lot of legal issues coming up in Quebec and the Prime Minister may well have decided he needed a Justice minister that could speak French." (Courtesy: @CJAD800) #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/D6ukqMqbvV
— Michel Boyer (@BoyerMichel) February 14, 2019
Thanks Matt and I apologize to anyone offended by offering a specific example. I was simply trying to say that the whole world stating with no knowledge as to why a shuffle happened was unfair. I made clear I had no specific knowledge and as such we should all stop speculating. https://t.co/wjS7Jcb7RK
— Anthony Housefather (@AHousefather) February 14, 2019
In the absence of any new developments in the story was looking at where various Liberals are starting to align themselves in relation to Wilson-Raybould’s current status, but that hasn’t stopped the anonymous Liberals from trying to give takes about “crossed wires” and “revisionist feelings” with benefit of the doubt going to Trudeau – or not, in other cases. Northwest Territories MP Michael McLeod points out that Wilson-Raybould’s departure means there is no longer Indigenous representation in Cabinet (expect this to be a factor in the upcoming shuffle). New Brunswick Liberal MP Wayne Long continues to break ranks and say he wants more answers, and good for him for doing his job as a backbencher properly. Oh, and PMO now apparently condemns the smack talk of other anonymous Liberals besmirching Wilson-Raybould’s record following complaints from Indigenous groups that said it was sexist and racist. Elsewhere, a number of Indigenous senators published a letter of support for Wilson-Raybould but also noted that this shouldn’t derail reconciliation, which is more than the work of one minister. (Senator Brazeau was not among them and is trying to make more hay of this).
In related matters, here’s a look at how the way in which the Ethics Commissioner undertook his examination (note that he didn’t investigation) of the matter could mean that he can end it at any point without a public report, and it’s not clear that he really has the scope to undertake such an investigation to begin with. The premier of Quebec is calling for SNC-Lavalin to get that deferred prosecution agreement, surprising no one. Here’s a look at SNC-Lavalin’s history of lobbying on the issue, and why Quebec sees the company as an asset in spite of their poor history.
Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt thinks there are lessons from #MeToo that Trudeau should be drawing from in handling this whole mess, particularly as silence remains on half of the tale. Jen Gerson thinks that it’s time to stop treating SNC-Lavalin with kid gloves, and that their demise may actually benefit a number of other companies who don’t have a history of corruption.
Roundup: A hard Wilson-Raybould exit
The day got off to a quiet start, with news of an emergency Cabinet meeting (via teleconference), followed by the news that Jody Wilson-Raybould had resigned from Cabinet (but not caucus), and retained a former Supreme Court of Canada justice as a lawyer to figure out what she’s able to say. Trudeau’s office later said that she informed him last night, and that Harjit Sajjan would be temporarily taking over the Veterans Affairs file until someone new can be put into the position. And people noticed that Trudeau didn’t thank Wilson-Raybould for her contributions after the fact either.
PM's statement on JWR's resignation, which suggests he had an entire night to cringe uncontrollably while watching clips of the press conference in which he pointed to her presence in cabinet as speaking for itself. pic.twitter.com/ZxcHybTrtJ
— kady o'malley (@kady) February 12, 2019
When he did face the media later in the day, Trudeau said that he was surprised and disappointed by Wilson-Raybould’s decision, and that he couldn’t understand why she made it. But as is his usual way of doing things, it was all a bit rehearsed, because he repeated those words almost verbatim in response to reporters’ questions. But he also said that if Wilson-Raybould felt like rules weren’t being followed that she should have come to him, and she didn’t. He did also say that he’s trying to figure out the options around what they can say under solicitor-client privilege because they don’t want to have unintended consequences for the two other ongoing court cases related to the SNC-Lavalin matter, which is fair and valid, but he’s already given flat denials about what was reported in the Globe and Mail initially. (Here is a more in-depth explanation of the restrictions she is under when it comes to Cabinet confidence and solicitor-client privilege, neither of which have a time-limit).
The next battleground is going to be the justice committee, which meets today, and the question is how the Liberals are going to decide to go. Trudeau is publicly saying he’s not directing them because that would be against their parliamentary role (and I will say it was mighty galling for Candice Bergen to go on TV yesterday to say that the Liberals direct what happens at committees when they are far more hands-off than the Conservatives ever were, given that they had ministers’ staff directing their committee members when they were in government). The chair, Anthony Housefather, says that he is leaning toward hearing from witnesses on the issue, but he is more likely to do so under an amended motion rather than the one the Conservatives and NDP tabled (in part because of the suggested witness list), not to mention the fact that he’s wary of the whole exercise turning into a partisan gong show rather than a non-partisan way to get some answers. But with this in mind, the Conservatives are doing everything they can to make this a partisan exercise, from Andrew Scheer tweeting out the phone numbers and email addresses of the Liberals on the committee so that people can “demand” they agree to their motion, and the fact that they are putting Pierre Poilievre on the committee as one of their “replacement” members, because “logistics” with the snow storm. It would almost sound to me like they want to do as much as they possibly can to annoy the Liberals and to turn them off from holding any kind of hearings so that the Conservatives can claim they’re participating in a cover-up. Because they would never engage in that kind of concern trolling. (Note that Scheer has also demanded that they “preserve all records” on this, because he is also pushing the narrative that the same Liberals from Queen’s Park who destroyed the gas plant files are now in Ottawa).
Yes, it is 100 percent going to turn into a hyperpartisan battleground and as yet, it's anyone's guess what the signal to noise ratio will be as far as getting to the bottom of the story, but it would still look terrible to kill it.
— kady o'malley (@kady) February 12, 2019
As for Wilson-Raybould’s departure, some of the reporting is getting a bit cringe-worthy, particularly how they keep reaching out to her father for comment. I can think of no other ministerial demotion or resignation that sought comment from their parents, for what it’s worth. As well, the fact that the reaction from Indigenous leaders as this being some kind of betrayal also leaves me a bit unsettled because it was no secret that things were not being well managed in Wilson-Raybould’s office in Justice, and the narrative seems to reinforce the notion that it’s not the quality of the job being done, only the symbolism of the person holding the office. That particular lens on what has taken place over the past few days seems to be absent, while Wilson-Raybould is tactical in her silence. Meanwhile, some Cabinet and caucus colleagues are tweeting support for Wilson-Raybould, while others try very much to walk the line.
You taught me so much – particularly about Indigenous history, rights and justice. I’m proud of the laws we worked on together – C14 (assisted dying), C37 (harm reduction), C45 (public health approach to cannabis) and so much more. I know you will continue to serve Canadians. pic.twitter.com/veQ0ATPcz1
— Jane Philpott (@janephilpott) February 13, 2019
It’s worth adding that SNC-Lavalin is in the midst of yet another criminal investigation in Quebec regarding their bid for the Cartier Bridge. This while every newspaper in Montreal is running columns wondering why the opposition wants the federal government to let SNC-Lavalin fail – something that will have impacts come the election.
https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1095350523933278208
Meanwhile, Anne Kinston parses Wilson-Raybould’s resignation letter, while Susan Delacourt notes the weight of the silence on what has taken place – and offers us some new information about the shuffle and the discussions with Wilson-Raybould that took place at the time. Paul Wells looks at all of the behind-the-scenes work done by SNC-Lavalin through the past few years, and the way in which they attempt to exert influence in Ottawa, and shows that this seems to be the underlying way things work in Ottawa amidst the government’s talk of a new way of doing things.
https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1095517895205871617
https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1095519163601154048
Roundup: Independence and intense discussions
As we’re still discussing the SNC-Lavalin/Jody Wilson-Raybould issue, we’ll start off with an interview with the Director of Public Prosecutions on her independence from political pressure, and why she opted not to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement with SNC-Lavalin, as well as why their quest for judicial review is foolhardy. Elsewhere, “senior officials” say that intense discussions with Wilson-Raybould on the SNC-Lavalin issue did take place, but that there’s nothing wrong with that. David Lametti took to television to say that he doesn’t see any evidence to warrant the justice committee’s investigation, but it’s up to them to decide. It also sounds like the Liberals on the justice committee are going to turn down the motion to launch an investigation, so expect more howling about this over the week to come.
This is incorrect @TondaMacC. I am closely following all info and convening a Justice meeting Wed related to SNC. I intend to independently determine whether Committee study of the issue will be useful for Canadians & colleagues will do same. Nobody has attempted to influence me. https://t.co/b0S8huE3WU
— Anthony Housefather (@AHousefather) February 10, 2019
While we wait for the committee, Andrew Scheer has written to the PM to demand that he waive solicitor-client privilege with Wilson-Raybould, under the ham-handed threat that failure to do so means that he has something to hide. Scheer, it has also been noted, also met with SNC-Lavalin lobbyists on their criminal charge issues and deferred prosecution agreements, but Scheer won’t say what his positions on them are.
Amidst this, there are a few more anonymous Liberal voices grousing about Wilson-Raybould in the media now, saying that she was more about herself than the team, and that she only ever showed up to Indigenous caucus once.
https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1094736733609095168
https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1094738844275097600
https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1094750943793442816
Meanwhile, University of Ottawa law professor Craig Forcese walks through the public law principles at stake, and the fact that we don’t really know just what is being implied because the terms used interchangeably in the original Globe story all mean different things, which makes the nuance of this situation inherently tricky. Keeping Forcese’s analysis in mind, Susan Delacourt hears from her “senior officials” that the PM still has confidence in Wilson-Raybould and that he plans to meet with her before the next Cabinet meeting, and they continue to dispute the account in the Globe and Mail, citing that if they had attempted undue influence that she would have resigned out of principle, and she did not.
Roundup: An untenable position?
So, the SNC-Lavalin/Jody Wilson-Raybould drama didn’t stop, and throughout the day, we saw Wilson-Raybould release another statement that simply said that she wouldn’t answer any questions because of solicitor-client privilege (which had legal Twitter debating what exactly that means), and the PMO putting out a statement that she was the one who approached the PMO about SNC-Lavalin, and that Gerald Butts told her to talk to the Clerk of the Privy Council. (Here’s a good background primer in case you’re late to the news).
NEW: The Prime Minister's Office says @Puglaas brought up the issue of SNC-Lavallin in December with Gerry Butts. PMO says Butts told Wilson-Raybould to bring it up with the clerk of the Privy Council. Unclear if she did or not, yet.
— Michel Boyer (@BoyerMichel) February 8, 2019
For the opposition reaction, Andrew Scheer demanded that the Commons justice committee look into the situation (and they will apparently meet to determine this next week, which isn’t a sitting week), while the NDP called on the Ethics Commissioner to open an investigation (and I’m not sure this would be in his purview, but who knows – it’s possibly that Mario Dion will read is mandate so broadly as to insert himself, just like Mary Dawson read her mandate so narrowly so as to exclude herself on most occasions). This said, I have my doubts about what the justice committee could reasonably do, because it will devolve into a complete partisan circus, as it so often has. Of course.
Because they are the centre of attention in all of this, here’s a bit about SNC-Lavalin – that they’re the “jewel of Quebec” apparently, and there’s a lot of political pressure to protect them from their past misdeeds. And as Paul Wells explains, they have been hard at work on cleaning up their image – and their operations – because these misdeeds are going to cost them dearly if they don’t get some kind of deferred prosecution agreement. And none of this lobbying to get such an agreement was underhanded either – it was all out in public, with YouTube and newspaper campaigns. And lo, late Friday afternoon, it appears that they may have been able to strike some kind of deal with the Director of Public Prosecutions (and no doubt this will be seen as a case of suspicious timing, and the Liberals will step on their own lines over this. Again).
When you set up a moral hazard problem like that, corporate governance scandals are inevitable. Why clean up your act if governments will do it for you, and at no cost? https://t.co/5g6Vs2Knrm
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) February 8, 2019
And then there’s Wilson-Raybould, and trail of breadcrumbs she has been leaving with her very convenient silence (all of which has only served to burnish her image now that people are suddenly calling her a hero that stood up to the PMO, and the very real issues about why she was shuffled out of that portfolio are set aside). Amidst it, her father has been inserted into the media narrative, which makes this all the more odd. But in the meantime, here’s some legal analysis of the solicitor-client privilege issue, and what constitutes direction – including the very real notion that if she had been unduly pressured that the proper thing to do would be to resign in protest. That is going to become a tough question for her in the days ahead, as is the question about whether or not she is in an untenable position now, given the suggestion that she brought up the issue in some capacity (though we still don’t know in what capacity that discussion was had), not to mention the tensions in Cabinet around this whole incident – though she also knows that Trudeau can’t summarily dismiss her without risking even worse optics. It’s a real quagmire.
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1093950651694964738
Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert says we need some kind of explanation from Wilson-Raybould, which includes why she didn’t resign in protest if she was indeed improperly pressured, while Andrew Coyne says this scenario could determine whether or not this government believes in the rule of law after all. Martin Patriquin notes that while none of this appears to rise to the level of the Sponsorship scandal, it nevertheless starts trading on old stereotypes in Quebec, which could be poison for the Liberals.
Roundup: Playing into Ford’s framing
While Ontario Premier Doug Ford doubles down on his assertion that a carbon tax will drive the economy into recession, in the face of all evidence to the contrary. And it’s not just Ford’s doubling down on this assertion – the Saskatchewan government is also insisting that the report it commissioned on the effect of carbon taxes is correct, despite the fact that the other experts who’ve looked it over say that the report vastly overestimates the effect by orders of magnitude. But as with Ford (and Andrew Scheer), it’s not about truth – it’s about taking any crumb of data that they think will fit with their narrative and blowing it so far out of proportion that it becomes an outright lie.
Saskatchewan's government also claimed carbon tax would bring a recession. Researchers found they badly misread the numbers. https://t.co/TZEZIF1pFX
— Jason Markusoff (@markusoff) January 22, 2019
https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1087768772436463617
Luckily, there is lots of thinking on this. For example, here are estimates from about a dozen different models in the US. Impacts of a carbon price range from slightly negative to slightly positive, depending on the model and scenario. None show substantial impacts. pic.twitter.com/RKMxYWgBdB
— Nic Rivers (@riversNic) January 21, 2019
Our analysis shows the overall economic impacts of a carbon price rising to $100/tonne + revenue recycling are very modest https://t.co/AIaiYW0Nss pic.twitter.com/DHxqaH5JSc
— Ecofiscal Commission (@EcofiscalCanada) January 21, 2019
But beyond that, the way in which this issue is being framed in the media should be questioned – something economist Mike Moffatt did over the Twitter Machine yesterday.
https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1087670357757227009
https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1087673953819287552
And he’s got a point – the CBC’s own story to debunk Ford’s claims is headlined “Economists cool to Doug Ford’s warning of ‘carbon tax recession’,” which again frames this as Ford versus economists – something that plays directly into Ford’s hands because he can turn around and claim that this is just the out-of-touch elites in their ivory towers and not “real folks,” a populist construction that is again built on a foundation of lies. And yet we in the media can’t seem to help ourselves because we don’t want to be seen as being biased, even when we are subjected to bald-faced lies, and again, we need to look like we’re being fair to the liars who are lying to our faces, which they take full advantage of. We’re hurting ourselves, but we can’t seem to help ourselves.
Those with a vested interest in misinformation have figured out that both-sidesism is the Achilles heel of the media, and they have exploited it to its fullest extent, knowing that they can lie with impunity and it will be framed as being a side in an argument. https://t.co/jWcTfAYNTZ
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 22, 2019
Roundup: Recession fear-mongering
At an event at the Economic Club of Canada yesterday, Ontario premier Doug Ford asserted that the federal carbon price backstop – which will affect Ontario – will plunge the country into recession. That Ford wasn’t laughed out of the room is a bit more than curious, because that kind of assertion is beyond ridiculous. BC has had a carbon tax for ten years, and not only is not in recession, but is leading the country in economic growth. Quebec has a carbon price using cap-and-trade, and is also doing quite well in terms of its own economic growth. Alberta’s carbon tax didn’t cripple its economy either, and what fiscal troubles it has are related largely to the low world price of oil that stems from a global supply glut, the temporary price differential issue having pretty much been resolved before the production cut even went into effect, now that the American refineries are back in operation. “Oh, but there’s a report that says it’ll slow the economy!” Ford says – except that report says it’ll be about by 0.02 percent at a time when the economy is growing by two percent.
Ford’s environment minister later took to TV to try and falsely insist that the federal Parliamentary Budget Officer projected a hit to the economy from a carbon tax (he actually said that it would only have an impact if revenues weren’t recycled in an efficient manner), and that BC’s carbon tax didn’t stop its emissions from growing (also false, because the emissions are far lower than they would have been without the price, while their economy continued to grow). So Ford is relying on lies to feed his false narrative that is trying to get the population angry so that they’ll vote out Trudeau. And what was Catherine McKenna’s response? Her same line about Conservatives wanting to make pollution free, and that they have no plan for the environment. So, the lies stand on the official record. Slow clap, everyone.
"When asked if Mr. Ford has any experts to back up his claim, his office pointed to a 2018 report from the Conference Board of Canada that said a federal carbon tax could shrink Canada’s GDP by as much as $3-billion."
That's 0.1% of GDP ($2.2tr). https://t.co/pzBsnxURkL
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) January 22, 2019
1) Life always gets more expensive. It’s called inflation. We consider 2% to be a good thing.
2) Data have proven that carbon taxes have not had an adverse effect on inflation.
3) Carbon taxes do mitigate the growth of GHGs. This is proven. Saying otherwise is just lying. https://t.co/z7YW6RCd1t— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 22, 2019