Tag Archives: Canadian Forces

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: Changing the accounting rules

Posted on by

There were some fairly big changes announced yesterday, but the way in which it was reported was interesting if you compared coverage. For example, The Canadian Press led with the headline of a $19-billion federal deficit last year, but didn’t explain until the fifth paragraph that the accounting rules had changed, and described it as “confusing matters,” and then engaged in both-sidesism to have the Conservatives rail about the size of the deficit rather than really explain what the changes meant. The Financial Post mentioned the changes in the second paragraph, but focused on the size of the deficit. It was the CBC’s coverage that spent the full story focused on the accounting rules changes and what they mean, and how that affects the reporting of the figures, which has a lot to do with unfunded pension liabilities that are now being put on the books in a transparent manner that the Auditor General has been calling for, for years now. Context like this is important, and it’s disappointing to see it obscured because writing about the deficit figures is sexier without explaining what they mean, so well done there. You’re really serving your readers.

As with any of these stories, however, the best commentary came from some of the best economists on Twitter, who put it all into context. The full Kevin Milligan thread explaining it all is here, but I’ll post some select highlights.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053342629574828032

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053346059693346816

He also busted the myths about the deficit spending by pointing to the $70 billion hole in GDP that the Liberals were left with when they took office, in part because of the oil downturn and technical recession that the Conservative narrative keeps ignoring.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053393949417586688

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053395164318752768

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053403984411582464

Also, Mike Moffatt points out the significance of those accounting rules around pension liabilities on the reporting of the books.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1053342822017982465

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053354656384962560

Continue reading →

Roundup: Populist myths and the lies they tell themselves

Posted on by

The Nobel prize has been awarded to economists working on issues of climate change, who point to the need for carbon pricing to get markets to come to a consensus about finding solutions, and what do we get in Canada? Doug Ford going on tour to see Scott Moe and Jason Kenney to decry carbon taxation, and to lie to people about the efficacy of carbon taxes. They work, despite what Ford, Kenney, Scheer, et al. say, and we have the data to prove this.

The Ford/Kenney rally was apparently quite something, a demonstration of partisanship over politics, and a demonstration about what how this all relates to our recent discussions over populism, with the carbon tax as a wedge issue. But while this is being put against this notion that Stephen Harper is trying to put forward in his new book about how “conservative populism” is somehow trying to weed out the worst instincts of populists, but that can’t actually be true if the dog-whistling still goes on. In her piece about the Ford/Kenney rally, Jen Gerson relayed the anecdote about people attending the rally being asked to cover up their MAGA hats with oil sands stickers – but the MAGA hats are still there, even if they’re being literally papered over. Kenney and Ford still play semantic games around the same terminology that the xenophobes use (such as the use of “illegals”), and it’s still a dog-whistle. And it can’t be any surprise that because of all the dog-whistling that the Soldiers of Odin have started posing with UCP candidates in Alberta while wearing their badges and vests. You can’t simply say “Oh, it’s unacceptable these people show up to our events” when you keep inviting them with the dog-whistle language. (There’s a lesson in here for Maxime Bernier as well).

Meanwhile, John Geddes went through that excerpt of Harper’s book and deconstructed his arguments and his analysis about populism, and his nonsense construction of “Somewheres” and “Anywheres.” Aside from the fact that it’s deeply ironic that Stephen Harper, strong friend of Israel, is using the same “rootles cosmopolitan” argument used in Soviet propaganda to vilify Jews, it’s just trading on baseless mythology and trying to build an argument around it that doesn’t actually hold any water. But it also goes back to what Ford, Kenney and others are pandering to – they’re denying that problems exist, and then undermining the institutions that can help solve them. Such as with the looming climate crisis. We need a wake-up call.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not appealing, just consulting

Posted on by

First thing yesterday morning, the federal government announced that they were proceeding with restarting consultations with First Nations affected by the Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline, and that they had tasked former Supreme Court of Canada justice Franc Iacobucci to oversee the process. Iacobucci has done a great deal of work around the Duty to Consult in recent years, as this report that he wrote with law firm Torys LLP demonstrates, along with work he’s done with Ontario over the underrepresentation of Indigenous people on juries in the province. Indigenous groups in the region have responded with some optimism, but are also warning that these consultations can’t come with a predetermined outcome if they’re to be meaningful (which may be too far to go given that the government has stated that this project will go ahead). Some of those Indigenous communities are also looking at the fact that this process could allow them to talk more amongst themselves.

https://twitter.com/coreyshefman/status/1047512242109997056

https://twitter.com/coreyshefman/status/1047512244303663104

https://twitter.com/coreyshefman/status/1047512246660808704

https://twitter.com/coreyshefman/status/1047512248716087297

Meanwhile, Rachel Notley and Jason Kenney (among others) are bellyaching that the government has opted not to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, and yet not one of them has articulated what the error in law they are looking to contest would actually be, which is kind of a big deal if they think the Court will hear it. It’s also not clear that an appeal would get them any clarity anytime soon, given that the Court usually gives about six months between granting leave and hearing the case in order to provide time for submissions, and then a decision could take another six months at least – possibly more if it’s a contentious issue, like this one is.

Continue reading →

Roundup: All about the New NAFTA

Posted on by

So, now that we have some more information about just what is in this renewed NAFTA agreement (no, I’m not going to call it by Trump’s preferred new title because it’s ridiculous), we can get some better analysis of what was agreed to. Here’s a good overview, along with some more analysis on the issues of BC wines, online shopping, intellectual property, Indigenous issues (though not the whole chapter they hoped for, and the gender chapter was also absent), and an oil and gas bottleneck issue whose resolution could now save our industry as much as $60 million. There is, naturally, compensation for those Supply Management-sector farmers who’ve had more access into the market granted (though that access is pretty gradual and will likely be implemented in a fairly protectionist manner, if CETA is anything to go by). There is, however, some particular consternation over a clause that gives the US some leverage over any trade we may do with a “non-market” country (read: China), though that could wind up being not a big deal after all and just some enhanced information sharing; and there is also the creation of a macro-economic committee that could mean the Bank of Canada may have to do more consultation with the US Federal Reserve on monetary policy (though I have yet to find more details about this change). But those steel and aluminium tariffs that Trump imposed for “national security” reasons remain, as they were always unrelated to NAFTA, and their removal will remain an ongoing process.

With the news of the deal also comes the behind-the-scenes tales of how it all went down, and we have three different versions, from Maclean’s John Geddes, the National Post’s Tom Blackwell, and CBC’s Katie Simpson.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1046750795461357568

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne posits that the damage in this agreement is slight but there was no hope for a broader trade agreement given that there were protectionists on both sides of the table. Likewise, Kevin Carmichael notes that the deal limited the potential harm that was looming, but didn’t really break any new ground. Andrew MacDougall says that the deal gives Trump the win he needed before the midterms, while it will also make it hard for Andrew Scheer to stick anything on Trudeau around the deal. Chantal Hébert agrees that if Trudeau loses the next election that it won’t be because of this trade deal. Paul Wells, meanwhile, takes note of how the Conservatives are playing this, trying to lead observers by the hand to show them that Trudeau “failed” in these talks, while glossing over all of the actual context around why these negotiations happened in the first place.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Dissent without disloyalty

Posted on by

Yesterday on Power & Politics, we saw something that is far too rare in Canadian politics, but should be the norm. In response to the government signing on the US’ recent initiative at the UN to basically renew the “war on drugs,” Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith went on the show to publicly disagree with his party and the government that his party forms, and more to the point, we didn’t see anyone clutching their pearls about this, or higher-ups in the party make threats. Shocking, I know.

The civics refresher here is that all MPs are supposed to hold government to account, whether they’re in the opposition or in the government’s backbench. Holding the government to account is the very raison d’etre of Parliament, but you wouldn’t know it given how many government backbenchers think it’s their job to be cheerleaders, to give unquestioning support, and possibly to suck up in the hopes of a Cabinet posting or parliamentary secretary position. I also know that this isn’t quite as true behind the caucus room door, but we see very little dissent in public. We see even less dissent in other parties – the NDP enforce solidarity and uniformity in all positions, and have been known to punish MPs who step out of line, while we’ve seen the amount of tolerance that the Conservatives have for dissenting opinions with Maxime Bernier’s post-leadership experiences (though I will grant you, there is still some diversity of thought in there, but it’s rarely expressed publicly). And while I don’t praise Justin Trudeau for many things, I will say his openness to dissenting voices is unquestioningly a good thing in Parliament.

And this brings me back to Leona Alleslev’s defection to the Conservatives last week, and the statements she made about how she didn’t think she could openly criticize the government and not be perceived as disloyal. This is one of those statements of hers that I called bullshit on at the time, and I will call bullshit on it doubly today given this latest incident where Erskine-Smith broke ranks and nobody is calling him disloyal for it. He’s doing the job he’s supposed to do, and which not enough MPs take seriously (and this is also because the lack of proper civics education and training for MPs when they’re elected). I’d like to see him setting an example that others will hopefully follow.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Harder’s charm offensive

Posted on by

There’s a charm offensive in the works, led by the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, and his staff, to try and showcase how they’re transforming the Senate. In a profile piece of the “Government Representative Office” for the Hill Times, the three members of the office gave lovely little explanations of their duties, and how they’re doing things differently, like Senator Mitchell talking about how he doesn’t have a caucus to whip, so he’s focused on counting votes for upcoming bills, and arranging briefings and such. Bless.

What didn’t get answered in the piece is just why Harder needs his $1.5 million budget, since he isn’t managing a caucus, he isn’t doing his job of negotiating with other caucus groups for the passage of bills, he isn’t doing any heavy lifting in terms of sponsoring bills on behalf of the government, and as we saw during one of his melodramatic moments in the spring, doesn’t appear to be counting votes either. So why he needs that big of a budget, and that many staff, remains a mystery that has gone unsolved. Harder also remained evasive as to just how often he meets with Cabinet, which continues to be problematic because he’s supposed to be the link between the Chamber and the Cabinet, where Senators can find accountability for the actions of the government (which is why he’s supposed to be a full-blown Cabinet minister and not just a member of Privy Council). They did say that he wasn’t at the recent Cabinet retreat, which raises yet more questions, especially when it comes to how he plans to get their priorities through the Chamber as the Order Paper in the Senate is full, and he’s been in no mood to negotiate timelines (which I know for a fact that other caucus groups are willing to do).

Part of the problem with this charm offensive is that it’s preying on the lack of knowledge that members of the media have with how the Senate works, so they don’t know how things have and have not changed – and for the most part, the only thing that has changed are the fact that Harder and company insist on renaming everything and not doing the jobs they’re supposed to be doing, shifting that burden to the other players in Senate leadership. My other worry is that this is the first stage in the push to start making changes like the demand for a business committee, which would have a hugely detrimental effect on the Chamber and its operations. And I would caution any journalists reading to beware of what Harder plans to propose, and how he plans to charm other journalists into writing feel-good stories about his planned rule changes without understanding how they will damage the Senate.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Carbon backstop bolstered

Posted on by

News of the forthcoming report on the benefits of carbon taxes (and the associated rebates) to individual Canadians has been ricocheting through the Hill, from Liberals cheering on its results – found to be bulletproofed by the fact that they come from Stephen Harper’s former policy director – to Conservatives who are trying to insist that it’s really all a scam, and that these rebate cheques will never actually appear because they want to preserve the narrative that it’s all one big tax grab to pay for Trudeau’s “out of control” spending, and so on. But as economist Kevin Milligan points out, it’s going to be pretty tough for them to ignore

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1042973291089035264

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1042975960151121920

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1042978866136997888

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1042981192755081218

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1042987858552795136

It’s almost like the federal government had this in mind when they gave provinces the directive to design carbon pricing programmes that fit their local economies, with the federal backstop being in place if they chose not to. And has been pointed out, it’s going to be hard to run against the programme if people are getting cheques in the mail from the federal government.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Triumphalism after a defection

Posted on by

Andrew Scheer took the occasion of caucus day yesterday to give another lap of triumphalism in order to crow about Leona Alleslav’s defection to his party, calling her a symbol of “misplaced trust” by Canadians in Justin Trudeau. And, feeling his oats, he told Trudeau to “bring it on” when it comes to defending a carbon tax in the next election. Now, cheerleading films aside, Scheer may want to be very cautious about his plan to go full-bore on the carbon tax attack, given that those provinces who have decided to fight the plan and have the federal government impose their backstop price instead may find that instead of their citizens benefitting from lower income taxes or provincial rebates, they’ll instead be getting their rebate cheques from the federal government, which is a pretty visceral thing for most people. Add to that, a study coming out next week says that it’s likely that people will be getting more back in those rebate cheques than they paid into carbon taxes because of dividends from industrial emitters being returned to individuals, which could be a blow to the message that Scheer is trying to send about affordability.

In amidst this, Scheer has been trying to press the case for Energy East, demanding that Trudeau bring Trans Canada back to the table in order to discuss reviving the project. The problem, of course, is that there is no economic case for Energy East. At one point, it was seen as a viable route to tidewater with no others in the works, but that changed with the approval of Trans Mountain (err, temporarily delayed right now), and Keystone XL, which Trans Canada also is the proponent of, and there wasn’t enough product to fill both KXL and Energy East, so they focused on the more viable project – KXL. Scheer has also tried to insinuate that Energy East would displace Saudi oil in Eastern Canada, but that’s also not true, given that the whole point was for it to be a pipeline to tidewater. Saudi oil is cheaper to import than for Alberta oil to ship by pipeline, not to mention that there are no upgraders or refineries in the East capable of handling heavy crude from Alberta (again, unlike KXL, where those kinds of refineries line the Gulf coast). The Irvings themselves said that Energy East wouldn’t stop the flow of Saudi oil to Canada, but Scheer is trying to play the economic nationalism card, and is stretching the truth along the way.

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert warns Scheer that if he plans to make immigration an issue over the coming year, he may want to pay attention to what’s going on in Quebec, where it’s turning out to be something of a poisoned chalice for the CAQ in the provincial election.

Continue reading →

QP: Supply Managed Pipelines

Posted on by

After a morning of caucus meetings, the benches were full in the Commons as everyone was ready for the first photo-PMQs of the fall. Andrew Scheer led off in French, mini-lectern on desk, and he read about the “failure” of the Trans Mountain pipeline. Trudeau responded with the tired trope of the environment and the economy going together, before saying they would consult Indigenous people again, and that the Conservatives only wanted to minimize environmental protection. Scheer reiterated the question in English, got the same response, and Scheer then insisted that their government got four pipelines built and accused the government of trying to phase out the oil sector. Trudeau responded with his talking points about economic growth rates. Scheer railed about the $4.5 billion sent to Texas investors, while Trudeau said that the Conservatives must be content to see the project fail because it his government hadn’t bought it, the project would be dead in the water. Scheer ditched his script for the final quote is on, and demanded the prime minister scrap the environmental assessment bill. Trudeau retorted that the Conservatives didn’t have any plans to do anything they demanded. Guy Caron led off for the NDP and railed about Supply Management, and Trudeau repeated his talking points about supporting the system. Caron tried again, got the same answer, and then Ruth Ellen Brosseau took a turn, and she too got the same response. Alaistair MacGregor repeated the question yet again in English, with a Vancouver Island spin, and wouldn’t you know it, he too got the same response from Trudeau, before he repeated his new quip that the Conservatives will sign any deal no matter how bad.

Continue reading →