Tag Archives: China

QP: Trying to make Orwell happen

Posted on by

Monday of the second week back, and for the anniversary of the great Centre Block fire of 1916, the wooden mace was on the table for the day. Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer were present, but most of the other leaders were not. Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he immediately raised the spectre of the torqued stories of government licensing media. Trudeau took up a script to say that the report stated that news was not to be licensed, that they believed in free media, but they continued to study the report. Scheer tried again, throwing out references to Nineteen Eighty-Four, China’s basic dictatorship, and Fidel Castro. Trudeau repeated the response, trying to be emphatic about it. Scheer then pivoted to the economy, talking down the figures, and Trudeau reminded him that they have made progress on tackling poverty and investing in growth. Scheer tried again, and Trudeau reminded him that they actually cut taxes. Scheer tried to then score points on the supposed $50 Million to MasterCard — really an investment in a cyber-security research centre — and Trudeau read back Scheer’s quotes about the importance of cyber-security from the election. Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, worrying about the potential approval of Teck Frontier Mine. Trudeau picked up a script to read that they were evaluating the proposal and would come up with a response within a month. Therrien tried again, and Trudeau listed from memory the various measures they are taking to protect the environment. Alexandre Boulerice led off for the NDP, and he worried that the government was not calling out Donald Trump’s Middle East “peace plan” as it disadvantages Palestinians. Trudeau reminded him that the government’s long-standing policy is for a two-state solution negotiated by the parties involved. Brian Masse then railed about the Volkswagen settlement, and Trudeau read that the Public Prosecution Service made all decisions independently.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giving credence to nonsense

Posted on by

As the Conservative leadership race starts to heat up, we’re hearing Erin O’Toole reiterate his neo-colonial “CANZUK” nonsense, and aspiring narcissist Rick Peterson has been all over talking about his “flat tax” proposal without giving any concrete numbers or context as to the trade-offs of that plan. And of course, some UK media has picked upon on O’Toole’s proposal in the wake of Brexit, giving it undue credibility – which is a problem in and of itself.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1223959683528101889

So economist Kevin Milligan actually crunched the numbers for the aspiring narcissist Peterson, and lo, it’s not pretty.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1224011123009249281

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1224103928096182272

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1224144132873961473

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1224146058088865794

In other words, it’s not novel or a “bold idea” – it’s hokum that we’re giving a free pass. Let’s do better than this.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ginned up outrage over accounting rules

Posted on by

My tolerance for ginned-up outrage is mighty thin, and it was exceeded yesterday as a certain media outlet ran a completely bullshit story about how in the last fiscal year, $105 million of Veterans Affairs’ budget went unspent and was returned to the consolidated revenue fund rather than simply kept in the department for the following year as the government “promised” to do following a completely inane NDP Supply Day motion a year previous. The story is one hundred percent not worth anyone’s time, and we have a media outlet who has decided to waste precious resources into putting a disingenuous framing mechanism around an NDP press release and calling it accountability.

To be clear: the whole premise of this “outrage” is the fact that the NDP have deliberately ignored how accounting and budgeting rules work in order to dial up a fake controversy for the sake of scoring outrage points in the media. The unspent money from Veterans Affairs is because they’re a demand-based department – they estimate how much they’ll need to deliver services to veterans every year, and if the funds don’t all get spent, then the law states that money goes back to general revenue, and reallocated in the following year’s budget. This does not mean there is deliberate under-spending – it means that they overestimated what the demand for services would be in an abundance of caution. And yes, there are backlogs in the department, but when you have capacity issues because they can’t hire enough qualified staff at the drop of a hat (after the previous government let hundreds of them go), you can’t just throw that “leftover” money at that problem. Pretending that it works otherwise is frankly dishonest.

One of the journalists at said outlet took exception to my calling out the disingenuous framing and insisted that the government shouldn’t have promised not to keep the funds in the department if they didn’t intend to keep the promise – and I would almost accept that as a valid argument except for the whole promise in and of itself was the result of shenanigans. The NDP’s whole Supply Day motion last year was illusory outrage, and government explained over and over how accounting rules and demand-based departments work, but if they voted against the (non-binding) motion, they would be voting against veterans and it would be bad optics. The path of least resistance is to vote for it and just keep following the rules. Because what is the alternative – vote for it, and then bring in new legislation to contort the accounting rules for this one-off bit of faux outrage over a non-scandal that is the direct result of a party that deliberately misstated how said accounting rules work in order to try to generate headlines? How is that a productive use of anyone’s time or energy? It would be great if we could get certain media outlets to engage in some critical thinking and not fall for this kind of transparent spin, and then gin it up as though it were a real scandal. We all have better things to do.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Expecting a regulatory overhaul

Posted on by

I’ve been keeping my eye on the Orphan Well issue in Alberta from a distance, somewhat in part because of everything I learned about the problem when writing about the Supreme Court of Canada challenge around how the obligations to clean them up interacted with federal bankruptcy law. As it turns out, the Supreme Court said no, companies can’t offload these environmental problems in order to salvage other assets, so Alberta was left with a problem as the huge problems with the way their regulatory system operates has been left with a very big problem. The province’s energy regulator (which has long been accused of being captured by the industry) is finally admitting that their system for determining liabilities has been flawed all along, and the province is saying they’ll be releasing new regulations soon, but we’ll have to see how much more stringent they’re going to be with the provincial government constantly worried that they’ll unduly harm the industry in its weakened state (which is another reason why Kenney has been pressing for those so-called “equalization rebates” from the fiscal stabilization fund in order to put toward remediating orphan wells – because why not get the federal taxpayer to deal with the remediation of environmental liabilities that the province deliberately under-funded in order to keep the good times rolling (and their tax base unsustainably low).

Meanwhile, the number of smaller oil and gas companies who haven’t been paying their taxes to municipalities or rents to farmers and landowners is climbing, leading to a great deal of frustration in the province, and there are calls essentially for these smaller companies to be allowed to go bankrupt so that larger ones can take them over, and they’ll be better capitalized to deal with their environmental liabilities, as happened in Texas several years ago. Then again, seeing as the provincial government and their federal counterparts seem to be so much more beholden to the smaller oil and gas players than they are the big ones (for whom they will deride as being big corporations, because don’t forget they’re right-flavoured populists), so we’ll see how far that line of argument gets them.

Continue reading →

QP: Putting the heat on Blair

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau fled the capital to go sell auto workers the merits of the New NAFTA over in Brampton, Andrew Scheer was elsewhere. Candice Bergen led off with the story of the murder of a sex worker of a person on parole, and demanded a denunciation of the Board’s actions. Bill Blair reminded her that an investigation has been launched into the matter. Bergen asked about MasterCard getting $50 million from the government, to which Mélanie Joly said that the government was investing into a cyber-security centre. Bergen said that MasterCard can afford to pay for their own cyber-security, and bashed the investment again, and Joly responded about the importance of job creation. Luc Berthold was up next to ask about the Auditor General’s budget, to which Jean-Yves Duclos effused about the Middle Class before citing that they would work with the Auditor General. Berthold asked again in French, and Duclos responded with the record on growth and job creation. Yves-François Blanchet was up next to worry about Teck Frontier Mine destroying the Paris Agreement, and Jonathan Wilkinson responded that they were still making their determination on the environmental assessment. Blanchet also worried that said mine would require new pipelines and wondered if they were afraid of saying no to Jason Kenney, to which Wilkinson repeated that they were still considering it. Jagmeet Singh was up for the NDP, to once again demand limiting the tax break in order to fund dental care, and Bill Morneau reminded Singh that their tax cuts have benefited 20 million Canadians. Singh asked again in French, and got much the same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Teck Frontier drama for naught?

Posted on by

There is a lot of agitation around the Teck Frontier oilsands mine, with the Alberta government and their federal counterparts howling for it to be approved immediately, and environmentalists, and certain other parties (like the Bloc) demanding the federal permits be denied. The problem? That even if it were approved, the CEO says they may not be able to build it because oil prices are too low for it to actually make any money, so this could all be for naught.

Meanwhile, here is Andrew Leach with a thread on its economics, and pushing back on the rhetoric around its emissions profile, wherein Jason Kenney and others have misconstrued what the company has actually said in order to make the project look less emitting that its plans say it will be.

Continue reading →

QP: Platitudes and the Parole Board

Posted on by

After a number of members’ statements dedicated to both the anniversary of the Quebec City mosque shooting and #BellLetsTalk, and a moment of silence for the mosque shooting, things got down to business with all of the leaders present. Andrew Scheer led off, and he railed about MasterCard getting government funding. Trudeau responded with some bland platitudes about growing the Middle Class™. Scheer tried again, got much the same response, and then Scheer demanded that the Teck Frontier Mine be approved. Trudeau said that railing about activists and celebrities didn’t help the energy sector, but working in partnership with all sectors and Indigenous people was the path forward. Scheer then switched to French to ask about a parole case, to which Trudeau picked up a script to read that they had ordered an investigation into the Parole Board’s decision. Scheer switched to English to lie about Trudeau apparently opposing mandatory minimum sentences for violent murderers, and Trudeau repeated his answer in English. Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc, to get back to his usual complaints about aluminium under the New NAFTA, and Trudeau gave his usual assurances that there are new content guarantees that don’t exist currently. Blanchet threatened to vote against the Ways and Means motion on the treaty, and Trudeau listed the good things about the agreement. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and he worried about evacuating Canadians from China — something that was addressed in a press conference moments before QP began. Trudeau read a statement about their concern, and that they were working to assist the 160 Canadians who had contacted them. Singh then raised that MasterCard contract instead of giving that money to pharmacare, and Trudeau stood up to correct him as to the actions they have taken to make prescription drugs more affordable.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No metric to measure success

Posted on by

The inevitable has happened with this government’s too-clever-by-half branding of their associate finance minister, and she has essentially been caught out by the easiest trap imaginable. The Conservatives submitted an Order Paper question asking for a definition of “middle class” by which the government could measure the success of its efforts at ensuring their prosperity, and lo, they were told that there is no measure that the government uses. Which is kind of embarrassing for a government that prides itself on data and metrics – that’s one of the reasons why they actually bit the bullet and decided on the Market-Basket Measure of poverty as their official definition, because that allowed them to track the success of their programmes in alleviating it (and yes, programmes like the Canada Child Benefit have had a measurable impact using these kinds of data). But what they can do for poverty, they can’t do for the Middle Class™.

Of course, we all know that it’s because “middle class” isn’t an economic definition to this government, but a feel-good branding exercise. It’s the Middle Class™ And Those Working Hard To Join It, because we all know that everyone thinks they’re middle class (whether or not they have ponies), and most especially people on the wealthier end of the scale in this country. It’s all about a feeling, or a hand-wavey metric about having kids in hockey (an upper-class pursuit in this country). And this lack of a definition is exactly why this minister is the Minister of Middle Class™ Prosperity®, because it means nothing. It’s a trademarked slogan, transparently winking to Canadians about how this is how they plan to address the discontent underlying the populist movements taking place across the government – hoping that if they can reassure these voters that they’re being care of and not left behind, that they’re being heard, that somehow, it’ll keep the populist forces at bay. I’m not sure that it will work, but it’s blatantly happening, so we should all be aware that this is part of their plan.

Continue reading →

QP: What about infrastructure?

Posted on by

Tuesday, and all of the leaders were back once again. Andrew Scheer was up first, and he claimed there were “sky high” deficits and taxes and no infrastructure spending to show for it — assertions that were all false. The deficits are actually tiny in comparison to the size of the federal budget, and the tax burden on Canadians is hovering near its lowest point in the post-war period, not to mention the fact that many of the promised infrastructure projects were held up by provinces trying to play politics in advance of the election, and that the hoped-for productivity gains were blunted when provinces didn’t keep up their planned infrastructure spending, and instead rolled it back as the federal government spent more. Justin Trudeau stood up and used a script to list projects that they were approving. Scheer then raised their Supply Day motion about calling in the Auditor General about the infrastructure programme. Trudeau reminded him that the Conservative record was spending on billboards, door knobs and gazebos, while their government was getting things done. Scheer asked again in French, got much the same answer, and Scheer raised the coronavirus and wanted support for Taiwan to get observer status at the WHO. Trudeau avoided the direct question and gave assurances about the coronavirus and collaboration with China. Scheer tried again, and Trudeau reminded them that they shouldn’t play politics with public health crises. Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc, and he once again raised the possibility of aluminium impacting the Quebec market under the New NAFTA, to which Trudeau reminded him there were guarantees in the new agreement that do not exist currently. Blanchet tried again, and Trudeau quoted the aluminium producer association as saying it was a good deal. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and he railed about the Volkswagen settlement agreement, calling it a “sweetheart deal.” Trudeau, without script, stated that they are paying a penalty and it was great for the fight against climate change. Singh then railed about a supposed tripling of outsourcing of public service functions, and Trudeau spoke to the balance around procurement. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: “True Blue” O’Toole

Posted on by

Erin O’Toole made his official entry into the leadership race yesterday by way of a video that takes swipes at “cancel culture” and celebrity activists – the kinds of keyboard warrior buzzwords that are pretty much the domains of O’Toole’s new campaign staffer, Jeff Ballingall, of those “Canada Proud” etc. sites.

At a rally in Calgary later in the evening, O’Toole said that Peter MacKay would turn the party into Liberal-lite, which I have yet to see any actual evidence of (MacKay is not really a Red Tory, guys – he’s not. Stop pretending he is). It also struck me that he kept reiterating the kinds of comforting lies that the party likes to tell itself about issues like the plight of the energy sector, where the woes are blamed on the Trudeau government and not changing market forces (seriously, the shale revolution in the US is a pretty big driver of these changes). He did say that he would march in a Pride parade, and justified it with his military background, which is a bit funny given that he hasn’t marched in one to date, which makes his sudden conviction around it mighty suspect. His opposition to carbon pricing continues to dig the party into its current environmental rut, and his talk of deficits remains completely economically illiterate – all doubling down on the party’s current positions, because that’s apparently what will make him a “true blue” Conservative. I’m not sure how this grows the party’s base, but what do I know?

Continue reading →