Tag Archives: China

Roundup: Cutting through Pallister’s bluster

Posted on by

With the Cabinet meeting in Winnipeg, Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland took an opportunity to meet with premier Brian Pallister yesterday, and boy howdy, was his tone in interviews afterward a hugely problematic mess. Pallister kept insisting that the province wasn’t getting the “respect” they deserved for their environmental plans, while ignoring the legitimate concerns that the federal government has – to the point where he was deliberately obscuring the actual issues at play.

One of the main issues in contention is the federal carbon price, which Pallister has famously waffled on (to the point where Paul Wells has referred to him as “Canada’s tallest weather vane”) – first he was going to implement one, then got huffy and stopped the plans because he didn’t want to increase it every year as is the plan, and because he saw momentum with other conservative premiers in challenging it in the courts. With those challenges coming down squarely in the federal government’s favour, Pallister is again floating the idea of implementing it, but doesn’t want it to increase, saying that a low price will let them meet their Paris targets. The problem, of course, is that there needs to be a common carbon price across the country so that provinces don’t undercut one another, which Pallister (and others) continue to ignore, as though the fact is a triviality when it’s the crux of the whole issue. All the while, Pallister is swearing up and down that he’s not asking for a special deal, when he is in fact demanding just that. I’m not sure how else you would describe being exempted from increasing the carbon price in line with the rest of the country as anything other than a special deal.

Add to that, Pallister is demanding a cookie for past emissions reductions when there is a hell of a long way for the country to go to meet our current targets. Ontario is trying this tactic as well, when the Ford government has completely derailed the province’s planned reductions, and insisting that you’ve already done your bit just puts even more pressure on Alberta and Saskatchewan, which I’m not sure Kenney and Moe would appreciate terribly. Pallister was also on TV grousing that he’s not getting credit for exporting cleaner electricity to Saskatchewan and the United States, which is funny because the reward for that is money, which presumably they are earning for doing so. Suffice to say, all of Pallister’s excuses are amounting to a pile of bullshit, and it would be great if our media brethren could do better at calling him out on it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Lethal overwatch?

Posted on by

There’s been some chatter about a story in the Guardian that purports to show BC RCMP communications that would have allowed for “snipers” and “sterilizing” of Indigenous protests in the province over LNG pipelines – which the minister of Indigenous services wants some answers to, and which the RCMP denies is actually legitimate, citing that the terminology used isn’t consistent with their own, or that some of it is being misinterpreted (in particular “lethal overwatch). To that end, here’s Justin Ling with a bit of context and nuance to consider before you get agitated at what’s being reported, as it may not necessarily be correct.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Building the Teck narrative

Posted on by

While some of Jason Kenney’s usual mouthpieces and apologists start agitating for the Teck Frontier oilsands mine, it seems we need yet more reality checks about the project – particularly the economics. Because we have seen on more than one occasion where a project that wasn’t economically viable still achieves mythology status because certain people who think the idea of it is great will lie about its fate in order to suit their narratives *cough*Energy East*cough*. Anyway, here’s Andrew Leach with more.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A promise weaselled out on

Posted on by

A very important bill has been introduced in the Senate, that has been attempted on more than a few occasions now, and it’s a sign of a promise that the Liberals weaselled out on in the past. The bill? To restore Parliament’s ability to control government borrowing by way of votes – you know, like Parliament is supposed to do as part of their job of holding government to account by means of controlling the public purse. You see, back in the Harper era, they hid the change in one of their massive omnibus budget bills that stripped Parliament of the ability to vote on new borrowing, and instead turned it over to Cabinet. Senators caught it too late, and the bill passed, and whoops, no more ability for Parliament to hold government to account for it any longer. Senator Wilfred Moore introduced a bill to revert this practice on a couple of occasions, and Senator Joseph Day carried on with it in the previous Parliament, and has just reintroduced it in this one.

https://twitter.com/SenDayNB/status/1204502292076154880

The Liberals were all in favour of this back when they were in opposition, and made a big show about promising to restore this to Parliament – and then they weaselled out on it. What they did instead was introduced a debt ceiling of $1.168 trillion, after which Parliament would need to vote to extend it, and said that Cabinet only needed to report to Parliament every three years about the money it has borrowed, starting in 2020. Let me reiterate – they weaselled out of this promise, and at least there are senators who are alive to why this is important for Parliament.

These are principles that go back to Runnymede, and the Magna Carta in 1215, and made more explicit in 1688 when the king wasn’t able to borrow money without Parliament’s consent. The Conservatives broke this important principle of Parliament for their convenience. That the Liberals have refused to act on their promise to restore it is a black mark against them.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding a special committee on China

Posted on by

With Chrystia Freeland in Mexico City for the New NAFTA signing ceremony, and Justin Trudeau in town but elsewhere, Andrew Scheer was present today and led off by mentioning the first anniversary of the two Canadians being detained in China, and asked for an update as to the efforts being made to secure their release. Karina Gould assured him that they are the government’s absolute priority, and expressed thanks to the allies who have spoken up as well. Scheer then lamented that the government waited six months to file a complaint with the WTO over China over the canola issue, and Marie-Claude Bibeau listed efforts they have made. Scheer was not mollified, and railed that the government was still investing in the Asian Infrastructure Bank, to which Bill Morneau assured him that the Bank benefitted Canadians as much as the countries they invest in. Alain Rayes took over in French, who worried that China was too interested in the Arctic, to which Gould Assured him that they always defend Canadian sovereignty. Rayes returned to the question of the two detained Canadians, and Gould repeated her question in French. Yves-François Blanchet, after being chastised for pointing out the prime minister’s absence, worried about the New NAFTA and that aluminium was not protected under it, to which Gould assured him they were proud of the agreement, and the new NAFTA had strict regulations around the industry. Blanchet railed about workers in Quebec, somewhat rhetorically, to which Gould reiterated that they were defending market access for Canadians. Jagmeet Singh was up next, to repeat his latest demand to target the tax cut different to fund a dental care programme, to which Patty Hajdu said that the dental care idea was worth exploring, and she wanted to work with all members on it. Singh accused her of just saying nice words, and Hajdu reminded him that such a programme would be delivered by the provinces which was why you couldn’t just say you would do it.

Continue reading →

QP: New measures not mentioned in the Speech

Posted on by

The first Monday of the new Parliament, and the prime minister was present but Andrew Scheer was not. That left Leona Alleslev to lead off in French, and she lamented the reported job losses from last month, and demanded a new economic statement with new measures and a balanced budget. Justin Trudeau responded that the first thing they did in 2015 was cut taxes and they were doing so again, and they were supporting Canadians and the economy. Alleslev read the same question in English, and got the same response. Alleslev read more doom, saying that the country was on the verge of recession (reminder: Not according to the Bank of Canada), and Trudeau reminded her of the plan to invest in Canadians, which is what they would continue to do. Erin O’Toole was up next, demanding retaliation against China for the two detained Canadians, being the one-year anniversary of their captivity. Trudeau assured the House that they were continuing to engage the Chinese, and that he had spoken to President Xi directly. O’Toole then raised the protests in Hong Kong, and Trudeau spoke about their support for the one-country two-systems principles and reiterated their calls for de-escalation. Yves-François Blanchet asked about healthcare, and Trudeau responded in general platitudes about the system, and they went for a second round of the same. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and in his new style of alternate French and English sentences, demanded that the upcoming tax cut be more targeted in order to use the savings to pay for national dental care, and Trudeau reminded him of how many people the tax cut would help. Singh demanded increased health transfers, to which Trudeau reminded him that they had worked with the provinces to target specific needs in the last parliament and they would continue to do so in this one.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Performative fiscal demands

Posted on by

In spite of the fact that Bill Morneau strongly hinted on Thursday that there would be a “fall” fiscal update this week (and technically it is still autumn for another couple of weeks), the Conservatives dispatched Pierre Poilievre yesterday to performatively demand one – along with a bunch of the usual demands for tax cuts and “cutting red tape” (as though governments haven’t been trying to do just that for years). The tax cuts are coming – at least, the planned increase to the basic income exemption, targeted at lower-income brackets – which the government has stated repeatedly will be their first order of business, thought the Conservatives demand more tax breaks for “entrepreneurs,” while the NDP want that income exemption to phase out earlier so as to pay for dental care – ignoring, or course, that such a programme would rely on negotiations with the provinces, just like pharmacare. But hey, once you’re on a talking point, best to stick with it, right?

Meanwhile, the first confidence vote of the new Parliament will likely be tomorrow, as it’s the final Supply Day of the year, and when the Supplementary Estimates need to be passed, and we can imagine that it’ll be a long day of votes and Committee of the Whole to deal with them, before they head off to the Senate, where they might – might – get a bit more scrutiny than they’ll get in the Commons. But a vote on the Speech From the Throne is unlikely to take place until after the Commons comes back from their break in January, just looking at the math on the calendar.

Continue reading →

QP: Begun, this 43rd Parliament has

Posted on by

The first Question Period of the 43rd Parliament just happened to be on a Friday, and for the first time in my memory, all of the leaders were present. The PM at Friday QP? Unheard of! And yet, here we are. Andrew Scheer led off in French, mini-lectern reliably on his desk, and he raised this morning’s job numbers and the 71,000 reported job losses, calling it a “crisis.” Justin Trudeau, without script, told him that their plan was about creating jobs and investing. Scheer tried again in English, and Trudeau made points particularly related to the jobs created by the construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline. Scheer insisted that other countries were increasing investments in natural resources, and Trudeau reminded him that blaming foreign activists didn’t get pipelines built. Scheer said that of all the divisions in the country that Trudeau allegedly created, he stated that provincial premiers were united in opposition to Bill C-69, and Trudeau reminded him that the previous Harper environmental regime didn’t work and singled out two projects that continue to face delays. Scheer then worried about a vote around Israel at the UN that he called “anti-Israel,” to which Trudeau took up a script to reiterate the country’s support for Israel. Yves-François Blanchet was up for his federal debut to worry that the government ignored the call by premiers to increase health transfers to the provinces. Trudeau responded that they had committed to some increases related to getting people family doctors and implementing pharmacare. Blanchet then demanded that provincial environmental assessments get priority over federal ones, to which Trudeau spoke about partnerships on the environment. Jagmeet Singh led off for the NDP, and concern trolled that the prime minister was not brave enough to stand up to pharmaceutical companies and implement pharmacare. Trudeau, without notes, said that they were committed to pharmacare but it was an area of provincial jurisdiction and needed negotiation. Switching between English and French in the same question, Singh demanded the government stop taking Indigenous children to court, and Trudeau assured him they were committed to compensation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Payette’s personal contributions

Posted on by

With some adjustments to the pomp and ceremony to accommodate Parliament’s new dual-building status, the Speech from the Throne went ahead yesterday, and the speech itself was not all that exciting. There was a big focus on the environment and climate change, a whole section on reconciliation with Indigenous people, and this government’s watch words of “middle class prosperity,” and the government sprinkled just enough hints that could mollify the other opposition parties if they were looking for something to justify their support, though both Andrew Scheer and Jagmeet Singh came out to puff their chests out and declare that they weren’t happy with what was in the speech.

More concerning was the fact that the Governor General herself contributed to writing the speech, which is unusual, and dare I say a problem. Her role is to read the speech on behalf of the government, and there are centuries of parliamentary evolution as to why this is the case, but her having an active hand in writing the speech – even if it’s the introduction (and in particular the notions of everyone being in the same space-time continuum on our planetary spaceship), it’s highly irregular and problematic because it means that Payette is once again overreaching as to what her role in things actually is, and that she’s unhappy with it being ceremonial (a failure of this government doing their due diligence in appointing her when she is not suited to the task). While one of my fellow journalists speculated that this may have been what was offered in exchange for her having to read a prepared speech (something she does not like to do), it’s still a problem with lines being crossed.

And then there was the reporting afterward. When Andrew Scheer said that he was going to propose an amendment to the Speech during debate, Power & Politics in particular ran with it as though this was novel or unusual, and kept hammering on the fact that Scheer is going to propose an amendment! The problem? Amendments are how Speech from the Throne debates actually work. It’s part of the rules that over the course of the debate, the Official Opposition will move an amendment (usually something to effect of “delete everything after this point and let’s call this government garbage”) to the Address in Reply to the Speech, and the third party will propose their own sub-amendment, and most of the time, they all get voted on, and the government carries the day – because no government is going to fall on the Throne Speech. There is nothing novel or special about this, and yet “Ooh, he’s going to move an amendment!” Get. A. Grip.

And now, the hot takes on the Speech, starting with Heather Scoffield, who calls out that the Speech neglected anything around economic growth. Susan Delacourt makes note of how inward-focused this Speech is compared to its predecessor. Chris Selley lays out some of Trudeau’s improbable tasks in the Speech, as well as the one outside of it which is to play a supporting role to Freeland and her task at hand. Paul Wells clocks the vagueness in the Speech, but also the fact that they are setting up for games of political chicken in the months and years ahead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pride vs St. Patrick’s Day

Posted on by

Andrew Scheer’s new deputy leader, Leona Alleslev, started off her new role with a bang this weekend by doing the media rounds, and when asked about Scheer’s continued refusal to attend Pride parades, Alleslev responded with “Have we asked anybody if they marched in a St. Patrick’s Day parade?”

Oh no she better don’t!

Alleslev apologised several hours later, but by then you had a lot of Conservatives completely outraged that this was the kind of thing that was going to lose them the next election (and renewing the calls for Scheer’s resignation). While the point was made that she shouldn’t have needed to apologise because it was Scheer’s lines she was parroting, it’s difficult to imagine how anyone would have even for a second thought that there was an equivalence to the two. And Scheer’s own campaign communications director started a lengthy tweet thread to show all the various ways in which Scheer paid lip service to every religious and cultural event out there – except Pride, which is something that speaks volumes.

Alleslev also went on to insinuate that those who raised questions about Scheer’s leadership – and the numbers are growing, as are the profile of raising those questions – are somehow being “disloyal” to the party. And this irritates me, because this notion that parties are supposed to be personality cults for leaders is toxic and antithetical to how our system operates. The leader is not the party. The party is more than the person who leads it at any one moment, and it would be great if everyone could get on the same page about this because it’s kind of embarrassing for everyone who is carrying on otherwise.

Continue reading →