Tag Archives: Chrystia Freeland

Roundup: Walking out on Wallonia

Posted on by

Talks to save the Canada-EU trade agreement broke down yesterday, and after more than two days of direct talks, trade minister Chrystia Freeland walked out of the meeting and basically declared that it was now impossible for the EU to come to an international trade deal. And really, this was about the Walloons in Belgium who weren’t letting this go through. Wallonia’s president tried to sound an optimistic tone, and said that “difficulties remain” around largely the investor-state dispute resolution mechanism and wanted Justin Trudeau to hold off on his planned trip to Europe next week to finalize the deal so that the Walloons could have more time.

While Freeland said she was ready to get back on a plane and go home to see her kids, it looks like the EU president managed to keep her around for more talks, which may have been the whole point of Freeland’s exit – so that the rest of the EU could pressure Wallonia to come to their senses. While Belgium’s ambassador to Canada also said that the deal wasn’t dead, we did see some of the usual suspects line up to applaud the potential demise of the agreement, like Elizabeth May, the NDP, and the Council of Canadians.

Throughout this, however, I will admit to more than a little distaste at the snide tone of the Conservatives throughout all of this. In QP yesterday, Candice Bergen laid this at the feet of Freeland personally and declared that she would have to “wear it.” Gerry Ritz said that Freeland should have “rolled up her sleeves” and stayed at the table (which she had already been doing), and Rona Ambrose demanded that Justin Trudeau get on a plane and smooth this over himself. And there is this overall tone that the deal had been “gift wrapped” for the Liberals (after Harper had already done two symbolic signings of the agreement before it had been ratified), which is specious and facile. The Liberals have countered that the deal was essentially dead before Freeland resurrected it, largely through reopening some of the negotiations and through declaratory statements to clarify the language in the provisions of the deal, so it’s not like they didn’t do nothing. Quite the opposite, in fact. And one fails to see how it’s Freeland’s fault when pretty much everyone agrees that this is now an internal EU matter that Canada really can’t do anything about. Then again, the Conservative message around other trade deals like softwood lumber are equally fantastical (how they could have forced the Americans to come to an agreement when they clearly aren’t interested is beyond me, and there was a lot of unhappiness with the deal they signed when they first got into office that gave the Americans a victory). Sure, they signed a bunch of deals with small countries with small economies. Sure, they got CETA and TPP off the ground, but they still protected a lot of industries that didn’t necessarily deserve it, nor did they seal those deals either. Trade is a difficult business, and I’m not sure they have the moral authority to be as frankly abusive as they have been on the file.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bernier’s Bay Street catnip

Posted on by

Maxime Bernier gave a speech at the Economic Club of Toronto yesterday that was largely catnip for the audience there, saying that he wants to eliminate the capital gains tax, reducing corporate income taxes to 10 percent, making the accelerated capital cost allowance (ACCA) permanent, and eliminating corporate subsidies. While economics can point to the thinking behind some of Bernier’s plans (like below), others will point to the flaws in it, such as the ability to disguise salary as stock options that would no longer be taxed as capital gains, or the longer-term problems with the ACCA (like a new building being worthless for tax reasons in two years). It shouldn’t be too much of a surprise that Bernier’s ideas are largely slogans without a deep analysis of the real-world implications of them – kind of like how his plan to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers is just a gift to litigators rather than doing the hard political lifting necessary on such a file. Bernier has this kind of libertarian fanboy sense about him, that all of the problems can be solved by brandishing a copy of the constitution and shouting “freedom” will be all that’s necessary to kick-start a sluggish global economy, and that this will all be politically saleable to large swaths of the economy that have come to depend on government support in one way or another. And while yes, Bernier is indeed trying to bring some ideas to the table in this leadership contest while some of his competitors are trying to force the debate onto grounds of “values” and stoking national security fears, but it does remain true that it’s not really the point of leadership hopefuls to try and bring policy to the table that will change the direction of the party – that should be coming from the grassroots membership in a bottom-up and not a top-down process. But just remember – freedom! It’ll solve everything!

Continue reading →

Roundup: Productivity has context

Posted on by

Parliament resumes today, and it’s going to be the start of a heavy legislative agenda, as the government’s months of consultations start wrapping up and decisions get to start being made. And if you needed a reminder about everything on everyone’s plates, here’s a handy piece about the priorities and challenges for the three main parties this autumn, and Kady O’Malley’s list here too. That said, a Huffington Post article was circulating over the weekend that set my teeth on edge, “proving” that the spring session was the least-productive in decades.

Why this is a problematic measure is that it’s focusing solely on the number of bills passed over those ten months (really, only about five of which was when Parliament was sitting). It’s a purely quantitative analysis that says absolutely nothing about the context of what happened, or about the bigger picture of what the government accomplished. And really, I will be the first person to say that the decision to pull the plug on the Friday they did was about forcing the Senate to pass the assisted dying bill, when they were actually scheduled to sit for a couple of more days, during which time they could have passed two more bills that were ready to go, but they didn’t, and that does deserve mention, but that’s not in there at all. What we get are Conservatives cherry-picking trips and “photo ops” – because who needs multilateral engagement, am I right? – rather than on some of the additional hurdles that the session faced. One of the biggest hurdles was around that assisted dying bill, and the fact that the opposition parties demanded far more hours of debate at second reading than the bill deserved (remember, second reading is about the principle of the bill, not the specifics), and they got huffy when the government tried to push those additional (useless) hours of debate into late nights to keep the agenda going, and when they tried to bring in a procedural hammer to move bills through, the Opposition blew their tops and we wound up with The Elbowing and the subsequent fallout from that. Let me remind you that the Conservatives fully participated in the days of psychodrama that followed, and now they have the gall to say that the government didn’t get enough done? Seriously? They were equal participants in determining the Commons’ schedule of what took place (especially the demands for more second reading debate on that assisted dying bill), and I shouldn’t have to remind anyone that when they were in government, they sat on that bill and didn’t move it despite its deadline. So yes, I find this whole accusation to be the height of cheek, and the analysis should have included far more context around the events of the spring.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unger vs Black

Posted on by

Further to Senator Black’s resignation from the Conservative caucus, we have a couple of reactions – first, an interview with Black by Jen Gerson, in which Black expresses his excitement for the “uncharted territory” of greater independence in the Senate. Second, a somewhat bitter response from fellow “elected” Alberta Senator Betty Unger, who repeats some of Senator Plett’s accusations about Black’s attendance, and goes on to assert that senators should be in a caucus to give them some kind of accountability. Oh, and then there’s Kady O’Malley, who notes the “disappointment” of Senator Tannas in his response to Black’s decision, in which she reminds them in her own Pollyana-ish way that yes, they can still work together even if they’re no longer in caucus together.

Among the responses are some particular problems with the conceptions of how a caucus can and should operate, and part of that stems from the fairly unique situation of how the Senate was being run under the Harper government. Unger is correct in that being part of the national caucus brings more perspectives and allows more participation (which is one of the reasons why Trudeau’s decision to banish senators from his caucus was short-sighted), but her conception of caucus providing “checks and balances” to senators is a bit mystifying, particularly considering that there is little that a caucus could do to actually control a senator given that they have institutional independence under our constitution. Sure, they can threaten them with being removed from a committee or from participating in travel, but that’s the extent of it, and if a senator feels a particular conviction on an issue, then that’s a risk they can and have taken before.

As for Black, being part of a caucus in the Senate doesn’t mean that he is forced to toe any particular party line, whether they achieve consensus on a position or not. Granted, since he has been in the Senate, it was operating in a more tightly controlled environment because the Conservatives had largely trained their new senators to believe that this was the norm, that they could be whipped, along with some cajoling about how they needed to go along with things under the rubric of “you want to support the prime minister, don’t you?” And that would usually cow them into line, never mind that there are no actual levers of power for a government to assert in the Senate. Black and Unger both have always been in the Senate where they were told that there was this expectation, and now that they are in opposition and the party is in a leadership convention, they are suddenly finding themselves without that same comfortable feeling of obligation to the person who appointed them (never mind their “elected” status – it certainly didn’t mean anything for their “elected” predecessor Bert Brown, who insisted that senators had to dance with the one who brought them). Black obviously decided that he felt freer in this environment and wanted to push it further. That’s his prerogative; Unger feels the need for structure, and that’s legitimate, so long as she knows that she has that institutional independence and that there is no such thing as caucus control for a senator (and I’m not sure that she does, given her Senate “upbringing”).

But honestly – between the fetishisation of “independence” and the wrong-headed notion of “checks and balances” that don’t actually exist, neither are really on the side of the angels on this one.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Trade talks

Posted on by

It was a few minutes delayed while things ran overtime in the Commons, but the delay was short, and soon International Trade minister Chrystia Freeland arrived to answer questions. Senator Caignan asked about the rise in American protectionist sentiment with the presidential election campaign, and wondered what she could do about it. Freeland said that the problem concerns her, and that those sentiments are dangerous and that Canada needs to fight against it, starting with maintaining strong relationships with all levels of government, noting that senators can help by using their relationships with people in positions of influence in the States. Freeland added that the wave of protectionism is related to fears of the twenty-first century economy, which is why they needed to emphasise a focus on small and medium-sized businesses and not just large corporations. Carignan asked about the ratification of CETA in order to help diversify our export market, to which Freeland noted that there are concerns about protectionism in Europe as well, and criticism of the investor-state dispute resolution mechanism, which they have made corrections to. She did state that CETA will be signed this year and ratified by the European Parliament next year.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding details of a deal not done

Posted on by

Another busy day on the hill, and while Trudeau had been in the Commons first thing to make another statement on the Fort McMurray situation, he was back for more as QP got underway. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on neighbouring desk, and asked for reassurance that infrastructure funding to rebuild Fort McMurray would be top priority. Trudeau assured her that yes, this was indeed a priority. Ambrose read the exact same question again in French, got the same answer, and then asked about the details for a bailout for Bombardier. Trudeau reminded her that the negotiations were ongoing, and that they expected a strong long-term business case. Denis Lebel then repeated the question in French, got the same answer, and for his final question, Lebel demanded that they government allow the Billy Bishop airport expand to let Porter also buy C-Series jets. Trudeau responded that they were not going to re-open the tripartite agreement around the Toronto waterfront. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and demanded criminal prosecutions for KPMG tax havens, and Trudeau reminded him that they were working to combat tax evasion. Mulcair repeated the question, got the same answer, before Mulcair moved onto the Canada Post review and not immediately restoring home mail delivery. Trudeau said that they committed to studying the issue and understanding how to give Canadians a better level of service. Mulcair asked the same again in English, skirting the rules around the use of the word “lying” in the chamber. Trudeau reiterated that they were putting in the time that the previous government didn’t in order to ensure Canadians got the right level of delivery.

Continue reading →

QP: In the shadow of Fort McMurray

Posted on by

After a number of press conferences and stats on the situation in Fort McMurray, there was a bit of a somber mood in the House. It was also Star Wars Day (“May the 4th be with you”) so there’s that.

Continue reading →

QP: What AG report? 

Posted on by

Tuesday QP, and with the Auditor General’s report out, there was the possibility of some juicy questions. Then again, given that most of what he examined happened under the Conservatives’ watch, their questions may not be as juicy. Rona Ambrose, mini-lectern on neighbouring desk, led off by referencing Morneau’s flippant “stuck on the balanced budget” thing, but in her framing of Trudeau being absent the day before, Trudeau first praised the Invictus Games, before pivoting to praising his government’s plan for the middle class. Ambrose asked a philosophical question about whose money Trudeau thought it was spending, and he retorted with rhetorical questions about whether it was reckless and irresponsible to lower taxes on the middle class. Ambrose lamented that the increased spending has to be paid back, and Trudeau parried by noting how much the previous government increased the federal debt. Denis Lebel took over in French, and Trudeau listed the many infrastructure and transit projects committed to in places like Montreal and Edmonton. Lebel insisted that the Conservatives we respecting provincial jurisdiction while balancing the budget, but Trudeau returned to Harper’s debt figure. Thomas Mulcair led off for the NDP, thundering about diafiltred milk and support for dairy farmers. Trudeau responded that they are engaging with the dairy sector, and that they are protecting the industry and Supply Management. Mulcair demanded an investigation into KPMG’s activities, but Trudeau insisted there was no favouritism by CRA. Mulcair demanded again in English, Trudeau replied again in English, and for his final question, demanded action on climate change. Trudeau reminded him that he was once environment minister in Quebec and didn’t get progress on the Kyoto Accords, and that the current government was committed to meeting more stringent targets.

Continue reading →

QP: About the Fiscal Monitor…

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was in Toronto to meet Prince Harry and launch the countdown to next year’s Invictus Games, the rest of Parliament was getting down to business. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk and raised the surplus figures in the Fiscal Monitor. Bill Morneau said that the department continues to tell him that the year will still end in deficit, but those figures won’t be available until September. Ambrose worried that Canadians can’t trust him if he ignores basic facts, to which Morneau gave some bland praise for their fiscal programme for the middle class. Ambrose then repeated her first question in French, and got the same answer from Morneau in French. Denis Lebel got up next, and asked the very same question, and got the very same answer. Lebel closed with a question about support for the forestry industry, to which Kim Rudd read some praise for the sector as part of the government’s commitment to innovation. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet led off for the NDP, decrying that the government wasn’t bailing out Bombardier. Navdeep Bains insisted that the government understood the importance of the sector, and that they were trying to set it up for success in the long-term. Boutin-Sweet then decried the loss of jobs inherent in Bill C-10, for which Marc Garneau insisted that the bill mandated jobs be in three province, and said the bill would clarify the law to prevent future lawsuits. Nathan Cullen was up next, demanding a legislated tanker ban on the North Coast of BC. Garneau said that he was in the midst of working on this with his cabinet and provincial colleagues. Cullen railed about the issue further, and Garneau repeated his answer in French.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Responsible, not rogue

Posted on by

A Liberal MP has broken ranks on a government bill! Oh noes! Let us now treat this as some kind of crisis of leadership! Okay, so the CBC piece about the event is only slightly more measured than that, but their Twitter headline certainly wasn’t.

One of the most enduring problems with Canadian political reporting is the constant conundrum of demanding that MPs exercise more independence, but immediately treating any instances of MPs breaking party ranks as some kind of crisis of leadership, where obviously the grip has been lost and soon it will be all over for the leader. (In some cases, the party itself treats it as some kind of betrayal of solidarity *cough*NDP*cough* and punishes its MPs internally with things like removing QP spots for weeks or removing members from committees or travel junkets). Ditto with senators, or at least until Trudeau kicked his senators out of national caucus – “is the leader losing control of his senators?” was not an uncommon headline either (though not one that is generally screamed as loudly, and one might also add that not enough ink was spilled on the split in caucus over Bill C-377 – the “union transparency” bill – the first time around when they voted to gut it, and Marjory LeBreton stepped down as Government Leader a couple of weeks later after seriously mishandling the whole thing inside her caucus). And yes, Trudeau did promise more free votes, but this is one of those common promises that tends to wind up with MPs voting in lock-step anyway because they all really support their party or they all just happen to all think in lock-step. I am also reminded that when Michael Ignatieff tried to encourage his caucus to vote more freely on private members’ bills by not rarely voting for them personally – so that they wouldn’t look to him as to how to vote – he was punished for it by Jack Layton lying about those missed votes as poor attendance during the election (though Ignatieff should have responded with the policy and shut him down, but didn’t, and lost the election quite badly as a result). Suffice to say, when MPs don’t vote in lockstep, we shouldn’t use terms like “goes rogue,” because it gives entirely the wrong connotation about what has taken place. We want more responsible and independent-minded MPs, so let’s not make it harder for them to do so. And let’s leave the word “rogue” to this for the time being:

Continue reading →