Tag Archives: Environment

Roundup: The knives and the Reform Act

Posted on by

The Conservatives are having their first post-election caucus meeting today, and there is talk that the discontent may be more serious than the public picture they’re letting on in public – not that that’s surprising. But all of the talk of forcing an early “leadership review” of Scheer rests – whether from the talk of the disaffected Conservatives, or in the public musings of Andrew Coyne and Stephen Maher to name a couple – haven’t made a very careful study of the Reform Act beyond its stated good intentions when the bill is actually garbage.

In fact, I think that relying on the Reform Act could insulate Scheer more readily than it could push him out, given that it has a relatively high threshold to trigger the caucus vote to ouster a leader, and that high threshold can be used to intimidate any would-be usurpers or those who would use the ability to hold their leader to account for his or her sins – in this case, a bad campaign based on lies, a platform that didn’t appeal to any of the target demographics or ridings that they needed to win, and the inability of said leader to articulate positions on socially conservative issues that would offer any kind of reassurance to those target demographics and regions. (And did I mention the campaign of lies?) That intimidation can make it harder for the caucus to make a clean break and get on with choosing a new leader.

This having been said, I want to push back on something that Conservative MP Chris Warkentin said on Power & Politics last night as it pertains to this Reform Act business, wherein he said that he didn’t agree with giving caucus that power because it somehow “disempowered” the grassroots (followed by the ritual motions of insisting that they are a “grassroots party” as though that were actually true). For a century now, political parties in Canada have flattered their grassroots members by pretending that letting them choose the leader is “democratic,” when all it does is obliterate accountability. It means that the leader can claim a false democratic legitimacy and centralize their power by marginalizing both the MPs in his or her caucus, and eventually marginalizing the grassroots because that power has been centralized and those grassroots become an increasingly irrelevant means of pretending to get policy advice. It’s simply become an exercise in the grassroots willingly turning over their agency and power to the very person who will undermine them, but hey, it’s “democratic.” This is the root of the problems that have developed in our system, and we can’t just keep pretending that they don’t exist because “grassroots parties” no longer resemble that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A quasi-exit for May

Posted on by

The other, non-Senate big news on Parliament Hill yesterday was Elizabeth May’s decision to step down as Green Party leader – sort of. She said that she would stay on as the “parliamentary leader,” but give up the mantle of big-P Party leader, and that one of her appointed deputy leaders, Jo-Ann Roberts, would be interim leader until the party could have a leadership convention – next October. May fully intends to stay on as an MP and run again as an MP (and said that she would not run for Speaker this time, but would pursue it in the next Parliament).

This particular kind of leadership dynamic is part of what ails Canadian democracy right now – this notion that there should be year-long leadership races, and that someone who doesn’t have a seat in Parliament should be leading the party in any capacity. The fact that the leader is not selected by caucus alone is one of the biggest problems with our system – it has allowed leaders to centralize power and when they get into power, that centralization rests in the PMO. And with May stepping back, and new MPs Jenica Atwin and Paul Manly also eschewing running for the role, they will again be a party where their leader is outside of Parliament, and who may or may not run for a seat anytime a byelection comes around, and they will face some of the challenges that Jagmeet Singh became all too familiar with.

There needs to be a rebalancing of leadership roles in our system, and we need to keep the party leader’s focus back on parliament, with the rest of the leadership better handled by the Party president. But what the Greens are doing now is just perpetuating what is horribly wrong with our system.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt remarks on how May left on her own terms, while Paul Wells sees the end of May’s leadership as a chance for her party to overhaul its message and its organizational abilities.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Waiting – or not – for a Cabinet call

Posted on by

One of the more interesting stories that was out first thing Friday morning was that of new NDP MP Heather McPherson, the party’s only Alberta MP, who mused openly to the CBC that she would be willing to take on a Cabinet position if prime minister Justin Trudeau offered it – but she wouldn’t cross the floor for it. Hours later, she backtracked on Twitter, saying that she obviously wouldn’t take a Cabinet position – likely because it was pointed out to her what that would entail. While this is obviously a rookie mistake, it might be worth delving into a bit more for the sake of everyone’s edification.

First of all, having an opposition MP in Cabinet – who remains an opposition MP and who hasn’t crossed the floor – is pretty much a coalition, even if you don’t want to call it that. Being in Cabinet, she would be bound to Cabinet confidentiality and solidarity, meaning that she would have to vote with the rest of the Cabinet, even if the rest of the NDP were opposed; and confidentiality could be a very sticky issue if they want to ensure that she’s not going to divulge Cabinet secrets to her caucus colleagues behind the closed doors of the caucus room (which in and of itself has its own confidentiality convention that, like Cabinet confidentiality, is intended to let the members have free discussions without then being picked off by media when their views are off-side from the rest of the Cabinet or caucus, as the case may be). Now, there are exceptions to how this can work, such as in New Zealand where they have developed a system where they could swear her in as a member of the Privy Council and bring her into Cabinet discussion where appropriate by not make her a full member of Cabinet (as they do with Green MPs in that government), but I’m not sure what the utility would be in this case, when there are better options available to Trudeau (such as appointing a Senator, which is more in keeping with our own traditions and one of the reasons why our Senate exists in the way it does). Regardless, the point is moot, and that’s as far as the thought exercise extends.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1190232873477058562

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1190247532246556672

Continue reading →

Roundup: Performative or procedurally correct?

Posted on by

The NDP held their first post-election caucus meeting yesterday, saying goodbye to departing MPs and welcoming their rookies and returning MPs, and when they met the press afterward, Jagmeet Singh announced that he is going to press for pharmacare and for the government to abandon their application for judicial review the Human Rights Tribunal compensation for First Nations youth. But there are problems with both – on the former, he is proposing the party’s first private members’ bill be taken up with the matter, and on the latter, the substantive problems with the Tribunal likely exceeding its statutory authority to make that kind of compensation order is kind of a big deal and as a lawyer, you would think he might have an appreciation for bad jurisprudence while still pushing for the government to go ahead with the compensation that they said they would honour. But you know, performative outrage.

Which brings me back to the notion of pharmacare legislation. The whole promise is built on both bad practice and bad procedure. Remember that when it comes to private members’ bills, they are allocated by lottery, meaning that it’s random as to who gets what slot, and Singh is not proposing as leader to take away the slot of the first NDP MP whose name comes up so that he can dictate what bill will be presented. That’s not only heavy-handed, but it actively removes the independence of that MP (which the NDP is used to doing while pretending they don’t, but let’s call a spade a spade). So much for any of the issues that MP cares about – the leader demanded their spot. The second and more important aspect is that private members’ bills can’t initiate government spending, and pharmacare is provincial jurisdiction, meaning that it’s depending on negotiating with premiers. The bill, essentially, is out of order, unless it becomes an exercise in demanding a national strategy, which the NDP love to do, but one of their MPs went on TV last night to say that they intend to use it to lay out the framework they want to implement. I can pretty much guarantee you that it means the bill will be dead on arrival, and that the committee that decides on what private members’ business is voteable will decide that it’s not. (The sponsor who was forced to give up their spot for this bill will then demand that the Commons vote to override the committee, and when they don’t, the NDP will wail and gnash their teeth that the Liberals don’t care about Pharmacare, which is a script so predictable it might as well be a Hallmark Channel Christmas movie).

https://twitter.com/BradWButt/status/1189643457444417536

What the NDP could do instead is use their first Supply Day to debate a motion on Pharmacare, which would then have a vote and let them scream and moan if the Liberals don’t adopt it for the reason that they’ve already committed to the implementation plan in the Hopkins report (which the NDP decry as not being fast enough), but at least that would be procedurally sound. But their apologists have been telling me on Twitter that all private members’ bills are theatre and only exist to make a point (untrue), or that they could simply get a minister to agree to it in order to spend the funds (never going to happen), but hey, it’s a minority parliament so the NDP can pretend to dictate terms as though they actually had bargaining given the seat maths. It’s too bad that they can’t be both performative and procedurally correct.

Continue reading →

Roundup: It’s the same government and words matter

Posted on by

Concern for civic literacy in this country took another blow as numerous media outlets started reporting that prime minister Justin Trudeau was meeting with Governor General Julie Payette to “signal his intention to form government.” They took this obviously wrong line directly from the PMO press release, but let me reiterate that it is wrong. Worse, Power & Politics said that Trudeau went to Payette to ask permission to form a government, which is so wrong that it should make the walls bleed with anguish. Payette doesn’t give permission. Trudeau is already the prime minister and the election doesn’t change that. Government doesn’t change – it merely carries over into a new parliament. What Trudeau was really doing was meeting about his intentions for the upcoming parliament, including when he would like her to summon it – but this was not actually or accurately communicated to Canadians. And true, he could have theatrically resigned and got sworn in again, but that would be both counterproductive and dumb, but again, this is the language that we’re using to describe this routine bit of government business.

Shortly thereafter was news that Trudeau had tapped Canadian ambassador to France, Isabel Hudon, and Anne McLellan, for his “transition” to his “second term,” at which point my head exploded because there is nothing to transition, and we don’t have “terms” in Canada. He may be shuffling his Cabinet, and there may be shakeups in PMO or in their Machinery of Government shop, but it’s the same ministry. There is nothing to actually transition to or from. It’s just a Cabinet shuffle. And again, this was not accurately communicated nor explained to Canadians.

There are clear concepts in Westminster parliaments that are not being accurately described, either by the hapless fools in Trudeau’s PMO, or by any of the media bureaux, who should know better. We are inundated with Americana politically, and there are so many people – both politicians and journalists – who want to playact American politics in Canada because it’s “fun” or “sexy,” when we’re a different country with a very different system, and “borrowing” terms or concepts (or in the case of the NDP, entire election planks that don’t make sense) that don’t actually translate here don’t help anyone. Instead, they create confusion that bad actors exploit to their own purposes, who know that they won’t be corrected when they deliberately misconstrue things. This is a problem, and would that our media outlets could see that this is a problem that they have the power to fix – but they don’t, and here we are. Do better, everyone. Seriously.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Brad Wall’s basic nonsense

Posted on by

Former Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall penned an op-ed for the National Post yesterday that, amidst quoting some classic rock lyrics, repeated a bunch of debunked mythology about pipelines that never happened, the federal price on carbon, Bills C-48 and C-69, and even pulse exports to India. (Seriously – does Wall not read anything?) But amidst this pile of false narratives, Wall decided to make a few “suggestions” about how to mollify Alberta and Saskatchewan, which included the non-starters of letting the provinces set their own carbon price on heavy emitters (effectively ignoring the whole point of the national price is to ensure that provinces don’t undercut one another in a race to the bottom), an “equalization rebate” which is not actually equalization – and worse, wants to offload the environmental liabilities of orphan well clean-up to the federal government under the guise of said “equalization rebates.” (Seriously, the Supreme Court just months ago said that the responsibility for orphan wells can’t just be offloaded because of bankruptcy, and companies need to be responsible for remediating them, because we have a polluter pays principle in this country). Wall also demanded that Trans Mountain be completed and privatized with a significant portion going to First Nations interests (why the privatization matters to him I’m not entirely certain), and amendments to C-48 and C-69 to ensure that pipelines can get to the West Coast – even though that would seem to undermine the fact that all projects need to undergo a proper assessment. Suffice to say, the demands for a “fairer deal” with the federation are generally built on false premises, such as lies about how equalization works, and a sense of grievance that no amount of capitulation will actually solve. (Ask Brian Mulroney about that one).

For a reality check, the Hill Times consulted with professor Andrew Leach about all of the claims that Trudeau single-handedly destroyed Alberta’s economy – complete bunk, of course – but it has some good facts in here about the context of the oil price crash, and the demands for MOAR PIPELINES! when there won’t be enough production capacity to build yet more pipelines once the TMX expansion, Enbridge Line 3 and Keystone XL all finish construction.

Meanwhile, Wall’s successor, Scott Moe, is warning that the separatist talk is “alive and happening.” I’m going to call bullshit – only a few loudmouths and swivel-eyed loons are talking about it, and not seriously. Ordinary people simply vent frustrations because they’re being fed a diet of lies and snake oil, which is what Jason Kenney and Moe want – people to be angry at Justin Trudeau, so that their attention can be safely elsewhere.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Considerations on Trudeau’s Alberta problem

Posted on by

Talk about what Justin Trudeau is going to do about his Alberta/Saskatchewan problem continues to swirl, with few answers so far. Alison Redford says she’s willing to help in some capacity – not that she’s been asked yet – but I guess we’ll see if there has been enough time and space from her aura of power problem that led to her ouster. Meanwhile, here’s Philippe Lagassé with some important thoughts about the issue:

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1188550490084257792

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1188551735398277121

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1188554137232990211

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1188555710851878914

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1188558518300872704

Meanwhile, Carla Qualtrough says all options are on the table which can include some changes to equalization, but as this piece explains, there is so much misinformation about how equalization works that it’s important we separate facts from lies about it – and there are a whole lot of bad actors, Jason Kenney chief among them, lying about the programme in order to stir up anger that he hopes to use to his advantage.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1188507654605430785

Continue reading →

Roundup: Judicially-determined science

Posted on by

One of the lesser-reported stories yesterday was the fact that a group of youths “launched” a lawsuit in Federal Court against the government to claim that their Charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person are being violated by the lack of climate change action, and want the courts to mandate the government implement a climate plan “using the best available science.” Well, it wasn’t really the youths themselves, but a group of lawyers and activists who are using a group of children and teens as the face of their campaign, because teen climate prophetesses are so hot right now.

The problem with this tactic, however, is the two-fold – one, that it’s going to be an exceedingly difficult argument that just because these specific youth had contracted ailments that could be climate-related (such as Lyme disease), it’s hard to make a generalized Section 7 argument as it relates to climate change; and two, this is public policy and should not be justiciable in the same way that Criminal Code provisions are where they touch social issues. Why? Because it shouldn’t be up to the courts to determine whether or not the government is living up to their climate change obligations. Are judges also climate scientists, or economists specializing in this area? The whole “best available science” line sounds good, but it’s hugely subjective as to how you reach those goals mandated by “science,” particularly when it comes to not devastating the economy and the livelihoods of millions of Canadians. How does a judge determine what the correct public policy should be? They don’t, but that’s what is being asked of them to determine here.

More to the point, this is yet another example of people trying to going to the courts when they lose at politics. Why I’m not surprised by this tactic being used by climate activists is because that Extinction Rebellion group is demanding the suspension of democracy to deal with the climate crisis, which should be alarming to anyone who follows their rhetoric. Trying to get judges to make policy determinations is just as much of a problem, and I eagerly await the Federal Court telling them to go drop on their heads.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Demands from the losing side

Posted on by

It took absolutely no time for the premiers – particularly the western ones – to start laying down markers now that Justin Trudeau had walked away wounded but still standing from Monday’s election. While Blaine Higgs of New Brunswick struck a more conciliatory tone and decided to back down from his carbon price rhetoric, and Doug Ford even striking a more workable tone (though no word yet if he’s going to abandon his fight against the carbon price), it was up to Scott Moe and Jason Kenney to try and flex their muscles and start howling about the prospects of separation because they lost at politics when it came to fighting the aforementioned carbon price.

To that end, Moe presented a letter with a list of three demands for a “new deal” for the province in the federation – scrapping the federal carbon price, reforming equalization to be “fair,” and new pipeline projects – plural. This after the same chuckleheads that put billboards across Alberta and Saskatchewan demanding that the Liberals in those provinces be voted out to “send a message” only to realize that they no longer had any representation in Cabinet. Oops. As for Moe’s demands, the carbon price is not going anywhere – if anything, this election was a confirmation that the country was in favour of carbon pricing, if you look at the seats won by parties who support it. Moe has already tried to propose a reform to equalization that was not actually equalization, but some per capita funding allocation that, again, had nothing to do with what equalization is or represents. As for pipelines, there are several already in process, Trans Mountain chief among them, but if you look at the market, there is no actual future demand for expanded capacity once the current projects are online. We are in an era of a global supply glut and we can expect demand to start diminishing as more low-carbon measures increasingly come online both in Canada and abroad. Not to mention, all of Moe’s demands involve the other provinces in some capacity, and are not things the federal government can do unilaterally (and in fact, his demand to scrap the carbon price is an implicit demand that he doesn’t think provinces should have a level playing field when it comes to carbon pricing, which is the whole point of the pan-Canadian framework). And with all of these demands, Moe claims he’s offering a “fire extinguisher” to the “prairie fire” of regional alienation. Not likely.

And then there was Jason Kenney, not only creating a panel to consult with Albertans about ways to secure our role and fairness in Canadian federation,” before he presented his own laundry lists of demands, such as the “national energy corridor,” Trans Mountain (already in progress), killing Bill C-69 (because the previous system of constant litigation was apparently better), exempting the mortgage stress test for Alberta (which isn’t the government’s call and is really dumb), but he’s threatening a (non-binding) referendum on equalization over this (which will accomplish exactly nothing). And while he started his press conference with the veneer of being statesmanlike, it quickly degenerated to this kind of raving that showcases that Kenney’s real goal, which is simply about stoking more anger at Trudeau because that suits his political purposes.

It’s worth noting that Manitoba premier Brian Pallister is having none of this talk (possibly because he sees where the wind is blowing, and Paul Wells has called him “Canada’s tallest weather vane).

But in all of this bluster, we’re getting all of these hyped up warnings about “Wexit,” which is the moronic label that some swivel-eyed loons have started applying to the notion of Alberta separation, which is the dumbest political movement going. But I do worry that Moe and Kenney are playing with fire, because they’re goading the nebulous populism that is building to such a force that will be hard for the either of them or the federal Conservatives to contain. Stop adding fuel to the fire. It will blow up in your faces.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A fresh obvious lie

Posted on by

As the messages start to sharpen as the election gets ever closer, boy howdy did Andrew Scheer decided to go all in on lying to Canadians. From a campaign stop in Fredericton, Scheer claimed that a Liberal-NDP coalition would hike the GST to seven percent, and then put out a press release claiming all kinds of other tax increases and cuts to social transfers to pay for their platform – a ridiculous figure he reached by adding the two total costs together, never mind that a) it doesn’t work like that, and b) IT WAS A COMPLETE AND TOTAL LIE. And sure, reporters called out that it was a lie, but Scheer shrugged and said it wasn’t misinformation because he didn’t trust Justin Trudeau. Erm, it doesn’t work like that. Meanwhile, the premier of New Brunswick was also at the rally, grousing that Quebec is the “favoured child” of Confederation because he wants an imaginary pipeline to flow to his province despite there being no actual economic case for it, and the inconvenient fact that his province gets far more equalization per capita than Quebec does. (Good luck with Scheer keeping most of his Quebec seats with rhetoric like this, by the way). Scheer’s tour later stopped in Beauce, where he chugged milk to troll Maxime Bernier, and Drummondville.

Justin Trudeau started his day in Whitby, where he had to refute Scheer’s latest lie, and then mumbled some stuff about maybe expanding abortion services in New Brunswick. He then made stops in Orillia, Barrie, and Vaughan. He’ll head to Calgary later tonight, so that could be interesting.

Jagmeet Singh held rallies on Vancouver Island – hoping to keep the Greens from gaining ground there – and started playing coy again about how he’d be in a hung parliament, and hand waved about the Trans Mountain Pipeline as a possible condition for support.

Continue reading →