Tag Archives: Environment

QP: The Auditor General’s report on the IRB gets play

Posted on by

While Andrew Scheer was off in Montreal to give a foreign policy speech, Justin Trudeau was present — as was a beaming Elizabeth May. Lisa Raitt led off, asking about the planned loss of jobs for people with developmental disabilities at Library and Archives, and Trudeau read a script about the Accessibility Act, and at the end, Trudeau noted that the contract was extended. Raitt then moved onto the Auditor General’s report on the backlog in the immigration system, and Trudeau responded that the system had been broken the previous government and that his government had invested in it, cleared the legacy backlog, and were transforming the system. Raitt called the Roxham Road irregular border crossing an “express entry” system, and Trudeau called out her fear-mongering before noting that migration was up across the world and Canada is committed to a fair process. Pierre Paul-Hus repeated Raitt’s question in French, and Trudeau read the French version of his first response. Paul-Hus went with the angry follow-up, calling the system “broken,” and Trudeau repeated that in the face of fear and division, Canada was doing what it could. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and in raising the recent report on the loss of biodiversity, he demanded the NDP’s environmental bill of rights be adopted. Trudeau stated that while the NDP were all talk, his government was taking action. Singh repeated the question in French, and Trudeau repeated his response. Singh then read about a catastrophic drug case in Ontario, demanding immediate action on pharmacare, and Trudeau read about the planned Canada Drug Agency in the budget. Singh repeated the question in English, and got a same response from Trudeau in English.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The rot Chong won’t address

Posted on by

Conservative MP Michael Chong took to Policy Options yesterday to decry that the unilateral expulsions of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott from the Liberal caucus was indicative of a “deeper rot” in our parliamentary culture. His solution? Just make some amendments to his garbage legislation Reform Act to better enforce the called-for votes to implement at the beginning of each parliament, or to do away with the voting entirely (which was a compromise to make the bill palatable), and ensure that the measures in the bill are fully enforceable regardless. And I just can’t even.

Chong keeps insisting that his garbage bill was going to “rebalance” the power between MPs and party leaders, but it does nothing of the sort – much like this omnibus motion that Liberal MP Frank Bayliss is proposing to amend the Standing Orders (which Chong is a co-sponsor of). These kinds of measures don’t actually attack the root of the problems facing our parliament, and in the creation of new rules, they simply create avenues for unintended consequences that make things worse. (For more on the Bayliss motion and why it’s a problem, see my weekend column). The solution is not, and will never be, more rules. The solution is to do away with the rules that have made things progressively worse, and to start rolling back the changes that our MPs keep making in the vain hopes of improving their lot when all they need to do is assert the powers that they already have.

I fear I am getting repetitive about this point, but until people start listening, I will keep saying it – the biggest root cause of the problems in our system, particularly where it concerns the “balancing” of powers of MPs vis-à-vis the party leader, is the party leadership selection system. Unless caucus members can select the leader, any attempt made by them to remove the leader, garbage Reform Act or no, will be seen as illegitimate precisely because the current selection system insulates leaders with a false notion of “democratic legitimacy.” And Chong knows this, but keeps trying to burnish his garbage bill in the hopes that it will somehow shine. It’s not going to happen, and MPs telling themselves that the solution is more rules are simply deluding themselves. More rules got us in this situation. More rules keeps taking power away from MPs under the guise of “rebalancing” or “restoring” that power, and this cycle keeps repeating. It needs to stop, and it means MPs (and the pundit class of this country) need to stop believing this mythology. The only solution is caucus selection of leaders. Anything else is a mirage.

Continue reading →

QP: Torquing the Leslie issue

Posted on by

Despite it being a Monday, many of the seats in the Commons were vacant, and neither the PM nor the leader of the opposition were present. Candice Bergen led off, and tried to make hay of Andrew Leslie being a character witness at the Mark Norman trial. David Lametti assured her that the department of Justice has cooperated and released all documents. Bergen disputed this, and repeated the demand to turn over documents, and Lametti repeated that all obligations were being upheld. Bergen trie a third time, got the same response, and then Alain Rayes took over in French to ask the same question,impressing upon the Chamber that this had to do with Davie Shipyard. Carla Qualtrough stood up to list the contracts that Davie was getting, and when Rayes tried again, Lametti gave the French assurances of cooperation. Jagmeet Singh led off for the NDP, and he demanded an end to fossil fuel subsidies, fo which Jonathan Wilkinson repeated that they were phasing them out by 2025 and would meet their international obligations. Singh repeated the question in French, and read the French version of his response. Singh wants more action on climate change, got more bland assurances from Wilkinson. In English, Singh demanded a return to 30-year mortgages, and Kirsty stood up to praise the national housing strategy. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Performative outrage and scapegoating

Posted on by

A couple of headlines this weekend made me roll my eyes, and they’re on a related subject. The first was Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe lamenting that federal-provincial legal battles are the “new normal” in Canadian intergovernmental affairs. The problem? That pretty much 99 percent of these cases are frivolous and examples of provincial governments throwing tantrums – and this is not just the various court references about the carbon price backstop, but also BC’s initial challenge to say that they have the power to regulate what goes through a federally-regulated pipeline. They’re futile bids that are the equivalent of shaking one’s fist at the clouds in order to performatively look like they’re being tough, and all it does is waste time, resources, and throw uncertainty into the business climate. If anything, being performative for populist reasons is the “new normal” and the courts are just pawns in the whole affair, which is really unfortunate.

The second headline was a Calgary professor who says that the anger in Alberta is being dismissed as “alienation” when it’s “abuse” by the federal government toward the western provinces – which is patently absurd. Most of Alberta’s problems are related to the collapse in the world price of oil (which has to do with a global supply glut), and the fact that the province has long refused to adequately diversify their economy (because oil money is so addictive). But when things like pipeline projects are being made to respect the constitutional obligations to properly consult Indigenous peoples – as opposed to simply bulldozing over their rights as what used to be the case – that’s “abuse”? Really? That the imposition of a federal carbon price that oil companies have been asking for as part of a market-based solution for the serious climate crisis this planet is facing is “abuse”? Seriously? No, it’s not abuse. The province has obligations to live up to, and scapegoating Rachel Notley and Justin Trudeau for the problems stemming from the world price of oil is populist bilge, and professors who rationalize it are part of the problem.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A victory for carbon prices

Posted on by

In a 3-2 decision, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has ruled that the federal carbon price backstop is not only constitutional, but it also qualifies as a regulatory charge and not a tax, which means that the way it’s being applied is also constitutional. Predictably, Scott Moe has vowed to take this to the Supreme Court of Canada (and a 3-2 decision made this a certainty if the political element wasn’t there already), while Catherine McKenna, predictably, called it a victory for the planet.

In terms of analysis, here is the long thread from economist Andrew Leach’s reading fo the decision, and his commentary on what the dissenting judges got wrong is particularly illuminating. As well, economist Lindsay Tedds’ wheelhouse is the whole difference between taxes and regulatory charges, so she has some comments here. I would note that the majority decision is going to be some of the precedent that Ontario’s Court of Appeal will look at as they’re drafting their own ruling on the Ontario reference, and if New Brunswick, Alberta, and Manitoba proceed with their own challenges, it will help to inform them as well. But with it headed to the Supreme Court of Canada – as Ontario’s will inevitably as well, and everyone knows it – it may not make any more sense for those other provinces to carry on their own challenges as it’s unlikely that they’ll make any more novel arguments, and it would seem to be swifter for all involved to let the SCC process happen sooner than later (though it certainly won’t happen before the next election, and there is a hope among opponents that a Conservative win will render the whole issue moot if they scrap the federal law beforehand).

Jason Markusoff notes that while the court victory is a modest win for the Liberals, the continued carbon tax crusading by Kenney and Ford isn’t winning them much applause from the blue-chip Toronto corporations that they’re looking to attract with their “open for business” shtick. (Here’s a hint: Stop creating uncertainty by cancelling established environmental plans and creating political risk by cancelling projects and immunizing yourselves from litigation). Andrew Coyne, meanwhile, asserts that the ruling is a victory for common sense – as well as the planet.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Kenney’s a federalist, but…

Posted on by

Jason Kenney made his triumphant return to Ottawa yesterday, now bearing the title of premier of Alberta, and he went before a Senate committee to a) bluster, and b) warn that if he didn’t get his way that separatist sentiment would rise in Alberta, even though he insisted that he’s a federalist, but this was somehow beyond his control. Erm, except an actual federalist wouldn’t give oxygen to these swivel-eyed loons, nor would someone who was actually concerned about the state of the federation feed them a diet of lies and snake oil to keep them angry for the sake of electoral gain.

Part of Kenney’s bluster was his threatening to launch court challenges against Bill C-69 if it gets passed in its current form, because he claims it intrudes on provincial jurisdiction – but he’s also said a lot of bogus things about the constitutionality of his promises (up to and including his threat about holding a referendum on equalisation, which he is also now equivocating on in the media), so I’m not sure he’s got a lot of credibility to spare in this legal analysis. But these kinds of threats also put me in mind a certain sense of contagion with the court cases around the carbon tax, and according to one environmental lawyer that I interviewed recently for an upcoming article, there is a sense that the provinces are trying to lay out markers in the area of shared jurisdiction, and this may be more of that – provinces trying to grab more power for their own sake.

The thing that really bothers me about Kenney’s “I’m a federalist, but…” line is that he doesn’t seem to care how dangerous it is, and how very antithetical it runs to his so-called “open for business” shtick. Do you know what drives away business investment (beyond destroying certainty by promising to tear up the environmental regime that they were partners in developing and increasing the political risk by constantly threatening lawsuits)? Separatist sentiment. Ask Quebec what it did for them, when all of those national headquarters fled Montreal for Toronto (remember when Montreal used to be the financial capital of Canada?) and their housing market plummeted? Yeah, not sure that’s something that Kenney should be trying to repeat, even if he’s using it as a threat. Beyond that, he can’t just say “I’m a federalist, but…” and not take some responsibility for the anger he’s stoked knowing full well that he can’t deliver on those promises, which will just cause that anger to fester. I know some people are trying to claim that he’s simply trying to channel that separatist sentiment into more harmless paths, but he’s courted it rather than smacked it down. “I’m a federalist, but…” just winks to them, and it’s beyond irresponsible.

Continue reading →

QP: An administrative issue

Posted on by

Thursday, and Justin Trudeau was off meeting with Jason Kenney, while Andrew Scheer was the only leader present. He led off, railing about further trade actions from China, and Marie-Claude Bibeau assured him that the pork issue was a simple administrative issue that was being resolved. Scheer dismissed the response and carried on with his narrative of Trudeau’s supposed weakness on the world stage and demanded action, to which Bibeau switched to English to repeat that the pork issue was administrative before lobbing a talking point that the Conservatives refused to let their promises be costed. Scheer then railed about the energy sector and claimed the Liberals were trying to kill it, to which Amarjeet Sohi debunked the response by listing the approved pipelines that were completed or nearly so, and that they would ensure projects proceed in the right way. Luc Berthold was up next to repeat the pork issue with China in French, and he got the same response about it being an administrative issue. Berthold railed that China doesn’t respect Canada because we don’t stand up to them (Err, have they spoken to a single China expert?), and Bibeau listed actions they are taking. Peter Julian was up next for the NDP, and he railed about corporations before switching to judicial appointments, to which David Lametti reminded him that they instituted an open and transparent process that is merit-based and has resulted in a more diverse bench. Julian railed about inadequate funding for women’s shelters while Loblaws got funds, to which Maryam Monsef said that they have invested in shelters, in gender based violence prevention, in carve-outs for women as part of the housing strategy, and that the NDP voted against all of it. Karine Trudel repeated the question in French, and Jean-Yves Duclos responded in French about the investments in housing for women. Trudel repeated the torqued question about judicial appointments in French, and Lametti repeated his previous response in French.

Continue reading →

Roundup: PEI’s alarming adventures

Posted on by

Yesterday, the lieutenant governor of PEI gave the nod to PC leader Dennis King to attempt to form a government, and the whole thing is going to make my head explode because dear sweet Rhea, mother of Zeus, nobody has a clue what they’re doing. Not one of them. It’s alarming. (Side note: While the media have been saying that there would be a PC minority government, or that King was premier-designate, none of that became fact until today, and media outlets not only jumped the gun, but were attempting to short-circuit the process, which is a very bad thing).

Where to begin? How about the fact that the lieutenant governor, Antoinette Perry, was giving a media statement about her decision? Because no, she absolutely should not. And King? He says that he’s thinking about naming members of other parties to Cabinet, before preparing his Speech from the Throne and first budget “in consultation” with said parties. Again, this is utter insanity. Unless you have a formal coalition, you can’t have members of other parties in Cabinet because of Cabinet solidarity. Otherwise, they would just be de facto floor-crossers, which again, if that’s what you want then just go ahead and poach them, but be honest about it. As for King saying that he hopes that by “consulting” on the Throne Speech and budget that the opposition won’t oppose them for the sake of opposing them, well, he seems to be missing the whole point of the opposition, particularly with the budget. The opposition’s job is to argue why the government doesn’t deserve Supply to carry out their programme – they are supposed to be making that case. Having all parties vote for it defeats the purpose of why we have an opposition.

And then there’s Green leader Peter Bevan-Baker, who may or may not actually be leader of the opposition, given that he’s talking about some kind of supply-and-confidence agreement with the government rather than being the opposition. And you can’t be both Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition while signing a supply and confidence agreement to prop up said government. It doesn’t work like that, because it blunts your ability to hold them to account because you need the threat of being able to remove confidence to do so. And it’s astounding that he doesn’t seem to get that basic constitutional role or function. I know that people somehow think that “cooperation” or “collaborative” governments should be the way things work, but they’re wrong, because that does away with accountability, which is at least as important. When everyone is accountable for decisions, then nobody is accountable, and that will be the death knell of our political system. It would be great if Bevan-Baker understood that simple bit of civic literacy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Suspension as a first step

Posted on by

The Senate’s Conflict of Interest and Ethics Committee has considered the Senate Ethics Officer’s report into the conduct of one Senator Lynn Beyak and found her response to be wanting. Because she has refused to acknowledge wrongdoing and hasn’t removed the racist letters from her website, let alone apologise for posting them, they are recommending that she be suspended without pay for the remainder of the current parliament (meaning that it would end when parliament is dissolved and the writs drawn up for the election). Part of the thinking is that the time away – without pay or access to Senate resources – will give her time to think about her actions, and they suggest that the sensitivity training about racism and Indigenous history should be out of her own pocket. And if she still refuses to take action, they’ll look at having Senate administration take the letters down from her site (though nothing would stop her from moving them to a site that she hosts on her own), and if she still refuses action, well, they can revisit her fate in the next Parliament.

A couple of things to consider in all of this. First – it may help to re-read my column on the subject – is that they are likely recommending suspension because they will be very reluctant to recommend full expulsion without exhausting all avenues, and to afford her every single bit of procedural fairness and due process they possibly can in order to ensure that if it comes to that, that they will be on unshakeable ground. Setting a precedent for the removal of a senator should be done very, very carefully, and it has been argued in some circles that the reason why Senators Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau remain in the Chamber are because the need to be politically expedient in their suspensions and not affording them proper fairness essentially made it impossible to recommend expulsion in the future because they could plausibly argue that they hadn’t been afforded the due process. Consider that lesson learned with how they are dealing with Beyak.

I can’t stress enough that recommending expulsion is an extraordinary step, and they can’t just do it because she’s an unrepentant racist (even though she doesn’t see herself that way) – especially because part of the whole reason the Senate has such strong institutional protections is because Senators are supposed to be able to speak truth to power without fear of repercussion. But it’s clear that this isn’t what Beyak is doing, and they need to go to great lengths to prove it and to provide enough of a paper trail to show that there is no other choice to deal with her than expulsion, because this is a very dangerous precedent that they would be setting. More than anything, the measures they are recommending are done in the hopes that she does the honourable thing and resigns, though it remains to be seen if she will get that hint (given that she refuses to believe that she’s done anything wrong). This will be a slow process. People will need to be patient. Demanding her immediate removal will only make things worse.

Continue reading →

QP: Why can’t you spend in Canada?

Posted on by

On a lovely Tuesday afternoon, and all of the leaders were present for a change. Andrew Scheer led off, and he accused the prime minister of showing weakness in the face of China, to which Justin Trudeau assured him that diplomatic efforts were ongoing, and that they would have new measures for canola farmers in days. Scheer then demanded that the government pull out of the Asian infrastructure bank, to which Trudeau read a script about who all is involved in said bank, and about green and inclusive growth. Scheer repeated his demand, comparing it to pipeline development in Canada, and Trudeau extemporaneously reminded him that the previous government couldn’t get pipelines to new markets because they didn’t understand that they needed to get the buy-in of Indigenous communities. Scheer switched to French to demand the same pull out, and Trudeau read the French version of his script. Scheer then read a question about the CBC story on decade-old illegal donations from SNC-Lavalin, and Trudeau used a script to note that they made changes to increase transparency. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and he invoked the name of Jack Layton to complain about corporate tax cuts before demanding the Loblaws contract be cancelled. Trudeau reminded him that the private sector has a role to play in fighting climate change. Singh repeated the question in French, and got much the same answer. Singh then raised the issue of annual flooding in Kasheshewan and demanded the promised relocation take place, and Trudeau took a script to remind him that the minister has met with the community and they have been working with them on the relocation, starting with building the necessary road. Singh repeated the question in English, and Trudeau reiterated his response that work was underway in partnership with the community. 

Continue reading →