Tag Archives: Environment

Roundup: Changing the accounting rules

Posted on by

There were some fairly big changes announced yesterday, but the way in which it was reported was interesting if you compared coverage. For example, The Canadian Press led with the headline of a $19-billion federal deficit last year, but didn’t explain until the fifth paragraph that the accounting rules had changed, and described it as “confusing matters,” and then engaged in both-sidesism to have the Conservatives rail about the size of the deficit rather than really explain what the changes meant. The Financial Post mentioned the changes in the second paragraph, but focused on the size of the deficit. It was the CBC’s coverage that spent the full story focused on the accounting rules changes and what they mean, and how that affects the reporting of the figures, which has a lot to do with unfunded pension liabilities that are now being put on the books in a transparent manner that the Auditor General has been calling for, for years now. Context like this is important, and it’s disappointing to see it obscured because writing about the deficit figures is sexier without explaining what they mean, so well done there. You’re really serving your readers.

As with any of these stories, however, the best commentary came from some of the best economists on Twitter, who put it all into context. The full Kevin Milligan thread explaining it all is here, but I’ll post some select highlights.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053342629574828032

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053346059693346816

He also busted the myths about the deficit spending by pointing to the $70 billion hole in GDP that the Liberals were left with when they took office, in part because of the oil downturn and technical recession that the Conservative narrative keeps ignoring.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053393949417586688

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053395164318752768

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053403984411582464

Also, Mike Moffatt points out the significance of those accounting rules around pension liabilities on the reporting of the books.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1053342822017982465

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053354656384962560

Continue reading →

QP: The broken record of the Norman files

Posted on by

On cannabis legalisation day, as all the media was focused on line-ups at pot shops, the work of Parliament carried on. Andrew Scheer led off, curiously raising the court case of Vice Admiral Mark Norman and the refusal to turn over secret documents to his defence team. Justin Trudeau said that this was before the courts, and would comment no further. Scheer tried again in English, and Trudeau reiterated his response. Scheer demanded the documents be released, not a comment, and Trudeau repeated his responses, and they went yet again, and again. Guy Caron was up next, and wanted criminal records for pot possession to be expunged rather than pardoned, and Trudeau gave a speech about how prohibition didn’t work and why legalisation and regulation was a better path — but he didn’t answer the question. Caron switched to French to ask the same again, and this time, Trudeau said their plan was for rapid pardons. Matthew Dubé picked up on the same demand for expungements, and Trudeau spelled out that these were different than the LGBT expungements because those laws were an instrument of discrimination. Dubé returned in English by saying the war on drugs is racist, and Trudeau said they recognised that fact, but insisted that the pardons would be free and fast.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A “grand coalition” is a terrible idea

Posted on by

Over in New Brunswick, where there has been no movement on whether or not there will be a new government, we are being treated to such views as the suggestion that there should be a “grand coalition” between the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives in the province to…rise above partisan interests? Erm, well, leaving aside the fact that there is a lot of bad blood between the leaders and it’s never going to happen, I find the suggestion in and of itself utterly offensive. Why? Because our system depends on there being an opposition to hold the government to account. That’s the whole point of parliament after all – to hold government to account, and while backbenchers are supposed to play that role as well as the opposition, in practice it often doesn’t work that well because the incentives are rarely there when there are Cabinet posts to distribute and the fact that we’ve bastardized our leadership system so as to neuter caucus’ ability to hold their leaders to account. Such a “grand coalition” would mean that the province has an opposition comprised of two three-member parties, which would have to fight over who gets to be the Official Opposition, and would have a hard time doing the job of holding a massive coalition government to account.

Now, I will add that New Brunswick and its peculiar political culture once returned a legislature that was 100 percent Liberal and had zero opposition members, and they managed to make it work. Sort of. But it’s not a situation that anyone should want to repeat, because it’s a Very Bad Thing for democracy and the practice of Responsible Government. Opposition plays an important role, and I know that people don’t like it because the adversarial nature can become both theatrical (witness Question Period), but if members don’t take that theatricality to heart, it can become embittering – especially if there are few avenues for cross-partisan bonding. I don’t know enough about how that part of the political culture works in New Brunswick, but the diminishing avenues for such bonding in Ottawa has created a less collegial parliament than it used to be in years past, and that’s a problem.

https://twitter.com/SkinnerLyle/status/1052295726477312000

Meanwhile, the lieutenant governor is straying dangerously out of her lane in issuing statements warning the parties to come to a solution because she doesn’t think the province wants a new election, and that means also finding a Speaker. This shouldn’t be public, and I get that some people want transparency, but she shouldn’t be doing this – especially because it gives people the idea that she can boss around the premier, which she can’t actually do unless we want to undo 170 years of Responsible Government in this country. It’s especially bad if the parties are trying to play the LG and trying to force her hand in some way – which is the kind of gutless manoeuvre that we should expect from Canadian politicians who don’t like to be seen to be making unpopular decisions and will try to foist the blame onto someone else. This whole situation is distasteful, and everyone needs to grow up and behave like adults.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1052316915140423680

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1052317982884425729

https://twitter.com/SkinnerLyle/status/1052335901366476800

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Frustrated as an Albertan

Posted on by

Following the swearing-in of five new senators, Senate QP got underway with special guest star, natural resources minister Amarjeet Sohi. Senator Larry Smith led off, asking about the Trans Mountain pipeline and research around diluted bitumen spills and the federal response. Sohi responded with a bit of a roundabout recap of the Federal Court of Appeal decision and the lack of marine considerations with the original NEB report, and now they were filling in that gap – but didn’t really respond to the question. Smith asked how this research played into the tanker ban on the northwest coast of BC. Sohi noted the ban didn’t apply to Trans Mountain, but that it was in place on the northern coast because of the lack on infrastructure there to deal with a spill, but natural gas from LNG was a different matter.

Senator Neufeld worried about low prices for natural gas versus high carbon prices, and Sohi reminded him that climate change is real and causing damage to coastal communities and forests, with billions of dollars in costs, meaning it was irresponsible for any government to ignore those costs, which is why they gave provinces the flexibility to price pollution in a way that makes sense to them, and cited the success of BC’s model.

Continue reading →

QP: No answers about “Jihadi Jack”

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau back in town, all of the leaders were present for QP, and most of the benches were pretty full. Andrew Scheer led off, concerned that “Jihadi Jack” was approached by Canadian officials to patriate him here. Trudeau took up a script to read that they they took terrorism seriously, and were collecting evidence to bring people to justice. Scheer asked again, more slowly, and Trudeau read the another script about travelling abroad for terrorist activity being a Criminal Code offence, but didn’t answer the question. Scheer tried a third time, and Trudeau put down the script this time to praise the work of intelligence agencies and security officials, and said they wouldn’t play politics with keeping Canadians safe. Scheer tried a fourth time, and this time Trudeau accused him of distorting events to create division. Scheer tried one last time, and Scheer accused him of grasping at straws to make Canadians feel unsafe. Guy Caron was up next, and he demanded more action on climate targets, and Trudeau read a script about all the good work they’ve done to date, taking a shot at the Conservatives and the NDP along the way. After another round of the same, Nathan Cullen took over in English, and cranked up the sanctimony as he repeated the question, and Trudeau said that while they have to do more, they are on track to meet their targets. Cullen railed again about Harper’s targets, and this time Trudeau noted that pricing pollution is part of the solution, as was investing in clean technology, citing the LNG agreement as an example of being good for both the environment and the economy.

Continue reading →

QP: Getting better terms – really!

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was off in Toronto meeting business leaders, Andrew Scheer was present in QP, fresh off the plane from his trip to India. Sheer led off, reading his concerns about Canadian ISIS fighters being caught by Kurdish forces, and demanded that they be brought to justice. Bill Blair responded saying that they were taking the issue seriously, and were gathering evidence to ensure that they can be prosecuted. Scheer got up and lied about the government offering poetry classes to returning foreign fighters, to which Blair retorted that the previous government brought no returning fighters to justice either. Scheer switched to French to rail about the terms of the New NAFTA, to which Chrystia Freeland assured him that they got a good deal for Canada and listed people who praised the deal. Scheer insisted that the government capitulated on a number of fronts but didn’t get movement on steel and aluminium tariffs, and Freeland replied that this was Monday morning courage, and that they said she was being too tough in negotiations. Scheer retorted that they had a case of Sunday night panic and capitulated, to which Freeland said that the party opposite now wanted to capitulate on steel and aluminium tariffs, which they would not do. Guy Caron was up next and demanded faster action on climate change and to stop using half-measures, to which Dominic LeBlanc said that they had a coherent plan to fight climate change and to grow the economy. After another round of the same, before Rachel Blaney reiterated the question in English, and LeBlanc repeated his assurances in English. Blaney tried one more time, and LeBlanc gave his assurances with a little more punctuation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Shifting the blame upstream

Posted on by

Have you seen that Internet meme going around about 100 corporations being responsible for 71 percent of the world’s GHG emissions? Congratulations, you’re fooling yourself as to what this really means! There’s an interesting piece in the National Postright now that breaks down what that study actually shows, and it’s not what you may think. The problem with the report that shows this statistic is that it shifts the blame for the emissions upstream to producers rather than downstream to consumers – so Exxon is being blamed for emissions from cars, when it’s consumers who are driving demand for their gasoline by, well, driving. And when you sort out upstream and downstream emissions, it turns out that those 100 corporations are really only responsible for about seven percent of those emissions – the rest are really the responsibility of consumers.

Why is this important? Because by presenting the problem as being driven by those 100 companies, it gives the impression that they can be dealt with as corporate bad apples who can be regulated into reducing that tremendous chunk of emissions. More importantly, it tells consumers that they’re not the ones responsible, it’s the fault of evil corporations – never mind that they’re responding to consumer demand. And this takes us back to the conversation around carbon pricing. When hucksters like Jason Kenney and Andrew Scheer insist that they can meaningfully reduce carbon emissions without carbon taxes (note: Kenney’s carbon tax plans only target large emitters that pay into a “technology fund”), it once again leaves consumers off the hook, which defeats the purpose.

Consumers drive demand, which drive emissions. If you target consumer behaviour by putting a price on the emissions they’re causing, you’re working to change demand, whether it’s through better fuel economy, insulation in housing, or making different choices about what it is they’re consuming and how carbon intensive their consumption is, you’re dealing with the problem where it starts. Carbon taxes are a transparent way for consumers to see what it is they’re using, and allows them to make choices. When you target companies instead, you’re simply passing along the costs to them in the form of higher prices in a non-transparent way, and in a costlier way because regulation is a far less cost-effective way of driving emissions reductions. So indeed, rather than trying to ensure that consumers aren’t being hit by the costs of carbon pricing, you’re actually ensuring that they’re hit even more (particularly because the costs of doing nothing will be even greater still). You can’t pretend that this problem can’t be solved without a focus on consumers, and that starts with recognizing that consumers are the problem, not corporations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not a Nordic friendship group

Posted on by

The ouster of a UCP candidate in Alberta over his posing with members of the Soldiers of Odin, and then excusing it by saying that they’re polite, continues to reverberate as the provincial NDP are looking to make hay of it, and premier Rachel Notley pointing out (entirely correctly) that you can’t keep blowing into dog whistles and then looking surprised when these people show up. And even the other two candidates who posed and then disavowed knowledge of who they are isn’t entirely credible because these people showed up in badges and vests, looking not unlike motorcycle gang members, and that should have clued them in that maybe photos were a bad idea. And as a friend of mine pointed out, you can bet that if a group of drag queens showed up and wanted to pose with them, someone would have put a stop to that right away. And so here we are.

While casting the UCP as bigots is familiar political territory to tread, it’s not like there isn’t enough history to show that they need to be careful with their associations, and in showcasing the dangers of too much free speech in the political arena. Recall that it was the “lake of fire” comments from Wildrose candidates that sunk that party’s chances in a previous election, and when then-leader Danielle Smith didn’t come out to denounce the comments, it cost her and the party. And while the UCP’s spokesperson came out to give the denunciation, Kenney himself has been silent on this, which will risk his looking like either tacit endorsement or that he’s not taking white nationalism seriously enough. And while people say that nobody could accuse Kenney of such a thing, given his history of being the Minister of “Curry in a Hurry” and attending every buffet by an ethnocultural minority back when Stephen Harper gave him the citizenship portfolio, what that ignores is the fact that Kenney also played very cynical games with those newcomer communities, putting them against each other (particularly immigrant communities against refugee claimants), and focusing on those communities where he felt he could exploit their social conservatism for his benefit. That did get noticed in some of those communities, and it’s in part why the supposed shift in immigrant votes didn’t actually happen outside of a pervasive media myth that wasn’t born out in fact.

The point has been made that if we don’t want to ensure that all politicians and candidates are in bubbles that this sort of thing will keep happening – particularly if groups like these show up and events and pose with politicians in an attempt to legitimate themselves, and as Paul Wells pointed out on Power & Politics (at 46:20 on the video), there is a whole cottage industry of Conservatives who search for photos of questionable people who have posed with Trudeau and company doing the very same thing (recall Jaspal Atwal doing the very same thing, leading to the overwrought denunciations of the India trip). This is true, and it shows that there is fallibility in any kind of “vetting” of people who pose with photos – and the fact that “vetting” these things is less of an organized thing than people, including in the media, seem to think. But this being said, when the group looking to pose with you seeks legitimation, it’s incumbent on the politicians to denounce what they stand for, and if it keeps happening (like what is going on here) that the leader should say something – but it also should give pause to reflect on what it is they’re saying that is attracting these sorts. Just saying “we don’t agree with xenophobes” while playing the xenophobia tuba, like Maxime Bernier, can’t cut it either. We’re not fools, and shouldn’t be treated as though we are when things like this happen, and keep happening.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Protecting parliament from court interference

Posted on by

The decision in Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Governor General in Council) at the Supreme Court of Canada yesterday has been described in some cases as relieving the government of the Duty to Consult Indigenous communities when preparing legislation, but I think some of that misses the very real issue of the separation of powers and parliamentary privilege – particularly when the news channels would immediately trot out Indigenous lawyers to say that this was an infringement on the Duty to Consult, and that it was a “missed opportunity” to get legislation right, and so on. (And lo and behold, here’s Pam Palmater to argue just that, and I find her analysis flawed). In fact, the CBC piece on the decision buried the aspect about separation of powers at the very bottom of the piece, despite the fact that it’s at the heart of the ruling.

To recap, the separation of powers is the doctrine that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches have different roles and you shouldn’t have them meddling in one another’s business, which is exactly what the case was proposing to do – to allow the courts to weigh in on legislation before it’s been passed, or in this case, even been drafted. That’s a huge overreach by the courts, and a giant infringement on parliamentary supremacy. Why that’s especially important is because we’re seeing a growing movement of people who try turning to the courts when they lose at politics, which is very bad for democracy. (In fact, it appears that the Mikisew are engaging in a bit of that very thing here, objecting to the changes to the changes to environmental assessment legislation). If the Mikisew had their way, it would allow for the courts to weigh in on the legislative process at all points, which not only makes legislation impossible, but it means that parliament can no longer govern its own affairs, which is a very bad thing. Of course, there were many differences of opinion between the justices as to how this all shakes out, but they all agreed that the courts have no role in interference in the legislative process, and I don’t think that was highlighted nearly enough.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/1050384273394622464

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1050384955954483200

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1050386530752032768

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1050389501523050496

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1050390172947296257

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1050393327521038336

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1050397264298950657

This being said, they did affirm that the Duty to Consult is still necessary – just that it didn’t need to be mandatory before drafting legislation. Smart governments who take the Duty seriously would do so in the planning stages of legislation, and there are opportunities to engage in consultation during the legislative process, particularly at committees, when amendments can be proposed that would assist with accommodation. Emmett Macfarlane also suspects that we could see the Senate take a more active role in ensuring proper consultation as it weighs in on bills as well, which could be an interesting evolution in the Senate’s activities as we move forward with its “new” characteristics.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1050391764069019649

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1050392582931369984

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1050393088823185408

Meanwhile, Philippe Lagassé digs into Justice Brown’s reasoning around the Crown’s distinct capacities. Here is a thread from Emmett Macfarlane on his thoughts on the decision. And here’s University of Ottawa law school vice dean Carissima Mathen to explain the decision.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Populist myths and the lies they tell themselves

Posted on by

The Nobel prize has been awarded to economists working on issues of climate change, who point to the need for carbon pricing to get markets to come to a consensus about finding solutions, and what do we get in Canada? Doug Ford going on tour to see Scott Moe and Jason Kenney to decry carbon taxation, and to lie to people about the efficacy of carbon taxes. They work, despite what Ford, Kenney, Scheer, et al. say, and we have the data to prove this.

The Ford/Kenney rally was apparently quite something, a demonstration of partisanship over politics, and a demonstration about what how this all relates to our recent discussions over populism, with the carbon tax as a wedge issue. But while this is being put against this notion that Stephen Harper is trying to put forward in his new book about how “conservative populism” is somehow trying to weed out the worst instincts of populists, but that can’t actually be true if the dog-whistling still goes on. In her piece about the Ford/Kenney rally, Jen Gerson relayed the anecdote about people attending the rally being asked to cover up their MAGA hats with oil sands stickers – but the MAGA hats are still there, even if they’re being literally papered over. Kenney and Ford still play semantic games around the same terminology that the xenophobes use (such as the use of “illegals”), and it’s still a dog-whistle. And it can’t be any surprise that because of all the dog-whistling that the Soldiers of Odin have started posing with UCP candidates in Alberta while wearing their badges and vests. You can’t simply say “Oh, it’s unacceptable these people show up to our events” when you keep inviting them with the dog-whistle language. (There’s a lesson in here for Maxime Bernier as well).

Meanwhile, John Geddes went through that excerpt of Harper’s book and deconstructed his arguments and his analysis about populism, and his nonsense construction of “Somewheres” and “Anywheres.” Aside from the fact that it’s deeply ironic that Stephen Harper, strong friend of Israel, is using the same “rootles cosmopolitan” argument used in Soviet propaganda to vilify Jews, it’s just trading on baseless mythology and trying to build an argument around it that doesn’t actually hold any water. But it also goes back to what Ford, Kenney and others are pandering to – they’re denying that problems exist, and then undermining the institutions that can help solve them. Such as with the looming climate crisis. We need a wake-up call.

Continue reading →