In what is likely the final week of the sitting, all leaders were present for what is likely the final Monday QP, and Andrew Sheer led off, and in French, he whined that his party forced a vote-a-thon, and demanded the cost of the federal tax on families. Justin Trudeau reminded him that everything was transparent on their website, and they have consulted with experts to design it. Sheer tried again in English, and Trudeau listed the line items from the Estimates that the Conservatives voted against in their vote-a-thon, and called their lack of a plan the real environmental cover-up. Sheer then moved onto that ISIS returnee walking the streets of Toronto, to which Trudeau retorted with the cuts that the Conservatives made to CBSA, and said that their security agencies are protecting Canadians. Scheer insisted that they had enough information to lay terrorism charges, and to this, Trudeau took up a script to list tools that national security agencies have. Scheer insisted that the government was taking away tools from National Security Agencies, to which Trudeau countered that they are in fact investing in new tools. Guy Caron led off for the NDP, worrying about child poverty in Canada, to which Trudeau reminded him that the numbers being cited were from 2015, before the Canada Child Benefit was created, which was lowering child poverty. Caron then cited the child removals at the US Border and wondered if the US was still a Safe Third Country. Trudeau stated that he wouldn’t play politics with this, but that the UN still designated the US a safe country. Jenny Kwan tried again in English, with added sanctimony, to which Trudeau noted that he was going to remain focused on a constructive relationship with the United States, and that he was trying to build support for refugees globally. Kwan demanded the Safe Third Country Agreement be suspended, and Trudeau insisted that he wasn’t going to play politics with it.
Tag Archives: Environment
Roundup: Cynical procedural gamesmanship
Thursday night’s tantrum vote-a-thon ended mid-morning on Friday, long before it was supposed to have run its course, and no, the government didn’t capitulate and turn over that report that the Conservatives have been portraying as some kind of smoking gun for months now. No, after hours of high-minded exhortations that this, on the anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta, was about no taxation without information, or that this was some kind of cover-up by the government intent on raising the cost of living for everyone, they decided to pull the plug as soon as the clock struck ten. Why? Because at that point, it would be too late to start Friday sitting hours in the Commons, and thus cancelling the day’s planned debates around the cannabis bill (where they would have finalized debate on the Senate amendments and send it back to the Upper Chamber). It is probably one of the most cynical procedural stunts that I have seen in all of my time on the Hill, dressed up as bringing attention to the so-called “carbon tax cover-up,” which is itself a cynical disinformation campaign.
Worst of all was the hours of sanctimonious social media warfare that was sustained throughout it, whether it was the Conservatives dressing this up as some righteous fight over the refusal to release the information (which, let’s be clear, was apparently a projection based on the campaign platform that would mean nothing given that the carbon pricing plans will be implemented by provinces, and where the revenues will be recycled by those provinces and is largely irrelevant to the discussion), or the Liberals crying that the Conservatives were keeping them away from Eid celebrations in their ridings (so much so that Omar Alghabra accused the Conservatives of Islamophobia, and then the real wailing and gnashing of teeth started). It was so much self-righteous bullshit, and it made everyone look bad.
Okay, because Tired And Cranky MP/Partisan Twitter won't stop going on about this: 1) Yes, the government set the date for *last night*'s estimates vote. 2) By tradition, that coincides with the final supply day (oppo day) of the cycle …. (/1)
— kady o'malley (@kady) June 15, 2018
So, no, the Liberals didn't deliberately schedule the vote to interrupt/delay Eid-related travel/festivities, but neither did the Conservatives. This is just how it worked out.
— kady o'malley (@kady) June 15, 2018
Could the government have agreed to table something by June 22 that they will claim is the carbon tax costing? Yes. Could the Conservatives have dropped their plan to keep the House voting for a day and a half on noticing it was Eid? Also yes.
— kady o'malley (@kady) June 15, 2018
The only thing worse than a tantrum masquerading as a vote-a-thon is the sanctimonious, self-righteous Twitter warfare that accompanies it. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/SUhkWwLm1X
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 15, 2018
The Trinity Western decision
Yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the law societies of BC and Ontario could decide not to accredit the graduates of evangelical Trinity Western University’s proposed law school on the grounds that the mandatory covenant that students are expected to sign infringes on the rights of LGBT students, particularly because it mandates that any sexual activity they engage in must only be within the confines of a heterosexual marriage. Of course, it’s more technical than that, because it boils down to standards of reasonableness with the decision that the Law Societies as accrediting bodies can engage in, and I can’t pretend to understand the nuances of it all – but the very smart legal minds that I follow had some trouble wrapping their minds around it all as well, because the balancing of rights is a difficult issue. Some of the legal minds I follow felt this was one of the worst decisions in years, but I’m not sure how much of that is ideological either. It’s also worth noting that this was the last decision that former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin participated in.
In reaction, here are three legal reactions to the decision, while Chris Selley worries about what it means for religious freedom, and Colby Cosh looks at what the decision means for the Supreme Court, paying particular attention to Justice Rowe’s concurring decision on the meaning of freedom of religion.
Roundup: Another useless voting marathon
Unless a miracle happens and someone buckles, MPs will still be voting when this post goes live, because the Conservatives decided to demand another marathon vote session on the Estimates in order to prove a point. The point was that they want the government to table a document prepared by the public service about carbon pricing, which allegedly shows the fiscal impact – but it was redacted when released. The Conservatives see this as the smoking gun they need to “prove” that the federal carbon price backstop is a cash grab. Err, except the federal government isn’t keeping the revenues, and the provinces have until this fall to announce how they will be recycling the revenues, whether through tax cuts or whatnot, and lo, the government last month tabled a report that basically showed the efficacy of carbon pricing and that they’re waiting for the provinces to announce what their systems will be.
The Conservatives decided that their pressure tactic would be another round of line-by-line Estimates – because that worked so well the last time when they tried to force a meeting on the Atwal Affair™, only to buckle before votes could go into the weekend, and then they blamed the government for creating their own discomfort. Kind of like blaming someone else for when you hit yourself in the face on purpose to get attention. “You made me do this!” they cried. No, they didn’t, and worse, it was not only tactically incompetent (the votes had nothing to do with the demand then, and it doesn’t this time either), but by overplaying their hand, they voted against line items in the Estimates for things like funding veterans pensions or public services, all of which went into attack lines. And this time, because the government scheduled the vote for 10:30 PM, the fact that the Conservatives forced the 200 votes rather than the single vote means that Liberal MPs can complain that the Conservatives were keeping them from attending Eid celebrations in their ridings at dawn (some of them going so far as to cry Islamophobia). It’s a reach, and both sides are self-righteous about this, but come on.
As for the Conservatives’ demand, well, it’s a lot of disingenuous nonsense because the costs will be determined by how the revenues are recycled, which the federal government has no control over. Poilievre has been trying the semantic arguments that because it’s a federally-imposed tax that they need to know what the impact will be, focusing only on the cost before revenues are recycled, which is again, disingenuous and the precursor to misinformation. And if they were so concerned, they can do the analysis themselves – as Andrew Leach points out. But they don’t want to do that – this is all cheap theatre, performative outrage that the government is “covering up” information that they’re characterising as something it’s not. But as truth and context have become strangers in this parliament, none of this is unexpected.
StatsCan has a great tool – SPSD/M which will allow you to design and simulate policy impacts. You can calculate income distribution effects, etc. quite easily. pic.twitter.com/iRzo3cSlQu
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) June 15, 2018
One of the leads on that, @marktcameron is still working on GHG policy. You should look him up. @Sean_Speer has also written some good stuff on this file, as have many others who lean conservative. @jackmintz literally wrote the paper that changed Cdn GHG policy.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) June 15, 2018
Want to be the party with economic credibility? Stand up and grab this file. Or stand back saying, "boo hoo, we can't tell what might happen unless the government will tell us what a 7c carbon tax on gasoline will do to gas prices unless they give us the papers?" Your call.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) June 15, 2018
QP: A secret carbon tax plan
While it was Thursday and you would think that most MPs would be present for QP, but that was not the case. Both Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer were off in Saguenay to help push for the by-election on Monday. Gérard Deltell led off, worrying about home cultivation of cannabis, and Quebec and Manitoba rejecting that plan. Ginette Petitpas Taylor got up to read that home cultivation will help curb the black market, and this followed the advice of the working group and US jurisdictions. Deltell tried again, and got some boilerplate from Petitpas Taylor. Lisa Raitt was up next, and asked about the decision to close the lobster fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and fishermen protesting at his office. LeBlanc reminded her that this was about protecting the North Atlantic right whale, and while this was difficult, he will meet with them tomorrow. Raitt then moved onto the demands to know the cost of carbon taxes on Canadians, raising the Ontario election as is their new line. Catherine McKenna said they published a report on April 30th, and that provinces are the best place to decide what to do with revenues, and it was better to ask those provinces what they’re going to do. Raitt demanded the answer from McKenna’s department officials, and raised the notion that Ford won in Ontario because people feel that costs are out of control. McKenna reiterated that all revenues remain in the provinces. Guy Caron was up for the NDP, decrying comments that former Bank of Canada Governor David Dodge that people die protesting the Trans Mountain pipeline, and he was fine with that. McKenna stood up to simply say that they believe in the right to protest. Caron tried again in French, and got the same succinct response. Alexandre Boulerice for up to decry the lack of adequate monitoring of pipeline spills, to which Marc Garneau said it was the duty of any government to get oil to market, and praised the polluter pay system in the Pipeline Safety Act. Sheila Malcolmson repeated the question in English, and Garneau repeated his response in the language of Shakespeare.
QP: Misrepresenting the Fraser Institute
It being caucus day, all of the leaders were present, and what a day of proto-PMQs it would be. Andrew Scheer led off, worrying about how much carbon taxes would cost Canadians, and he demanded to know how much it would cost families. Justin Trudeau said he would respond to that in a moment, but first wanted to thank the leader of the opposition, all MPs, and all Canadians for their solidarity in the face of trade difficulties with the US. Scheer said that Conservatives would always support measures to keeping markets open, and then began the smug crowing about Ford’s win in Ontario as a demand to cut carbon taxes. Trudeau reached for a script to decry that the Conservatives didn’t learn anything after ten failed years. Scheer insisted that a growing number of provinces are standing up to carbon taxes, to which Trudeau reminded him that Canadians rejected that approach two-and-a-half years ago, where they did nothing about the environment while having no economic growth to show for it, which contrasted his government’s approach. Scheer switched topics to the irregular border crossers, and Trudeau assured him that the system was working, that all rules were enforced, and didn’t want people to be subject to Conservative fear-mongering. Scheer concern trolled that the government was putting one group of refugees against another — doing exactly the same in his framing — and Trudeau called him out on it, while noting that the previous government cut CBSA and refugee healthcare, and created backlogs that they were still dealing with. Guy Caron led for the NDP, raising the concerns of a BC First Nation that wants to built a solar farm instead of a pipeline, to which Trudeau took up a script to say that the NDP only listen to those who agree with them, while his government listened and included that particular band. Caron repeated the question in French, and Trudeau read the same response in French. Alexandre Boulerice cited a Cambridge study that cited that the oil bubble would burst between now and 2050, and demanded investments in renewable energy. Trudeau took up a new script to say that they can create jobs while protecting the environment, and listed programmes they have invested in. Murray Rankin reiterated the question on renewables in English, and Trudeau didn’t need a script to retread his usual talking points about creating jobs while protecting the environment.
QP: Sunset clause off the table?
Although Justin Trudeau was present for QP today, Andrew Scheer was not, once again. Lisa Raitt led off, asking succinctly if it was true that Trump took the five-year sunset clause off of the negotiating table. Trudeau got up to first thank the opposition and all Canadian for standing together, and after some applause, noted that they are still negotiating but they would not accept a sunset clause. Raitt wanted a clear yes or no if it was taken off the table, and Trudeau spoke around the question, talking about his meeting on Friday, but would not say if it was taken off that table. Raitt said that she would have to take it as a yes, and worried about the trade war on families in her riding, before demanding that carbon taxes and payroll taxes be scrapped. Trudeau said that no, the sunset clause was not taken off the table, before talking about how tariffs would hurt American workers as well as Canadian ones. Alain Rayes took over in French, and concern trolled about the deficit and the drop in foreign investment, and worried how the prime minister could say he was good for the economy. Trudeau deployed his well-worn talking point about Canadians choosing investment instead of austerity. Rayes listed areas where the Fraser Institute says that taxes went up, to which Trudeau reminded him that the Fraser report didn’t take the Canada Child Benefit into account. Guy Caron led off for the NDP, asking about a First Nation band building a solar farm on their land while a pipeline crosses it, framing it as competing visions, to which Trudeau took up a script to rad that the Federal Court of Appeal started that the previous government didn’t adequately consult First Nations and his government did. Caron reiterated in French, and this time Trudeau read that they used to support Rachel Notley’s plan, before listing similar measures his government is taking. Alexandre Boulerice railed that they were not investing in a fair energy transition, and Trudeau reiterated his Notley’s-filled script. Jenny Kwan railed that CPP may invest in the pipeline, to which Trudeau repeated Notley’s plan, yet again.
QP: Solidarity in the face of Trump – more or less
Following the melodrama of the G7 summit over the weekend, the PM decided to take the day off from QP, but so did all of the other leaders, so make of that what you will. Candice Bergen led off, saying that they stood together with workers, and wanted to know what the PM’s plan was to resolve this impasse with the Americans. Dominic LeBlanc got up to respond, thanking Canadians for standing together to protect workers, and that there was no national security threat, and everyone gave hearty applause. Bergen then worried about whether the deficit took into account a potential aid package for these affected workers, and LeBlanc noted that any tariffs would also hurt American workers, and they were consulting on the sectors to see how they could help. Bergen said that they could immediately ratify the TPP, scrap the carbon tax, and eliminate trade barriers between provinces, and to invited them to work with Conservatives. François-Philippe Champagne said that they would have a TPP ratification bill tabled before the summer. Alain Rayes got up to repeat the deficit question in French, got the same response from LeBlanc in French, and then they went another round of the same. Ruth Ellen Brosseau led off for the NDP, asking the government to provide a unified response with all parties against Trump. LeBlanc said that obviously yes, they would work with all members to protect workers and ensure that retaliatory measures are proportionate. Brosseau then raise the leak from the existing Trans Mountain pipeline and that the government failed in its consultation of First Nations. Marc Garneau responded by reading that there were strong laws on pipelines on polluters paying for problems. Nathan Cullen repeated the question in English, with added sanctimony, to which Jim Carr noted that by repeating the polluter-pay principle in the Pipeline Safety Act. Cullen read a statement from a First Nations chief about the quality of the consultations, and Carr fumbled in his response about the NDP trying to speak on behalf of First Nations.
Candice Bergen says that the government could immediately take down interprovincial trade barriers.
Err, if it was so easy, how has it taken 151 years and a Supreme Court judgment? #QP— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 11, 2018
Roundup: Sore loserism and entrails
If you had any money riding on who would be the first to whine that Thursday’s election result was a signal that we need electoral reform, and if you chose Elizabeth May, well, collect your winnings. I spent much of Friday responding to this nonsense, but I will reiterate a couple of points – that if you blame the system because your party did not do better, you’re already missing the point. We’ve seen it happen time and again that when a party has a message that resonates, it’s the non-voters who come out, not the committed party base, and we had increased turnout on Thursday night which meant that people were motivated to throw the bums out. Similarly with Trudeau in 2015 – a significant uptick in voter turnout because they had something that they wanted to vote for/throw the bums out. This matters, and whinging that the system isn’t fair is missing the point entirely. The system works. It needs to be allowed to function the way it was intended. What doesn’t help is using a false number like the popular vote in order to make it look like the system is unfair in order to justify your disappointment is the epitome or sore loserism.
Another false majority due to #FPTP. Ford got 40% of vote = 100% of the power. Fair voting would have given voters what they voted for. #GPC
— Elizabeth May (@ElizabethMay) June 8, 2018
This is 1) demonstrably false; and 2) the sore loser argument.
The popular vote is not a real thing. Yesterday was not a single election, it was 124 separate elections. As for the share of power, it’s not equally distributed under a minority/coalition situation either. https://t.co/TYkSidfVrV— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 8, 2018
This is exactly why the “40 percent of the vote with 100 percent of the power” is so bogus. Even in PR legislatures, all parties do not get cabinet posts, nor does head of government rotate on a percentage basis.
You don’t divide power. https://t.co/DkcHLE8ukS— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 9, 2018
(In our political system, the government rarely if ever has a majority of the first-choice preferences of the electorate. PR is NOT a solution to this. There isn’t one, unless you count mass murder of the political opposition.)
— Colby Cosh (@colbycosh) June 9, 2018
Our system has no “democraticness” problem from this point of view, & its worst enemies may be PR fans who chip away at its legitimacy with claims like “Make every vote count” (I understand that neither you nor AC is saying this)
— Colby Cosh (@colbycosh) June 9, 2018
https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1005214910966452224
If your argument for electoral reform is that the current system sometimes allows your political opponents to win, perhaps you haven't quite grasped what it means to live in a democracy. https://t.co/74W3sXTFCF
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) June 8, 2018
In terms of reading Thursday night’s entrails, here’s Paul Wells taking a detailed look at the three campaigns and how each succeeded and failed in their own ways. CBC has a look at how Ford’s use of simple and vague messaging made him look sensible to an angry population. Robert Hiltz looks at the ways in which the Liberals defeated themselves by their craven attempts to hold onto power. Nevertheless, Wynne’s surprise concession days before the election may actually have saved the seats the Liberals did win, according to exit polling done, so that particular strategic calculation may have actually paid off.
Jen Gerson wonders if Doug Ford’s win isn’t akin to a Monkey’s Paw curse – getting what you wish for at a terrible price. Andrew MacDougall wonders what Ford’s win means for modern conservatism given that Ford isn’t really a small-c conservative, nor were his outlandish promises. Similarly, Chris Selley looks at the phenomenon of Ford Nation, the Harper Conservatives that surround him, and the way that Andrew Scheer has suddenly attached himself to the cause. Andrew Coyne (once you get past the griping about the electoral system) warns politicians and pundits not to overread Thursday’s results (hey federal Conservatives and your crowing in QP on Friday – this especially means you), and further wonders if Ford will pull a “cupboard is bare” routine to keep carbon pricing to use the revenues. Jason Kirby mocks up what Ford’s first speech might look like, by referencing earlier speeches about bare cupboards.
Roundup: Ford’s win, and echoes of 2011
So, that was an election, Ontario. I’m sure we’ll be full of hot takes, followed by the ritual lamentations about vote-splitting, and there will be a bunch of sanctimonious claptrap about “strategic voting,” but in the meantime, I am reminded of 2011. Why? Because with a Progressive Conservative government and an NDP official opposition, we may find that for the next little while, we’ll see a number of those MPPs talking about how great it is that there’s some real choice in visions in Ontario, and isn’t it great that those mushy-middle Liberals are out of the picture? And while we got a bunch of that in 2011, we also quickly found that the NDP MPs that did get elected in their big wave were not all up to par, and they went on an aggressive lockdown orchestrated by the leader’s office (or interim leader, as the case quickly proved to be). And it was that lack of real competence that ensured that the Liberals still in the chamber quickly became the grown-ups in the room. Question Period didn’t really start until then-interim leader Bob Rae stood up, and he ran circles around both the opposition and the government, frankly. And I suspect that it had something to do with how the Liberals were able to rebuild as quickly as they did – because people quickly started to clamour for a centrist vision that they could rally around. But it also didn’t happen without a lot of hard work, and a leader who emphasised the importance of that. We’ll have to see where the Liberals in Ontario land. As of the time I’m writing this, there is enough fluctuation still that we’re not sure if they will keep official party status at eight seats, and with Kathleen Wynne’s resignation as party leader, that leaves it open to see how these Liberals will get their acts together to provide that centrist voice (which was somewhat lacking under Wynne – who did win her own seat, incidentally). And in the meantime, here’s some advice from Jean Charest about rebuilding a devastated party.
Meanwhile, in hot takes, Justin Ling looks at the hard time that Doug Ford will have when it comes to trying to dismantle the cap-and-trade system in the province as well as fight the federal carbon price backstop, while Chris Selley notes that this is a bit of a blank slate because we have no coherent vision of what the party’s vision really is after their unrealistic platform. John Ivison asserts that this is the dawn of a new era of combative federalism, with Ford voting against everything coming from Ottawa. Paul Wells looks at the immediate problems for both Ford and Justin Trudeau coming out of last night’s election.
QP: A digression to the LRT
With the G7 meeting ramping up in Quebec City and Charlevoix, Quebec, Justin Trudeau was away from QP, and so was Andrew Scheer, as has been his wont lately. Candice Bergen led off, reading the same questions about the government not immediately imposing retaliatory tariffs on the US. Marc Garneau read that it was essential that they get this right, so they had a few days to respond. Bergen demanded that all tariffs collected by these retaliatory measures went to those impacted, and Garneau relied with the same assurances that they were there to defend steel and aluminium workers. Bergen switched topics to TPP ratification, and this time Mélanie Joly said that they had worked hard to improve the bill and it would be tabled shortly. Gérard Deltell reiterated the question in French, and got the same response in French. Deltell then repeated the earlier question about using whatever tariffs were collected to support affected workers, and Garneau reiterated earlier response in French. Guy Caron led off for the NDP, railing that fossil fuel subsidies weren’t being eliminated, among other sins, and Catherine McKenna responded with plans to implement a plastics charter at the G7 meeting. Caron demanded funding for green jobs rather than fund a pipeline, and McKenna insisted that they have stood up for the environment while growing the economy. Rachel Blaney reiterate the question in English, and McKenna listed the measures that they have taken — pricing carbon, phasing out coal, investing in public transportation and clean tech. Another round of the same yielded the same response.
Wait — did @cathmckenna say “talk and chew gum at the same time” or “walk”? #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 7, 2018