Tag Archives: Environment

QP: Crowing about the release of a “secret report” that was not secret or a report

Posted on by

With the prime minister was off at the G7 summit in Italy, and his deputy off in Montreal, most of the other leaders didn’t bother to show up either. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, claiming that the “economic vandalism” and “carbon tax cover-up” have been exposed thanks to his party’s valiant efforts, and that the government finally revealed the data set about the cost impacts of carbon pricing beyond the retail price, and lo, it takes $30 billion out of the economy (which isn’t actually true—the figures only track one particular measure and not the other costs or offsets on the economy), and how the government attacked the PBO to hide the information (again, completely not true). Steven Guilbeault said that they have already established that math is Poilievre’s strong suit, that he can’t count above six, and that the data prove that eight out of ten households get more back, and that 25 million tonnes of GHG reductions are because of the carbon price. Poilievre accused the government of trying to hide the data (not true), raised the cost to Quebeckers, took a swipe at the Bloc, and accused the government again of attacking the reputation of the PBO for telling the truth (which isn’t what happened). Guilbeault reminded him that the carbon levy doesn’t apply in Quebec, and that he can turn to his own MPs who voted for the province’s carbon pricing system when she was in the Charest Cabinet. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the claim that the previous “hidden report” (which is not a report) costs the economy $30 billions and considered it economic vandalism. Guilbeault insisted that this is misreading the data, that most households get more back, and that the carbon pricing is responsible for half of emissions reductions. Poilievre repeated his defence of the PBO, to which Guilbeault repeated his same response. Poilievre again mischaracterised the data, and demanded that Guilbeault resign, and this time Jonathan Wilkinson got up to point to the 300 economists who explained how carbon pricing works, and that there is a cost of inaction on climate change.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc and complained about the Governor General’s budget, and demanded the medal programme be cancelled. Pascale St-Onge gave a tepid defence of the medals and the monarchy. Therrien complained that the same estimate vote contains funds for Indigenous clean drinking water initiatives and demanded the money on the medals be spent elsewhere. St-Onge pointed out that they have constituents who are interested in the medals who should be respected.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and railed about the proposed “third link” project in Quebec City, and demanded that no federal money go toward it. Pablo Rodriguez said that he should direct his ire to the provincial government. Lori Idlout decried the Indigenous infrastructure gap, and Patty Hajdu agreed that the record has been poor, and that the current government has been moving on those priorities.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Terrible capital gains narratives

Posted on by

The communications around the capital gains changes have been atrocious. Chrystia Freeland is painting an apocalyptic picture of what will happen to Canadian society if we don’t make these changes, and the talk about fairness, where workers pay more taxes than those who can earn it on investment income is missing the key component of the discussion which is around the unequal treatment of different types of income that allows people to engage in tax arbitrage—picking and choosing which revenue models will net them the least taxation, which is a real problem for fairness that is not being discussed at all.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1801021913738698941

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1801022109172256818

In amidst this comes Calgary economist Jack Mintz, whose sole entire schtick is to cut taxes to solve every problem under the sun. And of course, Pierre Poilievre was quoting him in Question Period, calling him the greatest economy in the country, which is pretty risible. It didn’t help that Poilievre made the basic mistake of believing that the tax rate is going up rather than the inclusion rate (the point at which it kicks in on the profit you’ve made), but he has doomsday scenarios to unleash into the world to make his case that this is a Very Bad Thing, when it’s nothing at all like he seemed to believe.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1801086926696415384

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1801088499522937017

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1801096926227497107

Everyone has handled this whole situation poorly, media included, and this has been al lost opportunity to try and have a proper conversation about these kinds of tax measures and changes.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian missile attacks have left much of Kyiv without power and water. Russian missiles also struck an administrative building and an apartment block in Kryvyi Rih in the south, and killed nine and injured 29. The American government says they are aware of credible reports that abducted Ukrainian children are being put up on adoption websites.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1800901662820704467

Continue reading →

Roundup: Elizabeth May to the rescue (again)

Posted on by

The House of Commons has once again embarrassed itself in voting to send the NSICOP report to Justice Hogue for her to review, and its documents, to see if she can do or say something about the potentially “disloyal” parliamentarians therein. She can’t, and won’t, because this is a political problem and MPs have just voted to kick this down the road until October because certain of the leaders can’t arse themselves to be adults and take their responsibilities seriously, preferring instead to remain ignorant so that they can shout increasingly lurid and baseless accusations from the rooftops, because that gets them clicks and engagement on social media, and that is the cart that is driving politics in these debased times. Hopefully Justice Hogue will get this request and tell MPs to go drop on their heads because she has enough work to do and not enough time to do it in, thank you very much, and this is their political problem to solve, not hers. But we’ll see.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth May was the adult in the room, who took the opportunity to avail herself of the security clearance she acquired over the course of these months of foreign interference handwringing, and did read the full, classified report, and then took to a microphone in the press theatre in the West Block to discuss what she could about the report, and then went on Power & Politics later and refined those remarks even further. And what did she find? No list of treasonous or disloyal MPs, a handful of cases of MPs who are no longer serving who may have been compromised in some manner, and the one incident of a former MP who should be investigated and charged. And even more to the point, she just proved that reading the report wouldn’t tie Pierre Poilievre’s hands, that he could still talk about the conclusions of the report without any specifics, and that Michael Chong has indeed spouting bullshit when he claimed that he knew more than a former CSIS director about this.

Hopefully this means that the hot air has been drained from this, particularly since Jagmeet Singh will read the classified version today, and Yves-François Blanchet seems to have finally been convinced to get the proper clearance so that he too can read it for himself. That leaves Poilievre as the odd man out, insisting on remaining ignorant, but hopefully with the other leaders offering similar reassurances as May, this could deflate the issue and turn to the real issues about how to better combat this sort of interference, letting parties put in necessary internal reforms to prevent nomination races from being coopted, and so on. That relies on them being grown-ups, and if one party decides to remain off-side and not among the adults in the room, that will be pretty telling. There should also be questions asked of the members of NSICOP for not providing reassurance from the start, and for letting this issue blow up unnecessarily, because that should have an impact on their credibility, or would if the Elder Pundits of this country hadn’t decided on a particular narrative that they are going to relentlessly pursue, regardless of what has transpired.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Kharkiv’s mayor says that the ability to strike missile launch sites across the border in Russia has helped calm the number of attacks his city has been facing. At the recovery conference in Berlin, Ukraine has been attracting pledges to help modernise its air defences to help prevent the need for even further rebuilding.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1800249418949841359

Continue reading →

QP: Not taking yes for an answer on Hogue

Posted on by

The prime minister was off in Quebec City to meet with the premier of that province, but his deputy was present, having just made the formal announcement of the Ways and Means motion on the capital gains changes that they want to use as a political wedge. Most of the other leaders were away, and Pierre Paul-Hus led off in French, and raised the NSICOP report, and demanded to know the names of who was implicated. Dominic LeBlanc noted that he was surprised by the question because Andrew Scheer had sent a letter asking to send this to the Hogue Commission, and there was a Bloc motion on the same thing, and the government was going to support it. Paul-Hus wanted it clear whether the prime minister would reveal the names to Justice Hogue, and let her deal with it, and LeBlanc repeated that they were going to support the Bloc motion. Jasraj Hallan took over in English to ramp up the rhetoric, launching accusations, and LeBlanc reiterated that they agree the Commission is well-placed, and already has access to the documents in question. Hallan torqued his rhetoric even further, and LeBlanc again said they would support the Bloc motion, and LeBlanc said that he asked the deputy RCMP commissioner what would happen if he stood up and read off those names, and was told he would be criminally charged, which he would not do. Hallan switched topics to claim there was some secret carbon price report that the PBO couldn’t release (there was no report), and Steven Guilbeault recited his lines about the PBP report saying that eight out of ten households got more money back than they spent.

Alain  Therrien led for the Bloc, and patted himself on the back for their motion, claiming they were being the adults in the room. LeBlanc repeated that they would support the motion. Therrien demanded further reassurance that they would turn over any additional documents and LeBlanc assured him they were.

Jagmeet Singh conflated a number of incidents with the NSICOP report revelations, and Dominic LeBlanc gave some back-patting on the only government actually taking action. Singh repeated the conflation in French, and got much the same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: A political problem means classified briefings

Posted on by

The naming-names debate continued apace yesterday, starting at the public safety committee, where Dominic LeBlanc pushed back against Conservative theatrics demanding the release of the names (to atrocious behaviour from all sides), while at that that same meeting, the director of CSIS and the RCMP deputy commissioner also warned that releasing those names will cause both reputational damage to individuals who can’t defend themselves on the basis of allegations that aren’t backed up, and it can also damage ongoing investigations. There is no due process that comes with naming names for the sake of it.

Ultimately, however, this remains a political problem for the parties, because they need to know who among their ranks was compromised, and that requires all leaders to have the appropriate security classifications (and apparently for privy council members who are no longer ministers, there is a Treasury Board-esque process now that requires renewal, which is an extremely odd and concerning process because MPs are not government employees and they use intelligence in a different manner, so they shouldn’t need to use the same process). And as Philippe Lagassé points out, this isn’t necessarily a problem for law enforcement so much as it is for the parties. If the leaders get the classified briefings, they know which of their MPs may be compromised (and it’s is a “may,” not an “is” because we’re dealing with unverified intelligence that may not be true), and give them the space to either sideline them, prevent them from contesting the next election under the party banner, or to give those MPs the ability to try and exonerate themselves outside of the public eye where their reputations could be irreparably damaged. But again, this relies on the leaders doing the right thing and getting briefed, not hiding behind the bullshit excuse that they would be “muzzled” if they did.

There are a couple of other problems here. One is that in talking with people familiar with NSICOP, that they have had a tendency to exaggerate things in their reports because they also have an agenda of trying to make themselves look better and to take more of the spotlight, so we should take some of these allegations with a grain of salt. As well, some of those allegations are back to the problem that we heard about in other places where some of the intelligence was rejected by the National Security Advisor because they believed it was normal course of diplomatic engagement and not interference, which is something the Hogue Commission is struggling with. We don’t have a complete picture for a lot of reasons, and everyone is jumping to conclusions and needs to dial it down.

Programming Note: I’m away for the weekend, so there won’t be a Saturday post.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine shot down 17 of 18 Russian drones overnight, with the damage of the final drone in the Khmelnytsky region.

Continue reading →

QP: Trying to be clever about the list of names

Posted on by

The prime minister was on his way back from Normandy, while his deputy was off making announcements in Toronto, and all of the other leaders were also absent. Andrew Scheer led off with the NSICOP report, worried about Jennifer O’Connell’s outburst at committee, and demanded the names be released. Dominic LeBlanc suggested that his leader get classified briefings. Scheer asked if any implicated parliamentarians are in Cabinet (which is stupid because there is actual vetting of ministers), and LeBlanc gave Scheer credit for trying to do indirectly what he cannot do directly. Scheer tried a second time, and LeBlanc patted himself on the back for the actions the government has taken around foreign interference when the previous government didn’t. Luc Berthold took over in French, and tried to demand the names again, and got the same answer. Berthold then pivoted to a story about a woman who got chased on the streets in Montreal, and blamed this on bail and supervised injection sites. Ya’ara Saks said the safe consumption sites in the province are run by the province.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he too raised the NSICOP report, taking some swipes at Chrystia Freeland for her non-response yesterday. LeBlanc reiterated that the government his points that they have been taking action on foreign interference. Therrien made another complaint about Freeland, and got the same response. 

Heather McPherson rose for the NDP to worry about CBSA pensions per current labour negotiations. Anita Anand recited that they are committed to negotiation and that it’s a process of give-and-take. Alexandre Boulerice raised the UN’s request to raise taxes on oil companies and the government refusing. Pascale St-Onge said that she too believes Canada needs to do more to reduce emissions, and praised the elimination of subsiding and their climate resilience fund.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The demand to name names

Posted on by

The day was largely marked with the discourse around that NSICOP report, and the demand that the government name names, even though that’s never going to happen because intelligence is not evidence, there may be ongoing investigations that it might jeopardise, and the possibility of reputational damage for someone who may be unwittingly involved is great—all things the RCMP pointed to in their own release on the subject. The chair of NSICOP said that any next steps are up to the RCMP, but that hasn’t stopped reporters from asking salacious questions about whether they can trust their fellow caucus-members (because remember, reputational damage).

With all of this in mind, I went back to the report, and looked for more than just that one paragraph that every media outlet highlighted. It noted that much of that witting assistance was in relation to India, which is not a “hostile power” last time I checked, even if we have particular issues with them (such as their decision to assassinate someone on our soil). I have no doubt that some MPs would see no problem in trying to “forge closer ties” with India. The other thing that I noted was that, at least in relationship with the Chinese government is that there was an expectation of a quid pro quo relationship, that engaging with them would benefit the political player in question in the hopes that the PRC would mobilise their influence networks in favour of that candidate in the riding. I suspect that in several of these cases, the MPs in question wouldn’t think of it as foreign interference, but that they’re being so clever in leveraging diaspora politics to their advantage, and believing that they can somehow outwit Chinese agents to do it. Likewise with instances of blind eyes being turned to money flowing into ridings, particularly from the Indian government—that they think they can leverage that government to their advantage and not that they’re being played, and why I don’t think that certain media outlets and political figures screaming “name the traitors!” is doing much for the level of discourse. The report did make mention of Chinese and Indian influence in at least two Conservative leadership races, but no details provided as to how or the vectors that took shape as (money, membership sign-ups under the promise of repayment, or so on). There was also mention of one former MP who had wittingly provided information while maintaining a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer, but this was being conflated with the other allegations, which is not helpful in the slightest.

As for what’s next, it would seem to me that the real question here is why certain party leaders continue to be wilfully blind as to the full details of the report, and how they continue to refuse to accept classified briefings. The notion that it would “muzzle” them is bullshit—it would mean they can’t talk about certain specific details, but it would give them a more complete picture of what is happening and if their own MPs are implicated, which would allow them to take internal party action, even if they can’t publicize the details.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces downed 22 out of 27 Russian drones overnight Wednesday, and an industrial facility in Poltava suffered damage. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with the emir of Qatar in advance of the peace summit in Switzerland.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1798300991407940083

Continue reading →

QP: Look at the interest rate decision, not at the NSICOP report!

Posted on by

While Wednesdays are normal the day the prime minister is present and answers everything, he was instead off to France to take part in D-Day commemorations, and while his deputy was not scheduled to be here, she was after all. With Trudeau gone, one of the other leaders didn’t bother to show up. Pierre Poilievre was present, and started off in French, and he wondered about the NSICOP report about which MPs were implicated, and repeated the same in English in the same time period. Dominic LeBlanc said that no government would release security information in public, and said that if the leader opposite got his security clearance, he could read the confidential information for himself rather that casting aspersions on the floor of the House of Commons. Poilievre stuck to English to raise the AG report on SDTC, and demanded the information be turned over to the RCMP. Chrystia Freeland said that it was no surprise that Poilievre didn’t want to talk about the economic thanks to the good news that rates decreased. Poilievre returned to French to worry about daycares in Montreal where people need police escorts, and demanded changes to the Criminal Code. Freeland, however, reiterated her same response in French. Poilievre switched back to English to demand the release of the report that the Parliamentary Budget Officer claimed he was being gagged about. Freeland ignored this entirely in order to praise the Oilers winning their conference as part of a “good week for Canada.” Poilievre read the letter sent to the PBO asking him not to disclose the report in question, and Freeland said that it was Poilievre under a gag order, who couldn’t say anything nice about Canada. (Seriously?! Honest to Hermes, this is ridiculous).

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he demanded action on the NSICOP revelations of MPs as witting accomplices of foreign governments. LeBlanc praised Therrien’s cooperation on the foreign interference file. Therrien reiterated his demand, and Freeland rose to praise the economic good news of the interest rate decision. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he too demanded action on those revelation, noting that he has requested a classified briefing but railed that the prime minister has done nothing for months. LeBlanc said he was pleased to hear that he had requested the briefing before patting himself on the back for the action on combatting foreign interference so far. Singh repeated his question in French, and Freeland again got up to praise the economic good news.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The PBO immolates what little credibility he had left

Posted on by

It looks like the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Yves Giroux, decided to extend his “winning” streak and cover himself in glory at the Commons’ finance committee yesterday, and once again immolated what credibility he has left. Defending his report, claiming he had access to a confidential report from Environment Canada that he was “gagged” from releasing (which the Conservatives jumped on and launched a thousand shitposts about, because committees are now only about content generation), lamented that the government doesn’t publish more climate modelling of their own, and how he hates how his reports are politicised, even though he’s been at this job for years and knows full well that PBO reports are always politicised, because that’s why MPs like them—so that they can both wield those reports as a cudgel, while hiding behind the shield of the PBO’s non-partisan “credibility” to keep the government from attacking it.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1797780078203671008

https://twitter.com/prairiecentrist/status/1797691621708054916

While this Tony Keller column lays out four major problems with the original carbon price report that the PBO produced—which again, Giroux continues to not really apologise for—energy economist Andrew Leach has some additional comments, driving home both how shallow the analysis is, and the fact that it’s not replicable because the PBO studiously refuses to explain his methodology, relying on “trust us, that’s our job.” But as we saw on P&P and again at finance committee, he complained that the government should be doing this kind of modelling work when it’s literally his one statutorily legislated job to do.

And to be helpful, Jennifer Robson provides some unsolicited advice on how the PBO could make his methodologies more transparent, if he actually wanted to do that (which I doubt, because so many of his reports rely on his pulling a novel methodology out of his ass, according to the many economists I’ve interviewed in the past). But that’s also part of the point about why he has no credibility left, and why he should start drafting that resignation letter.

https://twitter.com/lindsaytedds/status/1797817128483254759

Ukraine Dispatch:

A civilian was killed in a Russian strike on a recreation facility in Kharkiv. Here’s a look at what to expect from Ukraine’s peace summit to be held in Switzerland next week.

Continue reading →

QP: The overwrought demands for a gas tax holiday

Posted on by

The prime minister was in town but otherwise engaged, while his deputy was present for QP today. Most of the other leaders were present, and Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and recited a bunch of abject nonsense about the Bloc supporting the government, and wondered why the government didn’t formalise their supposed “coalition.” Chrystia Freeland noted that Quebeckers believe in a lot of things the government does, such as child care, and the that the Conservatives only want to cut, cut, cut. Poilievre said that he would cut taxes, and went on another rant about the Bloc. Freeland responded talking about social solidarity, and raising the rate of capital gains. Poielivre switched to English to take a swipe at the out-of-context comments by Mark Holland on Friday, and wondered if he would also call out his leader for taking his so-called “private jet” (which is not a private jet, it’s the Canadian military’s plane). Holland says that he was mistaken on the math, that it wasn’t 37,000 kilometres, but 44,000 kilometres to meet the supposed savings the Conservatives promised, and that they were meeting the existential challenge of climate change unlike the Conservatives. Poilievre dismissed this as “whacko math,” and decried the government’s climate plans before demanding the gas tax holiday. Steven Guilbeault repeated the point about the Conservatives’ math, which meant that a person could drive from the North Pole to the South Pole and back, and have kilometres remaining. Poilievre again dismissed this and demanded people get their gas tax holiday from the “miserable economy.” Guilbeault replied with another example of how far someone would have to drive to achieve the supposed savings the Conservatives claim.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and decried another Liberal MP’s comments on bilingualism, to which Pablo Rodriguez pointing out that the Bloc keeps voting against language funding. Therrien continued on his tear about the Liberals disrespecting French, and Rodriguez dismissed it as a ridicule question.

Leah Gazan rose for the NDP, and decried the lack of progress on the MMIW report, and Gary Anandasangaree read some anodyne talking points about systemic racism, and that they tabled their progress report today. Heather MacPherson went on a rant about the Liberals not doing enough to stop the war in Gaza. Mélanie Joly agreed the situation was catastrophic, which is why Canada supports the Biden plan.

Continue reading →