Monday, and major news happening regarding the country’s economic fortunes, but most of the party leaders were absent — Justin Trudeau returning from an event in Toronto, and Andrew Scheer elsewhere. That left Leona Alleslev go lead off, worrying that the country was hurtling toward recession as the stock market crashes before COVID-19. Chrystia Freeland assured her that the government had the fiscal firepower to withstand any downturn and would have measures to help people affected by the virus. Alleslev falsely stated that the economy was grinding to a halt, and concern trolled about Berkshire Hathaway pulling out of a Quebec LNG project, to which Freeland assured her that the government supports the resource sector and that planned projects and those under construction were up from the previous year. Alleslev tried one more time to rail about the state of the economy, and with a very measured tone, Freeland warned her against cheap partisan shots. Gérard Deltell stood up next to repeat the question about the Quebec LNG project, and Freeland repeated that they supported resource projects and there was record private sector investment. Deltell tried again, tying in the rail blockades, but Freeland was undaunted and repeated her response. Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, and he demanded compensation for the “collateral victims” of the railway crisis, to which a Freeland read that while the blockades did cause problems, they needed to find a lasting solution to the problem through dialogue, and that’s what they’ve been doing. Therrien demanded the government take harder actions at the border regarding COVID-19, to which Freeland explained that there is a global approach, and that they were doing everything in their power to protect Canadians. Jagmeet Singh was up next and demanded help for a Canadians who need to self-isolate, to which Freeland listed EI measures they have taken, and that they are preparing further measures. Singh then falsely claimed that the government cut healthcare to provinces, for which Freeland regaled the House with her visit to Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto, and that they were coordinating bulk supply purchases with the provinces.
Tag Archives: First Nations
Roundup: Caution – plummeting oil prices
Oil prices started plummeting Sunday night as a price war opened up in the midst of declining demand due to the COVID-19 outbreak, and this is going to have a huge impact in Canada, not only with Alberta and Saskatchewan, but most especially with Newfoundland and Labrador, whose government relies very heavily on resource revenues. Add to that, this is going to put even more pressure on Bill Morneau and the federal government when it comes to how to deal with reforming fiscal stabilization in the upcoming budget, particularly if it’s also going to mean any kind of rebate for previous years’ stabilization (as Jason Kenney in particular has been demanding, under the misleading term of “equalization rebate,” even though it’s no such thing).
This may also touch off a new round of blaming Justin Trudeau for Alberta’s woes, when the oil prices are going to make things so, so much more painful for the province as they budgeted a ludicrously high amount for oil revenues. One might suggest that it would be a good impetus for the province (and the federal government) to redouble efforts toward diversification and a “just transition” away from the oil economy in that province, because the hopes for “just one more boom” get even further away, or even for the province to finally reform the revenue side of its equation and finally implement a modest sales tax that would stabilize its finances – but I have a feeling that Kenney won’t even contemplate those things. Blaming Trudeau is too easy, and lying to the public is so much easier.
Hard to predict the future … but this is probably something we should talk about #ableg pic.twitter.com/Iywjhp38mK
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) March 6, 2020
Translation: There was not a single day between the release of Budget 2019 and Budget 2020 where the market settlement price for 2022-23 oil measured in Canadian dollars was within $10/bbl of the forecast in Budget 2019. That forecast was raised in #ableg Budget 2020.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) March 7, 2020
Speaking of lying to the public, as certain other political figures fill the op-ed pages with a bunch of bullshit about how Alberta is “treated like a colony” as the Buffalo Declaration did (and no, I won’t link to the egregious op-ed in question), here is a great thread from professor Melanee Thomas as to why that kind of comparison is not only wrong, but wrong to the point of being actively racist.
Roundup: Hurt feelings and punitive lessons
There is a vote coming up on Monday, when Parliament returns from the constituency week, which is on the Conservatives’ Supply Day motion to allot the opposition an additional three Supply Days, which the Conservatives are trying to spin as a “lesson” for the Liberals, because they apparently haven’t gotten the memo that it’s a hung Parliament. Also, the Conservatives’ feelings are hurt that their previous Supply Day was moved from a Thursday to a Friday, and they feel like it was being done as “punishment.” Never mind that the rules allow the government to allot a certain number of Supply Days to Wednesdays and Fridays (which are half days), and every government has monkeyed around with Supply Days in the past – most especially the Conservatives.
To that end, I find it particularly galling that Candice Bergen thinks that the Liberals need to take some lessons in humility because it’s a hung parliament, considering how the Conservatives behaved during the minority years. Humility? Conciliatory note? Nope. It was daring the opposition, declaring non-money bills (some of them in the Senate) to be confidence measures, screwing over the other parties by changing the federal rules governing spending limits on leadership campaigns while the Liberals were in the middle of theirs, and it culminated in a finding that the government was in contempt of parliament because of how they were withholding information that parliamentarians had a right to see.
Meanwhile, I would also issue the warning that this kind of stunt, which will further limit the government’s available calendar, will inevitably wind up with the government needing to use time allocation or other similar measures in order to pass time-sensitive legislation. Bergan may think she’s being clever by using these kinds of tactics, but this kind of thing always blows up in someone’s face, and nobody wins in the end.
Roundup: Pallister makes a gamble
Manitoba premier Brian Pallister announced yesterday that he was going to implement a carbon price after all – sort of. In a dare to the federal government, Pallister says he’ll stick with his originally planned $25/tonne price, and not raise it like he’s supposed with the rest of the country, but he would also reduce the province’s PST to compensate. Revenue neutrality can be a very good thing, but the point of having a common carbon price across the country is to have a level playing field so that provinces don’t undercut one another – which Pallister frequently ignores as he instead battles straw men about the efficacy of the province’s environmental plans (many of those mentioned having nothing to do with reducing GHGs).
While Pallister is confident that the Supreme Court of Canada will rule against the federal government on the upcoming carbon price challenges – which is a pretty risky gable to take – he’s daring the federal government to do what they said they would, which is to continue making up the federal carbon price with a separate carbon levy on top of the provincial one, which would continue to be rebated to taxpayers by the CRA. None of this makes much sense as a strategy other than the fact that it lets him proclaim that he’s lowered the PST in order to get the plaudits for that.
Meanwhile, here’s Dylan Robertson with some additional context:
Environment Canada told us two years ago (before Pallister withdrew the flat tax he's now bringing back) that they will collect a parallel tax for any shortfall in provincial levies: https://t.co/sLYsYUAzHP
— Dylan Robertson (@withfilesfrom) March 5, 2020
Pallister has said the provincial $25 will go to green activities and displace PST. So I expect Manitobans will get a minuscule rebate in their taxes. If Ottawa keeps to its April 2018 statement. We've asked them to confirm.
— Dylan Robertson (@withfilesfrom) March 5, 2020
To be fair: I am not entirely sure that Ottawa has ever given us their estimated cumulative reduction of GHGs, through its various programmings, on a per-province basis. I've asked them.
But this doc isn't bothering to compare Made-in-Manitoba plan with the Pan-Canadian Framework— Dylan Robertson (@withfilesfrom) March 5, 2020
I also don't understand why the premier's office never gave us a clear answer as to what amount of flat fee they were proposing to Ottawa. They told us in January they wanted a flat fee but wouldn't say how much; said that's negotiating in public. Turns out it's the old $25 pitch
— Dylan Robertson (@withfilesfrom) March 5, 2020
Statement from federal Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson — his office is waiting for Pallister's plan to be formally submitted (the original one Manitoba had withdrawn) and will assess it to figure out what Ottawa will do. pic.twitter.com/4yZ4jqhS4r
— Dylan Robertson (@withfilesfrom) March 5, 2020
Roundup: Putting Freeland on the case (again)
With more attention turning to what’s happening around COVID-19, prime minister Justin Trudeau has created a new Cabinet committee to handle the situation, and he’s put Chrystia Freeland in charge of it. An important addition to the committee is Kirsty Duncan, who may no longer be in Cabinet but is nevertheless sworn in as a privy councillor, and the fact that she has expertise in pandemics and once studied the Spanish Flu epidemic, so chalk one up for bench strength there. Freeland says the response has to be both “whole of government” and “whole of country,” and her role as intergovernmental affairs minister is certainly part of that – given that provinces deliver healthcare for the bulk of the country – but one suspects this is also about having a reassuring communicator on the issue (because as we all know, this government can’t communicate its way out of a wet paper bag).
To that end, while certain opposition voices are demanding travel restrictions (which are proven not to work) or enhanced screening measures at airports, what we’re hearing from the health minister and the Chief Public Health Officer is largely that containment can only delay an outbreak – which is not a bad thing, because if it can be delayed by six weeks or so, that would get our healthcare system past peak flu season, which frees up beds and resources. And thus far, we have been lucky that all of the cases in this country can be traced to travel-related causes and not community transmission, which means that the measures taken to date have been working, but again, delay is the watchword. It should also be noted that we have largely avoided panic, which is pretty good (torqued headlines about demanding people start stockpiling notwithstanding).
With that in mind, the military has been ordered to being pre-pandemic planning out of an abundance of caution, given that they need to be able to continue to operate in the case of a crisis.
People should listen carefully to what the CDS said:
This is an anticipatory activity to ensure the CAF is ready BUT NOT an indicator of what "will" happen let alone "is happening"
This is what great militaries do: Plan and Prepare absent an actual demand signal https://t.co/aXct2PpDnd
— D. Michael Day (@DMike_Day) March 5, 2020
Roundup: Party positions and individual agency
The weaponization of private members’ business continues unabated in Parliament, as the Conservatives put out an attack yesterday that claims that the Liberals want to “legalize” hard drugs because maverick backbencher Nathaniel Erskine-Smith tabled a private members’ bill that calls on the decriminalization of small personal amounts in order to better treat addiction as a public health issue and to not criminalize people with addictions – something that has worked in some countries. The lie, of course, is both in claiming that this was official government policy, and that it was calling for legalization – because who cares about truth or facts when there is fear to be mongered?
I see that the Conservatives have a problem with the notion of “private members’ business.”
These kinds of releases reinforce the notion that all MPs must be in lockstep with the party leader. That is corrosive to democracy and hurts the ability for MPs to have agency. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/fVb3mSvebj— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) March 3, 2020
I regularly expect our politics to be better than this. And I am regularly disappointed.
The bill in question, which the government has not indicated support for, would only decriminalize possession for personal use. https://t.co/3WZPxctK2k
— Nate Erskine-Smith (@beynate) March 3, 2020
The bigger problem here? What it does to how private members’ business is treated in the House of Commons, and more to the point, there is a very big potential for this to blow up in Scheer’s face because of Cathay Wagantall’s sex-selective abortion bill currently on the Order Paper. And yes, let’s not be obtuse about this – the media feeds this particular weaponization, both in how they made this kind of abortion bill an Issue during the election, and how we both demand that MPs be both independent and yet castigate the leader for “losing control” when any MP shows any glimmer of independence. (And for the record, Scheer has not said anything about Wagantall’s bill, other than to have his spokesperson say that he “discouraged” such bills).
https://twitter.com/althiaraj/status/1234901634272178182
I know that everyone is going to be cute about these bills, and how if they get tabled the party “must” support the position because everything is so centrally controlled, and so on, but this is part of what poisons the system. Insisting that everyone be marching in lockstep from other parties ensures that the same insistence is made about your own party, and it removes any agency from MPs. They’re MPs, not gods damned battle droids. If we want drones to simply read speeches into the record and vote according the leader’s office, then why do we even bother with MPs? Why bother with parliament at all? The Conservatives’ release is embarrassing, and they should be ashamed of themselves for it (which of course would imply that they’re capable of shame, but I have my doubts about that one too).
It's also corrosive to innovation and policy making. Letting private members take flyers on bills like this enables people to discuss the merits or drawbacks of this style of system without either:
a) feeling like leadership is whipping; or
b) making leadership wear it. /1— Robert Glasgow (@TheTradeLawGuy) March 3, 2020
That said there are nuances – including the line between decriminalization v legalization. Do you maintain an administrative offences for use that would impose non-criminal sanctions (travel bans, rehab treatment, etc.). But to get this you need debate not demagoguery. /fin
— Robert Glasgow (@TheTradeLawGuy) March 3, 2020
Roundup: Rights, title, and ratification
We got a few more details yesterday about the agreement reached with the Wet’sutwet’en hereditary chiefs on Sunday, despite a few TV hosts somewhat obtusely demanding to know what it meant for the Coastal GasLink pipeline – despite the fact that it was stated over and over again that this agreement did not have anything to do with that, and that the matter was unresolved. The crux of the agreement was an agreement on how rights and title would be extended for the Wet’suwet’en going forward, meaning that with any future projects, there would be clarity as to who would need to be consulted – which means the hereditary chiefs – and given the new impact assessment process that the Liberals instituted (under the infamous Bill C-69), those consultations begin at the earliest possible moment for these project proposals so that affected First Nations can be brought in from the get-go. What I found especially interesting was that Carolyn Bennett said that this was in accordance with UNDRIP principles, as free, prior and informed consent (which again she stressed was not a veto). And one imagines that this kind of agreement would be a template for others when it comes to unceded territory across the country.
As for Coastal GasLink, work apparently resumed on aspects of the project, but given that some of their permits were pulled by the province’s environmental assessment agency with a demand for more consultations, one supposes that the work is on areas that are outside of Wet’suwet’en territory. Meanwhile, one of the elected chiefs who is in favour of the project was doing the media rounds in Ottawa yesterday, and he said that while his people were discussing the ratification of the new agreement, he said that he was also willing to give up the economic benefits of the pipeline is that was what his people decided that they wanted as part of those discussions. We do know that matriarchs who were in support of the project were also in the meeting between Bennett, her BC counterpart and those hereditary chiefs, so the discussion within the community is very much alive, and we’ll see in a couple of weeks when the ratification process is supposed to be concluded, what the future holds for the pipeline.
Roundup: An agreement, and a start to further discussions
On the fourth day of negotiations, federal Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Carolyn Bennett, her BC counterpart, and the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs have come to an agreement regarding land title rights for Wet’suwet’en territory, which has been an open issue for decades. It will need to be ratified by the Wet’suwet’en nation after a period of consultation, but it is a step. This does not, however, completely solve the issue with the proposed Coastal GasLink pipeline – the vocal group of hereditary chiefs remain opposed (while those in the community who support the project feel they aren’t being heard), but this remains an issue where the community needs to come together and use the feast system under their laws to resolve these disputes, which hasn’t been happening. It will also require further discussions with the RCMP about their operations in their territory, but again, there seems to be some progress made.
Over the past three days, there have been frank and substantive discussions, guided by Wiggus (respect), on the complex issues with respect to Wet'suwet'en rights and title. The result is a draft arrangement that will be reviewed by the Wet'suwet'en clan members. pic.twitter.com/XNfmayWVUR
— Carolyn Bennett (@Carolyn_Bennett) March 1, 2020
#cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/XvhCoeza3g
— Marc Miller ᐅᑭᒫᐃᐧᐅᓃᐸᐄᐧᐤᐃᔨᐣ (@MarcMillerVM) March 2, 2020
Meanwhile, a discussion among legal experts is ongoing regarding the efficacy of using legal injunctions when there are land rights protests going on, because they can be too much of a blunt instrument. Some are suggesting that the injunctions be structured to allow for mediated consultation instead of heavy-handed orders to stop their protests, as has been done in some provinces when it comes to labour disputes. And a prime example of something unhelpful is the bill recently tabled in Alberta to further penalize protesters with heavy fines (which is already likely unconstitutional), but there does seem to be a definite mindset behind that kind of legislation.
Roundup: See you at the Supreme Court
In the wake of the Alberta Court of Appeal reference decision on the federal carbon price, both Jason Kenney and his justice minister have been performing a particular song and dance for the media’s consumption, demanding that the federal government immediately remove said “unconstitutional” price, and demanding a rebate for all Albertans under threat of personal lawsuit.
Couple of things:
- This was not a court order. It was a reference question, so there is no actual weight to the finding of unconstitutionality. And federal justice minister David Lametti said as much in a letter responding to his Alberta counterpart telling that he would see him at the Supreme Court of Canada.
- There is already a rebate. In fact, most people get more back than they pay into it – and they are scheduled to receive the biggest rebates in the country. Demanding refunds is actually a bit gross, because it’s wilfully misrepresenting how the system works.
- Suing members of the federal Cabinet is not how the system works. And we actually saw said provincial minister’s old law professor take to Twitter to say that she taught him better than that. So there’s that.
https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/1232874850563260416
Meanwhile, Manitoba is threatening to continue with their challenge to the federal carbon price if they don’t get a deal on the very same thing from the federal government. While the federal government says that they haven’t received a new proposal from Manitoba, you can bet that the province wants to continue pitching a price that won’t rise, which isn’t going to be on because it’s about ensuring a level playing field across the country, and not letting premiers undermine one another in a race to the bottom.
Roundup: An abortion bill to position around
The Conservatives’ abortion legislation problem has come home to roost early in the new parliament as MP Cathay Wagantall tabled a bill to ban sex-selective abortions, under the (bullshit) excuse that it reflects Canada’s commitment to gender equality. And because she’s 31 on the order of precedence for private members’ business, this will come up likely late spring or early fall. (Private members’ business is determined by lottery, and arrives on the Order Paper in batches of 30). And all eyes are on Andrew Scheer, who stated during the election that he would vote against any measures to attempt to re-open the abortion debate.
Why does this matter? Because the list of approved candidates for the Conservative leadership closed last night, and social conservatives have played kingmaker in both the last federal leadership contest, as well as the last Ontario one, which was done under the same rules. Already we’re seeing positioning among candidates, such as Erin O’Toole criticizing Peter MacKay for saying he would whip his Cabinet to vote against such a bill, saying that he would never whip anyone, Cabinet or backbench, on “moral issues.” It’s a completely transparent ploy – O’Toole is trying to ensure that he gets second-ballot support from the social conservatives when their preferred no-hope candidates get dropped off of the ranked preferential ballot. That’s how Andrew Scheer won, and it’s how Doug Ford won.
Meanwhile, it looks like it’ll be seven entrants in the race, though some approvals may yet be pending. Of those seven, three qualify as social conservatives, so the “frontrunners” like MacKay, O’Toole and maybe Marilyn Gladu will want the second and third votes from those no-hopers in the hopes of pushing them over the top. So this dynamic is very present in the leadership race, as Wagantall has put it on the table for them to debate around her.