Tuesday, and all of the leaders were back once again. Andrew Scheer was up first, and he claimed there were “sky high” deficits and taxes and no infrastructure spending to show for it — assertions that were all false. The deficits are actually tiny in comparison to the size of the federal budget, and the tax burden on Canadians is hovering near its lowest point in the post-war period, not to mention the fact that many of the promised infrastructure projects were held up by provinces trying to play politics in advance of the election, and that the hoped-for productivity gains were blunted when provinces didn’t keep up their planned infrastructure spending, and instead rolled it back as the federal government spent more. Justin Trudeau stood up and used a script to list projects that they were approving. Scheer then raised their Supply Day motion about calling in the Auditor General about the infrastructure programme. Trudeau reminded him that the Conservative record was spending on billboards, door knobs and gazebos, while their government was getting things done. Scheer asked again in French, got much the same answer, and Scheer raised the coronavirus and wanted support for Taiwan to get observer status at the WHO. Trudeau avoided the direct question and gave assurances about the coronavirus and collaboration with China. Scheer tried again, and Trudeau reminded them that they shouldn’t play politics with public health crises. Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc, and he once again raised the possibility of aluminium impacting the Quebec market under the New NAFTA, to which Trudeau reminded him there were guarantees in the new agreement that do not exist currently. Blanchet tried again, and Trudeau quoted the aluminium producer association as saying it was a good deal. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and he railed about the Volkswagen settlement agreement, calling it a “sweetheart deal.” Trudeau, without script, stated that they are paying a penalty and it was great for the fight against climate change. Singh then railed about a supposed tripling of outsourcing of public service functions, and Trudeau spoke to the balance around procurement.
Tag Archives: First Nations
QP: A conciliatory note, and then a lie
And we’re back. While Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer were present, and most, but not all other leaders were as well. After a moment of silence for the victims of PS752, Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk as usual, and he asked for progress on bringing PS752 victims home and holding perpetrators to account. Trudeau thanked him for the question, and picked up a script to note that they were supporting victims, and what he told the Iranian President directly. Scheer thanked him, and then moved onto cancelled energy projects and lied about the cost of living versus wages and demanded that the Teck Frontier Mine. Trudeau reminded him that they were growing the economy while protecting the environment. Scheer then stated that the government was destroying the energy sector — again, falsely — and lamented deficit spending, to which Trudeau reminded him that they made the choice to invest, and it was paying off. Scheer then switched to gang violence and claimed the government was taking the “lazy approach” of targeting lawful gun owners, to which Trudeau took up a script to list the measures they were taking. Scheer then moved onto the survey which stated that Canada dropped three spots on the transparency ranking (which is a self-reported metric), to which Trudeau listed ways in which Canada was strong on the international stage. Yves-François Blanchet was up next, and raised a potential deportation case and demanded that the minister intervene. Trudeau, with script, to read a platitude about how they examine each case based on merit, and said that they were aware of the case but could not speak to it. Christine Normandin raised the question again, and Trudeau repeated his response. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and demanded did that the government immediately pay the compensation for First Nations children demanded by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Trudeau reminded him that they are working on reconciliation, noted the new approvals under Jordan’s Principle, and that they were still working on the issue. Singh then demanded immediate action on pharmacare and claimed he has a bill to immediately implement it (which a private members’ bill can’t do), and Trudeau took a script to list actions they have taken to reduce drug prices and noted they were negotiating with the provinces.
Second question and Scheer falsely says that wages have stagnated and not kept up with the cost of living. That is not true. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 27, 2020
Roundup: The reality of negotiation
As was ever thus, the Twitter Machine erupted with fury and disingenuous outrage when health minister Patty Hajdu told reporters that she couldn’t guarantee that a national pharmacare programme would be in place at the end of the current parliament (for which we don’t know when that will be, as a hung parliament rarely lasts beyond two years.
“Some of that will be predicted by, predicated by, the responses of the provinces and territories,” said Hajdu, because *mind blown* healthcare is largely the domain of the provinces and any pharmacare system would have to be negotiated with them – in particular, a national formulary, which is going to be extremely complicated to ensure that existing plans don’t get left behind or that the new national plan isn’t worse off than any existing ones that it would replace.
What is especially irritating are all of the voices crying out that this just means the Liberals were lying on the campaign trail, which is false and ridiculous – Trudeau spent the campaign not overpromising on this file, but rather kept saying that it was contingent on negotiation with provinces, which is why their fiscal plan only called for a “down payment” on such a programme rather than the whole thing, but nevertheless, the promise was to go by the principles of the Hoskins Report, which they have bene doing thus far. The NDP, by contrast, insisted that this could be done by 2020, and whenever anyone brought up the fact that the provinces may object, the line was largely that why would anyone say no to federal dollars? It’s absurd, of course, because provinces are rightfully afraid that they would be stuck with an expensive programme to run if the federal government suddenly cut out transfers or funds to it because they suddenly had other priorities (which has happened in the past).
And to that end, we have a bunch of premiers who are balking at it, Quebec and Alberta want to be able to opt-out with compensation, and Ontario is instead insisting that the federal government pay for drugs to treat rare diseases – the most expensive kind, and the ones where costs are rapidly escalating. So of course they want the federal government to pay for them rather than to share the burden. It’s predictable, and for anyone to be shocked and appalled that the Liberals have to deal with this reality is really, really tiresome.
Roundup: When lower carbon is not lower carbon
As the various interests trying to promote the continued development of Alberta’s energy sector amidst changing global markets and the need to move to a carbon-constrained future, one is bound to find a number of arguments that are inherently self-serving and containing falsehoods (such as the fiction that Andrew Scheer and Jason Kenney keep trying to promote that somehow Alberta energy can reduce the environmental footprint in China and India, and that we can take their emissions credits for it). Energy economist Andrew Leach found another one promulgated by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (which I will remind you is an organization that has gone so far to the one side that major players like Royal Dutch Shell have withdrawn from the group, because they understand the need for mechanisms like carbon pricing).
I've found a piece from @OilGasCanada which illustrates everything that's wrong with how we talk about energy and oil demand, emissions, and energy transitions. I'm told it's important that we fight misinformation with respect to our oil industry, please allow me to do so. 1/N
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 17, 2020
There are 3 central claims in the piece:
1) energy demand will increase through 2040;
2) Use of renewables will increase significantly;
3) More oil and more natural gas will be needed through 2040.They buttress these claims with a cite to the @iea Stated Policies scenario. 3/N
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 17, 2020
So, dear reader, what you might be given to understand is that the changes in energy supply depicted in the infographic correspond to a lower carbon scenario. Unless lower doesn't mean what I think it means, that's not the case. 5/N
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 17, 2020
If you'll check Stated Policies on the left, you'll notice something interesting. Yes, energy demand goes up, and yes we use a lot of oil and gas, but there's that pesky orange line through the middle of the figure which, in my professional opinion, is not decreasing. 7/N
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 17, 2020
So, what the IEA says is, if you want to think about a lower carbon future, don't look to Stated Policies because it's not going to do the trick. The IEA suggests that you have a look at the Sustainable Development Scenario. So, let's do that. 9/N
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 17, 2020
The WEO has more detail on each commodity, so let's look specifically at oil. In their lower-carbon world, they explain that, "oil demand peaks very soon […] and falls back to 67 mb/d by 2040, a level last seen in 1990." That's doesn't sound like more oil, does it? 11/N pic.twitter.com/FDZ6ccfaCE
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 17, 2020
Here's some backup from outside the WEO. Gas demand is certainly much more uncertain than oil in scenarios consistent with the WEO lower-carbon runs. There are, among those model runs, 2C and even 1.5C scenarios with higher gas demand than we see today. 13/N pic.twitter.com/63Zk1Odhq5
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 17, 2020
That said, remember that lower oil production does not equate to no new oil investment. Decline rates of existing assets exceed the decline in demand associated with increased climate action. So, don't @ me with your hot takes on pipelines or upstream investment. 15/15 pic.twitter.com/Gnh2eqv6F8
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 17, 2020
Roundup: A likely missile strike
It was another day of shocking revelations as Justin Trudeau held another press conference yesterday to confirm that intelligence from many sources – including Canada’s own – gave a strong indication that it was indeed a missile that brought down flight 752 outside of Tehran, though it may not have been intentional. He struck a very somber tone, and continued to call for Canada’s participation in the investigation – while Iran’s spokespeople are denying that it was a missile, and so far only limited access is being offered to Canadians (though they are apparently approving the necessary visas for consular access). It’s also important to note that Trudeau specifically referenced Canadian intelligence sources, because it’s less likely (historically speaking) that it would be manipulated for political purposes, than if we simply relied on American intelligence.
In our research, @StephanieCarvin and I found there is literally no past instance of politicization of intelligence in Canada. Our leaders simply don't do that, unlike in other countries.
If Trudeau says this, with appropriate caveats & caution, it must be taken very seriously. https://t.co/eoA8zcWEgx
— Thomas Juneau (@thomasjuneau) January 9, 2020
Another term cropped up several times yesterday, which was the call for a “credible” investigation – another important consideration as it is likely that Iran may be trying to obfuscate and obscure part of the investigation in order to ensure that they can avoid the culpability for the incident, though we are hearing that lessons learned from crashes like MH17 over Ukraine has helped investigators learn more when one side (Russia, in that case) is not cooperative – and Trudeau did note that he reached out to the prime minister of the Netherlands to learn more about how they dealt with the crash of MH17, as they were the lead investigators there. Maclean’s has a bit more here about investigations and what it may look like.
Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne glumly notes that there is little that Canada can actually do it if is proved that Iran shot down the plane (presumably deliberately as opposed to accidentally), in particular because we have outsourced our defence to the Americans for so long. Likewise, Matt Gurney goes into more detail about just how limited Canada’s options are when it comes to responding to the worst-case situation.
Roundup: Downed planes and disembarking royals
The big news yesterday was obviously the crash of Flight PS752 outside of Tehran, with some 63 Canadians aboard (about half of those from Edmonton) – a large number owing to the limited travel options to go to Iran because of the loss of diplomatic relations with Canada, as well as US sanctions. Canada is hoping for a role in the investigation, but without any diplomatic relations or consular access, it limits our ability to do so (thanks to the belief of the Harper Conservatives that diplomacy is a cookie for good behaviour and not how countries communicate even when relations are strained). That lack of access will also make repatriating bodies more difficult, especially as Iran doesn’t recognize dual-citizens. In a press conference yesterday, Justin Trudeau would not categorically state that it was or was not a stray missile that brought the aircraft down – it’s still too early and the investigation has only just begun – but there is already talk that it may have been some kind of engine fire. Trudeau also mentioned his call with Donald Trump, but would not offer much in the way of specifics as to whether or not he agreed with the American plan to kill the Iranian general that touched off the attacks on Tuesday night.
Meanwhile, Justin Ling suggests that NATO take Trump’s suggestion and do more heavy-lifting in Iraq. Colby Cosh is reminded of when the Americans accidentally shot down an Iranian plane in 1988. Paul Wells notes how minimally this government seems to have acted in this crisis – and the weeks post-election – and suggests it’s time they get back to work.
Prince Harry and Megan
The other big news, in a day full of news, was the announcement that Prince Harry and Megan, Duchess of Sussex, plan to step down as “senior royals” and split their time with “North America” (which most are reading as Canada) and the UK, and focus more on certain patronages and charitable endeavours while looking to be more financially independent from the royal family (even though that could mean independent from the Sovereign Grant while still getting funded by the Duchy of Cornwall). And then Buckingham Palace said that this was “early days” and they were still discussing things – because it’s going to be a lot of details to work out.
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1214992623942983680
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1214996433587331072
It has been noted that if Harry in particular wants to go through the Canadian citizenship process, he may have some difficulty given that he doesn’t have a university degree, so that could limit his points – even if they do have connections to Canada. My own half-joking suggestion is that we could set them up in Rideau Hall, because it’s not like anyone is living there currently.
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1214998671420469249
Roundup: Freeland on tour
For the past two days, Chrystia Freeland has been in Alberta to talk to the mayors of Edmonton and Calgary, as well as premier Jason Kenney, and she is continuing her tour there today, heading to the north of the province, where she grew up. There have been a couple of themes emerging from her tour from those she’s visited – from the mayors, it’s a sense that it’s great that she’s there to listen and hear their concerns, and from Kenney, it’s a bit of a sense of impatience that there haven’t been enough “concrete” actions yet.
I was struck after the meeting with Edmonton’s mayor on Monday about the talk of his trepidation that Kenney’s “Fair Deal” plans would make it harder for cities to deal with the federal government to address their priorities, and that he was looking for some particular assurances – and indeed, we’ve heard for the past couple of years that cities were frustrated that federal dollars weren’t flowing because the provinces were holding things up in what appeared to be some partisan pique (given that most of those provinces now have conservative governments). The federal government has been looking at more ways to deal with cities directly, and this appears to be more confirmation of the need to do just that.
This having been said, I am curious as to when Freeland is going to start further calling Kenney’s bluffs with regard to his “demands” and his threats around them. Justin Trudeau fairly effectively cut the legs out from under Scott Moe’s equalization fairy tales, and one imagines that it’s a matter of time before Freeland starts to – very diplomatically – do much the same with Kenney and some of his utter nonsense. Those “concrete actions” Kenney wants – retroactive fiscal stabilization funds, unrealistic demands related to the former Bills C-48 and C-69 (which are now law) – will eventually need to come to a head and Kenney will huff and puff and claim separatist sentiments will explode, but he doesn’t have too much room to manoeuvre himself – his cuts have proven very unpopular, and the patience of his constituents is going to run out, no matter how much he tries to distract them by fomenting anger at Ottawa. Freeland knows this, and I’ll be curious to see how she manages it.
Roundup: Lethal overwatch?
There’s been some chatter about a story in the Guardian that purports to show BC RCMP communications that would have allowed for “snipers” and “sterilizing” of Indigenous protests in the province over LNG pipelines – which the minister of Indigenous services wants some answers to, and which the RCMP denies is actually legitimate, citing that the terminology used isn’t consistent with their own, or that some of it is being misinterpreted (in particular “lethal overwatch). To that end, here’s Justin Ling with a bit of context and nuance to consider before you get agitated at what’s being reported, as it may not necessarily be correct.
I, in the past, reported how military intelligence was mobilized to respond to an Idle No More protest on very flimsy ground: https://t.co/tGWId1THKe
And how the RCMP/CSIS were activated to watch these protests as though there was a nexus to terrorism: https://t.co/ia4VJBe0bY— Justin Ling (Has Left) (@Justin_Ling) December 21, 2019
The CBC reported that the journalists from The Guardian didn't supply the documents to the RCMP for verification. Which isn't necessarily a problem, but it does mean that we've got zero independent verification of them (yet?)
— Justin Ling (Has Left) (@Justin_Ling) December 21, 2019
One RCMP official told me "lethal overwatch" isn't quite so literal — it generally means you have unarmed officers on-site, with armed officers waiting on a second site, ready to respond. So, not snipers. (Or, at least, not *necessarily* snipers.)
— Justin Ling (Has Left) (@Justin_Ling) December 21, 2019
This is mostly just to say that I hope The Guardian clarifies the origin of some of these documents (or, better yet, posts them!) Until then, I think this poses challenges to report on. Which isn't to say that the underlying story is untrue. Just that there are some issues.
— Justin Ling (Has Left) (@Justin_Ling) December 21, 2019
Roundup: Building the Teck narrative
While some of Jason Kenney’s usual mouthpieces and apologists start agitating for the Teck Frontier oilsands mine, it seems we need yet more reality checks about the project – particularly the economics. Because we have seen on more than one occasion where a project that wasn’t economically viable still achieves mythology status because certain people who think the idea of it is great will lie about its fate in order to suit their narratives *cough*Energy East*cough*. Anyway, here’s Andrew Leach with more.
Frontier is a big project: a $20 billion potential investment. It's also an expensive project. That capital investment is $76k per barrel per day of capacity: an option that gets you ~ 40 years of production 4 which you still have to pay op + maint costs, royalties, and taxes.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) December 18, 2019
Taking those estimates, and assuming a 10% return on investment, which would be a fairly standard hurdle rate for taking this kind of commodity price risk over this kind of time horizon, you can calculate what oil price you'd need to see to make the project work.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) December 18, 2019
If you were to cut initial capital costs or operating costs by 25%, you could get your break-even down closer to $65 WTI. Those are real prices, so you'd need to see WTI at $65 plus inflation on average over the life of the project just to meet a minimum hurdle rate of return.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) December 18, 2019
So, what about the other part. Is this the project that is most likely to be adopted? No. There are plenty of other potential investments with lower costs than Frontier. Cenovus has several great SAGD assets, Imperial has Aspen, Carmon Creek is available in the Peace, etc.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) December 18, 2019
Let's also remember why CERI doesn't even evaluate oil sands mines anymore. They are too expensive. In 2014, with oil at its post-2008 peak, Total shelved its investment in Joslyn. That project has an approval in hand, is closer to McMurray, etc.https://t.co/Rx9miZ3EUv
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) December 18, 2019
A fair point to make is that many world oil price forecasts show prices that would make Frontier work, in a vacuum. For example, here are EIA's real dollar WTI price forecasts from their Annual Energy Outlook. https://t.co/T7BPYwOcjK The reference case average is ~$100/bbl. pic.twitter.com/1079U2l0mY
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) December 18, 2019
If you're going to frame Frontier as the last, best hope for AB, and frame Trudeau as the lone barrier, one has to wonder what you've done with all the other, cheaper projects out there and why you expect this project to be more likely to be built than earlier-approved mines.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) December 18, 2019
Roundup: Competing economic illiteracy
As someone who covers a fair bit of economic stories, the absolute inability of this government to come up with a definition of “middle class” is exhausting – and those of you who read me regularly will know that I will instead use Middle Class™ as a means of showcasing that it’s a meaningless branding exercise. And lo and behold, when challenged to offer up a definition during one of his year-ender interviews, Justin Trudeau said that “Canadians know who’s in the middle class and know what their families are facing and we focus more on the actual issues.” And I died a little bit inside. For a government that keeps insisting they’re all about data, and evidence-based policy, their refusal to offer a meaningful measure of what their core narrative is all about is entirely about branding. By not offering a definition, they don’t have to exclude anyone – because everyone believes they’re middle class (whether they had ponies or not). And more to the point, by not offering a metric, they can’t measure whether they’ve succeeded for failed – it’s only about feelings, which makes their talk of data and evidence all the more hollow.
“I can’t. I’m Middle Class. I used to have ponies.”
My mind flashes back to this scene every time this government deploys their Middle Class™ talking points. https://t.co/P2nvnNlnwP— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) November 23, 2019
And then there’s Pierre Poilievre, who, when challenged about the definition of a recession, makes up a bullshit response and thinks it makes him clever. It’s as economically illiterate as the Liberals’ Middle Class™ prevarication, but the fact that the Conservatives keep cheerleading a “made-in-Canada recession” that no economist sees on the horizon, and which they can’t even fit into the actual definition of what a recession is (two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth) sets a dangerous path of spooking markets. It’s all so stupid, and reckless, but the party’s current path of pathological dishonesty makes them blind to the danger of it all.
What is a recession? pic.twitter.com/eCzDBKaJzV
— Pierre Poilievre (@PierrePoilievre) December 17, 2019
On perhaps a related note, Trudeau’s director of communications, Kate Purchase, is leaving to become a senior director at Microsoft, and good luck to her – and she really is one of the nicest staffers and was actually helpful to media in stark contrast to the Harper crew. But I also hope that perhaps this means that her replacement can start ensuring that this government can start communicating its way out of a wet paper bag, because cripes, they have done themselves zero favours over the past four years.