Tag Archives: Gun Control

Roundup: A trifecta of constitutional buffoonery

Posted on by

Yesterday was not a good day for the constitutional order in this country, as the Ontario government launched a constitutional challenge of the federal carbon price backstop legislation, arguing that it’s “unfair” and “unconstitutional” – which it absolutely isn’t, but this is about throwing a public temper tantrum in the name of populist outrage – but as David Reevely also points out, it’s about dragging this out in the courts, both Ontario courts and the Supreme Court of Canada well past the next election. Ontario’s two ministers insisted that they had legal opinions that said they had a solid case, but that’s almost certainly false, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see what kind of novel argument they came up with that the courts will laugh out.

As if this big of constitutional buffoonery weren’t enough, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh also came out with a demand that the federal government immediately give cities the ability to ban handguns – which is constitutionally a non-starter, since cities are the creatures of provincial legislation, and criminal powers are federal. Delegating federal criminal powers to the municipalities is similarly a non-starter. (Singh is also a lawyer and should know this).

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1025031516290613248

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1025034441410797568

But to cap off the trifecta of constitutional idiocy comes courtesy of the Toronto Star, who asked Ontario Attorney General Caroline Mulroney if she was prepared to use the notwithstanding clause to opt out of the federal carbon tax – which is not something that the notwithstanding clause could actually deal with. Compounding this was that Mulroney’s answer was that they were going to examine all legal options, which made it sound like she was considering it, rather than simply saying “that wouldn’t apply here” and possibly adding “you moron” because it was not only a bad question, it was an irresponsible question and one that was either designed to make Mulroney look stupid (which she kind of did with the answer she gave) or to demonstrate that the reporter in question had no idea what they were talking about. So well done, Star. Slow clap for making all of us look bad in the process.

https://twitter.com/coreyshefman/status/1025022811579006976

Continue reading →

Roundup: The walkback that wasn’t

Posted on by

It started, as it so often does, with a Globe and Mail headline that was misleading and which managed to get the story wrong. The headline “Ottawa to dramatically scale back carbon tax on competitiveness concerns,” had the sub-head that “the decision follows months of lobbying by industries and comes just as Ontario is backing out of cap-and-trade,” but it completely misconstrued what the announcement was about. And every other news outlet was quick to follow with a matching story, because it was just too juicy to ignore, not that they got it right either. Not that it mattered – opponents of the federal carbon price backstop were all quick to cheer, declare victory, deploy their memes, and start hoisting Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe around as a hero, without at all understanding what happened, so good job there, Globe.

https://twitter.com/trevortombe/status/1024667336593133568

As energy economists started bemoaning over Twitter, this wasn’t a policy change or a walking back on the carbon tax, because the price hadn’t changed. All that was announced was the subsidies available to certain large emitters who were particularly trade-exposed – in other words, this offsets any disadvantage they’d have by competing with non-carbon-taxed jurisdictions. They still pay the price, and it still is the incentive for them to drive innovation. But to add fuel to the fire, environment minister Catherine McKenna was particularly useless in communicating what this was about because she once again stuck to her go-to line that “the environment and the economy go together.” Her singular tweet during the day was unhelpful in unpacking the what was being announced. And it wasn’t until the end of the day that the National Post had a story written that spoke to those economists and unpacked the issue properly – you know, which should have been done at the start of the news cycle, and not the end of it.

Which leads to the bigger problem here, in that this has become a classic example of how media organisations have the power to frame slightly more complex issues in the dumbest possible terms in order to set it up in partisan terms. Well, the Globehas been racking up a record of outright misleading stories as well, but they weren’t the only culprits. CBC’s Power & Politics, for example, gave a not correct rendition of what happened, got Scott Moe’s boneheaded take, and only then talked to an economist about the issue, by which point it had been framed as a government climbdown, which it wasn’t. But we keep seeing this kind of pattern of dumbing down stories that aren’t even complex. Recall Stéphane Dion’s “green shift” plan – the only thing that reporters would say was “it’s complicated!” when it wasn’t, and hence, that’s how it got branded throughout the campaign. It does a disservice to Canadians to not explain policy issues properly and to frame things with facts on the table rather than in partisan boxes, but that takes time, which is what nobody seems to have, and that is a major problem for our democracy.

https://twitter.com/bcshaffer/status/1024675593600651264

https://twitter.com/bcshaffer/status/1024675596079489024

https://twitter.com/bcshaffer/status/1024675598805782529

Continue reading →

Roundup: Moe’s carbon bafflegab

Posted on by

Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe (or his staff) penned an op-ed in the National Post yesterday, to explain why he thinks Canadians are opposed to the federal government’s planned carbon tax. The reasons, however, are…not convincing. Nor are his counter-claims about what the alternatives are. And to be fair, almost nobody likes taxes, which is why leaders like Moe have been casting any kind of carbon price in as negative a light as possible in order to turn public sentiment against them. And we can’t ignore that most Canadians want to fight climate change like they want a pony – they say they want to do it, but don’t actually want to undertake any of the responsibility that goes with it.

As for Moe’s arguments, he decries the carbon price as a “one-size-fits-all” approach, which is bogus off the start. The price does not indicate the mechanism by which it’s implemented, whether that’s cap-and-trade or a tax, and how those systems are set up and administered can vary greatly, particularly in how the revenues are recycled. That’s why the federal government gave provinces the space to design a system that fits their particular circumstances best. So right off the start, Moe is being intellectually dishonest in his argument. And as for the stated goal of reducing emissions, a carbon price is not only about reducing emissions – it’s about giving a market signal so that major emitters can drive innovation to reduce their emissions and avoid paying it (you know, something a fiscal conservative would recognise, were Moe actually one and not a populist goof), and it ensures that everyday consumers make choices to reduce their emissions. If you see people lining up at gas stations when the price drops a few cents, imagine what price indicators mean when it comes to other behaviours.

Moe keeps pointing to his province’s investment in carbon capture and storage, which has not yet proven itself cost-effective as a technology, but ironically would be more cost-effective if there was a carbon price that would help to better monetize its value. He talks about designing an offset system that would recognise carbon sinks in agriculture, but again, having a price allows this recognition to be better tracked and monetized, which again, provides incentives. You’d think this would be elementary stuff to someone who purports to be a fiscal conservative that believes in the free market. But that’s not what Moe is (nor is Doug Ford or Andrew Scheer for that matter), and they need to justify how they’re rejecting actual fiscal conservative measures.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A public dust-up

Posted on by

Late last week, as news came out that the Canadian government had been instrumental in getting a number of Syrian “White Helmets” and their families out of that country and that a number of them would be resettled in Canada, there was a bit of a public scrap between Conservatives as the party’s foreign affairs critic gave a position on the situation that Rempel hadn’t been consulted on, despite the fact that she’s the immigration and refugee critic. Her musing publicly as to whether the boys made the decision without her is one of those signs that perhaps not everyone is singing from the same song sheet in Andrew Scheer’s Conservative party – which isn’t necessarily a bad thing – but not consulting the relevant critics before freelancing an opinion to the media is a bit of a faux pas. Whether it was sexism (per Rempel’s insinuation) or just arrogance on the part of O’Toole, remains to be determined, but it was certainly illuminating for observers.

On the subject of Rempel, the Hill Times has an extensive profile of her, which is a good read that I’d encourage everyone to do. It’s a pretty fair piece, and I would suggest to people that her persona over social media is not representative of who she is as an MP. Which isn’t to say that her social media persona isn’t a problem – it very much is, particularly when she sends her followers on the attack against someone who she has a disagreement with. But that aside, she’s the kind of MP who takes the time to do her actual job of things like reading the Estimates and the Public Accounts, and who can follow debate and ask questions that aren’t scripted (and indeed, she tends to eschew talking points whenever possible). We need more MPs who take the job as seriously as she does.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A strained partisan detente

Posted on by

There is a strange partisan cold war settling over the nation’s capital, as both government and opposition try to put up a united front against the Trumpocalypse, while at the same time not looking to give up too much advantage, and so they probe areas where their opponents may be weak, but that they won’t look too crassly partisan in exploiting it, kind of like Erin O’Toole did last week when the steel and aluminium tariffs were first announced. The Conservatives and NDP are trying to probe the previous statements about Supply Management “flexibility,” while the Liberals are essentially calling Maxime Bernier a traitor as he starts speaking about his opposition to the system once again. It’s not pretty on either side, and yet here we are.

While Trump has threatened auto tariffs, I’m not sure that’s even remotely feasible given how integrated the whole North American industry is, and those tariffs would not only devastate supply chains, but it would have as many adverse effects on the American industry as it would the Canadian one. Of course, we’re dealing with an uncertainty engine, so we have no idea what he’ll actually do, but hey, the government is working on contingency plans that include further retaliatory measures if these auto tariffs come to pass. As for Trump’s focus on dairy, here’s a look at the size of subsidies that the American dairy industry is awash in. Brian Mulroney, incidentally, thinks this is all a passing storm, for what it’s worth.

Because there are so many more hot takes about developments, Andrew Coyne thinks that there should be debate on how to best retaliate to American threats rather than just rally around the PM. Chantal Hébert notes that Trump has essentially boxed Trudeau in with regards to how he can respond to the threats. Martin Patriquin counsels patience with the Trumpocalypse, so that we don’t go overboard thanks to a few intemperate tweets. Chris Selley notes the sudden burst of solidarity and hopes that they don’t return to bickering over small differences once this crisis passes. Jen Gerson, meanwhile, notes that Trump’s attack are those of a bully trying to pick on a weaker target, but forgets that Canada isn’t weak – we’re just passive aggressive. Gerson was also on Power & Politics(at 1:08:35 in the full broadcast) to say that her genuine fear out of all of this is that it’s all a sideshow designed to turn Canada into some comic enemy for Trump to run against in the upcoming midterms, and I suspect that she’s onto something, and we may be playing into Trump’s hands when if we get self-righteous in our response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Wynne’s final gambit

Posted on by

The big news over the weekend was the extremely curious decision by Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne to essentially concede defeat of the election days before the vote and urge Liberal voters to return enough MPPs to Queen’s Park to hold the NDP or the Progressive Conservatives to a minority, ensuring that neither party gets a “blank cheque” come Friday. Wynne also stated that she wouldn’t be premier after Thursday, but that’s not quite correct – she may signal her intention to resign on Thursday, but she would still be in the job another two or three weeks during the transition period because as we know, Her Majesty must always have someone there to give her advice. That’s how Responsible Government works, after all.

This having been said, I’ve had a few people ask me what I think of the move, and I’ve had a hard time with it. So little about this election makes any kind of sense, but here we are. Some political scientists say that this is a clever long game to keep her personal unpopularity from sinking the party entirely, and that seems to be echoed by members of her own party who were blindsided by the move, but who say that it may help with people who feel that they want to still vote for the local Liberal MPP but not for a continuation of the Wynne-led government. And after some consideration, I do think this is part of the calculation – to reassure Liberal voters (particularly in safer-Liberal seats) that they can still vote for their MPP and still have an eye on the bigger picture that won’t necessarily mean a Liberal government, as opposed to the supposition that this is just about handing votes to the NDP in a bid to keep Ford out of office.

Andrea Horwath, meanwhile, is already ruling out any kind of Liberal support to in a minority situation, which is a) not wholly unexpected for someone who suddenly has a shot at forming government; but b) is also potentially a dangerous gambit should she be forced to walk back from those sentiments if she does rely on having Liberal seats to keep her government from falling in short order. And it really is up in the air right now as to where things are sitting, so I’m sure we’ll be having all kinds of conversations about government formation in the next week or two. (If you need a head start, read up in my book).

Continue reading →

Roundup: A major amendment at committee

Posted on by

There will be another looming showdown between the Senate and the Commons in the coming weeks, as the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee narrowly voted to remove the random mandatory alcohol testing provisions from Bill C-46, the government’s new impaired driving legislation. And this wasn’t just the Conservatives being obstructionist – Liberals joined in this too, the tie-breaker coming from Senator Serge Joyal. Why? Because this provision is almost certainly unconstitutional. Senator Denise Batters, who moved the motion, explained the reasons in this video here:

It can’t be understated that the criminal defence bar has been warning for months that this will lead to even more court challenges, including Charter challenges, and that it will do nothing to alleviate the backlog in the courts, and would only make them worse in the post-Jordandecision world of tight timelines. And if you don’t think that this won’t create problems, then just look to BC to see what moving to administrative roadside penalties for impaired driving did to their court system – it’s created a cottage industry of court challenges to those citations. I’ve interviewed these lawyers before. One of them, for whom this is her specialty (as tweeted below) knows what she speaks when it comes to what this bill will do.

The government will point to constitutional scholars that told them their plans were sound, but again, this likely won’t be definitively be answered until it gets put to the Supreme Court of Canada. And plenty of lawyers will also point out – correctly – that just because the police are looking for certain powers, it doesn’t mean they should get them because they will infringe on Canadians’ Charter rights. The funny thing is that this creates a schism within the Conservative caucus, with the MPs being in favour of the bill (much of it having been copied from a bill that Steven Blaney tabled), but then again, the Senate is more independent than people like to give it credit for.

So now the justice minister says that this is unacceptable, that it guts the bill (not really true – the marijuana provisions are all still intact I believe, which is why this bill was a companion piece to the marijuana legalisation bill in the first place), and she won’t have these amendments. We’ll see whether the full Senate votes to adopt these amendments or not – there’s been a lot of talk from the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, that they shouldn’t vote down bills of dubious constitutionality because that should be the role for the courts (I fundamentally disagree with that – it’s actually the Senate’s job), and we’ll see how many of the new Independents are swayed by Harder’s arguments. But it’s one more bit of drama to look forward to.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The vague indemnity

Posted on by

Yesterday morning, first thing, Bill Morneau came out to say that the government was prepared to indemnify Kinder Morgan for any losses suffered as a result of BC’s intransigence and attempts to delay construction. It’s not an equity stake or buy-in, but rather, insurance, and like most insurance, we don’t know what the payout is going to be yet. Nevertheless, if the idea is to offer Kinder Morgan certainty that the Trans Mountain expansion will go ahead, then this is something. The reaction came swiftly, from the Conservatives insisting that this is now a “bail out government” whose inability to manage the file means that it will now cost taxpayer dollars (no hint of irony there with the bail outs that their government was involved in, or that the entire energy sector has a long history of favourable tax treatment from the government), while the NDP insisted that this was about the profits of a Texas-based company over the interests of Canadians. BC Green leader Andrew Weaver was downright indignant, if not pissy, about the whole situation. And Kinder Morgan’s CEO? He says he appreciates the offer, but still hasn’t given a final answer as to whether it’s enough to stay invested in the project.

After Morneau’s presser was a great deal of parsing of his words (where he did not offer the government line that the pipeline would be built), along with a number of questions arising from just what it was he was announcing. Here’s a reminder of the various court challenges facing the pipeline at present.

And now the hot takes. Chantal Hébert sees little progress on the file over the past month, even with Morneau’s announcement yesterday. John Ivison says that Morneau is calling Kinder Morgan’s bluff in attempting to get the government to buy the pipeline from them above market price, while Evan Solomon more definitely claims that it’s the plan all along. Paul Wells…isn’t convinced.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/996865631122329600

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/996865939797958662

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/996866404078051333

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/996868825621639170

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/996872616081272835

Meanwhile, Alberta passed their unconstitutional Bill 12, and Rachel Notley is already threatening to “turn off the taps” to BC – err, except those taps would actually be federal jurisdiction, so good luck with that. Andrew Leach tears into that bill, and looks at why it sets a dangerous precedent, and why it should never be proclaimed.

Good reads:

  • Justin Trudeau was in New York to get an honorary degree from New York University, and spoke about listening to those you disagree with.
  • Trudeau also called for an investigation into the shootings of civilians in Gaza, where a Canadian doctor was wounded.
  • It’s looking like there won’t be a NAFTA deal by today’s congressional deadline. One MP currently visiting Washington called the five-year sunset clause stupid.
  • The bill to mandate plain packaging for cigarettes and to regulate the vaping industry is set to get royal assent within days.
  • Naval shipbuilding is behind schedule (go figure), but the government won’t release documents to talk about how far behind, or why.
  • The RCMP mistakenly allowed people to purchase restricted firearms for 12 years, and now want them to give them up.
  • Here’s a deeper dive into the Conservative attempts to win favour in Quebec.
  • While some commenters say that Christine Moore had “no choice” but to publicly defend herself, I wonder how that makes this different from Erin Weir’s situation.
  • For those following the VADM Mark Norman court drama, there was a case conference today, with the next date scheduled for July.
  • Jason Kenney made a bunch of personal attacks against Trudeau, and then stood by them like the hero that he is. So much for his pleas for civility in politics.
  • Saskatchewan is making another bid to get Low Carbon funds from the federal government without signing onto carbon pricing. Good luck with that.
  • Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column looks ahead to the committee appearance by the nominee for Chief Electoral Officer.
  • Stephen Maher sees Trudeau’s speech at NYU as a rebuke of Trump.
  • Andrew Coyne foresees nothing but doom by the Conservatives courting Quebec nationalists.

Help Routine Proceedings expand. Support my Patreon.

Roundup: An “uncontroversial” bill delayed

Posted on by

It’s starting to become something of a rote exercise – that whenever the Senate does its job and considers large and contentious legislation, it’s accused of moving slowly. Most of the time, they’re actually moving fairly swiftly in the context of how bills get passed, but that’s not the narrative. And every single time, the pundit class will moan about how they’re frustrating the “will of Parliament” (because that’s how they refer to the House of Commons, when it is in fact but a third of what constitutes Parliament – the Senate and the Crown being the other two aspects), and on and on we go. This week’s performative disbelief that the Senate is daring to do the job required of it is around the marijuana bill – but not just that, but the accompanying bill regarding mandatory roadside testing. While the marijuana bill is actually proceeding fairly quickly given the agreed-upon timelines that Senators set for themselves on the bill (though they were slow off the mark because Senator Harder thought it wise to have the Senate rise essentially a week early at Christmas and then not consider the bill again until well after they’d returned so that he could put on the dog and pony show of having three ministers appear in Committee of the Whole before second reading debate even began), the mandatory testing  bill is languishing at committee. Why? While John Ivison may consider the bill “relatively uncontroversial,” it is actually the opposite, and there is a debate raging about the bill’s constitutionality, and many senators – including one who helped to author the Charter of Rights and Freedoms back in 1982 – are unimpressed with the government’s assurances. After all, they went through a decade of the Harper government insisting that their justice bills were Charter-compliant, only for them to be struck down by the courts, one after another.

Of course, this too has led to debates in the Senate about their role and whether they should be challenging the constitutionality of bills. Some of the Independent senators, which Leader of the Government in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder has added his voice to, believing that Senators shouldn’t substitute their judgment for that of the courts, citing that because these issues aren’t black and white that the courts should handle them. (In the same breath as Harder says this, he also says that they shouldn’t be rubber stamps, apparently unable to pick a lane). So to say that this is “uncontroversial” means that someone isn’t paying attention to the debate – only what’s being told to him by the government’s mouthpiece (in this case, Bill Blair).

If the Senate passes C-45 before C-46, the sky won’t fall. They can apply existing impaired driving laws, because, newsflash, people already drive high while pot is illegal. Once again, the government isn’t inventing cannabis – they’re legalizing and regulating it. Will it be more difficult without detection devices? Maybe. But it’s not like there’s a legal vacuum. Let’s calm down a little.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Scheer’s vague hand-wavey promises

Posted on by

We’ve been through a week of particularly misleading rhetoric about the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report on the impact of a $50/tonne carbon tax on the Canadian economy, where the figures about the “damage” it would cause to our economy supposes that the money collected would be either lit on fire, or given in lump sums to individual families rather than recycled in provincial tax cuts or other measures. But confident that it reinforces their narrative, the Conservatives have been parading it around as “proof” that they are right to oppose carbon pricing. To that end, while doing the rounds on the Sunday political shows, Andrew Scheer said that his party’s climate plan – yet to be revealed, but he promises that’ll happen before the 2019 election – will both meet Paris Accord targets but won’t impose a carbon tax. That’s…special.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/990706861056839680

Given previous Conservative positions on this, it’s likely that this will involve either magic, or some particularly onerous and costly regulations of industry that will simply internalize the costs (which get passed onto consumers) rather than having that cost be out in the open so that people can see it in front of them and make choices appropriates – you know, a market pricing mechanism that you would think a conservative party would favour over red tape and regulations. (This of course assumes that they are actually a conservative party instead of a right-flavoured populist party, which we know that they’ve become). They will claim that they had a record of carbon reduction while in office, but it had zero to do with their own politics, and everything to do with Ontario shuttering their coal-fired electricity plants and the economic downturn. Remember that their “coal-fired regulations” applied to new plants which hadn’t been built yet, and their sector-by-sector regulations were slow to roll out, and steadfastly strayed away from our biggest-emitting sectors, like the oil sands (which they still haven’t given any indication how they would mitigate their emissions without carbon pricing to drive innovation). I suspect we’re going to be looking at some hand-waving about future technology that will magically remove carbon from the atmosphere, but I leave myself room to be pleasantly surprised.

Meanwhile, on the subject of carbon pricing, here’s Andrew Leach to correct some of the performative outrage and bad economics that have been passed around in the past week.

Continue reading →