Tag Archives: Justin Trudeau

Roundup: Trudeau’s year-end musings

Posted on by

It’s that time of year, when the prime minister is starting his rounds of year-end interviews, and thus far, with CTV and The Canadian Press having been done so far. Some of the newsworthy moments have been that he is saying that he is looking for a way to get out of the weapons deal with Saudi Arabia. He also says he’s not planning on an early election (to which I would say of course, because he’s going to have too hard of a time getting everything he needs to get done before the fall, so why would he want to go early?) There was also some very careful language around Energy East, both in that there is not a current proposal on the table so any talk of it is hypothetical, but also that under the current approach, there is no support for the project in Quebec, which could mean that under a different environmental assessment regime (like the one they’re planning in Bill C-69) they may have better luck. Maybe. But I did find the qualifier very interesting. He also pushed back against some of the simplistic notions around the deficit in some of his clearest responses to date (though he still used much of the same pabulum language), so that’s maybe a sign he’s improving on that file. Maybe. He also warned about using populist anger over issues like immigration, which immediately made the Conservatives get huffy and say that he was launching personal attacks, and so on.

Out of all of this, I was most interested in what he had to say about the Senate, and how he plans to make changes to the Parliament of Canada Act, though the headline says this is about trying to make it harder for a future PM to make changes to reverse his reforms – though the Act wouldn’t do that at all, nor does he actually say that in the interview quotes, so I’m not sure where they got that notion from. I am on the record as saying that I think they should hold off on these changes for now, because the Senate has made sessional orders to do everything that they need them to do around the additional caucus funds and so on, and because it’s simply too early to make these kinds of permanent changes to the legislative authority given that the “reforms” have been ham-fisted and ill-considered, and we could very well be creating even more problems for ourselves down the road. But they want to ram this through before the election, and there is going to be a fight on their hands to do it, so we’ll see how that plays out in the New Year.

Continue reading →

QP: All about Scheer

Posted on by

For what might be the final QP of the year, the galleries were full — press gallery included — and the benches were full. Andrew Scheer led off, repeating yesterday’s lead around the PBO’s contention that the deficit could be higher than reported. Trudeau got up and recited by rote his well-worn talking points about investing in Canadians and making life better for the Middle Class™. Scheer switched to English to ask again, and Trudeau hit back about “phoney budget balance” the Conservatives delivered that hurt veterans and families. Scheer accused him of offering falsehoods about the Conservative record (which is rich coming from Scheer, whose capacity for mistruth is quickly becoming legendary) before demanding a balanced budget. Trudeau castigated the Conservative record on growth while his government oversaw growth. Scheer insisted that Trudeau inherited a good economy (not true), to which Trudeau found it curious that Scheer wanted to double down on a plan that Canadians rejected in 2015. Scheer retorted that it was Trudeau who was doubling down on a failed plan before calling him a trust fund baby, and Trudeau replied that you can’t grow the economy with cuts to services, and listed the investments they made that led to record-low unemployment. Guy Caron was up next for for the NDP, and he worried that the CRA has not recouped anything from the Panama Papers. Trudeau picked up a script to read about the investments made in CRA to combat tax evasion, and that CRA has risk-assessed over 80 percent of the 3000 identified files and that criminal investigations were ongoing. Caron switched to French to reiterate the question, and Trudeau read the French version of the same script. François Choquette worried about Canada’s climate performance, to which Trudeau, sans script, talked about putting a price on pollution and helping families adapt. Linda Duncan repeated the question in English, and Trudeau grabbed a script to list measures they have made and investments made.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Complaints without suggestions

Posted on by

In the wake of the First Ministers’ meeting last week, we’re still seeing a lot of narratives in the media about how the prime minister hasn’t yet taken any steps to help the province in the short term – a take that is ignorant because it fails to comprehend what the situation about the price differential is. At its core, it’s a supply and demand problem, with too much supply and not enough demand, which drives prices down. Nothing the federal government can do will fix that in the short term. Buying rail cars is medium-term at best, but may simply being throwing money away given that once the Line 3 pipeline is up and running, it’ll outstrip the capacity of those trains right away – and I can’t stress enough that we are again in the midst of a global supply glut, so putting more product into a full market isn’t going to help matters.

And while this happens, we see more nonsense like this column from former Alberta MLA Donna Kennedy-Glans, which incoherently rambles about Trudeau not respecting the nation and inciting Western alienation. Which is ridiculous, because there is not a single fact in the piece, nor is there any suggestion of anything Trudeau could do about Alberta’s situation. It’s just angry flailing. Part of the problem that people – and Albertans especially – keep ignoring is that what’s happening with their prices right now is the result of decades of structuring their oil export market on the assumption that the Americans would be perpetual customers, which didn’t see the shale oil revolution that upended those assumptions, and they haven’t managed to pivot to overseas markets on a dime because obviously pipelines take a long time to build, and people don’t necessarily want them going through their backyards. It’s hard to blame Trudeau for that – any prime minister (or premier for that matter) would have a hard time dealing effectively with this state of affairs, and no, carbon taxes have nothing to do with this situation, nor does the desire to change environmental assessment legislation, because the current system isn’t working either. But Albertans – and I speak as one – both tend to be allergic to self-reflection (recall how they recoiled at Jim Prentice suggesting they take a look in the mirror, and elected Rachel Notley as a result), and a they like to blame Ottawa for their problems – especially if there’s someone named Trudeau in charge. We should be better than this.

https://twitter.com/aradwanski/status/1071506885877133312

Meanwhile, the Globe posted a nonsense story about equalisation – again – in that Quebec still gets it while Alberta is in a deficit, and I can’t even. You would think that a national newspaper could get the basics of equalisation right, but apparently not. To remind the rest of us: Equalisation is about fiscal capacity, not your province’s budget balance. Provinces don’t sign cheques over to have-not provinces, but rather, this is all money that comes from income taxes. The reason Alberta pays more is because they have the highest incomes in the country. Grievance politics, along with lazy reporting that confirms narratives rather than challenges them is largely what keeps this myth alive, and it should be stamped down.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unfulfilled drama

Posted on by

After days of building expectation that there was going to be drama at the First Ministers’ meeting, virtually none was had. Doug Ford was going to storm out, and then he didn’t, and his people started recanting the threats. And, well, other stories started emerging as well. And some other premiers claimed progress on their files, like François Legault saying he got closer to his demands for $300 million in repayment for irregular border crossers and dairy compensation; Rachel Notley could claim some progress on getting Ottawa to consider helping pay for her plan to buy more rail cars. That sort of thing. 

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1071165518462271489

Where there was some minor drama was Doug Ford and Scott Moe coming out at the end, complaining that the federal government was trying to “move the goal posts” on them when it comes to their climate action – which was immediately denounced by other premiers’ officials, and which also demonstrates that they don’t actually know what they’re talking about when it comes to the federal climate framework – in particular that Ford was walking back on some of the province’s earlier commitments to the tune of a 30-megatonne reduction in GHGs, which was not going to fly with anyone else. (Oh, and the federal government says that Ontario won’t get the $420 million promised as part of the Low Carbon Economy Fund after they pulled out of cap-and-trade).

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne questions the point of these meetings, even from the standpoint of political theatre, while Chantal Hébert calls out Doug Ford’s marked inexperience and partisan petulance, and that he made threats with no reason to back them up. Paul Wells takes the opportunity to explore what these kinds of meetings mean for Trudeau’s style and his vision of federalism – before throwing some well-deserved shade at the final communiqué.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1071184799073796098
https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1071185862032048128
https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1071186561323200512
https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1071187024449863681

Good reads:

  • In case you missed it, Statistics Canada reported record job numbers and the lowest unemployment rate since the current tracking began in 1976.
  • Here’s a look into the arrest of Huawei’s CFO, and the extradition process that she will now be subject to. She didn’t get bail; our ambassador in China is on the case.
  • The Canadian Institute of Health Research is doing away with virtual meetings citing lack of preparedness and distraction, but the trade-offs are travel costs.
  • Some BC First Nations are looking to renegotiate their benefit agreements with Trans Mountain on the pipeline expansion.
  • Crown attorneys will stop prosecuting some HIV non-disclosure cases as new prosecutorial guidelines come into effect.
  • Here’s a good look at how Doug Ford and Jason Kenney are sowing distrust with the media for their own ends.
  • Murray Brewster delves into the Crown’s filings on Mark Norman as part of their court case alleging he leaked shipyard information.
  • Kevin Carmichael looks into the darker undersides of the good job numbers that came out yesterday.
  • My weekend column calls out Andrew Scheer’s use of conspiracy theories as part of his war on truth that he hopes will give him an edge, but only feeds Russian trolls.

Odds and ends:

It looks like we’re seeing a renewed bout of really dumb takes on “Alberta separatism,” which seems to forget some pretty basic facts about their exports.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

Roundup: Energy, pipelines and C-69

Posted on by

With the big climate conference about to get underway, and the current oil price crisis in Alberta – along with the demands by the Conservatives to withdraw Bill C-69, there’s a lot of interesting things going on if we wanted to actually talk policy and not just hurling insults and blaming Justin Trudeau for everything wrong in this world. So with that in mind, here’s Andrew Leach with a fascinating thread on the oil sands, pipelines, climate commitments, and Bill C-69.

By now means is Bill C-69 a perfect bill either, and I’ve spoken to lawyers on both the environmental and proponent sides about their concerns, and they can all point to some of the same concerns, but I also think that the Conservatives’ characterization of it as a “no more pipelines” bill is beyond hyperbolic. If it works as it’s supposed to, the ability to better scope assessments will likely mean more timely actions and targeted consultations thanks to the early engagement that the bill mandates. But trying to cast this bill as a millstone around the country’s economy is ridiculous on the face of it, and withdrawing it won’t miraculously make the oil price differential disappear, or GM to reopen the Oshawa plant, as has been intimated. But far be it for us to expect honest debate on these issues these days.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Notley mandates a cut

Posted on by

Alberta premier Rachel Notley decided that she will mandate an 8.7 percent production cut, starting on January 1st, in the hopes that it will help to finally drive the price of oil back up, seeing as this is a supply and demand problem and there is too much supply in the system. But as far as “immediate action” goes, waiting another three weeks doesn’t seem very immediate (though I’m not sure what is involved in scaling back production), and it’s not a solution that makes everyone in the market happy given that some players weren’t taking as big of a hit by the large price differential.

Reaction has been swift, and while Jason Kenney says he supports it, he and Andrew Scheer are quick to blame the federal government for the situation. Natural resources minister Amarjeet Sohi responded with a thread that basically said that they inherited most of these problems – and he’s right about that – but he laid out the supports they’ve given the industry. I’m not sure that in the race to pin blame that anyone is looking at the history of the industry – there was no push to sell oil to overseas markets before recently because America was always seen as an easy import market with an insatiable appetite, because nobody saw the shale revolution coming. That’s no one government’s fault, and it’s difficult to turn an industry around in a mere couple of years. And Kenney and Scheer keep insisting that if Trudeau hadn’t killed Northern Gateway or Energy East, things would be just fine – except of course that it’s just as likely that Gateway would still be tied up in interminable court injunctions because it was the more fraught project to begin with, and Energy East wasn’t economically viable once Keystone XL was back in the picture, but why spoil a narrative with facts?

Meanwhile, New Brunswick’s new premier is hoping to revive Energy East, under the belief that it was just regulatory problems that killed it rather than the economics, particularly because the proponent didn’t have enough supply contracts to fill both it and Keystone XL. Also, the proponents who think this will displace foreign oil know that unless they shell out to retool the existing refineries, it won’t actually serve their markets, and that they would also be demanding that Alberta swallow a $10/barrel discount, right?

Continue reading →

Roundup: A noble bill with problems below the surface

Posted on by

It’s not often that I’ll go out of my way to comment on poor reporting (as opposed to columns), but in this particular case, I’m going to make an exception. The story is the fact that Rona Ambrose’s bill on mandatory sexual assault training for judges has been stalled in the Senate. Ambrose appeared on Power & Politics to express her shock and dismay, but there was very little research done in terms of the concerns that have been raised with the bill to date, and the fact that its passage through the House of Commons was problematic in and of itself (most especially the fact that it was referred to the Status of Women committee instead of the Justice Committee in order to ensure swift passage, with a committee that was sympathetic and didn’t have the expertise on the matter). The written story on the CBC website was simply a recap of Ambrose’s interview with no comment from anyone else, or recounting any of the concerns or pushback from the debates on the bill.

So I decided to take twenty minutes and skim over the Second Reading debates in the Senate on the bill, and lo, there are some pretty important concerns being raised. Senator Jaffer, who is a lawyer who has done judicial training, pointed to the fact that the bill mandating written rulings in all sexual assault cases not only takes away from the fact that there are procedures for clear oral rulings that can be appealed, but that it will cause other delays. The training also disadvantages rural lawyers, and can tip the hand of a lawyer in a firm that they are applying to be a judge.

Senator Joyal, a formidable constitutional lawyer who had a career fighting for minority rights (and who helped write the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) expressed some serious concerns about the powers given to a federal commissioner to determine what qualifies for training. He raised the very real point that the bill stipulates that training must be done by sexual assault survivors and organisations that support them, which automatically biases the training and the presumption of innocence (and others have raised the point that these trainers are often called as expert witnesses, which creates further biases). Joyal also noted the constitutional implications of the bill given that judicial independence includes the ability to maintain control over their education.

Senator Pratte, while not a lawyer, raised the salient logistical issue that for every 500 judicial applicants, maybe 50 make it through, meaning that if everyone needs training before they can be appointed, it delays assessment of applicants and has the potential to create problems with the quality if the training. He also raised the notion that if sexual assault survivors are needed for this training, how long will it be before other victims’ groups demand to be heard for other judicial training?

Senator Fraser, whose objections were briefly noted in the CBC piece, also made points about the inappropriateness of the bill mandating that reports on the number of judges who have taken the training be tabled in Parliament because judges report to Chief Justices in their regions, not to the minister. As well, because the majority of these cases are actually heard in provincial courts, this could qualify as interference in provincial jurisdiction.

The story also went onto state that Senator Joyal, who chairs the Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee, wouldn’t give a date for when the bill will be studied, but it didn’t mention that government bills always take precedence at committee, and as you can see from the committee’s schedule, they have a pretty full slate for the coming weeks, possibly months.

Frankly, I’m more than a little dismayed at the lazy reporting on this bill. While it may look like a slam-dunk issue on the surface, there’s a lot beneath the surface that’s not being reported on, which is actually fairly irresponsible. Would that political reporters at the CBC take twenty minutes to do some actual research on their stories than simply transcribe an interview.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A sudden dilemma for Singh

Posted on by

Liberal MP Raj Grewal made a surprise announcement last night, that he’s resigning his seat because of “personal and medical reasons,” which the PM later called “serious personal challenges” – a phrase that only raises the number of questions about what it could be. Aside from losing one of the best-dressed MPs on the Hill (Grewal is a frequent recipient of sartorial snaps on this blog), where this announcement gets very interesting is the bind that it places on NDP leader Jagmeet Singh.

Singh had initially stated that he wanted to run in Grewal’s riding during the next election, given that it was his riding provincially (note to non-Ontarians: in this province, the federal and provincial ridings are identical with a couple of exceptions in Northern Ontario), and for almost a year, he kept stating that he was “comfortable” not having a seat and waiting to run in that same Brampton riding in 2019. That is, until his party’s poll numbers started tanking and he realized that he needed to actually be present in Parliament if he hoped to regain any traction. (Also of note, his brother now holds the seat provincially.) But in August, Singh committed to run in Burnaby South, and has been spending some time there campaigning, and recently announced that he found a rental property there.

So this leads us to wonder – will Singh abandon Burnaby South, where he has already expended some effort and expense, or will he decide that since Brampton is now back on the map, that it’s the smarter decision to run in given his roots and history in the riding? This just as Singh learned that he’ll get the byelection in Burnaby South that he’s been (belatedly) demanding in February. So there’s a choice to make, and we’ll likely hear all about it in the coming days. (Also, expect the Conservatives to push conspiracy theories about just how “convenient” it was for Grewal to suddenly resign now, and how this must mean the Liberals really want him in the House because they think it’ll give them some kind of advantage; this line of baseless speculation was proffered on Power & Politics last night and I expect to hear it repeated in the coming days).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fiscal update spin incoming

Posted on by

This week is the federal government’s autumn fiscal update, and we’ve already seen a pre-emptive push by the Conservatives to try and set a narrative about the government’s deficit. Andrew Scheer took time out yesterday to hold a press conference to say that he plans to force a vote that would demand that the government set a date for a balanced budget. And yes, the shitposts over social media have already begun.

So, a few things to keep in mind this week about the narratives that will be spun:

  • The Conservatives will insist that they left the Liberals with a surplus and a “strong economy.” That’s not entirely true – the “surplus” was on paper and it included a lot of “savings” that the Conservatives falsely booked that never came to pass (e.g. Shared Services Canada, Phoenix). The Liberals will also point to stagnant growth rates.
  • There was a $70 billion hole between the fiscal situation that the Liberals found themselves in compared to the 2015 budget the Conservatives ran the election on. This would have been there regardless of who won the election. The Liberals had a choice to make – honour their spending promises, or honour their promise to balance the budget. They chose the former, and their spending has been largely in line with what was promised.
  • There is no debt crisis looming. The debt-to-GDP ratio is declining, and is the best in the Western world. Government debt is not like credit card debt, so equating the two in shitposts like Scheer does only serves to sow confusion and is a dishonest attempt to look like the government is “bankrupt.” Also remember that much of the deficit spending under this government has been at a time when interest rates were at historic lows, which is not credit card interest rates.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1064271285511811072

You can also expect a bunch of calls this week to cut corporate taxes like they did in the US, citing competitiveness, but again, there are things to remember about those US tax cuts – namely that their deficit is currently around $1 trillion, that those cuts are the economic equivalent of a sugar rush for which there are few long-term gains being made, and most of those cuts resulted in larger corporate dividends and share buy-backs rather than re-investment in companies or workforces. There’s a reason why Bill Morneau hasn’t jumped on this, and we’ll see what his response will be.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Endorsing the Brexitshambles

Posted on by

In case you haven’t been paying attention, Britain is currently in a state of utter omnishambles as they try to deal with Brexit. A potential deal that was reached resulted in Cabinet resignations, and some very real threats not only to Theresa May remaining as PM, but possibly toppling the government as a whole. It’s lunacy over there right now. Back here in Canada, Andrew Scheer has decided that this was the right time to reiterate his support for Brexit. Because “sovereignty.”

While Scheer can bang on about how much control the UK gave up to the EU, and repeating falsehoods like the canard about the EU having regulations around the curvature of bananas, he both ignores that the EU has created a peace that has been unknown in Europe for centuries, and the fact that much of the Brexit campaign was fuelled by straight-up xenophobia. It’s this latter aspect that is particularly relevant because it’s part of a pattern we’re seeing with Conservatives, as John Geddes pointed out a couple of months ago – that they have this inability to orient themselves in a plausible way with the current nationalist populist trends in conservatism globally. Add to that, there is this naïve notion that they can somehow play with just enough extremism without it going into outright xenophobia or racism (and we’re especially seeing this playout with Maxime Bernier who blows the xenophobia tuba and then acts bewildered that white nationalists start showing up in his new party). But you can’t play with “just enough” extremism, because you can’t actually contain it. And when you wink about things enough times, you can’t act shocked and surprised when your adherents spell out what you were saying – like that post from a riding association Facebook account that posted Harjit Sajjan’s photo with the tagline “this is what happens when you have a Cabinet based on affirmative action.” They’ve only stated repeatedly that ministers in the Liberal cabinet are only there to fill quotas (whereas everyone in the Conservative Cabinet was there “on merit,”) but the moment someone puts Sajjan’s face next to that, well no, that’s totally not what they meant at all. Sure, Jan. And that’s why you can’t actually claim that Brexit is all about “sovereignty,” because it absolutely wasn’t. You can’t divorce the inflated sovereignty concern trolling from the xenophobia – it’s the same mentality as trying to assert that you can use “just enough” extremism for your political ends, but not go all the way.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne remains boggled by Scheer’s continued endorsement of Brexit, and wonders if he’s trying to appropriate some of its populist nationalism (the aforementioned “just enough” extremism).

Continue reading →