While Justin Trudeau was off to Argentina for the G20, Andrew Scheer was elsewhr, as was Guy Caron, more unusually. Mark Strahl led off, worrying about new revelations about investigations that Raj Grewal may have been swept up into, to which Bardish Chagger responded that last week he made them aware of his serious challenges and treatment, and they hoped he got the help he needed. Strahl didn’t believe her, but Chagger reiterated the response. Strahl got even more incredulous, but Chagger’s response varied only by saying the RCMP operates independently. Luc Berthold tried again in French, and got the same answer in French, and then they went yet another round of the same. Ruth Ellen Brosseau led for the NDP, demanding that the government take action. Patty Hajdu said that it was troubling, but this was a global decision affecting plants in the US and elsewhere, so they were going to help workers where they could. Brosseau then demanded the government not sign the New NAFTA until an oversight clause around milk classes was removed, to which Lawrence MacAulay deployed his well-worn points about defending Supply Management. Tracey Ramsey was worried that we didn’t know what was in the deal and demanded that it not be signed, to which Mélanie Joly stood up to assure her it was a good deal for Canada. Brian Masse, whose rant about the auto sector didn’t reach the question before he got cut off, and Hajdu recited some talking points about their support for the industry through the auto innovation fund.
Tag Archives: National Security
Roundup: Not an election issue to fight over
The leader of the Independent Senators Group seems to have inserted himself into the political discussion by demanding to know where parties stand on the issue of Senate appointments in advance of the next election. Senator Woo’s concerns seem to be that he doesn’t want people to “unwittingly” vote for a party that doesn’t conform to their views on the Senate. I’m going to go ahead and say that this was probably a mistake because it’s very easy to construe that he’s looking to shill for the Liberals since they are the only ones to are half-arsing the issue of Senate modernization, at least in this particular bastardized vision of a completely “independent” Chamber that is more likely to be problematic than anything.
In case you were wondering, the Conservatives say they don’t have a firm position yet, but their democratic institutions critic says she prefers the Harper system of appointing candidates voted on in “consultative elections” – you know, the ones that the Supreme Court of Canada said were unconstitutional because they were attempting to do through the backdoor what they couldn’t to through the front door. Oh, and they support a partisan Senate because they have a “very strong Senate group.” And the NDP, well, they’re still insisting that they want to abolish the Senate, never mind that they will never, ever, get the unanimous support of the provinces to do so. That leaves Senator Woo holding the bag for the Liberals by default, which isn’t a good look if he wants to keep insisting that he’s independent from the Liberals.
And those of us who think that maybe the Senate is better off with Liberals, Conservatives and a group of crossbenchers in roughly equal numbers? Who are we supposed to vote for? I suspect we’re SOL, unless the Liberals decide to change their tune after their “experiment” in a totally independent Senate starts to blow up in their faces and they can’t get bills passed (in part because their Government Leader – err “representative” – doesn’t want to do his job), but yeah. I’m not sure this is an election issue to fight over because nobody knows what they’re doing and we’re going to find ourselves cleaning up the mess made in this institution for a generation to come.
Roundup: An oil conundrum
There’s an interesting conundrum happening in Alberta, where the premier and industry leaders are talking about production cuts owing to the supply glut and lack of refining capacity in the US being responsible for near-record lows for Canadian exports. The problem of course is whether the premier should use powers that haven’t been exercised since the days of Peter Lougheed, or if oil companies should voluntarily reduce their own production – and if they do, does this constitute price-fixing? There isn’t any easy solution to any of this, and it’s not just build more pipelines – they would only need to be pipelines to tidewater in order to find markets not hampered by the current refining shutdowns in the US, and that are prepared to take heavy oil and diluted bitumen. It’s also a bit on the unfair side to say that it’s simply “regulatory and political” challenges – as we’ve seen from successive court decisions is that attempts to take shortcuts and to weasel out of obligations is what’s causing delays and to have permits revoked. In other words, part of the problem is self-inflicted, and they try to hand-wave around it by crying “national interest” as though that makes it better.
Here’s a lengthy but good explanatory thread from Josh Wingrove, and it’s well worth paying attention to, because there’s a lot of demagoguery floating around about the issue, and it pays to be informed about why prices are low, and why it’s not something you can wave a magic wand to fix.
https://twitter.com/josh_wingrove/status/1062817943812218894
How bad is it? Bad. On Labour Day, a barrel Canadian heavy oil was selling for $45 U.S. (down already from $55 in July).
Now, it's selling for $15.75. A drop of two-thirds in two-and-a-half months. pic.twitter.com/NLIIETzVxp— Josh Wingrove (@josh_wingrove) November 14, 2018
This came to a head last month when Rachel Notley, the Alberta premier, led a closed-door meeting that hinged largely on the issue, sources tell me. It basically pitted oil producers against "integrated" ones that also have transport and refining capacity.
— Josh Wingrove (@josh_wingrove) November 14, 2018
Also out of luck is Alberta — royalties are obviously much lower when prices are low. It's desperate times already for the Alberta treasury and this isn't helping.
— Josh Wingrove (@josh_wingrove) November 14, 2018
Of course, looming large in all of this is a feeling of we-wouldn't-be-in-this-mess-if-we'd-gotten-another-big-pipeline. KXL, TransMountain, Gateway, Energy East, whatever. No new pipes + loads of new production = problem.
— Josh Wingrove (@josh_wingrove) November 14, 2018
Advocates of a forced cut say it would be temporary — maybe only a few months. Wait until supply levels come down and storage space opens up and maybe the price plunge stops. Maybe prices even recover.
— Josh Wingrove (@josh_wingrove) November 14, 2018
Imperial Oil opposes intervention, we're told. Their CEO said this month: “Our view is you live with the consequences of your decisions in your investments and we're quite happy that we are an integrated and a balanced company.''
— Josh Wingrove (@josh_wingrove) November 14, 2018
In the meantime, companies are already cutting production on their own. That'll be pretty messy, and brutal. Whomever has the highest-cost barrels will be forced to take them offline, cut production, probably cut jobs.
— Josh Wingrove (@josh_wingrove) November 14, 2018
In the meantime, regardless of what you think about WHETHER Canada should sell oil, it's selling oil at a near-record discount to U.S. prices, which are falling themselves.
Doesn't look to be an easy fix.
— Josh Wingrove (@josh_wingrove) November 14, 2018
Roundup: A policy reviewed and changed
The government announced that their review of the transfer of inmates to Indigenous healing lodges is complete, and they made some changes to the policy to tighten the conditions. While they wouldn’t say directly, it was confirmed that Tori Stafford’s killer was reassigned from the healing lodge she had been transferred to back to an institution. Cue the self-congratulation from the Conservatives, who assert that the killer is back “behind bars.” But there are a few things we need to unpack here because some of this back-patting is disingenuous.
First of all, these healing lodges are still prisons. Said killer went from one medium-security facility to another medium-security facility. While Andrew Scheer kept insisting that she was moved to a “condo,” he is not only lying about what a healing lodge is, he is also misconstruing what conditions in women’s institutions in this country are like. There are no longer any of the kinds of cells and bars or high walls that you see on television – women’s institutions largely feature campus-like atmospheres, with apartment-like dwellings. Indeed, the facility she’s been transferred to post lodge is described as “a minimum security residential-style apartment unit and residential-style small group accommodation houses for minimum and medium-security inmates in an open campus design model.” So much for the crowing that she’s back behind bars.
There is also the self-congratulation in saying that they embarrassed the government into taking this action, and that this somehow disproves what the government said about not being able to act to transfer her. This is again disingenuous – when it came to light, the government ordered a review, and the policy writ-large was changed. They didn’t order an individual transfer, because that would be abusing their authority to do so. Now, there are some genuine questions as to how appropriate it is to change policies based on a single case, but insisting that they did what the Conservatives asked is not exactly true. Worse, however, is the unmitigated gall of the Conservatives demanding apologies and insisting that it was the Liberals who politicised the issue when they were the ones who decided to start reading the graphic details of Stafford’s murder into the record in the House of Commons. They’re still sore that they’ve been called ambulance chasers, which they insist is some kind of grievous insult, however their behaviour in the Commons around this issue was hardly decorous. An issue was raised, the policy was reviewed and changed, and the process worked. But trying to play victim over it is taking things a little too far.
https://twitter.com/journo_dale/status/1060641966776475648
Roundup: Compromising positions vs oversight
As the fallout from his sexting “scandal” continued, MP Tony Clement was booted from caucus yesterday, which shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone. First thing in the morning, Andrew Scheer said that he was assured that it was a one-off so Clement would be allowed to stay, but by Question Period, Clement was out, meaning that more stuff has come to light (possibly the raft of women over social media describing their creepy encounters with Clement online).
While Cabinet ministers including Ralph Goodale don’t believe that this incident with Clement actually breached national security, the bigger worry by experts in the field is the fact that the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians is still nascent and building trust, and the fact that Clement was a member of that team and obviously ignored the training he was provided about not putting himself in compromising positions could shake the domestic trust of this new committee, especially given that this level of parliamentary oversight of our national security is new and largely untested.
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1060246150266138625
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060245758123753472
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060246898810867712
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060248352011431936
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060250149736202240
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060251763486257152
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060254722823618560
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060258407968473089
Susan Delacourt notes the three ways in which Clement has damaged himself, and possibly his party as well. John Ivison ponders the security implications of this whole sordid affair. And on Power Play, Stephanie Carvin explains why this is an issue with national security considerations.
Roundup: Proposing a debate commissioner
Yesterday the government unveiled their plan to establish an election debate commissioner, who would set about coordinating leaders’ debates during the next election, along with proposed around which party leaders could participate – rules that would give Elizabeth May an in, but could exclude Maxime Bernier unless he gets an awful lot of candidates in place, and his polling numbers start to rise. The proposed Commissioner is to be former Governor General, His Excellency the Rt. Hon. David Johnston, who is a choice that nobody is going to want to dispute.
Historically, Reform would have been eligible in 1993 because it met 1) and 3) but the Bloc would not have been, as they had no MP elected as a Bloc candidate (Duceppe was officially an independent when elected in 1990) and did not meet 2).
— Éric Grenier (@EricGrenierTW) October 30, 2018
Should note that the criteria for 1) stipulates that the MP is elected under that party's banner, so excludes floor-crossers.
— Éric Grenier (@EricGrenierTW) October 30, 2018
Of course, that hasn’t eliminating the grumbling and complaints. The NDP are complaining that they weren’t consulted before Johnston was nominated (not that they’re complaining it’s him), and the Conservatives are calling this a giant affront to democracy and add this onto their pile of complaints that Justin Trudeau is trying to rig the election in his favour. (Not sure how this does that, and it seems pretty cheeky to make these claims when their own unilateral changes to election rules in the previous parliament were panned by pretty much everyone). And Elizabeth May is overjoyed because the proposed rules would include her. Of course, Johnston still needs to be approved by Parliament, and he will appear before the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, but all of this having been said and done, there remain questions as to why this is all necessary. Gould went around saying that this was because Harper didn’t want to do debates in 2015, except that he did debates – he simply didn’t want to do the same “consortium” debates that are usually done and decided by the TV broadcasters, and he most certainly didn’t want to have anything to do with the CBC. The key point they seem to be making is that the 2015 formats saw far fewer viewers than the consortium debates typically attract, for what it’s worth. Is this a reason to implement a new system, that neither compels leaders to participate or broadcasters to air? Maybe, and people will point to the debate commission in the United States.
https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1057344603861397506
To that end, here’s Chris Selley asking some of those very questions, looking at some of the problematic behaviour from broadcasters in response to the changed formats from the 2015 debates, and offering some suggestions as to how this all could be avoided.
Roundup: Not the right by-election
Justin Trudeau called a by-election yesterday – but only in the riding of Leeds-Grenville-Thousand Islands, and not Burnaby South, where Jagmeet Singh has declared that he wants to run – and now the NDP are sniping about it, calling it “petty and manipulative,” and even more curiously, griping that Canadians from that riding are being deprived of representation.
By-election called for Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands for December 3rd. pic.twitter.com/zmlHwY3Ahm
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 28, 2018
A couple of things: First of all, Singh has had several opportunities to run for a seat before now, and has turned them all down. The fact that he has suddenly realised that his being “comfortable” with not having a seat until his poll numbers started plunging doesn’t mean that the Liberals have an obligation to get him in the House as soon as possible – he already made it clear it wasn’t a priority. As well, it they were so concerned about a lack of representation, they should have said something to their MP who vacated the seat in the first place – and not only that, who waited until the last minute to vacate it after spending the summer campaigning for another job. Likewise with Thomas Mulcair in Outremont and now Sheila Malcolmson in Nanaimo – they chose to leave before the current parliament expired.
Add to that, the time to call this particular by-election was running out, and with the other current openings, Trudeau may be waiting on Malcolmson to give a date as to when she officially plans to leave her seat, and for Liberal MP Nicola Di Iorio to officially vacate his own seat in Montreal (given that he suddenly started having second thoughts after declaring he was going to resign) before Trudeau calls the other by-elections, so that they can “cluster” the by-elections in those regions. I’m not convinced that there’s a crisis here. Singh made his bed, and now he gets to lay in it.
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1056716042976747521
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1056717272276918273
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1056717517324832768
Roundup: Kenney and Scheer vow to repeat mistakes
There was a conference in Calgary yesterday called “Energy Relaunch,” during which both Jason Kenney and Andrew Scheer laid out plans for how they propose to get the province’s oil and gas industry “back on track” if they were to form government. The problem is that they seemed to have learned absolutely no lessons from the past few years about where the problems and bottlenecks in the process lie, and what to do about them. Their solutions tended to be to use bigger bulldozers and to gut more legislation, and Kenney more specifically included funding the legal challenges of resource-friendly First Nations communities and targeting “foreign-funded” organisations that opposed development (because it’s all one big conspiracy by the Tides Foundation, and however else makes a convenient scapegoat). But if anyone has paid any attention to the court decisions over the past number of years, especially over Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain, the theme that emerges is that they have been slapped down because successive governments have attempted to cut corners and weasel out of their obligations rather than doing the hard work of proper assessments and consultation with Indigenous communities that would get them the approval they were looking for. The current Liberal government seems to get this fact and is proceeding accordingly when it comes to Trans Mountain, while Scheer and Kenney wail and gnash their teeth about how they didn’t appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada (without articulating what the error in law was), or somehow legislating away the problems (never mind that retroactive legislation will lead to more litigation, and you can’t legislate away your Section 35 duty to consult obligations).
Kenney also promised that if made premier, he would launch a “war room” to counter any critics of the oil sands in real time. The problem is that hasn’t worked to day, and won’t work going forward, but Kenney refuses to grasp that reality.
A lot of discussion on how AB has lost the PR campaign against oil sands, not a lot of reflection on why it was and continues to be successful. A Joe Oliver / Ethical Oil / rapid response truth telling squad approach has been shown not to be effective. What's next.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) October 25, 2018
Energy economist Andrew Leach was also presenting at the event, and has some thoughts as to what he heard as well:
I'm actually defending what I've been saying for a long time. I hope to see the same consistency from you as you pursue your candidacy. https://t.co/E4oXS9o07l
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) October 25, 2018
"you can have politicians come in here and blow smoke up your ass all day…" wow, @jengerson pulling no punches in this room.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) October 25, 2018
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) October 25, 2018
As we speak, @jackmintz is making the case for an HST in Alberta as a competitiveness measure. I'm glad that I am no longer the least popular person in this room. #EnergyRelaunch
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) October 25, 2018
Roundup: The big climate reveal
Yesterday was the big day, where Justin Trudeau unveiled the final details of his carbon pricing plan, and how the rebates would work for the provinces subject to the carbon backstop, which are going to be Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, with the Yukon and Nunavut also kicking in slightly later. (You can find breakdowns here). The Conservatives and their provincial premier allies immediately chimed in to predictably call this some kind of scam, and that nobody believed the rebates would happen, and so on, and so on. Also of note is that Trudeau’s nominal ally, Brian Gallant in New Brunswick, has also grumbled about the carbon price (but if he loses and Blaine Higgs forms government, he too is opposed to it). Manufacturers and small businesses are grumbling, despite the fact that there will be rebates for small and medium-sized businesses under the scheme. Also getting larger rebates will be people in rural communities, given that they have higher carbon costs (and it’s no secret that the Liberals have a harder time winning votes there).
https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/1054753060336078848
With this in mind, here are some noted climate economists who can put some of yesterday’s announcement into proper perspective. (Additional thread from Kevin Milligan here, and Nic Rivers here).
Today's federal announcement is interesting. The federal approach is *simple* and transparent: flat, universal transfers that for a majority of households exceed exp. CTax costs. Provinces that prefer spending or PIT/CIT rate reductions can do so if they want. #cdnecon #cdnpoli
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) October 23, 2018
It's a big day for environmental policy in Canada. Remember, demand curves slope downward and all policies have distributive impacts. If you want to reduce GHG emissions, spur innovative solutions, and mitigate regressive impacts, best choice is a carbon price w a broad rebate.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) October 23, 2018
Another bit you'll hear a lot today is that we don't need taxes, we need technology. Decades of economic research has shown that carbon pricing programs are the best spur for emissions-reducing technology because they reinforce/complement market demand https://t.co/JMbVsWv34o pic.twitter.com/Oiebpt1Aru
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) October 23, 2018
It's almost as if firms respond to prices by changing their behaviour. Lots of other stuff going on in AB, of course, but electricity demand is growing, and emissions are way down. pic.twitter.com/pkcM40hq7J
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) October 23, 2018
In case you're wondering, this quote isn't from today's announcement. It's from the Turning the Corner Plan which was introduced by the government of Stephen Harper in 2008. #cdnpoli cc @AndrewScheer https://t.co/2GB3H95SOv
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) October 23, 2018
Meanwhile, here’s a look at whether Trudeau can escape the problems of Stéphane Dion’s Green Shift, with points to Trudeau being a better communicator (but I’d argue that journalists prefacing every explanation of the Green Shift with “it’s complicated” didn’t help either). Chris Selley notes that this is the issue that could make or break Trudeau in the next election, which is why he needs to get it right. Paul Wells drops a bit of reality on the language that Scheer and Ford are using, and wonders whether the carbon backstop rebates will start catching on with other provinces.
QP: Trying to lay an obvious trap
Following statements marking the two fallen soldiers who were killed by terrorists on Canadian soil four years ago, Andrew Scheer led off in French, mini-lectern on desk, reading a demand to deal with returnees from groups like ISIS, and that included demanding support for their opposition motion. Justin Trudeau responded with a statement of support for the police and intelligence services who are looking to bring these people to justice, and that they would support their motion. Scheer switched to English to repeat the demand, saying the government hasn’t done enough, and Trudeau reiterated the response in English. Scheer switched to the Mark Norman case, demanding the records from PMO be released to Norman’s defence, and Trudeau said that he wouldn’t comment on the case as it’s before the courts. Scheer insisted that he didn’t want comment on the case, but wanted to know if he would release the documents, to which Trudeau said that there were all kinds of other things they could ask about but they were fixated on this court case he couldn’t comment on. Scheer took Trudeau up on the invitation to ask about the New NAFTA, and wondered about caps on dairy exports to third countries, but Trudeau simply praised Supply Management and didn’t answer. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, lamenting that Canada could not meet their GHG targets, to which Trudeau accused the opposition of refusing to accept that the economy and the environment to together. Caron changed to French, and railed about the purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline, and Trudeau listed investments in environmental protection that they’ve made, and insisted that they would meet their GHG targets. Hélène Laverdière demanded that arms to Saudi Arabia be halted, to which Trudeau picked up a script to read his condemnation for the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, and said that they were working closely with G7 allies. Laverdière switched to English to repeat the demand, and Trudeau read his English version of the script, with new paragraphs on strengthening export permit reviews.