Tag Archives: Public Service

Roundup: Bernier booted from shadow cabinet

Posted on by

The surprising news last night was that Andrew Scheer had finally had enough and removed Maxime Bernier from his shadow cabinet, reassigning his critic portfolio to Matt Jeneroux. The ostensible reason that Bernier was booted? That he uploaded that chapter from his cancelled book in which he decries the tyranny of Supply Management. Never mind that the chapter was already floated to the Globe and Mail and was published weeks ago, which led to the outcry that had Bernier pull the book until his political retirement. Scheer said that this constituted Bernier breaking his word to caucus on the book, never mind that it was already in the public domain.

A more plausible explanation? That Scheer was getting a lot of heat about Bernier’s views about Supply Management in the face of Trump’s tweets about dairy tariffs that are part of the system, where the government could point to Bernier being on Scheer’s front bench as proof that the Liberals cared more about Supply Management than the Conservatives did. In fact, the swipes about this got increasingly nasty in QP the last few days, to the point that Luc Berthold got right indignant about it when it was thrown in his face yesterday. Add to that, there’s a by-election coming up in a rural Quebec riding, where this is one of those issues that they care a lot about, and Scheer (who is campaigning there later this week with the former Bloc leader who has renounced separatism and taken out a Conservative membership card) wanted to prove that he’s listening to Quebeckers on Supply Management – even though Bernier himself is a Quebecker. (Note: This is also why the Conservatives rarely ask Supply Management questions in English during QP – this is all about pandering for Quebec votes).

I do think that this is further proof that there is little room in the current Conservative party for actual free-market conservatives, and that they are working hard to cravenly embrace right-flavoured populism that is divorced from the values that they claim to espouse (as I wrote a year ago when Scheer first won the leadership). My only question now is whether Bernier will be banished to the nosebleeds along with fellow disgraced caucus member Kellie Leitch.

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: Justifying a belligerent tone

Posted on by

Two days after the American tariff announcements, and I found myself still struck by the tone that the federal Conservatives have adopted with this, squarely blaming Trudeau rather than the uncertainty engine known as Trump, and engaging in the same kind of disingenuous narrative-building to justify their stance. In particular, they have been trying to claim that when Trudeau made his tour of steel and aluminium plants earlier in the year, that it was a “victory tour,” which is vastly different from how I remember it. Back then, it was about reassurance and the prime minister wanting to tell them that he had their backs and given that the government was ready for these tariffs to happen and had a package of retaliatory measures ready to go, it means that they didn’t take the reprieve for granted – entirely negating the premise of the Conservatives’ attack lines. Not that facts matter. They are also insistent that the Trudeau government has allowed itself to get “distracted” by the feel-good chapters around labour and gender in NAFTA negotiations, which again, is novel if you pay the slightest amount of attention to what’s been going on. But this isn’t about truth – this is about building their narrative that Trudeau is a dilettante who is incompetent and that the Conservatives are the real grown-ups in the room (despite evidence to the contrary). And because people have let Scheer and company lie with impunity on all sorts of files for months now, they feel emboldened to take this course of action, despite how gauche or out of step with other conservative voices in the country it may be, because they see this as their long-term game plan. And we’ll see if any of those voices call them out on it.

As for the impact of the tariffs, it turns out that they could have a far less detrimental impact on Canada’s aluminium industry because it exports more product to the US than we do steel, and America’s own smelters are older and less efficient than Canadian ones, meaning that these tariffs won’t do anything to help support the US industry, and American producers say that they could do more harm than good. Steel, of course, is a different story. The whole tariff issue, meanwhile, could mean that the lock that the American arms industry has on our military procurement may be at an end, and that our Forces may start looking to Europe for equipment instead – something that may actually be more affordable, but the tendency had been to buy from American producers under the guise of “interoperability” with American forces. As for the American companies facing retaliatory tariffs, well, they’re still learning about them, but most don’t seem too concerned. At least not yet. And many Republicans and businesses are lashing out at Trump for the move – including anchors at Fox Business.

In further reaction, Andrew Coyne believes that the sheer size of the US economy means that our retaliation will come to nothing, and even if we coordinate with other countries, we’re unlikely to change Trump’s mind, so better to work to contain the US presidency. Susan Ariel Aaronson suspects that the tariffs will weaken America’s national security interests rather than strengthen them, as Trump has used as the excuse to enact them, while Andrew MacDougall thinks that Trump’s move may benefit Doug Ford, who pledges to lower taxes and cut red tape that may appeal to people who think this can help keep Ontario’s economy competitive.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trans Mountain and Phoenix

Posted on by

The government announced yesterday morning that they were going to acquire the Trans Mountain pipeline and the project to twin it from Kinder Morgan – but that this would be a short-term acquisition if another buyer can’t be found before August. In the meantime, a loan would be extended to Kinder Morgan to begin construction immediately. Rachel Notley cheered and said that it’s time for Albertans to pick up tools and get to work on building it. Morneau, incidentally, won’t say what those construction costs will be, as that’s commercially sensitive information that could undermine the process for finding a buyer for the pipeline. As for who some of those buyers might be, here’s a look at that question. The buyout – if it happens – won’t eliminate opposition, but it changes the legal situation for BC in that federal paramountcy is even more prevalent than it was before. BC premier John Horgan says that his fight will carry on, but he’s suddenly saying that this is all because the federal oceans protection plan isn’t good enough, which is…new, and not terribly convincing. As for Indigenous activists, some say that the announcement is tantamount to a “declaration of war,” but other Indigenous communities are seeing this as an opportunity to buy a stake in the pipeline to benefit their communities.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1001476415815127041

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1001481702470905857

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1001486610729394176

The Conservatives immediately stated that this was all because of Liberal incompetence, that Kinder Morgan never said they wanted to sell, that they only wanted “certainty,” and then Andrew Scheer engaged in a bunch of revisionist history that falsely claimed that other pipeline projects never got government financing (it’s like he’s never read about the Trans Canada Pipeline construction in the 1950s, not to mention the development of the Hybernia offshore oilfield, or the development of the oilsands themselves). Oh, and Scheer’s definition of “certainty” that he would provide includes forgoing the current environmental assessment bill (has he talked to environmental lawyers or looked at the kinds of court challenges that the Conservative legislation has generated?) and his insistence that they could somehow “assert” federal jurisdiction by means of a declaration or a bill is ridiculous because they already had jurisdiction. The pipeline crosses a provincial boundary, thereby making it federal. Jurisdiction was never seriously in question. His MPs and other federal and provincial mouthpieces have been trying to spin this as some kind of conspiracy that Trudeau is only buying the pipeline in order to take control of it and shut it down so that they can shut down the entire oil sector. Seriously? You expect people to believe that, after Trudeau has staked an enormous amount of political capital on this very move? Really?

In other reaction, Andrew Coyne sees this as not all bad news (though I’m not sure how much more the Liberals could have done to avoid it), while John Ivison sees irony in the government “getting into the pipeline business” on the same day as the Auditor General blasted them for an inability to manage big projects. Tim Harper sees this as a potential precursor to tougher days ahead for Trudeau, while Jason Markusoff notes that this will make it hard for Albertans to sustain the narrative that Ottawa hates them (though by gods, the Conservatives in Ottawa are really trying). Andrew Leach also gives a very detailed analysis of the purchase in Twitter threads here, here, here, and here.

Continue reading →

QP: Investing in assets

Posted on by

While the prime minister was away after this morning’s major announcement on the government decision to acquire the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, all other leaders were present — for a change. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he railed about the Trans Mountain announcement, before demanding to know that it wouldn’t cost more than the $4.5 billion. Bill Morneau responded with a bit more fire than we usually get from him, decrying the audacity of the Conservatives for demanding the pipeline get built and then complaining when they assured it would be. Scheer offered some revisionist history when it comes to governments paying for pipelines (there is in fact a long history of it), and Morneau reiterated that the project was in the national interest. Scheer played the economic nationalist card in that $4.5 billion going to “Texas” shareholders, and Morneau repeated the points about jobs and the economy. Alain Rayes took over in French, and demanded to know how much it would cost taxpayers, and Morneau repeated that it was important to invest in the project, that their investment ensured it would be completed. After another round of the same, Guy Caron got up to rail that this investment was a betrayal, rather than investing in the clean economy. Morneau said gave the usual line about the environment and the economy going hand-in-hand, and that while they invested in clean energy, this project was still necessary. After another round of the very same, Nathan Cullen got up to ramble sanctimoniously about what was in the public interest, and Morneau reminded him that they went through a robust process, and that people need to respect the rule of law. Caron piled on more sanctimony, and Morneau made points about stepping in between provincial squabbling.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trans Mountain decision day?

Posted on by

It looks like today will be the day we get some kind of answer on the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion pipeline, and everything will likely be confirmed in the morning as Cabinet meets earlier than usual. The three options on the table are the previously announced indemnification, as well as the option to either buy the pipeline outright (though I’m not sure if that means just the expansion or the original pipeline itself that the expansion twins) in order to sell it once the expansion completes construction, or temporarily buying it long enough to sell it to someone else who will complete construction. The word from Bloomberg’s sources is that the government is likely to buy it outright, on the likely option of buying it long enough to find someone who can guarantee its completion.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1001288600967827456

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1001294404836085760

As for what this will mean politically, you can bet that there will be no end to the howls of outrage from both opposition parties – from the Conservatives, we’ll hear that this never should have happened, and it’s only because of the federal government’s incompetence that it did. (While one can certainly question their competence in a number of areas, this is one where they had few good options, and no, a court reference or a pipeline bill would not have helped because they already have the necessary jurisdiction they need). The NDP, meanwhile, will howl that this is a betrayal of their promises on the environment and the rights of First Nations, and that it pays billions to “Texas billionaires” rather than Canadians, and so on (though one would imagine that the NDP should be all for nationalizing infrastructure projects). And one can scarcely imagine the invective we’ll hear from Jason Kenney, as helpful as that will be. Suffice to say, the next few days (and weeks) will likely be even more dramatic that they have been. Because this time of year isn’t crazy enough in Parliament without this.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not the constitutional crisis you were looking for

Posted on by

After much drama and back-and-forth between the two chambers, the Senate passed the omnibus transport bill yesterday after the Commons rejected their amendments a second time. Once again, we did not get the constitutional crisis that we were promised, and we’ll get a whole new round of back-patting that the Senate did its job, because at least a few of the amendments were accepted (even though the larger problem remains that many of the ones that were rejected saw no debate, nor were reasons for rejecting them provided other than the government “respectfully disagrees,” which is not a reason).

Amidst this, the Conservative Senate leader, Senator Larry Smith, penned a response in Policy Optionsto Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative” Senator Peter Harder’s previous op-ed about the apparent use of a Salisbury Convention in the Canadian Senate (which was false). The problem there, however, is that Smith didn’t really rebut anything about the Salisbury Convention or lack thereof. Rather, he went on about how the prime minister is trying to walk back on his promise of a more independent Senate by means of their rejection of the bulk of the amendments to the transport bill, and the apparent orchestration through Harder of a policy of trying to tell senators how to vote (as in, pass bills even though we say that we don’t want you to be a rubber stamp). And while I sympathise with many of his points, I’m not convinced by his overarching thesis.

Despite the fact that many a Conservative senator keeps trying to promulgate a series of conspiracy theories, from the fact that the new Independent senators are all just crypto-Liberals that are being whipped to vote a certain way, that they are trying to “destroy the opposition” in the Senate, or in this case, that the PM is trying to undermine his own pledge for independence via Harder’s patently unhelpful suggestions. But part of the problem is that on the face of it, none of these really stack up. While we can’t deny that many of the new senators have government sympathies, I wouldn’t consider them partisans in the same sense. The issues of their block-voting has more to do with their anxieties about accidentally voting down government legislation than it is about their being whipped to vote a certain way. And frankly, the biggest reason why I sincerely doubt that Trudeau is conspiring with Harder is the fact that there has been so little competence being demonstrated by Harder and his office when it comes to management of the agenda in the Senate that it seems more than implausible that there is any kind of coordination happening, particularly since I know that there are people in Trudeau’s and Bardish Chagger’s offices who know how the Senate works, and we’re not seeing their input. And the longer that the Conservatives keep pushing these woeful conspiracies, the more they undercut their own position on maintain a level of status quo in the Senate that is probably beneficial in the longer term. But they never seem to learn this lesson, and it may cost them, and the institution, as a result.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An unnecessary proposal to cover for abdicated responsibility

Posted on by

When Parliament resumes next week, and the final push of legislation before the summer break starts, I can pretty much guarantee that there will be some gnashing and wailing of teeth in the Senate about the crush of bills headed their way, and the fact that there isn’t a plan to manage it. And from Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, we’ll get a reminder that he’s proposed a business committee to do said managing of the Order Paper. And lo, in Policy Options yesterday, we got an endorsement of the notion of a business committee from a former political science professor, Paul G. Thomas, which read a lot like it was could have been commissioned by Harder’s office.

To wit: One of the reasons why I object to the creation of a business committee is because it will create a powerful clique that will determine the legislative agenda of the chamber in a manner that has the very real possibility of trampling on the rights of individual senators in the name of expediency. Currently the rules allow for any senator to speak to any item on the Order Paper on any day – something Thomas notes has the potential to delay business, but under most circumstances, this can be managed through negotiation, and if abused, a vote can be used to clear that obstruction. But what Thomas’ glowing endorsement of the notion of a committee ignores is the fact that sometimes, it can take time for a senator who sees a problem with legislation to rally other senators to the cause. We have seen examples of that in the current parliament, with bills like S-3, which wound up getting majority support from senators to fix the flaws in the bill, or even with the amendments to the omnibus transportation bill last week, where Senator Griffin’s speech convinced enough senators that there was a real problem that the amendment was meant to correct. Having a business committee strictly lay out timelines will stifle the ability for the Senate to do its work when sometimes it needs time to do the work properly.

One of the reason why this kind of committee should be unnecessary is because the Senate has operated for 151 years on the basis of the caucuses negotiating the timelines they need at daily “scroll meetings,” but it requires actual negotiation for it to happen, and since Harder took on the role of Government Leader, he has eschewed his responsibilities to do so, believing that any horse-trading is partisan. Several of the new Independent senators follow a similar mindset, which is a problem. And while Thomas acts as Harder’s apologist in trying to downplay the criticism that a business committee will simply allow Harder to stage manage the legislative process – and it is a possibility that he could, but only in a situation where there are no party caucuses any longer, and that the Senate is 105 loose fish that he could co-opt as needed – my more immediate concern is that he would use the committee to avoid his actual responsibilities of negotiation and shepherding the government’s agenda, more so than he already has. We already don’t know what he’s doing with this $1.5 million budget and expansive staff, so if he is able to fob off even more responsibility onto this clique, what else does that leave him to do with his budget and staff? It’s a question we still don’t have any answers to, and yet another reason why the creation of such a committee is likely to lead to more problems than it does solutions that aren’t actually necessary if he did his job.

Continue reading →

QP: Tax credits vs carbon taxes

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was away in Toronto, Andrew Scheer was absent once again (despite having been in Ottawa for the National Prayer Breakfast), leaving it to Lisa Raitt to lead off, worrying that Atlantic Canadians haven’t had a real wage increase which would be made worse by a carbon tax. Catherine McKenna reminded her that climate change impacts will make things worse and more expensive, and wondered why the other party didn’t have a plan. Raitt concerned trolls that high fuel prices would mean people can’t make choices to walk, to which McKenna turned the concern around to point to the children in the Gallery and the world they will inherit. Raitt demanded the government support their Supply Day motion about not imposing carbon taxes, and McKenna reminded her of the costs of climate change, and the trillion dollar clean energy opportunity. Alain Rayes then raised in French all of the tax credits that the government cancelled to decry the imposition of a carbon tax, to which McKenna again asked what the Conservative plan was. After another round of the same, Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, raising the changed candidate for the new Chef Electoral Officer, to which Brison reminded him that they should respect the privacy of those who engage in the appointment process. Caron asked again in English, to which Brison reiterate his admonishing. Hélène Laverdière was up next to raise the federal report on use of Canadian LAVs in Saudi Arabia, questioning its veracity. François-Philippe Champagne reminded her that they are passing legislation to strengthen control of arms abroad. Laverdière quipped that the bill has holes in it, and then reiterated the question in English before calling on the government to suspend arms exports to Saudi Arabia. Champagne reiterated his remarks about the bill, thanking MPs for their input.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Detailed spending or slush fund?

Posted on by

The Parliamentary Budget Officer weighed in yesterday on the government’s desire to create a $7 billion fund as part of the Estimates to get a jump start on budget promises before those spending plans can be finalized with departments and voted on in the Supplementary Estimates later in the year. The verdict? That enabling this would make it more difficult for MPs to do their duty of controlling government spending, because in their estimation, nothing obliges the government to spend that $7 billion on what is outlined in the budget annex. Government officials (on background) dispute this because they say that if they were to spend it on something other than what is laid out in the budget annex that it would constitute an unauthorized use of public funds.

“See! It’s a slush fund!” The Conservatives immediately cried and gave their little song and dance about how it’ll mean the Liberals can spend it willy-nilly on anything they want. And perhaps they should know – after all, they created a $3 billion “emergency fund” to deal with the 2008 financial crisis and wound up spending it on things like the gazebos in Tony Clement’s riding for the G8/G20 meeting when those funds were supposed to be used for border infrastructure. So is this the voice of experience talking? Good luck getting them to admit it. The NDP line, meanwhile, is that this is the Liberals trying to “suppress Parliament,” which I think you’ll have a hard time trying to find evidence for given how few actual strongarm tactics they’ve managed to engage in so far (a couple of ham-fisted moves that they’ve had to walk back from aside).

While on the one hand, I think the PBO has a point, on the other hand, it’s not a $7 billion black box, and the spending is outlined in the budget, and they can be held to account for it, which is also Parliament’s role. And given that the Estimates are basically unreadable currently and the fact that most MPs don’t pay the slightest bit of attention to them, the cynic in me wonders why they really care (other than it’s a convenient bludgeon to bash the government with). After all, I’ve watched enough times when the Commons has passed the Estimates at all stages with no actual debate or scrutiny on several occasions, leaving the actual hard work up to the Senate. Add to that, watching the Conservatives on their vote-a-thon vote against line items in the Estimates that they probably shouldn’t have shows how little attention they actually pay to the process and the contents. So would this $7 billion fund matter in the long run? Probably not. If nothing else, it’s more impetus for why we need to fix the Estimates process, to realign it with the budget and the Public Accounts, and ensure that they’re readable once again. And until that happens, I find myself having a hard time caring about this item given that there has been an attempt at due diligence that is otherwise so often lacking.

Continue reading →