While the prime minister was in the building, he was not at QP today, though his deputy was, fortunately. Michael Chong led off, and he worried that Canada voted against Israel at the UN General Assembly earlier in the day, insisting this was contrary to policy. Chrystia Freeland said that Canada stands with Israel, and with Jewish Canadians in the face of rising anti-Semitism. Chong tried again, and Freeland spoke of the worrying rise of authoritarianism in the world, which Canada is standing up against. Richard Martel would took off and listed a number of judicial appointments in New Brunswick which have a connection to Dominic LeBlanc, to which Freeland read a statement about their recent appointment process. Martel raised another appointment who is connected to the justice minister — which media reports show that he was cleared for — and Freeland assured him that the process put into place was transparent and sound. Martel raised another name, who he claimed was denied an appointment because she was married to a Conservatives candidate. Freeland disagreed with the question and reiterated that the process is open and has increased diversity on the bench. Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he demanded support for the Bloc’s bill on requiring knowledge of French for citizenship in Quebec, to which Freeland said that they agree that the state of French in Quebec and Montreal is fragile and that they all need to work together to preserve it. Mario Beaulieu asked the same again, and Freeland reiterated her response, and added an example that they fought for cultural exemptions under the New NAFTA. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and in French, he lamented that it took so long for climate accountability legislation, to which Freeland praised their bill’s commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Singh switched to English to repeat the question, to which Freeland asked in return whether they would support the bill.
Tag Archives: Saudi Arabia
Roundup: Dire stats as Parliament is recalled
It was a very busy morning – first, Statistics Canada released the March job figures, which were dismal – 1.01 million jobs lost, massive reductions in hours worked, but also (which everyone didn’t really report) that most of these jobs will likely come back once the pandemic measures are over with, which is significant. Following that, the federal Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, released some of the federal modelling on the course of the pandemic, which put everyone into a hot and bothered state.
Preach, @colbycosh! https://t.co/LpXSH2xl5b pic.twitter.com/Q98yMMrkEY
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 10, 2020
When prime minister Justin Trudeau held his daily presser, he largely played the role of empathiser in chief – yes, these are all grim numbers, but we’ll get through them together. More to the point, we could be in this until summer, so it’s time to get used to our new normal, particularly if there are subsequent waves that follow this one (though those ones would likely not be as severe and wouldn’t require the same measures like the current lockdown – hopefully). He did also say that he respected parliament but then started making excuses for why he wanted a virtual one, and nope. Not going to fly, sorry.
It was announced later in the day that Parliament will be back on Saturday – 12:15 for the Commons, 4 for the Senate, which likely means Royal Assent by the time the day is over. That means that we’ll have yet more emergency legislation that gets maybe three hours of “debate” in the House of Commons, and that once again all of the negotiations have been done behind closed doors, and there will be no public record about what kind of amendments were requested and agreed to, which serves no one’s interests, particularly those of Canadians.
[Maclean’s has a new Q&A with Dr. Isaac Bogoch on questions people have about the pandemic]
Roundup: Stop proposing bad rule changes
Sound the alarm, because MPs – and Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux in particular – are talking about changing the Standing Orders again. Lamoureux has apparently committed to bringing back Frank Baylis’ package of reforms, most of which were are either half-measures, or wrong-headed and will have unintended consequences that will simply make things worse. But as with anything, as soon as it’s been proposed, it becomes the politician syllogism – “Something must be done. This is something. Therefor we must do this.” Apparently, nobody learned a gods damned thing after Michael Chong’s garbage Reform Act, and we’re about to go through yet another attempted exercise that will wind up going badly. (I wrote about Baylis’ proposals last year).
There are a few things in the Lamoureux interview that I did want to highlight first, which is the talk about eliminating votes on Mondays and Fridays – that’s pretty much a given considering that they already don’t have votes on Fridays, barring exceptional circumstances like a vote-a-thon, and they rarely have them on Mondays either, and when they do, it’s usually in the evening, by which time most MPs should have arrived in Ottawa. I’m also going to give some major side-eye to MPs who complain that they could be doing more work in their ridings, because their jobs are in Ottawa. Their jobs are to hold the government to account by doing the work of things like scrutinizing the estimates, going through the Public Accounts, and studying legislation in committee. Their jobs are not actually about doing “casework” with constituents, most of which should be done by the civil service. An MP’s office is not supposed to be a Service Canada desk, and I wish that they would stop pretending that it was.
The other part that I’m getting increasingly irate with is the talk about developing a parallel chamber for the House of Commons, and dressing it up as “efficiency.” No. There is no reason for us to have one. It makes more sense in Westminster where they have 650 MPs, and there are fewer opportunities for them to have take-note debates on things in the main chamber, but we really don’t have either the need, or frankly the bodies to do it, because we already have enough of our MPs assigned to more than one committee outside of House Duty, so there are already not enough hours in the day for most of them. We also don’t need the hours for added “debate” on government bills – we need to reform how we’re structuring debate period. We don’t need additional time for private members’ business because it will only bottleneck in the Senate and die on the Order Paper anyway. There is zero rationale for it – but there is currently a romance with the notion, and so they keep proposing it. No. Stop it.
QP: Cheerleading a recession
After this morning’s surprising announcement that Andrew Scheer was resigning as Conservative leader, the PM was in his office but not present for QP (even though he had been in the House to respond to Scheer’s resignation just a couple of hours earlier). After a lengthy ovation, Scheer lamented last month’s job numbers, which I remind you was 100 percent bullshit, particularly his warnings about a “made-in-Canada recession.” Bill Morneau reminded him that while monthly job numbers are important, they would continue to invest in Canadians as that created over a million jobs. In French, Scheer demanded an economic update, and Morneau responded was that one would happen in the coming days. Scheer switched back to English to carry on his lament for the stage of the economy, giving misleading G7 job stats, to which Morneau repeated that their plan to invest was working, and that the economy was on track for the second-highest growth in the G7. Leona Alleslev was up next, and in French, concern trolled about the New NAFTA, and demanded impact assessments for it. Chrystia Freeland reminded her that the existential threat to our economy was now past, and endangering ratification was simply threatening the economy. Alleslev switched to English to worry about “repairing” our relationship with the US, and Freeland stated that the most important thing was ratifying the agreement. Yves-François Blanchet was up next, and he spun a sad tale of steel workers in Ontario being protected but aluminium workers in Quebec were not, to which Freeland reminded him that they got the tariffs repealed, and that the new agreement had 70 percent North American aluminium content requirements. Blanchet sang the praises of economic nationalism, and Freeland warned of the dangers of partisanship. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and demanded the government stop the judicial review of the Human Rights Tribunal compensation order, to which Marc Miller started that they were engaging partners to see that there was the fairest and most comprehensive compensation offered. Singh tried again in English, and Miller listed new measures they are in compliance with, and said that they were sitting down to get compensation right.
Roundup: Holding up a mythical threat
The first day of the new Cabinet, and Justin Trudeau, along with Chrystia Freeland and Jim Carr, had their first meeting as a group with Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi, who held up the now-former Bill C-69 as the source of much of the anger in Alberta, and his demands that it be changed. The problem here – and Nenshi acknowledged – is that the pre-existing system that Stephen Harper’s government put into place in 2012 did not work, and Nenshi could list projects being held up by it, which is all the more reason why his strident condemnation of the new assessment system is all the more baffling. Part of the problem here is that the bill – along with the now-former C-48 – have been used as scapegoats for the frustrated economic ambitions of the province. Never mind that C-48 was largely symbolic – there is no pipeline project that would head for the northwest coast of BC, nor is there going to be, and no, Northern Gateway is not going to make a comeback because the obstacles identified by the Federal Court of Appeal were almost certainly insurmountable. And C-69 is in no way a “no more pipelines” law.
I talked to a lot of environmental lawyers on both sides while C-69 was being debated, and the biggest source of unease on the proponent side was the uncertainty as to whether the legislated timelines would have the problem of issues stopping the clock – thus dragging out those timelines – much of which was alleviated when the draft regulations were released. Again, the talk about the carbon budget in the bill was clarified in the regulations, which also alleviated many of their concerns (and caused some on the environmental side ulcers). So while the government is now talking about tweaks to the regulations, that seems more than entirely appropriate for the reality of the situation, and their refusal to scrap the law is entirely rational and just.
The problem becomes fighting the narrative that has been created around this law, and the fact that it has grown into a mythological terror is what they will have to grapple with – and compounding this is the fact that this government has proven itself time and again to be utterly incompetent at communications. For as much as Catherine McKenna did some good work when she was the minister, she kept repeating the tired slogan of “the environment and the economy go together” and other nonsense talking points (and then insisting that she spoke like a regular person), which did nothing to counter the lies being promulgated by Jason Kenney, Andrew Scheer, and others, about what was actually in the legislation. And you can’t fight lies with canned talking points. I wish this government – and the communications geniuses in the PMO most especially – would get that through their heads, which is why trying to placate the anger when it’s being directed at the mythology and not the reality of this legislation is going to be an uphill battle.
Roundup: Promising a tax cut
The day’s campaign began even before the day did, as Andrew Scheer assembled the reporters on his red-eye flight to Vancouver to tell them that he wasn’t going to re-vet candidates, and that he would accept their apologies for past statements (be they racists, misogynistic, homophobic, or what have you), with some wiggle-room for context. Essentially, his way of trying to head off the drip-drip-drip of future revelations that the Liberals will keep dragging out with every riding he visits. He also went on to slam the New NAFTA agreement and claimed he could have gotten a better deal (which presupposes that Donald Trump is a rational actor – when he’s not), but said he’d still ratify it anyway if he forms government.
In the morning, Scheer went to a suburban home in Surrey to stage an announcement about a promise to cut the lowest tax rate over the course of three years, which would have the effect of returning between $8 and $10 per week on most paycheques (a level probably too low for people to notice according to the research). Note that for a leader who is concerned about balancing the budget and who insists he won’t make massive cuts – and who says he can achieve balance by restricting new spending – he’s just announced a fairly large bite out of future revenues that would balance the budget. (For a good breakdown of the announcement, here’s a thread by Lindsay Tedds). In questions after the announcement, Scheer refused to address the apparent hypocrisy of demanding Trudeau dump candidates while he would accept an apology from his own, and he also refused to offer an apology for his 2005 statements on same-sex marriage.
Good Morning from Surrey BC where Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer is making an announcement and holding a photo op in the living room of a local family. Note the TV in the living room has been turned into a TelePrompTer. pic.twitter.com/ERmL5tefDu
— Katie Simpson (@Katie___Simpson) September 15, 2019
https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1173305303317663745
https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1173317003890679808
https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1173321696645767168
Comparing the @CPC_HQ "Universal Tax Cut" to the 2015 @liberal_party "Middle-Class Tax Cut". The CPC proposal is much better for the "middle-class" it turns out. #elxn43 #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/yPKF6ofWIj
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) September 15, 2019
Jagmeet Singh launched his “vision for Quebec,” which promised a final say on projects like pipelines crossing the province, money for immigration integration services (remembering this time that the province is demanding fewer immigrants in spite of their labour shortage), additional influence over trade deals (a sop to the Supply Management sector). Singh also started going on about Quebec being “forced” into a marriage with Canada under the constitution and wanted Quebec to be able to sign onto the constitution “under acceptable terms” (which holy cow is a loaded statement and ignorant of history).
Trudeau spent the day largely on the road, with a whistle stop in Coburg, before attending the Bianca Andreescu “She The North” rally in Mississauga in his capacity as prime minister – where he praised Andreescu and her parents in a very non-partisan manner. He ended the day with a rally at the Mid-Autumn Festival in Markham, where his fairly short stump-speech (wherein he again repeated the somewhat misleading line that Conservatives cut taxes to the wealthy – they didn’t so much as offered tax credits that disproportionately benefitted the wealthy, but that’s not the same as a tax cut) was peppered with specific Festival references.
Roundup: Partisanship and thoughtlessness
There was an interesting piece out yesterday about a study that showed that those with strong partisan leanings were less likely to be able to correctly identify current events, and are likely using news to confirm their existing views rather than being well informed. It’s not too surprising in the current milieu, where partisanship it turning more toward tribalism as we are apparently trying to import America’s culture wars into Canada out of some misplaced sense of envy, however I worry that this will be the kind of study that will simply turn into an exercise in confirmation bias by all sides – partisans and supposed non-partisans alike.
Let us first recall that partisanship is not actually a bad thing – it’s fundamentally about a contest of ideas and values, which is a good thing in politics. While everyone likes to talk about “evidence-based policy” and doing what’s best for all, there are fundamental philosophical differences about what that may be – and that’s okay. That’s good for democracy! Let us also recall that party membership is of fundamental importance in our system of government, and it’s one that has been gradually been debased as leaders have grown too strong and have hollowed out their parties – in part because memberships have allowed it rather than jealously guarding their own powers. We need more people to be party members, because that’s where grassroots engagement happens. We should resist the temptation to turn this kind of a study into an excuse to debase this kind of engagement in the political process.
We should also note that a big part of the problem is a lack of media literacy – particularly as the study also points to people being unable to locate where how their partisan biases line up with media outlets (which is also not a surprise, because people will paint an outlet with bias if they don’t like a story that makes their team look bad). So long as people don’t have these media literacy skills, any partisanship gets conflated with their preference for their own “teams,” and that helps magnify the kinds of problems that this study points to. It’s a complex problem overall, but we can’t simply say “partisanship makes you stupid,” as will be the temptation. Partisanship on its own doesn’t make you stupid – but if it’s mixed with other kinds of ignorance, it adds fuel to the fire.
Roundup: The source of the complaints
Carrying on with yesterday’s theme, Bill Morneau decided he would try and be too cute by half and release an open letter of his own, questioning Andrew Scheer’s promise to premiers to maintain the current health and social transfer system, and claimed that he was still advocating a cut. I’m not sure that it was quite right, but it was a novel attempt – and something Morneau rarely does, so there’s that. Scheer, meanwhile, keeps on his affordability message, claiming that he’s the only one worried about it while the Liberals keep raising taxes, etc.
Yesterday, @AndrewScheer failed to commit to Canada’s existing planned increases to health care. By committing to “at least 3%”, Mr. Scheer has ignored the existing formula and our new Health Accord – that means up to $3 billion in cuts over the next two years. My full response: pic.twitter.com/VoZqFVk72J
— Bill Morneau (@Bill_Morneau) August 2, 2019
The thing is, Scheer is wrong about that. He is fond of citing that Fraser Institute report that treats the cancellation of boutique tax credits as “raising taxes” – as it also ignores the tax-free Canada Child Benefit offered to most families as a replacement, and a more targeted one that will actually benefit low-income households at that – much like he’s fond of ignoring that the climate rebates will make most households better off in jurisdictions under the federal carbon pricing system. But beyond that, the data clearly shows that the federal taxes as a share of federal revenues also continues to decline under the Liberals. Scheer’s affordability narrative as it comes to taxes is bogus. Well, except for one particular group, who is not better off under the changes that the Liberals have made. And yet, as Kevin Milligan demonstrates with data and receipts below, it’s certainly not the average Canadians that Scheer claims to be fighting for. But then again, illiberal populists claiming to be looking out for average people while benefitting the wealthiest is getting to be a tired game by this point – and yet people still keep falling for it.
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1157388641385062401
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1157390752697085952
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1157394371806785536
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1157396798412976128
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1157439654120923136
I'd also add that measures to subsidize/lower prices of certain goods and services would also benefit those who aren't struggling.
And since those who aren't struggling spend more, they'd be the biggest beneficiaries of such a program.
The problem is incomes, not prices. https://t.co/Vmz4ahJGoo
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) August 2, 2019
Roundup: Ending a sitting on a witch hunt
Alberta’s legislature wrapped up its session last night, and it saw the passage of bills that included rolling back protections of LGBT students in schools, changing overtime rules and cutting wages for students, not to mention Jason Kenney spending millions of taxpayer dollars to promote conspiracy theories and to conduct a witch-hunt against people who say mean things about the oil industry. So much of it would be cartoonish if there wasn’t such a worrying trend of Kenney simply lying to keep his population angry. And if you pay close attention to this Postmedia wrap-up of the sitting, it doesn’t call out the moments when Kenney egregiously lied (especially around the stunt with the ear plugs) and the story just both-sidesed the whole thing. We’ve taught them that they can get away with lying, so they’re doing it with impunity.
But the truth doesn’t matter anymore. All that matters is keeping their base angry, and the more lies along the way, the better. https://t.co/DP9E9goQf7
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 5, 2019
Meanwhile, here’s Stephen Maher on the witch hunt public inquiry, and Andrew Leach has been throwing shade at the whole thing, which is always worth a read.
The enquiry (sic) into who said mean things about Alberta and/or its oil and why will take a year? That's a long time if you think the evidence is already in place and convincing. Why so long, @jkenney? When was the last time a gov't panel had that long to report? #ableg
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) July 5, 2019
If you're an environmental group that has worked on oil sands issues, you have lots of opportunities under the Act to defend your interests and to cross examine witnesses who may claim that you've said mean things about Alberta oil. That should be a barrel and a heap of fun.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) July 5, 2019
The days following @FairQuestions testimony will be fascinating. She will almost certainly be cross-examined under oath not just by commissioners, but by counsel representing those at risk of being accused of perhaps having said mean things about Alberta and/or its oil.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) July 5, 2019
People might see some issues with a report consisting of a $2.5 million summary of @FairQuestions blog. https://t.co/prp5nHcNec
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) July 5, 2019
The anonymerati of #ableg twitter is sure excited about this public inquiry that will definitely get to the bottom of why people with opinions they don't like keep expressing them, often while signing their names.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) July 5, 2019
Over to you, @RBC, @cibc, @atbfinancial, @HSBC and others. pic.twitter.com/cyO0teqeYR
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) July 6, 2019
Roundup: Federal Government 2, Provinces 0
It was not a surprise that the Ontario Court of Appeal told Doug Ford to go pound sand with regard to its objections to the federal carbon price, which is exactly what they did in a 4-1 decision, affirming the Saskatchewan decision that the price is not a tax but a regulatory charge, and that it’s not unconstitutional. Ford, predictably, vowed to take this to the Supreme Court of Canada, and given that they agreed to hear the Saskatchewan case, it’s likely these two will be heard together, where you can pretty much bet that the majority of the judges there will tell Moe, Ford, and the likes, to similarly go pound sand. As for the dissenting judge on the Ontario panel, well, he has a pretty interesting history of his legal philosophy, and was unusually appointed directly to the Court of Appeal from his being a law professor.
Meanwhile, here’s some analysis, with threads by Andrew Leach, plus Lindsay Tedds on the whole tax/regulatory charge difference.
The Court is trolling @jkenney here: "The failure of (the pan-Canadian approach) reflects the reality that one or more dissenting provinces can defeat a national solution to a matter of national concern." pic.twitter.com/q6UfWVhrmP
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) June 28, 2019
Court: "federal jurisdiction in this field is narrowly constrained to address the risk of provincial inaction regarding a problem that requires cooperative action." This is a crucial framing of the federal action here. Provinces still have plenty of scope.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) June 28, 2019
Important point here for all policy debates. Just because you think a policy is dumb doesn’t mean it is unconstitutional. “I’ll see you in court” is used too often by politicians. Side note: this by @KatePuddister is on my reading list https://t.co/K3CBY5ITux pic.twitter.com/BxbKcUGAAq
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) June 28, 2019
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1144686800348340226
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1144687790367674368
https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/1144706969493749761
https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/1144708330037874692
Meanwhile, the BC government’s lawyers were in Alberta court on Friday to argue for an injunction against the province’s blatantly unconstitutional “turn off the taps” legislation now that it’s been proclaimed, likening it to a loaded gun that they don’t want to go off accidentally. The hitch, of course, is the question of whether BC has standing to go to Alberta court over the case, so we’ll see what the judge decides there.