Tag Archives: Trade

Roundup: A victory for carbon prices

Posted on by

In a 3-2 decision, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has ruled that the federal carbon price backstop is not only constitutional, but it also qualifies as a regulatory charge and not a tax, which means that the way it’s being applied is also constitutional. Predictably, Scott Moe has vowed to take this to the Supreme Court of Canada (and a 3-2 decision made this a certainty if the political element wasn’t there already), while Catherine McKenna, predictably, called it a victory for the planet.

In terms of analysis, here is the long thread from economist Andrew Leach’s reading fo the decision, and his commentary on what the dissenting judges got wrong is particularly illuminating. As well, economist Lindsay Tedds’ wheelhouse is the whole difference between taxes and regulatory charges, so she has some comments here. I would note that the majority decision is going to be some of the precedent that Ontario’s Court of Appeal will look at as they’re drafting their own ruling on the Ontario reference, and if New Brunswick, Alberta, and Manitoba proceed with their own challenges, it will help to inform them as well. But with it headed to the Supreme Court of Canada – as Ontario’s will inevitably as well, and everyone knows it – it may not make any more sense for those other provinces to carry on their own challenges as it’s unlikely that they’ll make any more novel arguments, and it would seem to be swifter for all involved to let the SCC process happen sooner than later (though it certainly won’t happen before the next election, and there is a hope among opponents that a Conservative win will render the whole issue moot if they scrap the federal law beforehand).

Jason Markusoff notes that while the court victory is a modest win for the Liberals, the continued carbon tax crusading by Kenney and Ford isn’t winning them much applause from the blue-chip Toronto corporations that they’re looking to attract with their “open for business” shtick. (Here’s a hint: Stop creating uncertainty by cancelling established environmental plans and creating political risk by cancelling projects and immunizing yourselves from litigation). Andrew Coyne, meanwhile, asserts that the ruling is a victory for common sense – as well as the planet.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Kenney’s a federalist, but…

Posted on by

Jason Kenney made his triumphant return to Ottawa yesterday, now bearing the title of premier of Alberta, and he went before a Senate committee to a) bluster, and b) warn that if he didn’t get his way that separatist sentiment would rise in Alberta, even though he insisted that he’s a federalist, but this was somehow beyond his control. Erm, except an actual federalist wouldn’t give oxygen to these swivel-eyed loons, nor would someone who was actually concerned about the state of the federation feed them a diet of lies and snake oil to keep them angry for the sake of electoral gain.

Part of Kenney’s bluster was his threatening to launch court challenges against Bill C-69 if it gets passed in its current form, because he claims it intrudes on provincial jurisdiction – but he’s also said a lot of bogus things about the constitutionality of his promises (up to and including his threat about holding a referendum on equalisation, which he is also now equivocating on in the media), so I’m not sure he’s got a lot of credibility to spare in this legal analysis. But these kinds of threats also put me in mind a certain sense of contagion with the court cases around the carbon tax, and according to one environmental lawyer that I interviewed recently for an upcoming article, there is a sense that the provinces are trying to lay out markers in the area of shared jurisdiction, and this may be more of that – provinces trying to grab more power for their own sake.

The thing that really bothers me about Kenney’s “I’m a federalist, but…” line is that he doesn’t seem to care how dangerous it is, and how very antithetical it runs to his so-called “open for business” shtick. Do you know what drives away business investment (beyond destroying certainty by promising to tear up the environmental regime that they were partners in developing and increasing the political risk by constantly threatening lawsuits)? Separatist sentiment. Ask Quebec what it did for them, when all of those national headquarters fled Montreal for Toronto (remember when Montreal used to be the financial capital of Canada?) and their housing market plummeted? Yeah, not sure that’s something that Kenney should be trying to repeat, even if he’s using it as a threat. Beyond that, he can’t just say “I’m a federalist, but…” and not take some responsibility for the anger he’s stoked knowing full well that he can’t deliver on those promises, which will just cause that anger to fester. I know some people are trying to claim that he’s simply trying to channel that separatist sentiment into more harmless paths, but he’s courted it rather than smacked it down. “I’m a federalist, but…” just winks to them, and it’s beyond irresponsible.

Continue reading →

QP: An administrative issue

Posted on by

Thursday, and Justin Trudeau was off meeting with Jason Kenney, while Andrew Scheer was the only leader present. He led off, railing about further trade actions from China, and Marie-Claude Bibeau assured him that the pork issue was a simple administrative issue that was being resolved. Scheer dismissed the response and carried on with his narrative of Trudeau’s supposed weakness on the world stage and demanded action, to which Bibeau switched to English to repeat that the pork issue was administrative before lobbing a talking point that the Conservatives refused to let their promises be costed. Scheer then railed about the energy sector and claimed the Liberals were trying to kill it, to which Amarjeet Sohi debunked the response by listing the approved pipelines that were completed or nearly so, and that they would ensure projects proceed in the right way. Luc Berthold was up next to repeat the pork issue with China in French, and he got the same response about it being an administrative issue. Berthold railed that China doesn’t respect Canada because we don’t stand up to them (Err, have they spoken to a single China expert?), and Bibeau listed actions they are taking. Peter Julian was up next for the NDP, and he railed about corporations before switching to judicial appointments, to which David Lametti reminded him that they instituted an open and transparent process that is merit-based and has resulted in a more diverse bench. Julian railed about inadequate funding for women’s shelters while Loblaws got funds, to which Maryam Monsef said that they have invested in shelters, in gender based violence prevention, in carve-outs for women as part of the housing strategy, and that the NDP voted against all of it. Karine Trudel repeated the question in French, and Jean-Yves Duclos responded in French about the investments in housing for women. Trudel repeated the torqued question about judicial appointments in French, and Lametti repeated his previous response in French.

Continue reading →

Roundup: PEI’s alarming adventures

Posted on by

Yesterday, the lieutenant governor of PEI gave the nod to PC leader Dennis King to attempt to form a government, and the whole thing is going to make my head explode because dear sweet Rhea, mother of Zeus, nobody has a clue what they’re doing. Not one of them. It’s alarming. (Side note: While the media have been saying that there would be a PC minority government, or that King was premier-designate, none of that became fact until today, and media outlets not only jumped the gun, but were attempting to short-circuit the process, which is a very bad thing).

Where to begin? How about the fact that the lieutenant governor, Antoinette Perry, was giving a media statement about her decision? Because no, she absolutely should not. And King? He says that he’s thinking about naming members of other parties to Cabinet, before preparing his Speech from the Throne and first budget “in consultation” with said parties. Again, this is utter insanity. Unless you have a formal coalition, you can’t have members of other parties in Cabinet because of Cabinet solidarity. Otherwise, they would just be de facto floor-crossers, which again, if that’s what you want then just go ahead and poach them, but be honest about it. As for King saying that he hopes that by “consulting” on the Throne Speech and budget that the opposition won’t oppose them for the sake of opposing them, well, he seems to be missing the whole point of the opposition, particularly with the budget. The opposition’s job is to argue why the government doesn’t deserve Supply to carry out their programme – they are supposed to be making that case. Having all parties vote for it defeats the purpose of why we have an opposition.

And then there’s Green leader Peter Bevan-Baker, who may or may not actually be leader of the opposition, given that he’s talking about some kind of supply-and-confidence agreement with the government rather than being the opposition. And you can’t be both Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition while signing a supply and confidence agreement to prop up said government. It doesn’t work like that, because it blunts your ability to hold them to account because you need the threat of being able to remove confidence to do so. And it’s astounding that he doesn’t seem to get that basic constitutional role or function. I know that people somehow think that “cooperation” or “collaborative” governments should be the way things work, but they’re wrong, because that does away with accountability, which is at least as important. When everyone is accountable for decisions, then nobody is accountable, and that will be the death knell of our political system. It would be great if Bevan-Baker understood that simple bit of civic literacy.

Continue reading →

QP: Petty diminution

Posted on by

The benches were largely, but not completely, full for caucus day, but not all of the leaders were present. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and in French, he complained that Canadian tax dollars were being used by China to extend their foreign influence by way of the Asian Infrastructure Bank, and Trudeau took up a script to read that Scheer was misleading Canadians, given that the investment bank had other Western partners, and that they had projects like preventing land slides in Sri Lanka, or flood management in the Philippines. Scheer repeated the question in English, and Trudeau read the English version of the same script. Scheer accused the government of not beating their chests enough, and demanded they pull the funding from said bank, and in response, Trudeau said that they were standing up for Canadians in the world and gave a plug for their new aid package for canola farmers. Scheer claimed it was a Conservative idea, and accused Trudeau of weakness on the international stage, and Trudeau hit back by the Conservative wanted to capitulate on NAFTA, that his government saved CETA and the TPP, that they were working on the canola problem for weeks when the Conservatives had bothered a about for days. Scheer claimed Trudeau was simply being dramatic and then he cued his caucus to join him in shouting that Trudeau had done “nothing!” Trudeau gave an equally forceful retort about a decade of Conservative failures. Brigitte Sansoucy led off for the NDP to rail about the Loblaws contract instead of helping people, and Trudeau reminded her about the middle class tax cut and the Canada Child Benefit that lifted children out of poverty while the NDP voted against those measures. Charlie Angus accused the government of trying to rig judicial appointments, and Trudeau reminded him that they put on a new, transparent and open process. Angus then railed that ten government wasn’t helping the people of Kasheshewan, and Trudeau reminded him that they have been engaged in the file, that they have selected a site and are making plans for the move, but in partnership with the community. Sansoucy repeated the question in French, and Trudeau read the same response in French from a script.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Suspension as a first step

Posted on by

The Senate’s Conflict of Interest and Ethics Committee has considered the Senate Ethics Officer’s report into the conduct of one Senator Lynn Beyak and found her response to be wanting. Because she has refused to acknowledge wrongdoing and hasn’t removed the racist letters from her website, let alone apologise for posting them, they are recommending that she be suspended without pay for the remainder of the current parliament (meaning that it would end when parliament is dissolved and the writs drawn up for the election). Part of the thinking is that the time away – without pay or access to Senate resources – will give her time to think about her actions, and they suggest that the sensitivity training about racism and Indigenous history should be out of her own pocket. And if she still refuses to take action, they’ll look at having Senate administration take the letters down from her site (though nothing would stop her from moving them to a site that she hosts on her own), and if she still refuses action, well, they can revisit her fate in the next Parliament.

A couple of things to consider in all of this. First – it may help to re-read my column on the subject – is that they are likely recommending suspension because they will be very reluctant to recommend full expulsion without exhausting all avenues, and to afford her every single bit of procedural fairness and due process they possibly can in order to ensure that if it comes to that, that they will be on unshakeable ground. Setting a precedent for the removal of a senator should be done very, very carefully, and it has been argued in some circles that the reason why Senators Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau remain in the Chamber are because the need to be politically expedient in their suspensions and not affording them proper fairness essentially made it impossible to recommend expulsion in the future because they could plausibly argue that they hadn’t been afforded the due process. Consider that lesson learned with how they are dealing with Beyak.

I can’t stress enough that recommending expulsion is an extraordinary step, and they can’t just do it because she’s an unrepentant racist (even though she doesn’t see herself that way) – especially because part of the whole reason the Senate has such strong institutional protections is because Senators are supposed to be able to speak truth to power without fear of repercussion. But it’s clear that this isn’t what Beyak is doing, and they need to go to great lengths to prove it and to provide enough of a paper trail to show that there is no other choice to deal with her than expulsion, because this is a very dangerous precedent that they would be setting. More than anything, the measures they are recommending are done in the hopes that she does the honourable thing and resigns, though it remains to be seen if she will get that hint (given that she refuses to believe that she’s done anything wrong). This will be a slow process. People will need to be patient. Demanding her immediate removal will only make things worse.

Continue reading →

QP: Why can’t you spend in Canada?

Posted on by

On a lovely Tuesday afternoon, and all of the leaders were present for a change. Andrew Scheer led off, and he accused the prime minister of showing weakness in the face of China, to which Justin Trudeau assured him that diplomatic efforts were ongoing, and that they would have new measures for canola farmers in days. Scheer then demanded that the government pull out of the Asian infrastructure bank, to which Trudeau read a script about who all is involved in said bank, and about green and inclusive growth. Scheer repeated his demand, comparing it to pipeline development in Canada, and Trudeau extemporaneously reminded him that the previous government couldn’t get pipelines to new markets because they didn’t understand that they needed to get the buy-in of Indigenous communities. Scheer switched to French to demand the same pull out, and Trudeau read the French version of his script. Scheer then read a question about the CBC story on decade-old illegal donations from SNC-Lavalin, and Trudeau used a script to note that they made changes to increase transparency. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and he invoked the name of Jack Layton to complain about corporate tax cuts before demanding the Loblaws contract be cancelled. Trudeau reminded him that the private sector has a role to play in fighting climate change. Singh repeated the question in French, and got much the same answer. Singh then raised the issue of annual flooding in Kasheshewan and demanded the promised relocation take place, and Trudeau took a script to remind him that the minister has met with the community and they have been working with them on the relocation, starting with building the necessary road. Singh repeated the question in English, and Trudeau reiterated his response that work was underway in partnership with the community. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Beating one’s chest over China

Posted on by

The current dispute with China doesn’t seem to be getting better, as the canola issue is apparently about to be compounded with things like soybeans and peas, and word has it that the Chinese government has been compiling a list of Canadian targets within the country that could face further retaliation, because we all know that this is about the arrest and extradition of Meng Wanzhou. While Trudeau says that more help for canola farmers is coming “in a few days,” China is taking its time in visa approvals for the scientific delegation Canada is trying to send in order to get answers from them on the supposed pests they found in our canola shipments.

Enter Andrew Scheer, who has declared that Justin Trudeau hasn’t done enough, and he demanded that a new ambassador be appointed (because that can happen at the drop of a hat), that the government launch a trade complaint against China at the WTO, and that the government pull its investment from the Asian Infrastructure Bank (never mind that Canadian companies are starting to win bids through it). Because beating one’s chest is obviously the way to deal with China, and there would be no possible consequences for doing so.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1123023732610613249

One gets the impression from watching this that Scheer – or whoever is advising him – has no serious ideas for how to deal with complex situations like this. I mean, Scheer has also insisted that he somehow could have gotten a better New NAFTA deal and that he could have somehow gotten the steel and aluminium tariffs lifted by now, which is ridiculous, and yet here he is, demonstrating how “serious” he is about foreign policy, this time with China. Even more risible is the way in which he characterises the current government’s position as “appeasement.” Erm, except appeasement would have meant that they would have freed Meng by now, or did that “crafty” thing about warning her before she could have been arrested so that she could have avoided the trip altogether (as certain former political players in this town later told the media that the government should have done). You would think that the person who wants to lead the country would try to be a bit more serious about his foreign policy, but this is where we are.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding tough talk on China

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau at an auto announcement in Cambridge, Ontario, and Andrew Scheer, well, elsewhere, Candice Bergen led off after a moment of silence for the victims of the bombings in Sri Lanka, and she asked for an update on the flooding situations across the country. Ralph Goodale first noted that front line responses are the jurisdiction of the provinces, and that when the federal government is asked, they have stepped up. Bergen then moved on to read some criticism about the prime minister’s response on the canola file. Marie-Claude Bibeau stated that they are standing with farmers, and they are working with Chinese officials to resolve it. Bergen claimed that Scheer’s proposals would solve the issue, and Bibeau claimed that she has been working on the file since day one, while the Conservatives were asking questions on other things. Luc Berthold took over in French to demand they act on Scheer’s proposals, to which Bibeau repeated that the Conservatives were the ones asleep on the file. Berthold disputed her characterisation, and repeated his demand, to which Bibeau listed actions she has been taking to resolve the issue. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and he railed about evil corporations, demanding the Liberals implement the NDP’s pharmacare proposal (which, reminder, handwaves through all the actual implementation details). Jim Carr reminded him that they are working on implementation through the 2019 budget. Singh then demanded the government implement the NDP’s home retrofit plans to reduce GHG emissions, and Jonathan Wilkinson reminded him that he was a CEO in the green tech space for ten years and he knows the government’s plan is working. Singh then demanded an end to fossil fuel subsidies in a French, to which Wilkinson reiterated that the government’s plan was working. Singh then railed about corporations in French, and wanted the $12 million Loblaws got (after a competitive process) to go to “families,” and Wilkinson largely reiterated that the government’s plan is working.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Anger over vilified legislation? Shocking!

Posted on by

Over on the Financial Post’s op-ed pages, Senator Richard Neufeld worries about all of the angry Canadians the Senate’s energy committee is hearing from over Bill C-69. I have no doubt that they are hearing from angry people, because there has been a massive disinformation campaign around this bill from the start. The Conservatives and their provincial counterparts in Alberta have dubbed it the “no more pipelines” bill, even though it’s nothing of the sort. Neufeld worries that the bill means that we can never have any more major projects in this country, which is absurd on the face of it, but hey, there are narratives to uphold.

I’ve talked to a lot of environmental lawyers about this bill, and the potential amendments that it could merit. It is certainly not a bill without flaws, and the government seems to have acknowledged that (and apparently there is some kind of gamesmanship being played right now, where the government has a list of amendments they want to introduce at the Senate committee via one of their proxies but they won’t release them ahead of time for some reason). This having been said, there seems to be no acknowledgment of a few realities – that the current system that the Harper government put into place isn’t working and has only wound up with litigation; that we simply can’t bully through projects past Indigenous communities anymore, because Section 35 rights mean something; and that the bill sought to eliminate a lot of heavy lifting by putting more consultation on the front end so that projects could be better scoped, and that it would mean not needing to produce boxes of documents that nobody ever reads in order to check boxes off of lists as part of the assessment process. This is not a bad thing.

But like I said, there are problems with the bill, and Neufeld lists a few of them in passing while trading in more of the myths and disinformation around it. But so long as that disinformation campaign goes unchallenged – and this includes by ministers who can only speak in talking points and can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag because they’re too assured of their own virtues that they don’t feel the need to dismantle a campaign of lies – then the anger will carry on, and when this bill passes in some amended form (and it’s likely it will), then it will simply become another propaganda tool, which should be concerning to everyone – including those who are weaponizing it, because it will blow up in their faces.

Continue reading →