Tag Archives: Trade

Roundup: The walkback that wasn’t

Posted on by

It started, as it so often does, with a Globe and Mail headline that was misleading and which managed to get the story wrong. The headline “Ottawa to dramatically scale back carbon tax on competitiveness concerns,” had the sub-head that “the decision follows months of lobbying by industries and comes just as Ontario is backing out of cap-and-trade,” but it completely misconstrued what the announcement was about. And every other news outlet was quick to follow with a matching story, because it was just too juicy to ignore, not that they got it right either. Not that it mattered – opponents of the federal carbon price backstop were all quick to cheer, declare victory, deploy their memes, and start hoisting Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe around as a hero, without at all understanding what happened, so good job there, Globe.

https://twitter.com/trevortombe/status/1024667336593133568

As energy economists started bemoaning over Twitter, this wasn’t a policy change or a walking back on the carbon tax, because the price hadn’t changed. All that was announced was the subsidies available to certain large emitters who were particularly trade-exposed – in other words, this offsets any disadvantage they’d have by competing with non-carbon-taxed jurisdictions. They still pay the price, and it still is the incentive for them to drive innovation. But to add fuel to the fire, environment minister Catherine McKenna was particularly useless in communicating what this was about because she once again stuck to her go-to line that “the environment and the economy go together.” Her singular tweet during the day was unhelpful in unpacking the what was being announced. And it wasn’t until the end of the day that the National Post had a story written that spoke to those economists and unpacked the issue properly – you know, which should have been done at the start of the news cycle, and not the end of it.

Which leads to the bigger problem here, in that this has become a classic example of how media organisations have the power to frame slightly more complex issues in the dumbest possible terms in order to set it up in partisan terms. Well, the Globehas been racking up a record of outright misleading stories as well, but they weren’t the only culprits. CBC’s Power & Politics, for example, gave a not correct rendition of what happened, got Scott Moe’s boneheaded take, and only then talked to an economist about the issue, by which point it had been framed as a government climbdown, which it wasn’t. But we keep seeing this kind of pattern of dumbing down stories that aren’t even complex. Recall Stéphane Dion’s “green shift” plan – the only thing that reporters would say was “it’s complicated!” when it wasn’t, and hence, that’s how it got branded throughout the campaign. It does a disservice to Canadians to not explain policy issues properly and to frame things with facts on the table rather than in partisan boxes, but that takes time, which is what nobody seems to have, and that is a major problem for our democracy.

https://twitter.com/bcshaffer/status/1024675593600651264

https://twitter.com/bcshaffer/status/1024675596079489024

https://twitter.com/bcshaffer/status/1024675598805782529

Continue reading →

Roundup: Moe’s carbon bafflegab

Posted on by

Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe (or his staff) penned an op-ed in the National Post yesterday, to explain why he thinks Canadians are opposed to the federal government’s planned carbon tax. The reasons, however, are…not convincing. Nor are his counter-claims about what the alternatives are. And to be fair, almost nobody likes taxes, which is why leaders like Moe have been casting any kind of carbon price in as negative a light as possible in order to turn public sentiment against them. And we can’t ignore that most Canadians want to fight climate change like they want a pony – they say they want to do it, but don’t actually want to undertake any of the responsibility that goes with it.

As for Moe’s arguments, he decries the carbon price as a “one-size-fits-all” approach, which is bogus off the start. The price does not indicate the mechanism by which it’s implemented, whether that’s cap-and-trade or a tax, and how those systems are set up and administered can vary greatly, particularly in how the revenues are recycled. That’s why the federal government gave provinces the space to design a system that fits their particular circumstances best. So right off the start, Moe is being intellectually dishonest in his argument. And as for the stated goal of reducing emissions, a carbon price is not only about reducing emissions – it’s about giving a market signal so that major emitters can drive innovation to reduce their emissions and avoid paying it (you know, something a fiscal conservative would recognise, were Moe actually one and not a populist goof), and it ensures that everyday consumers make choices to reduce their emissions. If you see people lining up at gas stations when the price drops a few cents, imagine what price indicators mean when it comes to other behaviours.

Moe keeps pointing to his province’s investment in carbon capture and storage, which has not yet proven itself cost-effective as a technology, but ironically would be more cost-effective if there was a carbon price that would help to better monetize its value. He talks about designing an offset system that would recognise carbon sinks in agriculture, but again, having a price allows this recognition to be better tracked and monetized, which again, provides incentives. You’d think this would be elementary stuff to someone who purports to be a fiscal conservative that believes in the free market. But that’s not what Moe is (nor is Doug Ford or Andrew Scheer for that matter), and they need to justify how they’re rejecting actual fiscal conservative measures.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A public dust-up

Posted on by

Late last week, as news came out that the Canadian government had been instrumental in getting a number of Syrian “White Helmets” and their families out of that country and that a number of them would be resettled in Canada, there was a bit of a public scrap between Conservatives as the party’s foreign affairs critic gave a position on the situation that Rempel hadn’t been consulted on, despite the fact that she’s the immigration and refugee critic. Her musing publicly as to whether the boys made the decision without her is one of those signs that perhaps not everyone is singing from the same song sheet in Andrew Scheer’s Conservative party – which isn’t necessarily a bad thing – but not consulting the relevant critics before freelancing an opinion to the media is a bit of a faux pas. Whether it was sexism (per Rempel’s insinuation) or just arrogance on the part of O’Toole, remains to be determined, but it was certainly illuminating for observers.

On the subject of Rempel, the Hill Times has an extensive profile of her, which is a good read that I’d encourage everyone to do. It’s a pretty fair piece, and I would suggest to people that her persona over social media is not representative of who she is as an MP. Which isn’t to say that her social media persona isn’t a problem – it very much is, particularly when she sends her followers on the attack against someone who she has a disagreement with. But that aside, she’s the kind of MP who takes the time to do her actual job of things like reading the Estimates and the Public Accounts, and who can follow debate and ask questions that aren’t scripted (and indeed, she tends to eschew talking points whenever possible). We need more MPs who take the job as seriously as she does.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A summer stunt

Posted on by

With the new Cabinet in place and a new trade minister now in the portfolio, Andrew Scheer decided that yesterday was the day to engage in a political stunt and demand that Parliament be recalled in the middle of summer in order to pass the enabling legislation for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Astute observers may recall that the Conservatives made a couple of attempts before the Commons rose for the summer to pass the bill at all stages with zero debate or committee study, but were rebuffed both times. Now they want Parliament to sit over the summer in order to pass it expeditiously.

There are, of course, a few problems with this demand. First of all, Ottawa is a virtual ghost town at this time of year, as a sizeable portion of the population (and most especially the civil service) is off at some cottage somewhere, and very little is getting done. You want to ensure there’s a revolt, then cancel everyone’s vacations. A number of workers on Parliament Hill, such as those who work in the Parliamentary Restaurant, get laid off over the summer, so rehiring them for a few days or a week would be a giant logistical nightmare. Not to mention, you’re going to have a tonne of cranky MPs who are hot and sticky in humid Ottawa, who are will spend the time grousing that they have work to do in their consitutencies (especially with an election a little over a year away). This especially includes Scheer’s own MPs. Add to that, Scheer says that the Commons needs to move now because there’s no guarantee how long the Senate will take with this – err, except if his own senators offer to play ball with the other senators and come to an agreement on a timeline for the bill, then it’s more of an empty threat.

The government, mind you, shot down this proposal because it’s a blatant stunt, but that left the Conservatives the day to start tweeting sanctimoniously over Twitter about how they’re willing to get to work but the Liberals aren’t. (Seriously guys, this game will bite you in the ass before you know it). And then there’s the kicker – Scheer made this demand, then rebuffed the media requests and said he’s off for holidays for the next two weeks, thus cementing the fact that this was all a stunt. Slow clap, guys. But I guess it’s a way to try and capture the news cycle for the day.

Meanwhile, here’s Philippe Lagassé to school you on how most people don’t it right when they talk about treaty ratification in our parliamentary system.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Neither a minor nor a major shuffle

Posted on by

So there was a Cabinet shuffle, and while not major, it was a little bigger than some may have anticipated. Five new ministers have entered the fray, which expands things somewhat, but still isn’t into later Harper territory. Some of the changes are not unexpected – Joly being moved to tourism while still keeping official languages is a bit of a demotion from the Heritage file that she garnered so much criticism from, particularly in Quebec, on things like the Netflix file. Some of the changes are pretty political – moving Sohi from infrastructure to natural resources in order to have the Alberta minister on the pipeline file is pretty naked on its face. Bill Blair to border security (plus organized crime reduction) are two files that the government wants a stern face on to make it look like they’re taking action. Some of the additions, however, are a bit mystifying, like a minister for seniors? Really? Is this not just a pandering exercise to a voting demographic rather than a file with particular challenges that need addressing? And some of these questions won’t be answered right away, because the mandate letters won’t be available until later in the summer. Here is the updated Cabinet list including the existing ministers whose titles got modified, and here are profiles of the five new additions.

And then the reaction. Blair’s promotion may send the signal that they’re taking the border situation seriously, but it also can look like they’re a) caving to critics, b) admitting that this is a security and not a humanitarian situation, c) putting border security alongside fighting organized crime in the same portfolio risks conflating the two in the eyes of those who are convinced that these irregular migrants are really all criminals and terrorists. Trudeau apparently lured Blair into politics on the promise of fighting the number one enemy of public security – fear. I’m not sure that putting him in this new role fights fear or reinforces it.

In terms of analysis, Paul Wells notes both that putting Blair into Cabinet is a bit of a poke in the eye to Doug Ford, given that they were nemeses during the Fords’ years in Toronto City Hall, and that this new Cabinet is one built to survive the coming storms until the next election (along with the observation that Trudeau seems to have demoted himself by stripping away the intergovernmental affairs responsibility and giving it to Dominic LeBlanc). Kady O’Malley makes five observations about the shuffle, while Susan Delacourt looks at the shuffle from the perspective of reacting to the recent Ontario election.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Recalling the committee

Posted on by

Yesterday was the day when the Commons immigration committee returned to town for an emergency meeting on the irregular border-crossing situation, and in the end, they agreed to hold two more meetings in the next few weeks to get a better sense of what is going on, and what the government’s plans are. There’s partisan gamesmanship happening on all sides of this, and each party wants a different outcome from these hearings, but they’re going to happen, and despite the fact that Michelle Rempel tries to spin the fact that she “forced” the Liberals to pay attention to this, she was apparently pushing on an open door as they were happy to do it, as their position is that this gives them an opportunity to correct the spin and misinformation that Rempel and her compatriots are putting out there.

Meanwhile, the government also made it clear that they were going to give funding directly to the City of Toronto to deal with their housing situation for migrants (only a few of which are actually irregular border crossers) because the provincial government has abdicated their responsibility to do something – while other communities outside of Toronto are willing and able to house and resettle more of them, and are actively seeking to do so. David Reevely gives more context here, and in particular notes that while the number of migrants is relatively small, the bigger problem is that they’re being put into a system that is already stressed.

But the rhetoric carries on, and Andrew Coyne takes it on in this piece – that, despite the claims, this isn’t actually a “crisis,” and treating it as such isn’t helpful, nor are the suggestions that the Conservatives are throwing out there. And worse, the Conservatives have put out a particularly problematic Twitter campaign that is being decried as racist, basing itself on a headline from a Diane Francis column in the Financial Post which is full of outright misinformation (particularly the notion that irregular border crossers aren’t screened – they absolutely are), torque, and reheated Conservative talking points. Coyne went further in a twitter thread, but regardless, the Conservatives continue to walk a fine line around pandering to xenophobic anger while still insisting that they support “orderly immigration,” as though we that were feasible 100 percent of the time. Real life doesn’t work like that, and Canada has been fortunate in that we’re protected by three oceans and American paranoia, but now we have to deal with a fraction of the migrants that other countries do. Maybe it behoves us to act like grown-ups about this.

https://twitter.com/CPC_HQ/status/1018901437730865152

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1019018134508875776

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1019018669521694720

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1019019078818619392

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1019019553110614016

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1019021664254771200

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1019025705865076736

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1019026235484037121

Continue reading →

Roundup: A tough day for the Alliance

Posted on by

The talk of the day is NATO, as well it should be, as the alliance is in danger of falling to tatters as Donald Trump picked fights (and this is without mentioning the problems of increasingly autocratic governments in Turkey, Hungary and Poland), though Trudeau apparently managed a side-meeting with Trump to talk trade. Trump did have a point about Germany getting natural gas from Russia (a point that Canada agrees with, though he didn’t necessarily articulate the concerns accurately), but the rest of it, particularly his new demand that NATO partners start contributing up to four percent of GDP on military spending? It’s ludicrous, because he doesn’t actually understand what he’s talking about, especially when he tries to frame it as though they’re paying into some kind of NATO fund that the US pays the lion’s share of – that’s not how the Alliance works, and very little of the US’ military spending goes toward NATO operations.

Canada, meanwhile, announced that we’ll be taking on a new role in Iraq to “train the trainers,” with more personnel and helicopters in the region, something that Trudeau may be hoping will be a bit of a distraction to Trump to show that even though we’re not meeting our GDP spending targets, we’re doing more than our share in contributing (particularly if you look at a country like Greece that meets the target because of salaries and benefits, but doesn’t contribute to missions or meet its equipment goals). IT’s partially why percentage of GDP is such a poor measure of contribution, because outputs are better measures than inputs. Nevertheless, Trudeau did reaffirm our commitment to the 2 percent of GDP goal, even though we’re not going to double spending to meet it anytime soon (though on a practical level, we’re having trouble getting DND to spend the money fast enough, so more money wouldn’t help with that capacity issue). Incidentally, Trudeau elaborated on some of this in his Q&A session, the highlights of which can be found here.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne lists Trump’s falsehoods and insults to the alliance while keeping an eye on next week’s meeting with Putin. Paul Wells takes a careful review of how Canada’s relationship with the Trumpocalypse have progressed from good to utter meltdown, and while he looks into Trump’s psyche, Wells also notes the disturbing trend toward authoritarianism that is creeping into more Western democracies, and that Trump is on the “winning” side of this trend – something that should absolutely be alarming to everybody because it signals the decline of liberal democracies.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cluelessly disparaging parliamentary privilege

Posted on by

Sometimes you read an op-ed so clueless that it burns. This piece by lawyer and part-time law professor Daniel Tsai about the Mike Duffy lawsuit is one of those pieces. Tsai argues that the lawsuit is an opportunity for the courts to make changes to the Senate that, according to him, will make it “more accountable.” As his evidence, he cites statements from Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative” Senator Peter Harder darkly musing that some senators may want to protect their friends, and Senator Marilou McPhedran’s quest to root out harassment in the Senate as “proof” that the problem is the Senate’s parliamentary privilege. But he also cites former Senator Don Meredith as a case of harassment without also acknowledging that it was because the Senate has parliamentary privilege that they’re able to discipline their own, and that they had recommended expulsion for his breaching the Senate’s ethical code, and that forced his hand to resign. This is a feature, not a bug.

The whole piece demonstrates that, lawyer or not, Tsai doesn’t understand what privilege is, the importance of Parliament’s need to be self-governing (if it’s not, we might as well just turn power back over to the Queen), or the fact that the institutional independence of the Senate (which allows it to hold the government to account) requires it to have a robust set of privileges that can police its own members rather than subject the institution to threats of lawsuits from its various members when they’ve feeling sore by the fact that they’ve been disciplined. Weakening privilege won’t make the Senate more accountable – it will make it vulnerable to vexatious litigation, and along the way, weaken the House of Commons’ own parliamentary privileges as well (because the privileges of the Senate and the Commons are inextricably linked).

None of this is to suggest that the Senate is perfect – it’s not, and there have been bad apples that generally have been made to resign when the going gets tough. Tsai completely ignores the constitutional role of the Senate and the way in which it’s constructed with a defined purpose in mind in order to engage in some populist pandering to the myths that surround the institution. His “solution” about a judicially-imposed limitation on the privileges that are embedded in the constitution (seriously?!) would make things worse, not better.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Brexit meltdown accelerates

Posted on by

The big news yesterday wasn’t really in Canada, but the UK, where two cabinet ministers resigned over the “compromise” Brexit deal, and there remain questions as to whether Thresa May can survive this (though her options are severely limited given the Fixed Terms Parliament Act). Lauren Dobson-Hughes has a good breakdown of just what has been going on:

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016322801072943107

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016323358688927745

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016324262276128770

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016324886845747200

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016325516607905792

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016326668158320640

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016346420712886273

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016346941062410241

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/1016347987637727237

Andrew Coyne notes the difficult position that May and the Brexiteers find themselves in, where a Norway-style deal may be their out (but it will be a humiliating climbdown). Andrew MacDougall examines the internal party politics playing out with these resignations. John Cassidy highlights that Boris Johnson’s bluster aside, he can’t point to any more credible Brexit deal, which makes his departure all the more opportunistic.

https://twitter.com/cfhorgan/status/1016376257590657026

https://twitter.com/cfhorgan/status/1016376998036320256

And hey, just remember that Andrew Scheer was a Brexit proponent, and fellow leadership aspirant Erin O’Toole promulgated a fantasy Canada-UK-Australia-New Zealand trading bloc that relies on constructing a pre-WWII relationship that really didn’t exist the way they like to think it did. In case you thought that Canada is immune to such flights of fantasy.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1016330038940258306

Continue reading →

Roundup: Forcing a narrative of hypocrisy

Posted on by

The meltdowns over this “groping” allegation continue, and I keep coming back to the ways in which specious comparisons continue to be made with the situations of other MPs who’ve been investigated and/or been kicked out of caucus. The fact that said specious comparisons keep being made fuel the kinds of columns that keep coming out that declare Trudeau to be guilty of hypocrisy in how he’s treating this situation, when there is no actual comparison. Much of this I’ve outlined in my weekend column, but there are a couple of things to highlight that this Robyn Urback column sticks in my craw in particular with the comparisons to Pacetti/Andrews. For one, everything we’ve heard about the 18-year-old incident, from the corroborating editors, was that this was a brief touch, and was not sexual assault. Pacetti, by contrast, had sex with a fellow MP who felt that there was not explicit consent. Can you spot the difference there? Add to that, Urback falls back on the public outcry that the NDP made at the time that Trudeau “blindsided” the complainants by going public, which is part of the problem with someone from Toronto who has never been in Ottawa writing about things that she was not privy to at the time. Those of us who were around and who talked to people involved know that Thomas Mulcair had already called a press conference for that morning where he was going to declare that Trudeau had been warned that he had two MPs that had allegations of sexual misconduct against them in his ranks and he had done nothing about it – but Trudeau headed him off, and Mulcair was left without his thunder. It’s a nasty bit of business, but that was the background scenario, which makes it even more inappropriate for Urback and others to cry hypocrisy with what is going on with Trudeau in the here and now. I know that Urback thinks she’s making a good point, but she’s missing a truckload of context and history, which makes the column look terribly foolish if you’re someone who knows what went down in 2014.

Amidst this, a bunch of concern trolls freaked out that Trudeau went to Kent Hehr’s Stampede pancake breakfast and made a “strong show of support” for his only MP in the city, which is a fairly unavoidable thing for Trudeau to do. (For context, Hehr’s sexual harassment allegations were investigated, partially substantiated, and he made a public apology which was accepted by his complainant). I would be curious to see in the coming months just how “strong” Trudeau’s support for Hehr really is, particularly when it comes to his nomination, and I suspect there will be some backroom engineering of a contested nomination that Hehr may not survive.

Meanwhile, this incident has people fighting over who gets to call themselves “feminists,” and it’s just so tiresome, particularly because some of the players are trying to use the aforementioned specious comparisons to claim hypocrisy.

Continue reading →