Tag Archives: Trade

Roundup: No, this election won’t be good for electoral reform

Posted on by

I know that I really shouldn’t give bad columns more coverage, but I can’t help myself, because this is just the first of many that we are doubtlessly going to see in the coming months – that a Doug Ford win on Thursday could get the ball rolling on electoral reform, at least in Ontario. It’s a specious argument, but it’s attractive to a certain class of voter and wonk, so brace yourselves, because this red herring will be coming at you hard in the coming month.

Part of the problem with this particular column is that it doesn’t really make the argument why electoral reform is the logical follow-through for a Ford-led government, because most of the complaints have to do with how Ford won the leadership instead of Christine Elliott. This is not the fault of the electoral system – it’s the fault of our very broken leadership selection system and would largely be corrected if we returned to the system of caucus selection of leaders that our system is designed for. If we had that in place, Elliott would likely have been chosen because she was in caucus at the time that Patrick Brown challenged for the post (while he was still a federal MP, in case you’d forgotten). That would be two dark chapters in the Ontario PC party that could have been avoided, but I digress. The argument here should be that the Ford gong show should be an object lesson in how we need to restore proper leadership processes, where caucus can select and remove leaders in order to ensure that there is proper accountability and more importantly that leaders can’t throw their weight around, that caucus has more power to keep the leader in check. Sadly, that’s not the argument we got.

The balance of the column is a bunch of whinging that parties got majority mandates with less than 40 percent of the popular vote – never mind that the popular vote is a logical fallacy. It’s not a real thing – it’s an extrapolation that magnifies the sense of unfairness by those whose parties did not win, but it’s not a real thing because general elections are not a single event, they’re a series of simultaneous but separate elections for individual seats, and yes, that matters greatly in how the system works, how parliaments are formed, and in the agency afforded to individual MPs.

The other implicit argument being made in pieces like these, though this pieces doesn’t come out and say it, is that proportional representation will likely deliver us a series of coalition governments by nice leftist parties, and we’ll get solar panels on roofs, and great social programs, and no divisive politics because they’ll be forced to cooperate. Won’t it be great? Err, except that’s not what happens, and if anyone thinks it’ll be nice leftist coalitions in perpetuity, they should perhaps look at what’s going on in Europe right now, and how the populist mood there and in North America would have consequences in our own elections that wouldn’t be mitigated like our current brokerage system does, and that could be an even bigger problem. But that’s not the established electoral reform/PR narrative, even though it should be.

Continue reading →

QP: Pushing back on partisanship

Posted on by

While the prime minister was off in Alberta and BC to offer reassurances around the purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline, Andrew Scheer was in Ottawa for a change. Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, reading concern about the three weeks that it will take for Canadian retribution for US tariffs to come into effect. Ralph Goodale responded by saying that the US tariffs were insulting, before reading condemnation about Scheer’s partisanship over the issue. Scheer took swipes at the government’s apparent inaction and again demanded again to know why it would take three weeks for retaliation to come into effect, and Goodale again read more condemnation of Scheer’s partisanship. Scheer insisted that his pointing out the failure to implement the retribution was in the national interest and was his job in holding government to account, before he changed to the Kinder Morgan retention bonuses — conveniently ignoring the “retention” part. Bill Morneau stood up this time to say that Scheer was coming out against Canadian workers on this project. Scheer tried again, and Morneau responded that he wouldn’t comment on what a private company does, before reiterating that the Conservatives apparently don’t care about the jobs this would create. Scheer switched to French to concern troll about Supply Management, to which Marie Claude Bibeau stood up to insist that the government was resolute in the defence of Supply Management. Alexandre Boulerice led for the NDP, railing about the Trans Mountain pipeline, to which Morneau reminded him that this was about Canadian jobs. Boulerice insisted this project ignore First Nations’ rights, and to this Jim Carr assured him that they did consult, more than was required. Georgina Jolibois took over the question in English, hammering on the UNDRIP angle, to which Carr noted the co-development of the monitoring committee and that it was food for shared prosperity. Nathan Cullen got up to sanctimoniously lament that the government was pitting one First Nation against another — which erupted in cries of shame — to which Carr wondered if Cullen had consulted with the First Nations that were in favour of the project.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Undead electoral reform concerns

Posted on by

With BC’s electoral reform referendum on the horizon, and vague promises around it from the Ontario NDP as the election draws to a close, we’re apparently talking proportional representation again. Sigh. Over the weekend, Jean Chrétien made the particular case in his idiosyncratic way that the reason why it’s a bad system, and the core of his argument is that it doesn’t force people to engage with voters. Door knocking to win a riding? Democratic. Being a party wonk who gets in because they’re on a list? Not very democratic. It’s a way of looking at the practical inputs and outputs of the system that most people gloss over when they whinge about the popular vote (which, I will remind you, is a logical fallacy because general elections are not one single event, but 338 separate but simultaneous events) and how “unfair” it seems when viewed through this skewed lens.

As for this referendum in BC, it’s a bit of a dog’s breakfast with its two-stage vote – the first vote as to whether to keep First-Past-the-Post or to adopt a system of proportional representation; the second stage being to choose between three systems – mixed-member proportional with some regional weighting, dual-member proportional, and a hybridized system where urban ridings would have single-transferable-votes, and rural ones would have some kind of proportional system akin to MMP. But there are problems with all three choices – the regional weighting associated with their version of MMP exists nowhere in the world so we don’t know the outcomes; the dual-member proportional is a theoretical system dreamed up by some University of Alberta system that exists nowhere in the world and we really have no idea if or how it would actually work; and the split urban-rural system would never pass constitutional muster. If BC’s attorney general thinks that the Supreme Court would allow different voting systems based on where you lived, I suspect that he’s dreaming, and it would have to be one hell of an excuse to try and save this with Section 1 of the Charter (being that it’s a reasonable curtailing of your rights and freedoms in a free and democratic society). So, good luck with that.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne is no fan of the two-stage referendum and would rather simply prefer a single ballot where status-quo was an option like they did in PEI. Where Coyne goes wrong is when he said this as successful in PEI – it really wasn’t. They had to go some five ballots before a PR system squeaked through by the narrowest of margins with unusually low voter turnout for a province that typically takes voting very seriously. Colby Cosh, meanwhile, quite properly lambastes the whole affair as being completely gamed, because aside from the way in which they’re dubiously counting the second ballot if one system doesn’t get a majority from the start, there are still too many unknowns in the three proposals, including whether the proportional lists would be open or closed – a very huge consideration in how PR systems work, and which goes to the heart of holding governments to account in these systems. In other words, this BC referendum is shaping up to be a boondoggle from the start, which is not good for our democracy in the slightest.

Continue reading →

QP: Bothered by bonuses

Posted on by

While a torrential downpour descended on the nation’s capital, he third-last week of the spring sitting got underway. Andrew Scheer led off in French, mini-lectern on desk, decrying the “failure” of the government to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline and the revelation that executives were getting million-dollar bonuses. Justin Trudeau took up a script to read about their decision to stand up for workers, but would not comment on the internal workings of a company. Scheer switched to English to repeat the question, with added verbosity. Trudeau had no script this time to reiterate the same thing, and adding that public investment has long been necessary to develop resources in Canada. Scheer switched topics, offering some revisionist history in saying that they immediately supported the government in retaliating against the imposition of US tariffs, but worried that our measures wouldn’t come into effect until July 1st. Trudeau reminded him that they wanted to consult to ensure that no Canadians would be inadvertently hurt by these measures. They went another round of the same, and Scheer switched topics again to Iran, and the recent tweets by the Supreme Leader, to which Trudeau took up a script to read some pro forma condemnation of Iran’s actions. Ruth Ellen Brosseau led for the NDP, reading some condemnation about those Kinder Morgan bonuses, and Trudeau, sans script, gave the response about the $15 billion Canada loses annually by not getting a world price for oil. Brosseau worried that the pipeline trampled on the rights of First Nations, to which Trudeau suggested that they did a lot of consulting on the issue. Georgina Jolibois reiterated the question in English, and Trudeau said that they listened to all First Nations, including those who disagreed with them, and they tried to do what they to allay concerns. Nathan Cullen got up to reiterate the question of Kinder Morgan bonuses with added sanctimony, to which Trudeau repeated the $15 billion talking point and the fact that it fit within their climate plan.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Wynne’s final gambit

Posted on by

The big news over the weekend was the extremely curious decision by Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne to essentially concede defeat of the election days before the vote and urge Liberal voters to return enough MPPs to Queen’s Park to hold the NDP or the Progressive Conservatives to a minority, ensuring that neither party gets a “blank cheque” come Friday. Wynne also stated that she wouldn’t be premier after Thursday, but that’s not quite correct – she may signal her intention to resign on Thursday, but she would still be in the job another two or three weeks during the transition period because as we know, Her Majesty must always have someone there to give her advice. That’s how Responsible Government works, after all.

This having been said, I’ve had a few people ask me what I think of the move, and I’ve had a hard time with it. So little about this election makes any kind of sense, but here we are. Some political scientists say that this is a clever long game to keep her personal unpopularity from sinking the party entirely, and that seems to be echoed by members of her own party who were blindsided by the move, but who say that it may help with people who feel that they want to still vote for the local Liberal MPP but not for a continuation of the Wynne-led government. And after some consideration, I do think this is part of the calculation – to reassure Liberal voters (particularly in safer-Liberal seats) that they can still vote for their MPP and still have an eye on the bigger picture that won’t necessarily mean a Liberal government, as opposed to the supposition that this is just about handing votes to the NDP in a bid to keep Ford out of office.

Andrea Horwath, meanwhile, is already ruling out any kind of Liberal support to in a minority situation, which is a) not wholly unexpected for someone who suddenly has a shot at forming government; but b) is also potentially a dangerous gambit should she be forced to walk back from those sentiments if she does rely on having Liberal seats to keep her government from falling in short order. And it really is up in the air right now as to where things are sitting, so I’m sure we’ll be having all kinds of conversations about government formation in the next week or two. (If you need a head start, read up in my book).

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: The first salvo of a trade war

Posted on by

It looks like we’ll officially be in a trade war with the United States, thanks to the decision of the American government to slap steel and aluminium tariffs on us as a direct consequence of NAFTA not being renegotiated (under the guise of “national security” concerns), and the Canadian government has opted to retaliate. And we also learned that a NAFTA deal was on the table, but because we refused the five-year sunset clause (as well we should have because it would present too much uncertainty to industry), the Americans walked away from the deal. So that’s a pretty big deal.

The tariffs could have pretty big knock-on effects on our economy, and it won’t really help the American steel industry, which is already operating pretty much at capacity, so much of Trump’s justification evaporates. And Canada’s retaliatory measures, calculated to be dollar-for-dollar on the US-imposed tariffs may sound like an odd list that includes things like yogurt, candy, pizzas and pens, it’s all carefully calculated to target the industries of swing states and key American legislators as they start heading toward mid-term elections. The objective of course is to put pressure on them, who should in turn put pressure on Trump. In theory. We’ll see.

Meanwhile, Aaron Wherry looks at how Trump is ignoring the basics of statecraft and getting away with it with impunity. Paul Wells suspects it’s time to start snubbing Trump rather than appearing eager to get a deal accomplished, since that’s what he’s more focuse don in the first place. Stephen Saideman says that Canada needs to retaliate somehow, lest it feed Trump’s perception that “maximal pressure” works in negotiations.

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/1002189314107703297

Continue reading →

QP: Cheap shots on a trade war

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau had intended to show up for Question Period today, the new imposition of tariffs by the United States had him off at the National Press Theatre instead. Andrew Scheer was also away, off to Nova Scotia instead. Erin O’Toole led off, decrying the steel tariffs and called the prime minister a failure on the issue, which ushered in cries of “shame!” from the Liberal benches. Marc Garneau admonished him for being partisan on this issue, and stated that the tariffs were unacceptable and that Canada would be imposing retaliatory tariffs against American imports. O’Toole insisted that the PM didn’t get anything for months while the Conservatives were engaged on the file, and demanded action. Garneau reiterated his response, and when O’Toole invited the government to work with the Conservatives on the issue, Garneau relate his response for a third time. Luc Berthold took over to make the charge of incompetence in French, to which Garneau repeated his response in French, and when Berthold accused the PM of naïvely believing the president when he said there would be no tariffs, Garneau said that Berthold should be ashamed of his partisanship. Ruth Ellen Brosseau then picked up the same line of questioning for the NDP, demanding to know what the government would do to protect workers, and Garneau repeated that they are consulting on retaliatory measures and would protect workers. Tracey Ramsey took over in English, and over two questions asked the same thing and made more accusations that the government was unable to secure a deal, to which Garneau repeated his response yet again. Karine Trudel took over for a final attempt at the very same question, and got the same answer. Again.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On track for a final cannabis vote

Posted on by

Over in the Senate, some of the drama around the cannabis bill has resolved itself and we can look forward to some structured, orderly report stage and third reading debate leading up to the June 7thfinal vote. And yes, before you say anything, the Conservative senators are playing along and have been swearing up and down that they will respect this date and not try to play any games and delay it further. (They also know that they’ve burned a hell of a lot of political capital on unnecessary fights lately and aren’t keen to burn any more).

To recap, part of the drama has been that the Conservatives still plan to move amendments at Third Reading, which is their right. But they wanted this as part of the structured plan, and the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, wasn’t playing ball, and wanted the Social Affairs Committee – which funnelled all of proposed amendments from the four other committees that studied the bill and voted on them there – to have a look at those amendments first. And the Conservatives, rightfully, refused. And then members of the Independent Senators Group started giving quotes to newspapers about how they were open to real amendments and not those that were “superficial, tactical, unenforceable, or would only serve to delay this bill.” That, and throwing more shade about how they believed the Conservatives were just playing games, because the modus operandi seems to be that anything the Conservatives do is partisan and therefore bad, but anything they do out of a shared belief is not partisan and just fine, which is a lot of bunk. And some of the Independent senators are getting downright condescending in trying to make that particular case. Suffice to say, peace has broken out after the ISG got over their issues about the amendments, and they now have a plan for debate that will carry them through to the vote on the 7th.

Meanwhile, there is talk about whether the amendments to C-46 – the impaired driving bill – will survive a full vote in the Senate after the likely unconstitutional provisions around random alcohol testing. ISG “facilitator” Senator Woo is hinting that they would vote to reinstate the provisions. I will add, however, that I am not absolutely not buying their supposition that senators were trying to simply embarrass the government by returning the omnibus transport bill to the Commons a second time because it was their own Independent senators who insisted on those amendments. Sometimes senators insist on amendments because they think they’re in the right – which is a novel concept, I’m sure.

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 →