Tag Archives: Trade

Roundup: A strained partisan detente

Posted on by

There is a strange partisan cold war settling over the nation’s capital, as both government and opposition try to put up a united front against the Trumpocalypse, while at the same time not looking to give up too much advantage, and so they probe areas where their opponents may be weak, but that they won’t look too crassly partisan in exploiting it, kind of like Erin O’Toole did last week when the steel and aluminium tariffs were first announced. The Conservatives and NDP are trying to probe the previous statements about Supply Management “flexibility,” while the Liberals are essentially calling Maxime Bernier a traitor as he starts speaking about his opposition to the system once again. It’s not pretty on either side, and yet here we are.

While Trump has threatened auto tariffs, I’m not sure that’s even remotely feasible given how integrated the whole North American industry is, and those tariffs would not only devastate supply chains, but it would have as many adverse effects on the American industry as it would the Canadian one. Of course, we’re dealing with an uncertainty engine, so we have no idea what he’ll actually do, but hey, the government is working on contingency plans that include further retaliatory measures if these auto tariffs come to pass. As for Trump’s focus on dairy, here’s a look at the size of subsidies that the American dairy industry is awash in. Brian Mulroney, incidentally, thinks this is all a passing storm, for what it’s worth.

Because there are so many more hot takes about developments, Andrew Coyne thinks that there should be debate on how to best retaliate to American threats rather than just rally around the PM. Chantal Hébert notes that Trump has essentially boxed Trudeau in with regards to how he can respond to the threats. Martin Patriquin counsels patience with the Trumpocalypse, so that we don’t go overboard thanks to a few intemperate tweets. Chris Selley notes the sudden burst of solidarity and hopes that they don’t return to bickering over small differences once this crisis passes. Jen Gerson, meanwhile, notes that Trump’s attack are those of a bully trying to pick on a weaker target, but forgets that Canada isn’t weak – we’re just passive aggressive. Gerson was also on Power & Politics(at 1:08:35 in the full broadcast) to say that her genuine fear out of all of this is that it’s all a sideshow designed to turn Canada into some comic enemy for Trump to run against in the upcoming midterms, and I suspect that she’s onto something, and we may be playing into Trump’s hands when if we get self-righteous in our response.

Continue reading →

QP: Solidarity in the face of Trump – more or less

Posted on by

Following the melodrama of the G7 summit over the weekend, the PM decided to take the day off from QP, but so did all of the other leaders, so make of that what you will. Candice Bergen led off, saying that they stood together with workers, and wanted to know what the PM’s plan was to resolve this impasse with the Americans. Dominic LeBlanc got up to respond, thanking Canadians for standing together to protect workers, and that there was no national security threat, and everyone gave hearty applause. Bergen then worried about whether the deficit took into account a potential aid package for these affected workers, and LeBlanc noted that any tariffs would also hurt American workers, and they were consulting on the sectors to see how they could help. Bergen said that they could immediately ratify the TPP, scrap the carbon tax, and eliminate trade barriers between provinces, and to invited them to work with Conservatives. François-Philippe Champagne said that they would have a TPP ratification bill tabled before the summer. Alain Rayes got up to repeat the deficit question in French, got the same response from LeBlanc in French, and then they went another round of the same. Ruth Ellen Brosseau led off for the NDP, asking the government to provide a unified response with all parties against Trump. LeBlanc said that obviously yes, they would work with all members to protect workers and ensure that retaliatory measures are proportionate. Brosseau then raise the leak from the existing Trans Mountain pipeline and that the government failed in its consultation of First Nations. Marc Garneau responded by reading that there were strong laws on pipelines on polluters paying for problems. Nathan Cullen repeated the question in English, with added sanctimony, to which Jim Carr noted that by repeating the polluter-pay principle in the Pipeline Safety Act. Cullen read a statement from a First Nations chief about the quality of the consultations, and Carr fumbled in his response about the NDP trying to speak on behalf of First Nations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Derailing a summit for macho posturing

Posted on by

So, that was quite some G7 summit. I would say that I can’t even, but, well, at this point, it’s becoming harder and harder to be surprised by the Trumpocalypse, so, yeah. For those of you who missed the drama – and it was a hell of a lot of drama – Trump played nice until he took off early from the summit, and then after Justin Trudeau gave a press conference in which he tried very hard to downplay any tensions, but reiterated the same statement’s he’s made plenty of times over the past couple of weeks in talking about how the US tariffs are kind of insulting, and that no, he has no intention of agreeing to a sunset clause with NAFTA, that Trump tweeted up a storm from Airforce One about how Trudeau had stabbed him in the back, and how the steel and aluminium tariffs were in response to our dairy tariffs that form part of the Supply Management system (which puts a lie to the claim that the tariffs were for national security reasons), and that he had instructed his officials to no longer endorse the communiqué that he had previously agreed to. Sunday morning, Trump’s mouthpieces were arguing that there was a special place in Hell for people who negotiate in bad faith with Trump. Oh, and they pretty much confirmed that Trump is going on this rage bender because he wants to look tough in advance of his talks with North Korea, which is…novel. And ridiculous. But to her credit, Chrystia Freeland continued to take the high road, while Trudeau carried on with his meetings with the “outreach” countries who also attended the G7.

Here’s a recounting of the behind-the-scenes moves from the weekend, including the Friday night session between the leaders to hammer out the joint communiqué, and how that was already unravelling the next morning. Senior officials continue to be puzzled by the whole thing, considering that Trudeau has been consistent in his messaging. Trudeau and Freeland tried to keep the focus on what was accomplished – the fund for girls’ education in war-torn regions and the oceans plastic charter (that neither the US nor Japan signed onto, for the record). In the States, John McCain tweeted his support for Canada in this (but it might help if congressional Republicans stood up to Trump over this, but we’ll see if that happens). And that famous photo that everyone is sharing? Other leaders, including Trudeau’s official photographers, are tweeting other angles of it.

In hot takes from this weekend, Evan Solomon says that the government’s tactics need to change as waiting out Trump’s moods is clearly no longer an effective strategy. Scott Gilmore offers suggestions as to how to boycott Trump’s business interests. Paul Wells takes a few well-deserved shots at Trump’s talking heads, and suggests that their calling Trudeau weak is because he hasn’t been, and that perhaps it’s time for Canada and its allies to give a retaliatory response that is worth the Americans fearing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sore loserism and entrails

Posted on by

If you had any money riding on who would be the first to whine that Thursday’s election result was a signal that we need electoral reform, and if you chose Elizabeth May, well, collect your winnings. I spent much of Friday responding to this nonsense, but I will reiterate a couple of points – that if you blame the system because your party did not do better, you’re already missing the point. We’ve seen it happen time and again that when a party has a message that resonates, it’s the non-voters who come out, not the committed party base, and we had increased turnout on Thursday night which meant that people were motivated to throw the bums out. Similarly with Trudeau in 2015 – a significant uptick in voter turnout because they had something that they wanted to vote for/throw the bums out. This matters, and whinging that the system isn’t fair is missing the point entirely. The system works. It needs to be allowed to function the way it was intended. What doesn’t help is using a false number like the popular vote in order to make it look like the system is unfair in order to justify your disappointment is the epitome or sore loserism.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1005214910966452224

In terms of reading Thursday night’s entrails, here’s Paul Wells taking a detailed look at the three campaigns and how each succeeded and failed in their own ways. CBC has a look at how Ford’s use of simple and vague messaging made him look sensible to an angry population. Robert Hiltz looks at the ways in which the Liberals defeated themselves by their craven attempts to hold onto power. Nevertheless, Wynne’s surprise concession days before the election may actually have saved the seats the Liberals did win, according to exit polling done, so that particular strategic calculation may have actually paid off.

Jen Gerson wonders if Doug Ford’s win isn’t akin to a Monkey’s Paw curse – getting what you wish for at a terrible price. Andrew MacDougall wonders what Ford’s win means for modern conservatism given that Ford isn’t really a small-c conservative, nor were his outlandish promises. Similarly, Chris Selley looks at the phenomenon of Ford Nation, the Harper Conservatives that surround him, and the way that Andrew Scheer has suddenly attached himself to the cause. Andrew Coyne (once you get past the griping about the electoral system) warns politicians and pundits not to overread Thursday’s results (hey federal Conservatives and your crowing in QP on Friday – this especially means you), and further wonders if Ford will pull a “cupboard is bare” routine to keep carbon pricing to use the revenues. Jason Kirby mocks up what Ford’s first speech might look like, by referencing earlier speeches about bare cupboards.

Continue reading →

QP: A digression to the LRT

Posted on by

With the G7 meeting ramping up in Quebec City and Charlevoix, Quebec, Justin Trudeau was away from QP, and so was Andrew Scheer, as has been his wont lately. Candice Bergen led off, reading the same questions about the government not immediately imposing retaliatory tariffs on the US. Marc Garneau read that it was essential that they get this right, so they had a few days to respond. Bergen demanded that all tariffs collected by these retaliatory measures went to those impacted, and Garneau relied with the same assurances that they were there to defend steel and aluminium workers. Bergen switched topics to TPP ratification, and this time Mélanie Joly said that they had worked hard to improve the bill and it would be tabled shortly. Gérard Deltell reiterated the question in French, and got the same response in French. Deltell then repeated the earlier question about using whatever tariffs were collected to support affected workers, and Garneau reiterated earlier response in French. Guy Caron led off for the NDP, railing that fossil fuel subsidies weren’t being eliminated, among other sins, and Catherine McKenna responded with plans to implement a plastics charter at the G7 meeting. Caron demanded funding for green jobs rather than fund a pipeline, and McKenna insisted that they have stood up for the environment while growing the economy. Rachel Blaney reiterate the question in English, and McKenna listed the measures that they have taken — pricing carbon, phasing out coal, investing in public transportation and clean tech. Another round of the same yielded the same response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Curiously speedy swearing-in

Posted on by

With the final vote in the Senate today on the cannabis bill, there have been a few interesting developments, starting with the fact that the government has been making appointments – there was one on Friday, and two more were announced yesterday, and what’s even more curious is how fast they are being sworn in. The two named yesterday will be sworn in today, while the one named Friday was sworn in Monday is already voting on amendments to C-45 despite not having been there for any of the debate or committee testimony. Normally when senators are named, there are a few weeks between their being named and being sworn-in so that they can get all of their affairs in order, which makes this curious, and like it’s looking like Trudeau has been making panicked appointments with the fate of C-45 in the air. And what’s even more curious is the fact that it’s not the Conservatives who are the problem, since they don’t have the numbers to defeat it, but it’s the independent senators who are no longer voting as a bloc but have swung different amendment votes in different ways.

https://twitter.com/JacquiDelaney/status/1004520578919817216

Of course, Conservatives are already promulgating the conspiracy theory that because the provincial nomination committees are largely vacant that these are all hand-picked by the PMO, but in truth, the PMO is sitting on over a hundred vetted names on the short-lists, and these new appointments are all coming off of those lists, where they’ve been languishing for months. So not a conspiracy – just poor management to the point of incompetence.

Meanwhile, some 40 amendments have been passed, with several more defeated, and the government engaged in a bit of deal-making to assuage the concerns of Indigenous senators who wanted to put in an amendment to delay implementation until more consultation with Indigenous communities had been done. The health and Indigenous services ministers instead offered a number of measures and funds to ensure there was access to production, and culturally-appropriate addictions treatment services. One Conservative senator accused those Indigenous senators of capitulation, before she was slapped back by Senator Murray Sinclair for her patronising tone. One could argue that this means that the government is listening to the concerns that are raised, so we’ll see how much follow-through there is.

Continue reading →

QP: Concern trolling about tariff compensation

Posted on by

In advance of the arrival of French president Emmanuel Macron, Justin Trudeau was present for QP, along with all other leaders. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and in French, he read some Supply Management concerns. Trudeau replied with the well-worn talking points about how they created Supply Management, would defend it, and took a shot at Maxime Bernier while he was at it. Scheer then switched to English to ask about where the budget contained any contingency funds for possible tariff relief. Trudeau noted that they ensured they had retaliatory measures ready to go, but the wanted to consult to ensure there were no unintended consequences. Scheer concern trolled about the size of the deficit and how much higher it might be with measures to help industries affected by the tariffs, to which Trudeau reminded him that the choice in the election was cuts and austerity or his government’s investments. Scheer said that the budget was built on the back of “borrowing and tax cuts” — getting applause from the Liberals — before he corrected himself and said that he wanted tax cuts for those affected by the tariffs paid for by the revenues of retaliatory tariffs. Trudeau reminded him that they gave a tax cut to the middle class. Scheer then pivoted to demand that the TPP be ratified before the House rises, to which Trudeau praised their record and that they would introduce a bill before the House rises. Guy Caron led for the NDP, railing about the Trans Mountain purchase and retention bonuses for its executives. Trudeau dispatched his lines about growing the economy while protecting the environment. Caron railed that the pipeline was against the principles of UNDRIP, and Trudeau noted that he sat down with affected First Nations communities yesterday, and that he listened to all points of view. Alexandre Boulerice repeated the first question in French, and got the same response in French. Nathan Cullen then stood up to sanctimoniously expound about fossil fuel subsidies, and he got the same response about the environment and the economy. 

Continue reading →

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 →