Tag Archives: Trade

Roundup: A tire fire of a debate

Posted on by

Last night was the third and final leaders’ debate in the Ontario election, and it was…terrible. Painful to watch. And yet here we are. Doug Ford promised all kinds of increased spending, and promised not a single layoff, while he offered no specifics on any promise, and a false version of history of when he was at Toronto City Hall. Andrea Horwath promised some different spending than the Liberals, that she would end “hallway medicine,” while being overly generous on the hole in her party’s platform and the fact that she doesn’t stand for Hitler memes (while not having actually rebuked or dumped the candidate accused of posting one). Kathleen Wynne was sorry that people don’t like her personally, but isn’t sorry for her record, and she offered detailed policy in a format that didn’t let leaders fully answer questions and where Horwath in particular kept interrupting and aggressively talking over everyone else. In all, a demonstration that this whole election is absolutely terrible.

In reaction, Chris Selley remarks on Ford’s performance – that the only place he stood out was his promises around childcare (though he didn’t offer specifics, which are that his tax credit won’t amount to much for parents), while David Reevely noted Horwath’s aggressive challenges around Ford’s lack of platform or Wynne’s stance around collective bargaining, showing more fire than Wynne, who was building an intellectual case in a lawyerly tone for much of the debate, only really finding her own fire when she pushed back against accusations around the Hydro One sale.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Don’t be fooled by Friday’s childish meltdown

Posted on by

You may have heard that there was a bit of a meltdown in the House of Commons yesterday. You may also have heard a bunch of suspect commentary about what it was about, and some particularly dubious ruminations about how noble it was that these opposition MPs were standing up for their rights to examine the Estimates and to ensure that all government spending was properly voted for, and so on. The problem is, is that those sentiments demonstrate that they’ve been taken in by the ruse that this is all related to.

So, to recap: Yesterday the parties were on notice that Government House Leader Bardish Chagger was going to move the motion to start late-night sittings in the House of Commons for the last four scheduled sitting weeks, in order to get bills through and off to the Senate. After all, it’s likely that the government wants to prorogue and have a new Throne Speech in the fall, and it’s better to get as many bills off the Order Paper before that happens. But just before Chagger is going to move that motion during Routine Proceedings yesterday, the NDP’s Daniel Blaikie conveniently stands up to raise a point of order and starts to demand that the Speaker allow them to delete Vote 40 from the Estimates. Vote 40 is related to the $7 billion fund that the government wants to use to get a move on budgetary matters that haven’t made it through proper Treasury Board review yet. The figures are all in the budget, laid out in a table, on how it will be spent. The opposition has decided that this is really a “slush fund” that can be spent on anything (the government is quite insistent that if they spent it on anything other than what’s in the table in the budget that it would constitute unauthorised spending, which is a significant thing). After Blaikie started a lengthy speech about it, the Speaker said he’s heard enough, that the matter is before committee and not the Commons, so it’s not in order. When he tried to move onto other business, Blaikie kept demanding he be heard. The Conservatives joined in. And thus began an eight-minute childish tantrum of shouting and desk banging that drowned out other business, and once that calmed down, endless cycles of points of order regarding whether or not they could hear the motion or the interpretation, and so on. There was no greater principle being expressed or upheld – it was a procedural filibuster. And we know this because they tried other tactics after that one failed, including points of personal privilege over the earlier meltdown, and a concurrence debate on a committee report (which, as Kady points out, is kind of fun to watch because almost no one has prepared speeches for them, so they’re forced to think on their feet, which they should be doing anyway, but whatever).

Procedural shenanigans I’m fine with. It’s a necessary part of Parliamentary democracy. I’m less fine with the infantile tantrum that they threw when they didn’t get their way. That’s the part that needs to be called out for what it was. And I especially resent the fact that you have a bunch of pundit who should know what a filibuster looks like after being on the Hill for so many yearswho were all “They have a legitimate point!” That legitimate point, as meritorious as it may be in a more existential conversation about reform of the Estimates process, was not what this was about, and to treat it as though it was is to fall for the game. I will additionally add that I am especially displeased with the commentary on the Power & Politicspower panel, where pundits who are not in Ottawa and who don’t cover this place got space to ruminate about how the Speaker was acting partisan because the government is on its heels a bit, of that this $7 fund was just like an omnibus bill that they swore they would never use, and nobody pushed back about how bogus this commentary was. (Paul Wells offered the actual take, bolstered by Aaron Wherry, for the record, but regardless). I will reiterate that procedure matters, and it would really help if people covering and commenting on this place understood that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A major amendment at committee

Posted on by

There will be another looming showdown between the Senate and the Commons in the coming weeks, as the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee narrowly voted to remove the random mandatory alcohol testing provisions from Bill C-46, the government’s new impaired driving legislation. And this wasn’t just the Conservatives being obstructionist – Liberals joined in this too, the tie-breaker coming from Senator Serge Joyal. Why? Because this provision is almost certainly unconstitutional. Senator Denise Batters, who moved the motion, explained the reasons in this video here:

It can’t be understated that the criminal defence bar has been warning for months that this will lead to even more court challenges, including Charter challenges, and that it will do nothing to alleviate the backlog in the courts, and would only make them worse in the post-Jordandecision world of tight timelines. And if you don’t think that this won’t create problems, then just look to BC to see what moving to administrative roadside penalties for impaired driving did to their court system – it’s created a cottage industry of court challenges to those citations. I’ve interviewed these lawyers before. One of them, for whom this is her specialty (as tweeted below) knows what she speaks when it comes to what this bill will do.

The government will point to constitutional scholars that told them their plans were sound, but again, this likely won’t be definitively be answered until it gets put to the Supreme Court of Canada. And plenty of lawyers will also point out – correctly – that just because the police are looking for certain powers, it doesn’t mean they should get them because they will infringe on Canadians’ Charter rights. The funny thing is that this creates a schism within the Conservative caucus, with the MPs being in favour of the bill (much of it having been copied from a bill that Steven Blaney tabled), but then again, the Senate is more independent than people like to give it credit for.

So now the justice minister says that this is unacceptable, that it guts the bill (not really true – the marijuana provisions are all still intact I believe, which is why this bill was a companion piece to the marijuana legalisation bill in the first place), and she won’t have these amendments. We’ll see whether the full Senate votes to adopt these amendments or not – there’s been a lot of talk from the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, that they shouldn’t vote down bills of dubious constitutionality because that should be the role for the courts (I fundamentally disagree with that – it’s actually the Senate’s job), and we’ll see how many of the new Independents are swayed by Harder’s arguments. But it’s one more bit of drama to look forward to.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Performative anxiety over the pipeline bill

Posted on by

There’s a bit of performative wailing and gnashing of teeth emanating from the Senate, as the nonsense bill from Conservative-turned-Independent Senator Doug Black about declaring the Trans Mountain pipeline in the national interest passed earlier this week, and they have no indication whether it will be passed by the Commons in short order. After all, there are only some eight days until Kinder Morgan’s “deadline” comes to pass, and under the politician’s syllogism, something must be done and this is something, therefore we must do this. Never mind that as a bill, it’s constitutional nonsense because the preamble invokes Section 92(10)(c) of the Constitution Act 1867, and the project is already federal jurisdiction because it crosses a provincial boundary; invoking the section would imply that it is provincial jurisdiction (it’s not), or that it would perversely declare a federal issue to be provincial for the sake of declaring it federal again (which sets up a really terrible precedent for the future). The bigger problem is that it’s a Senate public bill, which means that when it gets to the Commons, it needs a sponsor (not a difficult get for Black in this case), and then it goes into the queue of private members’ business. It could be weeks before that refreshes and it earns a slot for debate, which will be well past the artificial deadline from Kinder Morgan. This despite the fact that the bill should be defeated because it’s constitutional nonsense. And the Conservative senators who are currently complaining that they have no indication if the government will pass the bill immediately know better – there isn’t a mechanism for them to do so, barring a motion to pass it at all stages once it’s on the Order Paper. Which it’s not. But hey, facts have never stopped anyone from making a big show of something like this before, so why start now?

In other pipeline news, no other company has publicly declared that they are willing to take over the Trans Mountain pipeline if Kinder Morgan backs out (but I’m not sure why they would say so at this point, because I’m sure it would drive up the price if they sounded eager). Jagmeet Singh has firmly put himself in BC’s camp on the issue, earning the rebuke of Rachel Notley – and the fact that he hasn’t bothered to even call her has Notley questioning his maturity. That western premiers meeting that Notley sent her deputy premier to instead happened, and said deputy didn’t sign onto the final communiqué because it wouldn’t show support for Trans Mountain, while BC premier John Horgan talks out of both sides of his mouth, demanding that the expansion be halted while demanding the existing pipeline continue to carry fuel for BC, and insisting that the two are very separate issues.

Meanwhile, as Alberta turns into a single-issue province, I continue to be amazed at the hyperbole being expressed on this issue. One pipeline advocate yesterday referred to BC as a “rogue state.” Guys. Seriously? The most BC has done is hold a press conference and file a court reference that they are likely to lose. This drama queen routine is getting a little embarrassing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An unnecessary proposal to cover for abdicated responsibility

Posted on by

When Parliament resumes next week, and the final push of legislation before the summer break starts, I can pretty much guarantee that there will be some gnashing and wailing of teeth in the Senate about the crush of bills headed their way, and the fact that there isn’t a plan to manage it. And from Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, we’ll get a reminder that he’s proposed a business committee to do said managing of the Order Paper. And lo, in Policy Options yesterday, we got an endorsement of the notion of a business committee from a former political science professor, Paul G. Thomas, which read a lot like it was could have been commissioned by Harder’s office.

To wit: One of the reasons why I object to the creation of a business committee is because it will create a powerful clique that will determine the legislative agenda of the chamber in a manner that has the very real possibility of trampling on the rights of individual senators in the name of expediency. Currently the rules allow for any senator to speak to any item on the Order Paper on any day – something Thomas notes has the potential to delay business, but under most circumstances, this can be managed through negotiation, and if abused, a vote can be used to clear that obstruction. But what Thomas’ glowing endorsement of the notion of a committee ignores is the fact that sometimes, it can take time for a senator who sees a problem with legislation to rally other senators to the cause. We have seen examples of that in the current parliament, with bills like S-3, which wound up getting majority support from senators to fix the flaws in the bill, or even with the amendments to the omnibus transportation bill last week, where Senator Griffin’s speech convinced enough senators that there was a real problem that the amendment was meant to correct. Having a business committee strictly lay out timelines will stifle the ability for the Senate to do its work when sometimes it needs time to do the work properly.

One of the reason why this kind of committee should be unnecessary is because the Senate has operated for 151 years on the basis of the caucuses negotiating the timelines they need at daily “scroll meetings,” but it requires actual negotiation for it to happen, and since Harder took on the role of Government Leader, he has eschewed his responsibilities to do so, believing that any horse-trading is partisan. Several of the new Independent senators follow a similar mindset, which is a problem. And while Thomas acts as Harder’s apologist in trying to downplay the criticism that a business committee will simply allow Harder to stage manage the legislative process – and it is a possibility that he could, but only in a situation where there are no party caucuses any longer, and that the Senate is 105 loose fish that he could co-opt as needed – my more immediate concern is that he would use the committee to avoid his actual responsibilities of negotiation and shepherding the government’s agenda, more so than he already has. We already don’t know what he’s doing with this $1.5 million budget and expansive staff, so if he is able to fob off even more responsibility onto this clique, what else does that leave him to do with his budget and staff? It’s a question we still don’t have any answers to, and yet another reason why the creation of such a committee is likely to lead to more problems than it does solutions that aren’t actually necessary if he did his job.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Border agent woes

Posted on by

When the House of Commons returns on Tuesday, it’s a pretty safe bet to say that the news that the Canada Border Services Agency is shifting customs agents from the GTA to the Quebec border is going to be one of the main topics of conversation. In fact, I can pretty much guarantee that it’ll come up in Question Period on the first day back. Why? Because amidst this news, a memo from Air Canada pilots claims that they may face delays of up to an hour, being kept on the tarmac because of this lack of agents. There are denials all around (and I’m a bit skeptical myself – I can see big lines in the airport, but I have a hard time seeing why they’d detain them on the tarmac), but the line is going to be that Trudeau is making you wait on the tarmac because he can’t enforce the law on the border.

It’s not exactly true, of course. Whether we see actual delays at airports remains to be seen, but the continued insistence that he can somehow snap his fingers and the border will somehow seal itself is this specious bit of political fiction that nobody wants to seem to own up to. I’ve written about this before – he can’t unilaterally declare the entire border to be an official port of entry, nor can he amend the Safe Third Country Agreement because that requires the buy-in of the Americans, and that’s not going to happen. If he suspends the agreement, like the NDP demands, that will cause a flood at border crossings of people who are jurisdiction shopping while making asylum claims, which was the whole reason the agreement was made in the first place. Direct engagement with the communities where the influx is coming from had success with the Haitian community and the government is looking to repeat it with Nigeria, where most of the new claimants are coming from (and no one has yet explained why that’s the case), but we’ll see when they can actually start engaging.

What this does illustrate is that the government still has a way to go in order to re-capitalize CBSA and ensure that they have enough border guards and customs agents. (They also need to fill vacancies in the Immigration and Refugee Board, and to give them additional resources, but that hasn’t been happening expeditiously either). And yes, this is something that Conservatives can share in the blame with as well, because they cut CBSA to the point where they were having to suspend a number of programmes like screening for drugs being exported, and they had to let go of most of their sniffer dogs because they no longer had the budget. Will this light a fire under the government to properly rebuild their capacity? We’ll see. They insist they’re re-investing but it may be of little use if the situation sounds as dire as it is right now with these rotations in and out of the border crossing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The vague indemnity

Posted on by

Yesterday morning, first thing, Bill Morneau came out to say that the government was prepared to indemnify Kinder Morgan for any losses suffered as a result of BC’s intransigence and attempts to delay construction. It’s not an equity stake or buy-in, but rather, insurance, and like most insurance, we don’t know what the payout is going to be yet. Nevertheless, if the idea is to offer Kinder Morgan certainty that the Trans Mountain expansion will go ahead, then this is something. The reaction came swiftly, from the Conservatives insisting that this is now a “bail out government” whose inability to manage the file means that it will now cost taxpayer dollars (no hint of irony there with the bail outs that their government was involved in, or that the entire energy sector has a long history of favourable tax treatment from the government), while the NDP insisted that this was about the profits of a Texas-based company over the interests of Canadians. BC Green leader Andrew Weaver was downright indignant, if not pissy, about the whole situation. And Kinder Morgan’s CEO? He says he appreciates the offer, but still hasn’t given a final answer as to whether it’s enough to stay invested in the project.

After Morneau’s presser was a great deal of parsing of his words (where he did not offer the government line that the pipeline would be built), along with a number of questions arising from just what it was he was announcing. Here’s a reminder of the various court challenges facing the pipeline at present.

And now the hot takes. Chantal Hébert sees little progress on the file over the past month, even with Morneau’s announcement yesterday. John Ivison says that Morneau is calling Kinder Morgan’s bluff in attempting to get the government to buy the pipeline from them above market price, while Evan Solomon more definitely claims that it’s the plan all along. Paul Wells…isn’t convinced.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/996865631122329600

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/996865939797958662

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/996866404078051333

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/996868825621639170

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/996872616081272835

Meanwhile, Alberta passed their unconstitutional Bill 12, and Rachel Notley is already threatening to “turn off the taps” to BC – err, except those taps would actually be federal jurisdiction, so good luck with that. Andrew Leach tears into that bill, and looks at why it sets a dangerous precedent, and why it should never be proclaimed.

Good reads:

  • Justin Trudeau was in New York to get an honorary degree from New York University, and spoke about listening to those you disagree with.
  • Trudeau also called for an investigation into the shootings of civilians in Gaza, where a Canadian doctor was wounded.
  • It’s looking like there won’t be a NAFTA deal by today’s congressional deadline. One MP currently visiting Washington called the five-year sunset clause stupid.
  • The bill to mandate plain packaging for cigarettes and to regulate the vaping industry is set to get royal assent within days.
  • Naval shipbuilding is behind schedule (go figure), but the government won’t release documents to talk about how far behind, or why.
  • The RCMP mistakenly allowed people to purchase restricted firearms for 12 years, and now want them to give them up.
  • Here’s a deeper dive into the Conservative attempts to win favour in Quebec.
  • While some commenters say that Christine Moore had “no choice” but to publicly defend herself, I wonder how that makes this different from Erin Weir’s situation.
  • For those following the VADM Mark Norman court drama, there was a case conference today, with the next date scheduled for July.
  • Jason Kenney made a bunch of personal attacks against Trudeau, and then stood by them like the hero that he is. So much for his pleas for civility in politics.
  • Saskatchewan is making another bid to get Low Carbon funds from the federal government without signing onto carbon pricing. Good luck with that.
  • Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column looks ahead to the committee appearance by the nominee for Chief Electoral Officer.
  • Stephen Maher sees Trudeau’s speech at NYU as a rebuke of Trump.
  • Andrew Coyne foresees nothing but doom by the Conservatives courting Quebec nationalists.

Help Routine Proceedings expand. Support my Patreon.

Roundup: Decrying unfairness while ignoring logic

Posted on by

As the countdown to Kinder Morgan’s deadline for some kind of reassurance around the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion draws near, we’re starting to see a lot of angry commentary from Western conservatives, and not all of it is very well thought out. Yesterday, former Wildrose leader Brian Jean took to the Financial Postto say that Alberta needs to demand a “fairer deal” from Canada…but made a litany of errors and misrepresentations, and gaps in the logic of his own conclusions. Andrew Leach laid out many of them here:

I would add that Jean also disingenuously ignored the fact that the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Northern Gateway process didn’t adequately consult the First Nations to a constitutional standard, which was entirely the fault of the Harper government and not Trudeau. And for his complaints around Energy East, he also ignored the fact that while the NEB said that they would look at downstream emissions as part of their analysis, Cabinet broadcast that their criteria for approval had not changed, and it did not include those emissions profiles. It also ignores the economics of the situation, that Energy East was the most expensive option now that Trans Mountain and Keystone XL had been approved. It also gives the false notion that it would allow Alberta oil to flow to Eastern refineries for the sake of “energy security” when those refineries are not built to handle the kind of heavy crude that Alberta exports, and thus the majority of it would not wind up in Canadian gas tanks. But hey, why do facts matter when you’re trying to stir up anger?

And anger over equalization is so easy to stir up when you constantly misrepresent the issue. It’s not a cheque that the province hands over – it comes mostly out of personal income taxes. It’s a federal programme, and the reason Alberta pays more into it and doesn’t get it is because Albertans have the highest incomes in the country, and the fiscal capacity that their government can offer the same level of services as other provinces without crippling taxes. And when Premier Moe starts tweeting about “shipping out” equalization dollars, I think it’s fair to ask if he thinks that his province wants either the lower incomes or the reduced fiscal capacity that it would take for them to be a net receiver of equalization. (Note: He does have a point about the rail backlogs, and the federal government could have taken measures to deal with that months ago if they so chose). But seriously – these equalization/fair deal gripes are not grounded in fact or logic, and we need to remind people of that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The problem with coalition speculation

Posted on by

We’re only a few days into the Ontario election campaign, and we’re already hearing far too much of the c-word for my liking. And by c-word, I mean “coalition” (though I have no doubt that the other c-word is being uttered by trolls over social media). And it’s so utterly frustrating because most of the time, the talk isn’t accompanied by any particular understanding of how Westminster governments work so you get a ham-fisted attempt to force coalition talks into the early days of a campaign, during which the polls could easily swing (and have in the past). And yet here we are.

Paul Wells did a great service by calling out this kind of talk in Maclean’syesterday, reminding everyone – and especially We The Media – that this kind of talk, especially on the back of torqued headlines, doesn’t really help anyone. Why? Because, aside from the fact that it’s just pure speculation, and that it distracts from actual issues at play, it also forces leaders to start ruling out hypotheticals that aren’t in play but one day might be. He also makes the salient point that post-election, things are not on a level playing field – the incumbent government is still the government, regardless of how many seats they won, and it sets up interesting scenarios if the seat counts are close, as what happened in BC last year. And time and again, media commentators seem to utterly forget that fact, which becomes extremely frustrating as they give authoritative commentary about things that are in contradiction to the realities of how the Westminster system operates.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/996229744285794304

Now, I sort of appreciate what Wherry is saying there, but the problem is that unless and until our media commentators bother to learn how the system operates, we will continue to trade in misinformation, that gets torqued for the sake of headlines, and it will exacerbate the situation and make it worse. Remember the prorogation crisis of 2008 that was precipitated by a potential coalition government willing to step in if they defeated the Harper government on a vote of non-confidence? And how the government’s talking heads were giving all kinds of nonsense answers about it being “anti-democratic,” or that they were going to “go over the head of the Governor General” and incite civil unrest if she let Stéphane Dion and Jack Layton form government? Don Newman was the only journalist who challenged these statements to their faces at the time, and, well, Don’s retired from the news business, and the rest of the pundit class hasn’t learned much since then, unfortunately, so I really am not confident that there would be pushback to wrong notions that will get promulgated if a coalition does become a reality in Ontario post-election. But as Wells pointed out, this kind of pointless speculation is the kind of empty calories and time-wasting that is irresistible to the media landscape. Meanwhile, I’ll be right here, head exploding.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A recanted confession

Posted on by

It was not unexpected that we would get a level of histrionics and performative outrage in Question Period yesterday regarding the revelations that a Canadian ISIS returnee had spoken to a New York Timespodcast about his experiences killing while in Syria. (Never mind that this was the second time they raised this issue, but it never got traction when they tried on Tuesday). But amid the dramatic meltdown that completely distorted the situation – citing his description of the killing as “gleeful” when it was apparently anything but (note: I have not listened to the podcast myself because there aren’t enough hours in the day, but this is basing it on the accounts of those who have), and how it’s a complex and nuanced situation of someone who was recruited and who wasn’t a front-line fighter, but was in the “morality police.” And then, hours later, when contacted by the CBC (who had interviewed him years earlier, when he said he didn’t kill anyone), he recanted the tale he told the Timespodcast, citing that he turned a third-person account into a first-person one possibly under the influence of drugs, as the Postinterview was within three weeks of his return to Canada after a spell in Pakistan where he began abusing substances to cope with trauma. And yes, CSIS and the RCMP have been in touch with him.

First, some thoughts from people who know what they’re talking about:

https://twitter.com/MrMubinShaikh/status/995047235946676224

https://twitter.com/MrMubinShaikh/status/995048194802413568

https://twitter.com/MrMubinShaikh/status/995106705267666944

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/995063490866905088

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/995063493035409408

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/995063494901874690

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/995063496847970304

Other observations: We keep getting from the Conservatives this false notion that the Prime Minister welcomes back former terrorists with hugs, cheques, and that they send them away to poetry classes, all of which is complete bullshit, and conflates a number of issues that is not helpful in any of this. The Omar Khadr settlement is not because of anything he is alleged to have done as a minor while in Afghanistan, but because he was tortured by the Americans with the full knowledge of our intelligence agencies in breach of his Charter rights. That’s kind of a big deal. And those “poetry classes” are derisive attempts to conflate rehabilitation with de-radicalization in the Countering Violent Extremism programme, which is extremely valuable because it prevents them from becoming terrorists. But instead, we get demands that, in order to look tough, both distort the situation and that would in all likelihood jeopardise actual criminal investigations if they were seriously acted upon. Was the news of this podcast “confession” concerning? Yes. But does a half-cocked meltdown that completely misrepresents the whole situation help? Nope. In fact, it probably does more damage in the long run, feeding the paranoia of the likes of the Quebec mosque shooter, who radicalized by internalizing these very kinds of irresponsible messages. Not that the Conservatives care if there are points to be scored.

Continue reading →