In the wake of the statements in the Commons earlier this morning on the ongoing protests and blockades across the country, the benches were full and all of the leaders were present for QP. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he read some of his same condemnation for the government not dealing with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs in favour of those who support Coastal GasLink. Justin Trudeau noted that they are concerned with dialogue, and that he invited other parliamentary leaders to discuss the matter but not Scheer because he disqualified himself after this morning’s statement. Scheer insisted that Trudeau was elevating “professional protesters” with those Indigenous communities that wanted these projects, and demanded a date for the blockades to come down, and Trudeau reminded him that they need solutions for the long term. Scheer decried the lack of action, and Trudeau said that they needed to ensure there was long-term partnership so that Canadians could rely on their transportation network rather than short-term violent action. Scheer again tried to insist that Trudeau was pandering to activists, and Trudeau reminded him that the Conservatives couldn’t get projects built because they would pick and choose who they would engage with. Scheer got increasingly breathy and high-pitched as he demanded action, and Trudeau reminded him that five years ago, Canadians chose parties who were committed to reconciliation. Yves-François Blanchet was up next for the Bloc, and he expressed his concern that Québec and Canada’s image was one where Indigenous communities were opposed to development, and wanted some clarity on the timeline for when blockades would be lifted. Trudeau stated that they were still committed to dialogue, and that was the first step to lifting the barricades. Blanchet asked for future meetings on the issue, and Trudeau said that he was open to that — for parties that wanted to engage constructively. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and demanded to know when the federal government would meet with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs, but they were waiting on them. Singh wanted concrete action now, but pivoted to record-keeping on Indigenous kids in care, go which Trudeau reminded him that child and family services were provincial jurisdiction and they were working to devolve that to First Nations themselves.
Tag Archives: Arctic
QP: Platitudes and the Parole Board
After a number of members’ statements dedicated to both the anniversary of the Quebec City mosque shooting and #BellLetsTalk, and a moment of silence for the mosque shooting, things got down to business with all of the leaders present. Andrew Scheer led off, and he railed about MasterCard getting government funding. Trudeau responded with some bland platitudes about growing the Middle Class™. Scheer tried again, got much the same response, and then Scheer demanded that the Teck Frontier Mine be approved. Trudeau said that railing about activists and celebrities didn’t help the energy sector, but working in partnership with all sectors and Indigenous people was the path forward. Scheer then switched to French to ask about a parole case, to which Trudeau picked up a script to read that they had ordered an investigation into the Parole Board’s decision. Scheer switched to English to lie about Trudeau apparently opposing mandatory minimum sentences for violent murderers, and Trudeau repeated his answer in English. Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc, to get back to his usual complaints about aluminium under the New NAFTA, and Trudeau gave his usual assurances that there are new content guarantees that don’t exist currently. Blanchet threatened to vote against the Ways and Means motion on the treaty, and Trudeau listed the good things about the agreement. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and he worried about evacuating Canadians from China — something that was addressed in a press conference moments before QP began. Trudeau read a statement about their concern, and that they were working to assist the 160 Canadians who had contacted them. Singh then raised that MasterCard contract instead of giving that money to pharmacare, and Trudeau stood up to correct him as to the actions they have taken to make prescription drugs more affordable.
Roundup: Coronavirus case in Canada
We can expect a bunch of questions around the first two suspected cases of coronavirus being treated in Toronto when the Commons returns for Question Period tomorrow, and it’s a question of how much we’ll see any kind of politicking being played around it. The line is that we’re not expecting an outbreak in the country – but we’re already at a situation where the suspected case was symptomatic on a flight so that means tracking down the other passengers.
Statement from Patty Hajdu over the presumptive case of coronavirus. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/oVH7JeEOb7
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 26, 2020
1/3 The #GoC is working closely with provincial, territorial and international partners such as the @WHO to ensure our country is prepared to detect and quickly prevent the spread of the #2019nCoV #coronavirus in Canada. Canada is ready. For updates: https://t.co/Ch0n0sRqt7
— Canada's CPHO (@CPHO_Canada) January 26, 2020
3/3 Measures are in place at #YUL (VAN), #YYZ (TOR) and #YUL (MTL) intl airports, reminding travelers to inform @CanBorder officers if they have flu-like symptoms. Additional health screening questions on electric kiosks are in place for international travelers.
— Canada's CPHO (@CPHO_Canada) January 26, 2020
Over the past week, we’ve seen a lot of interviews with former officials, political or bureaucratic, who dealt with SARS and MERS, and they insist that lessons have been learned in Canada, even though we don’t know how this coronavirus will compare. That said, the Ontario government already slashed Toronto Public Health’s funding, so that just may come around to bite them in the ass.
Amidst this, Matt Gurney is decidedly more pessimistic about the preparations and says that the facts we know around this suspected case mean that the system didn’t work, and that’s going to be a problem going forward. He has a point, but we’ll have to see how the response changes in the days ahead.
Roundup: It’s Cabinet Shuffle Day!
We are now well into Cabinet leak territory, and right now the news is that Chrystia Freeland will indeed be moving – but we don’t know where. We do know that François-Philippe Champagne will replace her at Foreign Affairs, that Pablo Rodriguez will be the new Government House Leader (after we already heard that Steven Guilbeault will take over Canadian Heritage), plus Seamus O’Regan moving to Natural Resources, that Jonathan Wilkinson is taking over Environment and Catherine McKenna will take over Infrastructure. We’re also hearing from Quebec media that Jean-Yves Duclos will take over Treasury Board, and that Mélanie Joly is due for a promotion – but no hint as to what it means otherwise. Still no word on Public Safety, which is a huge portfolio that will need a very skilled hand to deal with in the absence of Ralph Goodale.
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1196922355181924352
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1196922357073489920
https://twitter.com/JenniferRobson8/status/1196959319994056705
Meanwhile, some of the other roles that Trudeau needs to decide who are not in Cabinet will include the whip, parliamentary secretaries, and considerations for committee chairs (though he won’t have the final say on those as they are ostensibly elected by the committees themselves, and it’s the whips who largely determine who will sit on which committee). Committees are especially important in a hung parliament, so this could mean big roles for those who didn’t make it into Cabinet.
Roundup: Warnings, theatre, and lunacy
Justin Trudeau began his day in Fredericton, New Brunswick, and after the usual warnings to those who are thinking of voting NDP and Green about a Conservative government, promised that if re-elected he would ensure that the province’s sole private abortion clinic would remain open by way of applying the Canada Health Act (though he didn’t specify how), before spending the day stopping in various communities on the way to Halifax, where he ended the day.
Andrew Scheer began his day in Quebec City where he promised to hold a first ministers’ meeting on January 6thwhere he would totally solve the intractable problem of interprovincial trade barriers…apparently through sheer force of his personality. (I previously wrote about this sort of cheap theatre here). He then toured a few other Quebec communities, finishing his day in La Prairie.
Jagmeet Singh began his day in Toronto, where he claimed that abolishing the Senate would somehow better represent Canadians, which is so much horseshit that I can barely breathe. Aside from the fact that it would require a constitutional amendment with the unanimous support of the provinces – something PEI and the rest of Atlantic Canada would not countenance as the Senate was one of the conditions by which they joined Confederation, but it would cut their representation in half, and the whole counter-balancing effect that the Senate’s structure has against the representation-by-population nature of the Commons would be out the window. It’s the most ignorant statement Singh could possibly make, but hey, applause lines.
Roundup: Hypothetical subways and more traffic
It was a quieter day, post-debate, but the leaders were all back on the road, mindful that there is still another debate later in the week. Andrew Scheer in Markham to promise funds for two Toronto subway projects – while lying about the Liberal record on said funding (the funds haven’t been released because there isn’t an actual plan for those lines yet) – and to further promise that he would fund any infrastructure project designed to ease congestion. Erm, except that this is a promise to induce demand because all of the data show that if you build more traffic infrastructure, that traffic just grows to fill it. It doesn’t actually relieve congestion – it just contributes to making it worse.
Jagmeet Singh was in Toronto to talk student loans, and when pressed about Bill 21 by the media, he said that if it made it to the Supreme Court of Canada that the federal government would “have to” take a look at it then – which isn’t really true, and they could put arguments forward at any court case along the way. This makes Singh’s position to basically punt the problem down the road for a few years, for apparently little electoral gain.
Justin Trudeau, meanwhile, went to Iqaluit in Nunavut, where he spoke about the North being on the “front lines” of climate change, and to meet with elders in that community. It also lets Trudeau make the claim that he’s the only leader to have visited the North during the campaign, for a few hours in any case.
Roundup: Duelling policies degenerating to stupidity
It was a day when the competing pledges went a bit…dumb, as the two main parties put out competing policies on the same issue, this time being energy efficiency home renovations. Andrew Scheer was out first in Jonquiere, Quebec, where he fleshed out the previously promised tax credit for said renovations. As a way of reducing GHGs, there is very little bang to be had for the bucks being expended on it, and when pressed by a CBC reporter, Scheer couldn’t give any answers in terms of megatonnes of carbon emissions reductions that need to happen for the Paris targets to be reached (which he still mouths that he’s interested in). Add in the fact that he’s promising to cut the HST on home heating is a signal for people to use more fuel (prices are incentives, remember), so the tax credit pays for people to cut back, which makes no economic sense. (But this is a right-flavoured populist party, so don’t expect market solutions any longer). Above all, the plan is simply to let people who are wealthy enough to own houses and pay for the renovations simply add value to said homes at the taxpayer’s expense, which puts a lie to the narratives about “affordability.”
And of course, the incentive to retrofit are even stronger w/ a carbon tax. But Tories won’t charge that, either.
Rather than adjust prices to reflect cost of carbon and let people choose for themselves how best to cut emissions, Tories subsidize particular choices … https://t.co/JJrCbCSkvD
— Andrew Coyne 🇺🇦🇮🇱🇬🇪🇲🇩 (@acoyne) September 25, 2019
Shortly thereafter, Justin Trudeau was in Port Coquitlam, BC, to showcase their green energy retrofit programme, which involves interest-free loans, free energy audits, cash incentives and grants, and would also be eligible for renters and landlords as opposed to just landlords. One of the more expensive elements of Trudeau’s pledge was for national flood insurance and enhanced EI benefits for natural disasters, which he says still need to be devised – but flood insurance is going to be costly. The Conservatives then attacked this plan by saying that people can’t necessarily afford the loans…but their plan requires people to pay for the renovations up front in order to get the tax credit, so it makes no sense. It’s starting to feel like we’re living through the stupidest election yet.
This attack doesn’t make sense. The Conservative plan also requires people to pay upfront for renovations that they’ll get a tax credit on.
This is the stupidest election. #Elxn43 pic.twitter.com/piEjzsaLnC— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) September 25, 2019
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1177041128991932417
Jagmeet Singh was in Burnaby to promise that he would bolster the RCMP’s efforts to combat money laundering as a way to make housing more affordable, particularly in British Columbia, plus a 15 percent foreign buyer’s tax on properties.
Roundup: Flashbacks about prorogation
It was a day of flashbacks to 2008, as Boris Johnson asked the Queen to prorogue the Parliament in Westminster, and social media had erupted with cries of “coups,” “dictatorships,” and wannabe constitutional scholars ignoring nearly two centuries of Responsible Government as they tried to implicate the Queen in granting Johnson’s request. Of course, there are some fundamental differences between now and the 2008 prorogation, such as the fact that there will still be a “washing up period” of a few days, as is traditional with UK prorogations, and time where the opposition can still try to move some kind of motion to try and stop a no-deal Brexit, though I’m not sure what mechanism they would use. A private member’s motion would be non-binding (and would carry only the symbolic weight of the Chamber), while a private members’ bill would try to impose some kind of negative obligation on the government – even if it could be sped through in those final days – and if there is no no-deal option on the table, it would then impose the necessity to have some kind of deal, which the Commons has already rejected. There is also the option of moving a non-confidence motion in those remaining days, which could topple Johnson’s government, ostensibly. The prorogation is also for a couple of weeks, and will return Parliament by October 14th, which still leaves it time to do something about Brexit before the October 31stdeadline. Johnson’s move may be dubious – and a dick move – but it could have been much worse. It’s not a coup. It’s not demolishing democracy. And it’s not eliminating parliament as an obstacle to Johnson – in fact, it may have only made it worse, as the move signals his desperation.
Having so many flashbacks to 2008 today… pic.twitter.com/vR1kbbTOsz
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) August 28, 2019
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166695661108105216
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166717156140244992
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166680410392289280
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166683151588057089
All of this being said, we need to also remember that some of the received wisdom of the 2008 prorogation crisis needs to be challenged. For example, people keep insisting that Michaëlle Jean was wrong to grant Harper the prorogation (ignoring that if she refused the advice of her prime minister, he would have been obligated to resign, which would have created a whole other constitutional crisis), that an opposition coalition would have been able to take over. The problem is that said coalition was never really viable, and pretty much everyone knew it. And this was proven correct by the fact that it did not survive the prorogation period. Had it done so, had they banded together and moved a motion of non-confidence, then formed a coalition, then sure, it would have proven that it was viable, and it would have reinforced that the system was working (as it did in when Sir John A Macdonald did not survive a prorogation to avoid a confidence vote around the Pacific Scandal). But the coalition fell apart, proving that Jean was right to simply grant the prorogation – making Harper stew about it for a few hours – and doing her job in acting on the advice of a first minister. But you’re going to hear a rehash of the coalition fanfic of the day, and we need to remember that it was only that – fiction.
Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt offers her thoughts on the prorogation, the disconnect between parliaments and the outside world, and the idle speculation about whether Stephen Harper’s 2008 prorogation may have inspired Johnson.
Roundup: Bashing a fictional plan
In the days ahead, you are likely to hear federal Conservatives start echoing Jason Kenney’s current justification for killing the province’s carbon price based on a report by the Fraser Institute. The problem? Well, the modelling that they used is based on a work of fiction, and not the plan that was actually implemented, and since the federal carbon price is closely based on the Alberta model, they will have roughly similar effects. But hey, why fight with facts when you can use fiction and straw men?
The report doesn't examine Trudeau's GHG policy, but a policy they made up. If Fraser used the same tools to analyse your TIER program, they'd get similar results since they don't assess the impact of credit allocation. You'd hate it if that shoe was on your foot, Premier. https://t.co/ecmFRgYRWN
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) August 24, 2019
I'm beginning to think that Alberta's Premier is not all that concerned about making sure all statements about Alberta's oil sands are accurate. I'm not even sure he's concerned about making sure his own statements about them are accurate. #ableg
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) August 24, 2019
Hey, look at what else the report said. Oh, and they didn't actually model Trudeau's carbon policy, but you know that and choose to spread falsehood anyway, Premier. pic.twitter.com/ByMpubZv7u
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) August 24, 2019
Also, you might consider that yelling loudly about foreign-funded entities making false statements and influencing our elections and also tweeting out false analysis from foreign-funded entities seeking to influence our election might strike some as hypocritical. #AbLeg #cdnpoli
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) August 24, 2019
And for the record, here is the EcoFiscal commission explaining how the Fraser Institute got it all wrong.
Quick background: Canada’s carbon pricing system has 2 parts: a fuel levy and an “output-based pricing system” (OBPS) for large emitters. An OBPS is a way to price carbon in sectors where a full carbon tax would cause production & emissions to shift to other jurisdictions. (2/10)
— Ecofiscal Commission (@EcofiscalCanada) August 22, 2019
The report’s analysis omits the fact that Canada is using an OBPS for this precise reason: to address competitiveness concerns. The modelling assumes the full $50/tonne price applies to large industrial emitters. This is not how the policy is actually designed. (4/10)
— Ecofiscal Commission (@EcofiscalCanada) August 22, 2019
In addition to modelling a policy that does not exist, the report relies on I/O tables instead of a CGE model and only examines short-run effects. This fails to capture behaviour & investment changes in response to policy. As a result, it significantly overestimates costs. (6/10)
— Ecofiscal Commission (@EcofiscalCanada) August 22, 2019
It seems to imply that treating firms differently based on emissions intensity is a bug rather than a feature. This design choice is deliberate. It rewards the best performers while providing all firms with an incentive to improve. (8/10)
— Ecofiscal Commission (@EcofiscalCanada) August 22, 2019
Output-based pricing is a way to price emissions from industrial sectors while other jurisdictions catch up on climate policy. The Fraser Institute’s analysis acts as if it simply doesn’t exist. (10/10)
— Ecofiscal Commission (@EcofiscalCanada) August 22, 2019
Roundup: Cuts and capacity
Andrew Scheer made a defensive manoeuvre yesterday by sending letters to each of the premiers promising that he wouldn’t cut health or social transfers if he formed government – his way of heading off attacks from Justin Trudeau that are trying to paint Scheer with the same brush as Doug Ford, as Ford continues to make ill-considered cuts across Ontario without regard for logic or reason (while, oddly enough, his government’s spending continues to increase). There is an added bit of significance to this in that Ford has spent the past year trying to sell the message that Ontario’s books are such a basket case that the province is in the road to bankruptcy – which is a complete and total fabrication. While yes, Ontario does have a high debt-to-GDP ratio, we also have to remember that the previous government was borrowing money where interest rates are below the rate of inflation – essentially they are getting free money that they could use to invest in the province.
Enter Kevin Carmichael at the Financial Post, who wrote a must-read contemplation of the state of the federal books yesterday. It’s an adult conversation about the actual state of our finances – contrary to Scheer, our books are in great shape and the deficit is miniscule, and contrary to Trudeau and Bill Morneau, the deficits are coming in smaller than projected and growth is greater than projected and with no new increases in spending, we could be back in surplus before the 2023 election (thought that is always this government’s problem). And with that in mind, he poses the question – do we need to sock away surpluses in anticipation of a future recession even though we already have the capacity to deal with it, or do we spend our current capacity on something that would have lasting changes for our economy, like national childcare? It’s the kind of grown-up conversation that we should be having, but we’re not as parties snipe at one another over who is more “divisive.”
Right. But unless you raise taxes or cut many billions of current spending, you couldn't both return to surplus (recession reserve) and pay the upfront cost of a national childcare program in the short term. https://t.co/Oscp1RA9Ob
— Kevin Carmichael (@CarmichaelKevin) August 1, 2019
Definitely. But you can't cover the upfront cost of a national daycare program AND balance the budget in the short term, unless you raise taxes or cut current spending, which neither of the two main parties appear willing to do. https://t.co/UWtBK3piqV
— Kevin Carmichael (@CarmichaelKevin) August 1, 2019
I agree with @CarmichaelKevin that investing a quality child care system is just about the best long-term fiscal planning decision government can make. It reliably boosts growth, boosts revenues, and tackles a central equity problem. https://t.co/5lVtoaTrRT
— Rob Gillezeau (@robgillezeau) August 1, 2019
My only caveat re: the fiscal story in the article is that a Martin sized, $1B / year plan isn't enough to put us on a path to a national system even if it were income tested. The feds would need to put more on the table and certainly could afford to.
— Rob Gillezeau (@robgillezeau) August 1, 2019
A second caveat: while spaces certainly matter, a federal plan like those in Quebec and BC also should concern itself with affordability.
— Rob Gillezeau (@robgillezeau) August 1, 2019
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1157119930434609153