Tag Archives: Brian Pallister

Roundup: Hot and Bothered for Basic Income

Posted on by

The idea of a Basic Income has been a hobby-horse of parliamentarians for a while, and yesterday the Parliamentary Budget Officer came out with a report that purported to cost one out in a couple of different scenarios. But it’s a bit of a horror show of a report because what it’s actually describing is a cash transfer and not an actual Basic Income scheme, and more than that, some of the things it purports to strip in order to pay for its high price tag are a number of disability supports. Remember that while a Basic Income may sound like a left-wing idea, there is plenty of right-wing support for it if it dismantles the welfare state, where replacing tailored disability programmes with a one-size-fits-all cash transfer is a feature and not a bug. (More from economist Mike Moffatt here).

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280537746881212422

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1280630991661535238

Suffice to say, this report got some senators all hot and bothered, including Senator Yuen Pau Woo, who put out a press release on the topic, calling for a pilot project, so here’s Lindsay Tedds, who worked on BC’s Basic Income project for the last two years, and who knows a thing or two about Basic Income.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280562781142388736

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280643403349291008

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280623432766353408

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280623434410496003

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280624155994361856

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280628328622219265

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pallister makes a gamble

Posted on by

Manitoba premier Brian Pallister announced yesterday that he was going to implement a carbon price after all – sort of. In a dare to the federal government, Pallister says he’ll stick with his originally planned $25/tonne price, and not raise it like he’s supposed with the rest of the country, but he would also reduce the province’s PST to compensate. Revenue neutrality can be a very good thing, but the point of having a common carbon price across the country is to have a level playing field so that provinces don’t undercut one another – which Pallister frequently ignores as he instead battles straw men about the efficacy of the province’s environmental plans (many of those mentioned having nothing to do with reducing GHGs).

While Pallister is confident that the Supreme Court of Canada will rule against the federal government on the upcoming carbon price challenges – which is a pretty risky gable to take – he’s daring the federal government to do what they said they would, which is to continue making up the federal carbon price with a separate carbon levy on top of the provincial one, which would continue to be rebated to taxpayers by the CRA. None of this makes much sense as a strategy other than the fact that it lets him proclaim that he’s lowered the PST in order to get the plaudits for that.

Meanwhile, here’s Dylan Robertson with some additional context:

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cutting through Pallister’s bluster

Posted on by

With the Cabinet meeting in Winnipeg, Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland took an opportunity to meet with premier Brian Pallister yesterday, and boy howdy, was his tone in interviews afterward a hugely problematic mess. Pallister kept insisting that the province wasn’t getting the “respect” they deserved for their environmental plans, while ignoring the legitimate concerns that the federal government has – to the point where he was deliberately obscuring the actual issues at play.

One of the main issues in contention is the federal carbon price, which Pallister has famously waffled on (to the point where Paul Wells has referred to him as “Canada’s tallest weather vane”) – first he was going to implement one, then got huffy and stopped the plans because he didn’t want to increase it every year as is the plan, and because he saw momentum with other conservative premiers in challenging it in the courts. With those challenges coming down squarely in the federal government’s favour, Pallister is again floating the idea of implementing it, but doesn’t want it to increase, saying that a low price will let them meet their Paris targets. The problem, of course, is that there needs to be a common carbon price across the country so that provinces don’t undercut one another, which Pallister (and others) continue to ignore, as though the fact is a triviality when it’s the crux of the whole issue. All the while, Pallister is swearing up and down that he’s not asking for a special deal, when he is in fact demanding just that. I’m not sure how else you would describe being exempted from increasing the carbon price in line with the rest of the country as anything other than a special deal.

Add to that, Pallister is demanding a cookie for past emissions reductions when there is a hell of a long way for the country to go to meet our current targets. Ontario is trying this tactic as well, when the Ford government has completely derailed the province’s planned reductions, and insisting that you’ve already done your bit just puts even more pressure on Alberta and Saskatchewan, which I’m not sure Kenney and Moe would appreciate terribly. Pallister was also on TV grousing that he’s not getting credit for exporting cleaner electricity to Saskatchewan and the United States, which is funny because the reward for that is money, which presumably they are earning for doing so. Suffice to say, all of Pallister’s excuses are amounting to a pile of bullshit, and it would be great if our media brethren could do better at calling him out on it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Big numbers for hate clicks

Posted on by

I’m not a big fan of pieces that construct data in a way to give the worst possible reading, with the intention of making readers angry, because it’s not only bad journalism but it’s irresponsible because our job should be about providing context – not weaponizing it for hate-clicks. And yet, here is a shoddy piece from the National Post designed entirely for the purpose of stoking the fires of the supposed anger in Western Canada right now, by producing a piece which purports to show how Alberta is basically funding Quebec. Oh, they’ll say – this is all Statistics Canada data! But as with any statistical data, it is dependent upon how it is contextualized and presented, and in this case, it’s in terms of “net fiscal transfers” without breaking out what that entails, nor does it actually explain equalization in any way. The most nuanced the piece gets is citing economist Trevor Tombe who reminds people that Albertans pay more in taxes because they have the highest incomes in the country – but it doesn’t then explain that those taxes go to federal general revenues, which then get distributed in programs, which can include equalization. There is no talk about equalization being about the fiscal capacity of a province and ensuring that they can have an equal level of service compared to other provinces, and how that is impacted by their provincial tax rates, or the fact that Alberta has chosen to keep its provincial taxes artificially low and making up the shortfalls with the revenues from their non-renewable resources. The favourite figure is how much Quebec gets in equalization payments, ignoring that on a per capita share, Quebec’s equalization is actually below most other provinces. These are all figures and context that matters – simply throwing big figures around is only designed to make people angry. It’s shite journalism, and yet here we are, yet again.

And speaking of fiscal transfers, here’s a look at how the $1.6 billion that the federal government has been using to bail out Alberta after their last oil crash has nearly fully been paid out, while the province keeps insisting that Ottawa has been “indifferent” to their situation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Making demands with a smile

Posted on by

Manitoba premier Brian Pallister was in Ottawa yesterday to meet with prime minister Justin Trudeau, and to try and offer some “friendly advice” about dealing with the whole “Western anger” situation. Pallister also penned an op-ed for the Globe and Mail that was full of said “advice,” most of which was pretty dubious, but in the aftermath of his meeting, he said a bunch of things like the country can unite around climate action if they set their partisan differences aside – in other words, if the federal government abandons their plans and just lets the provinces do whatever, adding that a carbon price “isn’t the only way” to fight climate change – technically true, but it’s proven the most effective mechanism and the only one which deals with the demand-side of the problem. (In subsequent interviews, Pallister also ignored that the point of the national price is to avoid provinces from undercutting one another, which you would think might be a big deal). Pallister also made some hand-waving gestures around a municipal handgun ban given the province’s problem with violent crime, but that’s already being panned locally.

But back to Pallister’s op-ed, which was largely an exercise in blame-shifting and simple fiction. He blames the divisions on the federal government’s “economic, energy and environmental policies,” which is curious and convenient. Those policies? Bill C-69, which he blames for delays in a Manitoba flood mitigation project for which the new regime doesn’t apply. That project has been under the Harper 2012 assessment regime, which should be a clue as to why the federal government saw the need to make changes to it – not that it stops Pallister from repeating a bunch of the fictions that have been applied to the legislation by its opponents. He also counsels finishing the Trans Mountain pipeline, which is what the federal government is in the process of doing. Pipe is going in the ground. People beating their chests about it won’t make the process go any faster.

Pallister then goes on to complain about interprovincial trade barriers which is – wait for it – entirely in the hands of the provinces and not the federal government to lower. He makes mention of 34 exceptions which the federal government controls, but that’s 34 out of hundreds, and this government has set up a process to work with provinces to harmonize regulations that create barriers. They have been doing the heavy-lifting – more than the Harper government did – but it’s gone completely unacknowledged. That Pallister is shifting blame to the federal government is pretty rich when it’s the provinces who are the problem. His final “advice” for unity? Giving the provinces more money for healthcare. I’m not sure what that has to do with national unity or “healing the divisions,” but there you have it. It’s pretty clear that like Jason Kenney and Scott Moe, Pallister is trying to use the focus on this “anger” to try and leverage it to what he wants, and he won’t let the truth be a barrier for him. Just because he delivers the message with a smile doesn’t make the “advice” friendly.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cheap outrage over MPs’ spouses

Posted on by

Long-time readers will know that one of my pet peeves is the propensity for my media colleagues to push cheap outrage stories, to trigger the hairshirt parsimony and tall poppy syndrome of the Canadian public, and lo, they did it again with the screaming headline that taxpayers footed the bill for $4.5 million in MP spousal travel over four years. Which is actually not a lot, particularly when you consider that we’re a big country, and that airfare is expensive here because of our duopolistic air carriers and lack of population density.

Of course, when I tweeted this out, I had all kinds of people yelling at me that Bill Morneau’s millionaire wife shouldn’t be eligible for sponsored spousal travel. The problem with this kind of qualifier is that it when you start qualifying who is and isn’t eligible for the benefits based on personal circumstances, you start running into the mentality that plagued the UK for centuries – that MPs were poorly compensated and essentially needed to be independently wealthy before they stood for office. We’ve seen enough people suggest that the Canadian Senate be run this way, with the ludicrous suggestion that it be a volunteer position. I would also add that the divorce rate for MPs is several times above the national average – if we start begrudging their ability to travel with their spouses to Ottawa and back, particularly if the distances are fairly large ones – we’d see even more divorces, or a pervasive belief that people with families shouldn’t run for office. I’m not sure who that would benefit.

Throughout this bit of cheap outrage, Jody Wilson-Raybould’s spousal flights were singled out in a separate piece about cabinet ministers and their spouses’ travel costs. That a Vancouver MP’s costs would be higher should be no surprise, and it could very well be that they are higher because they may have been booked last-minute rather than in advance (given that they are simply treated by the MP and their spouse as points rather than being given a dollar figure as their expenses limit). Suffice to say, these kinds of stories are pretty gross when you stop and think about it, and the performative outrage over taxpayer dollars that are packaged in a way to look big and without sufficient context is one of the biggest problems we have in Canadian politics, and why we make the lives of our MPs so miserable.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A plan to run again

Posted on by

In her first media remarks since her testimony to the justice committee last week, Jody Wilson-Raybould told her local newspaper that she feels “overwhelmed and grateful” for the response from thousands of Canadians over the past week, and that she fully intends to run again for the Liberals in the fall. Mind you, people keep asking Trudeau if he’ll let her stay in caucus, and he says he’s still thinking about it, but Wilson-Raybould did secure her nomination last year. Granted, things have changed in the time since, and her riding association may feel differently about her now than they did then, which is certainly one danger from holding nominations too soon. This said, it’s a bit of a dilemma for Trudeau, who likely feels pressure from MPs who feel betrayed by her – though, as John Geddes discusses in this examination of the situation, it has been remarkably free of acrimony compared to previous examples of exits. Trudeau likely also feels the need to appear magnanimous and that there is room for dissent in the Liberal party. Of course, there was already one columnist who said over the weekend that if Trudeau lets her stay in, he appears weak – because why bother having a whip that enforces caucus discipline when you have the media to do it for you? Cripes.

Meanwhile, David Lametti says there may be contexts where it may be appropriate for a government to interfere in a criminal prosecution, but because it’s a TV interview, he didn’t explore that further, and that will likely be spun completely. It’s also being noted in Halifax that Lametti ordered a new trial for a Halifax man who was found to be falsely convicted for a murder he didn’t commit, but that Wilson-Raybould sat on the recommendation for a new trial for a year-and-a-half, whereas Lametti ordered the retrial within a month-and-a-half (and that re-trial lasted five minutes because the Crown had no evidence to offer).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Independence and intense discussions

Posted on by

As we’re still discussing the SNC-Lavalin/Jody Wilson-Raybould issue, we’ll start off with an interview with the Director of Public Prosecutions on her independence from political pressure, and why she opted not to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement with SNC-Lavalin, as well as why their quest for judicial review is foolhardy. Elsewhere, “senior officials” say that intense discussions with Wilson-Raybould on the SNC-Lavalin issue did take place, but that there’s nothing wrong with that. David Lametti took to television to say that he doesn’t see any evidence to warrant the justice committee’s investigation, but it’s up to them to decide. It also sounds like the Liberals on the justice committee are going to turn down the motion to launch an investigation, so expect more howling about this over the week to come.

While we wait for the committee, Andrew Scheer has written to the PM to demand that he waive solicitor-client privilege with Wilson-Raybould, under the ham-handed threat that failure to do so means that he has something to hide. Scheer, it has also been noted, also met with SNC-Lavalin lobbyists on their criminal charge issues and deferred prosecution agreements, but Scheer won’t say what his positions on them are.

Amidst this, there are a few more anonymous Liberal voices grousing about Wilson-Raybould in the media now, saying that she was more about herself than the team, and that she only ever showed up to Indigenous caucus once.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1094736733609095168

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1094738844275097600

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1094750943793442816

Meanwhile, University of Ottawa law professor Craig Forcese walks through the public law principles at stake, and the fact that we don’t really know just what is being implied because the terms used interchangeably in the original Globe story all mean different things, which makes the nuance of this situation inherently tricky. Keeping Forcese’s analysis in mind, Susan Delacourt hears from her “senior officials” that the PM still has confidence in Wilson-Raybould and that he plans to meet with her before the next Cabinet meeting, and they continue to dispute the account in the Globe and Mail, citing that if they had attempted undue influence that she would have resigned out of principle, and she did not.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Carbon tax opportunism

Posted on by

The latest round of carbon tax drama has the Conservatives drunk with glee, as Manitoba premier Brian Pallister’s decision to scrap his own carbon tax plans has them thinking that they now have a national momentum against carbon taxes. It’s not likely to be that simple – and they may find out that it may blow up in their faces. Pallister says he changed his mind about it after meeting with Trudeau, and found Trudeau intransigent on letting Manitoba keep their tax at a flat $25/tonne when everyone’s else was ramping up to $50/tonne, which sounds like a no-brainer – you want a consistent carbon price across the country to prevent leakage and to keep a level playing field. (Pallister also claims that their plan was so comprehensive, but in interviews would point to things like remediating mines and recycling programmes, which are not about addressing climate change, and his deliberate misinformation should be called out as such). But it also smacks of opportunism, given that small-c conservatives across the country are taking the election of Doug Ford in Ontario as some sign that there is an uprising against carbon taxes when that was very likely not the cause of his election, but rather it was the impetus for change from the province’s tired Liberal government. Overreading Ford’s “mandate,” if we’re going to use that word, is dangerous for them to do. Meanwhile, Ford was yukking it up with Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe in their insulting the federal carbon tax, each believing their mutual court challenges are going to go somewhere (they’re likely not), and Ford would say things like a carbon tax is the worst thing in the world and will do nothing for the environment – complete falsehoods, and all he has to do is look at BC to show the complete opposite.

The federal government, meanwhile, hasn’t been terribly eloquent in their response, on the one hand decrying Pallister’s “flip flop” and worrying that conservatives want pollution to be free, while also pointing out that when the federal backstop comes in, people will be getting cheques in the mail. And that’s going to be the Achilles heel of the federal Conservatives’ belief that the country is going to rise up against carbon taxes. They keep pushing the narrative that it’s a tax grab to feed the Liberals’ “out of control spending” when it’s in the enabling legislation for the carbon tax that the funds will be rebated. But the government hasn’t been eloquent – and has been barely competent – when it comes to any kind of messaging on this file, and that’s the part that will probably hurt them the most, and it’ll be a self-inflicted wound, which makes you just shake your head watching it all go down.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Extreme multiculturalism

Posted on by

The fallout to Maxime Bernier’s latest Twitter missive on multiculturalism was more muted than one might have expected – no actual condemnation from Andrew Scheer, just a bland statement from his office that didn’t address Bernier’s words at all. And Erin O’Toole offered his own response which was basically just a reiteration that the various conservative parties in Canada’s history have had ethno-cultural firsts as a way of proving that they’re not all bigots or racists, but it missed the point that there was nevertheless a certain amount of tokenism in those firsts – that yes, they’ve got one of these different groups, but one is enough, thanks, and don’t talk to us about systemic barriers or discrimination. After all, these singular examples pulled up their bootstraps and made it – why can’t everyone else?

Bernier himself got huffy that he was described as saying he was against diversity – he insists he’s okay with some diversity, but not “extreme multiculturalism,” which is odd, because it’s like he missed the whole point of multiculturalism, which is about finding an effective way of integrating newcomers rather than alienating them further into ghettos. The fact that he doesn’t get that just adds fuel to the notion that this is all about winking to xenophobes and white nationalists, never mind the fact that it’s a nonsense proposition that there’s a Goldilocks zone of not too little, not too much, but just enough diversity that will magically keep Canada from disintegrating into some kind of ethnic hellhole. Never mind that the concern trolling about Liberal “identity politics” ignores the fact that in order to address systemic barriers facing women, sexual minorities, and people of colour, you actually to address what those barriers are, which is not about balkanizing – as Bernier seems to think.

Meanwhile, not every Conservative seems to be keen on Bernier’s pronouncements, but they seem concerned about how much influence he has among the base (somewhat mystifyingly). And with a convention coming up, we’ll see if these tensions spill out into the open.

Continue reading →