With just a couple of QP session left in the year, all of the leaders were present today, interim or otherwise. Rona Ambrose led off, worrying that the prime minster was bragging about being the target of illegal lobbying — which was not what he said, but whatever. Trudeau said that wherever he is, he talks about growth for the middle class and all of those wonderful things. Ambrose wondered when money became more than ethics. Trudeau insisted that he has the same message everywhere he goes, about taxing the one percent more to cut taxes for the middle class. Ambrose asked the same again, got the same answer, and then she worried that his true priority was fundraisers and that he’s left the impression that he can be bought. Trudeau reiterated that they raised taxes on the wealthiest to cut taxes for the middle class. Ambrose accused the Trudeau Foundation of laundering influence to the PM, and demanded that he tell them to stop accepting foreign donations. Trudeau assured her that he severed his connections shortly after he became party leader and they advance the cause of the humanities in a non-partisan manner. Thomas Mulcair was up next, also concern trolling about fundraising, and Trudeau repeated his same points about their priorities. Mulcair demanded support for the NDP bill to “give teeth” to ethics rules, but Trudeau repeated his same points. Mulcair moved onto marijuana legalisation and demanded immediate decriminalisation. Trudeau reminded him that their objectives were to keep it out of the hands of children and the profits from the hands of organised crime, and that until the law was changed, it stands. Mulcair pivoted again to the situation of Stelco workers, and Trudeau said that they were engaged in the challenge.
Tag Archives: Energy East
QP: Carbon tax woes
While Rona Ambrose was still away, we had both the PM and NDP “interim” leader Thomas Mulcair present for the day. Denis Lebel led off, decrying federal interference with the provinces with the imposition of their carbon tax. Trudeau insisted that they were working with the provinces to move ahead with tackling emissions. Lebel switched to English to ask again, and got much the same answer, with Trudeau making a few more digs about the previous government not being willing to work with provinces. Lebel went another round in French before Ed Fast took over to ask the same question yet again in English, concern trolling about the three provincial environment ministers who walked out of the meeting with federal ministers. Trudeau largely repeated his points about working with the provinces to create a strong economy and a clean environment. Fast read out condemnation from those ministers, and Trudeau ensured him that their plan would create jobs. Thomas Mulcair was up next, decrying the endorsement of “Stephen Harper’s targets,” and lamented the too-low carbon price. Trudeau replied with his established points about showing leadership in creating jobs and protecting the environment. Mulcair asked again in French, got the same answer, and then moved onto concerns about the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in the wake of the Environment Commissioner’s report, to which Trudeau said they would follow up on the recommendations. For his final question, Mulcair demanded that the government agree to the NDP motion on a committee on arms sales, but Trudeau did not agree, and pointed to their adopting the small arms treaty.
QP: Taking the provinces’ phone calls
While Justin Trudeau was not only present, having already participated in the debate of the day (a rarity for any PM these days), his leaders opposite were not. Rona Ambrose was off to the UK Conservative caucus in Birmingham, while Thomas Mulcair was elsewhere. Denis Lebel led off for the Conservatives, demanding a signed softwood lumber agreement before it was too late. Trudeau responded by reminding him that the previous government neglected the file while his government has been hard at work in negotiations. Lebel moved onto the healthcare transfers file, demanding the government respect provincial jurisdiction, but Trudeau shook it off, ensuring that they were working together. Lebel insisted that there was peace with the provinces when the Conservatives were in charge and why wouldn’t the federal government just let them be rather than meddle? Trudeau insisted that the provinces were much happier now that the federal government answered their phone calls. Ed Fast got up next to decry the “carbon tax grab” being shoved “down the throats” of Canadians. Trudeau hit back that the previous government ignored the file and made no progress, while his government was. Fast tried again, decrying it as an intrusion on provincial jurisdiction, but Trudeau reminded him that they were indeed respecting said jurisdiction. Robert Aubin led off for the NDP, lamenting the “Harper targets” for GHGs, and Trudeau noted that they had just tabled their plan, and soon all Canadians — not just 80 percent — would be in a carbon priced jurisdiction. Aubin went again another round, got the same answer, and Linda Duncan took over in English, decrying that the announced starting carbon price was too low to be effective. Trudeau noted they were simultaneously developing a strong economy while being environmentally sustainable. Duncan worried the government was abandoning the clean energy future, but Trudeau reiterated his answer a little more forcefully.
Jane Philpott takes exception to Lebel's characterisation of her handshake with her counterpart from Quebec as being "frosty." #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 3, 2016
Roundup: Sound the independent thought alarm
Every time I read these headlines, I sigh and shake my head a little, because here we go again. “Indigenous Liberal MP breaks ranks with government on BC’s Site C Dam” it reads. The MP is Robert-Falcon Ouellette, and by “breaking ranks,” he has questions for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans – who grants approvals for these kinds of things – and he plans to ask him in caucus next week. Oooh, someone had better sound the independent thought alarm!
It seems that most of my fellow journalists have forgotten that it’s the job of backbenchers – even those of the governing party – to hold the government (meaning cabinet) to account. They’re supposed to ask questions and to not just give them a pass. Ouellette is doing his job. But by sensationalizing it (which this headline clearly does), and portraying it as “breaking ranks” (which he’s not – there have been no votes that he’s gone off-side with) is both demeaning to his job, and it reinforces the notion that MPs are supposed to be drones parroting the lines of their leaders, which is absurd. Not only that, but We The Media nevertheless insist that MPs are supposed to do their jobs and represent their constituents and address issues and not just parrot talking points, and yet we call them out the moment that they do just that. Why? Seriously – why are we doing this? We’re actively being destructive to our democratic system when we pull this kind of nonsense. There are far better and more effective ways that this story could have been framed that don’t privilege party discipline (which again, not actually being broken here) and this notion that MPs must be in lockstep. It shouldn’t be that difficult to do. And yet here we are.
Honestly, we need to do better if we expect better democratic outcomes in this country. We are part of the problem, and we should stop being just that.
Roundup: Leitch the desperate, hollow shell
Apparently we’re still talking about Kellie Leitch and her “anti-Canadian values” screening, because why not? The Canadian Press kicked off the day by putting Leitch’s assertion that it would be akin to “asking some simple questions” to their Baloney Metre™, and lo and behold, the experts they spoke to pretty much laughed it out of the room, earning Leitch’s supposition a rare “full of baloney” rating. It seems that “a few simple questions” just teaches people how to lie to give the “right” answers, and that proper interviews with people trained to know whether people are lying is so prohibitively expensive that it’s never going to happen. So there’s that. Much later in the day, Jason Kenney decided to weigh in from Alberta, and pretty much eviscerated Leitch by saying that this position is a new one for her that she never articulated before in cabinet or caucus, and that she doesn’t understand the nuance around the issue. But then again, we’ve pretty much established that Leitch lacks any real semblance of emotional quotient or self-awareness, so her inability to grasp nuance should not be a surprise to anyone.
Meanwhile, Peter Loewen reminds us that we’re not as perfectly tolerant as we like to believe, and he has the data to prove it, which is why Leitch’s message will find a home in places. Scott Reid looks over the record of Leitch’s campaign manager, who helped Rob Ford get elected, and notes that by this point, Leitch is less of a candidate than a strategy in human form (which is kind of what Jason Kenney is hinting at when noting that this position is all new for Leitch). Paul Wells notes the low ceiling for the kind of rhetoric that Leitch is now taking on, and while he sees the strategic value in such a position, he also offers some ideas for better choices than Leitch. Tabatha Southey offers her particular acid take on the Leitch situation, and her insistence on digging so much that she is in danger of becoming a mole person. And of course, there’s the At Issue panel looking at Leitch as well.
Roundup: O’Toole a possibility
I’ve generally shied away from talking about these stories about perceived support for leadership candidates, particularly in the Conservative pool, but this one about the potential for Erin O’Toole stuck in my mind after I read it. I will fully admit that my initial reaction was “Erin O’Toole? Really? Why?” But it wouldn’t let go, and I thought about it more, and about O’Toole’s particular political trajectory. To a certain extent, he’s always been one who has been seen as a kind of saviour figure for the party – elected in a by-election to replace Bev Oda after she resigned in disgrace, O’Toole entered as someone who was going to start setting a new tone for the seat and the party. His credentials as a veteran and a lawyer were seen as impeccable and the kind of MP that the party not only wanted but needed as it had taken on the label of being a nasty party, and here was someone who was affable and a nice guy, and was a breath of fresh air for so many. When he made it into cabinet after some time as a parliamentary secretary, it was again in the role of someone who was there to fix things, this time taking over the Veterans Affairs portfolio after Julian Fantino had managed to earn the enmity of pretty much the entire veteran community across the country. (Then again, being a duotronic android will probably do that when you’re in a job that requires a great deal of empathy). O’Toole came in and immediately started to turn things around – well, as much as is possible in a department with a sclerotic culture (and I’ve heard things from some of the Liberals currently on that file about the way that the department runs and it’s a bit shocking).
So with this in mind, it’s actually not surprising that O’Toole would be considered a fairly reasonable choice for the Conservative leadership. He has some cred and some experience (but not so much that he’s carrying the legacy of the whole of the Harper years on his back), and his French is reputedly decent (but not bilingual, though he has some time yet to get it up there). And he’s avoided some of the missteps that dog certain other leadership candidates like Kellie Leitch, and his story is probably more compelling as a narrative than some of the others, nor is he a more marginal figure (like Michael Chong, who put himself on his party’s fringe by being reasonable more often than not). So it’s possible. We’ll have to see if he does throw his hat in the ring, and whether someone like Peter MacKay does throw his hat into the ring (though it’s starting to feel less likely the longer he waits, not to mention that I have a hard time understanding why he would be the frontrunner considering his own history). But if this is going to be a race without any big stars, then O’Toole may have a surprising resilience.
Roundup: Revisionist history mythologizing
The electoral reform committee was back yesterday and the “star” witness was former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, currently heading the institute that bears his name. If you’ve been out of the loop, Broadbent is an unabashed supporter of Proportional Representation, and figures that Mixed-Member Proportional is the cat’s pyjamas, and proceeded to regale the committee with any number of ludicrous statements about both the current system and the purported wonders of MMP, and then delivered this particular gem: that MMP would have spared the west the National Energy Programme in the 1980s.
I. Can’t. Even.
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/770351319471325185
The amount of mythologizing around the NEP in this country borders on psychosis. There was a time not so long ago that people also caterwauled that a Triple-E senate would also have prevented the NEP, with no actual proof that would be the case if you actually stopped to think about what would be involved in creating such an institution (particularly the imposition of party discipline because if you think you would be electing 105 independent senators, you’re even more delusional than the premise of the question belies). Most of these mythologies around the NEP forget that there was a history involved with global energy crises, broad support in the rest of the country, and that it was a global recession that happened around the same time that was largely responsible for the economic collapse that ensued as opposed to the NEP itself, but the two became conflated in the minds of most people. It didn’t happen in a vacuum or because Pierre Elliot Trudeau simply rubbed his hands and tried to come up with a diabolical plan to screw the West. For Broadbent to suddenly claim that a PR system would have ensured more regional voices at the table and common sense would have prevailed is simply revisionist history combined with the kind of unicorn logic that his preferred voting system would have been responsible only for the good things in history and never the bad. It’s egregious bullshit and needs to be called out as such.
Roundup: Ignoring accountability, again
Samara Canada, the country’s civic engagement organisation, put out a report over the weekend about electoral reform and what the various kinds of systems looked like. And it’s a decent enough report on its own, but what struck me was the fact that yet again, we get a report on electoral systems that ignores the biggest single point of discussion with any electoral system – accountability. While I tweeted this concern, the report author responded thusly:
exists for FPTP and AV, but not PR. That's the basis of the accountability mech you're describing. 2/2
— Stewart Prest (@StewartPrest) August 28, 2016
Also makes clear one party govt quite common in FPTP, which is the macro side.
— Stewart Prest (@StewartPrest) August 28, 2016
While the fact that two systems have a correlation between MPs and ridings, it doesn’t spell out the fact there are accountability mechanism, particularly around both nomination processes and in being able to punish an MP at the ballot box if necessary. Why this needs to be spelled out is because with Proportional Representation systems that have lists, the ability for voters to determine who is on that list is a big issue. Is it a slate? Then do you not vote for the slate for one or two bad names on that list? Is it an open list? How does that complicate the ballot process, particularly if you want to punish a bad MP? There is mention paid in the report to parties who want to put more women and visible minorities on their lists as a selling feature, but nothing about where those lists become problems when it comes to holding that party to account, or those MPs when it comes to re-election.
Similarly, one party government does not tell us anything about how we hold a government to account at election time, nor does it spell out the problems with holding governments to account when they are part of a coalition. The ability to punish a government at the ballot box is a feature of our current system, and this needs to be stated as such. Conversely, the fact that in many countries that use PR systems and have coalition governments, central parties can stay in power for decades by simply shuffling their coalition partners around periodically. This is not holding them to account, nor is it actually healthy for democracy if parties stay in power in perpetuity. They actually need to be out of power from time to time in order to refresh themselves, but this is not mentioned anywhere.
While I appreciate that the author had limited space to work in, accountability is a concept that needs to be stated explicitly and discussed in open terms rather than in vague mentions like he did here. As with the whole electoral reform committee process we’ve seen, so much attention is paid to fetishizing the ballot without actually ever mentioning accountability that it’s only having half the discussion. Accountability matters. Being able to punish at the ballot box is just as important – if not more so – than electing someone. Being able to throw the bums out is one of the biggest single features of our current system, and yet that gets mentioned almost nowhere over the course of these discussions. It’s ridiculous and wrong, and we need to talk about it openly and frankly if we’re to have a true and proper discussion about what’s at stake.
Roundup: Shirtless panic
Photos of our prime minister, shirtless and on vacation, continues to make people lose their minds. A week later, and it remains an item of discussion – or derision – and feeds this particular faux cynicism about media coverage, despite the fact that it clearly is not what is topping the headlines. The fact that other countries mention it triggers our inherent Canadian desire to go “Look! Other countries are talking about us!” and we report that, and suddenly it’s “all anyone can talk about” when clearly it’s not the case. And then come the lame attacks based on it, like the latest round of Conservative ads, where they accuse the media of focusing on Shirtless!Trudeau instead of the economy.
https://twitter.com/CPC_HQ/status/762742848445943808
https://twitter.com/CPC_HQ/status/762779942627053568
The problem with that narrative is that the economic news was clearly the headline for the days in which those numbers got released, but hey, so long as we can try and keep up this narrative that the PM is a selfie-obsessed pretty boy who’s too stupid to manage the economy, the more we think it’ll do something to bolster our own numbers (never mind that being effectively leaderless is not helping the poll numbers of either opposition party).
So with that in mind, here’s Jen Gerson telling everyone to relax about Shirtless!Trudeau because it’s August, we’re all on vacation anyway, and that this isn’t just about Trudeau but about the sea change in tone that has taken place in this country over the past year, and that people need to lighten up.
Roundup: Incentives and outcomes of electoral systems
After four days of electoral reform committee hearings, the general sense that we’ve come away with is that academics in favour of reform are in favour of their own particular models, and that’s really been about it. (Kady O’Malley’s latest liveblog here). The most discussion that seems to have come out about outcomes from different electoral systems has been largely that one professor said the research hasn’t shown that everything will be sunshine and rainbows if we adopt a new system as each system has their own problems, and a lot of back-and-forth about how other systems will magically result in more compromise and nicer politics will somehow come out of it in the end (against all logic or evidence).
It was with some surprise that I noted that Fraser Institute of all places probably had the most to contribute to the discussion this week with the release of an academic essay (which appears to be the chapter in a forthcoming volume) that actually tested some of the outcomes and incentives for different electoral systems against fiscal policies of countries. While I didn’t find the results all that surprising, others might – that systems that result in more parties and more coalitions tend to have public spending as a far higher percentage of GDP, and much bigger deficits than countries with plurality/majoritarian systems like ours currently.
The logic is fairly simple and the research in the essay proves it – that coalition governments tend to be higher-spending because they require buying off the various parties in said coalitions; higher spending means growth of the public sector, and or deficits. There was also some more serious discussion than I’ve seen all week about the incentives to create smaller parties in PR systems than in plurality/majoritarian systems, where the coalition is more internal to the party, because the need for a coalition gives small and single-issue parties greater power and leverage to make demands as a coalition partner, thus incentivising the creation of more parties. This is not an insignificant consideration when it comes to outcomes from different voting systems, and I hope that this particular essay gets some traction rather than just being shrugged off as yet another Fraser Institute report.