Tag Archives: François Legault

Roundup: Cutting the expected doses in half

Posted on by

It was another big day for vaccine news, starting with a technical briefing by federal public health officials that gave a bit more clarity on what is happening. Health Canada says we could see approval of the Pfizer vaccine within seven to ten days, while we also got some more information about the roll-out plan, including how the Pfizer and Moderna roll-outs are different, that they have concluded tabletop exercises and found gaps to plug, and that a dry run is scheduled for December 14th, after which they say they will be ready to start receiving vaccines, depending of course on approvals and availability from the manufacturer. But then came the bombshell – raw materials shortages are going to mean that Pfizer has had to cut their expected 2020 production by nearly half, which will mean fewer early vaccine doses to get to healthcare workers and the most vulnerable.

And then there are the provinces. In Quebec, François Legault had to say that his attempted “moral contract” for Christmas was off the table because cases won’t go down, but he also insisted that he wouldn’t have meaningfully done anything different in handling the pandemic, which is bananas. The continued climb of cases in Ontario means that we are likely facing more lockdowns before too long. In Manitoba, Brian Pallister gave a tearful speech about needing to cancel Christmas – but then also stated that it was “unfair” that early doses were being reserved for First Nations (who are especially vulnerable), which is mind-boggling. As for Alberta, where new cases keep breaking records, we got more details on the planned field hospitals (which are not really going just “contingency planning”), and in spite of yesterday’s insistence to the contrary, they are looking at possible military assistance to staff these field hospitals.

https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1334611584824446978

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1334561390640701441

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giving Legault the farm

Posted on by

Erin O’Toole paid a visit to Quebec premier François Legault yesterday, and immediately promised to give away the farm to Legault if he were to become prime minister – capitulating on Bill 21 and letting Legault expand it (in spite of the Conservatives insisting that they are all about religious freedom), signing over the language rights of federal industries in the province, and promising more provincial transfers with no strings attached, all in the name of “provincial autonomy.” At the same time, O’Toole danced around the question of pipelines, which Legault opposes and O’Toole is in favour of shoving down the throat of a province in spite of his talk of “autonomy,” so his record of policy incoherence continues unabated. (As an aside, it seems to me that giving Quebec everything it demands wouldn’t actually win O’Toole Bloc votes, but rather empower the Bloc to say that they were so effective that they got everything the demanded).

This exchange with Legault made some waves in Alberta, where the visions of Energy East continue to evade reality. So while Rachel Notley tries to score points against O’Toole, and her UCP opponents try to score their own points, here’s energy economist Andrew Leach calling out both sides on how wrong they are.

On the subject of Alberta’s oil patch, here is Leach laying out why the province over its past six premiers have engaged in a $26.4 billion boondoggle around building a refinery in the province and assuming all of the risk from their private sector partner, and will almost certainly wind up losing a hell of a lot of taxpayers’ money in the process. For everyone who insists that the province doesn’t subsidize the oil and gas sector, this is proof enough that such a claim is false, and it should enrage everyone in the province that their trust has been betrayed in such a way.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Possibly a criminal leak

Posted on by

The day got off to a very brow-raising start when someone – meaning almost certainly a minister’s office – leaked StatsCan jobs data ahead of its official release to soften the narrative around it, given that the predicted number of job losses were twice as many as what wound up being reported. This is a big deal – it’s market-moving information that should have criminal consequences for leaking, and yet here we are. And what is particularly galling about this is that I have my suspicions about which minister’s office leaked the information, and it’s one that has been showing a particular pattern of impunity, which is a very bad sign for how this government works – and not to mention how it communicates. Because they can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag, someone took it upon themselves to leak sacrosanct data (which, it needs to be reiterated, should not and cannot happen in a gods damned G7 country) in order to spin the narrative. Heads should roll for this.

And then prime minister Justin Trudeau had his daily presser, acknowledging the jobs numbers before he announced that the government would be extending the wage subsidy beyond June in order to keep the (eventual) economic recovery strong, while also announcing that Navdeep Bains would be leading a new industry strategy council. During the Q&A, Trudeau also had to face questions about why nobody can say “Taiwan” when it comes to thanking them for donations of personal protective equipment, so Trudeau did just that, so I guess certain MPs will need to find something else to have a meltdown over next week.

And for the 75th anniversary of VE Day yesterday, the Queen made a televised address in the footsteps of her father.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Considerations for Teck

Posted on by

We’ve been hearing a lot about the proposed Teck Frontier oilsands mine in northern Alberta lately, and demands by Jason Kenney and a number of Conservative MPs that its approval be fast-tracked as close to immediate as possible. Energy economist Andrew Leach has a few thoughts on the matter, particularly of how to reconcile Teck in the broader scope.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exit Scheer

Posted on by

The news that blew up all of our days was that of Andrew Scheer’s sudden resignation as leader, despite having stated for nearly two months that he planned to stay on and fight the next election. As this news broke, so did the news that party funds were being used to finance his children’s private school education, and throughout the day there was a lot of back-and-forth as to just who in the party knew about it, and it sounds increasingly like Stephen Harper, the Conservative Fund’s chair, was mighty upset when he learned about it. Oops. Nevertheless, Scheer went before the House of Commons and talked about how this was all about needing to spend more time with his family, and he spun a tale about how he realized he barely knew his teenaged son, and Justin Trudeau and others were very gracious and classy, and offered more humanity to Scheer than he managed to in his time as leader. The caucus also voted to let Scheer stay on as interim leader until his replacement is chosen, but considering how well that went for the NDP, with the embittered Thomas Mulcair poisoning the well, well, you’d think they would know better.

While the group calling itself Conservative Victory that were organizing to pressure Scheer to resign has declared victory, we now begin with all of the breathless speculation as to who will run to replace Scheer, and you can bet that most of the usual names – Raitt, Ambrose, Kenney – won’t. The Star runs through the probable names and their chances of actually running.

And, of course, come all of the hot takes. Justin Ling declares this the end of Scheer’s reign of incompetence. Andrew Coyne notes that Scheer’s departure won’t solve the party’s bigger problems. Matt Gurney makes the point that the party really can’t choose a new leader until they learn the lessons from the last election. Susan Delacourt explores the parallels between Scheer’s departure and that of Joe Clark after his election loss in 1979. Paul Wells gives a fair accounting of Scheer’s self-inflicted wounds, and the huge challenge the party faces in trying to find a leader that will unify the party’s various factions. Robert Hiltz gives his not-so-fond farewell to Scheer with his trademarked acerbic style. My own column on Scheer’s demise looks at how he turned politics into a house of lies, and why his successor will need to rectify that mistake.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Demands from the losing side

Posted on by

It took absolutely no time for the premiers – particularly the western ones – to start laying down markers now that Justin Trudeau had walked away wounded but still standing from Monday’s election. While Blaine Higgs of New Brunswick struck a more conciliatory tone and decided to back down from his carbon price rhetoric, and Doug Ford even striking a more workable tone (though no word yet if he’s going to abandon his fight against the carbon price), it was up to Scott Moe and Jason Kenney to try and flex their muscles and start howling about the prospects of separation because they lost at politics when it came to fighting the aforementioned carbon price.

To that end, Moe presented a letter with a list of three demands for a “new deal” for the province in the federation – scrapping the federal carbon price, reforming equalization to be “fair,” and new pipeline projects – plural. This after the same chuckleheads that put billboards across Alberta and Saskatchewan demanding that the Liberals in those provinces be voted out to “send a message” only to realize that they no longer had any representation in Cabinet. Oops. As for Moe’s demands, the carbon price is not going anywhere – if anything, this election was a confirmation that the country was in favour of carbon pricing, if you look at the seats won by parties who support it. Moe has already tried to propose a reform to equalization that was not actually equalization, but some per capita funding allocation that, again, had nothing to do with what equalization is or represents. As for pipelines, there are several already in process, Trans Mountain chief among them, but if you look at the market, there is no actual future demand for expanded capacity once the current projects are online. We are in an era of a global supply glut and we can expect demand to start diminishing as more low-carbon measures increasingly come online both in Canada and abroad. Not to mention, all of Moe’s demands involve the other provinces in some capacity, and are not things the federal government can do unilaterally (and in fact, his demand to scrap the carbon price is an implicit demand that he doesn’t think provinces should have a level playing field when it comes to carbon pricing, which is the whole point of the pan-Canadian framework). And with all of these demands, Moe claims he’s offering a “fire extinguisher” to the “prairie fire” of regional alienation. Not likely.

And then there was Jason Kenney, not only creating a panel to consult with Albertans about ways to secure our role and fairness in Canadian federation,” before he presented his own laundry lists of demands, such as the “national energy corridor,” Trans Mountain (already in progress), killing Bill C-69 (because the previous system of constant litigation was apparently better), exempting the mortgage stress test for Alberta (which isn’t the government’s call and is really dumb), but he’s threatening a (non-binding) referendum on equalization over this (which will accomplish exactly nothing). And while he started his press conference with the veneer of being statesmanlike, it quickly degenerated to this kind of raving that showcases that Kenney’s real goal, which is simply about stoking more anger at Trudeau because that suits his political purposes.

It’s worth noting that Manitoba premier Brian Pallister is having none of this talk (possibly because he sees where the wind is blowing, and Paul Wells has called him “Canada’s tallest weather vane).

But in all of this bluster, we’re getting all of these hyped up warnings about “Wexit,” which is the moronic label that some swivel-eyed loons have started applying to the notion of Alberta separation, which is the dumbest political movement going. But I do worry that Moe and Kenney are playing with fire, because they’re goading the nebulous populism that is building to such a force that will be hard for the either of them or the federal Conservatives to contain. Stop adding fuel to the fire. It will blow up in your faces.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Clarity on “partisan” ads

Posted on by

That report that climate change advocacy could be considered “partisan” during the writ period had a lot of people talking yesterday – but the problem is that it seems to have been a bit overblown, which I’m chalking up to Environmental Defence overplaying the advice from Elections Canada, and The Canadian Press reporter not getting enough context around that advice. In any case, Elections Canada was playing some damage control, specifying that it had to do with paid advertising and not advocacy writ-large, while various party leaders took shots at the absurdity of it all. And to walk through some of it, here’s Jennifer Robson to allay some of your fears.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Counting on LNG

Posted on by

The federal and BC provincial governments made a big ballyhoo yesterday about the fact that a consortium of companies have come together to make a $40 billion investment in Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) in BC, and it’s a project that not only did Indigenous consultation correctly, but got buy-in from the communities. It’s seen as a study in contrasts for other pipeline projects – but it’s also worth noting that natural gas isn’t bitumen, and you’ve got vastly different environmental consequences to a spill or breach. It’s also a major energy project at a time when the dominant narrative is that we apparently can’t get anything built in this country, or that investment is fleeing (not actually true), and that what we need to do is to end carbon pricing (despite the fact that energy companies have been calling for it), gutting environmental legislation (never mind that the regime Harper put into place created far more problems than it solved), and that Indigenous consultation is just a fleeting goalpost that keeps shifting. This project seems to prove otherwise – even if BC promised breaks on provincial and carbon taxes to sweeten the deal (though one could say that it shows there’s enough flexibility in the system as opposed to the whole system being hopelessly broken). Suffice to say, it makes the Conservatives’ talking points far less tenable (not that the truth has really mattered to them).

One of the more interesting questions in all of this is how it will affect emissions – not only locally, but globally, and that’s really the big question. While the local emissions would be high enough that it appears that BC would likely need to virtually decarbonise their economy otherwise, there is the potential that this LNG would be a major help in reducing emissions in Asian economies that are reliant on coal-fired generation – but that’s only if the LNG displaces coal and not other renewables instead. In all likelihood, LNG would be used alongside renewables as a backup or stopgap, but it may be some time before we see if that’s really what happens. Suffice to say, it has the potential to have a major impact on global emissions, if applied in the right way.

More New NAFTA fallout:

  • Justin Trudeau says that despite that notification clause in the new NAFTA, Canada will still pursue a deeper trading relationship with China.
  • Kim Campbell says it’s a bit cheeky for the Conservatives to suggest that they could have gotten a better deal given the American leadership.
  • In Vancouver, Bill Morneau praised the new NAFTA, but also said that dairy and steel sectors still need help. So, there’s that.
  • The new NAFTA includes a specific clause to insist that Canadians not be able to watch the American broadcast of the Super Bowl. No, seriously.
  • Here’s a deeper dive into the Supply Management issue as it relates to the new NAFTA, including the fears of hormone-laced milk coming in from the US.
  • Here’s a look at the government’s efforts at trade diversification, given that NAFTA is more or less renegotiated.
  • Here’s a look at next steps when it comes to ratification of the new NAFTA.

Continue reading →

Roundup: All about the New NAFTA

Posted on by

So, now that we have some more information about just what is in this renewed NAFTA agreement (no, I’m not going to call it by Trump’s preferred new title because it’s ridiculous), we can get some better analysis of what was agreed to. Here’s a good overview, along with some more analysis on the issues of BC wines, online shopping, intellectual property, Indigenous issues (though not the whole chapter they hoped for, and the gender chapter was also absent), and an oil and gas bottleneck issue whose resolution could now save our industry as much as $60 million. There is, naturally, compensation for those Supply Management-sector farmers who’ve had more access into the market granted (though that access is pretty gradual and will likely be implemented in a fairly protectionist manner, if CETA is anything to go by). There is, however, some particular consternation over a clause that gives the US some leverage over any trade we may do with a “non-market” country (read: China), though that could wind up being not a big deal after all and just some enhanced information sharing; and there is also the creation of a macro-economic committee that could mean the Bank of Canada may have to do more consultation with the US Federal Reserve on monetary policy (though I have yet to find more details about this change). But those steel and aluminium tariffs that Trump imposed for “national security” reasons remain, as they were always unrelated to NAFTA, and their removal will remain an ongoing process.

With the news of the deal also comes the behind-the-scenes tales of how it all went down, and we have three different versions, from Maclean’s John Geddes, the National Post’s Tom Blackwell, and CBC’s Katie Simpson.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1046750795461357568

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne posits that the damage in this agreement is slight but there was no hope for a broader trade agreement given that there were protectionists on both sides of the table. Likewise, Kevin Carmichael notes that the deal limited the potential harm that was looming, but didn’t really break any new ground. Andrew MacDougall says that the deal gives Trump the win he needed before the midterms, while it will also make it hard for Andrew Scheer to stick anything on Trudeau around the deal. Chantal Hébert agrees that if Trudeau loses the next election that it won’t be because of this trade deal. Paul Wells, meanwhile, takes note of how the Conservatives are playing this, trying to lead observers by the hand to show them that Trudeau “failed” in these talks, while glossing over all of the actual context around why these negotiations happened in the first place.

Continue reading →