Tag Archives: François Legault

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 →