[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Josephus]

All hail president Bush?

Jeebuz, now that I've seen that I can't unsee it

[HVC]

All hail president Bush?

Jeebuz, now that I've seen that I can't unsee it

at first his face just looked stretched or "wrong", then it hit me

[Barrister]

Spotted in my Twitter feed:

Liberal Party
@liberal_party
This week, Pierre Poilievre and his Conservatives voted against a free-trade deal that Ukraine asked for.

He's turning his back on our allies in their time of need.

Here's the source of the conflict:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-conservatives-ukraine-updated-free-trade-deal-1.7036693

Trying to give the best and fairest assessment of what is happening:

Back under Stephen Harper Canada negotiated a Free Trade deal with Ukraine and signed it.  This deal dealt only with goods.

Under Trudeau Canada has negotiated an updated trade deal with Ukraine.  This one now includes services.  The deal does commit both countries to move on putting a price on carbon.  Canada already has a price on carbon, while Ukraine has agreed to implement a carbon price as part of accession talks with the EU.

As a result, Conservatives vote against the new Ukraine free trade deal.  Liberals immediately brand the Conservatives  as "turning their backs" on Ukraine.

So what say you Languish? Is this a legitimate attack on the Conservatives?  Or a "poison pill" inserted by the Liberals precisely to provoke this response?

[crazy canuck]

It's stupid grandstanding by the Conservatives to play to their base. Ukraine was doing this anyway and the Conservative narrative that the Liberals are forcing Ukraine to adopt carbon pricing is false.

[Jacob]

What's the Conservative plan on climate change?

[HVC]

What's the Conservative plan on climate change?

The more the better?

[Barrister]

What's the Conservative plan on climate change?

We don't know.  When asked today Poilievre merely said "Our election platform will deal with all these issues".

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/climate-change-poilievre-trudeau-carbon-tax-analysis-1.7025763

There's obviously two schools of thought on election platforms.  Back in the 90s the Chretien Liberals ran on their "Red Book", which was published well in advance and publicized what policies they would implement.  Obviously I personally prefer that kind of transparency (Reform had their similar "Blue Book").

It bit Chretien in the butt a couple times though, like his promise to kill the GST, which was endlessly brought up when he failed to do any such thing.

Most parties seem to go more for an approach of announcing the platform during the election campaign, which is clearly what the Conservatives are doing (and have done during the last couple of campaigns).  This is because when you anounce it it's suddenly news (a campaign promse from 6-12 months early is no longer so newsworthy) plus of course means less scrutiny.

But anyways the one thing that is clear that the Conservative plan will not include a carbon tax.


So what do you think - is this a legitimate attack on Conservatives, or a "poison pill" inserted as a political dirty trick?

[Sheilbh]

My instinct is the latter - although I don't think it's necessarily a political dirty trick, just a government trying to create a dividing line against an opposition that looks like they might win.

Edit: Based on that read.

[Barrister]

My instinct is the latter - although I don't think it's necessarily a political dirty trick, just a government trying to create a dividing line against an opposition that looks like they might win.

Edit: Based on that read.

I mean I'm not necessarily opposed to a "dirty trick" myself!  But there's a distinction to be made for making a move purely because of the political optics versus a legitimate public policy goal.

[Sheilbh]

Okay sure I think it's a legitimate public policy goal and a very helpful dividing line. Which is the dream for a government

[Barrister]

Okay sure I think it's a legitimate public policy goal and a very helpful dividing line. Which is the dream for a government

Sure, where you stand on a carbon tax is a useful dividing line.  I have long thought the Conservatives should embrace a carbon tax, but that's become a culture war now.  I can only hope that the Conservatives try to make up for a lack of a carbon tax by having an even more thorough climate policy in other areas (other than the carbon taxa I'm hard-pressed to see anything else Trudeau has done on that front).

But they're trying to bring one issue: carbon tax, into what was otherwise a unanimous issue: support for Ukraine.

[Jacob]

So what do you think - is this a legitimate attack on Conservatives, or a "poison pill" inserted as a political dirty trick?

I don't agree with your two definitions. I think it's potentially a "poison pill" and that that's a legitimate question to put to the Conservatives. Both Liberals and Conservatives engage in dirty trick politics at times, but this is not one of those times.

It's completely appropriate within the game of politics to force your opponents to make potentially difficult decisions in how they prioritize their values (is supporting Ukraine worth more or less to the Conservatives than fighting the Carbon Tax) - especially when the support is symbolic. It's fine to argue that the two shouldn't be mixed, but that's just an argument not some sort of division between clean or dirty.

Highlighting that when it comes to climate, the Conservatives only have one position - that the Carbon Tax should be cut and that that is more important than supporting Ukraine - is perfectly fair. Everyone (who pays attention), has a slighlty more complete picture of where the Conservatives stand.

The Conservatives had the choice of

1) Looking strong on their opposition to the carbon tax, while looking like they're not interested in taking real action on climate change - and taking on the problem of explaining to supporters of Ukraine why voting against this particular thing doesn't really undermine Conservative support [and that's what was chosen].

2) Remaining unwavering in their support of Ukraine, while looking less committed to opposing the Carbon Tax. This would've left them with the problem of explaining to those opposed to the carbon tax why this wasn't a big deal in this case, and looking slightly (but not much) more likely to take climate change seriously at some future point.

It's perfectly fine to ask the Conservative Party to make that choice, and they did.

[Jacob]

Okay sure I think it's a legitimate public policy goal and a very helpful dividing line. Which is the dream for a government

Exactly.

Besides agreeing to implement carbon pricing as part of an international agreement is perfectly reasonable. It influences costs / competitiveness and potentially there's a future in which carbon credits could be traded.

"It's a dirty trick" sounds like a complaint that "you're doing something we don't like" combined with "and it kind of makes us look bad." Why should the government take something out of policy/agreement that the opposition doesn't like?

If/ when the Conservatives are in government they can renegotiate or otherwise take action if it seems worthwhile.

[Sheilbh]

Although the slight caveat I'd make is that (and I assume this is the case) it better exclude wartime support and post-war reconstruction for Ukraine. Otherwise I'd think it was wrong and flip to dirty trick and, frankly, disgraceful politicising of an issue that has strong support.

[Barrister]

Perhaps I'm most offended that it is over Ukraine.  In the US Ukraine is increasingly being seen as a partisan political issue.

You can flip your reasoning as well.  The Liberals chose to take a bill that have had unanimous support in Parliament and insert a partisan political point in order to score political points over the opposition.