The (Right) News Rundown
- This Thursday it was officially announced that the US is pulling out of the Paris climate deal. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the concept of the Paris climate deal there are now huge repercussions for Canada.
- Trudeau and his government have stated that there is no question, they will be continuing on to remain a part of the deal.
- We know that Trudeau will impose a carbon tax, we know that the US will not impose a carbon tax.
- Without the US contribution to the Paris climate deal, the expense required to be apart of the deal will increase for all involved.
- What's more this further puts us at a competitive disadvantage. Canadian businesses already need to deal with the high Canadian dollar (decreasing export profits), the fact that our carbon tax increases the costs of production, and now, we will be paying for the Paris climate deal when a business in the US does not.
- Aside from the EU, Canada is one of the largest develop signees of the Paris agreement. We will feel the pain of this regardless of what the government says. China and India don't need to implement the deal until the 2030s. Russia won't be implementing the deal. And any other developing nations receive benefits from the deal itself rather than having to pay into it.
- While the mainstream media has been focused on the US withdrawing from the deal and how this isolates President Trump, the Canadian media is missing the huge story of these economic side effects that Canadian businesses will face.
- One would hope that a government realizes these costs and does the appropriate research. Has the Trudeau government done this? No.
- An access to information request was submitted by The Rebel asking the following:
- "Provide copies of any studies or analysis done on the potential impact of proceeding with action on climate change and carbon pricing alone without cooperative or comparable action by the United States, on Canadian Industry, the Canadian Economy, and individual Canadians, since January 1, 2016."
- The response: "no records were found concerning this request"
- We know the government will implement a carbon tax.
- We know GST will be charged on the carbon tax.
- We know the US will not have a carbon tax.
- We know the US will be leaving the Paris climate deal.
- The writing's on the wall that the impact on the Canadian economy will be massive just based on the previous 3 bullet points alone.
- But when the US government pulls out of the Paris climate deal, that just inflames the issue.
- The Canadian government even went as far to suggest that our environment minister, Catherine McKenna, knew better than the US administration in terms of what businesses and individuals want in the US. Would we like it if the Americans told us what was best for us?
- It's all lining up to look like the Canadian carbon tax is just a pure ideological action to make Liberal supporters and those in Trudeau's globalist movement look good and feel good for the day.
- At the end of the day, money and productivity is what matters in an economy. The Liberal government has done no analysis on the impact Canada will face and thus does not care.
- Before Tuesday was announced, there was uncertainty in BC, as we've mentioned lots of times. were a bunch of bad opinion articles, one trying to determine who would be in the cabinet of "Premier Horgan", and one article even suggesting that the Liberals and NDP would work together.
- However, on Tuesday afternoon, BC Green leader Andrew Weaver and BC NDP leader John Horgan formed an agreement to topple Premier Christy Clark at the earliest opportunity. The deal would allow an NDP minority government to survive a four-year term. The combined alliance would lead to a governing arrangement with a margin of only a single seat over the Liberals. The balance of power is that much more precarious considering that any new government must appoint a Speaker of the House.
- In their joint press conference announcing the agreement, Weaver described the arrangement as a framework to give British Columbians a "strong stable minority government" even though with a one seat majority of 44/87 seats, just one MLA missing a vote, with say, a sudden onset of diarrhea, could topple the government in a key vote.
- Many projects, such as the Trans Mountain Pipeline, the Kinder Morgan Pipeline, the Massey Tunnel replacement, and the Site C dam, would be in jeopardy with an NDP government supported by the Greens, as both parties oppose all of those projects. It's also noted that a switch in government could have far reaching consequences on the economy.
- It's been noted in Episode 17 of The Right Side that the Greens would push heavily for electoral reform, though the NDP seem to not want to change the electoral system without a referendum.
- Clark still remains the Premier for now, until she loses a confidence vote in the Legislature, likely the Throne Speech if she attempts to form government. If Clark then tries to stay on as Opposition Leader, as she said she would, she could face troubles in her own party.
- Clark said in a press conference that she would not resign until her government falls in the Legislature: "If there is going to be a transfer of power in this province, and it certainly seems like there will be, it shouldn’t be done behind closed doors. It should happen in public … it should happen in the people’s house with 87 members elected by British Columbians to our legislature making that decision."
- With that in mind, now we have to wait until the Legislature reconvenes to see what the next move will be. One thing is for sure, this rollercoaster ride is not over yet.
- Premier Rachel Notley says that the NDP would welcome anyone who feels like they wouldn't have a political home in the United Conservative Party.
- Notley then proceeded to say that both Jason Kenney and Brian Jean are "getting more extreme in their views."
- “And to those Albertans who are feeling like they don’t have a political home… I ask you to take another look at our government, our party and our record.”
- What is not stated in the article is that by 2019 the next election is likely to become a referendum on the NDP government's record. There is a very high chance that the election will be other parties vs. the NDP.
- Anyone who is potentially considering the United Conservative Party as an option is unlikely to vote NDP. The NDP does not stand for free enterprise and reducing economic red tape. The United Conservative Party does. It would be a far better comparison to have another party, such as the Alberta Party, make the statement that they are welcoming to anyone who does not feel welcome in the United Conservative Party.
- This story goes to show what the media dynamics will be like in 2019. As we've seen with Andrew Scheer federally it's already shaping up that the new leader of the United Conservative Party will face a similar coordinated attack by the media on any number of issues that have been put to bed and are expressly prohibited by the United Conservative Party charter.
- Three of these core ideas would be along the lines of equality for all, a publicly funded and accessible health care system for all, and public education funded by government.
- At this time it appears as though Global intended this as a wedge story to pre-emptively frame the narrative as either UCP or NDP. That is entirely presumptuous as we don't know if the United Conservative Party will even be created yet.
- Look for this kind of story framing as we get closer to 2019.
The Firing Line
- Something that we’ve seen a lot of over the past week since Andrew Scheer was elected leader of the Conservative Party of Canada is that the media is trying to make up a lot of information about Scheer as he is being portrayed as an “unknown backed by social conservatives”. What’s disingenuous by most media outlets is that they’re not actually focusing on Scheer or his policies, but trying to make up their own assumptions and opinions based on little opinions.
- In one article by the National Post, the writer notes Andrew Scheer’s rise from a 25 year old MP first elected in 2004 to being elected Speaker of the HoC in 2011, to now becoming leader of the Conservative Party of Canada in 2017. It’s actually quite a fairly well written article, but it carries a horrifically terrible title: “How a four-year-old abortion ruling began Andrew Scheer’s remarkable leap from Speaker to leader” that makes Scheer sounds like he’s in favour of aborting 4 year old children, something that is pretty far from the case. Whoever came up with that title should be ashamed.
- In another National Post article, Calgary MP Michelle Rempel is quoted as being frustrated that the only question asked of her by the media about Scheer is about the social conservatives. She correctly notes that the party is focused on the economy, and that Scheer has repeatedly said that he would not reopen debate on same sex marriage or abortion, despite what his own personal beliefs are on the matter, which echoes Stephen Harper's earlier decisions to do the same. However, the issue of the media talking about social conservatives and how Scheer will be making policy on social conservative values is unproven, unfounded, and unfair. Many articles, from the Globe and Mail, CBC, The Toronto Star, and others also focused heavily on social conservatism and how much of a role they would have in influencing Scheer.
- Political commentator Andrew Coyne ran with the headline "In the dullness of the morning after, Andrew Scheer is the safer pair of hands", in which he's described Scheer as "soporific", and how Scheer will have to listen to the social conservatives who voted for him, which ignores of course conveniently ignores the centrists, Western Canadians, Quebecers, and Maritime Canadians who voted for him as well. It's another example of the mainstream media trying to paint Scheer as a candidate who only won due to social conservatives.
- John Ivison, writing for the NP, who described Scheer as "cautious to the point of catatonia", also wrote an article saying why Scheer wouldn't win in 2019, but would win in 2023. He forgets that we're a long way from 2019 to begin with, let alone 2023, and that anything can happen at any time in politics.
- Kelly McParland, also wrote an editorial with the question "Andrew who?" at the forefront, and goes on to describe how liberal outlets like the Toronto Star are trying to paint Scheer as an "unknown nobody" and should therefore be dismissed rather than researched. This would be better served if the article then actually described Scheer and his policies, rather than explain what the Liberals are saying about him; it's basically giving them free press.
- But that's just the National Post, it gets worse.
- Also in the Globe and Mail, another article similar to the National Post one above, quoted Liberal MPs as saying Scheer would "reopen debate on done issues" and has "voted against every social advancement of the past 25 years" and described the race as a battle between "far-right social conservatives and far-right economic conservatives". Far right is something the left tries to demonize conservatives as, but far right actually describes fascism and Nazism, both of which the Conservative Party is not, whatsoever. They should be denounced for making those comparisons, and yet the article treats their opinions fairly and notes that we'll be seeing more of this.
- A no name author editorial in The Globe and Mail described Scheer as "no one’s idea of a charismatic political saviour", and went on to say that the diverse opinions within the Conservative Party would fracture the party from the inside, and suggests that the party has a unity issue, and that Scheer won't be able to fix these so called issues. While it is true he only won with 51% of the vote on the final ballot, it in no way suggests the party is divided. Most of the debates were amicable, and the convention itself was very friendly, and all of the competitors that were MPs are likely to work together very well in the HoC. And one just has to listen to Scheer to know that he isn't uncharismatic, he's actually very personable, witty, and charming. This flies in the face of the media, who is trying to paint him as a Harper-esque social conservative robot with no social skills or personality.
- The CBC, took another approach entirely. They ran with an article comparing Scheer to Joe Clark, who we all remember of not being able to form government for very long, and another one which is an interview with a 12 year old "self-confessed political junkie" who actually makes good points about Scheer, but is largely dismissed because they are, of course, the opinions of a 12 year old. Also, CBC writer Neil MacDonald wrote an article saying he does not believe Scheer when he says he won't explore certain topics, and he believes that Scheer's religious beliefs will define his policies. Newsflash: if you discount someone else’s beliefs because you believe without evidence that they're false, that's not being smart, that's being a hypocrite.
- But perhaps the worse hit job article of them all belong the The Huffington Post's Warren Kinsella. Let me read an excerpt: "Smirk. The economy. Justin Trudeau. Free speech. His deceased mother. ISIS. On every subject, no matter how sad or serious, Andrew Scheer would smirk. It was, well, weird. His rictus was so off-putting, we started to forget what he was actually saying." I know here at The Right side, we strive to be unbiased and not sensationalist, but honestly, what follows is probably the biggest pile of garbage article I've ever had the displeasure to read. It attempts to portray Scheer as "The Smirking New Face of Social Conservatism" and how the author feels that everything about Scheer is terrible, wrong and backwards. If you feel that I'm exaggerating that the media is trying to discredit Scheer, simply reading that article will probably convert people to that belief.
- With all this, is it any wonder that Faith Goldy of The Rebel predicted moments after Scheer's win that the "Biggest threat facing Scheer isn’t Trudeau’s Liberals. It’s the mainstream media." And what's worse, is that she's right.
Word of the Week
Smear - damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander: someone was trying to smear her by faking letters.
How to Find Us
Episode Title: The Scheer Smear
Teaser: Did the Trudeau government do its research on the Paris deal and a carbon tax? A so called “strong stable minority” in BC, Rachel Notley appeals to conservatives, and the media hit job on Andrew Scheer.
Recorded Date: June 3, 2017
Release Date: June 3, 2017
Edit Notes: Scheer notes disappeared.