Is Mark Carney at risk of conflicts of interest?

The Conservative Party of Canada, rattled by their precipitate slide in the polls, and with a federal election pending (widely expected on April 28th), are taking wild swings at new Liberal leader Mark Carney. In particular, they are trying to make something - anything! - out of Carney's enviable financial position.

Pierre Poilievre, and his attack dog Michael Barrett - yes, the attack dog of an attack dog! - have been casting aspersions that Mr. Carney is playing fast and loose with the ethics and conflict-of-interest rules that Canadian politicians are subject to.

Spoiler alert: he's not. Well, you might have guessed that. The whole raison d'etre of the Tories is to find fault, in any way possible, and even in some ways impossible, of their political nemesis. Deprived of Justin Trudeau as a convenient target, they have been trying to portray Carney as "sneaky", "European,", etc, and also as rich, which carries its own set of political value judgements.

Yes, Carney has done very well for himself - he has not been a lifetime career politician like Mr. Poilievre - and he is clearly a very rich guy. Do we need to know exactly HOW rich, and exactly where his riches lie? Probably not.

Suffice it that he is following the stipulated conflict-of-interest rules - enshrined in Canadian law by Conservative PM Stephen Harper, let it be noted - to the letter, even in advance of the required deadlines. So, he is divesting himself of his personal investment holdings by placing them in a blind trust, so that he has no control over sales and purchases. He will also recuse himself from any deliberations that might directly influence investment that he holds in trust (although those holdings could change without him knowing - that is the whole point of a blind trust in these circumstances). And he is pre-clearing everything with the independent parliamentary Ethics Commissioner. 

It's hard to know what else the Tories can ask for. There is no requirement to name and value his investments at this point, nor should there be. The Ethics Commissioner will be keeping a wary eye on him; that is his job. Yes, there are those who argue that a blind trust is not sufficient to guard against conflicts of interest. But most reasonable people - and all political parties - believe that that the system as it stands is indeed adequate.

Trumpism as a cult

What are we to make of the way in which Donald Trump's supporters support him? 

I don't mean that I am surprised that they support him, even in some of the more legally and morally gray areas that he tends to frequent, even in some of the completely random, unhinged, off-the-cuff decisions that he makes.

I get it that he is their Glorious Leader, and that many of them owe their overpaid positions to him directly. But there is something about the WAY they express their adoration that seems, well, unhealthy. Trump's excesses have given his supporters license to exceed in their own ways.

Because they don't just support him, they bow down to him. 27-year old Press Sectetary Karoline Leavitt is a good example. She will not brook even the suspicion of a criticism of Trump without responding in a completely aggressive and over-the-top (Trump-esque, you could say) manner. Take for example, when a French journalist suggested that today's United States is not worthy of the Statue of Liberty France gave them, Leavitt turns around and snaps that France should be grateful to the US that they are not now speaking German. There are many ways she could have responded, but she chose that way (exactly the way Trump himself would have responded). 

Another example? Stephen Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Trump "advisor" (whatever that actually means), when responding to criticism of the distinctly semi-legal manner in which the Trump administration used an 18th Century wartime law to deport over 250 Venezuelan immigrants, didn't just tear into the hapless reporter (a former prosecutor with much more legal expertise than Miller) but ranted in an all-but-uncontrolled manner "He is a moron, and he's a fool, and he's a degenerate ... now he's up there shilling for people who rape and murder Americans". See also Miller's unhinged response to a Saturday Night Live joke. (Incidentally, Trump has called for the judge who tried to enforce an injunction against the deportations to be impeached.)

These people seem to feel that Trump's regular enormities (which no-one outside the Republican Party consider acceptable) give them license to exhibit similarly outrageous and overblown behaviour.

The way they refer to Trump's policies and decisions, and the man himself, in tones of awe and reverence is nothing short of creepy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says that Trump is the "only person on earth" who can negotiate with Vladimir Putin. Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth uses similar language, claiming that Trump is "the only man in the world" who can solve the Ukraine problem. And so it goes.

It goes beyond deference; this is the stuff of personality cult. It is not party politics as we have always known it. You can imagine it happening in North Korea or Russia, where a false step can lead to a disappearance or secretive execution. But is that where the USA is now?

Trump has successfully purged the Republican Party of any elements even vaguely disloyal. He himself has said publicly, "We have to Purge the Party of people that go against our Candidates and make it harder for a popular Republican President to beat the Radical Left". It has all the hallmarks of authoritarianism en route to totalitarianism, where dissent is not just discouraged but forbidden.

Poilievre is running out of ideas

Pierre Poilievre is rattled. After months - nay, years! - of Conservative poll leads, the rejuvenated Liberals under new leader Mark Carney are now (at least) neck and neck, with a federal election expected to be announced any day now.

People really don't like Poilievre, and with good reason. The only reason he was doing well in the polls is that they disliked Trudeau even more. But now the Liberals have a new leader and he seems to be more palatable.

And since Carney announced that the unpopular consumer carbon tax is now toast - whatever you might think of that - "Axe the Tax" Poilievre is left without a major plank of his platform. So, what's a populist to do but up the ante?

Yesterday, Poilievre announced that, not only would he axe the consumer carbon tax, but also the industrial carbon tax, if he were ever to be let loose on the Canadian economy This tax, technically known as the Output Based Pricing System, has always done much more of the heavy lifting in the country's climate change strategy, representing about a third of our potential greenhouse gas reductions in the run-up to the 2030 Paris Accord deadline.

Instead, Poilievre says he will "boost incentives" and "expand eligibility for the clean technology and clean manufacturing investment tax credits", although it's hard to see how that would take up the slack from the current industrial carbon tax. We will need those as well, of course, but not instead of.

The industrial carbon tax is actually administered by the provinces in all cases except for Manitoba, PEI, Nunavut and Yukon, which don't have their own system in place, so it's also hard to know whether such a drastic-sounding policy would actually have any effect at all, although you can expect that Alberta will gleefully take advantage of any loophole Poilievre presents. Danielle Smith will do whatever she can to suck up to Poilivre; she does NOT want another Liberal federal government.

Poilievre has not come clean with any revised carbon targets, and quickly changes the subject when this is mentioned. Mr. Carney, currently on his European charm offensive, also points out that, if we are trying to diversify trade away from the USA, trade with the EU, with the UK, with emerging Asia, all require some kind of a carbon price as a prime requirement (this does seem to be true - it's called the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism CBAM), and it's pretty new - despite what you might read in the more conservative corners of the internet). So, what is Mr. Poilievre's workaround for that?

Clearly, the Conservatives had to come up with something to try to arrest their precipitate slide in the polls. But this is not what the country needs. Let's hope the voters can se through Poilievre's electoral machinations.

Doug Ford burns his fingers playing with the big boys

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has tried his level best to insert himself forcibly into the conversation around US tariffs ever since Trump was elected (and even before). Although he is merely a lowly provincial premier, he clearly has national pretentions, and likes to be thought of as "Captain Canada".

A good part of the shtick he used to get himself re-elected last month revolved around his claim that he was the best Ontario leader to deal with the existential threat that Trump represents. He has travelled to the US many times to speak to US representatives, industry leaders and media outlets, although he has rarely been invited to speak to the higher-ups, the actual movers and shakers in this particularly sordid phase of American politics.

However, Ford's hankering to be seen as Captain Canada took a bit of a blow yesterday, when he went toe to toe with Donald Trump and came off with egg on his face. In the face of Trump's announcement of a 25% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum, Ford gave it his best shot and announced a 25% surchage on electricity exports from Ontario to three US states, Minnesota, Michigan and New York.

Clearly expecting Trump to back off and walk back his tariff announcement after this masterful play, Trump, almost predictably, immediately doubled his tariffs to 50%. Ford then announced that he was abandoning his electricity surcharge, and the Americans, in their turn, reduced the steel and aluminum tariffs back to the original 25%. "Ontario won't back down", said Ford, hours before doing just that.

Good game. Trump 1 - Ford 0. Net result: the 25% tariffs remain. But Trump can do this stuff all day, he positively lives for it, and Ford came off looking rather foolish, with his tail firmly between his legs.

Ford is off to Washington again today to speak to the underlings (Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick this time), chaperoned by federal Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc. But I have a suspicion that Mark Carney and the federal government would much rather Ford butt out of matters beyond his pay grade, and maybe just leave it to the grown-ups. 

The federal government has already announced proportionate retaliatory tariffs on $29.8 billion of American goods. Does Ford really need to be poking his nose in and complicating things, even if Trump does think of him as a "strong man"?

A day later, Trump mused out loud that maybe the USA shouldn't be buying ANY electricity from Canada, the exact opposite of what Ford has been pitching for months. So, careful what you do and say, Dougie, it might come back and bite you (and us, the hapless residents of Ontario, that you're supposed to be protecting).

Don't like Musk? Disguise your Tesla

This is hilarious. You may have been reading about stickers on Tesla cars saying "I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy" and variations thereof. But now there are whole sections of the internet devoted to advice on the best way to remove the Tesla badge and logo from your car.

Even better, there is now a fully-fledged movement to replace the Tesla badges with the badges of other - less controversial and usually non-US-owned - car companies, like Toyota, Honda, BMW.

That's one unpopular guy!

A timeline of US tariffs (and their reversals

If you are losing track of all the various announcements of US tariffs on Canada and their subsequent reversals, you're not alone.

But Axios has created a handy little timeline, up until  March 11th at least, so you can see just how wild a ride this has been.

And we know that there are many more tariffs still to come, and almost certainly more reversals. In the meantime, both the Canadian and American economies are suffering and the stock exchange is nosedivng in the chaos. How long until the American people get properly pissed off with Trump? The rest of the world is already there.

Why Trump is so wrong on Canadian dairy tariffs

I'm already a bit bored with explaining just how wrong Donald Trump's proposed tariffs on Canada are, but here's just one more way they are wrong.

It varies depending on the day, and the time of day, but one of the things that send Trump apologetic, and has him blustering about how UNFAIR Canada is being to the US, concerns Canada's dairy imports, and he says he intends to charge Canada 250% tariffs back.

Now, you might have some legitimate concerns about Canada's internal dairy industry supply management system (I looked into it a few years ago), but vis-à-vis dairy imports from the United States in particular, the rules are set according to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA, or CUSMA, or whatever awkward acronym you prefer). Yes, that's the successor to NAFTA that Trump insisted on renegotiating during his first term back in 2018.

Trump (and his cabinet minions) repeatedly rant about how Canada is charging the US "250% tariffs" on its dairy imports, and how we are treating American "VERY BADLY". The truth is, though, that those high tariffs (on a sliding scale, with a theoretical maximum of 241%) only apply only after imports reach designated maximum annual levels. Up until these levels are reached, the tariff on dairy imports from the US is ... zero. 

Furthermore, as both Canadian and US dairy industry figures agree, the zero-tariff maximum has never been reached in any category of dairy imports. So, Canada is charging the US precisely ZERO in dairy tariffs, not 250% or any other figure. 

And, remember, this is enshrined in the USMCA that Trump himself signed into effect in 2018, an agreement that he has called "the best trade deal ever made". Trump has also claimed that Canadian dairy tariffs were "well taken care of" during his first presidential term, but that "under Biden, they just kept it raising it". Nope. The dairy tariffs remain exactly the same as when Trump agreed and signed the USMCA; they can't be changed without renegotiating the agreement itself.

Of course, these are just facts, and no doubt Trump will have "alternative facts" to suit his case. Someone may explain all of the above to him and his trade team, but it is very unlikely to make a blind bit of difference. Legally, however, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. 

Who cares any more whem Spacex rockets blow up?

A second consecutive SpaceX rocket has blown up soon after launch (technically a "rapid uncheduled disassembly"!), with debris causing commercial flight delays as far away as Miami and Philadelphia.

That'll cost him a bob or two. Given how much people hate Elon Musk these days, few people are particularly upset.