At long last, the government has made its decision on the Northern Gateway pipeline, and it’s not wholly unexpected, but surprising in other ways. For one, it sent it out as a press release rather than making a formal announcement. For another, it gave a half-hearted and somewhat mealy acceptance of the proposal, but only if Enbridge can meet all of the National Energy Board’s 209 conditions, plus having them get the First Nations all on-side, plus getting BC on-side as well. As economist Andrew Leach noted, it’s like the government is trying to distance itself from the regulator, the proponent, and any responsibility to get the pipeline built. After all, they do have a tremendous penchant for absolving themselves of responsibility wherever they can, and in this case, there is almost a sense that they’re inviting it to fail. Reaction was swift from the NDP, who declared that if they form government in 2015, that the pipeline would be cancelled immediately, and warned of “social unrest” in the meantime. The Liberals, however, took a slightly more nuanced approach – while they called for the rejection of this particular pipeline (they do support Keystone XL), but Justin Trudeau made the observation that the Crown – basically the government – has the obligation to consult with First Nations, not companies like Enbridge, so that throws yet another wrench into the plans o f the government. There are questions as to whether the decision will hinder Conservative re-election chances in the province, but I have a hard time seeing how it would with the “Bible Belt” ridings in the southern part of the province that the Conservatives hold quite comfortably. Enbridge says the decision gives them the time they need to get it right. Here are five other pipeline projects to keep an eye on. John Geddes notes the amount of work that Enbridge is being asked to do, while remembering that BC is the home to some memorable environmental protests. Paul Wells looks at the electoral calculus of the decision, while Leach has a Twitter conversation with Elizabeth May about her comments, and how they don’t actually make sense.

Maxime Bernier thinks that all of those Bloc Québécois members who are disgruntled with their new leader should join the Conservatives. Erm, because they’re the bastion of left-leaning ideas that the Bloc has embraced over the past decade at least.

CBC has an interesting piece that looks at the new prostitution bill from the position of the purchasers of sex, for whom there is no consideration other than institutionalised entrapment, and yet their reasons for purchasing sex vary. That it’s an honest exchange rather than leading a person on for the sake of the act itself seems unthinkable to those whose goal it is to abolish prostitution, who rationalise their position with the narrow thinking that any purchase of sex is power, or violence. Truth of course is more complex than that, and yet they naively believe that they can somehow dismantle the world’s oldest profession. Good luck to them, but in the meantime, the safety of sex workers remains at risk so long as the laws being proposed here prevent them from making a living.

One of Justin Trudeau’s advisors thinks that Canada needs mandatory voting and ranked ballots – because apparently nobody learned the lessons from the Alberta leadership votes with ranked ballots where the worst choice came up the middle between polarized front-runners, entirely for the sake of reaching an artificial 50 percent figure so that everyone feels better. After all, tinkering with the system for the sake of people’s feelings couldn’t possibly have any negative consequences – right? He also thinks that MPs need more staff to research legislation, which is a nice idea except they would be put to work on constituency matters like immigration files, because that’s where a lot of political staff is being directed these days rather than doing things like scrutinizing the Estimates or the Public Accounts.

Philippe Lagassé talks about the independent review process for the CF-18 replacement options.

The Privy Council Office is defending the Clerk of the Privy Council against allegations that he acted improperly when he turned down Kevin Page’s request for information when he was Parliamentary Budget Officer. PCO says that Wayne Woulters was acting in his role as head of the public service, and on legal advice that the information requested was beyond Page’s mandate. Page, of course, is having none of it.

Suspended Senator Patrick Brazeau’s lawyer appeared in court yesterday and said that his two most recent alleged assault victims want to drop the charges – but that remains up to the Crown. Brazeau, meanwhile, appears to be out of a rehab facility but is still seeking drug and alcohol treatment.

Kate Heartfield writes about how riding name changes can become clownish and pandering, and she’s exactly right, as they expand to ridiculous proportions.

And my column this week discusses the need to rethink leadership contests in this country, given the chaos in the Newfoundland and Labrador Progressive Conservatives, the ongoing contest in Alberta and the coming contests in Ontario. As you might guess, I argue for a return to the basics.