Roundup: Setting a trap at committee

Posted on by

The use of Commons committees for performative outrage continued in fine tradition yesterday as an emergency meeting of the natural resources committee was convened, during which the Conservatives demanded that the ministers of natural resource and finance appear before them no later than Thursday with “concrete” plans for the next steps of the Trans Mountain pipeline. This, of course, is a bit of a trap, and unrealistic for any government to comply with, and yet here we were. Why it’s a trap, of course, is that when they inevitably refused and the Liberals con the committee voted it down, Andrew Scheer and his caucus could rush to the media about how outrageous it was that Trudeau was avoiding accountability for his “failure” when their demand was utterly unreasonable in the first place. But why should facts or context matter?

Now, don’t get me wrong – I do think that these ministers should absolutely appear before committee, but not for another couple of weeks, until they’ve had time to digest the Federal Court of Appeal decision, at which time they should answer for why they considered the flawed NEB report, and why they did not engage in an adequate consultation process that would meet the requirements of Section 35 of the Constitution. You know – to hold them to account like a committee should.

As for next steps, there have been boneheaded demands for a “legislative solution” that people keep tossing around, and it’s so stupid – the FCA decision specifically stated that this is a Cabinet decision to approve the licence, so you can’t legislate it into existence, nor would trying to retroactively change the legislation that the NEB was operating under when it didn’t properly scope the marine safety aspect of their report be a feasible option, because it opens all manner of cans of worms. And you most especially can’t legislate away the duty to consult under Section 35, so good luck there. The Conservatives won’t say what they’d do, let alone do differently, while the NDP continue to demand that Trudeau cancel the expansion, and have been giving this ridiculous line that they wanted a Supreme Court reference in the first place and nobody listened to them. The problem was their reference was about jurisdiction, which this decision has nothing to do with, which makes their talking point especially specious.

Meanwhile, Chris Turner has a spectacular piece in Maclean’sabout the history of the pipeline and how it got to be the dumpster fire of an issue that it is today, and I’d encourage you to take the time to read it.

Good reads:

  • Justin Trudeau will meet with Rachel Notley today as one of his stops in Edmonton.
  • NAFTA talks resume today, and it sounds like dispute resolution and cultural protections are Trudeau’s red lines.
  • More than 100 complaints against rude and disrespectful CBSA officers were deemed founded last year. (The bill to create an Inspector General remains stalled).
  • Public Works is abandoning the ten-year estimate for the Centre Block renovations, and it’s looking more like 13 years now.
  • VADM Mark Norman’s trial date has been set for August 2019, which will be in the middle of an election. Dealing with Cabinet confidences will be a tricky issue at trial.
  • The deputy minister of National Defence put her foot down on costly change of command ceremonies.
  • The 2017 figures are in, and the NDP are deeply in debt.
  • Maxime Bernier says he’ll unveil his new party’s name and logo next week.
  • Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column looks at the legislative priorities of the upcoming autumn sitting of Parliament.
  • My column wonders about the implication for governance and accountability given that we now have ministers who don’t have actual ministries.

Help Routine Proceedings expand. Support my Patreon.