Tag Archives: Civil Service

Roundup: Spooking the oil sands companies

Posted on by

The “Pathways Alliance” consortium of oil sands companies scrubbed their website as the bill that expands the Competition Bureau’s powers around investigating greenwashing gets royal assent, which seems to be suspiciously like a tell. I’m aware that they have been subject to particular legal claims around greenwashing, and when you add to that the parts in that Deloitte report that Alberta commissioned around the emissions cap, there was some specific language in there around the fact that carbon capture and storage is likely just an expensive money pit that won’t do much to lower emissions, it feels like Pathways is feeling the pressure, and that perhaps the oil and gas industry has reached its put-up-or-shut-up moment, that they can’t keep pretending that they can carry on as usual with the promise that CCS will come sooner than later, and we’ll have no more emissions problems (while the industry also makes up specific “cleanest” claims around oil and gas production, which also doesn’t stand up to scrutiny).

This being said, I will acknowledge that Andrew Leach has some specific reservations around the legislation and the enforcement of all green claims, because some of the burden of proof, even with companies that are actually doing clean or green things. It’s an issue to keep in mind in any case.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian attack in Donetsk killed three and injured four, while overnight missile and drone attacks have damaged yet another thermal power plant. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced new plans to mitigate those attacks, and part of it is transitioning to greener sources of electricity .

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1803435004866826530

Continue reading →

Roundup: A new Speaker in a toxic environment

Posted on by

The day began with the speeches from the prospective candidates for Speaker—unserious Liberal candidate Stephane Lauzon bowed out before things got started, and the rest began their speeches as to why they deserved to get the job. There were also a few fulsome (in the proper sense of the word) expressions of thanks to Anthony Rota and claims that he was a “good Speaker” when he absolutely was not, which is why we were here today. The notion of respect and decorum got mentioned time and again, because they always do, for what little good it does (because the Speaker can only do so much). Elizabeth May once again said she was running (even though her being a party leader should have been disqualifying automatically, except for the fact that because the Greens don’t have official party status was the technicality that allowed it), but her running was yet again less about being a serious candidate than it was about giving herself the opportunity to make a speech about the rules, and why the Speaker needs to give up the lists provided to him or her and use their own judgment as to who should be recognised. (I actually agree, but this is one of those areas where if the Speaker did this unilaterally there would likely be a revolt). May also made the point that Rota apparently broke his own rules in recognising the Nazi-aligned veteran, however the Speaker’s office says that those rules didn’t really apply because it wasn’t an official sitting of the Commons, and Speakers have wide discretion in any case.

In the end, Liberal MP Greg Fergus was chosen, making him the first Black Speaker in Canadian history. The choice was a surprise to me because Fergus had never shown any interest in the role prior to this past week. In fact, he has always been a pretty notorious partisan (former leader of the Young Liberals, former national director of the party, former parliamentary secretary to the prime minister), and that raises questions for me, but that’s solely my opinion. Fergus did talk about subscribing to Hansard when he was 14, and being a House of Commons page, which puts him in good stead for his respect for the Chamber and the institution, but again, he’s coming into the position as a complete neophyte with no experience as a Chair occupant, which should be a little worrying given the particular state of Canadian democracy right now, and the rancorous mood.

That rancorous mood extended to the congratulatory speeches. Prime minister Justin Trudeau’s speech danced on the edge of being partisan in his talk about what were essentially government priorities, to which Pierre Poilievre decided to one-up him and go full-partisan, that included a bizarre false history lesson where he tried to wedge his “common sense” nonsense into “common people,” and the House of Commons, with a wrong history of the name and the institution itself, before trying to compare Trudeau to King John, who was forced to sign the Magna Carta. If the words “classless jackass” crossed your mind, you would be correct, which is all the more reason why the state of Canadian democracy is in trouble, and Fergus will be hard-pressed to do much about it.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces downed 29 out of 31 Russian drones and one cruise missile in overnight attacks, while falling debris tarted fires in Dnipro. Russia claims it downed a Ukrainian missile off the coast of occupied Crimea. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was visiting troops in the country’s northeast.

Continue reading →

QP: Rocketing up the repetitive talking points

Posted on by

Not only were the prime minister and his deputy present, so were all of the other leaders, and the benches were full. This while we had astronauts—the crew of Artemis II—in the Gallery to watch proceedings, along with the head of NASA, the US Ambassador to Canada, the head of the Canadian Space Agency, and other handlers. Even though MPs aren’t supposed to call attention to people in the Gallery, the final Members’ Statement of the day did praise said astronauts, and they got much applause, and the Speaker let this breach of the rules slide.

Pierre Poilievre led off in English for a change, comparing that the costs of the bureaucracy are “rocketing up,” and then lamented the civil service strike, wondering how much it would cost to end it. Justin Trudeau said that they believe in the importance of the bargaining table, which is why they are negotiating to reach an agreement that is good for civil servants and fair to taxpayers. Poilievre repeated the question in French, minus the pun, and Trudeau reiterated his response. Poilievre returned to English, and listed a serious of events that he incredulously wondered how anyone he could believe Trudeau was not involved with the Trudeau Foundation. Trudeau stated that he hasn’t had any contact with the Foundation, directly or indirectly for ten years. Poilievre focused on that meeting with the Foundation members and deputy ministers, and Trudeau recited his too-worn line that while the opposition focuses on him, he is focusing on Canadians. Poilievre quipped that nobody focuses more on the Trudeau than Trudeau himself, and that he seemed to think people were too dumb to see the links with the Foundation. Trudeau said that it was amazing to see the lengths to which the Conservatives would go to avoid talking about the budget, and listed about how great it was.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, recounted a storybook character that reminded him of Trudeau, and went after that PCO meeting again. Trudeau shrugged off the attack and said that he was focusing on helping Canadians. Blanchet insisted that there was all kinds of coordination in an office to have five deputy ministers hold a meeting os he must have known it was taking place, and Trudeau again listed the measures in the budget that was helping people.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, demanded the prime minister “show leadership” and capitulate to the public sector union demands. Trudeau praised the work of civil servants but said that taxpayers also need to be respected, which is why they were at the negotiating table. Singh repeated the question in English with added emphasis, and Trudeau gave a more robust and melodramatic version of the same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Derailing a summit for macho posturing

Posted on by

So, that was quite some G7 summit. I would say that I can’t even, but, well, at this point, it’s becoming harder and harder to be surprised by the Trumpocalypse, so, yeah. For those of you who missed the drama – and it was a hell of a lot of drama – Trump played nice until he took off early from the summit, and then after Justin Trudeau gave a press conference in which he tried very hard to downplay any tensions, but reiterated the same statement’s he’s made plenty of times over the past couple of weeks in talking about how the US tariffs are kind of insulting, and that no, he has no intention of agreeing to a sunset clause with NAFTA, that Trump tweeted up a storm from Airforce One about how Trudeau had stabbed him in the back, and how the steel and aluminium tariffs were in response to our dairy tariffs that form part of the Supply Management system (which puts a lie to the claim that the tariffs were for national security reasons), and that he had instructed his officials to no longer endorse the communiqué that he had previously agreed to. Sunday morning, Trump’s mouthpieces were arguing that there was a special place in Hell for people who negotiate in bad faith with Trump. Oh, and they pretty much confirmed that Trump is going on this rage bender because he wants to look tough in advance of his talks with North Korea, which is…novel. And ridiculous. But to her credit, Chrystia Freeland continued to take the high road, while Trudeau carried on with his meetings with the “outreach” countries who also attended the G7.

Here’s a recounting of the behind-the-scenes moves from the weekend, including the Friday night session between the leaders to hammer out the joint communiqué, and how that was already unravelling the next morning. Senior officials continue to be puzzled by the whole thing, considering that Trudeau has been consistent in his messaging. Trudeau and Freeland tried to keep the focus on what was accomplished – the fund for girls’ education in war-torn regions and the oceans plastic charter (that neither the US nor Japan signed onto, for the record). In the States, John McCain tweeted his support for Canada in this (but it might help if congressional Republicans stood up to Trump over this, but we’ll see if that happens). And that famous photo that everyone is sharing? Other leaders, including Trudeau’s official photographers, are tweeting other angles of it.

In hot takes from this weekend, Evan Solomon says that the government’s tactics need to change as waiting out Trump’s moods is clearly no longer an effective strategy. Scott Gilmore offers suggestions as to how to boycott Trump’s business interests. Paul Wells takes a few well-deserved shots at Trump’s talking heads, and suggests that their calling Trudeau weak is because he hasn’t been, and that perhaps it’s time for Canada and its allies to give a retaliatory response that is worth the Americans fearing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The verdict as reflection on the institution

Posted on by

Now that they’ve had a couple of days to digest the events, we’ve got some weekend punditry on the Duffy verdict and What It All Means™ for the Senate as an institution, and well, some of it is really hard to swallow. Rick Anderson has eight thoughts about the expenses issue, and most of them are on the right track, except for number four, which is about the Board of Internal Economy (Commons) and Internal Economy Committee (Senate), and his belief that these bodies are too political to police parliamentarian expenses. The problem with this line of thinking is of course parliamentary privilege – parliament is self-governing. It needs to be. It cannot be brought under the heel of a bureaucracy, because if we can’t trust our parliamentarians to run their own affairs, then we might as well just hand power back to the Queen. Do they get it right all of the time? No, of course not, but this is a democracy and there is an accountability process, and yes, that includes for the Senate. Of course with the Senate, it is much more tied to public pressure, but that public pressure has forced the Senate to make any number of changes in the past few years (they had already started before the whole ClusterDuff affair started, but that certainly accelerated things). This is of course why I have trouble with Adam Dodek’s condemnations of the Senate post-verdict and his (frankly wrong) assertions that nothing has really changed, and his assertion that most senators treat the job as a part-time gig. I’ve known very few senators who feel that way, and most that I’ve met and been in contact with are just as engaged as MPs with their files – even more in many cases when those senators have causes that they are engaged with. The days of senators sitting on a number of corporate boards is drawing to a close as boards are professionalising and the need for a senator as a “prestige” appointment become less common. (I would add that I actually think it’s not a problem for senators to sit on a non-profit board as a way of constituency outreach). And then there’s Michael Den Tandt who retreats to the same old fears about these new independent senators being wholly unaccountable, as though something has materially changed from when they were all in party caucuses (which is false), and that somehow that caucus could keep them more in line (no, not really). Apparently Den Tandt has forgotten that the Senate has institutional independence for a reason, and his musing that the Conservatives should champion abolition by way of a referendum is frankly ridiculous – despite what people may think about a referendum being a tactic to pressure premiers, it returns to the same problem of using majoritarian tactics to pressure minority provinces into giving up their counter-balancing representation. I think I’ll leave this meme here for his edification.

Mean Girls Senate Abolition

Continue reading →