Tag Archives: Dominic LeBlanc

Roundup: No breach of privilege for horse jokes

Posted on by

Our long national horse-joke nightmare is over. The Speaker of the House of Commons ruled that said tweet didn’t impinge on Garnett Genuis’ ability to do his work, and was not a prima facie breach of privilege, and the matter is dropped. I’m just surprised that it took him three days to determine that, but here we are. I was able to return to the House of Commons without fear that I would be removed by security (because the privilege complaint got the Sergeant-at-Arms involved), and things went as they have for pretty much the past almost fourteen years. Sure, Andrew Scheer gave me a death stare, but he’s not going to keep me from doing my job.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1574767434145447940

With that in mind, a few notes and observations—while I might have preferred a stronger statement from the Press Gallery executive, I have come to learn that there was a lot of backroom pressure being exerted by certain Conservatives, so the Gallery didn’t relent to that, which is a positive sign, but still worrying about the overall implications. I am under no illusions—this was a targeted attack on me, and this was a test case for what the Conservatives hoped they could get away with in their attempt to go to war with the media. They figured that I was vulnerable, because I’m a freelancer without a corporation and a newsroom backing me up, and I’m gay, and they hoped it would count against me. It didn’t. The Gallery rebuffed their attempts, and I wasn’t about to let the Conservatives bully or intimidate me. But this was pure intimidation, and We The Media can’t kid ourselves. I was one of the first, but I will not be the last. We’re going to need to get a lot better at solidarity in the months and years to come. Am I going to recycle this horse joke yet again? Probably not. But I’m not going to stop calling out their bullshit, either in print or over Twitter.

The bigger warning sign is about what this says about the state of politics. For Scheer and Genuis, this is just a game, and they are more concerned with scoring points than they are in doing the work of being an MP, whether it’s actual accountability, or policy work, or any of it. And the sad reality is that this is where politics has been headed under the current generation for a few years now. Friends of mine who used to be staffers got so discouraged by this attitude about point-scoring—and this is from all parties, not just the Conservatives—that they wanted out. Their going after me was just another attempt to score a point, and that’s why I’m not going to laugh this off and say “It’s just politics.” Because it’s not “just politics,” and this is not a game. We need to break this mindset, and return to this being a serious place with serious people. Garnett Genuis and Andrew Scheer are not serious people. Oh, and if they couldn’t parse the grammar of that tweet, then they have no business scrutinizing legislation.

And finally, a big thank you to all of my supporters and followers over the past week. It was very heartening to get your messages of encouragement throughout, even as I dealt with an influx of trolls who apparently have nothing better to do with their time than stalk my Facebook, or click on my YouTube videos in order to down-vote them. (Guess what guys—the algorithm counts those clicks, down-votes and shitty comments as engagement in my favour).

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 216:

Russia is claiming to have won overwhelming majority votes in their sham-referendums (conducted at gunpoint) in occupied regions of Ukraine as a pretext for annexation, which no Western country is going to view as legitimate. Meanwhile, Russian men at risk of conscription are fleeing the country, and a Russian-backed disinformation network trying to spread propaganda about the invasion has been shut down.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Freeland precedes a prorogation

Posted on by

The fallout from Bill Morneau’s resignation yesterday culminated in a brief Cabinet shuffle that saw Chrystia Freeland appointed to replace him as finance minister, and Dominic LeBlanc taking over her intergovernmental affairs responsibilities. This makes Freeland the country’s first woman federal finance minister, and there was much back-patting over that particular glass ceiling being shattered. The bigger news, however, was the fact that prime minister Justin Trudeau decided to prorogue Parliament to return on September 23rd – the same week they were intended to return anyway – for a new Speech from the Throne that would outline a new set of priorities for the government in order to focus on rebuilding the economy. Trudeau said that it was the time to move forward rather than revert to the status quo, and that we need bold new solutions rather than being held back by old ways of thinking. He also said that the pandemic was an “unprecedented opportunity,” a chance to build a more resilient Canada, which is healthier, safer, more competitive, more welcoming, and fairer. “This is our moment to change the future for the better,” he declared, adding that the window of opportunity wouldn’t be open for long.

During the Q&A, Trudeau only had praise for Morneau and wouldn’t elaborate on the leaks that happened up to his resignation. Regarding the Governor General, he said that he had confidence in the third-party investigative process launched by PCO. On his children going back to school, he said that they were discussing the matter “actively.” Regarding Freeland’s previous writing on taxing the super-wealthy, Trudeau said that he has been having this conversation with Freeland since he recruited her to politics, which is why the first thing they did was raise taxes on the top one percent, and that they wouldn’t raise taxes at this time. Regarding prorogation, Trudeau tried to differentiate his move with Harper’s 2008 prorogation by saying that while Harper was trying to avoid a confidence vote, he was instead putting one on the table with the Speech (err, except the logic falls apart when you realize that Harper also had a confidence vote following that prorogation, which he survived). He said that they continue to cooperate on any WE investigations, and that they released those thousands of pages of documents to the committee so that they can study them over the next month of fallow period, and that the opposition can keep asking questions when Parliament resumes. And when asked if he would be on the ballot next election, Trudeau said he would be and that he was “excited about the opportunity and the responsibility.”

We also got an extended response from Freeland, beyond her praise for Morneau, both about breaking the glass ceiling around women in the finance portfolio, and the government’s feminist agenda, which was important because of how this crisis has disproportionately affected women. Regarding her own disagreements with Trudeau – because of the narrative being promulgated about Morneau’s ouster – Freeland said that she and the PM had recently reflected “with good humour” on times they disagreed, and that she felt that having those different points of view, with the ability to have open, respectful, candid conversation about them (behind closed doors) brought government to a better decision. So there’s that.

On the subject of prorogation, this is vastly different from 2008, and anyone who tries to compare the two is either being disingenuous or has a comprehension problem. The WE Imbroglio is hardly a scandal – yes, it highlights the PM’s poor judgment, and that should be the cue that it’s time for him to leave, but that’s about it. The attempts by the various committees to find a smoking gun haven’t been able to find one, and several of them are exceeding their mandates in trying to force more investigations. Prorogation won’t end any ongoing committees, but delay them, though I’m really not sure there’s much more to be gained by continuing them, for what it’s worth. This being said, Trudeau proroguing now instead of waiting until the eve of his scheduled Throne Speech is not exactly a smart move given the current pandemic context, because if there is a need for an emergency recall of Parliament for a new legislative measure as a result of said pandemic, they will need to have a Throne Speech before that can happen. While I’m sympathetic to those former staffers who said that the government needs to focus on their Throne Speech and budget, and that the WE stuff was a real distraction from that, I would say too bad – the government made its bed and needs to lay in it. It was unnecessarily provocative and only increases people’s cynicism about Trudeau breaking his promise not to use tactics like these for political gain.

Meanwhile, Heather Scoffield makes note of the juggling act that Freeland will need to employ in order to balance the goals she’s facing, but notes her experience as a working mother will help. Susan Delacourt points out that Freeland is the only “star candidate” of Trudeau’s that is still standing and hasn’t been tarnished along the way.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau slows to a summer pace

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau was back at Rideau Cottage yesterday morning, for what he promised would be the last “daily” briefing, though they haven’t been daily for a few weeks now. And there really wasn’t anything new to announce – yet another reminder that the Canadian Emergency Business Account and commercial rent subsidies were good things, that there were still hotspots of pandemic around the country, but that we are making progress – but are not out of the woods yet – and oh, yeah, the New NAFTA comes into force on Wednesday. During the Q&A, Trudeau stated that American chest-thumping over tariffs only hurts them because they need Canadian aluminium as they can’t produce enough of their own. When asked about the Human Rights Watch report on Canadian foreign fighters being held prisoner in Syria, Trudeau insisted that they are preoccupied with the safety of diplomatic personnel in the region, and we don’t have any in Syria, which makes the complicated situation even more complex because most of these prisoners are facing charges. (Not everyone buys this argument). And when asked yet again about We Charities being given that contract, Trudeau again insisted that the advice of the public service was that only they could deliver on the scale that was required, and that some 25,000 students hand applied over the past few days, to prove the point.

A short while later, Dr. Theresa Tam gave her last regular update as well, as those pressers also take on a less daily pace, as well as unveiled new federal modelling numbers, which show that the pandemic is largely under control, but with the warning that people need to keep up good habits around distancing and hygiene, lest flare-ups start happening.

Meanwhile, in Alberta, Jason Kenney and his finance minister unveiled their economic recovery plan, and it was complete with mistruths, and tired magical thinking that tax cuts will automatically create jobs (when these rapid cuts will only benefit existing players rather than attract future ones), or that hectoring tech firms for not upping sticks to relocate to the “cheap rents” of Calgary and lower taxes as being “irresponsible.” So yeah, good luck with that. Meanwhile, here’s Andrew Leach with a bit of a fact check.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Open letters and complications

Posted on by

Alberta premier Jason Kenney took the next step in his performance art when it comes to demanding the approval of the Teck Frontier mine, and released an open letter to Justin Trudeau, which reiterated his points for the approval of the project. Of course, he didn’t actually tell the truth with all of those points, which is kind of awkward. (And hey, CBC, you could have done more than just retype Kenney’s letter and actually include some of the pushback, like Andrew Leach’s fact-checking).

Leach also has some problems with the lack of a viable reclamation plan for the project’s end-pit lakes, which is kind of a big deal, because it does seem like they’re trying to handwave away the problem, and hope that maybe in the future they’ll have a magic new technology that will solve the problem. That’s not a good thing. (Thread here).

Meanwhile, the federal decision on the Teck Frontier mine may be complicated as at least one affected First Nation says their concerns aren’t being addressed by the province, which is kind of a big deal. In fact, he said that the federal government has been doing their part, but the province under Kenney’s government has pretty much walked away after the previous government was doing the work with them – hence why they’re calling for the project to only be conditionally approved, with the condition being that the province be given a deadline to complete their talks with the First Nation and addressing their concerns about the impacts that the project (if it goes ahead, which it likely won’t anytime soon) would have on their local environment. It would seem to me that it’s a problem that Kenney keeps insisting they have full Indigenous sign-off on the project if in fact they actually don’t – but the truth hasn’t stopped him at any point thus far.

Continue reading →

Roundup: “True Blue” O’Toole

Posted on by

Erin O’Toole made his official entry into the leadership race yesterday by way of a video that takes swipes at “cancel culture” and celebrity activists – the kinds of keyboard warrior buzzwords that are pretty much the domains of O’Toole’s new campaign staffer, Jeff Ballingall, of those “Canada Proud” etc. sites.

At a rally in Calgary later in the evening, O’Toole said that Peter MacKay would turn the party into Liberal-lite, which I have yet to see any actual evidence of (MacKay is not really a Red Tory, guys – he’s not. Stop pretending he is). It also struck me that he kept reiterating the kinds of comforting lies that the party likes to tell itself about issues like the plight of the energy sector, where the woes are blamed on the Trudeau government and not changing market forces (seriously, the shale revolution in the US is a pretty big driver of these changes). He did say that he would march in a Pride parade, and justified it with his military background, which is a bit funny given that he hasn’t marched in one to date, which makes his sudden conviction around it mighty suspect. His opposition to carbon pricing continues to dig the party into its current environmental rut, and his talk of deficits remains completely economically illiterate – all doubling down on the party’s current positions, because that’s apparently what will make him a “true blue” Conservative. I’m not sure how this grows the party’s base, but what do I know?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Look at all the chimeric ministers

Posted on by

With the usual bit of pomp and circumstance, the Cabinet has been shuffled in advance of Parliament being summoned. It is bigger by two bodies, there are seven new faces, a few new portfolios – and baffling ones at that – a few being folded back into their original ministries, and yes, gender parity was maintained throughout. The Cabinet committees are also getting a shuffle, which gives you a glimpse at what they see the focus will be, and spoiler alert, it’s very domestic and inward-looking – not much of a surprise in a hung parliament where there are few plaudits or seats to be won on foreign affairs files. It’s also no surprise that it’s Quebec and Ontario-heavy, and largely representing urban ridings, because that’s where the Liberals won their seats.

And thus, the biggest headline is of course that Chrystia Freeland has been moved from foreign affairs to intergovernmental affairs, but with the added heft of being named deputy prime minister – the first time this title has been employed since Paul Martin, and Freeland assures us that it’s going to come with some heft and not just be ceremonial. She’s also retaining the Canada-US file, so that there remains continuity and a steady hand on the tiller as the New NAFTA completes the ratification process. It also would seem to indicate that it gives her the ability to keep a number of fingers in a number of pies, but we’ll have to wait for her mandate letter to see what specifics it outlines, though the expectations that she will have to manage national unity in this somewhat fractious period is a tall order. Jonathan Wilkinson moving to environment has been matched with the expected talk about his upbringing and education in Saskatchewan, so as to show that he understands the prairies as he takes on the environment portfolio. Jim Carr is out of Cabinet officially, but he will remain on a Cabinet committee and be the prime minister’s “special representative” to the prairie provinces, which is supposed to be a less taxing role as he deals with cancer treatments (though I don’t see how that couldn’t be a recipe for high blood pressure, but maybe that’s just me). Two other ministers were demoted – Kirsty Duncan, who will become deputy House Leader, and Ginette Petitpas Taylor, who will become the deputy Whip – though it should be noted that both House Leader and Whip are of added importance in a hung parliament.

The opposition reaction was not unexpected, though I have to say the Conservatives’ talking point was far pissier than I would have guessed – none of the usual “we look forward to working together, but we’ll keep our eyes on you,” kind of thing – no, this was bitter, and spiteful in its tone and language. Even Jason Kenney was classier in his response (but we all know that lasts about five minutes). That’ll make for a fun next few years if they keep this up.

As for some of my own observations, I was struck by the need to name a new Quebec lieutenant, given that Trudeau used to say that they had a Quebec general (meaning him), so no need, and lo, did the Conservatives had meltdowns over it. Likewise, there was thought under the previous parliament that they would eliminate all of those regional development ministers and put them all under Navdeep Bains (whose ministry has rebranded again from Industry, to Innovation, Science and Economic Development, and is now Innovation, Science, and Industry), which kept a lot of the kinds of nepotism that was rampant in those regional development agencies at bay. Now Trudeau has hived off the economic development portfolio into its own ministry, to be headed by Mélanie Joly, but she’ll have six parliamentary secretaries – one for each development agency region, which feels like the whole attempt to break those bonds is backsliding. Science as a standalone portfolio was folded back into Bains’ domain, but the very specific project that Kirsty Duncan was tasked with when she was given the portfolio four years ago was completed, so it made a certain amount of sense. Democratic Institutions is gone, folded back into Privy Council Office and any of its functions Dominic LeBlanc will fulfill in his role as President of the Queen’s Privy Council (which is a role that is traditionally secondary to another portfolio). Trudeau continued to keep his Leader of the Government in the Senate out of Cabinet, which is a mistake, but why listen to me? (I’m also hearing rumours that Senator Peter Harder is on his way out of the job, so stay tuned). The fact that David Lametti got a new oath as minister of justice and Attorney General to reflect the recommendations of the McLellan Report was noteworthy. But overall, my biggest observation is that Trudeau is doubling down on the kinds of chimeric ministries that tend to straddle departments, which makes for difficult accountability and confusing lines of authority on files. The most egregious of the new portfolios was the “Minister of Middle Class™ Prosperity,” which is a fairly bullshit title to attach to the fact that she’s also the Associate Minister of Finance, which should have been significant in the fact that it’s the closest we’ve been to a woman finance minister at the federal level, but dressing it up in this performative hand-waving about the Middle Class™ (which is not about an actual class but about feelings) is all the kinds of nonsense that keeps this government unable to communicate its way out of a wet paper bag, and it’s just so infuriating.

https://twitter.com/sproudfoot/status/1197239923100856321

In hot takes, Chantal Hébert sees the move of Freeland as the defining one of this shuffle, and notes that it could either be just what they need, or it could be a kamikaze mission for Freeland. Susan Delacourt sees the composition of the new Cabinet as one that corrects past mistakes and of taking on lessons learned. Robert Hiltz points to the two polarities of this Cabinet – the farce of the Minister of Middle Class™ Prosperity, and the menace of putting Bill Blair in charge of public safety. Paul Wells makes the trenchant observation that carving up ministries across several ministers has the effect of creating multiple redundancies that will make more central control necessary – and I think he’s right about that. (Also, for fun, Maclean’s timed the hugs Trudeau gave his ministers, which didn’t compare to some from 2015).

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1197245638548869120

Continue reading →

Roundup: Frank dialogue and tone-deaf pronouncements

Posted on by

The Conservatives had their big post-election caucus meeting, and to the surprise of absolutely nobody, they voted not to enact the provisions of the (garbage) Reform Act that would give caucus the ability to turf their leader and force a new leadership contest – predictably under the rubric of empowering the “grassroots,” which as was explained in yesterday’s post, does the complete opposite. As this is going on, Angus Reid had a poll of Conservative voters that showed them particularly split on whether they want Scheer to stay or go (42 percent go, 41 percent stay, 17 percent undecided), so that could be an indication that their own base is leaning toward dumping him at their leadership review in April – especially as the convention will be in Toronto, an area where the party was shut out, and they may be more motivated to punish him for it.

As for Scheer, he arrived at his planned press conference three hours late because the meeting kept going, and it makes one wonder if the “frank discussion” going on inside were to blame – it’s possible there was an airing of the grievances happening, particularly for those who lost their seats. It didn’t seem to daunt Scheer, however, because when he arrived at the microphones, he essentially repeated his stump speech from the campaign. Sure, he said that “no one was more disappointed than me,” but he offered no signs of humility in defeat. When asked about the failure of his climate plan, Scheer said that they simply didn’t communicate it clearly enough rather than admit that it transparently wasn’t an actual climate plan (and his own senators have publicly clocked him on this fact). When asked if he thinks homosexuality is a sin, he prevaricated – again – and forcefully stated that he will defend people’s rights, which shows that he hasn’t learned anything from the campaign about his evasiveness.

Meanwhile, Matt Gurney makes the point that the party isn’t listening to what people in the GTA have been trying to tell them about what will and won’t fly there if they want to win seats there ever again, and are being told to “calm down” in response – which could spell trouble for Scheer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: It’s a Liberal-led minority

Posted on by

A hung parliament is not a big surprise, with the Liberals remaining in power, but the seat math is perhaps a bit closer than some had anticipated. The Conservatives only gained a handful of seats, and probably not enough for Andrew Scheer to quell any discontent that will start bubbling up in the ranks after such an uninspiring campaign. The NDP have lost almost half of their seats, meaning all the supposed “momentum” and the “upriSingh” that they kept touting didn’t translate into votes – but that’s what happens when you don’t have the organization capable of mobilizing your votes. The Greens only picked up an extra seat (at the time of this writing), one in Fredericton, where they had provincial strength, but it was certainly not the “Green wave” that they kept boasting about (not a surprise there either). The Bloc is now the third party in the Commons, meaning they’ll have a bigger role to play on committees – something they used to be very good at, once upon a time – but we’ll also see if any of the other parties will start to cope with the “new” block that is far more about Quebec nationalism than it is sovereignty, and that they are the federal voice of François Legault. And Maxime Bernier has lost his seat, so hopefully the fan club that he masqueraded as a party will dissolve entirely rather than solidify into a far-right movement.

To that end, Jack Harris won for the NDP in St. John’s, and he was a good MP in previous parliaments, so he’ll have to carry a lot of weight now that their ranks are diminished. Ralph Goodale was defeated in Saskatchewan, which is a huge loss of capacity for the Cabinet, because he did so much of the heavy lifting. The Liberals lost their Alberta seats, Amarjeet Sohi losing to Tim Uppal, who lives in Ottawa and has no plans to move back to the riding; Kent Hehr also losing the only Liberal seat in Calgary. Also, Lisa Raitt lost her seat to Adam van Koeverden, which will also hurt the Conservatives.

Trudeau’s loss of representation in the West is going to be a big problem for him, particularly because he ejected all of his senators from his caucus, and it was not unheard of for the Liberals to fill in the gaps in their representation with their Senators, and now they don’t have that. People have suggested that maybe Trudeau could appoint Goodale to the Senate in order to fill that gap (and there is a vacant Senate seat from Saskatchewan), but that will involve him eating a whole lot of crow, and possibly forcing him to rethink some of his ham-fisted moves around the Senate. It’s possible, but I’m not hopeful for that change of heart. But now we’re going to get a bunch of really bad hot takes about Alberta talking about separation or other such ridiculous nonsense, because Jason Kenney still has his punching bag and scapegoat.

https://twitter.com/maxfawcett/status/1186353921800863744

And now we’re already getting a lot of really dumb hot takes on hung parliaments, with ridiculous statements like “Canadians voted for a minority,” which no, they did not do, and “Canadians are forcing cooperation because they couldn’t get proportional representation,” which again is not how this goes. As for the seat math, because the Liberals are so close to majority territory, it means that they are unlikely to have to form any kind of form agreement with any other party, but will be able to cobble together votes on an issue-by-issue basis, which makes all of the talk about red-lines and demands beforehand kind of dumb (as I pointed out in this column).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sensation over nuance

Posted on by

The big headline over CBC yesterday was that five of the six most recent federal judicial appointments in the province of New Brunswick all had some kind of ties to Dominic LeBlanc – never mind how tenuous those ties were. This of course led a bunch of Conservative apologists to compare this with the Dean French/Doug Ford situation in Ontario, which is absurd given that judicial appointments have a more rigorous merit-based system around them (more rigorous than it was under the Conservative era), and many of the French/Ford appointments had to do with whether someone was connected to French by family or lacrosse, many with no obvious competences in the roles they were appointed to. The Conservatives also declared that this was somehow related to both Loblaws winning a competition around fridge refits (no, seriously), and that this was reminiscent of the Arctic surf clam contract that LeBlanc was involved in wherein the definition of “family” used by the Ethics Commissioner differed from that in other statutes. (Not mentioned was the time when the Conservatives appointed most of Peter MacKay’s wedding party to the bench in Nova Scotia).

Reading deeper into this story, I found that some of the connections that were being highlighted were a bit dubious. The most dubious was the fact that one of the judges named was not actually someone that was recently named, but rather promoted to the Chief Justice of province’s Court of Appeal by Trudeau, though she was originally a Conservative donor and had been first named to the Bench by Harper. The fact that she bought a property from LeBlanc next to his summer cottage was deemed to be curious in this. Likewise the fact that two of them were part of a group that paid off LeBlanc’s leadership campaign debts a decade ago (each would have donated a few hundred dollars) is a pretty dubious link between them. The only one that might raise eyebrows is the fact that one of the five is married to LeBlanc’s brother-in-law…but even then, at what point do we start disqualifying someone whose relation is by marriage twice-removed?

The other bit of nuance that we can’t forget here is that New Brunswick is a very small province with a very small population, and legal circles in a province like that would be very tight – especially when you consider that the provincial political culture is far more nepotistic than the federal culture is. While the CBC piece cites a paper that says that people with political connections get judicial appointments at a rate double that in other parts of the country, but one has to remember that it can be harder to avoid, which is why fighting nepotism in those places can be much harder. And this is the point where people will bring up the fact that Jody Wilson-Raybould objected to the fact that names that were short-listed needed to be sent to PMO for vetting by the Liberals’ database, but again, it needs to be stressed that they need to go through all sources to check for red flags because the prime minister is politically accountable for those appointments. It’s called Responsible Government. Does that mean that these five appointments didn’t have some influence from LeBlanc tapping the justice minister and saying he wanted them appointed? Anything is possible, but it’s unlikely given the vetting process and the fact that most of these connections are tenuous at best. But it’s also regrettable that this kind of journalism strives for sensationalism and an attempt at being gotcha than it is with nuance.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Anger over vilified legislation? Shocking!

Posted on by

Over on the Financial Post’s op-ed pages, Senator Richard Neufeld worries about all of the angry Canadians the Senate’s energy committee is hearing from over Bill C-69. I have no doubt that they are hearing from angry people, because there has been a massive disinformation campaign around this bill from the start. The Conservatives and their provincial counterparts in Alberta have dubbed it the “no more pipelines” bill, even though it’s nothing of the sort. Neufeld worries that the bill means that we can never have any more major projects in this country, which is absurd on the face of it, but hey, there are narratives to uphold.

I’ve talked to a lot of environmental lawyers about this bill, and the potential amendments that it could merit. It is certainly not a bill without flaws, and the government seems to have acknowledged that (and apparently there is some kind of gamesmanship being played right now, where the government has a list of amendments they want to introduce at the Senate committee via one of their proxies but they won’t release them ahead of time for some reason). This having been said, there seems to be no acknowledgment of a few realities – that the current system that the Harper government put into place isn’t working and has only wound up with litigation; that we simply can’t bully through projects past Indigenous communities anymore, because Section 35 rights mean something; and that the bill sought to eliminate a lot of heavy lifting by putting more consultation on the front end so that projects could be better scoped, and that it would mean not needing to produce boxes of documents that nobody ever reads in order to check boxes off of lists as part of the assessment process. This is not a bad thing.

But like I said, there are problems with the bill, and Neufeld lists a few of them in passing while trading in more of the myths and disinformation around it. But so long as that disinformation campaign goes unchallenged – and this includes by ministers who can only speak in talking points and can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag because they’re too assured of their own virtues that they don’t feel the need to dismantle a campaign of lies – then the anger will carry on, and when this bill passes in some amended form (and it’s likely it will), then it will simply become another propaganda tool, which should be concerning to everyone – including those who are weaponizing it, because it will blow up in their faces.

Continue reading →