After a delay due to votes in the Commons, Senate QP got underway with special guest star, natural resources minister Jim Carr. Senator Larry Smith led off, raising the Trans Mountain pipeline and wondering how the minister was supposed to move the project forward. Carr noted that the government approved the pipeline because they believe it’s good for Canada, and noted that while BC has decided it wants to consult, Canada has already done so in order to not make the same mistakes that were made with Northern Gateway. Smith wondered if there was any kind of contingency plan to deal with future obstacles, and Carr noted that they had already intervened before the National Energy Board, who agreed with the government position, and permitting continues at pace and that pace is determined by Kinder Morgan. Continue reading
Tag Archives: Energy East Pipeline
Roundup: Blame Dawson or the system?
As the Bill Morneau imbroglio starts to fade behind the outrage du jour, being the Paradise Papers, Andrew Coyne decided to take another crack at the issue, this time taking a swing at Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson and her handling – or mishandling – of the whole affair from the beginning. The problem of course is that Coyne’s piece relies heavily on commentary from local civically illiterate crank and guaranteed quote machine Duff Conacher, for whom everything is evil and wrong, and why he hasn’t yet been labelled a vexatious litigant by the courts is beyond me. Regardless, it cannot be denied that yes, Dawson herself is a problem, but not the only problem.
A few days ago, Andrew Potter wrote a piece in the Globe and Mail about the whole sordid history of why we have the Commissioner position in the first place, and why it has always been a problem. And he’s right in pointing out that the point of this position has been politicized from the beginning, but as with so many of our watchdog or “Independent Officer of Parliament” positions these days, they exist as much to deflect problems onto as they do to act as the instrument by which the opposition can use as both a cudgel to launch their attacks, and a shield to hide behind if there is any counter-fire.
And to that end, we can’t simply blame Dawson herself – as much as she is and always has been part of the problem. Much of that lies on MPs themselves, who created the regime, wrote rules that don’t include ethics guidelines, and when presented with the litany of problems with the legislation, shrug and make minor tweaks without addressing the big stuff. And it happens constantly, so when imagined scandals happen, they can scream and rail that just following the rules isn’t good enough, but that the alleged transgressor must have known better and should have exceeded them. Never mind that it’s a nonsense frame to put around issues, but these are also the same rules that those MPs put into place. Saying that the rules they created for themselves aren’t good enough is galling, and one has to constantly ask why they didn’t create rules that were good enough in the first place if they knew that there were problems – and yes, they did know, because Dawson herself identified them. It’s childish politics, and just manages to make a farce out of their feigned outrage (not surprisingly).
Meanwhile, Conacher managed to get a whole piece out of the Star by complaining that the government is wrong in saying there aren’t enough qualified candidates for the Ethics and Lobbying Commissioner positions because he applied for the Lobbying Commissioner position and hasn’t been chosen. Err, that may be a reflection on you, Duff, and this exercise in your ego may be part of the reason why you’re not chosen.
This pretty much takes the cake, however. pic.twitter.com/PFHWF6YDhs
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) November 9, 2017
Roundup: Those amended tax proposals
Bill Morneau unveiled his latest tweaks to his tax change proposals in New Brunswick today, and it looks like a pretty serious attempt to continue to close the avenues for tax avoidance by means of using Canadian-Controlled Private Corporations, while at the same time trying not to completely dissuade the use of those corporations to help businesses save for rainy days or mat leaves, etcetera – in other words, that he’s taken the concerns seriously. So here are economists Lindsay Tedds and Kevin Milligan to break down the new proposals.
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/920665737605275648
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/920691299979706368
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/920691882006429696
https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/920670899279294464
https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/920671345909710849
https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/920671992973377536
https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/920672199777726465
https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/920678452298051584
https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/920679611721117696
https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/920680776907112448
https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/920687164651745280
https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/920687623814881280
https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/920687998659846144
https://twitter.com/McGregN/status/920698693015126017
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/920748387510624257
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/920749146084016128
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/920749805260828673
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/920750703118659584
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/920751628424134656
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/920752127475007488
Senate QP: Jim Carr disputes your questions
With the cancellation of the Energy East pipeline by its proponent still fresh in the minds of many Canadians, it was natural that an appearance by Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr in the Senate would prompt a lot of questions. It did not disappoint. Senator Larry Smith led off, wondering about the “evaporation” of energy projects in Canada while the Americans continued to ramp up their own projects. Carr disputed that there was an evaporation, and spoke about the approval of three projects that would create 27,000 jobs and that while they recognized the need to reform the regulatory process, they were approving more projects than they were rejecting. On a supplemental, Smith asked what could be done to better advance Canadian energy security through things like pipelines, and Carr disputed a bit with how it was worded, and noted that the government has certain responsibilities, and upon seeing some shaking heads across the aisle, Carr laid out conditions that have changed since the Energy East pipeline was first proposed, including the price of oil and new approved pipelines including Keystone XL.
Roundup: A reminder of why debate matters
While I haven’t been following the trial in Sudbury around those non-criminal bribery charges related to the provincial by-election, aside from Chris Selley’s columns on the topic, it was something that he tweeted from the courtroom yesterday that piqued my interest because it’s something I deal with a fair amount in writing both about law and politics. Part of the issue raised is that these sections of the law that the trial is proceeding under have never been tested before.
Fascinating convo over whether (e) here even captures offering a job to Glenn Thibeault's trusted constituency assistants… pic.twitter.com/xqVh2nueK1
— Chris Selley (@cselley) October 10, 2017
There's no guidance: nobody ever charged under this section, which dates from 1998. And it passed with no debate in committee or the leg.
— Chris Selley (@cselley) October 10, 2017
The usual reminder why passing bills with no debate IS A BAD THING. Courts rely on transcripts to figure out what parliament is thinking. https://t.co/oj9pROgHhl
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 10, 2017
McKercher, for the Crown, suggests plain English means these jobs count. If it's not egregious, take into account at sentencing.
— Chris Selley (@cselley) October 10, 2017
We see these kinds of bills passed not infrequently federally that are passed at all stages with no debate. This is usually where the Senate picks up the slack and does the actual heavy lifting, but not always. Sure, there are a few bills that are relatively non-contentious, related to national parks and such (to think of an example or two off the top of my head), but some that matter – like the changes to royal succession in Canadian law – got no debate in the Commons despite it being a fairly fundamental problem that the law as passed effectively reduced Canada’s status to that of a colony once again.
But the point I make is that the courts will often turn to Parliament for guidance in what it is they should be interpreting. That means looking to debates and committee transcripts to try to divine just what it is that Parliament intended when they passed the bill so that the judge can rule one way or the other in clarifying the meaning. And if you have no such debates – like in this Ontario statute – well, that’s a real problem. It’s also a reason why I will frequently harp on why the Senate matters so much is because they not only will offer some debate in instances where the Commons offers none, but it’s where committee testimony becomes most crucial, especially when it comes to hearing from witnesses that people object to (as happened with the trans rights bill) – because they want it on the record that they heard and dismissed these concerns should they eventually be litigated.
Parliament is supposed to matter, and MPs (and MPPs in this particular instance) do themselves and the province or country they serve a real disservice when they don’t do the job of putting things on the record. And I’ll say that the issue going on in Ontario right now with the bubble law around abortion clinics is another such issue. The provincial Progressive Conservatives offered to pass the bill at all stages – eager to get it off the agenda so that it minimizes the divisions in their ranks on the issue, and the Liberals refused, wanting instead to hear from those it affects. While the cynical calculation is that this is the Liberals playing politics – and to an extent it really is – it’s also the responsible thing to do, so that we get some debate and testimony on the record, so that when this legislation is inevitably challenged, there is a record for the courts to turn to. And yes, that matters beyond the petty politicking.
Roundup: No conflict to investigate
For all of the ink spilled and concerns trolled in Question Period, the Morneau-Shepell conspiracy theory is turning into a big fat zero for the Conservatives. Why? It seems that for all of the “appearance of conflict of interest” that they’re trying to drum up and selective laying out of facts in true conspiracy theory style (with the added cowardice of hiding behind the so-called “experts” who laid them out in committee testimony), the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner herself is shrugging it off.
“There does not appear to be reasonable grounds at this time for the Commissioner to launch an examination under the Conflict of Interest Act or an inquiry under the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons,” said the Commissioner’s spokesperson, and added that they won’t bother investigating investigate “if there is no specific information to suggest that a provision of the Act or the Code may have been contravened.”
And guess who isn’t putting up any specific information that would suggest an actual conflict of interest? The Conservatives. They’re still “gathering information,” which is cute, because why bother filing anything formally when you can make all manner of accusations and cast as much aspersion as possible under the protection of the privilege of the House of Commons, that will be reported uncritically? After all, this is “just politics,” and you can worry about the “appearance” of conflicts all you want on flimsy to no evidence, while facing no consequences whatsoever. It’s tiresome, but it’s the kind of sad drama that we seem to be subsisting on rather than substantive debate on the issues and the actual concerns that appeared around those tax proposals. Such is the sad state of affairs these days.
Roundup: The demise of Energy East
The news that TransCanada decided to cancel their plans for the Energy East pipeline yesterday created a predictable firestorm of reaction, from the gloating of Montreal mayor Denis Coderre, outgoing Saskatchewan premier getting in his last kicks, to the histrionics of the Conservative caucus. The government’s line is market conditions have changed since the project was first proposed – and they’re entirely correct. But that doesn’t stop the rhetoric, either from TransCanada itself, or from the Conservatives, who are peddling some incredulous, mind-boggling lines to vilify the government.
It's a Liberal ideological opposition to the wealth and prosperity of western Canada, to the detriment of the nation as a whole. https://t.co/nRGGmQKyc2
— Michelle Rempel Garner (@MichelleRempel) October 5, 2017
https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/916098405700718592
But seriously, there are plenty of charts and graphs that show how the market conditions have changed beyond just the world price of oil (which is a bit part of it), but that the capacity with the other approved pipelines changes the equation for the hole that Energy East would have filled, and it’s no longer clear that it was a clear-cut decision after all.
Here's another graphic you'll want to have in your pocket today for Energy East discussions. A few things have changed… pic.twitter.com/TmhtF3Falb
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) October 5, 2017
And one more. It's not Trudeau or carbon taxes or not enough people wearing "I ❤️ oil sands" the shirts that's been driving the change. pic.twitter.com/OsGdY5h15I
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) October 5, 2017
If pipe cos were taking merchant risk on quantities shipped, their costs of capital would increase dramatically, which would increase tolls.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) October 5, 2017
People will say, "more pipelines are better." that isn't necessarily true. Pipelines are cheap when operating full, not w overbuilt network.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) October 5, 2017
Also, it should be mentioned that as much as TransCanada is blaming government regulation, they did balls this up on their own end more than once, and do need to take some of the blame along the way. But why take that blame when you can shake your fist at the government?
There is strategy in shaking fist at board- and government-developed regulatory hurdles. Kvetching over economic climate= yelling at clouds. https://t.co/potggSkXdn
— Jason Markusoff (@markusoff) October 5, 2017
https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/915978635307212800
https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/915980506054803456
And this having been said, there is a proud Alberta tradition that is underlying all of this. Because some zombies refuse to die.
— Rockies to the Left (@RockiesLeft) October 5, 2017
Meanwhile, Paul Wells looks at the current record of the government in trying to attract investment, and wonders if we really are a place that will get the big things built, or if it will all collapse in tears and recriminations, driving investors away.
QP: Energy East and Barbados
After the Energy East cancellation announcement this morning, you just knew that this would be the fodder for increasingly hysterical denunciations during QP today. Justin Trudeau was present, but Andrew Scheer was not, so it remained to be seen how this would play out.
My prediction for #QP:
CPC: OMG YOU’RE MURDERING ALBERTA!
LPC: We approved more pipelines to tidewater than you did.
Repeat x25.— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 5, 2017
Lisa Raitt led off instead, mini-lectern on desk, blaming the government for killing Energy East with their ideology. Justin Trudeau responded that it was a business decision, that the project was proposed when oil was $90/barrel and it’s now half that, but that his government had already approved three other pipelines. Raitt accused the government of playing to the interests of countries like Saudi Arabia, and Trudeau shrugged off that suggestion. Raitt then accused him of taking Atlantic Canada for granted with this cancellation. Trudeau countered that they had an Atlantic growth strategy and that it was the previous government that ignored them. Gérard Deltell then took over the condemnation of the loss of Energy East in French, and Trudeau reiterated that conditions have changed, also in French. Deltell then said that Trudeau was responsible for conditions changing, as though Trudeau controls the world price of oil, and Trudeau instead responded about the ways that they have been doing what the market has been asking for, including carbon pricing. Guy Caron was up next, pointing to the recent PBO report on fiscal sustainability, and demanded that healthcare be adequately funded for the provinces. Trudeau touted the investments that they made in mental health and home care. In English, Caron demanded a national strategy for seniors, to which Trudeau listed all of the measures that they have taken. Caron then changed topics to the Phoenix pay system, demanding a refund for it. Trudeau noted that they were working with the public service and the unions to fix the situation, and then there was another round of the same in French.
Deltell seems to be insinuating that Trudeau is personally responsible for the world price of oil. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 5, 2017
QP: Equating Khadr with First Nations
Wednesday, caucus day, and not only was the prime minister in attendance, but we also saw NDP MP Guy Caron named as the party’s “parliamentary leader” in lieu of Jagmeet Singh while he remains seatless (and you can bet that I have a very big problem with this). Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, reading an exhortation about the proposed tax changes in French, condemning the defeat of their Supply Day motion on extending the consultations. Justin Trudeau responded with his usual points about being elected to raise taxes on the wealthy, and that they have listened to Canadians’ concerns as they move ahead with a bill. Andrew Scheer tried to turn the issue into one of touching the PM’s own family fortune, but Trudeau reiterated his talking points. Scheer insisted that the proposals would mean the wealthiest pay less while the middle class pay more — an extremely dubious claim — and Trudeau sounded a bit weary having to repeat himself about their plans to make the tax system fairer. Scheer then moved onto the topic of Omar Khadr, claiming that repatriation was his compensation and that the excuse of saving legal fees didn’t stack up in the face of the court case of that First Nations girls who needed braces. Trudeau reminded Scheer that they don’t only get to defend Canadians’ rights when it’s popular. Scheer asked again in French, and Trudeau responded with prepared points about the programme for uninsured care and that these services would be improved under the new Indigenous Services department. Guy Caron was up next to lead off for the NDP, and he asked about the Environment Commissioner’s report in French, and Trudeau responded first with congratulations to the new NDP leader and Caron’s new role, before giving a brief and bland assurance about the report. Caron asked again in English, and Trudeau gave a longer response about the environment and the economy and they have an ambitious carbon pricing plan coming in. Caron then railed about the Netflix deal and the outsourcing of Canadian culture to American companies. Trudeau assured him that they had faith in our content creators, and when Caron asked again in French, noting the condemnation of the Quebec National Assembly, Trudeau noted that they promised not to raise taxes on the middle class so they wouldn’t go ahead with additional levies.
I don’t see either Angus or Ashton here, so I can’t gauge how Caron’s new role sticks in their craws. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 4, 2017
QP: Morneau’s five new themes
While the prime minister was off meeting with the premiers and Indigenous leaders, it was also a Supply Day where the Conservatives were demanding an extension of the consultation period for the proposed tax changes. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and read his concerns about “local businesses” in French, and how tax changes would doom them. Bill Morneau reminded him that they were listening to Canadians and would ensure that their concerns were being heard. Scheer switched to English to demand that the government vote for their opposition motion on extending the consultation period. Morneau instead listed the five things they’ve heard that they plan to address. After another round of the same from Scheer and Morneau, Gérard Deltell got up to ask in French about the verification of the plans, and Morneau reminded him that they were looking for a fairer system that would encourage investment. Deltell railed that the measures would kill small businesses, but Morneau repeated that they were listening to the consultations. Alexandre Boulerice led for the NDP, railing about Netflix and tax avoidance by big corporations and tax havens, and Diane Lebouthillier reminded him that they were indeed going after tax evaders. Boulerice asked again in English, and Morneau deployed his worn tax fairness talking points. Linda Duncan was up next and raised the concerns laid out in the Environment Commissioner’s reports, and Catherine McKenna listed a number of measures that they were taking. Robert Aubin repeated the question in French, and McKenna reiterated her response in French.
Scheer leads off with concern about how tax changes will hurt local businesses for local people. #RoystonVasey #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 3, 2017