Tag Archives: National Energy Board

Roundup: Conspicuous silences

Posted on by

While responses from Canadian politicians and civil society was swift to the mass murder in New Zealand by an alleged white nationalist, Andrew Scheer’s initial tweets didn’t mention the fact that the victims were Muslims, or that they were killed in a mosque. He later put out an official statement that mentioned these things, but didn’t recant any of his winking to white nationalists with “globalist” conspiracy theories, giving succour to racists in order to “own the Libs,” or his wilful blindness of the racist and xenophobic elements of the “yellow vest” protesters that he recently addressed on the Hill (alongside other famous white nationalists, without denouncing them).

Ahmed Hussen said that people who are silent about hateful online comments feed into the narratives that lead to violence, which had Scheer’s office sniping that he was trying to score political points off of a tragedy, but it’s notable that Lisa Raitt and Michelle Rempel were calling out people posting racist responses to the news of the tragedy. (Notably, only Michael Chong called out the white nationalist problem in Canada). Here’s Carleton University professor Stephanie Carvin providing some national security and intelligence context, along with some analysis of how social media feeds this problem.

Andrew Coyne points out Scheer’s continued inability to do the right thing, not only with his poor first statement this time, but his inability to confront racists and for buying into populist conspiracy theories (and he even missed a few other examples).

Jody Wilson-Raybould

As the next Liberal caucus meeting draws closer, and a decision as to whether Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott should be allowed to remain in caucus becomes more immediate, Wilson-Raybould published an open letter to her constituents to reiterate her commitment to being a Liberal, but it was more than that. Rather than just a simple statement about serving her constituents, or some feel-good language, she went on about being new to party politics and wanting to bring change to reject the culture of conflict, empty partisanship, and cynical games. Except this reads a lot like a cynical game in and of itself because it’s both a dare to the prime minister to keep her (and Jane Philpott) in caucus – Justin Trudeau saying he hasn’t spoken to either of them, and that he had no comment on this letter – and it sounds a lot like a challenge to Trudeau and his authority. You know, like she did with her refusal to turn over relevant information about recommendations for judicial appointments, and her refusal to be given a different Cabinet post. It remains to be seen what her endgame is, but this seems to be looking more like a future leadership bid, albeit in a way that hasn’t been done by those who have done so in the past. But that said, I think it’s pretty hard to ignore that Wilson-Raybould has an endgame in mind.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1106587109429641216

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have decided that they’re going to begin a new round of procedural warfare over the demands to get Wilson-Raybould to testify again at the Justice committee, and they’re going to demand all-night line-by-line votes on the Supplemental Estimates. But…we’ve seen this show already. It’s a poor procedural protest because these votes have zero to do with the Wilson-Raybould situation, and when they vote against line items, it opens them up to attack from the government – just like the last time they attempted this and voted against things like veteran benefits allocations. It’s not smart strategy, and it’s premature because the committee hasn’t decided if they’re going to hear from Wilson-Raybould again or not. And then they’ll cry foul, like “You’re making us inconvenience everyone!” when no, nobody is making you do anything. Try again.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Notley’s unconstitutional threats

Posted on by

In Alberta, Rachel Notley’s NDP government had a Throne Speech yesterday that promised all manner of action to try to pressure BC’s NDP government when it comes to the Trans Mountain pipeline problem. Notley, however, decided to take some of Jason Kenney’s bluster and make it her own, promising the ability to block oil shipments to BC that they need for their domestic use. The problem? The Trans Mountain pipeline is regulated by the National Energy Board, meaning it’s federal jurisdiction, and that neither province can do anything to block it or affect what it carries. She’s also echoing the comments that the federal government needs to lean harder on BC, never mind that the NEB has quasi-judicial authority on the issue, and the fact that all BC has done to date is announce a study, or that the federal government has repeated “This pipeline will get built.” It’s a bunch of chest-thumping and borrowed demagoguery that ignores the historical context of what Peter Lougheed threatened in the 1980s, and is rank hypocrisy in that they’re threatening unconstitutional action to combat BC’s threatened unconstitutional action. It’s time for everyone to grow up.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A firmer timeline for cannabis

Posted on by

The Senate came to a negotiated decision around the marijuana legalization bill timeline yesterday, and there is a bit of good news, and a bit of bad news if you’re waiting for its passage. On the one hand, the new timeline has the benefit of an end date – that it aims for third reading vote by June 7th, but that also moves a vote on second reading until March 22nd, and from then on, it will go to five different committees instead of just three. It does, however, mean that the government’s timeline of July is now out of the water, because even if it passes in June (because there is the possibility of amendments, but there should be enough time to deal with those), there will still be an eight-to-twelve week lag time between royal assent and when the stores can open their doors given production and distribution timelines, and the likes. So, it likely means no legal weed over the summer, if you’re so inclined.

A couple of additional notes: I keep hearing this concern trolling that keeping the legal age below 25 is terrible because youth shouldn’t smoke it because of brain development and so on. The problem with setting the legal age too high is that it remains the forbidden fruit for those youth, which encourages use, but it also ignores the reams of data that we have on what happens when drinking ages are set too high, especially in states where it’s 21 instead of 18 or 19. What happens if you have young adults who binge drink to the point of alcohol poisoning because there is no way to build a culture of moderation – not to mention, it will continue to be an active driver for the black market if young adults can still get it that way. At least by setting it to the provincial drinking age, you have a better chance of reaching them through education programs (which will hopefully be better than the current “don’t do drugs” scare tactics that governments repeatedly try and fail at) than simple prohibition. In other words, I hope that senators (and in particular Conservative ones) don’t make this a hill to die on.
The other note is that in the lead up to this negotiated timetable, Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative” Senator Peter Harder took the CBC to proclaim his concerns with the pace of the bill, and lamenting that it had been in the Senate since November – err, except it was really only there for a couple of weeks before the Christmas break, during which time the Senate was busy dealing with a glut of other bills from the Commons, and that they rose a week before they planned to, and this is only the third week back after the break, during which it has received several second reading speeches. He was utterly disingenuous about how much time it had been in the Senate to date, and I suspect that this is all part of his play to continue casting the partisan gamesmanship (or threats thereof) by the Conservatives in order to push through his reforms to the chamber that would delegitimise structured opposition, which is a very big deal, and one that Senators shouldn’t let him sneak by them by playing up concerns over this particular bill’s progress.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Prairie drama queens

Posted on by

Finance minister Bill Morneau was in Calgary yesterday as part of his pre-budget consultations, and while listening to the questions during his televised press conference after the meeting, I am forced to wonder if Albertans aren’t trying to be Confederation’s biggest drama queens about their current economic woes (and yes, I say this as a former Albertan). You’d think that the province was actually disintegrating, but if you look at their numbers, their unemployment rates are only now reaching the national average (around 7 percent), and those that are employed (being the vast majority) are making more money in those jobs than the national averages. Yes, their provincial budget has a huge hole blown through it with the fall in oil revenues, but it’s nothing compared to what Newfoundland & Labrador’s budget hole is looking like with their own oil shock. Meanwhile, I don’t hear the pundit class bemoaning the job losses in that province, or people threatening their premier (though he’s been on the job only a couple of months). People were asking Morneau about extraordinary funding mechanisms outside of equalisation, and while he demurred on answering most of it, I am reminded of the usual Twitter snark of some economists like Mike Moffatt, who quite rightly point out that nobody would have even contemplated the kinds of bailouts for southwestern Ontario when their manufacturing centre crashed the way you hear about what they’re demanding for Alberta. The other problem that the loudest of critics (especially Kevin O’Leary) can’t seem to grasp is that there is a global supply problem with oil – there’s too much in the market, which has depressed prices. What exactly can Alberta’s provincial government do to prop up the sector when there’s already too much supply in the market? Even getting that oil to tidewater would just be adding even more to the global supply chain, which one would imagine wouldn’t help with the depressed prices. Supply and demand, and all of that. Yes, it’s a challenge, and it’s a long-term one that’s rearing its head now. Yes, there is a need for some bigger transformation initiatives, and the provincial government is looking to make changes, and I’m sure the federal government will try to get in on that action, but transitions are difficult things. There are going to be hard periods ahead, but simply demanding federal handouts and calling for Rachel Notley’s head aren’t helping matters.

Continue reading →

QP: Questions on back office cuts

Posted on by

The last Monday of the year, and it was a bitterly cold one in Ottawa. Like many a Monday, none of the leaders were there, and even Elizabeth May was gone, off to the climate summit in Lima, Peru. Megan Leslie led off, and asked about cuts to services at Veterans Affairs that were more than just “back office” cuts. Julian Fantino insisted that the story was false, and read about reducing bureaucratic expense. Leslie twice asked about the reduction in staff for rail safety, to which Jeff Watson insisted that the number of inspectors was up, as was the number of auditors. David Christopherson shouted the veterans cuts question again, got the same robotic answer from Fantino, before a hollered demand for resignation, earning another robotic recitation. Dominic LeBlanc led for the Liberals, and asked about the government’s court arguments that there was no fundamental obligation to wounded veterans. Fantino robotically insisted that they were uploading services for veterans. Frank Valeriote listed off a litany of other cuts to veterans, but Fantino read a talking point about increases to front-line services. Valeriote asked a last question about VA managers getting bonuses in the light of cuts to services, but Fantino assured him that the decisions were always taken for the right reasons.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The problem with political copyright changes

Posted on by

The government doubled down on their leaked plans to change copyright laws to give political parties unfettered access to using news clips in political ads, and accused media outlets of essentially “censoring content” by not broadcasting ads that have material that was taken without permission or compensation. Shelly Glover then went on to misquote copyright law expert Michael Geist to justify the position, leaving everyone to wonder just what exactly they hope to accomplish by picking this fight with the press and with broadcasters, especially after leaking a cabinet document to do so. Paul Wells parses the government’s reasons for this move, and what the unintended consequences will be.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/520386423107911681

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/520386539462074370

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/520386670282436608

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/520386839858151424

Continue reading →

QP: It’s up to the proponent

Posted on by

The final caucus day of the sitting, and Rib Fest taking place a block away, MPs were itching to head back to their ridings. All of the major leaders were in the Chamber today for a second day in a row (amazing!) while Elizabeth May was absent for a change, off campaigning in Toronto for the forthcoming by-elections. Thomas Mulcair led off, wondering where all those Conservatives were to tout the Northern Gateway after three years of doing so previously. Stephen Harper said that the NDP were opposed to all resource development, considered it a “disease,” and it was up to Enbridge to fulfil the 209 conditions imposed by the NEB. Mulcair said that BC Conservative MPs were “in the witness programme” about the pipeline, while Harper shot back that Mulcair himself was in the programme when it came to answering for their improper mailings and satellite offices. Mulcair insisted that with the removal of Navigable Waters Act protections, the deck was stacked in favour of the pipeline, to which Harper reminded him of the 180 days of hearing and thousands of pages of evidence, and that there were 209 conditions. Mulcair brought up Enbridge’s record in the US, Harper returning to the scientific panel, and when Mulcair declared that Harper could not “subcontract the Honour of the Crown” to Enbridge with consulting First Nations, Harper listed the number of hearings they held with First Nations groups as part of the regulatory process. Justin Trudeau brought up that the BC government still opposes the pipeline, and wondered why the Prime Minister still said yes. Harper repeated that it was up to the proponent to meet their conditions. Trudeau brought up the government’s previous statements about the importance of the integrity of the Great Bear rainforest, but Harper reiterated about the scientific process of the regulator. Trudeau asked one last time to reverse the approval, but Harper kept repeating about the 209 conditions, and concluded that the Liberals don’t practice evidence-based decision making.

Continue reading →

QP: To appoint or not to appoint to the Supreme Court

Posted on by

The last Monday of the spring sitting of the Chamber, and Thomas Mulcair and Elizabeth May were the only leaders in the Commons. Justin Trudeau was in Toronto to help campaign for the forthcoming by-elections, while Harper was, well, elsewhere. Mulcair started things off by asking about the government ignoring the advice on reforming suicide investigations in the military, to which Rob Nicholson insisted that he asked the military to account for the decision and to clear up the backlog, of which only ten cases out of 54 remained. Mulcair pressed in French, and Nicholson repeated his response. Mulcair brought up the Prime Minister’s appointment of a Federal Court judge to the Quebec Court of Appeal, and how this was being challenged by the same lawyer who challenged the Nadon appointment. Peter MacKay insisted that they made appointments based on merit, and listed off the accomplishments of that judge. Mulcair insisted that the government was meddling in Quebec’s courts, not that MacKay’s answer changed. Geoff Regan led off for the Liberals, asking about the decision on the Northern Gateway pipeline, imploring that it be denied. Greg Rickford gave his usual talking points that they were carefully reading a report and the decision would be made soon. Joyce Murray brought up the Request For Proposal that would come out for the fighter jet replacements between 2017 and 2019, and would this mean that an open competition would go ahead. Diane Finley insisted that no decisions had been made, and that they went through an independent process.

Continue reading →

Roundup: New Bloc leader, almost the same as the old leader

Posted on by

The Bloc Québécois have chosen a new leader, Mario Beaulieu, who like their last leader, is not in caucus. And his rival, André Bellavance, who is a sitting MP, had the support of their three other MPs as well. No word if Beaulieu will try to get a seat before the next election in one way or another, or where he plans to run in the next election, which is kind of an important consideration. Beaulieu also wants to press hard on separatism, because sovereignty unites sovereigntists after all. Never mind that the loss of appetite for the topic helped to sink the PQ in the last federal election, he wants to press ahead with it. Already, Gilles Duceppe is mighty upset with Beaulieu’s comments about past leaders, and some high profile members, including some riding presidents, are already talking about tearing up their membership cards over Beaulieu’s comments and positions on certain issues. And we wonder why this constant idea of choosing leaders from outside of the caucus is of particular concern, and remains a bigger problem within parties than the narrative that these kinds of leaders bring in “new ideas.”

Continue reading →