The National Energy Board has given a conditional approval to the Northern Gateway Pipeline application – and by conditional, they attached 209 conditions to it. There will be additional hurdles with First Nations, as well as the BC government’s own five conditions. In response to the decision, Joe Oliver seems to have toned down his rhetoric around the pipeline proposal, while Harper praises the “rigorous” work of the NEB in this effort. CBC gives you six things to know about the decision. Energy economist Andrew Leach points out that the review is far from a real green light and that it’s not clear that all 209 conditions will be met. Michael Den Tandt counts the many ways in which the pipeline is likely doomed in spite of the NEB decision.
Tag Archives: Political Ads
Roundup: Mourani renounces separatism
Pauline Marois has managed to do something particularly spectacular – she turned Maria Mourani from a dyed-in-the-wool separatist who ran for the leadership of the Bloc Québécois, into an avowed federalist. Indeed, Mourani announced yesterday that she is renouncing separatism and embracing Canada, because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the best way to protect minorities and Quebeckers as a whole, as opposed to the proposed Charter of Quebec Values. There remains no word if Mourani will seek to join another party – Thomas Mulcair said that she’d need to run as an NDP candidate before she could sit in their caucus – but it is a pretty big blow for the separatist movement.
Roundup: Kenney and Rajotte back Wright
More signs of independent thought emerge within the Conservative caucus, as Jason Kenney has proclaimed that he’s still going to defend Nigel Wright’s character while Harper has taken the route of demonizing him in the wake of the whole ClusterDuff affair. Later in the day, James Rajotte joined that chorus. That Kenney, a minister, has a message deviating from Harper’s, is the third minister now who has had a different message from the boss, which John Geddes points out, is a blow for the notion of cabinet solidarity, which is a pretty fundamental notion in Responsible Government as the executive needs to speak with one voice. I’m not sure what it all means yet, but it’s certainly interesting – especially on the eve of a party convention where unity in the face of adversity will no doubt be the message that they are trying to put forward.
Roundup: Flaherty’s EI premium freeze
Jim Flaherty announced a “good news” economic measure of freezing EI premiums for the next three years – you know, like the Liberals have been hounding him to do for the past couple of years. Only, to be clever, the Liberals were calling them “job-killing payroll taxes” either, and despite the freeze, there will still be some rate increases. It also makes one wonder about the utility of the arm’s length board set up to advise on things like rates if the government continues to undermine them and set the rates anyway. Aaron Wherry notes that this was the subject of one of Justin Trudeau’s “crowd-sourced” questions during QP in the spring. When you crunch the numbers, however, the freeze isn’t worth all that much – about $24 per year for the average person, and $340 for the average business.
Roundup: Ever so slightly younger and more female
“New faces, experienced hands.” That’s the slogan that Stephen Harper slapped on his reshuffled cabinet, whereby there is now one more woman in the ranks – though none in any major economic portfolio – and the average age has moved from 55 to 52. And by keeping the likes of Peter Van Loan as the Government House Leader, it’s not signalling any change in tone or strategy (let alone trying to find someone competent when it comes to House management, because we know that Van Loan has proven not to be). The cabinet shuffle announcements also formed part of a new social media strategy by the PMO, where they were sent out over Twitter and other social media (and yes, Twitter Canada did track this). Here is the full list of the reshuffled cabinet, as well as the cabinet committees where the real work of this government happens. Laura Stone profiles some of the new faces, as well as some of the departing ones. Global notices five things about the ceremony itself. John Geddes comments on the sweeping changes, the spine of continuity, and the rabidly partisan undertone that make up this cabinet. Tim Harper notes how little actually changed in the shuffle. Paul Wells gives his own take on the shuffle on video here. Andrew Coyne notes that the bloating of cabinet has been in inverse proportion to the effectiveness of the ministers within it.
Roundup: Treating LeBreton with justifiable suspicion
As expected, Marjorie LeBreton tabled her motion to call in the Auditor General to conduct a “comprehensive audit” of the Senate and senators’ expenses. So far so good. The Liberal senators said that sure they’d support it – when it comes up for debate. You see, the Senate rules say that motions need 24 hours before they can be debated unless they get unanimous consent to bypass said rule – and the Liberals weren’t going to give it, because they wanted time to study said motion. It’s pretty vague, and nobody knows what a “comprehensive” audit entails, or even if the AG’s office is able to handle it. But oh, the Conservatives cried – the Liberals are trying to block it! Um, no – they’re just following the rules, and they’re justifiably suspicious of anytime LeBreton tries to push things through with unanimous consent – like the Duffy audit report. Turns out it was hiding all kinds of goodies that the media ferreted out, and that report got sent back to the committee in that rather exciting evening when Duffy got tossed under a bus. Had LeBreton gotten her way and passed the reports unanimously in one fell swoop, well, that may not have happened. Senator Cowan, the Liberal Senate leader, is also concerned that LeBreton is trying to use the AG as another distraction from the ClusterDuff questions, since none of their new rules or the AG would have stopped the whole issue of Wright writing the cheque to Duffy in the first place. Cowan explains more about the dynamics here.
Roundup: Shrapnel from the Clusterduff
The shrapnel from the Clusterduff explosion continues to ricochet around the capital as Parliament resumes today. Over in the PMO, the latest casualty is the former special council and legal advisor, Benjamin Perrin (who actually left in April to return to teaching law), who drafted the agreement between Nigel Wright and Senator Mike Duffy. But Perrin and Wright assert that Harper wasn’t told – because, plausible deniability, I guess. While the Senate is going to be seized with the audit reports and the proposed new rules, now that they’ve had the week to look them over, the House is going to be some kind of fun, as the NDP bray about ethics and accountability, and Harper, well, heads to Peru and then a Pacific summit (that was all pre-arranged long before any of this broke, before any of you start getting any ideas about this foreign travel being a little too convenient). The NDP have decided to ride the ethics train and demand that the RCMP look into the Nigel Wright/Mike Duffy affair, because they’re apparently not content to let the Conservatives continue to self-immolate. They also seem to be oblivious to the obvious Conservative counter-offensive about Thomas Mulcair’s decades of curious silence about the attempted bribery that he declined in 1994. (I’ve been told that the Liberals will stay out of this in QP, since they are content to let said self-immolation continue unaided – we shall see). Harper is going to have an emergency caucus meeting in the morning before he heads off to Peru (though apparently nobody told Finance Committee, who are still slated to meet early). The opening portion of said meeting will be open to the media, but he won’t take any questions, which could be a long and uncomfortable silence for all the journalists travelling with him if he decides to sequester himself.
Roundup: The NDP get cute with the Senate
Because it seems that the NDP haven’t had their fill of amateurish stunts yet, they have decided to try to haul the Speaker of the Senate and the Leader of the Government in the Senate to a Commons committee to discuss the Senate’s budget allocations. Apparently they think that the Senate isn’t actually a separate institution of Parliament, but just an arm of the government. Err, except that it isn’t. Here’s the thing that the NDP doesn’t seem to be grasping – aside from the basic constitutional position that the Senate holds within our system of government – and that’s the fact that two can play that game. While the Senate may not be able to initiate money bills, they can certainly amend them, or hold them up in committee indefinitely. And if the NDP wants to get cute and try to make the Senate put on a little dog and pony show for the committee in order to justify their spending, well, the Senate can do the very same thing, and question the basic budget allocation for the Commons and MPs expenses. While the NDP might bring up the few cases of improper residency expenses and travel claims that took to the media spotlight a couple of months ago, Senators could do the very same thing, and in fact, have a better case than the MPs would. You see, the Senate’s expenses are far more transparent than those of the Commons. Senators submit their travel claims to quarterly reports, have their expense claims posted publicly, and even their attendance is recorded and publicly available. That’s how all of this came to light in the media – because journalists checked it out. (Well, a certain Senator who shall remain nameless also leaked a number of things because of internecine warfare, but that’s another story). But MPs are not subject to the same levels of public scrutiny that Senators are, and if the NDP really want to down this route, then I don’t see why the Senate shouldn’t call Speaker Scheer and the various party leaders before the Senate’s national finance committee to justify their own expenditures. After all, they’re not public, and these are public funds that they’re expecting to spend, so it would be in the interest of sober second thought that these Senators very closely examine this spending and ensure that it’s in the public interest for the Commons to get these allocations. And it was only a couple of years ago that improper housing claims by a number of MPs were brought to light, and well, the Senate may need to ensure that this kind of thing isn’t going on again. You know, for the sake of the public. You see where I’m going with this? There’s a word that the NDP should learn – it’s “bicameralism.” They may not like it, but it exists for a very good reason, and they should educate themselves before they decide they want to get cute.
Roundup: The ruling is enough
It seems that in the wake of the Speaker’s ruling on members’ statements, the restless Conservative backbenches have backed off of their support of the Liberal opposition day motion on making Members’ Statements alphabetical in distribution. The feeling seems to be that the Speaker’s advice that if they want to stand up and be heard, that it was enough for them. Um, okay. We’ll see if that actually happens, especially considering that the delicate balance of party allotments are also in play during both Members’ Statements and Question Period in general, but it seems to me that this becomes a case of everyone being contended with half-measures, rather than any genuine reform. Sure, Warawa might have been surprised to learn that the lists are mere suggestions for the Speaker, but that doesn’t mean that MPs – or Canadians – should be satisfied by this ruling. Rather, it should be the springboard to the restoration of our Parliament to the way it should act – without lists or scripts, where MPs are engaged in the debates, actively participating, capable of delivering actual back-and-forth exchanges with spontaneity and class, rather than the dull recitations into the record that we’re now seeing.
Roundup: MPs behaving like MPs
After much anticipation, the Speaker delivered his ruling on the whole Warawa privilege complaint. The verdict – no prima facia breach of privilege, but MPs need to grow up and behave like MPs. In other words, the lists the whips provide are just suggestions, and the Speaker can choose to ignore those lists if he sees fit, but that means that MPs need to want to participate in the debate, not simply assume that they have that spot and that he’ll wait for them to use it, or that someone else won’t be interested instead. Some MPs responded here and here, Aaron Wherry parses the meaning of the ruling, and John Ivison gives his own take of the ruling.
This all having been said, let me offer my own two cents – that this is a good first step, but that it really does fall on MPs to make the change they want to see. And unfortunately, because there is such a reliance on scripts, that we’re unlikely to see too much uptake on this invitation by the Speaker for MPs to behave like MPs. We’re going to see almost no uptake by the NDP, because in their need for uniformity, nobody wants to speak out be anything other than unanimous, as that would be unseemly. The Liberals already have far less of a firm hand on the whip, which means the real test of this change is going to come from the Conservative backbench – how many of them will want to do their actual jobs as an MP and hold the government to account rather than just suck up and support blindly, how many of them want to ask questions of substance during QP rather than deliver a fawning tribute or a thinly veiled attack on the opposition in the form of a question, and how many of them will want to eschew the “carbon tax” talking points and the likes while still ensuring that they have their say and are not being punished for not following those talking points. We will have to see how many of them are prepared to take that step and show that integrity and respect for parliamentary democracy.