Tag Archives: Rachel Notley

Roundup: Negotiating in good faith

Posted on by

After another day of drama, there is no NAFTA deal, and talks have been suspended until Wednesday. And what drama there was, when off-the-record comments that Donald Trump made in an interview with Bloomberg were leaked to the Toronto Star, who published them, which showed Trump bragging that he wasn’t negotiating with Canada in good faith, and later in the day, he confirmed the remarks over Twitter with the note “at least Canada knows where I stand.” (Speculation now stands in that he deliberately leaked the comments). The revelation of the comments no doubt put a strain on the talks, but Chrystia Freeland later noted that she was negotiating with Robert Lighthizer, not Trump, and he was negotiating in good faith. So a little wedge in there, in any case. But in the end, Freeland insisted that we are close to a deal, so we’ll see once the long weekend is over and tempers cool a little.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1035582322668498944

Meanwhile, here’s a look at the issue of Chapter 19 – arbitration – that the Americans want scrapped even though it’s been as useful to them as it has been for us, so it’s a demand that makes no sense. Also, here are other things to look for when a deal is concluded, and what areas that we have made concessions on and what it means.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trans Mountain tantrums

Posted on by

The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision to quash the approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (temporarily, at least) – both because of an inadequately scoped NEB report around marine protection and because the government didn’t properly consult with Indigenous communities – caused no shortage of meltdowns and tantrums over all forms of media – with a dash of triumphalism from the environmentalists and some of those Indigenous communities. All of it, from both sides, is pretty much overreaction, but some of the reactions were ludicrous.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1035264446376108034

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1035267000610824192

The one reaction that was probably most ridiculous and unhelpful was that of Alberta premier Rachel Notley, who in a fit of pique, declared that she was pulling out of the federal climate framework until the pipeline was built, and made a list of nonsensical demands that will do absolutely nothing to get said pipeline built. Appealing it to the SCC? On what grounds (and delaying things another 18 months)? Recalling Parliament? To do what? Hold an angry take-note debate? Yes, this is the federal government’s mess, but none of this actually solves it. What will solve it is to follow the roadmap in the FCA judgment, which means reassessing the marine risks and doing proper consultations with those First Nations on their substantive issues. I get that Notley has to make a show of this, but none of this tantrum is constructive in the slightest, and worse yet, it likely undermines her own environmental agenda.

Meanwhile, Jason Markusoff notes that while the government owns this failure, it’s not as though the opposition has offered a solution that would have worked either. Trevor Tombe walks through the decision and what can be done to fix the problems identified therein, but notes there are costs to delays. Tyler Dawson looks at how the populist outrage over this move can start another round of Western alienation (in which, the actual facts of what’s going on won’t matter, because populism).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Extreme multiculturalism

Posted on by

The fallout to Maxime Bernier’s latest Twitter missive on multiculturalism was more muted than one might have expected – no actual condemnation from Andrew Scheer, just a bland statement from his office that didn’t address Bernier’s words at all. And Erin O’Toole offered his own response which was basically just a reiteration that the various conservative parties in Canada’s history have had ethno-cultural firsts as a way of proving that they’re not all bigots or racists, but it missed the point that there was nevertheless a certain amount of tokenism in those firsts – that yes, they’ve got one of these different groups, but one is enough, thanks, and don’t talk to us about systemic barriers or discrimination. After all, these singular examples pulled up their bootstraps and made it – why can’t everyone else?

Bernier himself got huffy that he was described as saying he was against diversity – he insists he’s okay with some diversity, but not “extreme multiculturalism,” which is odd, because it’s like he missed the whole point of multiculturalism, which is about finding an effective way of integrating newcomers rather than alienating them further into ghettos. The fact that he doesn’t get that just adds fuel to the notion that this is all about winking to xenophobes and white nationalists, never mind the fact that it’s a nonsense proposition that there’s a Goldilocks zone of not too little, not too much, but just enough diversity that will magically keep Canada from disintegrating into some kind of ethnic hellhole. Never mind that the concern trolling about Liberal “identity politics” ignores the fact that in order to address systemic barriers facing women, sexual minorities, and people of colour, you actually to address what those barriers are, which is not about balkanizing – as Bernier seems to think.

Meanwhile, not every Conservative seems to be keen on Bernier’s pronouncements, but they seem concerned about how much influence he has among the base (somewhat mystifyingly). And with a convention coming up, we’ll see if these tensions spill out into the open.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Performative anxiety over the pipeline bill

Posted on by

There’s a bit of performative wailing and gnashing of teeth emanating from the Senate, as the nonsense bill from Conservative-turned-Independent Senator Doug Black about declaring the Trans Mountain pipeline in the national interest passed earlier this week, and they have no indication whether it will be passed by the Commons in short order. After all, there are only some eight days until Kinder Morgan’s “deadline” comes to pass, and under the politician’s syllogism, something must be done and this is something, therefore we must do this. Never mind that as a bill, it’s constitutional nonsense because the preamble invokes Section 92(10)(c) of the Constitution Act 1867, and the project is already federal jurisdiction because it crosses a provincial boundary; invoking the section would imply that it is provincial jurisdiction (it’s not), or that it would perversely declare a federal issue to be provincial for the sake of declaring it federal again (which sets up a really terrible precedent for the future). The bigger problem is that it’s a Senate public bill, which means that when it gets to the Commons, it needs a sponsor (not a difficult get for Black in this case), and then it goes into the queue of private members’ business. It could be weeks before that refreshes and it earns a slot for debate, which will be well past the artificial deadline from Kinder Morgan. This despite the fact that the bill should be defeated because it’s constitutional nonsense. And the Conservative senators who are currently complaining that they have no indication if the government will pass the bill immediately know better – there isn’t a mechanism for them to do so, barring a motion to pass it at all stages once it’s on the Order Paper. Which it’s not. But hey, facts have never stopped anyone from making a big show of something like this before, so why start now?

In other pipeline news, no other company has publicly declared that they are willing to take over the Trans Mountain pipeline if Kinder Morgan backs out (but I’m not sure why they would say so at this point, because I’m sure it would drive up the price if they sounded eager). Jagmeet Singh has firmly put himself in BC’s camp on the issue, earning the rebuke of Rachel Notley – and the fact that he hasn’t bothered to even call her has Notley questioning his maturity. That western premiers meeting that Notley sent her deputy premier to instead happened, and said deputy didn’t sign onto the final communiqué because it wouldn’t show support for Trans Mountain, while BC premier John Horgan talks out of both sides of his mouth, demanding that the expansion be halted while demanding the existing pipeline continue to carry fuel for BC, and insisting that the two are very separate issues.

Meanwhile, as Alberta turns into a single-issue province, I continue to be amazed at the hyperbole being expressed on this issue. One pipeline advocate yesterday referred to BC as a “rogue state.” Guys. Seriously? The most BC has done is hold a press conference and file a court reference that they are likely to lose. This drama queen routine is getting a little embarrassing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A moment for the Queen of Canada

Posted on by

In light of Victoria Day and the celebration of the official birthday of the Queen of Canada (yes, they’re the same day), here are a few gems about the Queen of Canada, and the monarchy in general.

https://twitter.com/Canadian_Crown/status/998596864311209985

https://twitter.com/Canadian_Crown/status/998572925249867776

Actor Stephen Fry talks about how the monarch keeps politicians in their place, and while it may seem “kind of preposterous” it a system that works. As he says. “If it works, it’s very foolish to get rid of it, even if it’s unreasonable.”

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/998568760003907584

And let’s not forget that Queen Victoria ensured that we have Responsible Government here in Canada.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions about Scheer’s assertions

Posted on by

Andrew Scheer went to Calgary yesterday to talk to that city’s Chamber of Commerce and said a few things that I feel should probably stand a bit of questioning. Like the fact that he thinks it’s a “red flag” to use taxpayer funds to backstop the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline. And it’s fair that there’s scepticism about governments essentially subsidizing private business, but it’s his assertion that “governments investing tax dollars in energy projects is not the optimal solution.” Sure, it’s not optimal, but it’s complete and total historical revisionism to suggestion that this is somehow new or novel. Given the ways that governments, both federal and provincial, have de facto subsidized the development of the oilsands with generous royalty breaks and other tax incentives has been sinking a hell of a lot of taxpayer dollars into energy projects. And yes, there was a whole national crisis that had a hand in bringing down a federal government around the government sinking money into a cross-country pipeline.

But the other statement that Scheer makes that I find a bit puzzling is this continued insistence that somehow provinces were forced to “take matters into their own hands” over the Trans Mountain issue because the federal government showed a lack of leadership. And I’m still trying to figure out how this works. For starters, which provinces is he referring to? BC, which took it upon themselves to challenge federal jurisdiction in a naked attempt to appease a coalition partner? Or Alberta, who escalated tactics on the basis of a press release? “They should use all of the tools at their disposal,” Scheer insists of the federal government, and yet I’m not sure what exactly they were supposed to do. They already have jurisdiction – trying to re-assert it would imply that there was a question when there isn’t one, and creating doubt would embolden opponents. There wasn’t anything to challenge in the courts because BC had only put out a press release, and nobody even had a clue about what specific questions BC was raising until they filed their court reference this past week. How would going half-cocked have helped matters? But demanding they “use all the tools” sounds an awful lot like hand-wavey nonsense that serves to only invoke the politician’s syllogism than it does to suggest meaningful action. Kinder Morgan, meanwhile, has used this exercise in threatening to pull out in order to exact political leverage (and the fact that a private company is attempting to blackmail governments is not a good look), but there remain questions outside of all of this as to their own obligations to fulfil the conditions imposed on them by the National Energy Board for continued approval of the project. That can’t be glossed over.

I’m also curious what else he thinks the federal government should have done to silence BC’s objections, considering that he’s also supporting the Saskatchewan government’s attempt to push back against the imposition of the federal carbon backstop price. Is his position that federal governments should bigfoot provinces to get pipelines, but that they don’t dare interfere in areas of shared jurisdiction like the environment? That’s an interesting needle to thread, and somehow, I doubt we’ll see him attempting to do so anytime soon.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A curious appointment bottleneck

Posted on by

There was an interesting revelation in the Hill Timesyesterday in that the government is sitting on more than 100 vetted Senate candidates while twelve seats remain vacant, and yet put out a call for yet more applications while the advisory committees are all empty, which would be the people who are supposed to vet all of those incoming applications. But that number amazes me – 100 names that are vetted and ready to go for those twelve vacancies, and the government isn’t moving on them, adding one or two names every couple of months at random intervals. And don’t get me wrong – I’m firmly opposed to mass appointments, but that also means that the Chamber should be in full operation and that vacancies should be filled as they happen, which are one or two at a time. Add to that the fact that because these are all being named as Independents, the kinds of mentoring that should happen isn’t, so at this point it almost doesn’t matter if we get all twelve in one fell swoop because the result would be the same either way.

The other thing that is very interesting is that in the interview with former appointment committee member Indira Samarasekera, she mentioned that they identified key skill areas that the Senate is in need of and that their names have reflected that, but these aren’t necessarily the people that Trudeau is naming in the long run. Which isn’t to say that Trudeau has simply been naming ideological Liberals and calling them Independents (despite what the Conservatives in the Senate are claiming), but it is hard to deny that there isn’t a similarity to most of the candidates in the fact that they tend to be activists from the social sciences as opposed to some of the business, foreign affairs, and trade experts that Samarasekera noted that they recommended. Despite this all, the piece provides an interesting window on just what seems to be the bottleneck in appointments that this government has a problem with making, and which continues to be a slow-moving crisis of their credibility.

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: Jury selection in the crosshairs

Posted on by

The fallout from the Gerald Stanley trial continued in Ottawa yesterday, where the family of Colten Boushie met with ministers Carolyn Bennett and Jane Philpott about their frustrations with the justice system, and in particular the focus seemed to be on jury selection, and in particular the use of peremptory challenges in order to screen out any potential juror that looks Indigenous. In Question Period, justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould said that this was under consideration as part of their broader criminal justice review, but this is a project that seems to be travelling at a glacial pace (as so many things do in this government), and we have no idea when any report or formal recommendations by the government will actually be released in advance of legislative fixes. Boushie’s family are due to meet with Wilson-Raybould, Ralph Goodale and the prime minister at some point today, but I’m not holding my breath for any timelines on action on these issues. Oh, and in case you were wondering, the premier of Saskatchewan says that he’s open to discussions about more Indigenous representation on juries, but it doesn’t sound very concrete.

The attention that the Stanley verdict has given to the problems around Indigenous representation on juries have reminded us that this is a long-standing problem that has been on the radar for many years, such as with the report by former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Frank Iacobucci written for Ontario about the issue, complete with a number of recommendations. (That report spawned the Debwewin Committee, whose report is more than a year-and-a-half overdue by this point). The National Post last week had a look at the issues of stacked juries and biased media in cases like Stanley’s, and noted that there is a current study underway by an Ontario Superior Court justice looking into representation on juries with an eye to training judges in the future. Meanwhile, Senator Murray Sinclair says he will advocate for concrete changes such as limiting peremptory challenges, and provincial jury selection processes.

In terms of commentary, Colby Cosh tries to take a more dispassionate look at the jury system and wonders what we risk if we try to overturn it because we don’t like one decision out of hundreds. In a piece from 2016 that was reposted in light of recent events, Jonathan Kay wrote about his experience in a jury pool where, in a case involving a domestic homicide, the defence used their peremptory challenges to assemble an all-male, mostly visible minority jury.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Scheer unveils more reheated policy

Posted on by

While at the Manning Centre Networking Conference in Ottawa yesterday, Andrew Scheer unveiled another policy plank – that he was going to support a free trade deal with the United Kingdom, post-Brexit. And a short while later, put out a press release and “backgrounder” (which was a bit content-free) to say that he was going to travel to the UK next month to start talking about just this.

Scheer is behind the times on this, because Justin Trudeau announced that he and Theresa May were already having this discussion back when she visited in September, and Scheer knows this. So he’s reiterating this for a couple of reasons, beyond the fact that he’s trying to paint the picture of Trudeau being unable to adequately handle trade negotiations (never mind that his government concluded CETA that was in danger of going off the rails, and similarly extracted concessions from TPP talks, and they haven’t rolled over on NAFTA talks).

  1. Scheer is a Brexit supporter, and his trip to the UK is at a time where the UK Parliament is dealing with their Brexit legislation and not doing very well with it. One suspects that this trip is more about offering Canadian support for Brexit from his position as Leader of the Opposition, never mind that I suspect that the vast majority of Canadians would oppose Brexit (and hell, the number of Britons who regret voting for it seems to be growing daily). But Scheer does seem to want to offer that encouragement from his position.
  2. This announcement was to a crowd of small-c conservatives who feel a great deal of affection for the Anglosphere, and suspicion for other trade deals, particularly with China. It doesn’t seem to be out of the realm of possibility that this is a bit of red meat for that base.

Suffice to say, if this is a new bit of policy, this awfully thin gruel.

Continue reading →