Tag Archives: Stephen Harper

Roundup: Orphan well alert

Posted on by

A story that did not get enough attention yesterday was out of Alberta, where the organization that is tasked with cleaning up abandoned oil wells is sounding the alarm that the provincial regulator’s rules are not sufficient to prevent the creation of more of these “orphan” wells – at a time when more companies are offloading assets to smaller companies. This is the kind of practice that usually results in the orphaning of these wells in the first place – that the smaller companies start losing money when the price of oil tanks, and they can’t live up to their obligations to clean up the abandoned ones with the money they’re making from the active ones they’ve bought along with them.

This issue was the subject of a Supreme Court of Canada decision last year, where the court said that bankruptcy trustees who take up these companies with the orphan wells can’t simply abandon these obligations under their bankruptcy proceedings as they’re trying to sell the active wells to new buyers – that their environmental obligations can’t be jettisoned because it’s inconvenient for them. (More on the underlying issues here). This also reinforces the polluter-pays principle, which governments say they’re in favour of – except when it’s inconvenient. Like right now, for Jason Kenney.

Why this issue deserves more attention is because Kenney (and to a lesser degree Scott Moe, who is following the pattern set out for him by Brad Wall) has been demanding that the federal government spend their dollars on cleaning up these orphan wells under the rubric of it being job-creation, or good for the environment. Kenney’s demand for retroactive stabilization funds as an “equalization rebate” (which is ridiculous) has been cited on more than one occasion as a means of using the funds for this purpose, which would essentially be offloading the responsibility onto the federal government because the regulator hasn’t been doing an adequate job when these sales happen, and the provincial government hasn’t created strict enough regulations to prevent these wells from being orphaned in the first place. That’s something that we should be holding him – and the industry – to account for, but that means cutting through the obfuscation. There should be no reason why the federal government should be taking on this expense, but this is what they are being asked to do.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Encana and illogical anger

Posted on by

The big news yesterday was that oil and gas company Encana decided to decamp their headquarters and head to the US under a new name to try and attract more investors there, and Jason Kenney and his ministers freaked out. They railed that this was Trudeau’s fault – despite Encana’s CEO saying otherwise, and despite the fact that there are to be no job losses in Alberta or loss of existing investments – and Kenney upped his demands on Trudeau (including the ludicrous demand that Trudeau fire Catherine McKenna as environment minister). And while the Trudeau blaming gets increasingly shrill and incoherent, there are a few things to remember – that Encana’s stock price has hewed pretty closely to the price of oil, that it lost more value under Harper than it did Trudeau, and that even bank analysts are mystified by the move. Perhaps Kenney’s blame is misplaced – imagine that.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1189992947615289345

There have also been a number of voices making the absurd comparison that governments are quick to help companies like Bombardier and SNC-Lavalin but won’t offer it to oil companies – which ignores that the Harper government also helped those same kinds of companies, while Trudeau bought a pipeline in order to de-risk it and ensure that it gets completed, not to mention that other companies usually asking for loan guarantees and aren’t reliant on oil or commodity prices. There is a lot of false comparison going on in order to nurse this sense of grievance, because that’s what this is really all about.

Meanwhile, here is some additional context on the economic situation in Alberta and Saskatchewan that we shouldn’t overlook as part of this conversation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Considerations on Trudeau’s Alberta problem

Posted on by

Talk about what Justin Trudeau is going to do about his Alberta/Saskatchewan problem continues to swirl, with few answers so far. Alison Redford says she’s willing to help in some capacity – not that she’s been asked yet – but I guess we’ll see if there has been enough time and space from her aura of power problem that led to her ouster. Meanwhile, here’s Philippe Lagassé with some important thoughts about the issue:

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1188550490084257792

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1188551735398277121

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1188554137232990211

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1188555710851878914

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1188558518300872704

Meanwhile, Carla Qualtrough says all options are on the table which can include some changes to equalization, but as this piece explains, there is so much misinformation about how equalization works that it’s important we separate facts from lies about it – and there are a whole lot of bad actors, Jason Kenney chief among them, lying about the programme in order to stir up anger that he hopes to use to his advantage.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1188507654605430785

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau’s first minority steps

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau met with the press yesterday and offered a few bits of post-election news – namely that he was not going to seek any kind of formal or informal coalition (not that he would need to, given how the seat maths work out), that the new Cabinet would be sworn in on November 20th, and that yes, the Trans Mountain pipeline is going ahead, no matter how much huffing and puffing certain opposition parties may try to engage in (for all the good it will do because it’s not something that would come before Parliament in any meaningful capacity in any case). Not that there should have been any doubt – he has expended so much political capital on the project that not doing so would make no sense. The November 20th date is later than he took to decide on a Cabinet after the last election, and Trudeau remarked that he has a lot of reflection to do with the loss of all of his Alberta and Saskatchewan seats, and that is no doubt part of the task ahead.

To that end, Trudeau didn’t give any indication whether he would appoint a senator or two to Cabinet to fill those geographic holes (and I will be writing more on this in an upcoming column) – but did say he was going to introduce changes to the Parliament of Canada Act to make the “independent” Senate more permanently so (not that he can legislate the new appointment process, but rather it deals operationally with salaries for caucus leaders). The “facilitator” of the Independent Senators Group is already decrying that any plan to put senators in Cabinet would be somehow “counterproductive” to the whole independent Senate project, which is of course ignorant of history and Parliament itself. I do find myself troubled that Trudeau singled out the mayors of Calgary and Edmonton as people he would be consulting with as part of his “reflection” on how to rebuild trust with Alberta and in terms of how to somehow include them in his Cabinet-making process, because they have agendas of their own, and it would seem to just exacerbate the whole urban-rural divide that the election results are so indicative of.

Trudeau has some options for getting that Alberta and Saskatchewan representation in Cabinet, from Senators, to floor-crossers, of simply appointing non-Parliamentarians to the role (which is permissible, but goes somewhat against the convention that they seek seats as soon as possible). Here’s Philippe Lagassé explaining some of the options and dynamics:

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1187081027254194183

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1187081821948915717

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1187083301086990336

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1187084679859638272

Continue reading →

Roundup: Profiles in courage

Posted on by

After avoiding the media for over a week while questions about his personal positions on abortion and LGBT rights were being debated, Andrew Scheer called a press conference yesterday to say that Justin Trudeau was lacking in courage for not agreeing to the Maclean’s and Munk debates (well, he hasn’t agreed yet, but he also hasn’t said no). Mind you, the guy talking about courage and showing up has been avoiding the media for the past week, so that’s no small amount of irony. Oh, and he also accused the Liberals of trying to deflect from their record by dredging up Scheer’s statements on “divisive social issues.” That said, Scheer hewed strictly to talking points that continued to make cute distinctions between a hypothetical future Conservative government and backbenchers, and essentially said that they could put forward any bill they wanted and he wouldn’t stop them – only he wouldn’t say so in as many words. To that end, it’s also worth reminding people that as Speaker, Scheer went out of his way to ensure that anti-abortion MPs got speaking slots when the Conservative leadership was trying to keep them under wraps, so that might be a clue as to how he’d treat possible future private members’ bills.

This having been said, I now wonder if the strategy for the Liberals isn’t to just bring social progressives and Red Tories to their side, but to try and goad Scheer into painting himself in enough of a corner with trying to assure Canadians that no, he would squelch any anti-abortion or anti-GLBT private members’ bills – really! – in the hopes that it would discourage the social conservatives in Scheer’s base into staying home, thus driving down their voter turnout. It would be novel if that’s what it was, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives put out a fundraising video yesterday featuring Stephen Harper, which is kind of ironic considering that they keep accusing the Liberals of dredging up Harper, only for them to do the very same thing. And with this in mind, I will often note that political parties these days have pretty much all hollowed themselves out into personality cults for their leaders, but with the Conservatives, they remain a personality cult for their former leader, Harper – that Scheer has had such a lack of personality or willpower to change the party to reflect him (though he did campaign on being Harper with a smile in the leadership, so that’s not too unsurprising). Nevertheless, bringing out the old leader in advance of the election is an odd bit of strategy that can’t speak too highly of the current leader.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Weasel words on conversion therapy

Posted on by

In the wake of the Liberals announcing that they were looking at what measures they could take at a federal level to ban “conversion therapy,” the question was put to Andrew Scheer if he opposed it. Scheer responded that while he opposes “forced” conversion therapy, he will wait to see what the government proposes around banning it before if he’ll support it. The Conservatives quickly cried foul that the Global news headline was that “Andrew Scheer will ‘wait and see’ before taking a stance on conversion therapy ban” was just clickbait that didn’t reflect his actual quotes (and Global did update their headline), but not one of them pointed out the fact that Scheer’s own words were, to be frank, weaselly.

Scheer said that he opposed “forced” conversion therapy, and that he’s opposed to “any type of practice that would forcibly attempt to change someone’s sexual orientation against their will or things like that.” And you note the weasel words in there – about only being opposed to “forced” therapy, or to change it “against their will.” The giant implication that not one conservative rushing to defend Scheer is that there are types of “voluntary” conversion therapy that he is okay with, and that is alarming because any kind of so-called “conversion therapy” is torture, whether entered into voluntarily or not – and it ignores that when people enter into it voluntarily, it’s because they have such a degree of self-loathing that they have deluded themselves into believing that they can change their sexual orientation in spite of all evidence to the contrary, and a lot of that self-loathing comes from the sorts of violence, whether physical, mental or spiritual, that has been inflicted upon them. And it does look entirely like Scheer is being too cute by leaving a giant loophole in the window for his religious, social conservative flank to not feel threatened by his position, because it lets them carry on with the mythology that there is such a thing as “voluntary” conversion therapy, and that this is all about their “love the sinner, hate the sin” bullshit that asserts that homosexuality is just a learned behaviour and not an intrinsic characteristic. So no, I don’t think Scheer has been at all unequivocal.

Meanwhile, Scheer’s apologists will demand to know why the government refused to act on a “conversion therapy” ban when presented with a petition about it in March, but again, this is an issue where there is a great deal of nuance that should be applied. The government response was that these practices tend to fall under healthcare or be practiced by health professionals, which makes it provincial jurisdiction, and that while there can be some applications of the Criminal Code with some practices, it required coordination with the provinces to address, which they have been doing. What the Liberals announced this week was that they were seeing if there were any other measures they could take federally, which might involve the Criminal Code. Again, it’s an issue where it’s hard for them to take a particular line, so they’re trying to see what it is possible to do – that’s not a refusal, it’s an acknowledgement that it’s a complicated issue.

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: We join you now from West Block…

Posted on by

And so, the Big Move is complete, and the House of Commons has settled into its new home for the time being. Many MPs were still trying to find their way around the new building, going through wrong doors, coping with more cramped quarters, but they did make some history with the first instances of simultaneous interpretation of Cree in the Chamber thanks to Liberal MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette. The changes were all cosmetic as the partisan rhetoric on both sides largely remained the same dichotomy of pabulum from the Liberals, and lies from the Conservatives.

Just what kinds of falsehoods were being peddled? For one, the Conservatives leaned heavily on the notion that the Liberals had “raised taxes” on most Canadians, which isn’t actually true – it’s torque that comes from a Fraser Institute report that considers increased CPP contribution taxes (they’re not), and similarly calls the cancellation of non-refundable boutique tax credits in favour of the (non-taxable) Canada Child Benefit to be “tax increases.” Scheer lied that the government the government’s “own documents” show that they plan to raise the carbon tax to $300/tonne, which is also false, and as Alex Ballingall debunks here, it’s based on redacted documents that point out that higher prices will be needed to meet emissions targets, but don’t say that they are actually planning to do so. And Michelle Rempel also tried to make partisan hay of the fact that the government’s yearly quota of applications for family reunification immigration spaces was open for the space of eleven minutes before it maxed out and tried to equate this as somehow being the fault of asylum seekers who cross the border irregularly – another complete falsehood that Althia rage debunks here, and more to the point, Rempel is engaged in concern trolling – her own government did not prioritize this immigration stream and limited to 5000 cases per year while the Liberals increased it to 20,000. (They also tried to make the small number of spaces “fairer” by attempting to do it on a lottery system rather than one where high-priced immigration lawyers were able to get their files in faster, but that lottery system was abandoned this year). So yeah, the House was mired in bullshit today, but would the government refute most of this on the record? Not really – we got plenty of bland talking points instead that allowed most of these distortions to remain on the record. Slow clap there, Liberals.

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert enumerates the government’s many self-inflicted wounds as the new sitting gets underway. John Ivison notes the same old fear and division being peddled by both sides despite the new digs. Paul Wells makes us feel bad for thinking that things might be different in the new locale. I was on Kitchener Today yesterday to talk about John McCallum, China, and the return of the House of Commons.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A subdued oil price shock

Posted on by

The Bank of Canada decided to hold on raising interest rates yesterday, but there were some very interesting things in the accompanying Monetary Policy Report that haven’t been widely reported on, and much of that was the whole section in the report on the state of the oil industry in Canada. (It’s pages 9 and 10 of the report – PDF here). Essentially, for all of the talk about economic doom for the current state of oil prices and the price differential, this current price shock is affecting the Canadian economy at a quarter of what it did in the 2014-2016 price shock, and there are a couple of reasons for that. One of them is that the oil sector is no longer as big of a part of the Canadian economy as it was then – it’s currently worth 3.5 percent of our GDP, while it was six percent just a few years ago. That’s fairly significant. As well, after the previous price shock, most energy firms are better equipped to handle the low-price environment thanks to innovation, improved efficiency and the fact that they already cut overhead costs. Add to that, our low dollar is providing a buffer effect because it supports non-energy exports and employment. In other words, while it’s softened the economy a little over the past quarter and the current one, this is projected to be shrugged off as the rest of the economy continues to pick up steam, and we’re likely to continue growing at a greater pace, because the rest of the economy continues to be running close to capacity. Even some of the areas of potential slack that have been identified, such as lower-than-expected wage growth, are mostly because the situation in Alberta is dragging down the national average. So perhaps it’s not all doom after all.

One other particular note from the morning was that Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz made a couple of remarks around his hometown of Oshawa, and how it’s managed to weather previous plant closures and how its resilience means it will likely weather the pending closure of the GM plant as well as it did previously.

Meanwhile, Kevin Carmichael walks us through the morning’s decision, and some of the reaction to it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Shifting the blame upstream

Posted on by

Have you seen that Internet meme going around about 100 corporations being responsible for 71 percent of the world’s GHG emissions? Congratulations, you’re fooling yourself as to what this really means! There’s an interesting piece in the National Postright now that breaks down what that study actually shows, and it’s not what you may think. The problem with the report that shows this statistic is that it shifts the blame for the emissions upstream to producers rather than downstream to consumers – so Exxon is being blamed for emissions from cars, when it’s consumers who are driving demand for their gasoline by, well, driving. And when you sort out upstream and downstream emissions, it turns out that those 100 corporations are really only responsible for about seven percent of those emissions – the rest are really the responsibility of consumers.

Why is this important? Because by presenting the problem as being driven by those 100 companies, it gives the impression that they can be dealt with as corporate bad apples who can be regulated into reducing that tremendous chunk of emissions. More importantly, it tells consumers that they’re not the ones responsible, it’s the fault of evil corporations – never mind that they’re responding to consumer demand. And this takes us back to the conversation around carbon pricing. When hucksters like Jason Kenney and Andrew Scheer insist that they can meaningfully reduce carbon emissions without carbon taxes (note: Kenney’s carbon tax plans only target large emitters that pay into a “technology fund”), it once again leaves consumers off the hook, which defeats the purpose.

Consumers drive demand, which drive emissions. If you target consumer behaviour by putting a price on the emissions they’re causing, you’re working to change demand, whether it’s through better fuel economy, insulation in housing, or making different choices about what it is they’re consuming and how carbon intensive their consumption is, you’re dealing with the problem where it starts. Carbon taxes are a transparent way for consumers to see what it is they’re using, and allows them to make choices. When you target companies instead, you’re simply passing along the costs to them in the form of higher prices in a non-transparent way, and in a costlier way because regulation is a far less cost-effective way of driving emissions reductions. So indeed, rather than trying to ensure that consumers aren’t being hit by the costs of carbon pricing, you’re actually ensuring that they’re hit even more (particularly because the costs of doing nothing will be even greater still). You can’t pretend that this problem can’t be solved without a focus on consumers, and that starts with recognizing that consumers are the problem, not corporations.

Continue reading →