Tag Archives: The Senate

Roundup: Will the RCMP’s pledge be enough?

Posted on by

The question as to whether or not there was progress on dismantling the protest blockades is a rather fraught one, as the news that the RCMP in BC had announced their plans to withdraw their forces from the pipeline site with the proviso that the company be allowed access, which doesn’t sound like it sits well with those hereditary chiefs, because they insist that their eviction notice for Coastal GasLink stands. However, if removing the RCMP from Wet’suwet’en territory is the condition for the sympathetic protests blockades to come down, then we’ll see if that has the promised effect – we may not find out until the four hereditary chiefs who have travelled to Mohawk territory in Ontario have their meeting. In the meantime, Justin Trudeau had a teleconference with the premiers, who expressed frustration but had no consensus on how they would solve the impasse – though François Legault is threatening to send the police after the blockade near Montreal (though we’ll see if the police there respond to political direction, because that would be a violation of police independence). Oh, and while a lot of people are claiming that CN is blaming previously announced layoffs on the current blockade situation, the Teamsters has come out to say that these current (temporary) layoffs are different from those previously announced, so there goes another talking point.

Meanwhile, there has been increased reporting about those Wet’suwet’en voices who are both in favour of the pipeline, as well as those who are don’t appreciate the protesters invoking them, given that they say the dispute is none of their business. As part of that, here is a lengthy thread that tries to get a better sense of the house and clan structure of the Wet’suwet’en, along with trying to get some clarity as to the status of hereditary chiefs, while this thread explains a bit more of their decision-making structure, and what may be an issue at present with some of the politics with the anti-pipeline factions. It’s complex, and resists easy narratives.

I would add that what I wrote yesterday still stands – that the company still needs to act here, because the reporting on the timeline of the decision-making and consultation seems to indicate that they cut the corners around consultation with the hereditary chiefs, and until they pull back and go through that process, then some of these problems won’t get resolved, and the current situation will drag on until things get really uncomfortable, and people start demanding drastic action, which will only hurt the cause for everyone.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Urging calm, patience, and police action

Posted on by

Yesterday was a long and very busy day, as everyone scrambled to get their say on the ongoing protest and blockade situation across the country, with a mounting economic cost to them. First thing in the morning, the AFN National Chief, Perry Bellegarde, and several First Nations leaders held a press conference to ask the Mohawk protesters to dismantle the barricades – not as surrender, but as compassion for those who would soon be affected by shortages – but one of those Mohawk leaders also noted that his band office has been locked out and protesters among his own people say they want him out. A short while later, Justin Trudeau gave a speech in the House of Commons to counsel patience and to reiterate that dialogue remained the best way to resolve the situation – something Andrew Scheer denounced as weak, and he continued to insist that the police end the protests, insisting that this was but a group of “professional protesters” and “radicals” and that the “real” position of the Wet’suwet’en people was for jobs and resource development (even though he later said he hadn’t actually spoken to any of them) – something that both Peter MacKay and Erin O’Toole also echoed, because police action has never gone badly before. Oh, wait. (Marilyn Gladu, for the record, wants the military to step in). Shortly after Trudeau’s speech, he had a meeting with Yves-François Blanchet, Jagmeet Singh, and Elizabeth May, and made a pointed remark that Scheer had not been invited because his remarks were “disqualifying” – which led to Scheer’s agitated breathy and high-pitched performance during QP. Oh, and while all of this was going on, some activists in Victoria tried to perform a “citizen’s arrest” on BC premier John Horgan (and they got arrested instead).

By the time the five o’clock politics shows rolled around, Carolyn Bennett had concluded a meeting with some of the hereditary chiefs – who stated on one of the shows that they wouldn’t actually negotiate until the RCMP were off of their territory – and Marc Miller refused to discuss whether that was on or off the table when asked, leading the pundits to make hay of that. (“He didn’t say no!” is the worst impulse in journalism, guys). Oh, and hilariously, Jody Wilson-Raybould offered her services as a mediator, as though anyone in the government would be willing to trust her. As the day wound down, Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe said he was holding a meeting of premiers today because Trudeau “refused to act” – though I’m not sure what exactly he proposes, unless it’s to try to direct provincial police forces to start cracking skulls, both violating the rule of law and making the situation worse. And that’s where we are.

Meanwhile, here is a good primer written by a lawyer and a law professor about what “rule of law” means and why it’s important – as Scheer and company keep misusing the term. Heather Scoffield sees the business impacts of the blockades and deduces that it will be impossible to resolve them both quickly and peacefully – it would have to be one or the other. Andrew Coyne counsels patience in threating the needle that the protests can both be illegal while still noting that using force will only create martyrs. Matt Gurney worries that if the blockades go on much longer, they could fuel populist anger and damage the cause of reconciliation. Paul Wells attempts to make sense of the day that was, and the Liberals’ high-wire act in the middle of it all.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Checking Scheer’s privilege

Posted on by

The solidarity protests with the Coastal GasLink protesters continue across the country, and police continue to hold off on enforcement while dialogue continues – Carolyn Bennett is slated to meet with chiefs in BC, while Marc Miller will be meeting with the Mohawk protesters in Ontario today using the protocols of the covenant chain. And amidst this, Andrew Scheer decided he needed to get involved. It didn’t go well.

Scheer’s tone deafness over the “privilege” remarks likely stem from the belief that the Conservatives have convinced themselves of, that it’s just rich, foreign-funded radicals who are protesting while the First Nations want the projects to proceed because jobs – which some do, but it delegitimizes the legitimate grievances and differences of opinion within Indigenous communities (even if all of the protesters aren’t themselves Indigenous). Add to that, Scheer’s insistence that ministers should be directing the operations of the police is wrong-headed (and dangerous – this is how police states happen), which forgets that even if Bill Blair could get on the phone and direct RCMP to enforce injunctions, the ones in Ontario that have shut down the rail network are squarely within the jurisdiction of the OPP. Oops. There may be some debate over how much authority that governments have to direct enforcement in cases like these, but Scheer (and Scott Moe, who has also been echoing his comments) should know better. That they don’t is a bad sign for the governance of this country.

Meanwhile, Chris Selley decries the ongoing blockades but makes some interesting points about the way in which the male hereditary Wet’suwet’en chiefs displaced the female hereditary chiefs who were in support of the project. Colby Cosh is bemused at how threatening commuters in Central Canada is the kind of leverage that Alberta could only dream of having. Matt Gurney recalls Christie Blatchford’s book on the Caledonia crisis, and how the Ontario Progressive Conservatives apparently didn’t learn anything from what happened then, given their absolute silence over what is happening under their jurisdiction.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Protests and impossible demands

Posted on by

The protests in support of the hereditary chiefs who are against the BC Coastal GasLink pipeline continue to disrupt the rail corridors in central Canada, though that may soon come to an end as the OPP has stated that the situation has become “dire” and threatened enforcement of court injunctions soon enough. Rail service has been cancelled for both freight and passengers, which is going to cause some economic disruption, especially as other sympathetic protesters have been attempting to blockade ports on both coasts. The federal government maintains that they are very concerned about what is happening, but state that these remain areas of provincial jurisdiction, and that’s something that we can’t simply handwave away.

And this is something that should be remarked upon a little more – the demands that the federal government get involved with the Coastal GasLink situation are essentially saying that the government should ignore the constitution, or that when a group feels aggrieved by the provincial government that they can then turn around and demand that the federal government do something, like asking your mother for permission after your father says no. Meanwhile, some of the protesters – like those staging a “sit-in” in the Department of Justice building, are making novel demands of the minister that are outside of his powers, and which don’t respond to how government operates in Canada – particularly given that the RCMP operates at arm’s length and doesn’t take orders from the justice minister or any Cabinet minister. In this case, they are enforcing a court order, which again, the government can’t simply step in and make disappear. We have a rule of law. And yes, the situation is complicated by the fact that there aren’t treaties in this area of BC, which means there is uncertainty as to the rights and title question (which have been under negotiation for years, if not decades), but the justice minister can’t wave a magic wand. Real life doesn’t work like that, and for this group to declare that if he doesn’t wave a magic wand by today that “reconciliation is dead,” well, it’s more than a little precious.

Meanwhile, these protests are giving rise to other voices who want to exploit the situation, like Conservative leadership hopeful who says that if he was prime minister, he would do something about it. He won’t say what – but by gum he’d do something! Jason Kenney, meanwhile, is trying to build the case that this is somehow a “dress rehearsal” for future pipeline protests, and calling these actions “ecocolonial” (whatever that means). Meanwhile, his environment minister is slagging the First Nation chief who has raised concerns about Teck Frontier and the lack of engagement by the provincial government, saying that it’s just about money and the government has to worry about taxpayers. Of course, unless Kenney and company don’t tone it down, things are bound to get worse because of the underlying complexity, so perhaps people need to take a deep breath.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Open letters and complications

Posted on by

Alberta premier Jason Kenney took the next step in his performance art when it comes to demanding the approval of the Teck Frontier mine, and released an open letter to Justin Trudeau, which reiterated his points for the approval of the project. Of course, he didn’t actually tell the truth with all of those points, which is kind of awkward. (And hey, CBC, you could have done more than just retype Kenney’s letter and actually include some of the pushback, like Andrew Leach’s fact-checking).

Leach also has some problems with the lack of a viable reclamation plan for the project’s end-pit lakes, which is kind of a big deal, because it does seem like they’re trying to handwave away the problem, and hope that maybe in the future they’ll have a magic new technology that will solve the problem. That’s not a good thing. (Thread here).

Meanwhile, the federal decision on the Teck Frontier mine may be complicated as at least one affected First Nation says their concerns aren’t being addressed by the province, which is kind of a big deal. In fact, he said that the federal government has been doing their part, but the province under Kenney’s government has pretty much walked away after the previous government was doing the work with them – hence why they’re calling for the project to only be conditionally approved, with the condition being that the province be given a deadline to complete their talks with the First Nation and addressing their concerns about the impacts that the project (if it goes ahead, which it likely won’t anytime soon) would have on their local environment. It would seem to me that it’s a problem that Kenney keeps insisting they have full Indigenous sign-off on the project if in fact they actually don’t – but the truth hasn’t stopped him at any point thus far.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Escalating costs for compliance

Posted on by

The over-the-top rhetoric over energy projects in this country hasn’t been limited to the Teck Frontier mine decision. No, we got a new round of it yesterday when Bill Morneau disclosed that the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline costs have increased to $12.6 billion, in part because of environmental changes and accommodations for local First Nations. Predictably, both the Conservatives and project opponents lost their minds – the Conservatives melting down that this was somehow because of this government’s delays (erm, you know there were court processes in between, right?), apparently oblivious to the fact that this was the cost of compliance to get it built; the opponents because of the increased price tag over a project that they are certain will increase carbon emissions (even though it is more likely to decrease them as those contents would simply flow by rail otherwise). Jason Kenney, of course, takes the cake for his own outsized rhetoric on the matter.

From Washington DC, Kenney and his Mini-Me, Scott Moe, were both being remarked upon for how toned down their rhetoric has been of late (which I contend has to do with Trudeau and Freeland calling their bluff on their “equalization” bullshit), but they certainly kept up it up around Teck Frontier, and Alberta’s environment minister was thundering about the news reports of a possible federal “compensation package” if the approval was not granted – which was, of course, full of lies about the merits of the Teck proposal. And the notion that the federal government simply needs to “get out of the way” pretends that the biggest woes are the price of oil, and the fact that the US shale boom has hobbled the viability of the oilsands.

Meanwhile, Heather Scoffield makes note of the fact that all reason has gone out of the “debate” over the approval of the Teck Frontier mine. As if to illustrate the point, Matt Gurney repeats a bunch of the well-worn justifications for approving the project under the notion that Alberta needs jobs and not bailouts, without seeming to recognize that it’s not currently economically viable, while ignoring that delays to TMX were not because of government action but Indigenous court challenges under their constitutional rights, or that there is a reason why the Conservatives ensured there was Cabinet sign-off on these decisions. Chantal Hébert points out that the Liberals will lose whichever way they decide on this project.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The meaningless debate over Teck Frontier

Posted on by

The debate over approval of the Teck Frontier oilsands mine is reaching completely absurd levels, right up to warning that this will be an existential crisis for Confederation if the federal government rejects it. There is a fight brewing within the Liberal caucus, and Jason Kenney’s bombast is back to its dangerous stoking of anger for promises that nobody can deliver on. Conservative talking points, as with Kenney’s, are full of complete mistruths about the proposed emissions targets of the mine if it goes ahead, and they exaggerate the initial environmental assessment, which was skeptical about many of the claims the company made about their emissions. That Teck has promised to try and be carbon neutral by 2050 is also something that should be taken with a massive grain of salt because they haven’t outlined how they’ll get there, and it sounds an awful lot like technosalvation – that they hope to develop some miracle technology between now and then.

And it’s just so stupid because it’s unlikely that the project would even go ahead even if it were granted approval, and yet this is somehow supposed to be the great saviour of the Alberta economy. It won’t be. Teck has stated that even if they get approval, they would need another partner, more pipeline capacity, and the price of oil to be at least $75/barrel, and it’s currently sitting around $50, and unlikely to start climbing anytime soon as the global supply glut continues, and the shale boom in the US continues to drive down prices.

Nevertheless, a number of outlets are reporting that the federal government is preparing a fiscal rescue package in the event that it doesn’t get approval, which people are already panning as tone deaf, and the death knell of investment in Canada, but not one of them is looking at the current economics – that even if approved, it’s not financially viable, and as Andrew Leach points out, there are plenty of other approved projects that are not moving ahead because it’s not economically viable. Should the government prepare fiscal rescue packages for that eventuality too? The problems in the province and in the sector are not the fault of the current federal government, as much as people like to blame them. It’s a bigger, structural problem that has been decades in the making, and the ship isn’t going to be turned on a dime. Blaming Trudeau won’t solve anything.

Meanwhile, if you think this is somehow related to the former Bill C-69 and its environmental assessment process, it’s worth a reminder that this assessment process is under the process that the Harper government put into place, and even then, it’s not like this project is getting anywhere. That should be another signal.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rushing a resurrected bill

Posted on by

The government made good on their promise yesterday to re-introduce Rona Ambrose’s bill on sexual assault training for judges, and to their credit, they tabled an amended bill that does take into account most of the criticisms of the previous version of the bill that likely would have rendered it unconstitutional because it interfered with judicial independence in pretty much every respect. (See my story here). Not that you’d know it from some of the reporting – the CBC in particular has been absolutely allergic in looking into what the objections to the bill were, and why they made it unworkable and unconstitutional, preferring to blame the Senate as being an “old boys’ club” rather than objecting to an unworkable and unconstitutional bill – you know, like they’re supposed to.

But despite every party supporting the bill, that didn’t stop them from getting cute with it. The Conservatives, for example, suggested in Question Period that the government amend the bill so that it also includes training for Parole Board members – which is out of step for the language in the bill. Because, seriously, the Canadian Judicial Council is not going to provide that training, as the bill stipulates that they do for judges. And then Jagmeet Singh decided he too was going to be cute, after QP, and move that the House vote to pass the bill at all stages in one fell swoop, with no scrutiny. The Conservatives blocked that (possibly to put on a show about their floated notion about Parole Board officers), but seriously, Singh was completely offside in moving the motion in the first place.

The previous version of the bill was fatally flawed, but it passed the House of Commons unanimously because it hadn’t been properly studied. They sent it to the Status of Women committee, which has no expertise in the legal system and how it operates, and they focused on survivor-based training, which actually turns out to be problematic because it could potentially bias the training, particularly when it comes to the presumption of innocence before the law. It wasn’t until the bill reached the Senate that its flaws were actually discussed, but hey, it sounded like a good idea so all MPs passed it without thinking. Let me be clear – that’s a terrible way to pass laws, and it’s MPs abandoning their roles. As a former criminal defence lawyer, you would think that Singh might appreciate the problems inherent in the bill, particularly when it comes to bias and judicial independence – the latter of which I challenged him on in a scrum after QP – and he was completely oblivious to it, mouthing platitudes about sexual assault survivors. That’s not how Parliament is supposed to work. It would be great if our opposition parties could do their jobs, but it increasingly feels like it’s too much to ask. (The same goes for you, CBC).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ginned up outrage over accounting rules

Posted on by

My tolerance for ginned-up outrage is mighty thin, and it was exceeded yesterday as a certain media outlet ran a completely bullshit story about how in the last fiscal year, $105 million of Veterans Affairs’ budget went unspent and was returned to the consolidated revenue fund rather than simply kept in the department for the following year as the government “promised” to do following a completely inane NDP Supply Day motion a year previous. The story is one hundred percent not worth anyone’s time, and we have a media outlet who has decided to waste precious resources into putting a disingenuous framing mechanism around an NDP press release and calling it accountability.

To be clear: the whole premise of this “outrage” is the fact that the NDP have deliberately ignored how accounting and budgeting rules work in order to dial up a fake controversy for the sake of scoring outrage points in the media. The unspent money from Veterans Affairs is because they’re a demand-based department – they estimate how much they’ll need to deliver services to veterans every year, and if the funds don’t all get spent, then the law states that money goes back to general revenue, and reallocated in the following year’s budget. This does not mean there is deliberate under-spending – it means that they overestimated what the demand for services would be in an abundance of caution. And yes, there are backlogs in the department, but when you have capacity issues because they can’t hire enough qualified staff at the drop of a hat (after the previous government let hundreds of them go), you can’t just throw that “leftover” money at that problem. Pretending that it works otherwise is frankly dishonest.

One of the journalists at said outlet took exception to my calling out the disingenuous framing and insisted that the government shouldn’t have promised not to keep the funds in the department if they didn’t intend to keep the promise – and I would almost accept that as a valid argument except for the whole promise in and of itself was the result of shenanigans. The NDP’s whole Supply Day motion last year was illusory outrage, and government explained over and over how accounting rules and demand-based departments work, but if they voted against the (non-binding) motion, they would be voting against veterans and it would be bad optics. The path of least resistance is to vote for it and just keep following the rules. Because what is the alternative – vote for it, and then bring in new legislation to contort the accounting rules for this one-off bit of faux outrage over a non-scandal that is the direct result of a party that deliberately misstated how said accounting rules work in order to try to generate headlines? How is that a productive use of anyone’s time or energy? It would be great if we could get certain media outlets to engage in some critical thinking and not fall for this kind of transparent spin, and then gin it up as though it were a real scandal. We all have better things to do.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Congeniality by way of TV

Posted on by

Maclean’s has a profile of the TVO series Political Blind Date, which pits politicians from rival parties – sometimes from the same level of government, sometimes from different provinces – in situations that help them understand each other’s viewpoints and helps to break down the partisanship barriers. And this is great – but what it was missing was any particular context as to why partisanship has grown to such toxic levels in the first place, and that has a lot to do with parliaments and legislatures rejigging their rules to be more “family friendly.”

Until the early 1990s, parliament used to hold evening sittings three nights a week. At six o’clock, the House would adjourn, and everyone would head upstairs to the Parliamentary Restaurant (aided by the fact that there was a dearth of restaurant options in the area, and liquor laws were such that you bought a bottle of booze that was kept behind the bar in the restaurant with your name on it). MPs would eat together, drink together, get to know one another across party lines, and it developed a sense of congeniality, and at eight o’clock, they’d head back to the Chamber and debate for a couple of more hours. The arrival of the Reform Party and the move to end evening sittings to be “family friendly” ended the congeniality and cross-party opportunities to just be parliamentarians together. With no impetus to break bread together, caucuses grew insular, and it became easier to treat other parties as the enemy rather than just having opposing points of view. Now, it’s rare that cross-party friendships occur unless there is committee travel that helps MPs bond, but that’s not very often. It’s disappointing that we are now relying on a TV show to build these relationships which used to be part and parcel of being an MP.

What’s particularly sad is that this kind of thing is now infecting the Senate, which used to be a far less partisan place than the House of Commons, and for which many senators have formed close and long-lasting friendships across the aisle. They still have more of the convivial culture that the Commons did, but that too is fading as the new Independents, eager to burn things down and declare anyone with partisan affiliation to be tainted and in some cases the enemy (particularly the Conservatives), it is polarizing the Chamber, and souring the mood therein. For a move that was supposed to lessen partisanship, Trudeau’s brilliant attempt to reform the Senate is doing the opposite – just one more unintended consequence that nobody bothered to consider, and all Canadians suffer as a result.

Continue reading →