Pipelines will be the talk of the day, as the National Energy Board gave approval to Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement pipeline to the US late yesterday, and Candice Bergen wasted no time in putting out a press release demanding that the government approve it for the sake of jobs, and so on. Never mind that this pipeline doesn’t go to tidewater, so it won’t actually help Alberta get world price for its exports, but hey, it’s a pipeline and we are apparently in desperate need of them, except when we aren’t because they will encourage the further exploitation of oil and gas which won’t help us reach our climate goals, and all of that. But tidewater remains on everyone’s lips, as there is talk that the Northern Gateway pipeline may not be dead after all, and there is even talk that Enbridge is looking at alternate port facilities than the one that they proposed in their initial bid. There is a sense of a deadline, given that the conditional approval that the NEB gave Northern Gateway would expire by the end of this year, but it’s also hard to say that it was a real approval given the 200+ conditions that they attached to it, which may very well have been quite onerous – particularly any conditions that required First Nations buy-in when they are not keen to allow these pipelines over their territories, nor to have any terminus near the waterways that salmon depend upon for spawning, as that affects their local fisheries as well. That said, all of the agitation for Energy East will continue undaunted, no matter that it hasn’t even begun much of its environmental assessment process, nor the case for its “social licence” as Trudeau likes to call it – not that questions of process seem to matter to those who want it to happen yesterday.
Tag Archives: Transparency
Roundup: Mandate letters a good step
Within a few days, we’re going to see another first on the federal scene – the mandate letter sent to every cabinet minister are going to be made public. We’ve seen this in a few provinces before, but not federally, and when Trudeau talks about this being a step in open, transparent and accountable government, he’s right. These letters, personalised to each minister, lay out responsibilities and expectations, and perhaps even timelines, when it comes to what they have on their plate. So why make them public? Because it’s a way of showing what was expected of them so that they can be held to account based on those particular metrics. It also gives the civil service an idea of where the government is going so that they can tailor their efforts accordingly. It does set the more open and transparent tone that Trudeau has been looking to set for his government, and changes the kinds of black boxes that we’re normally used to seeing. Not that there aren’t reasons for some of those closed-doors – cabinet meetings in particular, the caucus room as well – because there do need to be spaces for closed-door discussions in order for consensus to be achieved or for positions to be hashed out without fear of the press making a big deal about divisions that may or may not exist. But even with cabinet secrecy being a good and important thing, I’m having a hard time seeing how mandate letters could be justified under that rubric. It’s not about the discussion leading up to a decision – it’s about setting the government’s direction, and that is something that should generally be out in the open. It’s a move we should applaud, and hopefully it will continue to be an indication of the direction this government is taking in terms of its commitment to actual transparency.
Roundup: Not the safe space you’re looking for
Over in the National Post, Ashley Csanady found that the student council at the University of Waterloo has taken to abusing the concept of “safe spaces” to try and move their council meetings behind closed doors. Apparently student leaders have argued – with a straight face – that these closed-door meetings would foster a “safe environment, and less scrutiny results in better decision-making.” All of which is complete and utter nonsense because as political actors, they have obligations to transparency in order that they may be held to account. If they’re uncomfortable being challenged in public, then they shouldn’t run for office (which is an issue I have with people who run for office at any level of government, particularly federally – if you can’t so much as ask or answer a thirty-second question in QP without relying on a script and having your hand held, why are you there?) Now, there is a time and a place for closed-door meetings, and in camera discussions in grown-up politics, but it’s not all the time, and it’s not so that they can feel “safe.” Sometimes it takes a while to come up with suitable language when you’re putting together a report, and there is a case that some of the Board of Internal Economy’s decisions do happen better behind closed doors because some MPs can actually behave like adults when no one else is around, and I’m not sure it helps when they’re not using it as an excuse to play up the partisan drama for the cameras – again. (Also, BOIE deals with a lot of personnel issues that have legitimate privacy considerations). Yes, there has been an alarming trend in federal politics to move all considerations of committee business behind closed doors, likely because the Conservatives on the committee don’t want to be seen being irrationally partisan when they deny opposition motions, but they’re not using – or rather abusing – the notion of a safe space, or saying that they feel threatened by the exposure. Not wanting to look like jerks on TV is not a reason to meet in camera, and yet they do it anyway, and we the public should hold them to account for said behaviour. Hopefully the students at Waterloo will also see thought this charade, and vote this council out next year as well.
QP: Childcare spaces across governments past
The day after the by-election, but the Commons was on the more subdued side. All three major leaders were present today, and Thomas Mulcair led off by asking about failed childcare plans from previous governments, and wondered how many spaces the current government delivered. Stephen Harper noted that NDP plans would benefit a mere ten percent of Canadians, while the measures his government announced would benefit all families with children. Mulcair poked about the government giving money for the rich, while Harper accused him of looking to take money away from families. Mulcair wondered why Harper was borrowing money to pay for the tax cuts he announced, but Harper continued to insist that their plans would put money in the pockets of “real working Canadians.” Mulcair veered into money being “stolen” from the EI fund, but Harper retorted that the EI would raise EI premiums. For his final question, Mulcair asked if the government would agree with their proposals for dealing with harassment on the Hill. Harper responded that their government has policies in place and would be happy to share them with the Board of Internal Economy. Justin Trudeau rose to ask if the government would support on his bill on increasing transparency. Harper retorted that it was rich for the Liberals to talk about transparency given that they voted against all kinds of bills that claimed to be about transparency (but most really weren’t). Trudeau asked about the government’s commitment to GHG reductions for the Copenhagen targets, to which Harper said it was rich for the Liberals to talk about emissions when they went up under their government. When Trudeau brought up the deal between the U.S. and China on emissions, Harper bashed back about the lack of Liberal action on Kyoto targets.
Roundup: Leave it to Peter
Oh Peter MacKay. You never fail to disappoint any longer, do you? In amidst the storm over the lack of diverse judicial appointments, MacKay’s tone deaf explanation (and then whinging post on Facebook), we find out that he sent out memos to his department on Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, each with very different message. The Mother’s Day message was about making meals and changing diapers, while the Father’s Day message was about shaping the minds of future leaders. So yeah – very separate roles and fairly outmoded notions about gender-specified parental behaviours. MacKay really has been the gift that keeps on giving lately.
Roundup: A Freudian slip by MacKay?
Peter MacKay apparently misspoke during Question Period yesterday. Whether it was a Freudian slip, or an inability to read the script he’d been provided, it certainly raised eyebrows as he stated that Justice Robert Mainville would be a great pick for the Supreme Court, when Mainville was being moved from the Federal Court of Appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal. The move had given rise to speculation that it was an attempt to put him in place to move to the Supreme Court when Justice LeBel retires in November, and MacKay all-but confirmed that was the intention, before he back-pedalled and said that he was simply referring to the fact that the Quebec Court of Appeal is the province’s supreme court – a fairly lame back track, and fodder for the court challenge being launched by the same Toronto lawyer that successfully challenged the Nadon appointment.
Roundup: A blow to cyber-surveillance
As what happens from time to time, the Supreme Court of Canada hands down a ruling and all of the government’s plans get messed up. Granted, that seems to be happening a lot more frequently these days, given that this government has a penchant for pushing the rules as far as they can and not listening to the legal advice they’re given. It happened again yesterday, with a unanimous ruling on a child pornography case that clarified the rules around warrantless access for online data – particularly metadata and ISPs. The Court has judged that these kinds do indeed constitute searches under the law, and that police need warrants (barring exigent circumstances, of course). This puts a huge hole in two government bills, C-13 and S-4, the “cyberbullying” bill and the digital privacy bill respectively, as both deal with data sharing including lawful access provisions. With the Court now having come down against lawful access – a decision being cheered by the new federal privacy commissioner as well as his Ontario counterpart – it’s likely to force the government to put the bills on hold (and indeed, they delayed further debate on S-4 in the Senate to consider the Supreme Court judgement). And hey, this might even mean that they’ll split the actual cyberbullying portions out of C-13 in order to “further consider” the next steps on the rest of the lawful access provisions that they were trying to get in under the rubric of “protecting children.” Then again, they could just as easily forge ahead and force yet another confrontation with the Supreme Court, as they seem intent on doing with everything else, in order to keep playing the victim card and fundraising off of it.
Roundup: Internal pushback on prostitution bill
One of the key Conservative voices on abolishing prostitution, Joy Smith, says that there are things she wants to see fixed in the government’s new bill, which are about the areas where sex workers themselves could still be charged, especially with the provisions around things like being near schools, given that there have never been cases that she’s aware of where sex workers have been trying to sell sex in front of schools in daylight hours. That said, she still wants the Nordic Model to go ahead, and produces conflated arguments around child prostitution, human trafficking, and the bizarre future dystopia where a woman can’t get EI unless she’s applied for work at a brothel, to back up her claims. Meanwhile, the Liberals have formally declared that they will oppose the bill, and listed their reasons why. Brent Rathgeber is also not a fan, seeing this as a cynical ploy to move the base against the courts, while only lawyers and social workers will come out ahead and sex workers won’t get any harm reduction. Even parts of the Conservative base aren’t that keen over the bill. Over in Maclean’s, Colby Cosh writes about where social conservatism and second wave feminism overlap on this issue of sex work, which is all about seeing women sex workers as all victims.
Roundup: A very big repayment demanded
The Commons Board of Internal Economy has ruled, and the NDP have been determined to owe some $1.17 million for those improper mailings, $36,000 of which is owed to the House of Commons, the rest they need to work out with Canada Post for the abuse of their Franking privileges. The NDP, of course, are spitting mad, calling it the work of a hyper-partisan kangaroo court, and declaring that they will seek judicial review of this decision in the Federal Court. This is also before there is any decision made about their “satellite offices,” which could mean that they will wind up owing even more money, and I’m sure there will be even more threats of lawsuits and judicial review, none of which serves anyone’s purposes, though the NDP’s status as paragons of virtue is certainly being tainted by all of this. If nothing else, they are now sounding very much like another party that got in trouble for being cute with the rules – unless you have forgotten about the whole “In & Out” affair.
Roundup: Reading his own report wrong
Harry Neufeld, former chief electoral officer of BC and author of a report on voter irregularities in the last federal election wants it to be made clear that said report didn’t say there was fraud. Pierre Poilievre, who likes to cite that report, decided to double down and actually say that Neufeld was reading his own report wrong. No, seriously. Neufeld, incidentally, says that many of the incidents of “fraud” that people insist happen are urban myths that have been repeated so often that people start to believe them without actually witnessing it happen. Andrew Coyne shreds the Fair Elections Act and quite correctly points out that while there are a few good points in the bill, the closer one looks at it, the worse it gets and becomes untenable.