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.

Good reads:

  • The next few days could determine whether we get a NAFTA deal this year, while the Liberal government has been working to ensure Canadians speak in unison on it.
  • The government plans to spend $10 million on programmes to help break down barriers for women in order to address income inequality.
  • Here’s a look at the debate facing the government over how best to address the US tax changes that will keep us competitive without destroying our finances to do so.
  • Scott Brison has offered to make some adjustments to his $7 billion Budget Implementation Vote in the Estimates, which the PBO says are an improvement.
  • Ahmed Hussen says he’s not worried that we’ll see a wave of Honduran border crossers after their Temporary Protected Status in the US will be cancelled.
  • Chrystia Freeland has visited the Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh.
  • We have some details on one of the offices raided by CRA as part of a Panama Papers investigation.
  • Revelations about the kinds of death threats that Alberta premier Rachel Notley faces had other political leaders and MPs talking about their experiences.
  • Rideau Hall is doing a review of all of the groups it does patronage for, which seems to be taking longer than usual. Also, Payette has yet to move into Rideau Hall.
  • Guy Giorno says the investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct by Rick Dykstra is a sham process. (The investigating lawyer disagrees, obviously).
  • Two former senior finance officials walk us through the Budget Implementation Vote issue, and say that the PBO’s concerns are unfounded.
  • Chantal Hébert has questions about the Erin Weir saga.
  • Andrew Coyne is no fan of the new electoral reform bill, as it doesn’t fix the glaring problems with the current system.
  • Susan Delacourt takes note that the Liberals have begun fighting a renewed campaign against the ghost of Stephen Harper.
  • Colby Cosh contrasts the difficulties of pipeline approvals and marijuana legislation and notes the difficult and contradictory demands the Senate is making on the latter.

Odds and ends:

Help Routine Proceedings expand. Support my Patreon.