The US State Department released their draft environmental impact statement for the Keystone XL pipeline yesterday. While it’s not final approval, it certainly doesn’t see any particular environmental problems, but it now invites input, which will likely mean an intensification of the protests taking place on both sides of the border. The one point that seems to be most contentious is the assertion that without the pipeline that the oilsands will continue to expand – environmentalists seem to disagree on this point, but I have a hard time seeing their point. The development may not expand at the same rate (which is not necessarily a bad thing either), but operations will expand regardless, and market forces will find other means ensuring that the bitumen is transported to where it needs to go, be it by an alternate pipeline, or even by rail.
Author Archives: Dale
Roundup: Fallout from a Thursday Gong Show
So, yesterday was a busy day. Bit of a gong show really. But let’s start with the more shocking news – that NDP MP Claude Patry crossed over to the Bloc. Okay, well, it’s actually not all that shocking. Paul Wells has predicted this since 2011, and it could very well be the first of many. A rather shamefaced Thomas Mulcair took to a microphone and rather sulkily declared that Patry had voted in favour of an NDP PMB that would require MPs to resign and run in a by-election if they wanted to cross the floor – not that said bill passed, and Patry indicated that the vote was whipped, and has let it be known that the rigid party discipline of the NDP is one of the reasons that he decided to take his leave. And I’m going to be a bit counter-intuitive here, but I say that Patry is under no obligation to run in a by-election. He was elected to fill the seat, and that means that voters have put their trust in him to exercise his judgement, and if his judgement is that the NDP was no longer where his values lay, then he should be free to exercise that judgement and leave the party. Despite what people may think, seats are not filled based solely on the basis of party affiliation – yes, it is a major part of the decision on the part of many voters, but we are also voting for a person to fill that seat – not a robot wearing party colours to recite the speeches prepared for him by Central Command and vote on command. And guess what – the accountability mechanism is that if those voters don’t believe he made the right choice in his judgement, they can vote him out in the next election. Michael Den Tandt writes that Patry’s defection is a mess of Mulcair’s own making.
QP: Baird backs up everyone
The morning on the Hill was a bit of a gong show — NDP MP Claude Patry crossed the floor over to the Bloc, and Conservatives everywhere were frantically distancing themselves from Stephen Harper’s former mentor and chief of staff, Tom Flanagan, after he made comments about child pornography. When QP got underway, Thomas Mulcair read a pair of questions about those sixteen Senators who didn’t tell the CBC about their residency, and doubted their ability to investigate themselves — you know, like MPs do. John Baird, the designated back-up PM du jour, responded by assuring him that the outside auditors had been called in for the four Senators in question. For his final question, Mulcair asked about the PBO’s report on the Joint Support Ship plans. Baird didn’t answer, but ridiculed Mulcair’s Private Member’s bill on the PBO, which would require Senate sign off for for a new PBO, even though his position on the Senate is abolition. Matthew Kellway was up next and asked the very same thing, but this time Rona Ambrose answered, touting the expertise that they have in place, but they would make any adjustments with the Navy and the Coast Guard going forward. Bob Rae wouldn’t let up, and demanded to know if those “adjustments” meant fewer ships or a bigger budget. For his final question, Bob Rae wondered about how the government went about trying to get a security clearance for Dr. Arthur Porter, and related it to other lapses like Bruce Carson. Vic Toews tried to summon high dudgeon for the opposition “abdicating” their responsibility in approving Porter’s appointment, apparently oblivious to his own abdication of accountability for the appointment.
Roundup: Supreme Court refines what constitutes hate speech
The Supreme Court handed down its decision on the Whatcott case, which basically refined the definition of what constitutes hate speech in the country. They also said that the “love the sinner, hate the sin” argument is not acceptable either when it comes to hate speech against gays, for what it’s worth. Emmett Macfarlane notes the issues around defining what a ‘”reasonable person” would constitute as hate, as the decision seems to indicate. Charlie Gillis laments the lost opportunity to affirm free speech, no matter the content, because human rights legislation is being abused as a blunt tool in the country. Jonathan Kay sees the decision as privileging anti-Christian censorship because they believe in the fire-and-brimstone retribution for gays, especially because the “love the sinner, hate the sin” argument holds value for Christians. Andrew Coyne laments that the judgement didn’t spend enough time prefacing the value of free speech. And Bill Whatcott himself? Plans to keep up his anti-gay pamphleting because apparently Christ has nothing better to do than ensure that Whatcott denounces the gays.
QP: Quotas and downshifting
It’s an awful, wet day out in the Nation’s Capital, the precipitation an ugly mix of fluffy wet snow and needle-like ice pellets. Inside the Commons, QP kicked off with Thomas Mulcair reading a question about cuts to services for First Nations including policing. Harper responded that there were no cuts, and that new funds would be announced in due course. Mulcair’s second question was about Flaherty’s letter to the CRTC, to which Harper reminded him that he already answered the question the day before. Mulcair then asked a question about those Senators who have not yet responded to the CBC about their residency. Harper assured him that all Senators respect their residency requirement (though I suppose that remains to be seen). Nycole Turmel was up next to ask a pair of EI “quota” questions, speciously tying in the Senate, to which Diane Finley assured her that there were no quotas or bonuses for achieving cuts. Rae pressed on the issue of bonuses for cuts, to which Harper talked about how they wanted to ensure that EI funds were there for those who paid into them. Rae carried on about how this move was simply downshifting the unemployed onto provincial welfare rolls, but Harper insisted there was no such plan.
Roundup: Awaiting the Whatcott decision
It’s going to be an interesting day as the Supreme Court rules on the Whatcott trial, which will be a major ruling around hate speech laws in this country.
The police records for Senator Patrick Brazeau’s arrest warrant have been released, and all of the details are here – grabbing, punching, spitting, stair-pushing, and so on.
In other Senate news, the CBC polled Senators as to their residence, and of the 104 Senators, 17 refused to respond as to where they lived – 16 of those Conservatives (the sole Liberal being Mac Harb, who is currently under investigation). They have an interactive chart of their responses. Meanwhile, Senator Patterson, who is also having his residency questioned, made the mistake of running away from reporters yesterday, but when they caught up to him said that he is a resident of Nunavut (he is the former premier of the NWT when they were a single territory), and that he’s cooperating fully with the audit. It has also been noticed that Harper was less strident in his defence of Senator Wallin and her repayment of undisclosed expenses yesterday. Oh, and while Charlie Angus may rail on about how the awful Senate is keeping everyone in the dark, it may be worthwhile to remember that there a) hasn’t been time to complete any of the audits, and b) that MPs’ expenses are just as opaque if not more so than those of Senators, so if he wants transparency then he can open up his own books while he’s at it.
QP: Getting Harper on the record, scattershot style
With all leaders on deck on a lovely Tuesday afternoon in the Nation’s Capital, QP got underway with Thomas Mulcair reading a question on why John Duncan was dropped from cabinet over an improper letter, but not Jim Flaherty. Harper responded that in Flaherty’s case, it was an administrative error. Mulcair moved on to the topic of EI “quotas,” to which Harper insisted that they were merely performance audit. Mulcair then moved onto the “scandals” in the Senate, to which Harper somehow turned it into a paean for an elected Senate — not that it would actually address the current issues. For his final question, Mulcair demanded that Harper stay away from the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka, and Harper started off by carrying on his elected Senate paean before saying that he would not attend the meeting. For the Liberals, Bob Rae asked about the house calls that EI recipients are receiving as part of the effort to stamp out fraud. Harper responded by saying that EI was paid into by honest Canadians and they want to ensure that the money is there for honest recipients. For his final question, Rae asked about the Estimates tabled yesterday and the increase in advertising budgets while front-line services are being cut. Harper insisted that said front-line services were not being cut.
Roundup: The unravelling cases of Senators Wallin and Duffy
In the past couple of days of Senate revelations, we find that Senator Pamela Wallin has an Ontario health card and not a Saskatchewan one, which raises the question about her residency – no matter that she spent 168 days in Saskatchewan last year. Wallin also apparently repaid a substantial amount in expense claims before this whole audit business started, which is also interesting news. Senator Mike Duffy, meanwhile, could actually end up owing $90,000 plus interest on his living expense claims rather than the $42,000 that was cited over the weekend. Oops. Tim Harper looks at the sideshow that is Senator Duffy’s non-apology and smells a deal made to save his job. Senator Cowan says that repayment doesn’t answer the questions – especially not the ones about residency, which means he may not be up to protect Duffy – or Wallin and Patterson’s – seats. And those Senators who’ve been silent on their residency claims are now being called before the Senate Internal Economy committee to explain themselves. Terry Milewski goes through the entire housing claims allegations and fixes an appropriate amount of scorn on the idea that two ticky-boxes are “complex” on the forms.
QP: Let’s compare everything to Mike Duffy!
Monday after a constituency week, and MPs are still trickling back into the Nation’s Capital. QP got started off with Thomas Mulcair reading off a question about Senators Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin committing “fraud.” As Harper was not in the Chamber, it fell to Peter Van Loan, apparently the designated back-up PM du jour, who insisted that the Senators in question were being investigated, but that they owned property and had “deep ties” to the provinces they represent. In other words, they are now circling the wagons around their Senate appointees. Mulcair carried on, taking all supplementals in the leader’s round, asking about the EI “quota” figures uncovered by Le Devoir. Diane Finley assured her that they weren’t quotas but performance indicators, and that there were hundreds of millions of dollars lost to fraud last year. Bob Rae was up for the Liberals, asking about a statement that funding for First Nations not being an issue but that it was about accountability, and it if meant that unequal funding would continue. Van Loan assured him that Rae was wrong, that education funding was the same on reserves, and that the priority was to create opportunities for young Aboriginal people across the country. For his last question, Rae asked about the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and demanded that the next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting will be held elsewhere from Columbo. Bob Dechert responded saying the actions of the Sri Lankan government was unacceptable, and they were continuing to engage.
Roundup: Mulcair’s PMB on the PBO
It seems that Thomas Mulcair will be putting forward a Private Member’s Bill after all – relating to strengthening the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Of course, Peggy Nash already has a similar bill tabled, so Mulcair’s will either have to be significantly different in order to meet the rules, or Nash will have to either withdraw hers or transfer it over to Mulcair (possibly by means of unanimous consent). They say that Mulcair’s will be different enough, but we’ll have to see what the committee in charge of these things says.
Well this is very interesting. It seems that the government approved two different sets of messages around its environmental reforms – one for First Nations, and another for industry, and no, they haven’t explained why there is that difference yet.