Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

Roundup: An agreement, and a start to further discussions

Posted on by

On the fourth day of negotiations, federal Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Carolyn Bennett, her BC counterpart, and the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs have come to an agreement regarding land title rights for Wet’suwet’en territory, which has been an open issue for decades. It will need to be ratified by the Wet’suwet’en nation after a period of consultation, but it is a step. This does not, however, completely solve the issue with the proposed Coastal GasLink pipeline – the vocal group of hereditary chiefs remain opposed (while those in the community who support the project feel they aren’t being heard), but this remains an issue where the community needs to come together and use the feast system under their laws to resolve these disputes, which hasn’t been happening. It will also require further discussions with the RCMP about their operations in their territory, but again, there seems to be some progress made.

Meanwhile, a discussion among legal experts is ongoing regarding the efficacy of using legal injunctions when there are land rights protests going on, because they can be too much of a blunt instrument. Some are suggesting that the injunctions be structured to allow for mediated consultation instead of heavy-handed orders to stop their protests, as has been done in some provinces when it comes to labour disputes. And a prime example of something unhelpful is the bill recently tabled in Alberta to further penalize protesters with heavy fines (which is already likely unconstitutional), but there does seem to be a definite mindset behind that kind of legislation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: See you at the Supreme Court

Posted on by

In the wake of the Alberta Court of Appeal reference decision on the federal carbon price, both Jason Kenney and his justice minister have been performing a particular song and dance for the media’s consumption, demanding that the federal government immediately remove said “unconstitutional” price, and demanding a rebate for all Albertans under threat of personal lawsuit.
Couple of things:

  1. This was not a court order. It was a reference question, so there is no actual weight to the finding of unconstitutionality. And federal justice minister David Lametti said as much in a letter responding to his Alberta counterpart telling that he would see him at the Supreme Court of Canada.
  2. There is already a rebate. In fact, most people get more back than they pay into it – and they are scheduled to receive the biggest rebates in the country. Demanding refunds is actually a bit gross, because it’s wilfully misrepresenting how the system works.
  3. Suing members of the federal Cabinet is not how the system works. And we actually saw said provincial minister’s old law professor take to Twitter to say that she taught him better than that. So there’s that.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/1232874850563260416

Meanwhile, Manitoba is threatening to continue with their challenge to the federal carbon price if they don’t get a deal on the very same thing from the federal government. While the federal government says that they haven’t received a new proposal from Manitoba, you can bet that the province wants to continue pitching a price that won’t rise, which isn’t going to be on because it’s about ensuring a level playing field across the country, and not letting premiers undermine one another in a race to the bottom.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An abortion bill to position around

Posted on by

The Conservatives’ abortion legislation problem has come home to roost early in the new parliament as MP Cathay Wagantall tabled a bill to ban sex-selective abortions, under the (bullshit) excuse that it reflects Canada’s commitment to gender equality. And because she’s 31 on the order of precedence for private members’ business, this will come up likely late spring or early fall. (Private members’ business is determined by lottery, and arrives on the Order Paper in batches of 30). And all eyes are on Andrew Scheer, who stated during the election that he would vote against any measures to attempt to re-open the abortion debate.

Why does this matter? Because the list of approved candidates for the Conservative leadership closed last night, and social conservatives have played kingmaker in both the last federal leadership contest, as well as the last Ontario one, which was done under the same rules. Already we’re seeing positioning among candidates, such as Erin O’Toole criticizing Peter MacKay for saying he would whip his Cabinet to vote against such a bill, saying that he would never whip anyone, Cabinet or backbench, on “moral issues.” It’s a completely transparent ploy – O’Toole is trying to ensure that he gets second-ballot support from the social conservatives when their preferred no-hope candidates get dropped off of the ranked preferential ballot. That’s how Andrew Scheer won, and it’s how Doug Ford won.

Meanwhile, it looks like it’ll be seven entrants in the race, though some approvals may yet be pending. Of those seven, three qualify as social conservatives, so the “frontrunners” like MacKay, O’Toole and maybe Marilyn Gladu will want the second and third votes from those no-hopers in the hopes of pushing them over the top. So this dynamic is very present in the leadership race, as Wagantall has put it on the table for them to debate around her.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A failed attempt at fundamental reform

Posted on by

Fair warning that this is going to be super wonky and a dive into parliamentary nerdery, but it’s important to how our democracy functions. It seems that the government’s attempt to better reconcile our budget cycle and Estimates process has been declared a failure, and the deeply flawed system that has grown up over a number of years has once again returned, and that’s a huge disappointment because it was an important change that they were attempting.

Part of the problem here is that we don’t have a fixed budget date, but the Estimates cycle operates by a fixed calendar. What this has tended to mean is that the budget can be pushed back after the Main Estimates, which means that all of the spending that Parliament is supposed to approve winds up being reflective of the previous year’s budget, and then it’s up to the Supplementary Estimates later in the year to update the spending to what was in this year’s budget – a system that makes it difficult if not impossible to track spending, particularly as the accounting used in the Public Accounts at the end of the fiscal year is different still from both the budget and Estimates. If Parliament’s key function is to study these spending plans and expenditures and hold the government to account over them, it is a nigh-impossible task (which is one more reason why MPs have given up on doing it, and simply turned it over to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which is a Very Bad Thing). It was Scott Brison’s pet project when he was at Treasury Board to try and better align these cycles, but that was easier said than done, particularly given some of the sclerotic processes within our civil service, and their attempt to try and get some money out the door faster with a $7 billion fund (derided by the Conservatives as a “slush fund” despite there being a list of approved items that accompanied it) never wound up actually working, and much of that money went unspent even though it was supposed to mean things happened faster. It’s a failure all around – both with this government and within the broader civil service.

I am hoping that the Liberals have taken what lessons they can from this and take more steps to rectify some of the problems, including assigning a fixed budget date so that the civil service can adjust their own cycles and processes to reflect this and the Estimates cycle can then reflect what is in the budget (and aligning the Public Accounts with these cycles would also help). This is at the very heart of how our parliament is supposed to operate, and if we can’t get this right, it’s a very, very bad sign for the health of our system.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Kenney looking to weaponize populist anger

Posted on by

It was Throne Speech day in Alberta yesterday, and while Kenney temporarily toned down his bellicosity for the sake of decorum, the speech was still full of strange promises. While Kenney promised to reduce unemployment, he nevertheless cited the report he devised to show that spending was too high while ignoring the province’s revenue problem, meaning more cuts are still likely. He also hinted at government investment in resource projects, which is mighty odd for someone who claims to support the free market (and this thread shows some of the context of Peter Lougheed’s investments in the sector which Kenney invoked). He also tabled the first bill, which promises fine for interrupting “critical infrastructure” – such as the rail blockades – because that’ll help.

The one thing that caught my attention most of all, however, was a proposal for recall petitions that would not only target MLAs, but also municipal councillors, mayors, and even school board trustees. I cannot stress enough how boneheaded an idea this is, because it will do absolutely nothing to enhance the practice of democracy, and will in fact weaken the representative democracy – along with their plans to allow citizens to petition referendums on whatever they want. Why they are even more concerning in the current context is because I am certain that this is about Kenney looking to weaponize populist anger against anyone who stands in his way. He has a cadre of paid shitposters, both in his office and in his $30 million a year “war room” that he can deploy against anyone in the province who stands up to Kenney – most especially the mayors of Edmonton and Calgary. Even if there is a high enough bar set to trigger these, as in BC, it nevertheless undermines the practice of Responsible Government and the confidence conventions inherent in our system. We already have accountability mechanisms – they’re called elections. Recall is not only an Americanism that does not fit with our system, I have no doubt that this is about portraying dissent as illegitimate, and using recall legislation as a threat. This will only increase the ugliness that is creeping into our politics, and that Kenney is gleefully throwing these things out there is a very big problem.

Meanwhile, to top it all off, Teck Resources appears to be trolling some particular voices like Kenney who have been caterwauling the past few days, as they announced they are investing in a solar facility at a reclaimed coal mine in BC. Oh, the delicious, delicious irony of it all.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reverberations and court references

Posted on by

The fallout from the Teck Frontier decision reverberated yesterday, whether it was with disappointed local First Nations, or industry groups giving the usual lamentations about investor confidence. More blame was thrown around, most of it at Justin Trudeau’s direction which seems to be in direct contradiction to what the company’s CEO said in his withdrawal letter, which talked about partisan bickering between levels of government, while also talking about how they supported carbon pricing and the emissions caps – in other words, largely siding with the federal government as the provincial government tore up the comprehensive and reasonable plan that the former NDP government had put into place with a great deal of thought and consultation, which introduced all manner of uncertainty into the market and put them into direct conflict with the federal government unnecessarily – but they also made the gamble that Andrew Scheer would win the last federal election and they wouldn’t have to worry about carbon pricing or strict regulations any longer, and well, that didn’t happen. Of course, it didn’t stop Kenney, Scheer or others from making up things wholesale in order to keep the blame on Trudeau, after they already overly raised expectations for the project (in part by lying about what its promises actually were). In conversation yesterday, a fellow journalist made the supposition that Teck may have been afraid of federal approval at this point because the expectations for it had been built so high when they knew they couldn’t deliver on it, in large part because the price of oil is simply far too low for the project to be viable, not to mention that it’s hard to attract financing as global investors are looking for climate-friendly projects these days.

In pundit response, Heather Scoffield points to the lack of the next stages of the federal climate plans, combined with Alberta’s battling those plans, as factors making us unattractive to investors. Scoffield also blames a lack of leadership for why it’s taking so long to get those needed plans in place. Max Fawcett considers Teck Frontier a metaphor for an Alberta past that won’t come back, and that the withdrawal of the application should be a wake-up call for those who are trying to bring that past back. Kevin Carmichael calls out Teck’s CEO for playing martyr while sabotaging the kind of conversation over energy and the environment that the country needs to have, but now won’t because the deadline is off the table and we have degenerated into assigning blame.

And then, as if things couldn’t get any more interesting, the Alberta Court of Appeal released their 4-1 decision that said that the federal carbon price was unconstitutional, in direct opposition to the decisions from Ontario and Saskatchewan (both of which will head to the Supreme Court of Canada next month). But that being said, there is a curious amount of overtly political editorialising within said judgement, from one of the concurring judges in particular, which I am assured by a law professor will be a field day for the Supreme Court of Canada when this ruling makes it to them.

https://twitter.com/molszyns/status/1232059249158545408

https://twitter.com/molszyns/status/1232074971918168064

https://twitter.com/molszyns/status/1232161066898968576

https://twitter.com/molszyns/status/1232054682140340225

https://twitter.com/charlesrusnell/status/1232124886937550849

Continue reading →

Roundup: Teck withdraws

Posted on by

As the countdown to potential police enforcement at the Tyendinaga blockade were taking place, a bombshell hit – Teck Resources were “temporarily” withdrawing their application for the proposed Frontier oilsands mine, sparing the Liberal Cabinet of what was essentially an impossible decision, but also spurring the disingenuous cries from Jason Kenney and the federal Conservatives as to what this move represents. A big part of the decision was of course the fact that the price of oil is far too low to make the project viable, and global investment markets are making it clear that they are looking to invest in more sustainable projects, but we know that isn’t going to be the narrative that is being used to howl about it.

There is going to be so much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the next few days that the Liberals “politicized” the approval (which is funny considering it was the Conservatives that wrote in said politicization into the legislation in 2012, which was the process by which this project was being assessed), and that this will somehow be a loss of $70 billion in revenues (never mind that said figure comes from estimates that oil was somewhere around $95/barrel, when it’s currently hovering around $50 and is likely to remain so in the near term). Remember that there are about 20 other approved oilsands projects in Alberta that aren’t getting built because oil prices are too low to make them viable, and Teck has been saying for weeks if not longer that this was going to be the case as well – and yet Kenney, Scheer, and company have been making this approval into some kind of symbol or totem about the supposed health of foreign investment in Canada. It was only ever bullshit designed to make people angry for their political gain, but that’s what political discourse has devolved into these days.

https://twitter.com/Lazin_Ryder/status/1231794973776863232

https://twitter.com/Lazin_Ryder/status/1231797606335991810

Continue reading →

Roundup: The limits of Trudeau’s patience

Posted on by

Late in the day yesterday, Justin Trudeau announced that he had come to the limit of his patience, that his calls for dialogue were not being heeded, and that it was time for the barricades to come down – something that was hinted at during Question Period a couple of hours earlier when the parliamentary secretaries sent to recite scripts said that “dialogue has its limits.” Trudeau did not say how those blockades were to come down – he wasn’t issuing orders to police, given that the enforcement was a matter of provincial jurisdiction, but part of the call was for Indigenous leadership to basically get their own people to stand down (though that didn’t seem to go so well on Wednesday after one Mohawk grand chief had to walk back his calls for de-escalation). And while some of the premiers, Scott Moe included, said they were pleased by the changed message, Doug Ford continued to blame Trudeau for things happening in his own backyard.

https://twitter.com/mattgurney/status/1230971079092514816

In the hours after the press conference, one sympathetic blockade south of Montreal was abandoned when riot police showed up to enforce the court injunction there. And in BC, the province’s Environmental Assessment Office suddenly told Coastal GasLink that they needed to engage in further consultations with the Wet’suwet’en people, since deficiencies in their previous efforts were pointed out to them over the course of the past couple of weeks, and were given 30 days to do so, which could further de-escalate the situation as the RCMP are moving out of their enforcement operations. But at the same time, that same group of hereditary chiefs has been shifting their demands, so that one minute on TV they’re saying the RCMP physically removing themselves from those operations was enough to start talks, the next minute putting out a press release saying that the RCMP needed to be out of their territory entirely, including routine policework, and then telling a radio station that because of Trudeau’s statement that they’re going to delay talks even further – all things that seem to me to further bolster Trudeau’s position that he’s been the reasonable one and the other side hasn’t been. And as for all of those people who insist that Trudeau is simply saying what Scheer did four days ago are ignoring the very important nuances of what has happened, as Andrew Coyne points out below.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1230958409530429440

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1230958637696344064

As for the handwringing by the likes of Scheer and Jason Kenney that these protests send a signal that things can’t get built in Canada, perhaps the signal is that things can’t get built the same way, cutting corners and running roughshod over these First Nations like they used to be able to. It’s like people who lament that we couldn’t build the railways these days, who seem to blithely ignore that said railways were built by displacing First Nations along its path, and importing virtual slave labour from China to do the work. If they think that’s the kind of thing that would fly today, then perhaps they need to give their heads a shake.

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert worries that these protests were the “dress rehearsal” for future protests against the Trans Mountain construction, however I have a feeling that there are enough points of difference between the facts related to Wet’suwet’en territory and the Trans Mountain route that it will wind up playing very differently if that were to happen. Matt Gurney delves into the logistics and supply chains that depend on the rail corridors in this country, and how vulnerable the blockade has made us. Gurney also has a very good three-part series on Wet’sewet’en law and how it relates to the situation, which is well worth your time (parts one, two, and three). Paul Wells is dubious about Trudeau’s four-day limit to his patience, and the signals that it sends.

Continue reading →

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 →

QP: Radical, anti-free market activists

Posted on by

With some progress being made on the protest blockades over the morning, it remained to see how much that would change the tone of the questions, but if the Member’s Statements were any indication, it wouldn’t do much. Justin Trudeau was in town, but absent from the Chamber. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he seemed confused that Trudeau’s message would change daily — because apparently it’s not a fluid situation — and demanded to know when the blockades would come down. Bill Blair noted that the RCMP had made the decision to withdraw from the Wet’suwet’en site, they hoped for progress. Scheer read some stilted points about the “radical, anti-free market” activists (which is somewhat ironic considering that the Conservative have abandoned free-market solutions around things like climate change) before repeating his demand, and Blair repeated the response. Scheer intimated that Blair ordered the RCMP out and demanded to know that the pipeline would be guaranteed to be built, to which Blair corrected him that they issued no order because police operations are independent of government. Alain Rayes was up next to repeat the demand for a timeline in French, to which Marc Garneau stated that they we working with the provinces, and that Trudeau was speaking to them later today. Rayes repeated his demand for a timeline, and Garneau reiterated his response, stressing the need for a peaceful resolution. Yves-François Blanchet was up next for the Bloc, and he worried that patience was being confused for inaction, and took a swipe at Trudeau not having his conversation with premiers before QP, for which Marc Miller stated that he was hoping for a meeting with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs while they were in Ontario. Blanchet worried about the situation, and Miller said that they have a clear path forward but wouldn’t make it public just yet. Jagmeet Singh was up for the NDP, and demanded that Trudeau himself meet with those chiefs, to which Miller praised the positive development of the RCMP commitment to withdraw, and stated that there were clear steps to de-escalation. Singh repeated the demand, and Miller said that everyone pretends to know what is being demanded, but he’s the one who has been talking with them.

Continue reading →