Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

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: A sledgehammer solution

Posted on by

Talk about the sexual assault training for judges bill has continued, and the Conservatives have continued to float the idea that it should be expanded to include Parole Board officers. The problem there, of course, is that the bill deals with amendments to the Judges Act, which has bugger all to do with the Parole Board, and this too-cute-by-half tactic of the Conservatives betrays how boneheaded their tactics are.

Meanwhile, Gib van Ert, former Executive Legal Officer to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada (who heads the Canadian Judicial Council), has some thoughts on the bill and why it’s very problematic.

Some scholars have shrugged and say “Big deal if it means they get more training,” but the original legislation was far more insidious in that the reporting requirements were a threat do the administrative independence of the court as well. But I’ve spoken to former judges who say this is unnecessary. Another one responded to van Ert. Part of the problem is that there have been high profile cases where the judge has been very wrong on sexual assault law, and that tends to be overturned at the appellate level – but much of the time, the most infamous cases have been provincial court judges, which this doesn’t deal with.

So why are they doing this? Optics. MPs want to look like they’re doing something about the problems or perceived problems, and they’re taking the sledgehammer approach because it looks effective, even when it may not actually be. But that is so much of politics these days, which we need to start breaking out of.

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: Stop proposing bad rule changes

Posted on by

Sound the alarm, because MPs – and Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux in particular – are talking about changing the Standing Orders again. Lamoureux has apparently committed to bringing back Frank Baylis’ package of reforms, most of which were are either half-measures, or wrong-headed and will have unintended consequences that will simply make things worse. But as with anything, as soon as it’s been proposed, it becomes the politician syllogism – “Something must be done. This is something. Therefor we must do this.” Apparently, nobody learned a gods damned thing after Michael Chong’s garbage Reform Act, and we’re about to go through yet another attempted exercise that will wind up going badly. (I wrote about Baylis’ proposals last year).

There are a few things in the Lamoureux interview that I did want to highlight first, which is the talk about eliminating votes on Mondays and Fridays – that’s pretty much a given considering that they already don’t have votes on Fridays, barring exceptional circumstances like a vote-a-thon, and they rarely have them on Mondays either, and when they do, it’s usually in the evening, by which time most MPs should have arrived in Ottawa. I’m also going to give some major side-eye to MPs who complain that they could be doing more work in their ridings, because their jobs are in Ottawa. Their jobs are to hold the government to account by doing the work of things like scrutinizing the estimates, going through the Public Accounts, and studying legislation in committee. Their jobs are not actually about doing “casework” with constituents, most of which should be done by the civil service. An MP’s office is not supposed to be a Service Canada desk, and I wish that they would stop pretending that it was.

The other part that I’m getting increasingly irate with is the talk about developing a parallel chamber for the House of Commons, and dressing it up as “efficiency.” No. There is no reason for us to have one. It makes more sense in Westminster where they have 650 MPs, and there are fewer opportunities for them to have take-note debates on things in the main chamber, but we really don’t have either the need, or frankly the bodies to do it, because we already have enough of our MPs assigned to more than one committee outside of House Duty, so there are already not enough hours in the day for most of them. We also don’t need the hours for added “debate” on government bills – we need to reform how we’re structuring debate period. We don’t need additional time for private members’ business because it will only bottleneck in the Senate and die on the Order Paper anyway. There is zero rationale for it – but there is currently a romance with the notion, and so they keep proposing it. No. Stop it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giving credence to nonsense

Posted on by

As the Conservative leadership race starts to heat up, we’re hearing Erin O’Toole reiterate his neo-colonial “CANZUK” nonsense, and aspiring narcissist Rick Peterson has been all over talking about his “flat tax” proposal without giving any concrete numbers or context as to the trade-offs of that plan. And of course, some UK media has picked upon on O’Toole’s proposal in the wake of Brexit, giving it undue credibility – which is a problem in and of itself.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1223959683528101889

So economist Kevin Milligan actually crunched the numbers for the aspiring narcissist Peterson, and lo, it’s not pretty.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1224011123009249281

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1224103928096182272

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1224144132873961473

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1224146058088865794

In other words, it’s not novel or a “bold idea” – it’s hokum that we’re giving a free pass. Let’s do better than this.

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: Expecting a regulatory overhaul

Posted on by

I’ve been keeping my eye on the Orphan Well issue in Alberta from a distance, somewhat in part because of everything I learned about the problem when writing about the Supreme Court of Canada challenge around how the obligations to clean them up interacted with federal bankruptcy law. As it turns out, the Supreme Court said no, companies can’t offload these environmental problems in order to salvage other assets, so Alberta was left with a problem as the huge problems with the way their regulatory system operates has been left with a very big problem. The province’s energy regulator (which has long been accused of being captured by the industry) is finally admitting that their system for determining liabilities has been flawed all along, and the province is saying they’ll be releasing new regulations soon, but we’ll have to see how much more stringent they’re going to be with the provincial government constantly worried that they’ll unduly harm the industry in its weakened state (which is another reason why Kenney has been pressing for those so-called “equalization rebates” from the fiscal stabilization fund in order to put toward remediating orphan wells – because why not get the federal taxpayer to deal with the remediation of environmental liabilities that the province deliberately under-funded in order to keep the good times rolling (and their tax base unsustainably low).

Meanwhile, the number of smaller oil and gas companies who haven’t been paying their taxes to municipalities or rents to farmers and landowners is climbing, leading to a great deal of frustration in the province, and there are calls essentially for these smaller companies to be allowed to go bankrupt so that larger ones can take them over, and they’ll be better capitalized to deal with their environmental liabilities, as happened in Texas several years ago. Then again, seeing as the provincial government and their federal counterparts seem to be so much more beholden to the smaller oil and gas players than they are the big ones (for whom they will deride as being big corporations, because don’t forget they’re right-flavoured populists), so we’ll see how far that line of argument gets them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Teck Frontier drama for naught?

Posted on by

There is a lot of agitation around the Teck Frontier oilsands mine, with the Alberta government and their federal counterparts howling for it to be approved immediately, and environmentalists, and certain other parties (like the Bloc) demanding the federal permits be denied. The problem? That even if it were approved, the CEO says they may not be able to build it because oil prices are too low for it to actually make any money, so this could all be for naught.

Meanwhile, here is Andrew Leach with a thread on its economics, and pushing back on the rhetoric around its emissions profile, wherein Jason Kenney and others have misconstrued what the company has actually said in order to make the project look less emitting that its plans say it will be.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No metric to measure success

Posted on by

The inevitable has happened with this government’s too-clever-by-half branding of their associate finance minister, and she has essentially been caught out by the easiest trap imaginable. The Conservatives submitted an Order Paper question asking for a definition of “middle class” by which the government could measure the success of its efforts at ensuring their prosperity, and lo, they were told that there is no measure that the government uses. Which is kind of embarrassing for a government that prides itself on data and metrics – that’s one of the reasons why they actually bit the bullet and decided on the Market-Basket Measure of poverty as their official definition, because that allowed them to track the success of their programmes in alleviating it (and yes, programmes like the Canada Child Benefit have had a measurable impact using these kinds of data). But what they can do for poverty, they can’t do for the Middle Class™.

Of course, we all know that it’s because “middle class” isn’t an economic definition to this government, but a feel-good branding exercise. It’s the Middle Class™ And Those Working Hard To Join It, because we all know that everyone thinks they’re middle class (whether or not they have ponies), and most especially people on the wealthier end of the scale in this country. It’s all about a feeling, or a hand-wavey metric about having kids in hockey (an upper-class pursuit in this country). And this lack of a definition is exactly why this minister is the Minister of Middle Class™ Prosperity®, because it means nothing. It’s a trademarked slogan, transparently winking to Canadians about how this is how they plan to address the discontent underlying the populist movements taking place across the government – hoping that if they can reassure these voters that they’re being care of and not left behind, that they’re being heard, that somehow, it’ll keep the populist forces at bay. I’m not sure that it will work, but it’s blatantly happening, so we should all be aware that this is part of their plan.

Continue reading →