Tag Archives: China

Roundup: Open letters and complications

Posted on by

Alberta premier Jason Kenney took the next step in his performance art when it comes to demanding the approval of the Teck Frontier mine, and released an open letter to Justin Trudeau, which reiterated his points for the approval of the project. Of course, he didn’t actually tell the truth with all of those points, which is kind of awkward. (And hey, CBC, you could have done more than just retype Kenney’s letter and actually include some of the pushback, like Andrew Leach’s fact-checking).

Leach also has some problems with the lack of a viable reclamation plan for the project’s end-pit lakes, which is kind of a big deal, because it does seem like they’re trying to handwave away the problem, and hope that maybe in the future they’ll have a magic new technology that will solve the problem. That’s not a good thing. (Thread here).

Meanwhile, the federal decision on the Teck Frontier mine may be complicated as at least one affected First Nation says their concerns aren’t being addressed by the province, which is kind of a big deal. In fact, he said that the federal government has been doing their part, but the province under Kenney’s government has pretty much walked away after the previous government was doing the work with them – hence why they’re calling for the project to only be conditionally approved, with the condition being that the province be given a deadline to complete their talks with the First Nation and addressing their concerns about the impacts that the project (if it goes ahead, which it likely won’t anytime soon) would have on their local environment. It would seem to me that it’s a problem that Kenney keeps insisting they have full Indigenous sign-off on the project if in fact they actually don’t – but the truth hasn’t stopped him at any point thus far.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Kenney’s Washington mistruths

Posted on by

Apparently the lure of trying to wade into American politics was too strong for Jason Kenney to resist over the weekend, and he joined Doug Ford in taking swipes at Democratic Party hopefuls over the Keystone XL issue, before telling a Washington audience that Justin Trudeau’s former principal secretary, Gerald Butts, had conspired with the Obama administration to kill the Keystone XL pipeline – which is funny, because it was during the Harper government, and Trudeau has been on the record of being fully supportive of Keystone XL the whole time. Kenney’s Mini-Me, Scott Moe, insisted that this fable was “absolutely correct,” which is a lie in and of itself. And of course, people brought their receipts.

Of course, Kenney has nothing to fall on but lies about the state of the oil industry in order to keep the attention off of himself and his government’s failings in trying to manage the shifting economy – and his convenient target is always Justin Trudeau, whom he needs to keep his voters angry at as a means of distraction. That said, his audience laps it up, and that has pretty much eliminated any sense of shame that Kenney had left. There was a piece in this weekend’s tablet edition of Maclean’s that interviewed so-called “Wexit” supporters, and they all repeated the same memes and lies that Kenney and company peddle, along with a healthy amount of self-delusion, that Kenney also stokes by way of his rank dishonesty. He is continuing to play with fire, as he feels he’s clever enough to put it out and be declared a hero before it gets too big, and trying to do it from Washington is not only a sign of hubris, but possibly of his own desperation.

Continue reading →

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 →

QP: Melting down over court challenges

Posted on by

While the prime minister was off meeting with big city mayors before heading off to Ethiopia, Andrew Scheer was indeed present, and he led off and he read a bunch of complete lies about the supposed plan to “license” media, to which Steven Guilbeault, who reminded him that the panel recommendations specifically excluded news media and the government would not regulate news media. Scheer insisted that wasn’t good enough and the report somehow would impact free speech, and Guilbeault repeated his answer in English. Scheer tried again, and Guilbeault said that he would be happy to sit down with the opposition when they tabled a bill. Scheer then moved onto UNDRIP, and claimed it was an effective veto on energy projects, to which David Lametti said that they were moving ahead with legislation that would be co-developed with Indigenous people. Scheer tried to use the scare tactics of veto powers, and Lametti suggested that Scheer look at BC’s UNDRIP legislation and see that it is not a veto. Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, and he railed about the Court Challenges Programme funding a challenge against Quebec’s “secularism” bill, for which Guilbeault said that the government doesn’t have any control over that funding, and that they Bloc should understand the notion of independence. Therrien asked if the government supported the challenge, to which Pablo Rodriguez said that the legislation is being challenged by Quebeckers and that the government was following with interest. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and demanded changes to the federal bankruptcy laws to prioritise workers, to which Navdeep Bains said that they had made some commitments in the last budget. Singh then demanded to know how much had been spent on legal fees for the challenge around the First Nations compensation, to which David Lametti said that reports of legal fees are calculated according to a set formula.

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 →

QP: Fictional legislation and crass quips

Posted on by

Wednesday, caucus day, and MPs were riled up in the aftermath. Andrew Scheer led off, and he recited some concern about the state of the Trans Mountain pipeline, to which Justin Trudeau expressed his satisfaction with the Federal Court of Appeal and that the previous government couldn’t get it done without boosterism. Scheer then tried to hand-wave about fictional “emergency legislation” around court challenges and worried about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a “new threshold” to prevent development, to which Trudeau called out the whole question as a reflection of how the Conservatives don’t understand how things work. Scheer tried again, and Trudeau called out the misinformation. Scheer switched to French to worry about the supposed “plan” to license media, to which Trudeau picked up a script to read that they would not impose licensing on news. Scheer changed to English and lied about what was in the report, as well as the media “bailout” fund, and Trudeau slowly enunciated that they would not impose licenses on news organisations or regulate news content. Yves-François Blanchet was up next for the Bloc, and he rambled about they English School Board of Montreal getting money to challenge the “secularism” bill, to which Trudeau started that the Court Challenges Programme awards aid to groups in an arm’s length way from government. Blanchet tried to make this an issue of provincial jurisdiction, to which Trudeau repeated that programme was independent of government. Jagmeet Singh was then up for the NDP, and complained about the backlogs for women regaining First Nations status after the law changed to broaden the criteria. Trudeau started that they have spent record amounts to Indigenous communities, and it takes longer because the delivery needs to be done in partnership with those communities. Singh then moved onto the Coast Gas Link pipeline dispute, demanding that the prime minister meet with the hereditary chiefs, to which Trudeau stated that the issue was entirely under provincial jurisdiction, which they respect.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1225141168683606017

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 →

QP: Being too cute on parole and Quebec

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was in town today, he was nevertheless absent from QP, for whatever the reason. Andrew Scheer led off, and he read a question about whether the government would support their Supply Day motion on committee study of the incident of the murder of a sex worker by a prisoner on parole. Bill Blair reminded him that they have ordered an investigation, and they should wait for answers before jumping to erroneous conclusions. Scheer then read a demand for parole board officers to get sexual assault training as the government plans for judges. Blair reminded him that the judges bill is important, but there was an investigation ongoing. Scheer demanded to know if the parole board officers who made that decision were still hearing cases, and Blair circuitously stated that they weren’t while laying out additional facts. Pierre Paul-Hus demanded the training for parole board officers again in French, got the same response from Blair, and Paul-Hus then demanded that the prime minister fire the parole board members, and Blair responded that the motion contains erroneous facts, but that the government would support it anyway. Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc and, thinking he was clever, stated that if the government points to François Legault’s support for the New NAFTA, would they also support his demand for a single tax return form for Quebec, to which Diane Lebouthillier told him no, that was not going to happen. Blanchet then demanded the government respect the Quebec “secularism” bill, and David Lametti reminded him that groups were challenging it in the courts. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and demanded the government stop court challenges of compensation for First Nations children, to which Marc Miller started that they would have a compensation model to propose by February 21st. Singh then raised the strikes in Regina before demanding National pharmacare and dental care, for which Patty Hajdu reminded him they were working on it, and that she welcomed his suggestions.

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 →