Tag Archives: First Nations

Roundup: It’s TMX Day

Posted on by

Today is the day that the government will make their decision on the Trans Mountain Expansion, and it should not be a surprise to say that they are almost certainly going to approve it, having spent $4.5 billion on the existing pipeline to “de-risk” the project, and far more in political capital at the cost of some of their BC, Indigenous, and environmental base while trying to insist that this is necessary for the transition to a cleaner economy. Of course, if they could communicate their way out of a wet paper bag, it might help them to make that case, but they seem incapable of it. The real question is going to be what kinds of changes to the route will be made in order to accommodate Indigenous groups, or other conditions to be mandated as part of it.

There will be much talk about the “pipeline crunch” that the TMX will hope to address, which has to do with added oilsands production and not enough ways to get it to market, given ongoing delays on the American side of both Enbridge Line 3 and Keystone XL – projects which have been approved in Canada, and the Line 3 construction has been ongoing on the Canadian side. But as much as TMX will help, we also need to remember that the projected growth capacity is limited, which is another reason why Energy East doesn’t make economic sense. The concern that the sector needs all kinds of new pipelines isn’t actually borne out in the data (as Andrew Leach has pointed out repeatedly, including here).

On a related note, the government has rejected most of the Senate amendments to Bill C-48, on the tanker ban, but did agree to the five-year legislative review period, but as much as industry groups are demanding that this bill and Bill C-69 be killed, it’s not going to happen.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Credulous takes on the “new” Senate

Posted on by

Over in the Globe and Mail, John Ibbitson has declared that Justin Trudeau’s reforms to the Senate “worked,” and that Andrew Scheer should continue to appoint independents instead of partisans, and I just. Cannot Even. Reading the piece, it’s clear that Ibbitson has no real grounding in what the Senate is supposed to do on an actual basis, the various roles it plays aside from its legislative duties, and he has absolutely no conception of the broader scope of the problem that Justin Trudeau has unleashed on future parliaments – and how he has hobbled his own party in the future, while further centralizing his own power. But Ibbitson seems to have taken the word of Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Peter Harder, that this is how Parliament is “supposed” to work – Harder not exactly being a credible source – as well as an emeritus professor who has been a booster not only for these reforms, but who thinks it would be great to go even further and institute a business committee (which would be an even bigger problem going forward). So no, I’m not going to take Ibbitson’s word that this has “worked.”

While I’m not going to pretend that the Senate didn’t have its problems beforehand, a good many of the problems in recent years can be traced to the fact that Stephen Harper made some spectacularly poor appointments in his rush to populate the Chamber during the prorogation crisis of 2008, after he neglected to fill its seats for long enough that what Conservative senators there were in the Chamber at the time were clamouring for more members because there weren’t enough of them to adequately spread around the workload. And rather than make thoughtful appointments, Harper panic appointed a number of partisans who had no suitability to the role, and lo, problems and scandal ensued.

There is absolutely a partisan role for senators because they’re the institutional memory of parliament, and that especially includes inside the caucus room, and that also keeps a check on the leader because they don’t have to worry about their nomination papers being signed. And the Liberals are going to find out just how necessary those roles are when they’re no longer in power and have few people with the knowledge to help them rebuild. And yes, it will happen eventually. And as for the “new” system “working,” they can’t manage the Order Paper, and they have a crisis in front of them with the election looming. But hey, Peter Harder says it’s going swimmingly, so he’s the person we should believe. Okay then.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Disingenuous threats to national unity

Posted on by

As bullshit political theatre goes, Jason Kenney continues to exercise it to its fullest as he released an “urgent letter” to the federal government yesterday, co-signed by five other premiers (four of them conservative, one of them without ostensible party affiliation) to demand that both bills C-48 and C-69 be withdrawn, and warns of consequences to “national unity” if they are not. And it’s a bit galling to play the national unity card, considering that it’s both groundless and petulant – like a tantrum where a child threatens to hold his breath until he turns blue to teach his parents “a lesson.”

Nobody is going to pretend that these are perfect bills, but for the purposes of what is being argued, neither can do the harm that Kenney and his allies are claiming. For example, C-48 will not landlock their resources, and there has been expert testimony to say that it would have a negligible impact on the oil and gas sector because there are no pipelines along that route, nor are there any planned (thanks in large part to how badly the Conservatives botched the Indigenous consultations on the Northern Gateway project). And C-69 is not going to make major infrastructure projects impossible – if anything, it would have a better chance of streamlining environmental assessments by ensuring clearer lines and better scoping of those assessments, so that there can be more focused work with the assessments. But the status quo is simply a path of more litigation because the current system is badly flawed. The branding it as the “no more pipelines bill” is and always has been disingenuous and an outright lie, but that’s what this all boils down to.

Kenney and company have lied repeatedly about the current government’s environmental programme – abetted by the fact that this government can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag, and they somehow refuse to call Kenney, Scheer, and company, on their bullshit. And given that Kenney managed to win an election by whipping his electorate into a state of irrational anger with a diet of lies and snake oil – anger that won’t abate now that he’s in charge – the attempt to export that technique to the rest of Canada is dangerous, but they don’t seem to care. That is the real threat to national unity, and it’s Kenny and company who are stirring it up, and they should be called out for it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A line-by-line review

Posted on by

If the tweets of Cabinet ministers are to be believed, Cabinet is currently seized with doing a line-by-line review of the amended Bill C-69 that was sent back to them from the Senate earlier this week. By all accounts, the current form of the bill is a complete dog’s breakfast that includes a number if contradictory clauses, because the Chamber of Sober Second Thought didn’t bother to actually do the work of reconciling them because members of the environment and energy committee were keen to placate Jason Kenney and to credulously believe the oil and gas industry lobbyists who insisted that the bill’s original form, while not perfect, would somehow doom all future projects in this country. And you would think that actually getting a bill in reasonable condition back to the Commons would be kind of important to a body like the Senate, for whom this is their raison d’être as a legislative chamber who preoccupies itself with reviewing legislation, but no, they decided instead to sent it back to the Commons as is rather than to take the blame that Kenney and company will lay on them as he continues to lie about the bill and consider it a rallying cry for the implacable anger of Albertans that he sold a bunch of snake oil to during the last provincial election.

In the midst of this, you have senators like Conservative Senate Leader Larry Smith claiming that the Senate’s attempt to stop bills C-69 and C-48 are supposedly the last bastion of the provinces who are “under attack” by prime minister Justin Trudeau, which is hokum of the highest order. C-48 doesn’t landlock Alberta’s resources because the chances of a pipeline to the northern BC coast are virtually nonexistent given the Federal Court of Appeal decision on Northern Gateway’s failure, and the propaganda campaign against Bill C-69 is the completely divorced from reality, but hey – angry narratives to sustain. At the same time, Senator André Pratt is defending the Senate against accusations levelled from the likes of Andrew Coyne that they’re overreaching if they do kill C-48 (which they won’t), saying that they’re trying to do their job while being cognisant that they’re an appointed body. He’s not wrong, and it’s probably one of the better articulated pieces of late.

Meanwhile, the Conservative whip, Senator Don Plett, is denying that he’s stalling the UNDRIP bill, and he’s actually got procedure on his side for this one – the cancelled meeting would have been extraordinary, and there are reasons why the Senate doesn’t hold special committee meetings while the Chamber is sitting – which they are sitting later and later because they have so much business to get through because the Independent Senators can’t get their act together, and lo, we have the current Order Paper crisis that they are working their way through (though apparently not so urgently that they didn’t sit yesterday). Unfortunately, the media does love private members’ bills, and is focusing a lot of attention on them, no matter that most of them are actually bad bills that should probably die on the Order Paper (but people don’t like to hear that).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Amendments and dysfunction

Posted on by

There is some movement on legislation in the Senate, with the amended fisheries bill heading back to the Commons, as is Bill C-69 on environmental assessments. This bill was passed on division (meaning no standing vote) and will let the government reject all of those amendments made at committee that were essentially written by oil and gas lobbyists, which nobody had the intestinal fortitude to want to actually debate, preferring the tactic championed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Peter Harder, to let someone else do the heavy lifting. That way the government can defeat the bulk of those amendments in the Commons on a whipped vote, and then Harder can say “the elected Chamber has spoken” while patting himself on the back for the amendments that did pass – likely only the ones the government itself proposed.

The bigger drama is being reserved for C-48, the tanker ban bill, as the whole Senate voted to overturn the committee report that recommended it not go forward, which was pretty much how I expected it to go. Given the torqued, partisan report that emerged, the talk about the committee being dysfunctional are ringing pretty true, but I’m not going to blame the Conservatives for that because the Independents aren’t stepping up. The likely next steps for this bill are for amendments to be debated at third reading, the bulk of which are likely to be defeated, and then the Conservatives will play procedural games with the debate so that Harder is forced to invoke time allocation on a final vote for it, because the Conservatives have set up that situation for him.

Meanwhile, there has been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth about the UNDRIP bill, particularly that the Senate didn’t vote to give the Aboriginal People’s committee permission to meet while the Chamber was sitting in order to discuss it – which isn’t actually a sinister plot. The Senate is set up so that the Chamber meets for only a few hours in the day and that committees don’t meet then, which also has major logistical considerations – they don’t have enough staff or interpreters to cover both, unlike the House of Commons. And to illustrate that, this thread by Chris Reed explains some of the procedural considerations of what happened. But also remember that in the midst of the Senate’s Order Paper crisis, nobody wants to take any responsibility and are content to blame the Conservatives for being “partisan.” They’re not the problem here.

Continue reading →

QP: Calmly upset versus storming out

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh still at D-Day commemorations, and Andrew Scheer at a family event in Regina, there were no major leaders present. Lisa Raitt led off, and she made a statement about D-Day, and offered the government a chance to say how they are commemorating the event. Bill Blair read a statement about service and sacrifice in response. Raitt then moved onto affordability and a plea for a government to “stop the taxes” without specifying which ones, to which Ralph Goodale stood up and reminded her of the Middle Class™ tax cuts and the Canada Child Benefit. Raitt moaned about the loss of boutique tax credits, and Goodale noted that the net of the government’s changes mean that most families are $2000 better off than before. Alain Rayes then cited the false Fraser Institute figure that taxes were raised by $800 per year, to which Jean-Yves Duclos recited in French the same measures that Goodale listed. Rayes tried again, with added theatrics, and Duclos cited that he was upset that the opposition was painting a false picture (in his calm demeanour). Ruth Ellen Brosseau was up next for the NDP, and she read a lament about the settlement that CRA reached with KPMG clients, to which Diane Lebouthillier stated that she had asked the CRA for more transparency around settlements going forward. Daniel Blaikie repeated the question in English with added outrage, and Lebouthillier repeated her response. Blaikie then moved onto a demand for additional aid for homeless veterans, and Blair read that their whole of government approach was getting results with homeless veterans. Brosseau then read the French version of the same question, and Duclos repeated the same response in French.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1136701597906558977

Continue reading →

Roundup: Less helpful suggestions to fix QP

Posted on by

At this time of year, we’re starting to see a number of reflective pieces about the state of our democracy, and over on The Agenda, they gave a thinkpiece about the state of Question Period in advance of an episode on the subject. While the piece is geared toward the state of things at Queen’s Park, there is applicability to Parliament, and the suggestions that the polisci prof that they cite in the piece makes don’t really offer anything constructive, in my opinion.

For example, he wants more questions from more members and no supplementals. I disagree, because if we were running things properly, supplementals offer decent back-and-forth exchanges where you can get better accountability by drilling into answers (or non-answers) provided. And as demonstrated in Parliament, especially on Fridays, just having more MPs asking questions doesn’t necessarily improve things because they’re all reading the same scripts, so you just get more MPs asking the same questions – which in turn becomes fodder for them gathering clips to be distributed over social media. He suggests that the parties determine who asks questions for the first two thirds and then the Speaker determine for the final third – well, that doesn’t actually help with the ability of the Speaker to “not see” frequent misbehaving MPs, as they will be the ones the party puts on their list. It needs to be all or nothing. Having the Speaker rule on the relevance of answers and to police friendly backbench suck-up questions? Nice in theory, and if we could get MPs to give the Speaker the power to the determination, all the better, but if we’re not careful, it just creates an opportunity for parties to whinge about the Speaker. (I’m kind of in favour of empowering the Speaker in this way, but it needs to be done very carefully). Banning applause? Yes, absolutely.

What’s missing in this is the reliance on scripts, which we need to do away with entirely. Parties argue that they need to come up with plans and narratives and tactics, but to be frank, that’s bullshit. Plans and tactics don’t enhance the accountability function of QP – it just ensures that it will be theatre, and not good theatre at that. Banning scripts plus empowering the Speaker to choose who asks questions for the whole of QP (and sure, he can continue to divvy them up according to a set formula in the interests of fairness) is going to be far more effective than most of these suggestions – but the trick is to convince MPs to move to that system, which would involve their leaders giving up their powers to direct the show, and that is part of where the bigger problem lies.

Continue reading →

QP: Praise for our own leader’s plan

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh at the D-Day anniversary ceremonies, and Andrew Scheer elsewhere, it was up to Candice Bergen to lament the increased inspections of pork going into China, to which Marie-Claude Bibeau stated that they were encouraging all industry members to be extremely vigilant in their exports. Bergen demanded to know why a new ambassador had been appointed, to which Mélanie Joly noted that Canada is working with allies to call for the release of the detained Canadians. Bergen decried the deteriorating relationship, and Joly assured her this was a priority file. Luc Berthold took over in French to rail about the pork industry being impacted, and Bibeau repeated her earlier answer. Berthold demanded an ambassador and a WTO complaint, and Bibeau said that she agreed there was no issue with quality of Canadian exports, and that our representative at the WTO did raise the issue. Peter Julian was up next for the NDP, and he read some outrage about the KPMG client tax settlement, and Marc Garneau read that settlements are entered into in an independent process but the government was asking for more transparency going forward. Ruth Ellen Brosseau read her own repeat of the question in French, got Garneau to read the French version of his answer. Brosseau then read TVA was announcing layoffs and blaming competition from web giants, to which Pablo Rodriguez stood up to say that the Conservatives didn’t address the issue for ten years but they were working on legislation. Julian got up to read in English that web giants be made to pay their fair share, and Rodriguez again blamed the Conservatives for inaction.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An unusually partisan report

Posted on by

The saga of Bill C-48 continues its strange trek through the Senate with the release of the report from the transport committee that recommended that the bill not proceed. Or at least that’s what it should have stated – that based on the tie vote, that the committee could not recommend the bill proceed. What they got instead was a lengthy screed about how allegedly terrible and the bill was for national unity, and it cherry picked comments from witnesses to “prove” that case, and strangely omitted any witnesses that stated – with facts – that the bill would have almost no impact on the energy industry in Alberta and Saskatchewan. In fact, the report was so partisan that it raised eyebrows among my sources in the Senate, who could not recall the last time that they had seen such a blatantly political document.

Naturally, not everyone on the committee was in favour of this report, and there are accusations back-and-forth about conversations regarding whether those who disagreed could write a dissenting report, and the eventual reluctance to bother because it would likely have tied things up in committee for even longer, as the clock ticks down. (Things are so bad on the Senate’s Order Paper that the need to sit well into July is now pretty much guaranteed). Of course, delaying this bill to death is part of the Conservative game plan, and everyone knows it – in fact, they pretty much have set up a situation where the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Peter Harder, will have to invoke time allocation to get it passed.

The shenanigans with this bill aren’t done yet. There will be a great deal of debate when this report gets debated in the whole Senate, where it is doubtlessly going to be rejected, but not without a great deal of noise and accusations that the Independents are just Liberal stooges, and so on. And it’s going to be so annoying when it’s all over.

Continue reading →

QP: Fiction about carbon taxes

Posted on by

While the prime minster was on his way back to Ottawa (for a stopover before heading to London and then Normandy), Andrew Scheer was elsewhere, and Jagmeet Singh was the only major leader present. That left it up to Pierre Poilievre to lead off, and he spun a bunch of fiction about carbon prices impoverishing Canadians. Bill Morneau said that just because Poilievre says things, it doesn’t make it true, and he listed their Middle Class™ tax cuts and Canada Child Benefit as leaving Canadians better off. Poilievre whinged about the cancellation of boutique tax credits, and he raised the spectre of higher taxes because of the deficit — which is fiscally illiterate — and Morneau noted that they cancelled boutique tax credits because they only benefitted the wealthy. Poilievre again insisted there would be “massive tax increases,” and Morneau reiterated that the typical family of four was $2000 better off now than under the Conservatives. Gérard Deltell took over in French, and he worried about deficits,  and Morneau offered some pabulum on investing in Canadians. Deltell raised the canard that Morneau didn’t run deficits on Bay Street, and Morneau quoted the declining debt-to-GDP ratio. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and in French, he worried about corporate tax rates, to which Morneau reminded him of the new tax brackets they put in for the wealthy. Singh tried again in English, and Morneau reminded him that the corporate rate is competitive with the US, and that they put in rules for transparency for offshore holdings as well as taxing the wealthy. Singh railed about the rich not paying their fair share, and Navdeep Bains listed off accomplishments under this government including a million new jobs. Singh tried again in French, and this time Jean-Yves Duclos listed the benefits of the government investing in the Middle Class™.

Continue reading →