In the wake of the statements in the Commons earlier this morning on the ongoing protests and blockades across the country, the benches were full and all of the leaders were present for QP. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he read some of his same condemnation for the government not dealing with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs in favour of those who support Coastal GasLink. Justin Trudeau noted that they are concerned with dialogue, and that he invited other parliamentary leaders to discuss the matter but not Scheer because he disqualified himself after this morning’s statement. Scheer insisted that Trudeau was elevating “professional protesters” with those Indigenous communities that wanted these projects, and demanded a date for the blockades to come down, and Trudeau reminded him that they need solutions for the long term. Scheer decried the lack of action, and Trudeau said that they needed to ensure there was long-term partnership so that Canadians could rely on their transportation network rather than short-term violent action. Scheer again tried to insist that Trudeau was pandering to activists, and Trudeau reminded him that the Conservatives couldn’t get projects built because they would pick and choose who they would engage with. Scheer got increasingly breathy and high-pitched as he demanded action, and Trudeau reminded him that five years ago, Canadians chose parties who were committed to reconciliation. Yves-François Blanchet was up next for the Bloc, and he expressed his concern that Québec and Canada’s image was one where Indigenous communities were opposed to development, and wanted some clarity on the timeline for when blockades would be lifted. Trudeau stated that they were still committed to dialogue, and that was the first step to lifting the barricades. Blanchet asked for future meetings on the issue, and Trudeau said that he was open to that — for parties that wanted to engage constructively. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and demanded to know when the federal government would meet with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs, but they were waiting on them. Singh wanted concrete action now, but pivoted to record-keeping on Indigenous kids in care, go which Trudeau reminded him that child and family services were provincial jurisdiction and they were working to devolve that to First Nations themselves.
Tag Archives: Iran
Roundup: Call in the Incident Response Group
Given the ongoing protests and rail blockades, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has opted to skip the Caribbean leaders’ summit next week, and will instead be remaining in Ottawa to convene with his Cabinet ministers and the Incident Response Group over the ongoing situation. Layoffs have already begun, and there are concerns about shortages along the supply chains as the blockades continue. On Saturday, minister Marc Miller met with Mohawk leaders in Ontario, responsible for the blockade there, and after a day-long meeting reported “modest progress” and items that he would have to discuss with his Cabinet colleagues as a result. Minister Carolyn Bennett, meanwhile, is holding conversations with chiefs in BC, and is awaiting a meeting between them and the province’s Indigenous affairs minister, but it all may be for naught as the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs insist that they won’t allow the pipeline regardless.
Meanwhile, when it comes to that pipeline route, here is a look at some of the backstory involved – particularly why the alternate routes that those hereditary chiefs proposed were deemed unsuitable by the company (and there is a lengthy thread here where the journalists shows his work). This will be an interesting question around duty to consult, attempts at offering accommodations, and what the legal paths are in light of the police actions to enforce court orders (which led to the sympathetic protests and blockades).
At the same time, the calls continue by certain voices that the police need to step in and enforce the “rule of law.” Except that the government can’t actually order them to do anything. Here’s Jennifer Robson with an explanation as to why not.
There’s been a lot of opinion flying about on whether the PM/Min. PSEP could/should order the RCMP to remove #Wetsuwenten protesters & supporters. I just stumbled across a paper by @UofT Kent Roach & found it really helpful : https://t.co/IDRNmXZxuT 1/n
— Dr. J Robson (@JenniferRobson8) February 15, 2020
And here’s Justice Hughes reminding folks of the duty of the RCMP to respect Charter rights, whether political masters like it or not. 3/n pic.twitter.com/ftoRcRUtO9
— Dr. J Robson (@JenniferRobson8) February 15, 2020
https://twitter.com/JenniferRobson8/status/1228805396179116033
Roundup: Checking Scheer’s privilege
The solidarity protests with the Coastal GasLink protesters continue across the country, and police continue to hold off on enforcement while dialogue continues – Carolyn Bennett is slated to meet with chiefs in BC, while Marc Miller will be meeting with the Mohawk protesters in Ontario today using the protocols of the covenant chain. And amidst this, Andrew Scheer decided he needed to get involved. It didn’t go well.
The office of @BillBlair has responded saying: "The minister of Public Safety does not direct police operations. The minister may not attempt to influence in any way an investigation, or direct the conduct of specific police operations." https://t.co/ZbsKkO3TnL
— Cat Tunney (@cattunneycbc) February 14, 2020
Scheer’s tone deafness over the “privilege” remarks likely stem from the belief that the Conservatives have convinced themselves of, that it’s just rich, foreign-funded radicals who are protesting while the First Nations want the projects to proceed because jobs – which some do, but it delegitimizes the legitimate grievances and differences of opinion within Indigenous communities (even if all of the protesters aren’t themselves Indigenous). Add to that, Scheer’s insistence that ministers should be directing the operations of the police is wrong-headed (and dangerous – this is how police states happen), which forgets that even if Bill Blair could get on the phone and direct RCMP to enforce injunctions, the ones in Ontario that have shut down the rail network are squarely within the jurisdiction of the OPP. Oops. There may be some debate over how much authority that governments have to direct enforcement in cases like these, but Scheer (and Scott Moe, who has also been echoing his comments) should know better. That they don’t is a bad sign for the governance of this country.
Meanwhile, Chris Selley decries the ongoing blockades but makes some interesting points about the way in which the male hereditary Wet’suwet’en chiefs displaced the female hereditary chiefs who were in support of the project. Colby Cosh is bemused at how threatening commuters in Central Canada is the kind of leverage that Alberta could only dream of having. Matt Gurney recalls Christie Blatchford’s book on the Caledonia crisis, and how the Ontario Progressive Conservatives apparently didn’t learn anything from what happened then, given their absolute silence over what is happening under their jurisdiction.
Roundup: A sledgehammer solution
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.
Here’s the press release for C-5. The bill is similar to, but not the same as, Rona Ambrose’s private member’s bill C-337 that failed to make it through Parliament in the last session.https://t.co/OTFZS3VwW6
— Gib van Ert (@gibvanert) February 5, 2020
C-5 amends this by folding paragraphs (a) and (b) into each other and making a new para. (b) about continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context: pic.twitter.com/kgXr1bIfbN
— Gib van Ert (@gibvanert) February 5, 2020
We’ve had judicial education for a long time, and there has long been a sense of professional duty among judges to take courses. But we’ve never required aspiring judges to take training as a condition of employment. And we’ve never singled out one area of law for training.
— Gib van Ert (@gibvanert) February 5, 2020
But here's my slippery slope argument (SSA). Let me first say I dislike SSAs. Life is full of slopes and you can’t always go around them. A lot of SSAs are alarmist—the risk is too small to worry about or the benefit way outweighs the risk. So be skeptical of SSAs—including mine.
— Gib van Ert (@gibvanert) February 5, 2020
If bill C-5 goes through, the eligibility requirements for judges will go from experience only (10 years at the bar) to experience plus willingness to commit to taking specified training courses. Who specifies the training? Parliament. Which usually means the government.
— Gib van Ert (@gibvanert) February 5, 2020
But what will federal governments add to this new judicial syllabus in future? Lots of groups will think—with good reason—that their concerns and interests also merit mandatory judicial training.
— Gib van Ert (@gibvanert) February 5, 2020
But the syllabus could still be improved. Canada is colonial state with major, ongoing problems over indigenous rights and reconciliation. The justice system is where much of these struggles play out. We need to do better. So: pic.twitter.com/ahPZN7ify0
— Gib van Ert (@gibvanert) February 5, 2020
So far I’ve been adding what might be regarded as progressive concerns to the judicial syllabus. But this new tool can be used by governments of all political stripes: pic.twitter.com/YH2Hdta39e
— Gib van Ert (@gibvanert) February 5, 2020
To some extent judges *can* be given marching orders. Every statute is a sort of marching order for judges. What’s the difference between telling judges what laws to enforce and telling them what courses to take?
— Gib van Ert (@gibvanert) February 5, 2020
Judges give effect to laws. But they also scrutinize government and legislative action. People need to believe judges really are independent from governments, or they will lose confidence in the system. Why sue the government if the judge is a government stooge?
— Gib van Ert (@gibvanert) February 5, 2020
I won’t venture an opinion about whether bill C-5 is unconstitutional in the technical sense of being of no force and effect because inconsistent with the written constitution. But it's at odds with our constitutional structure and ethos. It's not a path we should go down.
— Gib van Ert (@gibvanert) February 5, 2020
Second: the Judges Act applies to all federally appointed judges, includes some who never conduct sexual assault trials or appeals. Forcing an aspiring Tax Court judge to take sexual assault training (at public expense) is odd.
— Gib van Ert (@gibvanert) February 5, 2020
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.
Which raises the question, Why is the government doing this? What problem is this meant to solve? https://t.co/mMUQxmJQRt
— Gib van Ert (@gibvanert) February 6, 2020
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.
Roundup: Ginned up outrage over accounting rules
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.
To recap: I spent time this week calling out the government for weaselling out on a promise that has life-and-death consequences for vulnerable people.
I did not give oxygen to the performative outrage of MPs who deliberately misconstrue accounting rules. https://t.co/pneGv9JGyC— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 31, 2020
Roundup: “True Blue” O’Toole
Erin O’Toole made his official entry into the leadership race yesterday by way of a video that takes swipes at “cancel culture” and celebrity activists – the kinds of keyboard warrior buzzwords that are pretty much the domains of O’Toole’s new campaign staffer, Jeff Ballingall, of those “Canada Proud” etc. sites.
I'd love to hear O'Toole articulate what his role is in fighting cancel culture. Stopping cities from taking down statutes of John A MacDonald? Defending people accused of sexual harassment? Sticking up for people with racist tweets? What are we talking about, here?
— Justin Ling (Has Left) (@Justin_Ling) January 27, 2020
It occurs to me that Erin O'Toole, the first CPC leadership candidate to go after "cancel culture," has working for him Jeff Balingall of Canada Proud, the only organization I'm aware of to have called for Omar Khadr's appearance at Dalhousie to be cancelled.
— Chris Selley (@cselley) January 28, 2020
At a rally in Calgary later in the evening, O’Toole said that Peter MacKay would turn the party into Liberal-lite, which I have yet to see any actual evidence of (MacKay is not really a Red Tory, guys – he’s not. Stop pretending he is). It also struck me that he kept reiterating the kinds of comforting lies that the party likes to tell itself about issues like the plight of the energy sector, where the woes are blamed on the Trudeau government and not changing market forces (seriously, the shale revolution in the US is a pretty big driver of these changes). He did say that he would march in a Pride parade, and justified it with his military background, which is a bit funny given that he hasn’t marched in one to date, which makes his sudden conviction around it mighty suspect. His opposition to carbon pricing continues to dig the party into its current environmental rut, and his talk of deficits remains completely economically illiterate – all doubling down on the party’s current positions, because that’s apparently what will make him a “true blue” Conservative. I’m not sure how this grows the party’s base, but what do I know?
This is not a Thing. There is no constitutional magic wand. https://t.co/dnekcDOXyg
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 28, 2020
QP: A conciliatory note, and then a lie
And we’re back. While Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer were present, and most, but not all other leaders were as well. After a moment of silence for the victims of PS752, Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk as usual, and he asked for progress on bringing PS752 victims home and holding perpetrators to account. Trudeau thanked him for the question, and picked up a script to note that they were supporting victims, and what he told the Iranian President directly. Scheer thanked him, and then moved onto cancelled energy projects and lied about the cost of living versus wages and demanded that the Teck Frontier Mine. Trudeau reminded him that they were growing the economy while protecting the environment. Scheer then stated that the government was destroying the energy sector — again, falsely — and lamented deficit spending, to which Trudeau reminded him that they made the choice to invest, and it was paying off. Scheer then switched to gang violence and claimed the government was taking the “lazy approach” of targeting lawful gun owners, to which Trudeau took up a script to list the measures they were taking. Scheer then moved onto the survey which stated that Canada dropped three spots on the transparency ranking (which is a self-reported metric), to which Trudeau listed ways in which Canada was strong on the international stage. Yves-François Blanchet was up next, and raised a potential deportation case and demanded that the minister intervene. Trudeau, with script, to read a platitude about how they examine each case based on merit, and said that they were aware of the case but could not speak to it. Christine Normandin raised the question again, and Trudeau repeated his response. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and demanded did that the government immediately pay the compensation for First Nations children demanded by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Trudeau reminded him that they are working on reconciliation, noted the new approvals under Jordan’s Principle, and that they were still working on the issue. Singh then demanded immediate action on pharmacare and claimed he has a bill to immediately implement it (which a private members’ bill can’t do), and Trudeau took a script to list actions they have taken to reduce drug prices and noted they were negotiating with the provinces.
Second question and Scheer falsely says that wages have stagnated and not kept up with the cost of living. That is not true. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 27, 2020
Roundup: Ambrose rules out a return
It was a day of a lot of movement within the Conservative leadership race, with big repercussions to come. Early in the day, we got word that two more names were added to the Conservative race – rookie backbencher Derek Sloan, and failed leadership candidate (and aspiring narcissist) Rick Peterson. Sloan has already come out and said that he’s open to having a debate over abortion, and he’s putting forward this absurd notion that they need to stop being apologetic about being Conservative – which would be great if the party actually put forward conservative ideas like market-based solutions to problems rather than just populist pandering. Shocking. Peterson, meanwhile, is continuing his schtick that his business success is going to translate to political success, even though he did abysmally in the last election and couldn’t secure a nomination to run in the election, which shows you just how profound his organizational skills are. Nevertheless, expect him to position himself as the “Western” candidate in the race.
And then the big bombshell – Rona Ambrose announced that she is officially out of the race. It wasn’t a surprise really, especially as word has been circulating in Conservative circles that she hasn’t made any phone calls or secured any kind of organization while she considered her options. Nevertheless, it now opens the race wide open because a lot of people who had been holding their breath and waiting for Ambrose to make a move can now make their own moves. It also means that currently, Marilyn Gladu is the only woman in the race, which can’t be healthy for the party either. (It also makes me wonder who the Red Tory in this race is going to be, because it’s not actually Peter MacKay).
And just minutes after Ambrose made her announcement, another would-be candidate, former staffer Richard Décarie went on Power Play to expound on his social conservative views. It went as well as can be expected.
Emphasizing his "so-con" values, Décarie says "LGBTQ" is a "Liberal" term and that being gay is a "choice." #cdnpoli #ctvpp
More at https://t.co/uCQmGSHoEL pic.twitter.com/F9Z70Ejsdi
— CTV Power Play (@CTV_PowerPlay) January 22, 2020
While most of the other candidates quickly came out to condemn these comments, there are a few things to note here – Décarie is worth following because he has attracted some organizational heft, particularly from those who were behind Tanya Granic Allen in Ontario, and it’s not insignificant, and when you recall that Brad Trost did come in fourth the last time around. There is a particularly strong social conservative organization within the party, and they do a lot of fundraising and organizing, and that can’t be overlooked when it comes to a leadership race, where those to factors are going to count for a lot more.
Roundup: Cutting through Pallister’s bluster
With the Cabinet meeting in Winnipeg, Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland took an opportunity to meet with premier Brian Pallister yesterday, and boy howdy, was his tone in interviews afterward a hugely problematic mess. Pallister kept insisting that the province wasn’t getting the “respect” they deserved for their environmental plans, while ignoring the legitimate concerns that the federal government has – to the point where he was deliberately obscuring the actual issues at play.
One of the main issues in contention is the federal carbon price, which Pallister has famously waffled on (to the point where Paul Wells has referred to him as “Canada’s tallest weather vane”) – first he was going to implement one, then got huffy and stopped the plans because he didn’t want to increase it every year as is the plan, and because he saw momentum with other conservative premiers in challenging it in the courts. With those challenges coming down squarely in the federal government’s favour, Pallister is again floating the idea of implementing it, but doesn’t want it to increase, saying that a low price will let them meet their Paris targets. The problem, of course, is that there needs to be a common carbon price across the country so that provinces don’t undercut one another, which Pallister (and others) continue to ignore, as though the fact is a triviality when it’s the crux of the whole issue. All the while, Pallister is swearing up and down that he’s not asking for a special deal, when he is in fact demanding just that. I’m not sure how else you would describe being exempted from increasing the carbon price in line with the rest of the country as anything other than a special deal.
Add to that, Pallister is demanding a cookie for past emissions reductions when there is a hell of a long way for the country to go to meet our current targets. Ontario is trying this tactic as well, when the Ford government has completely derailed the province’s planned reductions, and insisting that you’ve already done your bit just puts even more pressure on Alberta and Saskatchewan, which I’m not sure Kenney and Moe would appreciate terribly. Pallister was also on TV grousing that he’s not getting credit for exporting cleaner electricity to Saskatchewan and the United States, which is funny because the reward for that is money, which presumably they are earning for doing so. Suffice to say, all of Pallister’s excuses are amounting to a pile of bullshit, and it would be great if our media brethren could do better at calling him out on it.
Roundup: When lower carbon is not lower carbon
As the various interests trying to promote the continued development of Alberta’s energy sector amidst changing global markets and the need to move to a carbon-constrained future, one is bound to find a number of arguments that are inherently self-serving and containing falsehoods (such as the fiction that Andrew Scheer and Jason Kenney keep trying to promote that somehow Alberta energy can reduce the environmental footprint in China and India, and that we can take their emissions credits for it). Energy economist Andrew Leach found another one promulgated by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (which I will remind you is an organization that has gone so far to the one side that major players like Royal Dutch Shell have withdrawn from the group, because they understand the need for mechanisms like carbon pricing).
I've found a piece from @OilGasCanada which illustrates everything that's wrong with how we talk about energy and oil demand, emissions, and energy transitions. I'm told it's important that we fight misinformation with respect to our oil industry, please allow me to do so. 1/N
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 17, 2020
There are 3 central claims in the piece:
1) energy demand will increase through 2040;
2) Use of renewables will increase significantly;
3) More oil and more natural gas will be needed through 2040.They buttress these claims with a cite to the @iea Stated Policies scenario. 3/N
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 17, 2020
So, dear reader, what you might be given to understand is that the changes in energy supply depicted in the infographic correspond to a lower carbon scenario. Unless lower doesn't mean what I think it means, that's not the case. 5/N
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 17, 2020
If you'll check Stated Policies on the left, you'll notice something interesting. Yes, energy demand goes up, and yes we use a lot of oil and gas, but there's that pesky orange line through the middle of the figure which, in my professional opinion, is not decreasing. 7/N
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 17, 2020
So, what the IEA says is, if you want to think about a lower carbon future, don't look to Stated Policies because it's not going to do the trick. The IEA suggests that you have a look at the Sustainable Development Scenario. So, let's do that. 9/N
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 17, 2020
The WEO has more detail on each commodity, so let's look specifically at oil. In their lower-carbon world, they explain that, "oil demand peaks very soon […] and falls back to 67 mb/d by 2040, a level last seen in 1990." That's doesn't sound like more oil, does it? 11/N pic.twitter.com/FDZ6ccfaCE
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 17, 2020
Here's some backup from outside the WEO. Gas demand is certainly much more uncertain than oil in scenarios consistent with the WEO lower-carbon runs. There are, among those model runs, 2C and even 1.5C scenarios with higher gas demand than we see today. 13/N pic.twitter.com/63Zk1Odhq5
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 17, 2020
That said, remember that lower oil production does not equate to no new oil investment. Decline rates of existing assets exceed the decline in demand associated with increased climate action. So, don't @ me with your hot takes on pipelines or upstream investment. 15/15 pic.twitter.com/Gnh2eqv6F8
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 17, 2020