Tag Archives: Public Health

Roundup: Party positions and individual agency

Posted on by

The weaponization of private members’ business continues unabated in Parliament, as the Conservatives put out an attack yesterday that claims that the Liberals want to “legalize” hard drugs because maverick backbencher Nathaniel Erskine-Smith tabled a private members’ bill that calls on the decriminalization of small personal amounts in order to better treat addiction as a public health issue and to not criminalize people with addictions – something that has worked in some countries. The lie, of course, is both in claiming that this was official government policy, and that it was calling for legalization – because who cares about truth or facts when there is fear to be mongered?

The bigger problem here? What it does to how private members’ business is treated in the House of Commons, and more to the point, there is a very big potential for this to blow up in Scheer’s face because of Cathay Wagantall’s sex-selective abortion bill currently on the Order Paper. And yes, let’s not be obtuse about this – the media feeds this particular weaponization, both in how they made this kind of abortion bill an Issue during the election, and how we both demand that MPs be both independent and yet castigate the leader for “losing control” when any MP shows any glimmer of independence. (And for the record, Scheer has not said anything about Wagantall’s bill, other than to have his spokesperson say that he “discouraged” such bills).

https://twitter.com/althiaraj/status/1234901634272178182

I know that everyone is going to be cute about these bills, and how if they get tabled the party “must” support the position because everything is so centrally controlled, and so on, but this is part of what poisons the system. Insisting that everyone be marching in lockstep from other parties ensures that the same insistence is made about your own party, and it removes any agency from MPs. They’re MPs, not gods damned battle droids. If we want drones to simply read speeches into the record and vote according the leader’s office, then why do we even bother with MPs? Why bother with parliament at all? The Conservatives’ release is embarrassing, and they should be ashamed of themselves for it (which of course would imply that they’re capable of shame, but I have my doubts about that one too).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rights, title, and ratification

Posted on by

We got a few more details yesterday about the agreement reached with the Wet’sutwet’en hereditary chiefs on Sunday, despite a few TV hosts somewhat obtusely demanding to know what it meant for the Coastal GasLink pipeline – despite the fact that it was stated over and over again that this agreement did not have anything to do with that, and that the matter was unresolved. The crux of the agreement was an agreement on how rights and title would be extended for the Wet’suwet’en going forward, meaning that with any future projects, there would be clarity as to who would need to be consulted – which means the hereditary chiefs – and given the new impact assessment process that the Liberals instituted (under the infamous Bill C-69), those consultations begin at the earliest possible moment for these project proposals so that affected First Nations can be brought in from the get-go. What I found especially interesting was that Carolyn Bennett said that this was in accordance with UNDRIP principles, as free, prior and informed consent (which again she stressed was not a veto). And one imagines that this kind of agreement would be a template for others when it comes to unceded territory across the country.

As for Coastal GasLink, work apparently resumed on aspects of the project, but given that some of their permits were pulled by the province’s environmental assessment agency with a demand for more consultations, one supposes that the work is on areas that are outside of Wet’suwet’en territory. Meanwhile, one of the elected chiefs who is in favour of the project was doing the media rounds in Ottawa yesterday, and he said that while his people were discussing the ratification of the new agreement, he said that he was also willing to give up the economic benefits of the pipeline is that was what his people decided that they wanted as part of those discussions. We do know that matriarchs who were in support of the project were also in the meeting between Bennett, her BC counterpart and those hereditary chiefs, so the discussion within the community is very much alive, and we’ll see in a couple of weeks when the ratification process is supposed to be concluded, what the future holds for the pipeline.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An agreement, and a start to further discussions

Posted on by

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

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

Continue reading →

Roundup: See you at the Supreme Court

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

Continue reading →

QP: Asking for psychic predictions

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in town, he opted to take a pass on Question Period today, as did a couple of other leaders. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he led off by praising overinflated praise for Teck Frontier, and he wanted to know how the PM personally felt about the “cancellation,” which was actually a withdrawal. Chrystia Freeland responded by stating that it was a difficult decision for the company, before listing the projects they support and have been getting built. Scheer accused the prime minister of not having the strength to stare down radical activists, to which Freeland that reconciling climate action and resource projects is challenging and not helped by extreme rhetoric. Scheer breathily accused the government of sitting on Teck’s approval since July, to which Freeland took exception to the rhetoric, and stated that the country needed to find a path forward on getting projects built while combatting climate change, and it was a complex task. Alain Rayes took over in French to decry Trudeau’s lack of leadership, and demanded the rail blockades be ended, to which Freeland read that Trudeau showed leadership when he said that the injunctions needed to upheld before mentioning that Carolyn Bennett was on the ground meeting with the hereditary chiefs. Rayes demanded a date for all of the blockades would be down, to which Freeland reiterated her response. Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, and accused the lack of leadership from the PM for creating the rail blockades in Quebec, for which Freeland underscored that they were all working together to combat the challenges, and thanked the Bloc for their constructive suggestions on the New NAFTA. Therrien tried to “I told you so” on the meetings with the Wet’suwet’en, to which Freeland repeated that Trudeau showed significant leadership and That Bennett was on the ground. Jagmeet Singh was up for the Bloc, and demanded that the prime minister personally meet with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs, to which Freeland somewhat didactically stated that this was a BC problem, and the government was working closely with them. Singh listed dates Trudeau met with corporate lobbyists but not the hereditary chiefs, to which Freeland stated that the PM has worked harder and more sincerely toward reconciliation than any prime minister in history, before touting Bennett’s meeting.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A failed attempt at fundamental reform

Posted on by

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

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

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

Continue reading →

QP: Lessons from radical activists

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was indeed in the building, he was not to show up for Question Period for whatever the reason, so that left Andrew Scheer to lead off by reading that Trudeau, a former teacher, has taught “radical activists” the valuable lesson that they can bring the economy to its knees and that he would do nothing, before he called Trudeau “weak.” Bill Blair said that a commitment to dialogue and reconciliation was not a sign of weakness, and that they trusted the police to do their jobs. Scheer then railed that the government waited too long to decide on Teck Frontier, to which Jonathan Wilkinson reminded him that it was Teck’s decision, and that the CEO demonstrated the need for governments to work together to come up with climate action. Scheer claimed that the current government’s process killed Frontier, to which Wilkinson reminded him it was under the 2012 rules put in when Jason Kenney was in a Cabinet, and that process pushed all of the problems to the back of the process, whereas their new process turns that around. Gérard Deltell railed that the decision dragging out for nine months hurt the fourteen First Nations in the area, to which Wilkinson read quotes from Teck’s CEO. Deltell accused the government of working against those First Nations — as though the price of oil were not too low for the project to be viable — and Wilkinson quoted the letter’s section on global capital markets looking for clean projects. Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc, and he was concerned about a series of crises in the country that the government was not doing anything about, and demanded that Trudeau meet with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs. Marc Miller stated that they were talking and building trust. Blanchet demanded that they head to BC to resolve the issue, to which Blair reminded him that it was a serious situation which is why they urged people to lift the barricades, and that they trusted law enforcement when those people didn’t. Jagmeet Singh was up for the NDP, and he bemoaned that people need free dental services, for which Patty Hajdu said that the Health committee would be studying the matter and she looked forward to their report. Singh then plugged their Supply Day motion to change the tax changes to divert money toward dental care, to which Hajdu repeated that she would wait for the committee report.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reverberations and court references

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading →

Roundup: Will the RCMP’s pledge be enough?

Posted on by

The question as to whether or not there was progress on dismantling the protest blockades is a rather fraught one, as the news that the RCMP in BC had announced their plans to withdraw their forces from the pipeline site with the proviso that the company be allowed access, which doesn’t sound like it sits well with those hereditary chiefs, because they insist that their eviction notice for Coastal GasLink stands. However, if removing the RCMP from Wet’suwet’en territory is the condition for the sympathetic protests blockades to come down, then we’ll see if that has the promised effect – we may not find out until the four hereditary chiefs who have travelled to Mohawk territory in Ontario have their meeting. In the meantime, Justin Trudeau had a teleconference with the premiers, who expressed frustration but had no consensus on how they would solve the impasse – though François Legault is threatening to send the police after the blockade near Montreal (though we’ll see if the police there respond to political direction, because that would be a violation of police independence). Oh, and while a lot of people are claiming that CN is blaming previously announced layoffs on the current blockade situation, the Teamsters has come out to say that these current (temporary) layoffs are different from those previously announced, so there goes another talking point.

Meanwhile, there has been increased reporting about those Wet’suwet’en voices who are both in favour of the pipeline, as well as those who are don’t appreciate the protesters invoking them, given that they say the dispute is none of their business. As part of that, here is a lengthy thread that tries to get a better sense of the house and clan structure of the Wet’suwet’en, along with trying to get some clarity as to the status of hereditary chiefs, while this thread explains a bit more of their decision-making structure, and what may be an issue at present with some of the politics with the anti-pipeline factions. It’s complex, and resists easy narratives.

I would add that what I wrote yesterday still stands – that the company still needs to act here, because the reporting on the timeline of the decision-making and consultation seems to indicate that they cut the corners around consultation with the hereditary chiefs, and until they pull back and go through that process, then some of these problems won’t get resolved, and the current situation will drag on until things get really uncomfortable, and people start demanding drastic action, which will only hurt the cause for everyone.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding to end the blockades

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →