Tag Archives: Trade

Roundup: The caucus question

Posted on by

The question of the future of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott in the Liberal caucus is a very live question as sentiment seems to be turning against them – though one imagines that Wilson-Raybould’s ouster is probably of bigger concern to most Liberals given the revelation of the tape she made of her conversation with Michael Wernick. Apparently, the various caucus chairs have been meeting, and pushing for an emergency caucus meeting before the regularly scheduled Wednesday meeting to try and resolve the issue before then. Some of them want a declaration from the pair that they support the leader before they will consider letting them stay – and Wilson-Raybould would not give that when scrummed after QP yesterday, saying she believes in the party and what it stands for, but would not give any assurances about the leader. (She also scoffed at the idea of resigning, insisting that she was doing the best job she could). Of course, the fact that she made the secret recording means that she has broken the trust of colleagues, even though she has made the excuse that Wernick was neither a member of caucus, nor her client. (I would add that it doesn’t explain her conduct during that call, which contained a number of irregularities, leading questions and directed conversation in search of quotes). There are questions still about Philpott, and where she will position herself since the release of the tape, and some Liberals have suggested that perhaps she was “used” by Wilson-Raybould. (And one has to wonder if the tape would change her own notions about her support for Wilson-Raybould).

I have to say that I’m struggling on the question of whether or not Wilson-Raybould should remain in caucus, because while I believe there is room for dissent, and even for MPs who don’t support the leader – because it’s a gods damned political party and not a personality cult – I also find that the tape causes me a great deal of concern for the reasons articulated above, as do the opacity of her motivations for behaving in the way she has, particularly around the tactical use of silence on something that you would think she’s be pulling the fire alarm over if it was what she is hinting. Too many things don’t add up, which is both distressing and exhausting for someone trying to understand what is going on. I get that there are Liberals with battle scars who don’t want a replay of the Chrétien-Martin years (or the Dion-Ignatieff wars, or even Turner-Trudeau Senior if you want to go that far back), and there is the worry that Wilson-Raybould’s presence in caucus will be a potential source of internecine warfare that Liberals apparently excel at, or that Trudeau should be putting some metaphorical heads on spikes to reassert his dominance, or any of that, but again, this is a political party, not a personality cult. This is not and should not be Trudeau’s party, but there is a live question about the damage she has done to the party and its chances in the election given the way that this has rolled out, and members of caucus will need to consider that. It’s not an easy task, and they should think carefully, because expelling those two could create bigger narrative problems for them in the longer term. But it’s also not up to me to decide (and I’m not one of those journalists who enforces caucus loyalty), so I await to see what everyone in the caucus room decides.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives decided that their next pressure tactic would be for Pierre Poilievre to “filibuster” the budget debate – err, except it’s not really a filibuster because it can only take place during the time allotted for government orders, and the Standing Orders limit the budget debate to a maximum of four days, those days being at the government’s choosing. So essentially, Poilievre is holding himself hostage, and by him taking up all of the speaking time over those four allotted days, he’s essentially ensuring that nobody else has to prepare a speech of their own, so all of the MPs on House duty can simply spend their time doing paperwork at their desks while he carries on. So…I’m not sure what exactly the Conservatives are hoping to accomplish. It’s another ill-conceived move by a caucus who mistakes tactics for strategy.

Continue reading →

QP: The “proof” of the tape

Posted on by

The first day back after a week away, the release of the tape, and with the federal carbon price backstop now in effect, it was likely to be a complete dog’s breakfast in QP, but none of the leaders were present to take part — Justin Trudeau meeting with the president of Israel, and Andrew Scheer in New Brunswick to shake his fist performatively at said carbon price. Candice Bergen led off, saying that the tapes “proved” that there was orchestrated pressure on Jody Wilson-Raybould, and said that since she couldn’t ask if the prime minister lied so she tried to word around it — and got a warning from the Speaker. Bardish Chagger reminded her that the prime minister took responsibility, the justice committee held five weeks of hearings, and everything was in public, and the Ethics Commissioner was investigating it. Bergen demanded the truth from the prime minister, and Chagger largely repeated the response. Bergen demanded that the prime minister instruct the justice committee to reopen the investigation, to which Chagger said the committees are independent and the system is working. Alain Rayes took over in French, repeated that the tapes “prove” interference, and demanded the truth. Chagger reminded him that they always tell the truth, and that it all happened in public so that people could hear for themselves. On a repeat of the same, Chagger said that the opposition hasn’t been listening to witnesses. Peter Julian led off in French for the NDP and demanded a public inquiry, and Chagger listed off the work of the committee and the Ethics Commissioner. Julian switched to English to repeat his demand for a public inquiry, and Chagger reiterated her response. Georgina Joilibois raised the issue of the Grassy Narrows protester at the Liberal fundraiser last week, to which Carolyn Bennett reminded her that they are working with the community and are moving forward on the promised health facility, and capped it off with a shot at the Conservatives. Brigitte Sansoucy repeated the question in French, demanding the PM visit Grassy Narrows immediately, and Bennett read the French version of her previous response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Wilson-Raybould’s recorded call

Posted on by

Because we couldn’t go another weekend in the interminable Double-Hyphen Affair without another bombshell, we got one in the revelation that among the materials that Jody Wilson-Raybould turned over to the justice committee was a recording she made of a conversation she had with outgoing Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, which was quickly pointed out was in violation of the ethical obligations of lawyers (and no, this isn’t a situation of whether you’re wearing your Attorney General or Minister of Justice hat – it’s whether you’re a lawyer, and if you are, you are forbidden from surreptitiously recording a conversation). ETA:  This may have been overstating it, but there is an argument that Wernick could have been a client receiving advice, which is where it would violate the rules.

I did listen to the recording, and I had a few observations, but there are a few things I noticed that weren’t being talked about in any of the rush to find a smoking gun. For starter, there is a very performative element to the recording – she’s asking very leading questions, and fishing for quotes. I know this because I make my living having conversations with people on tape in order to get quotes for stories. And some of the formality of the language with which she speaks – there is a lot of spelling out of acronyms and relationships that read like a literary device we call an “As you know, Bob,” where you explain things in dialogue to someone who should know what you’re talking about. This conversation was rife with this kind of phrasing, so it looked very much like she wanted this for a purpose. She stated that, while she knows it was unethical, she did it because she was afraid the conversation would “inappropriate” and she didn’t have staff around to take notes. But there is an intent here that I’m curious about.

As for the content of the conversation, a few things stood out for me, which I haven’t seen being written about in the media, because they are focusing on the quotes that she specifically set up for them. First of all, Wernick’s tone seemed to me to be more of a friendly warning – the PM was looking for answers, but I didn’t get the sense that there were threats, thinly veiled or otherwise. Wernick made the point several times in the conversation that “He wants to understand more why the DPA route isn’t being used.” Repeatedly, Wernick is trying to get information about why the Director of Public Prosecution has rejected it, and each time, Wilson-Raybould tried to bring it back to “I’m uncomfortable with this, but I’m happy to talk to you,” and threats that these conversations were bordering on inappropriate. Wernick keeps insisting that they are trying to keep these conversations above-board, and that they’re not actually asking her to do anything, but they’re looking for information because they want to ensure that they’ve done their due diligence with regard to those jobs.

Regarding outside legal advice, Wernick said that he was concerned the PM would seek it himself, or if Wilson-Raybould felt it more appropriate, have it go through her, and former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin’s name is bandied about several times, which should make everyone feel a little gross, but we developed a political culture of “Mother, May I?” in this country when it comes to getting the blessing of the Supreme Court of Canada, either with its current or former members. Wilson-Raybould went on about public perceptions of interference if she overrode the DPP’s decision about granting the remediation agreement, which is fair (and she warned him that she was keeping receipts), and there was even an exchange where she’s talking about the prime minister and prosecutorial independence, and Wernick said “I don’t think he sees it like that,” to which Wilson-Raybould snapped back, “Then nobody’s explaining that to him, Michael.” (As an aside, one wonders if that was not her job). But again, Wernick kept circling back for an explanation – not direction – asking when the DPP related her decision to Wilson-Raybould, and specifically asking “Can they get her to explain?” Wilson-Raybould insisted that the Prime Minister’s office had the report since September, to which Wernick replied “That’s news to me.” And what I find fascinating is that Wernick keeps asking for explanations, and the media picked out the quotes about pressure. They were very much talking past one another,

There were the other documents she turned over, which included her reasons for resigning from Cabinet, and a couple of things leapt out at me from there – one being that with this release, she doesn’t think she has anything left to contribute to a formal process in looking into this. The other is that in her personal observations at the end, she goes on about looking forward “to a future where we truly do politics differently,” which could be hints about future political ambitions. (John Geddes has some more good parsing about parts of the Cabinet conversation around DPAs here).

In fallout from this, Justin Trudeau put out a statement saying that he hadn’t been briefed on this conversation, and that he wished that Wilson-Raybould had come to him directly, but he’s taken responsibility for the loss of trust, announced next steps, and he wants to move forward (as a team). This while more Liberals in the caucus are getting restive and want Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott to be ousted, and they’re signing their names to it rather than whispering anonymously. With Wernick already on his way out, and Wilson-Raybould saying that there’s no more for her to tell, one supposes that Trudeau hopes this will finally put an end to things and he can move forward without showing any further contrition that his taking responsibility for the breakdown in trust, and that he can leave it up to his pabulum talking points going forward. I guess we’ll see how much is left to litigate in Question Period, but I guess we’ll see if there are any additional rabbits to be pulled out of hats now.

And then come the hot takes, and hottest of all is Andrew Coyne, who takes this as a complete vindication for Wilson-Raybould. Susan Delacourt sees some poetic parallels between Trudeau fighting for his political life right now, with that boxing match with Senator Brazeau some seven years ago this weekend. Chris Selley notes that the tape really won’t change anyone’s mind, but does give Wilson-Raybould props for not bowing to the status quo.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1111738095018430465

Good reads: Continue reading →

Roundup: Competing leaks

Posted on by

And now we’re into competing leaks. In the Globe and Mail, we got another leak from a “mysterious” source that posited that Jody Wilson-Raybould was trying to elevate Justice Glenn Joyal to the Supreme Court of Canada because she apparently felt the LGBT community wouldn’t be receptive to presumptive heir Justice Richard Wagner (now the Chief Justice) for what I assume was a trumped up reading of his not inviting LGBT groups to present at the Supreme Court in the Trinity Western case (which is pretty absurd), and because she wanted Joyal’s successor at the Court of Queen’s Bench to be a Métis judge. In other words, it was trying to burnish Wilson-Raybould’s progressive credentials in light of the prior leaks attempting to make her look more of a social conservative (as though one didn’t need to look too hard at her record to see signs of it). Because hey, why not keep up leaks that damage the perceptions around Supreme Court of Canada appointments? Way to go, team! (And before anyone gets too self-righteous, don’t forget that in 2014, Stephen Harper leaked the six names he was considering when he named Justice Marc Nadon to the bench, and putting words in the mouths of the MPs who served on the “selection” committee at the time, knowing full well that they couldn’t respond).

And then come the denials. Wilson-Raybould and PMO each denied that they were the source of any of the leaks, and Wilson-Raybould (who submitted her additional materials to the justice committee on Tuesday afternoon) said there should be an investigation into who was leaking these Supreme Court deliberations. Lisa Raitt tried to insist that it should be the Federal Judicial Affairs Commissioner who should investigate, and he quickly wrote back with a giant nope, citing that he has no mandate to do any such investigations. Which leaves us with who for an investigation? The RCMP? Yet another demand for a public inquiry? Our very own Goolding Inquiry? Won’t that be fun?

And with all of this going on, in swoops Neil Macdonald to remind us that everyone in the media gets “used” by leakers all the time, and hey, the preponderance of leaks is a sign that journalists are doing their jobs because they are competing to do the best job. There is certainly a mercenary aspect to it all, not to mention some status-seeking, but I’m not sure he’s entirely wrong.

Continue reading →

Roundup: All about Erskine-Smith

Posted on by

As was not a surprise, the Ethics committee met on the matter of hearing from Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott, and the Liberals on the committee voted it down. The lead for the Liberals was Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, who is a more maverick Liberal in the ranks, and yet he said this motion was premature, said it was better to wait for Wilson-Raybould’s submissions to the justice committee, and stated bluntly that they weren’t the best committee to deal with legal issues. Oh, and he also stated that he got zero input from PMO, and he’s one of the more believable Liberals on that front, so it muffles some of the inevitable cries of “Cover up!” – especially as he says he’s of the opinion that the PM should give the blanket waiver of confidences so that the two resigned ministers can say their piece, because this whole affair is damaging the Liberal brand. So, frank speaking, but that won’t change the narrative any, unfortunately.

In the fallout from Monday’s leaks, the Canadian and Manitoba Bar Associations have put out statements condemning them, as did several MPs including Erskine-Smith. (It also emerged that Justice Joyal withdrew his name after Trudeau rejected it, for what it’s worth). Trudeau himself wouldn’t answer any questions on the leak, even to say that he would investigate where it came from (which should be a bare minimum considering the seriousness of it).

Meanwhile, the Star decided to host competing op-eds about whether dissident Liberals should be allowed to remain in caucus, with Sheila Copps saying no, and Erskine-Smith saying yes. Copps did raise a few interesting points about things that Wilson-Raybould has omitted from her repeated statements, but Erskine-Smith did have the better articulation of what it means to be an MP. Neil Macdonald also has little time or sympathy for the drip-drip-drip approach and wonders why journalists are going along with it, but does offer some historical perspective on MPs who work against their leaders and walk-outs. Susan Delacourt praises Erskine-Smith for his handling of the situation, and the frankness that PMO should be employing. Chris Selley rightly points out that the attempt to drag Justice Joyal into this Affair as a new low, while John Ibbitson says it’s a sign that those inhabiting the PMO have little regard for the rule of law. Paul Wells brings some more righteous fire to this whole debate, torching the cries to purge the party, the leaks of confidential information, and the underlying accusations of system-rigging.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1110628732882972672

Continue reading →

Roundup: A ham-fisted attempt at undermining

Posted on by

Another day of developments in the interminable Double-Hyphen Affair fallout, and it’s beyond ridiculous. And yet here we are. To start the day, Justin Trudeau said that he had a “next steps” conversation with Jody Wilson-Raybould last Monday – you know, when Michael Wernick resigned and Anne McLellan was named a special advisor – and it was a “cordial” talk, and both she and Jane Philpott still want to run for the Liberals, and he’s looking forward to that. Oh, and he’s not going to extend any further waiver on confidences because the one he extended already covered the issue at hand, thank you very much. And he’s right about that part – we’re moving beyond SNC-Lavalin issues now into this intrigue about why Wilson-Raybould (and now Jane Philpott) resigned and the handling of the controversy rather than the actual issue of pressure, which has been aired and it’s up to peoples’ judgments as to where the line of inappropriate is. And yeah, this does actually matter if we’re paying attention to things. Also around this time, the CEO of SNC-Lavalin issued a correction that said that yeah, the whole job losses thing was discussed as part of a conversation about the public interest, and so on.

And then came the day’s “bombshell.” Two competing outlets each had a story about how Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould had clashed over the last Supreme Court of Canada appointment, and she has wanted a more conservative judge from Manitoba which Trudeau balked at, and not only that, but she wanted to immediately elevate him to Chief Justice. That both outlets got the same story looks a lot like PMO engineered a leak, but did it in such a ham-fisted way that they neglected to mention that said judge also pulled out of the competition because his wife had breast cancer. Oops. And it’s pretty obvious that this was a way to try and draw attention to the fact that Wilson-Raybould was a pretty bad minister (the Canadian Press version of the story pointing out the clashes she had with caucus over her conservative positions on bills like assisted dying and genetic privacy – for which we should also remember that Trudeau stuck his neck out for her). Because as we’ve seen throughout this whole Affair that Trudeau or his staff haven’t been able to point to her record because she remained in the post for three years and Trudeau insists that she would still be in the position if Brison hadn’t resigned (which could also mean that they considered it a manageable situation). But if this PMO could be any more inept at handling this situation and stepping on yet more rakes, you’d almost feel embarrassed for them if this didn’t make it look like they were trying to politicise Supreme Court appointments. Cripes.

Meanwhile, the Ethics committee will be meeting today to discuss the Conservatives’ motion to try and hear testimony from Jody Wilson-Raybould at their committee instead, given that they have a Conservative chair. The problem there, however, is that the numbers are really against them – there are six voting Liberals on the committee to two voting Conservatives and one voting NDP MP. And even if the Conservatives could convince maverick MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, a permanent member of that committee, to vote with them, they’re still outnumbered by the rest of the Liberals. Even if by some miracle they agree to hold hearings on the matter, unless Trudeau offers yet another waiver (which he seems not inclined to), then we’re left with more silence from Wilson-Raybould, and we’ll be no better off. And then it’ll be a new round of Andrew Scheer screaming “cover up!” (Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column offers a look at what some of the possible outcomes of the day are.)

In punditry, Andrew Coyne delivers some not undeserved outrage at the tactic to try and take a shot at a sitting judge to try and discredit Wilson-Raybould. He also takes entirely correct umbrage with journalists braying for Wilson-Raybould and Philpott to be kicked out of caucus, and lo, here’s Tasha Kheiriddin doing just that, insisting that Trudeau looks “weak” the longer he keeps them in the fold. Because policing caucus loyalty is something that We The Media apparently excel at.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More documents, more drips

Posted on by

Another day, another drip in the ongoing Double-Hyphen Affair fallout. This time, it was a letter from Jody Wilson-Raybould to the chair of the Commons justice committee saying that she plans to forward new evidence to him in the form of emails and text messages – evidence which will be translated, checked over by committee members, and then made public once that’s done. But she also stipulated it was the period within the waiver, so I’m sure this will lead to another round of accusations that she’s not being allowed to tell “her full truth,” and people will believe it. Justin Trudeau, for his part, insisted yet again that he gave her the ability to give a full airing of the issue, reiterated later in a town hall meeting in Thunder Bay, where he also talked about needing to do a better job in how he manages “those conversations” with people with strong ideas in the future. Trudeau also appointed a new caucus-PMO liaison, which may go a ways to soothing caucus tensions, given that there is a lot of grumbling that part of the problem has been that he hasn’t been listening to them and their concerns – but it’s just another staffer and not him personally, inside the caucus room, so we’ll see if it helps.

In related news, the past secretary general of the OECD wrote a piece in the Financial Post to explain the whole language around “national economic interest” that so many people (many reporters included) are getting hung up on. The intent of the phrase – and he was at the OECD at the time – was to prevent countries from using the excuse that bribery was necessary to protect their export markets – and it wasn’t about protecting jobs. And hey, he’s even got context about the state of international trade in 1995 when this was an issue. Imagine if we’d had some better reporting about this history weeks ago! (Also, here’s a thread from a former OECD public sector integrity official who also gives context to the rules and why a DPA was not only a valid tool, but so is seeking outside counsel on the suitability of offering one).

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert is coming to the conclusion that if Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott keep stoking the controversy without adding new facts that their target is the prime minister. Philippe Lagassé gives a more complete recounting of the issue of parliamentary privilege and what Wilson-Raybould and Philpott can avail themselves of in this situation, and the broader moral obligation of the fact that the privilege exists to hold government to account without fear of consequence, and if they feel that there were constitutional violations in the Affair, they have the choice to avail themselves of the opportunity to speak.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1109129350866075648

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1109130053739147264

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1109131631804084224

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1109134666890534912

Continue reading →

Roundup: Procedural warfare denied (for now)

Posted on by

If the Conservatives were hoping for procedural tactics to try and delay the budget speech on Tuesday, well, they were outplayed by the government, who used their ability to control the timing of those Estimates votes to Wednesday instead of Monday. If you recall, the plan was for the Conservatives to force line-by-line votes on the Supplementary Estimates, so that they could delay the budget speech, which I will also remind you is a tactically stupid move, and doesn’t prove any point. And yet here we are. This having been said, I fully expect them to try some kind of dilatory tactics including a privilege motion of some variety on Tuesday in order to move the budget speech, because they’ve tried it before in the past, but once again, we’re a long way from the times that people who were good at this kind of thing were in charge.

Meanwhile, you can expect the next two days to be replete with bleating admonishing that the Liberals are going to try to use a “shock and awe” budget to drown out the Double-Hyphen Affair, as though the past five weeks of breathless reporting will evaporate in a single night. Come on.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Predictable committee stunts

Posted on by

As expected, the justice committee meeting yesterday was short and went nowhere, as the Liberals on the committee (most of whom are not regular members of said committee) voted to respect the original schedule, which is to consider next steps on Tuesday, like the plan was all along. And predictably, there was much performative outrage and the pundit class all shook their fists in outrage that the Liberals would dare to shut down the inquiry (which they didn’t), and lo, why doesn’t the PMO get it right on this whole sordid affair, woe is us, woe is us. If you need any clues that this “emergency meeting” was anything other than a stunt, let’s consider the fact that despite the fact that the committee was going to deal with next steps when Parliament returned next week, they nevertheless demanded said “emergency meeting” in the middle of March Break to denote how seriousthey were about it. (Meanwhile, if any of these MPs complain about how hard parliamentary life is on their families and children, we need only remind them that they pulled stunts like this). But when most of the actual committee members are unavailable, it’s not exactly like the bodies they’re filling the seats with are in a position to do the work of the regular members of the committee for them and to evaluate what they’ve heard. Oh, and putting Pierre Poilievre in the lead seat for the Conservatives is a flashing red light with accompanying klaxon that this is a stunt. The opposition also wanted this debate on inviting Jody Wilson-Raybould back to be in public, despite the fact that committee deliberations on witnesses and timetables happen behind closed doors for a reason. I cannot stress this enough. This kind of meeting to demand a vote in public is showmanship designed for the cameras. The feigned outrage and unctuous sanctimony when the Liberals voted the way everyone expected them to is also indicative that this was entirely a stunt. And We The Media bought it all, and nobody I saw bothered to challenge them on any part of it. Well done us.

Now, the Liberals have a choice next week, and if they don’t invite Wilson-Raybould back, it’ll be a black eye for them, deservedly. I suspect they know this. As for Wilson-Raybould, I’m not sure that anyone believes she can’t speak to her resignation, because it has nothing to do with solicitor-client privilege, Michael Wernick stated that none of this was discussed at Cabinet (hence essentially waiving any Cabinet confidence on the matter), and Gerald Butts has also spoken about this time period. If she insists she can’t, the credibility of that assertion needs to be questioned. But until the Liberals on the justice committee actually vote to shut it down and write their report, can we hold off on the pearl-clutching until then? Otherwise, we’re playing into stunts.

Speaking of predictable pundit outrage, here’s Andrew Coyne decrying that prime ministers can get away with anything in this country. Well, except for the resignations, the committee study, the Ethics Commissioner investigation, strongly worded letter from the OECD and intense media scrutiny. As for his shaking his fist at “our system,” I don’t exactly see the system south of the border any better at dealing with the blatant corruption of their president, so…yay?

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1106007982209294336

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1106012461910581255

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Republic of the Northwest wank-off

Posted on by

With an election soon to be called in Alberta, we’re going to start seeing all manner of ludicrous stories related to it, and lo, Maclean’s brings us an imagining of the future history of the “Republic of the Northwest,” which is apparently what a would become of a future Alberta-Saskatchewan-Manitoba-parts-of-BC-and-the-North seccession from Canada. The piece should have instead come with a mature content warning, as it’s basically the two authors jerking one another off to the masturbatory fantasy of a “more prosperous, freer, and more patriotic” future that is never going to be. Why? Because they simply glossed over all of the hard things that such a future would entail, the biggest and most obvious obstacle being the fate of the Indigenous populations. Sure, all of their environmental concerns are just “Laurentian Canadian” bureaucratic meddling. Apparently once Ottawa was out of the way, this new Republic (and curious that such a “patriotic” imagined country would not retain the Crown, if this is supposed to be some kind of small-c conservative fantasy that doesn’t involve being immediately swallowed up by the US), all kinds of pipelines could get built in mere months, with no obstacles whatsoever! Sure, the tidewater is all in Northern BC because the southern coast wouldn’t separate with them, but that won’t affect things! There weren’t any domestic environmentalists in this new country – they were apparently either all figments of Ottawa that were rained upon them, or they were all subject to mass arrest in this “freer” country. There were no Indigenous protests. There were no concerns about actual economic viability of these pipelines with relation to future capacity, or the fact that there is an ongoing global supply glut of oil and dumping more Alberta crude into the world economy wouldn’t be subject to yet more price declines because of basic laws of supply and demand. Nope – it’s all just freedom and prosperity!

And that’s not even to talk about how much they glossed over in terms of what separation would actually mean for the country, from fiscal arrangements, armed forces (do you think they’d just let them take half of the fighter fleet and a chunk of the Navy for their strip of Northern BC Coast line?), and again, the reality of treaties with Indigenous peoples with the Crown of Canada. Honest to Hermes, my eyes could not stop rolling the entirety of this piece. And the worst part is that there is a cohort of Albertans who think this is a plausible vision of the future. They all need to give their heads a shake, and the pair who wrote this piece need to wake up to reality.

On a related note, Jen Gerson digs into the looming problem of Alberta not really preparing for a future with a decreased oil demand, as they prefer instead to keep waiting on the next oil boom. (As the bumper sticker says, “Please God, give us another boom, and I promise not to piss it away this time.”) Yes, the province’s economy has diversified somewhat, but it’s still very dependent on oil revenues. That said, the Bank of Canada did note that the share of GDP that the oil sector is responsible for has diminished a fair amount since the 2015 oil shock, and it’s now less than IT services. The big problem the province is going to have is what to do with all of its under-educated young men, who either quit school or barely got their high school diploma while counting on lucrative oil sector employment. Those days are dwindling, and there will need to be plans to help them transition, sooner than later.

Continue reading →