With little progress on the protests and blockades across the country, and with it being proto-PMQ day, it promised to be a complete gong show for Question Period. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he quoted François Legault’s demand for a timeline to ending the blockades. Justin Trudeau said that the situation was unacceptable, but they were going to pursue a peaceful solution. Scheer raised the 1500 temporary layoffs for VIA Rail and CN Rail employees and demanded a timeline, and Trudeau reiterated that it was unacceptable but they would resolve a peaceful solution. Scheer then called Trudeau weak and demanded a deadline, for which Trudeau reiterated that they understood that this was difficult, but they needed a peaceful, lasting solution. Scheer railed about the “radical protesters,” and Trudeau repeated his same answer. Scheer then misused the phrase “rule of law,” and then tried to oh-so-cleverly insinuate that the minister was considering withdrawing the RCMP instead of sending them to dismantle the blockades and that it too was interference, and Trudeau called out Scheer’s rhetorical games. Yves-François Blanchet was up next for the Bloc, and he wondered about the nature of the forum for dialogue with First Nations leaders, to which Trudeau said this is a complex situation that they would resolve peacefully. Blanchet asked if they considered withdrawing the RCMP and replacing it with an Indigenous Force, to which Trudeau said it was a possibility that needed to be discussed with the province and the community. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and demanded that Trudeau meet with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs, appoint a special mediator, and withdraw the RCMP, to which Trudeau replied that the minister was waiting for them to meet with her. Singh then concern trolled about the spending on the Trans Mountain project as money that could be better spent, to which Trudeau defended the project as helping to fund the green transition.
Tag Archives: Trans Mountain
Roundup: Escalating costs for compliance
The over-the-top rhetoric over energy projects in this country hasn’t been limited to the Teck Frontier mine decision. No, we got a new round of it yesterday when Bill Morneau disclosed that the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline costs have increased to $12.6 billion, in part because of environmental changes and accommodations for local First Nations. Predictably, both the Conservatives and project opponents lost their minds – the Conservatives melting down that this was somehow because of this government’s delays (erm, you know there were court processes in between, right?), apparently oblivious to the fact that this was the cost of compliance to get it built; the opponents because of the increased price tag over a project that they are certain will increase carbon emissions (even though it is more likely to decrease them as those contents would simply flow by rail otherwise). Jason Kenney, of course, takes the cake for his own outsized rhetoric on the matter.
Funny that Northern Gateway wasn't done in 2 or 3 years. Perhaps because it wasn't a national priority? https://t.co/lNGO36XLsJ
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) February 8, 2020
These projects are incredibly complex and require a lot of work both in the application/hearing phase and after decisions are made both in consultation and route selection, let alone construction. @jkenney knows all this because he's been there, at the table.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) February 8, 2020
What's that you say? TMX? It was not even through the regulatory process after 2 years under a process designed entirely by the Harper government. I'll invite you to recall who the senior minister in cabinet from Calgary was at the time.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) February 8, 2020
From Washington DC, Kenney and his Mini-Me, Scott Moe, were both being remarked upon for how toned down their rhetoric has been of late (which I contend has to do with Trudeau and Freeland calling their bluff on their “equalization” bullshit), but they certainly kept up it up around Teck Frontier, and Alberta’s environment minister was thundering about the news reports of a possible federal “compensation package” if the approval was not granted – which was, of course, full of lies about the merits of the Teck proposal. And the notion that the federal government simply needs to “get out of the way” pretends that the biggest woes are the price of oil, and the fact that the US shale boom has hobbled the viability of the oilsands.
This is wrong. There are plenty of proposed conditions in the EA. https://t.co/SNWCIVa0Jf
Pages upon pages upon pages of them. #ableg #cdnpoli https://t.co/uOy4q5WPVw
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) February 7, 2020
If the economic conditions that would enable Teck to build Frontier return, the cap would absolutely be in play. If the cap remains out-of-play, it's because nobody wants to build the 20+ other projects in the queue in addition to Frontier.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) February 7, 2020
Meanwhile, Heather Scoffield makes note of the fact that all reason has gone out of the “debate” over the approval of the Teck Frontier mine. As if to illustrate the point, Matt Gurney repeats a bunch of the well-worn justifications for approving the project under the notion that Alberta needs jobs and not bailouts, without seeming to recognize that it’s not currently economically viable, while ignoring that delays to TMX were not because of government action but Indigenous court challenges under their constitutional rights, or that there is a reason why the Conservatives ensured there was Cabinet sign-off on these decisions. Chantal Hébert points out that the Liberals will lose whichever way they decide on this project.
QP: Fictional legislation and crass quips
Wednesday, caucus day, and MPs were riled up in the aftermath. Andrew Scheer led off, and he recited some concern about the state of the Trans Mountain pipeline, to which Justin Trudeau expressed his satisfaction with the Federal Court of Appeal and that the previous government couldn’t get it done without boosterism. Scheer then tried to hand-wave about fictional “emergency legislation” around court challenges and worried about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a “new threshold” to prevent development, to which Trudeau called out the whole question as a reflection of how the Conservatives don’t understand how things work. Scheer tried again, and Trudeau called out the misinformation. Scheer switched to French to worry about the supposed “plan” to license media, to which Trudeau picked up a script to read that they would not impose licensing on news. Scheer changed to English and lied about what was in the report, as well as the media “bailout” fund, and Trudeau slowly enunciated that they would not impose licenses on news organisations or regulate news content. Yves-François Blanchet was up next for the Bloc, and he rambled about they English School Board of Montreal getting money to challenge the “secularism” bill, to which Trudeau started that the Court Challenges Programme awards aid to groups in an arm’s length way from government. Blanchet tried to make this an issue of provincial jurisdiction, to which Trudeau repeated that programme was independent of government. Jagmeet Singh was then up for the NDP, and complained about the backlogs for women regaining First Nations status after the law changed to broaden the criteria. Trudeau started that they have spent record amounts to Indigenous communities, and it takes longer because the delivery needs to be done in partnership with those communities. Singh then moved onto the Coast Gas Link pipeline dispute, demanding that the prime minister meet with the hereditary chiefs, to which Trudeau stated that the issue was entirely under provincial jurisdiction, which they respect.
https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1225141168683606017
Roundup: Rushing a resurrected bill
The government made good on their promise yesterday to re-introduce Rona Ambrose’s bill on sexual assault training for judges, and to their credit, they tabled an amended bill that does take into account most of the criticisms of the previous version of the bill that likely would have rendered it unconstitutional because it interfered with judicial independence in pretty much every respect. (See my story here). Not that you’d know it from some of the reporting – the CBC in particular has been absolutely allergic in looking into what the objections to the bill were, and why they made it unworkable and unconstitutional, preferring to blame the Senate as being an “old boys’ club” rather than objecting to an unworkable and unconstitutional bill – you know, like they’re supposed to.
But despite every party supporting the bill, that didn’t stop them from getting cute with it. The Conservatives, for example, suggested in Question Period that the government amend the bill so that it also includes training for Parole Board members – which is out of step for the language in the bill. Because, seriously, the Canadian Judicial Council is not going to provide that training, as the bill stipulates that they do for judges. And then Jagmeet Singh decided he too was going to be cute, after QP, and move that the House vote to pass the bill at all stages in one fell swoop, with no scrutiny. The Conservatives blocked that (possibly to put on a show about their floated notion about Parole Board officers), but seriously, Singh was completely offside in moving the motion in the first place.
The previous version of the bill was fatally flawed, but it passed the House of Commons unanimously because it hadn’t been properly studied. They sent it to the Status of Women committee, which has no expertise in the legal system and how it operates, and they focused on survivor-based training, which actually turns out to be problematic because it could potentially bias the training, particularly when it comes to the presumption of innocence before the law. It wasn’t until the bill reached the Senate that its flaws were actually discussed, but hey, it sounded like a good idea so all MPs passed it without thinking. Let me be clear – that’s a terrible way to pass laws, and it’s MPs abandoning their roles. As a former criminal defence lawyer, you would think that Singh might appreciate the problems inherent in the bill, particularly when it comes to bias and judicial independence – the latter of which I challenged him on in a scrum after QP – and he was completely oblivious to it, mouthing platitudes about sexual assault survivors. That’s not how Parliament is supposed to work. It would be great if our opposition parties could do their jobs, but it increasingly feels like it’s too much to ask. (The same goes for you, CBC).
I’m not necessarily against this. But it is not such a clear issue. Judicial independence is important. And this bill should be fully studied and debated. What about mandatory education on issues of race, marginalization, and systemic discrimination? Wrongful convictions? https://t.co/55rWj23cKT
— Michael Spratt (@mspratt) February 4, 2020
QP: Being too cute on parole and Quebec
While Justin Trudeau was in town today, he was nevertheless absent from QP, for whatever the reason. Andrew Scheer led off, and he read a question about whether the government would support their Supply Day motion on committee study of the incident of the murder of a sex worker by a prisoner on parole. Bill Blair reminded him that they have ordered an investigation, and they should wait for answers before jumping to erroneous conclusions. Scheer then read a demand for parole board officers to get sexual assault training as the government plans for judges. Blair reminded him that the judges bill is important, but there was an investigation ongoing. Scheer demanded to know if the parole board officers who made that decision were still hearing cases, and Blair circuitously stated that they weren’t while laying out additional facts. Pierre Paul-Hus demanded the training for parole board officers again in French, got the same response from Blair, and Paul-Hus then demanded that the prime minister fire the parole board members, and Blair responded that the motion contains erroneous facts, but that the government would support it anyway. Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc and, thinking he was clever, stated that if the government points to François Legault’s support for the New NAFTA, would they also support his demand for a single tax return form for Quebec, to which Diane Lebouthillier told him no, that was not going to happen. Blanchet then demanded the government respect the Quebec “secularism” bill, and David Lametti reminded him that groups were challenging it in the courts. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and demanded the government stop court challenges of compensation for First Nations children, to which Marc Miller started that they would have a compensation model to propose by February 21st. Singh then raised the strikes in Regina before demanding National pharmacare and dental care, for which Patty Hajdu reminded him they were working on it, and that she welcomed his suggestions.
Trying to wedge parole board officers in the judicial training bill is a ludicrous overreach. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) February 4, 2020
Roundup: Expecting a regulatory overhaul
I’ve been keeping my eye on the Orphan Well issue in Alberta from a distance, somewhat in part because of everything I learned about the problem when writing about the Supreme Court of Canada challenge around how the obligations to clean them up interacted with federal bankruptcy law. As it turns out, the Supreme Court said no, companies can’t offload these environmental problems in order to salvage other assets, so Alberta was left with a problem as the huge problems with the way their regulatory system operates has been left with a very big problem. The province’s energy regulator (which has long been accused of being captured by the industry) is finally admitting that their system for determining liabilities has been flawed all along, and the province is saying they’ll be releasing new regulations soon, but we’ll have to see how much more stringent they’re going to be with the provincial government constantly worried that they’ll unduly harm the industry in its weakened state (which is another reason why Kenney has been pressing for those so-called “equalization rebates” from the fiscal stabilization fund in order to put toward remediating orphan wells – because why not get the federal taxpayer to deal with the remediation of environmental liabilities that the province deliberately under-funded in order to keep the good times rolling (and their tax base unsustainably low).
Meanwhile, the number of smaller oil and gas companies who haven’t been paying their taxes to municipalities or rents to farmers and landowners is climbing, leading to a great deal of frustration in the province, and there are calls essentially for these smaller companies to be allowed to go bankrupt so that larger ones can take them over, and they’ll be better capitalized to deal with their environmental liabilities, as happened in Texas several years ago. Then again, seeing as the provincial government and their federal counterparts seem to be so much more beholden to the smaller oil and gas players than they are the big ones (for whom they will deride as being big corporations, because don’t forget they’re right-flavoured populists), so we’ll see how far that line of argument gets them.
Roundup: Congeniality by way of TV
Maclean’s has a profile of the TVO series Political Blind Date, which pits politicians from rival parties – sometimes from the same level of government, sometimes from different provinces – in situations that help them understand each other’s viewpoints and helps to break down the partisanship barriers. And this is great – but what it was missing was any particular context as to why partisanship has grown to such toxic levels in the first place, and that has a lot to do with parliaments and legislatures rejigging their rules to be more “family friendly.”
Until the early 1990s, parliament used to hold evening sittings three nights a week. At six o’clock, the House would adjourn, and everyone would head upstairs to the Parliamentary Restaurant (aided by the fact that there was a dearth of restaurant options in the area, and liquor laws were such that you bought a bottle of booze that was kept behind the bar in the restaurant with your name on it). MPs would eat together, drink together, get to know one another across party lines, and it developed a sense of congeniality, and at eight o’clock, they’d head back to the Chamber and debate for a couple of more hours. The arrival of the Reform Party and the move to end evening sittings to be “family friendly” ended the congeniality and cross-party opportunities to just be parliamentarians together. With no impetus to break bread together, caucuses grew insular, and it became easier to treat other parties as the enemy rather than just having opposing points of view. Now, it’s rare that cross-party friendships occur unless there is committee travel that helps MPs bond, but that’s not very often. It’s disappointing that we are now relying on a TV show to build these relationships which used to be part and parcel of being an MP.
What’s particularly sad is that this kind of thing is now infecting the Senate, which used to be a far less partisan place than the House of Commons, and for which many senators have formed close and long-lasting friendships across the aisle. They still have more of the convivial culture that the Commons did, but that too is fading as the new Independents, eager to burn things down and declare anyone with partisan affiliation to be tainted and in some cases the enemy (particularly the Conservatives), it is polarizing the Chamber, and souring the mood therein. For a move that was supposed to lessen partisanship, Trudeau’s brilliant attempt to reform the Senate is doing the opposite – just one more unintended consequence that nobody bothered to consider, and all Canadians suffer as a result.
Roundup: Competing economic illiteracy
As someone who covers a fair bit of economic stories, the absolute inability of this government to come up with a definition of “middle class” is exhausting – and those of you who read me regularly will know that I will instead use Middle Class™ as a means of showcasing that it’s a meaningless branding exercise. And lo and behold, when challenged to offer up a definition during one of his year-ender interviews, Justin Trudeau said that “Canadians know who’s in the middle class and know what their families are facing and we focus more on the actual issues.” And I died a little bit inside. For a government that keeps insisting they’re all about data, and evidence-based policy, their refusal to offer a meaningful measure of what their core narrative is all about is entirely about branding. By not offering a definition, they don’t have to exclude anyone – because everyone believes they’re middle class (whether they had ponies or not). And more to the point, by not offering a metric, they can’t measure whether they’ve succeeded for failed – it’s only about feelings, which makes their talk of data and evidence all the more hollow.
“I can’t. I’m Middle Class. I used to have ponies.”
My mind flashes back to this scene every time this government deploys their Middle Class™ talking points. https://t.co/P2nvnNlnwP— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) November 23, 2019
And then there’s Pierre Poilievre, who, when challenged about the definition of a recession, makes up a bullshit response and thinks it makes him clever. It’s as economically illiterate as the Liberals’ Middle Class™ prevarication, but the fact that the Conservatives keep cheerleading a “made-in-Canada recession” that no economist sees on the horizon, and which they can’t even fit into the actual definition of what a recession is (two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth) sets a dangerous path of spooking markets. It’s all so stupid, and reckless, but the party’s current path of pathological dishonesty makes them blind to the danger of it all.
What is a recession? pic.twitter.com/eCzDBKaJzV
— Pierre Poilievre (@PierrePoilievre) December 17, 2019
On perhaps a related note, Trudeau’s director of communications, Kate Purchase, is leaving to become a senior director at Microsoft, and good luck to her – and she really is one of the nicest staffers and was actually helpful to media in stark contrast to the Harper crew. But I also hope that perhaps this means that her replacement can start ensuring that this government can start communicating its way out of a wet paper bag, because cripes, they have done themselves zero favours over the past four years.
Roundup: Fiscal update and actuarial context
Finance minister Bill Morneau released his fall economic update yesterday, and it showed that while the economy was doing well – fairly strong growth, very strong job creation (November’s numbers notwithstanding) and wage growth – the deficit was going to get a lot bigger unexpectedly. The reason for it, however, was largely ignored by all of the commentariat, both media and partisan, because the kneejerk response in Canada about any finance story is about the size of the deficit, end of story. The real reason – that low interest rates had forced a hefty actuarial adjustment for government pension plans – was inconvenient for them to force a narrative onto, so they just ignored it and clutched their pearls some more, crying “The deficit! The deficit!” and the Conservatives continued to cheerlead a “made-in-Canada” recession by cherry-picking some very selective economic data that was to the exclusion of the broader trends, because narrative. Here’s economist Kevin Milligan to explain some more.
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1206632527244300288
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1206633499391709187
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1206634678662250496
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1206635967479566337
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1206637216039964672
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1206639670798340096
I would add that while the Conservatives like to rail about how our unemployment figures compare poorly to other countries, it’s a bit of a fool’s errand because we don’t all measure unemployment the same way, and not all of our economies work the same way. Canada has had record low unemployment in recent months, to the point where economists say we are have been at what is essentially “full employment” – in a statistical sense, not to dismiss that there are regions where it’s still a problem, but essentially there’s not a lot of room for more job growth in the economy. But hey, why let reality get in the way of the narrative, right?
One has to be careful comparing unemployment rates across countries. Methods vary. Sometimes a lot. Canada’s 5.8% rate in 2018 would have been reported as 4.8% had we followed the US methodology, for example. https://t.co/YlvsPiKAJD https://t.co/lq9UeGHG18
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) December 16, 2019
In terms of analysis, John Geddes delves into the notion of “endless deficits” and finds that, shockingly, it’s not a cut-and-tried issue, but the real issue is complacency. Certain bank economists think that because the shift in the deficit is on pension obligations, it could force the Bank of Canada to act sooner if there were an economic downturn. Heather Scoffield wonders what kinds of budget promises that Morneau will have to abandon given the bigger deficit figures if they don’t want to lose their debt-to-GDP anchor.
Roundup: Considerations for Teck
We’ve been hearing a lot about the proposed Teck Frontier oilsands mine in northern Alberta lately, and demands by Jason Kenney and a number of Conservative MPs that its approval be fast-tracked as close to immediate as possible. Energy economist Andrew Leach has a few thoughts on the matter, particularly of how to reconcile Teck in the broader scope.
Maybe if we ignore the issue, that will be fine? This is how the JRP into the Teck Frontier oil sands mine dealt with oil demand forecasts and a world acting on climate change. #ableg 1/N pic.twitter.com/ckzawBUV1L
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) December 13, 2019
The IEA tests a number of scenarios, and they one which shows oil demand increasing to those levels is one where the world doesn't take aggressive action on climate change. They also model what happens if the world acts (Sust Dev Scenario) 3/N pic.twitter.com/yV74enx0sR
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) December 13, 2019
Using all the runs from energy systems models feeding into the IPCC 1.5C report, there are scenarios of a 2C world where oil demand grows until 2040 (although not to 110 MMbbl/d) but the median scenario doesn't hold that at all. For 1.5C scenarios, no model does. 5/N
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) December 13, 2019
That's certainly within the authority of the panel to adjudicate. It's also true that there is, "considerable uncertainty regarding forecasts for future oil
prices and […] about how Canada and other countries will address
greenhouse gas emissions targets in the future." 7/N— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) December 14, 2019
Let's jump next to some other aspects of the report. According to the panel summary, "Teck submitted that the Frontier project will be 'best in class' with respect to greenhouse gas emissions intensity. Teck's own numbers dispute that, as the panel acknowledges. 9/N
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) December 14, 2019
The panel goes on to cite Alberta's CCIR policy as a means to drive emissions intensity reductions, but then they make a really incomprehensible statement about AB policy. I don't know where this comes from. 11/N
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) December 14, 2019
The recommendations: "Develop [a GHG mgmt plan that] would include measures to demonstrate and measure how Teck will achieve emissions intensity “best-in-class” status." What now? This is the design of a new project. This is when a lot of this gets baked-in.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) December 14, 2019
"The panel accepts that Teck has committed to be a top quartile performer in oil sands GHG intensity and […] through the development and implementation of […] a detailed GHG plan […] and a continuous improvement approach, Teck should be able to realize its aspiration."
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) December 14, 2019
You'd think that maybe, after NEB's decision to ignore that a pipeline connecting the oil sands to a tanker loading terminal might have marine implications became a key point in the FCA quashing the TMX permit, this JRP would have taken issues of scope a bit more seriously.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) December 14, 2019