September 5, 2019 - Loonie Politics

No matter how angry Alberta and Rachel Notley get, it looks like Justin Trudeau is not going to pull a rabbit out of his hat to solve the Trans Mountain Pipeline political crisis.

The prime minister visited Edmonton this week with a pretty clear message the government will bow to the Federal Court decision and do the due diligence on marine environmental concerns and First Nations consultation that somehow got missed on the first pass through the regulatory process.

"The Conservatives' approach of 'We're just going to wave a magic wand' is not going to workâ€¦," said Trudeau on an open line radio show.

"Using a legislative trick might be satisfying in the short term but it would set up fights and uncertainty for investors over the coming years over any other project because you can't have the government invoking those sorts of things.â€¦"

Doing things "the right way", as Trudeau endlessly repeats, is going to take time and the prime minister is willing to take it. When asked about the possibility of the delay only being four or five months, he begins running in verbal circles that ultimately spell out 'not likely'.

But he hasn't got nearly as much to lose politically from that delay as does Premier Notley. Her frustration was palpable on the day Trudeau visited.

"We absolutely cannot be held hostage to a regulatory merry-go-round that never ends," she told reporters.

Both Notley and Trudeau believe the pipeline will be built. Unlike the dead-in-the-water Gateway and Energy East pipelines, Trans Mountain is still with the realm of possibility. And the timing of a pipeline aimed at reducing Canada's dependence on the capricious U.S. market is politically opportune.

For Notley, the magic wand approach to shortening the current process would have been just fine.

She is now counting down the months until the Alberta election. Her support hinges on one big accomplishment: Can she get shovels in the ground for the Trans Mountain?

So much of Alberta's economy rests on confidence in the oil and gas industry that the ripples of the Federal Court decisions are cracking the windows of Calgary's already half empty petro-towers. Energy sector stocks are in decline, with big players in the oil sands leading the way.

The day of the Federal Court quashing of the pipeline approval, Notley delivered a list of demands to Ottawa, who she was quick to vigorously blame for screwing up the process in the first place.

She wants the federal government to file an appeal with the Supreme Court. She wants parliament to hold an emergency session and for the Liberals to come with a legislative fix.

And, just to be sure, Notley wants the federal government to redo the First Nations consultation as suggested by the federal court and do the necessary work on the marine environment piece.

Alberta Senator Doug Black has been shopping around similar suggestions, including legislation and appeal. And Black also suggests redoing the deficient parts of the process but with a strict time limit.

And a time limit is surely the crucial issue. Big infrastructure projects take plenty of time and the Trans Mountain seems to have taken quite a while already, partly because in the public mind it is just another part of a process which began with Gateway and Energy East.

Some cynics suggest that for Trudeau, the stretching of this particular process past the next federal election may actually work to the Liberals' advantage. While it might damage the chances of being re-elected in the four seats achieved in Alberta in the last election, the delay could help in the 17 seats won in British Columbia.

But Trudeau does seem sincere in his stand that the pipeline is in the national interest and Canada only loses more and more money from the forced one-market discount of our oil export price with each month of delay. He assured Albertans during his Wednesday's visit that he gets their frustration.

The pipeline also represents a sticking point in terms of national unity.

Until the Federal Court decision Ottawa and Edmonton had been experiencing a rare period of harmony, with Notley and Trudeau sharing the stage and posing for the cameras together.

Now Notley is booing from the sidelines, expecting Trudeau to pull off a spectacular magic act.

If the Trans Mountain process drags past the Alberta election in May and the new government is a UCP one, Trudeau can expect premier Jason Kenney to be throwing tomatoes from the audience.

Photo Credit: Calgary Herald

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

Click here for more

Dear Mr. Trudeau:

You are the reason we can't have nice things. You and all the others. But, for the past four years, mostly you.

Last week, a reporter asked you about a poll of British Columbia voters that singled deep distrust of federal politicians. Less than half of the respondent pool believes there is a federal party that speaks for them. Less than half believes your kind is "trying to do the right thing." Less than a quarter believes you "actually care about what happens to people like [them]."

You can't have been happy to read that. After all, you have always believed in the federal government as a force for positive change, yours in particular. Yet even in B.C., perhaps the most hospitable province in the Confederation for an activist-minded government, your sunny ways to the extent they actually have been sunny haven't brightened many spirits heading into Election 2019. What gives?

Well, I certainly wasn't happy to read the answer you gave that reporter:

I think we're seeing a rise in cynicism all around the world right now, with excessive populism and exaggerated nationalism. The politics of attack and division, the politics of vote suppression â€” of keeping people to cross their arms and stay home instead of coming forward and build and believe and choose a path forward.

Let us be absolutely clear on this point: I am neither a populist nor a nationalist. I think the average human being is too ill-informed to vote. I moved away from Canada because my family's best interests were more important. I have referred to myself as a globalist and a technocrat, unironically and often. I have said things about high-profile populists in Canada and elsewhere that I dare not repeat here.

I am, however, deeply cynical perhaps the most consistently cynical Canadian writing columns right now. So please believe me when I advise you to try, just once, to stop deflecting blame for a political status quo that you have done more to maintain than to fix.

First of all, populists are not crossing their arms and staying home. Far from it. The last few provincial elections should be enough to tell you that. They're the ones voting, because they believe however mistakenly that at least one candidate speaks for them, cares about them, and wants to do what's right. It is fortunate that the most openly populist party in Ottawa has an abysmal infrastructure and the most embarrassing slate of candidates this side of Phil Davison. But what they lack in skill and sense, they make up for in dedication and passion.

Most voters will never match them on that score. Most voters care only about their kitchen table clutter. If you cannot convince them that you can help them resolve a serious personal problem, or lead the way on solving a larger societal problem that they ought to care about, or minimize the little inconveniences and disappointments in their lives, or at least stop creating new inconveniences and disappointments, they will vote for the person who can. And if there is no such person running, they may not vote at all.

That's the kind of cynicism you're up against. Those populists and nationalists you're blaming want a revolution. Everyone else wants basic competence and respectability.

Which brings us to your role. Maybe you'll squeak out a second win if voters decide four more years of you would be better than the lumpen windbag, the indifferent slacker, the hectoring hippie, or the [TEXT OMITTED]. But they'll know, on some level, that they've chosen four more years of you cloaking yourself in righteousness whenever you take an obviously self-interested step. I don't think I need to offer up a list of examples of those steps; Hasan Minhaj already covered it.

And here's the thing, Justin: By taking those steps, you exposed yourself as the biggest cynic of all. You've had many opportunities to break with the backstabbing, cronyism, incrementalism, hypocrisy, and image-obsession that has characterized Canadian politics for years. You've taken the easy path almost every time because, to you, change is just a hashtag.

So don't act surprised that voters need more than hashtags. They need a reason not to cross their arms and stay home. They thought you were inspiring enough once. If you want to know why they're not inspired anymore, take a look in the mirror. Just don't let your biceps distract you.

I am, dear sir, etc., etc.

Written by Jess Morgan

Click here for more

The debate about the debates has not been as fierce as in previous electoral cycles. One of the reason, perhaps, is that this time around, according to the criteria set by the Liberal government, Green Party leader Elizabeth May is included by the media consortium and was indeed invited to participate by the Leader's Debates Commission.

One that has not been invited, however, is Maxime Bernier, leader of the People's Party of Canada. Bernier and the PPC are appealing the Commission's decision. The Commission, strangely, will conduct its own polling in five ridings selected by the People's Party strategists, and based on that, will come to a final decision. If they reverse, this will be gold for Maxime Bernier a government-sanctioned chance to win! If they don't, the unfairness of it all may galvanize his base. But his base only.

Because contrary to May, Bernier is not selling apple pie and doesn't have the sympathy of many members of the media elites, although some have been advocating for his inclusion. But he certainly doesn't have as many advocates as May had back in 2008, when she had similar polling numbers.

Interestingly, we haven't heard much from May about Maxime Bernier's presence in the next debates. Certainly, according to the criteria that she pushed for debate participation, she should be supportive of his inclusion. Unless maybe she agrees with the NDP, who has argued that Maxime Bernier should be excluded because of "his ideology of hatred and intolerance".

Irrelevant, stated the Commission. To be invited, the People's Party must satisfy two of the following three criteria, none of which are ideological purity:

Have at least one member elected under the party's banner; (Nope!)
Nominate candidates to run in at least 90% of all ridings; (Check!)
and have captured at least 4% of the votes in the previous election (Nope!) OR be considered by the Commissioner to have a legitimate chance to win seats in the current election, based on public opinion polls. (Who knows!)

Back in 2008, the media consortium announced that the Greens would again be excluded from the debates, despite disgraced Liberal MP Blair Wilson becoming the first Green MP just days prior to dissolution. The Conservatives and the NDP were opposed to the inclusion of the Green leader, especially considering that the Greens and Liberals had made an electoral coalition of sorts, with the Liberals not running against Elizabeth May and the Greens reciprocating towards Liberal leader StÃ©phane Dion.

Both Stephen Harper and Jack Layton were adamant that they would not participate if May was included because it would effectively mean two Liberal supporters being on the stage. The Green's entire campaign became about May's inclusion in the debates and there was considerable public outcry as a result, particularly coming from Liberal and NDP supporters. The Conservatives and NDP finally dropped their opposition to May's participation and the consortium invited May to participate. May's participation in the debates increased the Green Party's exposure. They ended up with an extra quarter-million votes and 2,30% more than in the 2004 election.

In 2011, May was again excluded from the debate by the media consortium, as the Greens did not have representation in the House of Commons. The Greens tried to replicate their 2008 campaign to get into the debate, but it didn't lift off as it had in the previous election. The Green Party even tried to bring the matter in front of the Federal Court and got turned down. The Party shifted gears and focussed instead on successfully electing Elizabeth May as the first elected Green MP. But overall, May's exclusion from the debates resulted in the Green Party's vote share being cut almost in half, with a net loss of 360,000 votes. Bernier is, no doubt, fully aware of this fact.

The debate about the debates occupied much of the early days of the 2015 election. In May, the Conservatives said they would not participate in the consortium debates and instead would agreed to up to five independently staged debates. Tom Mulcair simply stated that he would participate in every debate with the Prime Minister. Five debates were held in different configurations, with the Greens making it into two of the five. Meanwhile, a new party, Strength in Democracy, which had the same number of MPs at dissolution as the Greens and Bloc QuÃ©bÃ©cois, were not invited to participate in any of the televised debates.

Which brings us to 2019. While the government ostensibly wanted to put an end to the debate about the debates, it is still raging. Leaving aside the multiple unofficial Leader's debates that are being organized, the Liberals unilaterally established rules to determine which party leaders were to be invited to the official debates. Back in November 2018, Minister of Democratic Institutions Karina Gould said that Bernier would qualify for the debates. Yet, two official debates are being organized and held by the Leaders' Debates Commission, with invitations extended to Justin Trudeau, Andrew Scheer, Jagmeet Singh, Elizabeth May and Yves-FranÃ§ois Blanchet. The Commission has judged that Maxime Bernier and his People's Party did not qualify. Why? Because they don't have a legitimate chance to win.

And this is the crux of the problem, isn't it? What is a legitimate chance to win? Certainly, Bernier has a good shot at his own riding. But one seat is not enough! Why? Unclear. Are current polls telling the whole story? Earlier this year, a poll put the PPC in 3rd place in the Greater Quebec City area. Is being in 3rd place a legitimate chance? Keep in mind that the current government started the last election in 3rd placeâ€¦

The Leaders' Debates Commission relied on public opinion polls and poll aggregators to make its decision, basically telling voters not to bother with the PPC. They might as well have used witchcraft, though, considering the less-than-stellar predictions we have seen from pollsters and aggregators, sixty days out of past elections.

Photo Credit: National Post

Day: September 5, 2019

Click here for more

Click here for more

Click here for more

loonie politics

premium content