WASHINGTON – The House approved a bill Wednesday aimed at speeding up drilling for oil and natural gas.
The measure was one of three energy measures the House was considering this week as Republicans controlling the chamber push to expand an oil and gas boom that’s lowered prices and led the U.S. to produce more oil last month than it imported from abroad.
Another bill expected to win approval later Wednesday would restrict the Interior Department from enforcing proposed rules to regulate hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, on public lands. A third bill would streamline permitting for natural gas pipelines.
Supporters say the bills are needed to ensure that a drilling boom taking place on state and private lands extends to millions of acres, mostly in the West, under federal control.
Obama to veto bills
President Barack Obama has promised to veto the bills, saying they are unnecessary and run counter to protections put in place for oil and gas drilling.
Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., who sponsored the bill to speed up permitting, said the current energy boom has mainly occurred on state and private lands, including the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana and the Marcellus Shale region centred in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. Said Lamborn:
[quote]The only reason we haven’t seen that same dynamic growth on federal lands is because of excess regulations.[/quote]
Automatic approval, $5,000 bill for protestors
Lamborn’s bill would deem a drilling application approved if no decision is made within 60 days, set a minimum threshold for lands leased by the Bureau of Land Management and charge a $5,000 fee to groups that protest lease permits. The House approved the measure, 228-192.
Lamborn said the bill would reduce federal “red tape” and cut down on “frivolous lawsuits that act as stumbling blocks to job creation and energy development.”
Democrats and environmental groups called the bill a handout to the big oil companies and said it would gut important environmental protections and stifle efforts by the public to intervene in drilling decisions.
Democrat: Bills a “waste of time”
Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, called the bills a waste of time, since they were unlikely to be taken up in the Democratic-controlled Senate and faced veto threats from Obama.
The drilling bill and others being considered in the House “distract and delay this body’s critical attention to the issues of critical concern to all Americans,” including adoption of a federal budget and passage of a farm bill and immigration overhaul, Hoyer said.
The House was debating another bill, sponsored by Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, that would block the Interior Department from enforcing a proposed rule on hydraulic fracturing on federal lands in states where drilling regulations are already in place.
All about fracking
Hydraulic fracturing, also called fracking, involves pumping huge volumes of water, sand and chemicals underground to split open rocks to allow oil and gas to flow. Improved technology has allowed energy companies to gain access to huge stores of natural gas underneath states from Wyoming to New York but has raised widespread concerns that it might lead to groundwater contamination and even earthquakes.
A draft rule issued this spring would require companies that drill for oil and natural gas on federal lands to publicly disclose the chemicals used in fracking operations. A final rule is expected next year.
Flores called his bill an important step to reaffirm states’ rights to determine energy production, as well as a way to create jobs.
Because of fracking and other techniques, the U.S. could be “energy secure” by 2020, Flores said.
[quote]This is a goal we should pursue, just as we did in the 1960s to put a man on the moon.[/quote]
Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., said state rules on fracking vary widely.
“That’s why it’s important that the Interior Department put in place a regulatory floor of safety measures to assure that there are at least minimal protections in place on all public lands in all states,” he said.
With another round of international climate negotiations opening this week in Warsaw, Poland, and a new poll finding Canadians wanting leadership on the issue, Stephen Harper and his Conservative government have an opportunity to begin turning the tides on what has been up until now an abysmal failure.
Since taking the helm, Harper and his party have floundered at the United Nations climate events, with the likes of former environment minister John “Bull in a China Shop” Baird ham-handedly relegating our country to perpetual fossil of the day and year awards.
Canada’s fall from grace
As someone who has been working in and around these international climate talks, and other such global negotiations, for many years now I have witnessed first hand Canada’s fall from grace. Our small country (population-wise) has historically hit well above its weight in many international forums, with a reputation for neutrality and expert diplomacy. Now, we are called a “petro-state” and a fly in the ointment at such talks.
Up until Harper, Canada has been a international leader on global efforts to battle environmental issues. Former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was an outspoken global leader on reducing CFC’s and his leadership culminated in the Montreal Accord that saw 191 countries agree to phasing out ozone depleting chemicals.
Under Jean Chretien and the Liberals Canada was one of the first countries to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce global climate change pollution, and that leadership started a domino effect with many countries following our lead. Harper’s lack of performance, and in many cases outright opposition to deal on climate change, is not only being noticed by the international community, it is also starting to be noticed at home.
New poll: Canadians want climate change to be a top issue
A poll out late last week finds that a large majority – almost 60 percent – of Canadians agree that climate change should be a top issue for the Harper government. A whopping 76 percent say that Canada should sign on to a new international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
While I am the first to admit that public opinion polls can fall well short of reality, in this case there is substantial proof at the street-level. Everyday people and not just the media or opinion-makers are wanting Harper to rejuvenate Canada’s international reputation on the issue of climate change.
Canadians to rally for climate this weekend
Look no further than the hundreds of events being planned across the country for a “Defend our Climate, Defend our Communities” day of action being held this coming weekend. Such a show of discontent in the streets and in front of MP’s offices has to have Harper and his minions at least a little worried.
And it is only going to get worse for Harper as more and more extreme weather events pile up week after week on the nightly news. Climate change is no longer a theory. The atmospheric disruption and extreme weather scientists talked about almost 20 years ago when Canada signed on to the Kyoto Protocol is now “the new normal.”
Harper could redeem himself in Warsaw
With these talks starting this week and next in Warsaw, Harper and his new environment minister, Leona Aglukaqq, have an opportunity to redeem themselves. It would be good for our international reputation to do so, not to mention my children’s children who, as it stands today, face a pretty bleak future. And according to public opinion polls, a strong stance on climate by Harper would be good politics.
Public interest group IntegrityBC is calling for the resignation of Liberal Agriculture Minister Pat Pimm, following the revelation that he and Fort St. John Mayor Lori Ackerman meddled in an Agricultural Land Commission hearing into removing a piece of farmland from the ALR.
The Globe and Mail’s Mark Hume reported on Saturday that Peace River North MLA Pimm was rebuked by the Commission for advocating for an application which it ultimately rejected in August. In the same ruling, the Commission criticized Pimm and Ackerman’s political interference in the arm’s-length review process. Said the ALC:
[quote]In our respectful view, those representations were not appropriate. They could create the impression for both the Commission and the public that these officials were attempting to politically influence the Commission.[/quote]
Pimm weighed in on an application by Terry McLeod to build a rodeo ground and campsite atop “high agricultural value” Class 2 soils on his 70.66-hectare farm.
The revelation of Pimm’s interference comes on the heels of another recent story by Hume, which unleashed a wave of controversy over a leaked Liberal memo in which Pat Pimm calls for the gutting of the ALC’s powers to clear the way for oil and gas development.
In a press release on the lastest controversy related to Pimm, Integrity BC calls for the Minister’s resignation, pointing to a similar incident which forced federal Conservative Minister John Duncan to step down from Cabinet earlier this year. Duncan was found to have intervened in a Tax Court hearing on behalf of a constituent in 2011.
“This is politics 101,” says IntegrityBC executive director Dermod Travis.
[quote]Ministers don’t interfere in the work of judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals and – if they do – they resign.[/quote]
Travis told the Georgia Straight today that he’s “flabbergasted” the NDP Opposition hasn’t yet echoed his call for the Minister’s resignation.
IntegrityBC has also launched an online petition calling for the Liberal Government to halt the gutting of the ALR contemplated in Pimm’s recently-leaked memo. The petition has garnered over a thousand signatures in just a few days.
On November 7, the Parti Québécois government at long last introduced a Bill on the La Charte des valeurs (Charter of values) to the National Assembly, but under a new, very long name: La Charte affirmant les valeurs de laïcité et de neutralité religieuse de l’État ainsi que d’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes et encadrant les demandes d’accommodements (The Charter affirming laic values,the neutrality of the state as well as equality between men and women and a framework for requests for accommodation). For the purpose of simplicity, from here on the Bill will be referred to as La Charte.
The purpose of this article is to provide background information or the context for La Charte. Most of the information contained in this article is common knowledge for francophone Québec but rarely available in English and, as such, virtually unknown to English Canada. This leads to many misunderstandings, often referred to as the two solitudes.
La Charte des valeurs appeals to variety of very different groups
Contrary to what many in English Canada may think, the debate in Québec about La Charte represents a cocktail of factors.
One of the main components of the cocktail has to do with the Québec dark years known as “la grande noirceur” – the years during which the Québec francophone community lived under draconian Catholic Church rule, when music and films were censored, women who had sexual relations prior marriage were sent into the streets, and abducted children born outside marriage were put in Church orphanages.
One might say that these dark years are now looked upon by the majority of Québécois as being as reprehensible as residential schools are for members of Canada’s First Nations.
Accordingly, the sentiment to separate religion from the state is several notches stronger in Québec than in the rest of Canada.
Add to this cocktail the fact that, for women, these dark years included women being labelled as inferior in a male-controlled world. Consequently, many in the feminist movement want to make sure that religious symbols of inferiorization, worn on one’s body or otherwise, are banned from the public sector.
Yet another component of the cocktail is the 1936-1039 and 1944-1959 reign of Premier Maurice Duplessis, who had a pact with the Catholic Church to control the people. Under the pact, the Church would run the Catholic schools, the hospitals and civil society in general, as long as it kept the people docile under the Duplessis economic development formula, entailing cheap labour and union/communist-busting features. In honour of this pact, in 1936 Premier Duplessis had a crucifix placed over the Speaker’s chair in the National Assembly.
Pauline Marois follows Harper model of targeting markets
Pauline Marois, like Stephen Harper, wants to be in full control and consequently detests being stuck in a minority government position. But because her first year in power has been one of a seemingly endless series of incoherent improvisations, she has lost control of public opinion. In that sense, her government is not all that different than the Charest Liberal government that preceded the PQ.
While she had promised she would eliminate the health tax during her election campaign, her first budget included a health tax of $200 for those earning $42,000 to $100,000. Another election promise entailed addressing the absurdly low royalties and taxes paid by Quebec’s mining industry, but once in power, she backed down to the industry lobby.
She had promised to migrate Quebec to a green economy, but, so far, she seems okay with the two pipeline proposals to transport tar sands oil into – and crossing through – Quebec, and is not ruling out exploiting potential local oil reserves.
All this has added up to widespread dissatisfaction with the Marois government and poor prospects for pursuing a majority government. This is where La Charte comes in.
Marois’ game plan
In early Fall 2013, Pauline Marois introduced the Charte, figuring it could position the PQ for a majority government by creating a perceived crisis among Québécois to the effect that Québec had an epidemic of new religious immigrants who were imposing their values on the majority population.
The game plan entailed calling an election for December 2013, while La Charte was a hot topic, and cutting into the homogenous outlying regions’ right wing nationalist vote – designed to foster a migration of the Coalition pour l’avenir du Québec (CAQ) vote over to the PQ. That made “political sense” in that CAQ support is declining.
The plan also counted on the feminist movement. Accordingly, as did Harper when he placed “correct thinking” people on the Board of Rights and Democracy, Marois appointed four new “correct thinking” members to the Conseil du statut de la femme (Council on the Status of Women). But it backfired when the president of the Conseil, Julie Miville-Dechêne, publicly denounced this political interference. The reality is that the woman’s movement in Québec is divided on the issue.
November’s Montreal municipal elections
During this same period, all four of the main candidates for Mayor of Montreal for the November 3, 2013 elections came out against the Charte.
On election day, Denis Coderre, former federal Liberal Cabinet minister – the very in-the-box, unimaginative candidate for mayor with a sparse and vague platform (he actually thinks more parking spaces downtown is a solution to Montreal’s infamous congestion problems) – became the city’s new mayor with 32% of the vote. On La Charte, Coderre had said in one of the election debates that he would contest it in the courts if it included the ban on religious symbols in the public sector.
For common Sense Canadian readers in BC, it may be also interesting to note that innovative, visionary candidate for mayor, Richard Bergeron of Projet Montréal, often referred to Vancouver as a model for urban densification and a green city. He came in second with 25.6%.
New voices against La Charte
Concurrent with the municipal election campaigning, others condemning the Charte elements pertaining to the wearing of religious symbols were Quebec’s hospitals’ association, universities, a teachers’ union, a private daycare centres’ association and many more.
Adding his voice to this opposition, the president of La Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (human rights and youth rights commission), Jacques Frémont, went public to say La Charte would not pass the test of either the Quebec Charter of Rights or the Canadian Charter of Rights in the event of a legal challenge. Either the PQ would have to modify the proposed Charte or revert to the “Notwithstanding clause.”
In effect, it has become very clear that it would be impossible to apply La Charte in the Montreal Statistics Canada census area, which attracts 87% of Québec immigrants and which represents over 45% of the population of Québec.
But all these obstacles did not deter the PQ.
Rather, the factor that changed Pauline Marois’ mind about going into a December 2013 election with the highly emotional Charte as a wedge issue, was the polls, which did not reflect the support she hoped for. As a result, as of October 27, the December 2013 election hype has been called off.
Swinging Further to the Right
Cultivating the right nationalist vote for La Charte is not, unfortunately, an isolated incident.
Shortly after coming into power, the Marois government appointed Pierre Karl Péladeau – controlling shareholder of Quebecor and Sun Media, well-known for his support of right wing causes – to sit on the Board of Hydro-Québec. Péladeau has since attended at least two Marois Cabinet meetings.
His spouse, Julie Snyder, host of the popular Star Académie (Québec equivalent to American Idol), is one of the members of the Janette movement, a women’s movement in support of La Charte. Julie Snyder is also involved in the development of a television production presenting a favourable portrait of Marois, to be aired on TVA, a TV network owned by Péladeau’s media empire.
Which brings us back to what Pauline Marois said when she became the leader of the PQ. At the time, she said she would modernize social democracy. She never explained what she meant, but after a year in power, it is becoming clearer as to what she had in mind – going after the right wing nationalist vote to put sovereignty over the top. Fortunately for Canada, the game plan is not working. But absolutely nothing can deter Pauline Marois. On November 7, she introduced La Charte to the Quebec National Assembly.
La Charte goes to the National Assembly
Pauline Marois knows that her Bill on La Charte will not get passed as proposed under the minority government at the National Assembly. But like Harper with his obsessions, Marois continues to insist that her Charte will unite Québécois, once again hoping that – eventually, that is – by the time the minority government is dissolved, she will be able to count on gaining new support among the right wing nationalists in Quebec’s outlying regions.
One might conclude that Pauline Marois is engaged in what Einstein referred to as insanity: “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Justin Trudeau addresses a progressive think tank in Washington, DC (photo: Chip Somodevllla/Getty)
To Justin Trudeau, it’s not that Keystone XL is a bad idea, it’s that Stephen Harper can’t sell it.
For many Canadians, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau represents a fresh-faced, progressive alternative to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Government. And yet, in terms of energy policy, it’s increasingly clear that he and Harper differ little. Both support the development of the Tar Sands and are backing efforts to move bitumen to new customers in Asia. Both are championing the controversial, proposed Keystone XL pipeline to the US Gulf Coast.
Through a series of recent speeches advocating for Keystone and other projects, it appears the biggest distinction the Liberal leader offers between himself and his chief political rival is the manner in which he sells the Tar Sands.
Justin made Alberta his first destination after being minted as Liberal leader, suggesting at the time that Mr. Harper was doing a bad job of representing Kesytone and the Tar Sands.
Harper alienates both friend and foe
Mr. Trudeau echoed those sentiments in a speech last week (read in full here), on the eve of the Conservative Party convention, at Calgary’s Petroleum Club. There, he made the case to a room full of western energy power brokers that Mr. Harper’s political style is hamstringing their efforts. “Alberta’s interests have been compromised more than just about anyone else’s by Mr. Harper’s divisiveness,” he told them.
“It has made enemies of people who ought to be your friends, and turned what should have been a reasonable debate into an over-the-top rhetorical war. Most importantly, it has impeded progress.”
Mr. Trudeau’s comments follow those of Kinder Morgan Canada CEO Ian Anderson, also delivered at Calgary’s Petroleum Club a few weeks ago, criticizing Harper’s Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver for his heavy-handed tactics with pipeline critics. Anderson suggested the Harper Government’s approach has only made life more difficult for companies like his, which is seeking to build a controversial pipeline expansion to Vancouver.
Justifying Keystone
In his own speech to Canada’s oil men and women, Mr. Trudeau made no bones about his support for projects like Keystone:
[quote]Let me be clear: I support Keystone XL because, having examined the facts, and accepting the judgment of the National Energy Board, I believe it is in the national interest…On balance, it would create jobs and growth, strengthen our ties with the world’s most important market, and generate wealth…Most of all, it is in keeping with what I believe is a fundamental role of the Government of Canada: to open up markets abroad for Canadian resources, and to help create responsible and sustainable ways to get those resources to those markets.[/quote]
So it’s not the idea of Keystone or potential east and west-bound pipelines in Canada on which Justin disagrees with the PM. It is simply that Mr. Harper lacks the diplomatic chops, the soft touch required to peddle this economic vision to Canadians and the world.
“Whether it is the bullying around Keystone and Northern Gateway, their one-sided approach to regulation with C-38, or the demonization of people who care about the environment, the message from Mr. Harper and his government has been clear: this is a black and white, us vs. them world, and you are either with us or against us,” Trudeau told his Calgary audience.
Mr. Trudeau goes to Washington
Justin is shopping his message abroad as well. Two weeks ago, he was in Washington, DC, delivering a speech to a generally anti-Keystone crowd at the Centre for American Progress. “The challenge is to demonstrate that it can be done in the sense that we’re protecting our environment and making sure that we’re making the right gains toward sustainable energy sources in the long run,” Trudeau declared.
And there is evidence that his approach is gaining traction. According to the Toronto Star, Matt Brown,a senior fellow at the Centre – which has taken a position against Keystone – observed later on Twitter, “many in the room had found the Liberal leader’s position ‘compelling’ and ‘balanced’.”
How Mr. Trudeau’s remarks struck Canada’s energy moguls is another question. But one thing is clear: this bunch has money and isn’t shy about getting involved in elections. In BC’s recent contest, they played both sides, funnelling millions to the Liberal and NDP campaigns.
If Justin Trudeau really does have their back…If he’s able to spin a kinder, gentler Tar Sands…If he’s able to persuade our southern neighbours in ways Mr. Harper can’t, all while the PM’s political woes mount…surely these Calgary nabobs will give serious thought to backing young Justin.
And – who knows – an honourary membership at the Petroleum Club.
A screen capture from Gordon Wilson’s youtube endorsement of Christy Clark
Some years ago I got into hot water for calling a federal cabinet minister of the female persuasion a “political whore”, a phrase that has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with having principles for sale.
Christy Clark is paying Gordon Wilson $12,500 a month for four months – probably a permanent gig if he keeps his nose brown enough. Wilson is going to be an advocate for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).
Wilson once highly critical of LNG
In April last, before this former BC Liberal leader and NDP cabinet minister endorsed Liberal Christy Clark in the May election, Wilson had this to say about LNG:
[quote]The most compelling reason to be concerned about relying on this golden goose is the fact that the markets we are told will buy all we can supply may not materialize as we think, and even if they do, the price they are prepared to pay for our product may be well below what is anticipated.[/quote]
Quite, Gordon, quite. That was Gordon Wilson the skeptic talking but there is more. Here’s what Wilson the environmentalist had to say last April: “Expanded LNG production also comes with a significant environmental cost.”
Our lad went on to say:
[quote]The impact of an expanded hydrocarbon economy will certainly speed up global warming and cause us to build a dependency on a revenue stream that originates form processes that are poisoning our atmosphere.[/quote]
Precisely, sir, precisely. Given my most articulate moment, I could not have said it better.
The story changes
So what happened to Mr. Wilson? Does he have some contract in his pocket for LNG sales from BC to an Asian customer? Has there been some host of angels descend from Heaven, urging Mr. Wilson to get on the side of God and Christy Clark?
Or is he just a grubby political whore whose price is $50,000 a quarter?
To call Wilson that cannot come without evidence of past prostitutional behaviour. (Yes, I just invented the word, dictionaries please copy.)
Wilson’s first dance with BC Liberals
Mr. Wilson, back in the 80s was a Liberal, both federal and provincial. The provincial wing was in disarray and Mr. Wilson took over, severed its ties with the federal party and built the local Libs into a force to be reckoned with in the 1991 election, when they went from zero MLAs to seventeen and he became Leader of the Opposition.
It was downhill from there. By 1993 it was obvious that there were rumblings in the Liberal caucus that he was entirely too close to their House Leader, the gorgeous Judi Tyabji. The media kept quiet until the late John Pifer got his hands on a love letter from Ms. Tyabji to our hero. None of us, least of all me with my marital record, wanted to make anything of this except the political reality that the Opposition was clearly unraveling and doing a lousy job.
Lie led to ouster
Had Mr. Wilson stated that he and Judi were a thing, with Judi leaving her post, it would have been a 48-hour story at worst.
But Wilson lied – serially lied. He destroyed himself in an interview with CKNW’s Philip Till.
The party held a leadership convention and unceremoniously dumped Wilson for the calamity called Gordon Campbell.
Wilson’s finer points
Before going further, I must acknowledge my debt to Wilson on the Meech Lake/Charlottetown issue. We were very close on that issue, along with Gordon Gibson and the late Mel Smith, QC. Wilson introduced me to Clyde Wells, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, who became all but a fixture on my show at CKNW.
Moreover, I have to say that a couple of years ago I urged him to try and form a new party of the “centre” where I perceive the political vacuum to be. I have never questioned his ability to articulate issues. In fact he may be the perfect political animal.
Trading principle for money
My quarrel is with his crass trading of principle for money.
Wilson, when Campbell was selected, most ungraciously quit the Liberal Party and formed, with the lady of his choice, Judi Tyabji, the Progressive Democratic Alliance.
This was not to last. As the NDP tottered towards its 2001 wipeout, Wilson was asked to join its cabinet, which he did, while making it abundantly clear that he would never join the party.
But he did. In fact, he ran for their leadership. And in terms that made him sound like he was as committed as if his Dad had worked the coalmines of Wales.
I was at that leadership convention and I was astonished to hear him speak as if socialism was burned into his soul. He demonstrated – dare I be so bold as to say – that he was a political whore who, quite clearly for personal aggrandizement, had gone from being an enemy of the NDP to a cabinet minister in an NDP government; from rejecting the party to an aspirant, and a serious one, for their leadership.
In deep financial trouble, Wilson takes money to shill for LNG
Now Wilson moves from being skeptical of LNG and all its obvious flaws into a position of solid support for it.
Are we supposed to believe that this volte-face had nothing to do with $12,500 a month, which could easily morph into $150,000 a year?
We learned from reporter Bob Mackin a week before the May provincial election that Wilson’s return to the Liberal fold came amidst mounting legal and financial pressures – including the court-ordered sale of the Sunshine Coast home he shared with his wife.
Am I, taking the risk of a lawsuit, not entitled to say that Gordon Wilson, for all his many talents, is indeed a political whore whose principles can be precisely valued at $12,500 a month – to be expanded, because Premier Clark will have no other choice, to $150,000 per annum and perhaps beyond?
I like Gordon Wilson. I am still an admirer of his many abilities.
But he is, price tag stamped on his forehead, a political whore.
Clockwise from top left: Stephen Harper, Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy, Nigel Wright
Patronage. It’s the petard with which Stephen Harper slew Paul Martin – and upon which he may yet hoist himself.
In the Liberals’ case, it was a slush fund for Quebec power brokers, wrapped in a patriotic bow. For Harper’s Conservatives, it’s the Old Faithful of patronage: that incestuous cesspool, otherwise known as the Senate.
In a recent monologue for CBC’s The National, Canada’s windbag laureate Rex Murphy compared the Senate to the Grimpen Mire – that bog of despair in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Hound of the Baskervilles.
But the Grimpen Mire of Canadian politics oozes beyond the Red Chamber’s walls – it encompasses a broader system of patronage that serves to insulate and reward a small cabal of power brokers, at the tax payer and citizen’s expense.
Fees for services rendered
The longstanding complaint of Senate critics is the partisan manner in which seats are awarded. Most go to political allies who have been particularly helpful to the governing party. Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin fall into a different category.
While each has been a loyal party supporter and done their level best in the media to give their Tory friends a break, it is what these two well-connected celebrities offered the party as senators that was of the greatest value.
This is no secret. Wallin and Duffy racked up travel expenses in promoting the Harper government and Conservative Party. They provided a valuable service to both – though lines were blurred and crossed on numerous occasions, which is the crux of Wallin’s present troubles. Conservative senator Don Plett put it this way to The Globe and Mail:
[quote]We won the [2011] election, and I’m sure Mike [Duffy] was very instrumental in that…He was a huge asset to us.[/quote]
Neither Duffy nor Wallin should be assumed to have performed these services – raising both the financial and public profile of their patrons – free of charge. In exchange, they got a Senate seat, a lifetime pension, a jet-setting lifestyle, and some extra expenses on the side – at least, that was their impression. Duffy’s lawyer swears his client was cleared by then-Senate government leader Marjory LeBreton, in a 2009 internal memo, to declare his PEI home as his principal residence, thus enabling him to collect Ottawa living expenses.
Our version of British MP expense scandal?
Duffy and Wallin are far from alone in receiving such ungodly perks – as this Senate Scandal and its surrounding investigations have and will continue to demonstrate. Harb, Brazeau, and surely more to come.
This may prove our version of the British MP expense scandal. And it’s not cottages in Cavendish or moats cleaned in the English countryside that rankle the public. These sordid examples of our patronage system evoke deeper, more fundamental faults within our democracy. The back room dealings, the pandering to powerful interets, the secret handshakes with lobbyists, the revolving door between government and industry, the special treatment of corporations over the public and environmental interest.
Harper’s ever-changing story
In the early days of the Senate Scandal, Mike Duffy was barely scolded. Rather, the party and some of its key actors worked diligently to cover up the problem and the PM gave the repayment his stamp of approval. Though Stephen Harper throws Wright and Duffy under the bus on a daily basis now, initially, he came, relatively speaking, to both of their defenses, even claiming – falsely, we now know – that his chief of staff had resigned voluntarily.
None of this speaks to shocked indignation at Mr. Duffy’s surprise greed and betrayal that we see today.
A deal’s a deal
Rather, it hints at an arrangement – a deal. Mr. Duffy now reveals that the Conservative Party cut him a cheque for legal services in connection to the repayment of his $90,000 in illegitimate expenses (Harper is confirming this). The cheque, signed by senior party lawyer Arthur Hamilton, was purportedly in connection to this “secret” deal with Wright. Hamilton also allegedly handled Wright’s $90,000 payment. Duffy claims he was coached to lie about the source of these funds – saying they came from an RBC mortgage on his home – by Conservative insiders involved in the deal.
Even at this late stage in the game, Senator Patrick Brazeau is claiming he was recently offered a back room deal in exchange for a public apology.
These are, of course, partly allegations that need to be investigated further. But it all fits within a pattern of dealmaking between high-profile senators and the party they were brought in to help.
So we have the PM’s chief of staff and now his party paying all Mr. Duffy’s costs, then pretending everything was all cleaned up – plus at least 11 other Conservative insiders who knew about the Duffy-Wright bailout – and yet Mr. Harper had no idea and is now furious at the mere notion of all his underlings’ deceitful actions? This from the most top-down, micro-managing, control-freak of a prime minister this country has ever known!
It is only with the mushrooming RCMP investigation and the glare of the national media that this cast of characters has been cut adrift by their prime minister.
A rare window of opportunity
Patronage is the corrupt glue that binds our political system, while occasionally ensnaring its participants. Maybe Stephen Harper will evade yet another quagmire in his long, resilient political career.
Or perhaps the Senate Scandal will be his Grimpen Mire. His Alamo. His Paul Martin moment.
Time will tell. But if Canadians are serious about getting to the rotten root of the problem, they’ll seize this rare window of opportunity and demand real Senate and patronage reform now. Or sooner or later, we’ll all be dragged into the mire.
TORONTO – Ontario won’t conduct its own environmental assessment of a plan to reverse the flow of the Line 9 oil pipeline that runs through the province, Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli said Monday.
Calgary-based Enbridge Inc. (TSX:ENB) wants to reverse Line 9 and increase its capacity to move 300,000 barrels of crude oil per day, up from the current 240,000 barrels.
It has also asked for permission to move different types of oil between southwestern Ontario and Montreal, including a heavier form of crude.
Liberals abandon provincial assessment
The proposal has sparked protests by hundreds of demonstrators, who have rallied outside the National Energy Board hearings in Toronto and Montreal.
Ontario’s New Democrats are pushing for a separate provincial assessment of the proposal, but Chiarelli said that’s not necessary.
The assessment is a federal responsibility because the pipeline crosses provincial boundaries, he said.
Ontario has intervened in the recent hearings to emphasize that public safety and environmental protection must come first, he said.
The province also called for a “stress test” for the whole system to be assured that the pipeline is safe, Chiarelli said.
“At this point in time, constitutionally we have to rely on what’s there in federal legislation,” he said.
Complain to your local MP
Chiarelli said that if residents feel that the National Energy Board isn’t doing its job to protect the public, then they should complain to their local MP and Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
“If Ontario does its own environmental assessment … that cannot override,” he said.
“That might inform, but the National Energy Board is responsible for getting the right information on which to make a decision.”
NDP: Ontario has responsibility for protecting water
It’s not the black-and-white issue that Chiarelli makes it out to be, said NDP energy critic Peter Tabuns.
Ontario has passed legislation that spills into areas of federal jurisdiction, such as the Toxics Reduction Act, he said. Other provinces are looking at consultations over pipeline projects.
“The NEB may have jurisdiction over approving a pipeline, but Ontario has a responsibility for protecting its water, it has a responsibility for protecting its land and its air,” he said.
[quote]The federal government can challenge Ontario if it wants, but Ontario is the only jurisdiction that’s going to look out for itself on this.[/quote]
Sending the Tar Sands East
Line 9 originally transported oil from Sarnia, Ont., to Montreal but was reversed in the late 1990s to pump imported crude westward.
Enbridge is now proposing to flow oil back eastward to service refineries in Ontario and Quebec.
The NEB panel has heard from interveners who said the reversal would put First Nations communities at risk, threaten water supplies and could endanger vulnerable species in ecologically sensitive areas.
RED DEER, Alta. – Alberta Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith, under fire by critics as a weak leader and climate change denier, announced Friday she now believes climate change exists and that mankind is at least partially to blame. As her party delegates opened a weekend policy convention, Smith told reporters:
[quote]I accept that climate change is a reality, as do our members. I accept that there’s a human influence on it. I leave the debate about the details to the science about (to) what extent it is and how fast it is occurring.[/quote]
Smith has been sharply criticized this week for refusing to say if she believes climate change exists, echoing disastrous statements she made in last year’s election campaign.
Afraid of what her members thought
Smith said Friday she has hedged in the past because she wasn’t sure where party rank and file stood on the issue, and said what opinions she did hear were across the spectrum.
“I really didn’t have a gauge of where our members were at because it had never come forward for debate,” said Smith.
“Remember, we are a grassroots party and I do take my marching orders from our members. When our members are silent on particular issues, I try my best to interpret. Sometimes we get it wrong, and in this case I’m pleased to see our members want us to move forward on a policy.”
Wildrose voting on climate policy
Party delegates will vote Saturday on two resolutions to direct the caucus to push for measures to reduce greenhouse gases, which lead to the extreme weather anomalies associated with climate change.
Smith said a straw poll of delegates on Friday indicated those resolutions will pass overwhelmingly, and said she takes that as a green light to speak out on climate change.
“It gives me a mandate,” she said.
The science of climate change has bedevilled the right of centre Wildrose party for more than a year.
According to some political observers it was the single biggest reason the party’s surging popularity fell through the floor just days before the vote in last year’s election, after Smith announced the science of climate change was not settled.
Climate silence attacked by NDP, Conservatives
Earlier this week, Smith declined to spell out her stand on climate change when asked by reporters about the upcoming environmental resolutions.
That led NDP Leader Brian Mason and Environment Minister Diana McQueen to sharply criticize Smith as a poor leader for refusing to stake a stand on a matter of clear importance to Albertans.
McQueen also stated that Alberta would be seen as a “joke” on the international stage if it was represented by a party that didn’t believe in climate change.
Those comments rankled Smith.
“I don’t accept a lecture from a do-nothing environment minister like Diana McQueen,” she said.
“If you look at our neighbours in Ontario and Quebec, they’re already below their 1990 levels (while) Alberta has increased its greenhouse gas emissions by 46 per cent.
“So every time this issue comes up the reason why (McQueen) points at our party is because there’s been absolutely no progress by her party — and it’s affecting Alberta.”
Climate change denier’s speech cancelled
The Wildrose also moved Friday to cancel the headline speaker for a Nov. 2 party fundraiser for MLA Jason Hale.
The speaker was author/filmmaker Bruno Wiskel, known for the book “The Sky is Not Falling,” which argues that glaciers have been melting and water levels rising for millenia, long before humans showed up.
Smith said Hale told her Wiskel was booked by an over-enthusiastic volunteer.
“I understand the fundraiser was put together by one of his well-meaning volunteers, and that the speaker has been cancelled,” said Smith.
“It’s very clear that our members want us to go in a particular direction.”
Stefan Baranski, spokesman for Premier Alison Redford, said the volunteer explanation is a weak fabrication for what was clearly a party-sanctioned event.
He said the fundraiser shows that what the party says and what it believes are two different things.
“Albertans won’t be fooled by Danielle Smith and her promises to sweep their extreme agenda under the rug,” said Baranski.
The verbal fireworks underscore the bitter animosity that exists between Redford’s Progressive Conservative party and Smith’s Wildrose.
Wildrose-Conservative blood-feud
The Wildrose is made up of many disaffected former Tories who grew disenchanted with what they called the party’s top-down management style and its decision to abandon the fiscal conservatism of former premier Ralph Klein and embrace taking on debt to pay for infrastructure.
The blood-feud acrimony surfaced again Friday when the Wildrose kicked out three PC staffers, accusing them of posing as Wildrose delegates in order to spy on the debate.
Smith said all parties allow opposition members to attend rival events as long as they register and are clearly marked as observers.
Baranski said his staffers did register as observers, but were turfed anyway, officially for lack of space.
“What that says to us is the Wildrose is clearly hiding something, clearly afraid of what looking into what their members are debating,” said Baranski.
Smith said that’s not the case.
“We’ve been open to having observers in the past,” she said.
“But if you’re going to try to sneak in and pretend you’re a member and start videotaping or audiotaping other members’ conversations with them thinking that you’re here as another Wildroser, we’re not going to allow for that.
“If they’re going to sneak their way in to spy on us, what else would they expect us to do?”
A mandatory leadership review was also held Friday and Smith received the support of 90.2 per cent of members in the vote.
Thousands of citizens spoke out against Enbridge at last year’s “Defend Our Coast” rally” (TJ Watt photo)
The cynicism of both our senior governments regarding tankers and pipelines is appalling.
The pact between Premier Clark and Alberta Premier Redford – followed two days later by the Harper government’s Speech from the Throne – does precisely what many of us have said all along was their intention, to approve pipelines and tankers, irrespective of the findings of the Joint Review Panel (a farce), the wishes of First Nations and the wishes of the people.
This is not the time to despair but for two separate lines of action.
Enbridge pipeline requires referendum
First, and critically important in the short term, the people of BC must demand and press for a province-wide referendum. Would anyone suggest that the ravaging of our environment is less important than on the way we vote – i.e. the STV referendum – or a tax, as in HST? Would Premier Clark dare to take that position?
What it will take is a concerted effort, one where we all fight no matter what organizations we represent.
I suggest that all environmental organizations get under one roof for this struggle – it can be anyone of many. The Wilderness Committee, Living Oceans Society, Dogwood Initiative, Forest Ethics, Pacific Wild, and the list goes on. I can say that The Common Sense Canadian would get behind such an effort.
Civil Disobedience
We must also be prepared, and let the government know we are prepared for massive civil disobedience. It must be peaceful and large enough that there aren’t enough jails to begin to hold all the protesters.
I believe that will happen spontaneously, so let’s for the moment deal with the referendum.
Public must demand referendum
As a starting point, let’s everyone make it clear in letters, emails and social media messages to Premier Clark that we demand no less than the right to decide the fate of our province. And let’s start now.
And, I make this plea to fellow activists – let’s get a plan for action up and running as soon as we can. I repeat that we at The Common Sense Canadian will be there to share developments on this front with the public – and to make a strong case for why this initiative is so necessary.
We simply cannot sit on our backsides and let these bastards get away with it.
