Connect with us

Features

LITTLEJOHN: Liberal sack of the Energy Board a sign of things to come

The NEB’s replace is liable to the charge that its decisions will be based as much on the prevailing political winds as on the merits of the individual projects.

mm

Published

on

On June 13, 2019 Bill C-69, the “No-More Pipelines” bill was voted into law. One lesser known aspect of this Bill, is that it dismantled the National Energy Board. On August 28, 2019 the Liberal government replaced the National Energy Board with the Canadian Energy Regulator and the NEB Board Members were summarily dismissed. 

The NEB was established in 1959 because it was recognized that good projects could be rejected due to political expediency and controversial projects had the potential to end political careers. The NEB was created to be an independent, expert tribunal whose members were appointed for a period that overlapped the parliamentary election cycle. Full time board Members of the NEB were appointed by cabinet with seven-year, good behavior tenures, and these individuals could only be removed from office upon address ofGovernment. The protections afforded Board Members were in place to prevent political interference in decision making. Over the following 60 years the NEB was responsible for regulating interprovincial and international pipelines and power lines.  

More recently, environmentalists and the Liberal party, unhappy with certain board decisions, began claiming that the NEB was a ‘captured board’, ‘too cozy with industry’ and had ‘lost the confidence of the Canadian public’. If the affected Board Members had indeed caused the public to lose confidence in the NEB, then those members should have been brought before a joint session of the House of Commons and the Senate to answer the charges against them. Instead of using due process, the Liberal government used legislation to eliminate the board, setting a dangerous precedent for future political interference with other administrative tribunals and courts of law, including the new CER.  

Anti-Kinder Morgan pipeline protestors

The example most often given for the Liberals actions was the “Charest affair,” when the Board Chair, Peter Watson and two other NEB board members discussed board business privately with former Quebec Premier Jean Charest in January 2015. Mr. Charest was, at the time advising TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. on its, Energy East Pipeline project.

Interestingly, on August 28, 2019 when the new legislation was brought into force, seven of the eight NEB Board Members were removed. One was retained, the former Chair, Peter Watson, who continues to serve as the Chief Executive Officer of the new Canada Energy Regulator.  Obviously there is a gap between the Liberals rhetoric and their actions.

The NEB was accused of having a revolving door with industry; a statement used by the Liberals to bolster their claim that the NEB had lost the confidence of the public. However, one of the new commissioners at the “modernized” CER, appointed by the Liberals, is a lawyer who had served as a senior legal counsel at TransCanada Pipelines and prior to that, legal counsel for the National Energy Board. He also worked in the PMO for Paul Martin and was Chief of Staff for Liberal MP Ken Dryden as well as being the Liberal Candidate for Humber West in 2011. There are clear questions of independence and conflict that arise from these appointments.  Being involved in politics should not bar a good candidate but again, there is a gap between the Liberals rhetoric and actions. The Liberals also claimed the NEB needed to be modernized in terms of having more Indigenous and scientific representation. One of the board members dismissed was a highly-regarded, Indigenous scientist from Labrador with a PhD in Ecology and years of experience in environmental issues. Among the newly-appointed CER commissioners, there is one with a science background while the others are all lawyers.

The NEB was not an agent of the Crown; it was deliberately structured to be an independent, quasi-judicial agency. Regrettably, the new CER is an agent of the Crown, meaning that the cabinet can instruct the commission to do something on its behalf rendering the commission, an agency of government with diminished transparency and open to charges of bias. What are the status of CER, quasi-judicial rulings on the Trans Mountain pipeline in which an agent of the Crown (CER) makes decisions directly affecting a pipeline (TMX) that is wholly owned by the Crown?  Does this situation improve public confidence in the independence of CER rulings?  

Former Board Member Wallace argued that: “Replacing an independent expert, quasi-judicial decision-making body like the NEB with an agency that is essentially an arm of government will degrade regulatory processes and render them increasingly politicized.” This prediction has apparently come to pass. 

Additionally, Bill C-69 introduced significant new ministerial discretions. Under the new legislation, federal ministers can interfere at any time in the process and the government has been granted a veto on approving major projects, which means a project could be arbitrarily cancelled at the end of an onerous, costly and lengthy process. How likely is it that large energy projects will be proposed in Canada?  

The NEB was created in the 1950’s because it was recognized that the contentious nature of energy projects could prove to be a political landmine. Good projects in the national interest could fall victim to the short-sighted wrangling of politicians and be quashed. An independent, expert tribunal was, and still is, needed to ensure that each project is evaluated on its own merits without the risks of political interference.

Instead of “modernizing” the Board by increasing its independence both from industry and politics, the Liberal government has ignored the advice from experts and industry and stripped away much of the independence of the board while binding the CER to Cabinet. This makes the CER liable to the charge that its decisions will be based as much on the prevailing political winds as on the merits of the individual projects.   

To paraphrase the Honorable Jody Wilson Raybould, “We either have a system that is based on the rule of law, the independence of the quasi-judicial functions and respect for those charged to use their discretion and powers in particular ways, or we do not.”  

Tessa Littlejohn is a Contributor for the Western Standard

Features

Is ‘Paw Patrol’ capitalist propaganda? This professor on the CBC thinks so.

Is the children’s show is turning our tikes into tiny-tea partiers & miniature minarchists?

mm

Published

on

Everyone with a Netflix account and young children can sing most of the introductory title song of Paw Patrol, however much we wish we couldn’t.

“PAW Patrol, PAW Patrol. We’ll be there on the double!… No job’s too big. No pup’s too small! PAW Patrol, we’re on a roll!” etc.

I put it on for a few hours a day to distract my toddler while I try to get something – anything – done around the house. But while I thought that she was learning about teamwork, friendship, and helping her community, lo and behold, she was learning to support the capitalist patriarchy. Or so says a professor interviewed by the CBC’s Rebecca Zandbergen.

In an interview with criminology professor Liam Kennedy, he lays out – much to my surprise – how the repetitive children’s show is turning our tikes into tiny-tea-partiers and miniature minarchists.

“He [my son] has now internalized my feelings about the series and knows that we don’t in fact watch Paw Patrol in our house,” said the professor on the CBC’s London Mornings show.

The professor didn’t just stop his own son from watching the capitalist cartoon. He published an entire report on it: ‘Crime, Conservation and Corporatization in Paw Patrol’. In it, he lays out just how this pack of pups is brainwashing Canada’s children.

“I’ll start with the depiction of the state. Mayor Humdinger and Mayor Goodway — kind of the representatives of the state or the government – are portrayed negatively. Mayor Humdinger is portrayed as unethical or corrupt. Mayor Goodway as hysterical, bumbling, incompetent.”

Ostensibly, the professor believes that any portrayal of government officials as anything other than ethical, calm, collected and competent, is dangerous.

“She immediately calls the Paw Patrol…and so I would argue that the Paw Patrol – as a private corporation – is used to help provide basic social services in the Adventure Bay community…That’s problematic in that the Paw Patrol creators are sending this message that we can’t depend on the state to provide these services. That private corporations – private enterprise – can provide these services to the community.”

Kennedy also felt that the fictional children’s cartoon was not overly realistic in its portrayal of Chase, the German Shepherd police dog.

“It was a show, kind of emphasizing the benevolence of police officers, and, that struck a chord with me. You know, I felt that that wouldn’t speak to a lot of radicalized and marginalized communities, families and children.

With two German Shepherds in our home, it’s not surprising that Chase was my two-year-old’s favourite character. She even calls their collars “Pup Tags” now. But our dogs have not yet engaged in any racist brutalization of the minorities living in our neighbourhood. To help our toddler see Chase for the capitalist pig that he is, we will consider starting a “Poodle Lives Matter” campaign the next time we’re at the dog park.

To be fair to the CBC’s Rebecca Zandbergen, she didn’t appear to buy the theory hook-line-and-sinker.

“So even if what you’re saying is true…how susceptible might a three, a two, a four-year-old be to these underlying messages that you say exist?”

The professor seems to think very susceptible.

“Some children may internalize messages about mistrust of the state. Or, this show puts a lot of responsibility on individuals to go out and recycle, to protect the environment. It places a lot of faith in private corporations…

What a libertarian hellscape, where individuals are expected to take responsibility for their impact on the world, and not rely on the government to do everything for them.

Zandbergen thought this line of argument a bit much even for a CBC audience.

“There are some good messages, in encouraging people to recycle, right?

Professor Kennedy wasn’t having any of it.

“I mean I think everybody should recycle, but I think we should also depend on the state to facilitate that recycling process…”

Zandbergen to her credit pressed on, asking if there was “anything redeeming about the show?” What about, “No job is too big, no pup is too small?”

“To me that’s an individualist message. Pull up your boot straps. You can do it if you just try hard enough. That kind of message ignores structural barriers in our society and not everyone can do it.”

Zandbergen’s interview has been widely shared in Canadian conservative and libertarian online circles, possibly because the CBC’s headline, “Does Paw Patrol encourage our kids to embrace capitalism?” appears to be an implicit endorsement of the professor’s thesis. At most news outlets, headlines are written by editors, and not authors, and this appears to be most likely the case here. In fact, Zandbergen appears to be politely holding back her laughter during the on-air interview.

But if Zandbergen wasn’t particularly convinced by the professor’s post-modernist intersectionalism, someone at the CBC appears to have been.

But maybe the professor does have a point. Paw Patrol – much as it annoys me as it plays in the background – is teaching our children something: mistrust of state, individual responsibility, and voluntary community mindedness.

So I’ll keep on a little longer today. With any luck, my daughter won’t grow up to be a professor writing intersectional nonsense on the government dime.

You can watch the full CBC interview HERE.

Derek Fildebrandt is Publisher of the Western Standard, and President & CEO of Wildrose Media Corp.

Continue Reading

Features

SELICK: Coronavirus’s asymptomatic carriers

mm

Published

on

Reports of coronavirus patients who show none of the usual symptoms – fever, coughing, or shortness of breath – are both good news and bad news. 

First, the bad. The existence of these so-called asymptomatic carriers will undoubtedly bolster arguments for wholesale violations of civil liberties. Wuhan – China’s seventh largest city with 11 million inhabitants – has already been quarantined. That’s more than a minor inconvenience. Prohibiting the movement of people into and out of so large a city will quickly wreak economic havoc not only on those 11 million, but also on the millions they customarily trade with.   

History’s most famous asymptomatic carrier was probably Typhoid Mary. Born Mary Mallon, she migrated from Ireland to the U.S. in the 1880s and held a series of jobs as a live-in cook for affluent New York families. Everywhere she went, people fell ill with typhoid fever. Some died; many were hospitalized; but Mary herself remained healthy. She was imprisoned from 1907 to 1910 as a public safety measure, but eventually won her freedom by promising to cease working as a cook. However, being a laundress didn’t pay very well, so she soon adopted a pseudonym and returned to cooking. For another five years, typhoid epidemics broke out wherever she went. She was re-arrested in 1915 and quarantined until her death 23 years later.  

Scientists of Mary’s day tried to establish what made her immune. Typhoid bacteria were found in many of her stool samples and in her gallbladder after her death. But the research tools available 82 years ago were primitive compared with today’s. 

So here’s the good news. The existence of asymptomatic carriers presents a golden opportunity to determine what makes some people impervious to the virus while others succumb. Will the opportunity be used effectively? 

There’s a 125-year-old controversy that many people, including doctors and scientists, are unaware of. French scientist Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) is well known as the father of modern germ theory—the belief that illness occurs when foreign microbes such as bacteria and viruses invade the body. However, his colleague, Claude Bernard (1813-1878), held a somewhat different theory – the terrain theory – which held that the determining factor in who became ill was the state of the patient’s internal “soil” or terrain. 

Pasteur, incidentally, was no angel, despite his historical glorification. He has been described as an unlikeable person and an unethical scientist who falsified data to produce the results he wanted from experiments. But he was apparently a great self-promoter, unlike Bernard and another French scientist, Antoine Béchamp (1816-1908) who agreed with Bernard. Both B’s died in obscurity.

Reportedly, Pasteur recanted on his deathbed, saying: “Bernard avait raison. Le germe n’est rien, c’est le terrain qui est tout.” (Bernard was right. The microbe is nothing, the soil is everything.) Writer Susan Dorey tried to trace this story back to its source but was stymied by her inability to read French and consult original French sources. 

The terrain theory makes sense when you consider that North Americans who travel to third world countries frequently get gastrointestinal upsets that the natives seem impervious to. Likewise, farmers who routinely drink raw (unpasteurized) milk often aren’t troubled by the digestive symptoms that strike some people trying it for the first time.  

Regardless of whether Pasteur recanted or not, coronavirus and its asymptomatic patients now present us with an excellent opportunity to examine why some people are vulnerable to its ravages while others aren’t, despite their exposure. 

There are several possible explanations. Maybe immunity is genetic. Maybe it depends on the state of your nutrition. But a third possibility is that it depends upon the state of the infected person’s terrain, primarily the gut microbiome. This is turn might be affected by what a person eats, what nutritional supplements he takes, what toxins or antibiotics he has been exposed to, whether he was breast- or bottle-fed, and even whether he was born by Caesarian section. 

Scientific interest in the microbiome, and the interaction between bacteria and viruses, has exploded in recent years, with the development of gene mapping technology. Let’s hope it will be applied intelligently to the coronavirus challenge. 

Meanwhile, I’m planning to take extra care of my gut, by increasing my consumption of sauerkraut (unpasteurized, of course), kefir, kombucha, and prebiotic and probiotic supplements.

Karen Selick is the Copy Editor and a Columnist for the Western Standard. She has previously written for he original Western Standard, National Post, Canadian Lawyer Magazine. She is the former Litigation Lawyer of the Canadian Constitution Foundation and is the owner of KeenEyesEditing.ca.

Continue Reading

Features

Top Ten Good News Stories: 2019 Edition

Western Standard brings you the top 10 stories sure to make Westerns smile back on 2019.

mm

Published

on

2019 was not a good year for Western Canada. With a few exceptions, most news concerning our half of the country was unrelentingly negative. But good things did happen (most of them elsewhere), and the beginning of a new decade seems a suitable time to reflect back on the stories that made Westerners smile.

10. Don Cherry’s private podcast received the highest listenership in Canada shortly after being dismissed by Sportsnet-CBC for his politically incorrect soliloquy on Coach’s Corner. Debate raged over if his comments were genuinely racist, or just the latest example of puritanical cancel culture censoring anything controversial. Lost in most of the debate was the hypocrisy of most left-leaning Canadians voting to keep a man who engaged in the unquestionably racist act of blackface, while demanding that Canada’s uncle be fired for speaking his mind. 


9. Western Canada is more united than it has been in years, with the notable exception of BC. The bloc of blue on election night spoke more loudly than all the rallies or convoys ever could. As it was in 1980 under Trudeau Sr., the Liberals do not hold a single seat between Winnipeg and Vancouver. It’s unlikely the voice of the West will be listened in substance, but if they don’t get the message now, they likely never will.  

8. Western Independence is back with a vengeance. While federalists might not view this as positive, it has got the attention of the Laurentians and as every negotiator knows, to be successful you need an ‘or else’. The question is, if the federalists don’t take the ‘or else’ seriously, can the sovereigntist movement move beyond shouting, to become a serious threat?

7. Teck Resources’ Frontier oil sands mine (sort of) approved. It took ten years and still requires approval from feds, but it’s good news and would create 7,000 jobs if Justin Trudeau allows it to go ahead. If he chooses to side with the climate extremists, it’s likely that the still rag-tag sovereigntist movement will see a flood of new recruits. 

6. Polar bears are back. Long the symbol of apocalyptic climate predictions, the polar bear has increased in numbers to the point where they are causing problems for northern communities. Good news for the bears, bad news for the climate extremists in search of a new icon.



5. The world is growing greener. According to NASA, leaf cover on Earth has increased by two million square miles since the early 2000s. That’s more than half the size of Canada and a five per cent increase from two decades ago. The two primary factors causing this are hyper-efficient agriculture and increased CO2, which depending on your worldview is either plant food, or earth-ending pollution.

4. ISIS was defeated and its leader Al-Baghdadi is dead. It’s difficult to tell exactly how much of this is responsible for a 52 per cent worldwide reduction in deaths from acts of terrorism, but it has surely played a significant part. After 20 years of chasing terrorists in never-ending foreign wars, its finally some good news. 



3. Boris Johnson destroyed Corbyn’s Labour Party in the UK election. Brexit will go ahead, the outcome of the referendum respected. Since Britons voted to leave the EU, globalists have lamented the push back against centralized political and economic control, while patriotic movements have looked to it for hope.

2. Hong Kong still stands strong against all odds, and has not (yet) been overrun by China’s nouveau-communist regime. The courage of freedom fighters in Hong Kong is inspiring, and the sight of its students standing up against tyranny contrasts with students in Western countries demanding free tuition and safe spaces. 

Credit: NDP website



1. The NDP lost their bid for re-election on April 16th, making them Alberta’s first one-term government in its history, and ending the province’s socialist experiment that arguably began with Alison Redford. As Rachel Notley failed to gain “social license” from her green allies, Albertans had little time for punishing economic policies with little gain in sight. It remains to be seen if Jason Kenney’s tough talk with Ottawa can produce anything but headlines, or if more drastic measures will be required. 

Bonus: An aspiring modern Michelangelo duct taped a banana to a wall and sold it for $120,000, presumably as art. In front of a crowd of stunned onlookers, another artist ate it claiming his snack was an ‘art performance’ titled ‘Hungry Artist’. The Western Standard does not endorse vandalism, but we struggle to place this in the same category. 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Western Standard owned by Wildrose Media Corp.