Friends In High Places: The NEB Continues Its Bromance With Enbridge

Last week I posted a story about the National Energy Board taking pity on Enbridge, reducing a fine levied against the energy delivery giant for the damage it caused to private property in Manitoba. Unfortunately, we now learn that this was just the start of a flurry of absolutions granted the company.

The National Observer's Mike De Souza reports the following:

For the second week in a row, politically-appointed members of Canada’s pipeline safety enforcement agency have agreed to reverse penalties imposed by inspectors against Enbridge Inc. for alleged violations, citing a lack of evidence.

The National Energy Board sent two letters last Friday, Feb. 12 to Enbridge, Canada’s largest pipeline company, confirming that it was rescinding two fines, worth $104,000, explaining that its inspector or inspectors failed to make strong enough cases to uphold the proposed penalties.

The letters were published on the NEB website one week after the regulator announced it had reduced two other separate fines, worth $200,000, down to a single fine for $76,000 for environmental and property damage.

While mere mortals (i.e., you and me) are expected to pay for their mistakes, apparently a different standard is being applied to companies with friends in high places (a.k.a., Harper NEB appointees):

In both of the two newest cases, the inspector or inspectors who proposed the fines maintained that the evidence indicated — on a balance of probabilities — that Enbridge had committed the violations by not respecting mandatory conditions of its operations, the letters said.

In one of the cases, a previous letter from the NEB alleged that Enbridge had changed design specifications, such as wall thickness and maximum operation pressure of a pipeline, without getting permission.

But three members of the NEB, two of which were appointed by the previous Conservative government of former prime minister Stephen Harper, disagreed. These board members, led by the NEB chair, Peter Watson, said that they agreed with Enbridge’s arguments that there was not enough evidence to confirm that it deserved the fines.

At a time where it seems to be increasingly common for companies to thumb their noses at financial penalties, the message is becoming clear: corporate malfeasance isn't such a bad thing, no matter what you and I might think.

UPDATED: Democracy's Lifeblood Is Slowing Draining Away

There are a number of blogs that I read on a regular basis. There is Owen with his superb synopses and wry, informed commentary. There is The Mound of Sound, whose deep research and informed commentary provide much-needed information on both domestic and international issues, helping us to better understand our troubled times. Another must-read is Dr Dawg, whose superb analyses reflect a very keen mind indeed. Then there is Montreal Simon, with his excoriating graphics and merciless pillories of the reactionary right, a.k.a, the Conservative Party of Canada. Not to be forgotten is Alison at Creekside, whose work often includes the kind of sleuthing and connecting of dots that has traditionally been the domain of the journalists. Rural has provided a real public service in his long series on the Harper years, reminding us of things that we had either forgotten or pushed out of our conscious mind. And then there is Kirby Cairo, whose original essays always provide much food for thought.

While the above are not the only blogs I read, they, as well as my own, serve to underscore a crucial point about the blogging world. Almost all of us are dependent upon the work of journalistic publications, both paper and online, for what we attempt to do. My own modest efforts, for example, often entail essentially being an aggregator or curator of material I have come across that I find interesting or noteworthy and want to share. Without those resources, I could probably still write a blog, but I doubt very many would care to read it.

Which brings me to the point of this post - as people well-know, traditional journalism is under dire threat thanks to declining revenues. Stories abound of journals being shut down or becoming strictly online presences, the latest being The Independent, which will cease publishing paper editions next month. It, and the larger implications of today's contracting world of news gathering, is the topic of an interesting column by Rosie DiManno in today's Star which you may want to check out.

More immediately relevant, however, is a piece that John Honderich had in The Star the other day. In an edited version of a speech given recently to students at the Queen’s Model Parliament in Ottawa, the chair of Torstar Corporation writes of the crucial relationship between democracy and a well-informed citizenry; it is a relationship in which newspapers play a crucial role:

To my mind, the quality of public debate, if not the very quality of life in any community, is a direct function of the information people have on which to make informed decisions.

Indeed, I go further. The functioning of a healthy democracy is predicated on a well-informed population. You can’t have one without the other.

The great French political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville, who wrote the historic book Democracy in America, put it this way: “The power of the press is second only to that of the people.”

He understood that governmental power flows up from our local towns and cities. That is where true democracy begins.

One of the things we must not forget is that while the online world of 'free' information seems almost utopian, it really doesn't come free. Consider what the traditional press does:

... in my view, newspapers — both in print and online — have always played a unique and leading role in this informing process.

They have traditionally done this through groundbreaking investigative projects, searing features, sharp commentaries, insightful columns and hard-hitting editorials.

Indeed, I still believe it is newspapers that set the agenda for public discussion. When well done, great serious reporting provides the means for a society to examine itself, to ferret out lies, abuse and corruption, and — very importantly — provide a voice to those whose voices are not often heard.

And where does this serious journalism take place?

The answer is still in newspapers, where most reporters are employed.

He goes on to cite the crucial role of investigative journalism in uncovering the truth about former Toronto mayor Rob Ford, as well as the racial profiling conducted by the Toronto police that has been the source of much contention.

Will newspapers in the future be able to do this kind of story? And if not, who will? And what will that mean to Canadians being appropriately informed?

More and more young people have already switched to the web, where blogs and websites flood the space with up-to-the minute news and commentary. And it is done for free.

There are some who rhapsodize this trend as a democratization of information — allowing one and all to participate in news gathering and commentary. They hail this as the welcome disarming of journalists as the gatekeepers of news and information.

I do not share this view.

These same bloggers and instant commentators rarely do the hard reporting work. They don’t dig deep or launch in-depth investigations. You know only too well that speed and instantaneous reaction are the bywords of the net. And in the process accuracy is often lost.

Meanwhile, as newsrooms shrink, both the resources and reporters required to do serious journalism are in shorter and shorter supply.

Who today has those millions to investigate a Rob Ford or examine racial profiling? Precious few.

While Honderich is certain that the future will include traditional journalism, he does worry about what its capacities will be:

... it is the fate of serious journalism that I worry about — and its impact on our democracy.

The last time I checked neither Google nor Facebook had any fact-checking staff.

How about Twitter? One hundred and forty characters to do an inquiry into racial profiling? I think not. Instagram? Give me a break.

His advice to his youthful audience is equally applicable to the rest of us:

So be demanding in what you expect from your media. Remember you always have a vested interest in being well informed and making sure quality journalism survives.

At issue is nothing less than the vibrancy and health of our democracy.

As I indicated at the start of this post, my own life is enriched by the blogging world. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that democracy's lifeblood is under assault and is slowing draining away.

UPDATE: Thanks to Montreal Simon for this link
to a Press Progress article with some quite disturbing implications:

They say democracy relies on an informed citizenry.

So what does it say when an increasing number of Canadians don't even follow the news?

New data released by Statistics Canada shines a light on changing patterns in how Canadians follow the news and current affairs – and maybe the biggest change is a growing number aren't paying any attention to the news.

According to Statscan, the number of Canadians who follow the news on a daily basis dropped from 68% in 2003 to 60% in 2013.

You may be surprised by some parts of the report, especially information pertaining to the demographics and educational levels of those who are and aren't keeping up with daily news.

Right-Wing Umbrage

The right wing seems to have its knickers perpetually in a twist. It's amazing any of them ever make it to adulthood, what with all that adrenaline-fueled outrage.

More On The Guaranteed Annual Income

Responding to a recent opinion piece advocating for a guaranteed annual income, Star reader David Gladstone of Toronto has this to offer the crucial role it can play in a world of tremendous change and increasingly precarious employment:

It seems the world is never proactive when it comes to preparing for a disaster, whether it is economic, environmental or societal. We just wait for the “tsunami” to occur and then we spring into action, always too late and largely ineffective.

The timely proactive argument for a basic income is a case in point.

Artificial intelligence has arrived and in the next decade or two will be performing a vast array of jobs that will cause serious social reorganization.

A guaranteed income will provide a basic financial security for everyone, which may allay the fear that the future holds no hope.

The industrialized nations of the world will exploit the many advantages of artificial intelligence, but at the same time those nations will be more secure with a guaranteed income for their citizens. The alternative is a large class of people living in poverty who will, out of desperation, seek economic justice through social upheaval.

It is in the interests of all parties that a guaranteed income be put in place before the full impact of computer generated services and materials flood the market.

Will Canada be proactive and position itself for the 21st century through a guaranteed income? Any bets?

The Demagogue Speaks Again

Won't anyone tell him just to shut up?

Recently, the CBC, which has an ongoing yet inexplicable and wholly unwholesome relationship with Rex Murphy, gave him yet another opportunity to spew his denigration and venom about those who criticize Alberta and its moribund oil industry. It seems that the rest of Canada is not recognizing its debt to Alberta for being the country's former economic engine of growth.

You may wish to read the original piece, linked above, or move on to The National Observer's dissection of good Rex's cant. To whet your appetite, here are a few excerpts from that dissection, that cuts through the pretext of Rex's article to get to its real purpose: shilling, par excellance, for the oil industry as he vigorously denies climate change.:

After weeping crocodile tears for Alberta and Calgary, Murphy sets about his real work, tearing down anyone who believes fossil fuels have had their day and that climate change is a genuine concern.

David Suzuki and Neil Young are characterized as “dim-minded celebrities that took their jaunts to the oil sands to mewl over its planet-destroying potential.”

Murphy contends that the “critics bark without scrutiny, never receive the zealous oversight they impose on the industry. Environmental reporting is heinously one-sided and close-minded.”

Tell that to the many fine journalists in Canada and abroad - at the New York Times, the Guardian and many, many others - who do their best to tell the complex stories of energy and environment in a balanced, nuanced way.

Like his spiritual brother Conrad Black, Rex Murphy is quite adept at hiding his paucity of worthwhile thought with an elevated and clever use of words. Perhaps it is time someone told him the veneer is wearing thin.

Chill, Baby, Chill

After spending a rather stressful past day-and-a-half on personal matters, I found the advice of Clive Weighill, President of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and Saskatoon's police chief, rather appealing:

An Idea Gaining Traction

The concept of a guaranteed annual income, a subject I have written about previously on this blog, seems to be gaining traction. A relatively simple way of uplifting countless people from poverty and in the process ultimately saving money through a streamlining of our fragmented systems of social programs, it is now finding interest within the halls of power.

Recently, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Jean-Yves Duclos, told the Globe and Mail

the concept has merit as a policy to consider after the government implements more immediate reforms promised during the election campaign.

The general concept is that a guaranteed income would cover basic needs and reduce demand on existing social programs. However, proposals vary widely on whether it should be paired with a drastic reduction in social programs such as welfare and unemployment insurance or complement them.

This means versions of the idea have appeal across the political spectrum, as it could lead to a larger or smaller role for government depending on the model.

Support for the idea seems to cross party lines.

Conservative MP and finance critic Lisa Raitt said she would like the House of Commons finance committee to study the idea. She also said she raised the issue with Finance Minister Bill Morneau recently during a private pre-budget meeting.

“He seemed favourable,” she said. “I have an open mind on it. I know that there’s been progress made on it around the world in terms of how people are viewing it. I don’t know if it will work in Canada but the work of the committee will help us figure out whether or not it is something that is good or not good.”

And across Canada, momentum is building. François Blais, Quebec minister of employment and social solidarity, has been asked by Premier Philippe Couillard to look into how that provinces social supports can move in the direction of a guaranteed annual income. But that's not all:

The political cast includes Calgary’s Mayor Naheed Nenshi, Edmonton’s Mayor Don Iveson and Halifax’s Mike Savage. In fact, no less than nine provincial and territorial capital leaders support basic income or at least pilot projects, with innumerable smaller city and town mayors across the nation declaring their support as well. They know — as government leaders who are closest to the people — that a guaranteed income would reduce inequities in their communities, reduce crime, improve health outcomes, and strengthen social cohesion.

Are we reaching critical mass? Long observation of politics suggests that is not yet the case, but clearly we seem to be moving in the right direction.