Tag Archives: CRA

QP: Threats against an MP’s family taken seriously

Posted on by

Both the prime minister and his deputy were present today, somewhat unusually for a Monday, but we’ll take it, and as a result, most of the other leaders were absent. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he raised the Globe and Mail story that there was apparently a briefing prepared two years ago that started that Chinese officials were prepared to threaten Conservative MP Michael Chong’s family back in Hong Kong, and that they consider Canada an easy target for interference, though the story state that it wasn’t clear if the prime minister actually saw this briefing. With this in mind, he railed at the prime minister for allowing this to happen (though again, we don’t know if he saw this) and demanded to know why the implicated diplomat at the consulate in Calgary hasn’t been expelled. Justin Trudeau responded that these threats are unacceptable, and that when he read this story, he tasked officials to find out more about it, and that they would take action. Poilievre repeated in English with a bit more incredulity, and got much the same answer. Poilievre insisted that this couldn’t be the case because it happened two years ago, and demanded that the diplomat named in the piece be expelled immediately. Trudeau repeated again that they are following up and will take action. Poilievre went back again to the fact that this was two years ago, and then demanded to know the date when the foreign interference registry would be created. Trudeau said that they are consulting on the registry to do it the right way, after listing the measures they have taken. Poilievre called this “administrative mumbo-jumbo,” and then said that two of the so-called Chinese “police stations” are still allegedly in operation, and Trudeau noted that the RCMP are dealing with this.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he railed about Morris Rosenberg’s alleged involvement in the Chinese donation to the Trudeau Foundation, to which Trudeau recited that he hasn’t been involved with the Foundation for ten years and the government has taken measures to deal with interference. Therrien tried to spin a conspiracy theory even harder, and Trudeau told him to wait for David Johnston’s recommendation. 

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and in French, he returned to that Globe story said that China considers Canada uniquely vulnerable to interference, and demanded a public inquiry. Trudeau repeated that they are taking this seriously and have measures that are in place. Heather McPherson repeated the demand in English, and Trudeau replied that there is a variety of opinions on the value of a public inquiry which is why David Johnston has been tasked with the job.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Angst over a poor metric

Posted on by

A lot of ink (or, well, pixels, I supposed) has been spilled over the past week about those leaked documents where Justin Trudeau allegedly told NATO leadership privately that Canada will never reach the two percent of GDP defence spending target, which shouldn’t be a shock to anyone who has paid a modicum of attention. And while we get these kinds of analysis pieces that try to dig more into the two percent target and its significance, we have to remember that it’s a lousy metric. Greece has been above it for years because of a stagnant economy and including military pensions in their calculations—and you can easily get to 2 percent of GDP by tanking your economy, while growing your economy makes that spending target increase impossibly. The other thing that the two percent metric doesn’t capture is engagement—Canada routinely steps up to meet its NATO commitments even without reaching the spending target, while certain European countries may meet the spending target but don’t participate in these missions (again, looking at you, Greece, but not just Greece).

Part of the problem is that while this is a conversation that requires some nuance, the two percent target is too easy for journalists to focus on, and that becomes the sole focus. It’s a problem because We The Media keep reducing this to a single binary “are we meeting/not meeting that two percent” rate, which doesn’t help advance the conversation in any way, but most of us refuse to learn because a simple binary is easier to understand/convey.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Fighting continues in the western part of Bakhmut, as Wagner Group mercenaries are worried about the coming Ukrainian counter-offensive. Ukraine’s minister of digital transformation says that new technologies are going to help them win the war, particularly as they enhance the accuracy of modern artillery.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1649397099300093954

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another Auditor General Day goes by largely unnoticed

Posted on by

Yesterday was Auditor General day, not that you really heard much about it. No questions were raised about her reports in Question Period, and none of it came up on either of the politics shows, which is not good. We’ve already ceded so much of Parliament’s ability to hold the government to account to Officers of Parliament like the Auditor General, but whereas once upon a time, the biannual Auditor General Days were all anyone could talk about because media in Ottawa worshipped at the feet of said Auditors General, and who took their word as gospel, well, there has been almost none of that now. (And frankly, the fact that we are now listening to every single utterance of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and not the Auditor General is another problem).  In fact, most outlets ran Canadian Press wire copy instead of doing their own reporting from the reports, and those outlets that did their own stories only focused on a one or two of the reports and not all four, which again, is a warning sign about the state of our media.

Nevertheless, her reports concluded that:

  • The slow rollout of high-speed internet to rural and First Nations communities in particular is creating an economic divide.
  • The government can’t track the outcomes of their “feminist foreign policy” because they’re not tracking if aid dollars are actually meeting goals.
  • Two-thirds of people with disabilities found barriers to accessing federally-regulated planes and passenger trains.
  • The Centre Block renovations are on budget so far, but it’s taking far too long to make any decisions related to the work.

So really, there’s some pretty heavy stuff in there that the government should be held to account for, most especially the part around foreign aid funding that they like to show up at an announcement for and pat themselves on the back later, but are neglecting tracking the actual work. That’s a problem with this government, and we should be holding their feet to the fire over it, but we’re just not, and that’s a problem for our democracy.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces closed the town of Avdiivka to civilians in the wake of increasing attacks as Russian forces shift their attention there and away from their flagging assault on Bakhmut. Ukrainian forces also shot down a dozen Russian drones headed for Kyiv, destroying all of them. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited troops in the south-eastern part of the country, where it’s likely part of the spring counter-offensive will take place. Zelenskyy later met with the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and said that Russians were holding the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant hostage.

Continue reading →

QP: Declarations of guilt versus more flailing and backpatting

Posted on by

In the wake of MP Han Dong’s exit from the Liberal caucus following anonymous allegations in the media, and in advance of US president Joe Biden’s arrival, Question Period got underway without either the prime minister or his deputy present. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he started immediately with the ordeal of the two Michaels, and raised the allegations made against Dong and his allegedly advising the Chinese government to not release them as doing so would some how benefit the Conservatives (and no, none of these allegations make any actual sense). Poilievre demanded to know when the PMO knew of these allegations, and Mélanie Joly insisted that the release of the Michaels was the priority of the government and everyone in the House. Poilievre repeated the same again in English, and Joly repeated that releasing the Michaels was everyone’s priority, and thinking otherwise was false. Poilievre again demanded to know a third time when the prime minister was made aware of these allegations, and Joly praised the date that the Michaels were returned to Canada, and that their priority was always to stand up against arbitrary detention. Poilievre insisted the non-answer was “troubling,” and re-asked a fourth time. This time, Joly praised the friends and allies who helped to advocate the case of the Michaels. Poilievre insisted that the prime minister must have known that Dong was working to keep the Michaels in China, and Joly again insisted that the prime minster ensured that everyone was standing up to China to get the Michaels home.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and took a swipe at a David Johnston before demanding an public inquiry immediately, and Dominic LeBlanc insisted that Johnston’s appointment was part of the suite of measures to strengthen the response to foreign interference. Therrien took up the concern about the report about Dong, and Joly got back up to praise the efforts to bring the two Michaels home.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he too insisted that the prime minister must have known about the allegations about Dong, and demanded the government vote for their motion on a public inquiry, and LeBlanc said that while he appreciates the concerns about not stigmatising communities, they have been taking foreign interference seriously. Singh repeated the demand in French, and LeBlanc repeated his same response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Demanding the Speaker to something he can’t

Posted on by

The Liberals are no stranger to stunts, and the “poor me” stunts are some of the worst of all. With this in mind, it should be no surprise that MP Ya’ara Saks has written an open letter to the Speaker to demand apologies from Conservatives for sexist remarks, be it Michael Cooper in Committee or Rick Perkins telling Jean Yip that she deserves a participation ribbon. The problem? There’s nothing the Speaker can really do about it.

Saks didn’t cite any Standing Orders that were contravened, and the Speaker is bound to operate within the Standing Orders. Those are the rules by which he is refereeing. And for well over a generation now, the Canadian House of Commons has seen fit to effectively neuter the Speaker so that he (or she) doesn’t have much in the way of leeway in order to enforce, well, anything. Other Speakers in other Westminster parliaments have a lot more authority and latitude—Australia’s Speaker can even demand that governments answer the question when they are seen to be evasive (though this can sometimes stray into Speakers acting in potentially partisan ways). But ours? Nope—because MPs chose to have a ridiculously unempowered Speaker. The result? More of a gong show, more speaking lists, more canned speeches without any flow, and overall, an unserious Parliament, particularly in relation to our comparator countries.

And MPs could change this. But they don’t want to, so they won’t. And that is a problem.

Ukraine Dispatch:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that his country’s military chiefs are unanimous to keep defending Bakhmut, probably because they are grinding the Russian forces down there at a fairly alarming rate. Meanwhile, the Americans are accusing the Russians of downing one of their drones over the Black Sea, which Russia denies.

https://twitter.com/yermolenko_v/status/1635649300922245120

https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1635665484954718208

Continue reading →

QP: Conflating the “police stations” with the interference allegations

Posted on by

While the prime minister was present for a second day in a row, it was a question as to whether the tone of yesterday would carry forward today. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, wondering about the two alleged Chinese “police-stations” in Quebec, raised the Chinese donation to the Trudeau Foundation ten years ago (at a point where Justin Trudeau was not involved in the Foundation), and demanded the date for when a foreign agent registry would be in place. Trudeau took up a script and said that the RCMP was looking into those alleged “police stations,” and that they would take every measure to protect Canadians from foreign intimidation. Poilievre again demanded a date for the registry. Trudeau said he woudln’t take any lessons from a former democratic reform minister whose only shining achievement was making it harder for Canadians to vote, before he started patting himself on the back for the measures they have taken thus far. Poilievre raised the allegations that Chinese agents had “earmarked” a large transfer of funds to be used in the election, and demanded to know if Trudeau would return any funds he or the party in any capacity received from the PRC. Trudeau read that it was a fact that there are threats and that even the US is facing these threats, and that any suggestion that any MP is not loyal is dangerous and undermines democracy. Poilievre reiterated that the question was whether they will commit to return any money that came from the PRC. Trudeau insisted that this was not a partisan issue, and read the points of what the special rapporteur would do. Poilievre said that since Trudeau won’t commit to returning money and accused the prime minster of delaying, possibly until the next election. Trudeau shot back that when Poilievre was minster for democratic reform, he did nothing about foreign interference and only made it harder for marginalised Canadians to vote, while his government took action.

Yves-François Blanchet raised the so-called Chinese “police stations,” and accused the government of doing nothing about foreign interference and that the disqualified themselves from being able to do anything. Trudeau said that there are separate issues, and that the RCMP were investigating those alleged stations. Blanchet said he needed reassurance that the rapporteur would be independent, and Trudeau praised the fact that NSICOP contains parliamentarians from all parties.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP and talked tough about their “forcing” grocery CEOs, before railing about the grocery code of conduct being negotiated. Trudeau read a script about the minster of innovation getting the Competition Bureau involved in the matter, and that they had other measures. Matthew Green took over in English with even more bluster, and Trudeau repeated his same script in English.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A caution around more nomination “safeguards”

Posted on by

There has been some renewed interest in party nominations after the accusations of shenanigans in Liberal MP Han Dong’s nomination, and unsurprisingly, we get a rather tepid piece asking if we need more safeguards. There are a few things that this ignores, part of which is the history. MPs actively wanted to keep Elections Canada out of policing nominations (though they now have a bigger role in policing the funding of said contests). This is one of the reasons why the decision was made to have party leaders sign off on nominations forms—to keep Elections Canada out of the process. (That later turned into a problem of leaders using this power to blackmail members into staying in line, which was not something contemplated at the time, and yes, I did study the Hansards of those debates as part of research for my book).

The other thing that the piece missed is how parties have been monkeying with nomination processes to get their favoured candidates installed. The Samara Centre for Democracy has a great report on this (though they were a little too credulous at the NDP’s claims they always run open nominations when they don’t), and my particular caution is that more “safeguards” for nominations may very well mean a greater ability for the party or the leader’s office to monkey around or put their thumbs on the scale. Already we are in a veritable crisis where open nominations are fast disappearing behind the curtain of protected nominations for incumbents and invoking “electoral urgency” rules unnecessarily that allow the leader to just directly appoint candidates. Parties used to be robust enough to fight this kind of interference, but they are losing that ability, particularly in the Liberals, who rewrote their party constitution to centralize even more power in the leader’s office and disempower the grassroots after Trudeau became prime minister.

Should there be more safeguards? Probably. But that means returning the power to the grassroots riding associations so that they can run proper, open and transparent contests, rather than what has been happening.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say that in spite of Russian claims, Bakhmut is not surrounded, and the fighting continues. In fact, the head of the Wagner Group mercenaries has said that their position is at risk if they can’t get more ammunition. The Ukrainains are, however, trying to evacuate the remaining civilian population, who are still there for many different reasons.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1632023670087352321

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1632403808016908288

Continue reading →

QP: Re-litigating the hotel room

Posted on by

While the PM and his deputy were on their way back from Hazel McCallion’s funeral in Mississauga, most of the other leaders were also absent from the Chamber for QP. Andrew Scheer led off, like a flashback, and after a preamble of nonsense about inflation, he demanded to know why the prime minister billed taxpayers for a “$7000” hotel room (that number has been inflated) which he neglected to mention was for the funeral of the Queen. Ahmed Hussen got up and listed housing measures that the government put in place that the Conservatives voted against. Scheer tried again, this time comparing the cost of that hotel room to mortgage payments. Hussen repeated his same response. Scheer then raised the National Post story about trying to stifle disclosure of that information, and this time Rob Oliphant raised that this was for the Queen’s funeral, and that the delegation was appropriate for that occasion. Dominique Vien took over in French, and the cost of the hotel room was back to $6000 and demanded the government cap spending. Pascale St-Onge got up to say that the spending was targeted to those who need it most, while the Conservatives seek to cut that help. Vien and St-Onge went another round of the same with little difference.

Alain Therrien led for Bloc, and he thundered about health transfers, saying that provinces don’t really agree and accused the federal government of chronic underfunding, which is not exactly true. Adam van Koeverden read a statement about how pleased they are with the “agreement.” Therrien demanded over and over about “35 percent!” This time Pablo Rodriguez wondered where Therrien was with all of the newspaper headlines talking about an “agreement.”

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and cited a StatsCan figure about people struggling, and turned this into a demand that the government stop the Rogers-Shaw merger. François-Philippe Champagne said that he wanted more competition in the sector. Singh wondered if that meant that he would oppose the merger today, then switched to French to repeat his question. Champagne repeated his enthusiasm for competition.

Continue reading →

QP: Pierre Poilievre, anti-corporate defender

Posted on by

Even though the prime minister was in town, he was away from the Chamber and QP, as were most of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre was present, and he led off in French worrying about the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s criticism that the “government” decided it’s not worth going after $15 billion in overpayments received by wage subsidy recipients, none of which is true. The CRA Commissioner, who is arm’s-length from the government, said that the $15 billion figure is over-inflated, and that it’s not worth it go after every case—he didn’t say it wasn’t worth it go after any of it. Peter Fragiskatos responded by saying that the Commissioner said verification work for COVID programmes is ongoing. Poilievre turned to English to repeat the question, calling the CRA Commissioner the “prime minister’s chief tax collector,” and repeated the same complete bad faith framing, insisting that it was about letting friendly corporations keep ill-gotten gains. Fragiskatos hit back by saying that Poilievre was talking about cuts and austerity when Canadians needed help during the pandemic, and that the Conservatives previously voted to stop the CRA’s verification work. Poilievre insisted that he told the government not to pay wage subsidies to wealthy corporations, and insisted that 37 corporations who received the subsidy paid shareholder dividends, to which Fragiskatos insisted that the subsidy was about keeping small businesses afloat, and the Conservatives cut the CRA’s budget to do the work of combatting tax avoidance, while the current government restored it and audits are up. Poilievre insisted that the Conservatives were able to collect taxes from corporations more efficiently using fewer CRA employees—seriously?—while the current government lets the CRA complain they don’t have the resources to go after these corporations who took the wage subsidy, and insisting that the government goes after the “little guy” instead of the corporations (which is not what people at the Public Accounts committee are saying). Karina Gould got up and insisted that she talked to small businesses who thanked the government for the help they gave in the pandemic. Poilievre insisted this wasn’t about small businesses, which he supported, but this was about “fraud” and corporations who illegally received these subsidies (which, again, is not really true). Randy Boissonnault took a turn and listed measures that the government undertook, such as the return on investment in the CRA, and that there were regulations in place so that companies who took the subsidy and put that money to profits would have those funds clawed back, as well as implementing their windfall tax on banks and insurance companies.

Alain Therrien led for the NDP, and he railed about the statements that certain Montreal Liberal MPs made about Quebec’s language laws, calling it misinformation and that the prime minister approved of it if he doesn’t announce it. Ginette Petitpas Taylor stood up to give a trite defence of the official languages bill. Therrien thundered about all of the ways in which Trudeau supposedly “divides” Canadians, especially around this bill, and Petitpas Taylor reminded him that she is an Acadian from 

Rachel Blaney rose for the NDP, and complained that the contract to a Loblaws-owned company to support veterans was not working out. Darrel Samson read a statement about getting veterans the help they need. Gord Johns accused the government of not delivering on their promised mental health transfer, and Bennett said that was part of the proposed bilateral agreements with provinces so that they could be ensured of transparency and accountability for those dollars.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The PBO has opinions to share

Posted on by

The Parliamentary Budget Officer appeared at the Senate finance committee this week, and seems to have unloaded a litany of complaints about the government. I’m just not sure that the things he was complaining about were actually his purview to do so. You see, in spite of the media terming him a “fiscal watchdog” or a “budget watchdog,” he’s not actually a watchdog of any kind. He has no authority to be opining on how government is operating their programs, because that’s the Auditor General’s job. His job is to provide analysis of macro-economic and fiscal policy, and promoting greater budget transparency. I’m not sure how any of what he said at the Senate had to do with that.

One of things in particular that is of concern is his attack on the CRA around recovery of possible CERB and CEWS overpayments, and the fact that they said it wasn’t worth it to go after every possible overpayment. The way Yves Giroux describes this however was that they weren’t going to follow up on any of it, which isn’t what they said. Additionally, I find it really interesting the way that absolutely everyone is just taking the Auditor General’s word that it’s $15.5 billion in potential wage subsidy overpayments because the CRA says that her methodology for arriving at that figure was flawed, and that it’s not nearly that high. Ah, but in this country, we worship the Auditor General and believe her to be a flawless entity from a higher plane of existence who is infallible. That’s not actually true, but nobody is ever willing to stick their necks out to dispute her figures, and to push back when she’s wrong, which she very well could be this time. The fact that nobody is willing to challenge those figures, including the PBO, is concerning (and frankly, given how much he enjoys inserting himself into other spaces where he doesn’t belong, it’s difficult to see why he didn’t do so here as well).

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 351:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited London and Paris to make his plea for more weapons, and most especially fighter jets. He’s off to Brussels today to continue his pleas to EU leaders. Zelenskyy also seems to be disputing accounts that he is shuffling his defence minister, so we’ll see what happens.

https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1623335580074377219

Continue reading →