Tag Archives: Maxime Bernier

Roundup: Yes, the Conservatives did it too

Posted on by

Amidst the faux drama in QP this week about the apparent discrepancy between the Dogwood Initiative getting funding for an anti-Kinder Morgan activist while the government refuses to give funding to groups that use such summer jobs grants to pay for students to distribute fliers of aborted foetuses, or to groups that refuse to hire LGBT students, I find myself losing patience with the constant refrains that if the Conservatives engaged in this kind of behaviour, there would be riots in the streets.

Reminder: the Conservatives did engage in that kind of behaviour. They wantonly defunded all manner of organizations, whether they ensured that women in developing countries could access safe abortions, whether they advocated for women’s equality here in Canada, or if they were ecumenical social justice organizations that engaged in education and outreach at home and abroad. They defunded the Court Challenges Programme which helped ensure that minority groups like the LGBT community could do the work of bringing their challenges to the Supreme Court of Canada (because it’s expensive and law firms can’t do it all pro bono). They cut funding to HIV and AIDS services organizations and diverted all manner of funding to a vaccine initiative that they then flaked out on and frittered away millions of dollars so that they had no impact (and the results of those cuts are still being felt today as the current government wants to shift funding priorities to prevention). They prioritized refugee resettlement for Christians in the Middle East over Muslims. They engaged in abusive auditing over charitable organizations that opposed them ideologically. All of this happened, in the most petty and mean-spirited manner at that, and there weren’t riots in the streets. There were a handful of protests, and the media barely mentioned a number of these cuts.

Is the way that the government handled this attestation on the Summer Jobs Grants heavy-handed? Yes. Was the wording clumsy? Probably. But groups aren’t being denied funding because they’re faith-based – they’re being denied funding because they’re refusing to either sign the attestation, or they’ve tried to rewrite it to suit themselves, despite the fact that the government has said repeatedly that “core mandate” refers not to values or beliefs, but daily activities. In all of the rhetoric and pearl-clutching, the actual facts are being distorted and need to be called back into focus. We also need to focus on the fact that the real problem here is that MPs get to sign off on those grants, which is a violation of their roles as guardians of the public purse, and instead makes them agents of the government in distributing spending (clouding their accountability role). But sweet Rhea, mother of Zeus, this constant invocation that “if the Conservatives did it…” is bogus and amnesiac. They did it. All the time.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Beer still imprisoned

Posted on by

The Supreme Court of Canada delivered their ruling in the Comeaucase yesterday, which deals with the subject of interprovincial trade barriers – in particular, those around alcohol. While this case has been widely championed as “free the beer,” what we got came down to an exploration on the nature of federalism in this country – and many observers were keenly unimpressed as they chose to uphold those particular barriers.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/986964159530057728

First of all, read this Q&A with University of Ottawa vice-dean of law Carissima Mathen about the decision, so that you get some sense of how the constitution operates here, and why the Court is loathe to interfere in something of this magnitude. It’s not just alcohol sales that could be affected – its knock-on effects include supply management schemes (which the Conservatives have yet to reconcile with their “free the beer!” sloganeering), public health prohibitions, environmental regulations, and so on. And more technically, the case that led up to this decision was a lower court judge making an interpretation of settled law that they felt wasn’t robust enough to justify overturning that jurisprudence – not enough had changed – and they upbraided said judge in the ruling. This is also something that can’t be taken trivially in the decision.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/986988440163143681

https://twitter.com/kylekirkup/status/986968367205634048

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/987022846936473602

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/986988440163143681

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/987059335623618560

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/986971152353460224

And then there are the critics. University of Alberta law professor Malcolm Lavoie says the decision privileges some parts of the Constitution over the other, while John Ibbitson looks at what the knock-on effects could be and wonders if the result wasn’t for the best. Emmett Macfarlane is not sold on that, and feels that the Court feels too bound by old JCPC decisions that undermined the text of the constitution when they should instead be upholding it – that the intent of the Founding Fathers was indeed a centralized economic union. Some commentators think that the decision could legitimize Alberta’s bill to limit oil exports to BC, but frankly I think that analysis is beyond absurd. I do have to say that I have a degree of sympathy for the Court in not looking to overturn the entire federal order, because there would be monumental blowback. But it’s not like they said that it couldn’t be done – what it needs is the political will for the legislatures to come to an agreement on this, and there is a new internal free trade framework that is coming into place where there’s a better forum for having these discussions than we’ve had in 150 years of confederation. And I think that perhaps those who felt that the Court needed to do the work of the legislatures on this issue were doing so a bit inappropriately because we keep insisting that the Court do the hard work that the legislatures won’t, and perhaps this is another wake-up call that we need to do the actual work of making tough decisions in this country on our own.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/986991062584582144

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/986975038652821506

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/986976381794861061

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/986968227556179968

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/987049703526187008

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bernier’s epiphany

Posted on by

All of the drama yesterday was the news that Maxime Bernier decided to spike his own planned book after his chapter blaming his loss on “fake Conservatives” supporting Andrew Scheer, particularly when the defenders of Supply Management took out memberships to stop Bernier. When he did release a statement late in the day, Bernier basically blamed the media for writing about the controversial stuff, which is kind of ridiculous given that he should have known that questioning the legitimacy of Scheer’s win, and putting in print that he planned to renege on his promise to shut up about Supply Management was going to be trouble no matter what else was in the book. (No word on whether he spent his advance already, as he now will have to refund it).

A couple of observations first: Of course the leadership contest was lousy with “fake Conservatives.” That’s what our leadership contests have become in Canada, given that it’s about trying to get as many new members as possible to bestow enough “democratic legitimacy” on a would-be leader so that they can turn the party into their own personal cult. Until we change the system and restore it to caucus selection, this will only get increasingly worse as time goes on. Part of his analysis that his problem was just defenders of Supply Management as the problem ignores the fact that there were a hell of a lot more people taking out party memberships in order to stop Kellie Leitch (and by extension, Brad Trost and Pierre Lemieux, but mostly Leitch). They didn’t deliver the contest for Michael Chong, and it’s hard to say how many of those ballots wound up going toward Scheer instead of Bernier. Also, Scheer knew that Bernier was going to be mavericky when he made him a critic on an economic portfolio, so he can’t be surprised that this kind of eruption was going to happen. It’s who Bernier is, and it’s kind of surprising that it took this long for Bernier to realize that maybe it’s not a good thing for the image the party is trying to put forward. (On a side note, every time a leader insists that they’ve never been more united, I brace for a defection, because I’ve heard those insistences too many times).

Paul Wells wrote a very good piece about Bernier and the value of loyalty in politics, which most journalists don’t really grasp, which explains why politicians do the things they do, and compromise in the way that they do. It’s one of the things I do think about and probably don’t wrap my head around enough, but it goes back to the way in which people continue to blame the parties for “making” MPs do things they wouldn’t ordinarily do, right up to compromising their beliefs and whatnot. MPs have the choice to do whatever – parties don’t make them, MPs do these things of their own volition. Senators too, for that matter – even when it goes against their best interest, or the normal operations of that chamber. They do it out of loyalty to the leader or the party, take your pick, and while we could have a debate about the effect of method of selection on that loyalty, we need to think more about that lens when we’re having these discussions.

Good reads:

  • In London, Justin Trudeau met with the Queen, as well as Thresa May, New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Arden, as well as Five Eyes partners on a security briefing.
  • Chrystia Freeland is headed back to Washington for some crucial decisions on NAFTA talks.
  • While Kinder Morgan’s CEO says the political battles may mean the pipeline remains untenable, BC says that they will file their court reference within days.
  • The Commons health committee released their study on universal pharmacare, which the health minister says will be the basis of their consultations.
  • In advance of the Liberal convention, the health minister has already rejected the policy resolution to adopt a Portugal-style drug decriminalization scheme.
  • Speaking of the convention, Kent Hehr says he will attend, and attend one of the sexual harassment workshops being offered there.
  • UN climate data shows our GHG emission are decreasing – but not nearly fast enough to meet our Paris targets.
  • A report from the former Inspector General of CSIS was uncovered, showing problems with the way the agency conducts interviews with detainees abroad.
  • The agency that was supposed to create guidelines for service dogs for veterans with PTSD has pulled out of the project unexpectedly.
  • Two Catholic Bishops took to the Hill to defend the Pope’s refusal to apologise for residential schools. One Conservative MP blocked a motion to demand an apology.
  • The RCMP are set for their union certification vote.
  • Pierre Poilievre continues to snipe about the guaranteed minimum income report, and cites Ontario’s model as a bad starting point because of costs.
  • Andrew Coyne looks at the PBO report on guaranteed minimum income, and wonders if three points on the GST is a good deal for eliminating poverty.
  • Chantal Hébert reads the polls and wonders if the pipeline debate is really resonating with Canadians, and whether it will affect Trudeau in the next election.

Odds and ends:

Liberal MP Neil Ellis was taken to hospital for an undisclosed condition.

https://twitter.com/AdamScotti/status/986641462380126208

Help Routine Proceedings expand. Support my Patreon.

Roundup: Let’s not punt it to the Supreme Court

Posted on by

As the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion drama continues to chug along, we saw that Bill Morneau had a meeting with Rachel Notley and while nothing specific was announced, it was stated that something is on the way in fairly short order. Add to that, Jim Carr was doing the media rounds saying that the pipeline will get built, and it’s a question of how, which is an important clue. And then came Jagmeet Singh, who decided that his contribution to this is to insist that this all get referred to the Supreme Court of Canada in a joint federal/provincial/First Nations reference. Because showing political leadership apparently means fobbing off the tough questions to the Supreme Court. He also suffers from the delusion that the Court could act swiftly on this, ignoring that it would take six months to even pull a reference together (seriously – the Court wouldn’t hear it until the fall at the earliest). And then his environment critic went on Power & Politicsand said that even if the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the federal government and that the project could go ahead, they’d still oppose it because obviously it would be a wrong decision. Yeah. Okay.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/984117292945498117

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/984120318544396288

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/984121488537104384

As Carissima Mathen explains in this segment of The House, the Supreme Court doesn’t like to be used for political purposes, reference questions are generally of general application, and even referring the question of jurisdiction to them would imply that there is doubt that the federal government has it, which settled case law clearly demonstrates that they do. (Likewise, going Jason Kenney’s route and invoking Section 92(10)(c) implies that there is doubt that these pipelines are federal jurisdiction when we know that they are, hence why it’s not only a redundant course of action, but it creates damaging precedent). And that’s why Morneau was pretty explicit when he shot down Singh’s proposal yesterday – they know they have jurisdiction, so it would make no sense to refer it to the SCC. On a related note, the BC NDP have changed their rhetoric around using every tool in the toolbox to oppose the pipeline and are now pledging to use all tools to protect their coastline and environment, likely because they got a legal opinion that said that they have no jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, Jennifer Ditchburn notes that Indigenous protests against the pipeline aren’t a side plot – and she’s right, but it’s also separate from the jurisdiction issue, and should be treated as separate. (I also suspect that the government will argue that approval was given before they legislated implementation of UNDRIP, and that they did additional consultation and created the Indigenous-lead monitoring committee, so that should satisfy Section 35). Chantal Hébert sees few options that the federal government could use that would still maintain provincial peace. David Moscrop wants everyone to cool their jets because this isn’t actually a crisis, but rather how democracy and federalism actually work. Jen Gerson looks at how this failure would be the signal of a bigger market failure in Canada, and open us up to creating an institutionalized culture of kickbacks and corruption when it comes to major projects.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Emergency Cabinet stalling

Posted on by

After yesterday’s emergency Cabinet meeting, you might think that ministers would have something to say. They did – they stated that they remained 100 percent behind the construction of the pipeline, and then Jim Carr fled to catch a plane, and all other ministers similarly fled, with Bill Morneau dropping a few more hints before he had a later media availability in Toronto, where he said that they would be meeting with Rachel Notley today in order to further discuss options. Of course, why they couldn’t just say this at the time is part of the frustrating way in which this government chooses to communicate (though I keep reminding myself, and occasionally others, is that if this were the Harper years, we wouldn’t know there was a meeting, reporters would have been barred from the third floor where it happened, and ministers would flee down the back stairs so as to avoid media).

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/983857757131456513

Notley, meanwhile, says that her government is prepared to buy the pipeline outright if Kinder Morgan pulls out (and there is speculation that if Kinder Morgan fails to get the pipeline built, they could launch a NAFTA challenge against the government). John Horgan says that Notley’s threats to legislate the cut of oil to BC, forcing them to raise gasoline prices, would be “provocative” – something he says as though butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth. And to add another wrench into things, AFN National Chief Perry Bellegarde finally broke his silence on the Trans Mountain issue, asserting that UNDRIP principles mean they need First Nations consent.

But amidst all of this, we get back to some basic problems, in that thus far, BC hasn’t actually done anything yet, so there’s nothing that the federal government can actually do other than make a bunch of symbolic statements. Demands that this be taken to the Supreme Court are left with the basic problems of just what we’re asking them to weigh in on – federal jurisdiction is settled law, and until BC actually comes up with their novel plans to skirt the constitution, we have no actual question for the Court to decide on (when it eventually does – it wouldn’t hear the reference until the fall at the earliest, and then likely take up to six more months to render their decision). I’m hard-pressed to call that a panacea to the problem, or to give Kinder Morgan the comfort they’re seeking.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/983822254290055169

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/983822625636999169

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/983823922847084544

Good reads:

  • The Commons Public Safety committee will meet for sixty minutes at noon on Monday to hear from National Security Advisor Daniel Jean.
  • The Mexican ambassador says that while wages in Mexico are increasing, they won’t rise to the levels demanded by some NAFTA players immediately.
  • The big omnibus crime bill contains a clause that would allow police to submit court testimony in writing instead of in person, meaning defence can’t cross examine.
  • VADM Mark Norman had his first court appearance, and it’ll be a high bar for the Crown to prove breach of trust. Here is a guide to the cast of characters in this saga.
  • The government still doesn’t have a timeline for eliminating the gay blood donor ban (but they are compiling research for a move to a better risk-based system).
  • Tired of waiting for the government to fulfil its promise to repeal mandatory minimum sentences, Senator Kim Pate plans to table a bill to do just that.
  • A book by former Dion advisor Jocelyn Coulon insists that there was a frosty relationship between Trudeau and Dion, stemming Dion rebuffing Trudeau in 2006.
  • The Ethics Commissioner might open an investigation into Raj Grewal’s invitation on the India trip (but nobody has said how his private interests were furthered).
  • Stephen Harper tweeted congratulations to Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban, who is anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim. John Geddes delves deeper here.
  • In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, Maxime Bernier expresses some sour grapes and says that Andrew Scheer won thanks to “fake Conservatives.”
  • Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column takes on the issue of those illicit political donations by Conrad Black.
  • Susan Delacourt looks at Canadians’ growing distrust in Facebook.
  • Martin Patriquin notes the Liberal inability to own their pithy phrases when they backfire, preferring instead to shift to less sentimental talking points.
  • My column calls out the insistence that there are “simple questions” or simple answers to the Trans Mountain issue.

Odds and ends:

An academic examination of Justin Trudeau’s Instagram feed shows not a single selfie among the image he’s crafted.

Help Routine Proceedings expand. Support my Patreon.

Roundup: Artificial deadline drama

Posted on by

It’s one of these kinds of stories that I’m already suspicious of – the kind that presuppose that the Senate is going to delay the course of legislation. And lo, the fact that there is a story with Bill Blair out there, shaking his finger at the Senate and warning them not to delay the marijuana legislation, is one that makes me roll my eyes because 1) the Bill still hasn’t passed the Commons, and may not yet for another week; and 2) I have heard zero plans from any senators that this is something that they intend to sit on until any deadlines pass or expire. In fact, I’ve heard pretty much the opposite – that to date, there is an extreme reluctance on the part of those making up the Independent Senators Group to delaying or being perceived to be delaying government bills, and they will provide the statistics to show that they pass bills faster than the House of Commons does as a way to prove that they don’t delay bills.

Oh, but what about the national anthem bill, which Conservative senators are sitting on and deliberately delaying? Well, that’s a private member’s bill, so it is at the mercy of Senate procedure, unlike a government bill – as the marijuana legislation is – which not only takes precedence over other business in the Senate, and which Senator Peter Harder, the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative” could invoke time allocation on, and I’m sure that he would be able to get enough votes for it to pass (grumbling of Conservative senators aside). This having been said, I think that perhaps it may be pushing it for the government to insist that a major piece of legislation like the marijuana bill be passed by the Senate within three weeks given that they took much longer on it, and given that provincial governments have a lot to say on the matter – though I’m hearing that the Senate will likely sit a full week longer than the Commons will before they rise for the Christmas break, meaning that if the Commons passes it by this Friday, it would be four weeks for the Senate to pass it before the break, which is a long time for a bill in the Senate, but not unreasonable. And if the Commons was so concerned about how long it was taking, they would have picked up their own pace on the bill beforehand. They didn’t, and didn’t invoke time allocation on it thus far, meaning that this concern of Blair’s is artificial and used to create some faux drama. People aren’t stupid – creating a problem where one doesn’t exist is just as likely to backfire than it is to try and shame the Senate into doing your bidding.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Picking the overseers

Posted on by

The composition of the forthcoming National Security Committee of Parliamentarians has been brewing under the surface for a while now, given that the legislation has taken a long time to get through Parliament, but it looks like more consternation is on the way. The NDP have complained to the National Post’s John Ivison that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has asked for four names from their caucus for consideration on the committee, and that the PM would pick one, as is his right under the Act. The reason, according to the PMO, is to try and build a committee reflective of Canada – so essentially that it’s not all straight, white men looking at national security issues from that particular lens – and that would be a very easy thing to do. And the NDP’s one and only pick for their party’s representative on the committee, Murray Rankin, is just that – a straight, white man who happens to be eminently qualified for the role. And so Mulcair is, as he so often does, pitching a fit about it.

I’m a bit torn on the outrage here because as much as this is being spun as Trudeau having contempt for Parliament and being a Harper-esque figure in that regard, this is exactly how he drafted the legislation and how it passed, so unlike many of the tactics that Harper employed, he was upfront about his plans how he planned to achieve them. Now, granted, many of Trudeau’s plans and promises have been utterly boneheaded (see: electoral reform, “modernizing” the House of Commons, his “benign neglect” of the Senate, etcetera, etcetera), but he generally hasn’t tried to stealthily undermine the institutions or actively firebomb them. So there’s that. Also, this is how our system of government tends to work – a prime minister who enjoys the confidence of Parliament makes the appointment, and is judged on the quality of them both by Parliament and the electorate. And I get why he would want to ensure a diverse committee makeup, and not want to necessarily have to rely on his own party members to make up the more diverse members of the committee, but rather share that load between all of the parties. Nevertheless, there is something unseemly about not letting opposition parties choose their own representatives (though I hardly imagine that the members he chooses would be any friendlier to him and his agenda than one that the opposition party leader would choose). On the other hand, selection powers can be abused, and things done for ostensibly good reasons (like diversity) can have all kinds of unintended consequences. But in the meantime, this will start to look like yet another self-inflicted wound for Trudeau.

https://twitter.com/cforcese/status/903422508774416385

https://twitter.com/cforcese/status/903422980616802304

https://twitter.com/cforcese/status/903424514985529345

Continue reading →

Roundup: Senator Greene’s lament

Posted on by

Conservative-turned-independent Senator Stephen Greene took to the pages of the National Post yesterday to decry Andrew Scheer’s plans to return the Senate to a more partisan institution by making partisan appointments, should he ever form a government and be in a position to do so. Much of Greene’s op-ed makes a series of good points, but at the same time, I find myself a bit leery of his particular conclusion that partisanship is a bad thing period. I agree with his points that a too-partisan Senate can simply act as a rubber stamp, which there were many cases that it appeared to during the later Harper years, when they had a comfortable majority in the Upper Chamber and simply went on neglecting needed appointments while letting their caucus be whipped into continued votes in support of legislation, no matter how flawed.

Where Greene’s analysis falls down, however, is the fact that while the tendency in a more partisan Senate to whip votes means there is less pushback against the government of the day, it fails to take into account that to a great degree, it’s not so much the final vote that matters in the bigger picture than what goes on the record. Courts rely on the parliamentary record to help determine what parliament’s intentions were when they are asked to interpret the law, and in cases where opposition parties in the Senate are unable to get enough votes to push through amendments to a bill, they can at least attach observations to it, and ensure that their objections are on the record – something the courts find valuable. The other aspect is that having senators in the caucus rooms provides a great deal of perspective to MPs because the Senate is the institutional memory of Parliament. Not having those voices in the caucus room, behind closed doors, can mean even more power for the leader because there are fewer people who aren’t constrained by the blackmail powers of that leader to not sign nomination forms, for example, who can push back and who can offer the cautions to the other MPs when the leader is overstepping their bounds. Not having those voices in the caucus room diminishes them, which is something that the Liberals have been dealing with (while Trudeau’s office centralizes yet more power as a result).

Greene also doesn’t seem to appreciate the fact that not having party caucuses in the Senate means that opposition is harder to organize, thereby advantaging the government of the day. It also makes ideological scrutiny of government legislation more difficult because a chamber of independents, especially when you have a mass appointed by a government on ideologically similar lines. That is an underappreciated element of the Westminster structure in the Senate that most modernization proponents continually overlook.

While I sympathise with many of his points, and I do recognise that there have been problems with how the Senate has been operating for the better part of a decade, partisan caucuses weren’t the sole cause of those problems. Breaking up the two-party duopoly has been a boon to the Chamber’s governance and management, and that’s why having a “crossbencher” component has proven to be extremely valuable. But doing away with party caucuses entirely is short-sighted, and causes more problems than it solves.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Freeland articulates her vision

Posted on by

Foreign Affairs minister Chrystia Freeland gave her major foreign policy speech yesterday in the House of Commons, and the theme was basically that we can’t rely on the Americans anymore, so it’s time to step up more, and that includes hard power. That also means more spending on the military, some of which is there and waiting to actually be spent once we get some of our procurement issues sorted, but that particular speech is later today as the Defence Policy Review is finally unveiled. (And incidentally, on Friday, Marie-Claude Bibeau will unveil our feminist foreign aid policy). It was noted by a couple of people, chiefly among them Paul Wells, that we really should have a major foreign policy speech every year or so, and this is certainly a better indication of where the government’s thinking is at.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/872099635107704832

This was not the case with the previous government, and it’s certainly worth noting. That this government actually uses the time allotted for statements by ministers is a good thing, as the constant eschewing of Parliament in favour of human backdrops in some alternate location was insulting.

Meanwhile, Stephanie Carvin offered some cogent analysis over Twitter, so here you go:

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/872137661275934723

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/872138106413166593

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/872138388056551425

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/872138744316534784

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/872139113910194177

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/872139424515149824

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/872139675980443648

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/872140002398003200

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/872140341067034624

You can also find Carvin’s thoughts in expanded form here. For some more analysis on the speech, read Paul Wells for some more context around the points Freeland made in the speech, Susan Delacourt on the jabs made at the Trumpocalypse, and Stephen Saideman for some more foreign and defence policy angles.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The difficulty with tracking spending

Posted on by

The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s latest analysis shows that it’s difficult to track budgetary spending commitments because they don’t often line up with the Supplementary Estimates. And yes, this is a problem. The solution is something that the government has already committed to, which is to reform the Estimates process. Right now, it is out of sync with the budget, where the Estimates need to be out before the beginning of the new fiscal year, but there is no set time for the budget to be released, meaning that the allocation of budget dollars happens before Parliament sees the budget. Later allocations to match the budget are supposed to then show up in the Supplementary Estimates, but as the PBO shows in his analysis, that’s hard to track. And even harder to track is whether those Estimates wound up being spent properly because the accounting systems used between the Estimates and the Public Accounts at the end of the fiscal year no longer match up, so tracking those dollars is also near-impossible. This has been an ongoing problem for decades, and the Liberals were elected on a promise to fix this problem. They have started to, but in recent months, the Treasury Board president, Scott Brison, says he has encountered resistance from the civil service when it comes to how they time things, and he’s trying to fix it. So that’s the hope, anyway.

What I hope comes from this exercise, however, is increased pressure on Brison and the government to carry on with reforming the Estimates cycle so that it better matches the budget cycle, and that the Estimates match the Public Accounts at the end of the year so that money can actually be tracked. What I hope doesn’t happen is for this to turn into calls to turn over yet more power and authority for scrutinizing the estimates to the PBO because that’s the whole raison d’etre of MPs, and they should be demanding that it be in a format that they can use and understand.

And while we’re on the subject of the PBO, here’s Kevin Milligan on the proposed amendments to the new PBO legislation, and why he still has concerns (as I do) about creating a massively powerful Officer of Parliament with no oversight or accountability.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/869273503664570368

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/869273503664570368

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/869276551904337920

Continue reading →