Tag Archives: Parliamentary Budget Officer

Roundup: A continued abuse of process

Posted on by

The myriad ways in which this government continues to abuse process for the sake of expediency in the face of the current pandemic never ceases to amaze. After the unnecessary five-week prorogation during which things could have been accomplished, the government needed to act with alacrity to get the CERB replacements out the door, and this meant very little time for a proper legislative process – and that should have been a red flag right there. They introduced their bill, and then set about ensuring additional negotiations with the NDP that required amendments to said bill. But rather than go through a proper amendment process, the government simply tabled a new, tweaked version of the same bill, and then pushed through a motion to see it fast-tracked through the Commons with a mere four-and-a-half hours of debate and no committee process, so that it can pass in a single day – today – and head to the Senate tomorrow for rapid passage and royal assent.

This is not normal. This is not good. The Conservatives even put forward a motion last week that would see the Commons meet on Sunday so that they could do Committee of the Whole and maybe even have a proper amendment process as part of that, but the Bloc denied consent. Rather than negotiate and try again, they went with this route instead, which is a problem. This kind of nonsense may have made a limited amount of sense for the emergency legislation that passed through the early part of the pandemic when Parliament was ostensibly suspended, but it’s not suspended any longer. And the opposition parties have largely stated that they don’t want to be seen as impediment to getting people their needed benefits, so it’s not like a proper process would drag on forever – maybe an extra day to do things properly. But no.

My patience for this state of affairs is pretty much exhausted. There is no reason why we shouldn’t be running proper legislative processes, and why Parliament can’t bubble and operate in a largely normal capacity like they should be. These shenanigans are weakening Parliament, and it’s not a good look.

Continue reading →

Roundup: PBO on thin ice

Posted on by

Comments made the Parliamentary Budget Officer over the weekend should have him very nervous for his future, as he is straying far beyond his mandate. The PBO, Yves Giroux, was in the media saying that current deficit levels are “unsustainable” within one or two years, which both misreads the current situation, and is venturing into opining on policy choices, which is not his job.

As an Independent Officer of Parliament, he has a certain degree of latitude for doing the job he is tasked with doing, which is to provide costing for proposals on demand by parliamentarians – something which can be a very creative exercise at times – and to provide independent fiscal forecasts of federal budget numbers – also something which has been made redundant because the Department of Finance doesn’t publish their forecasts any longer as the current practice is to take the average of the top twenty private sector forecasts and use those in budget documents. But he’s not invulnerable – Independent Officers can still be fired for cause, and Giroux seems to be flirting with that line.

It’s possible that Giroux doesn’t understand just what he’s doing when he’s answering these media requests, but it’s not the first time that he’s said dumb things in the media, such as a few weeks ago when Bill Morneau resigned that it was akin to “changing pilots mid-flight” (apparently unaware that this is actually standard practice on long-haul flights). He’s supposed to be a lot more circumspect, by virtue of his position, and not offer up any kind of opinion on policy choices. He is not there to second-guess the government and its actions – this is not a technocracy. He is supposed to provide cost estimates when asked, and provide independent forecasts (and as we saw in the election, sometimes he has trouble with the former when he simply put certain parties’ promises on his letterhead without actually doing any analysis of them). Offering opinions on policy choices impacts his ability to be independent, which he should know if he had any particular sense about him. I suspect that someone – perhaps a former PBO who is feeling particularly charitable – needs to pull him aside and to tell him to stop answering all of these media requests, and if he does accept them, to stick to the very narrow contents of his reports. His predecessors largely did not have this problem. Other Officers of Parliament do not have this problem. He needs to undertake to rectify it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Getting the deficit vapours

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau was back making the media rounds yesterday, and one of the things he spoke about was the “ambitious green agenda” to be laid out in the Throne Speech, which has every pundit in the country clutching their pearls about the state of the deficit. Why? Because in Canadian punditry – and many government departments, finance especially – it is 1995 and will always be 1995. And some of that comes with the usual ridiculous assertions about comparing the nation’s finances to a household’s, or that of a business.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1301527104383848449

And then there was one column in particular which doubled down on not only the usual deficit vapours, but the notions that somehow inclusive growth isn’t a real strategy, which credible economists – and not just those on speed dial for certain media outlets who have one answer for every problem – will tell you is a bogus argument. But hey, it’s 1995 and will always be 1995.

https://twitter.com/twitscotty/status/1301505825366773762

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1301496695814004736

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1301500044315693058

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hot and Bothered for Basic Income

Posted on by

The idea of a Basic Income has been a hobby-horse of parliamentarians for a while, and yesterday the Parliamentary Budget Officer came out with a report that purported to cost one out in a couple of different scenarios. But it’s a bit of a horror show of a report because what it’s actually describing is a cash transfer and not an actual Basic Income scheme, and more than that, some of the things it purports to strip in order to pay for its high price tag are a number of disability supports. Remember that while a Basic Income may sound like a left-wing idea, there is plenty of right-wing support for it if it dismantles the welfare state, where replacing tailored disability programmes with a one-size-fits-all cash transfer is a feature and not a bug. (More from economist Mike Moffatt here).

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280537746881212422

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1280630991661535238

Suffice to say, this report got some senators all hot and bothered, including Senator Yuen Pau Woo, who put out a press release on the topic, calling for a pilot project, so here’s Lindsay Tedds, who worked on BC’s Basic Income project for the last two years, and who knows a thing or two about Basic Income.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280562781142388736

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280643403349291008

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280623432766353408

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280623434410496003

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280624155994361856

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280628328622219265

Continue reading →

Roundup: Singh gets named and ejected

Posted on by

For his daily presser, prime minister Justin Trudeau announced something that was definitely not a reversal of previous assertions, stating that at fiscal “snapshot” would be released on July 8th – not an economic update, because it’s still too volatile to make any kind of projections, but a “snapshot” was just fine. And he had to explain that one was not like the other several times. He also announced new Health Canada approvals for manufacturers of testing materials and ventilators, and that they had extended a Fish and Seafood Opportunities Fund, and that Parks Canada would be gradually reopening camp sites, because some masochists in the country apparently can’t wait to go camping. During the Q&A, Trudeau pushed back over the Bloc’s assertion that he is “acting like a king,” saying that when opposition leaders complain that the prime minister acts like it’s a dictatorship when they don’t get their way undermines the strength of our democracy – and he’s not entirely wrong there, but the fact that he has been reluctant to fully recall parliament and hiding behind a deal he made with the NDP to keep it that way doesn’t do him any favours.

The coming confidence vote on the Estimates wasn’t going to the drama that some thought it might because the NDP had pretty much already pledged support after Jagmeet Singh walked back his tough talk on the CERB extension (for which he is still undeservedly taking credit), and lo, the Estimates did pass. But the drama wound up being with Jagmeet Singh, who had tried to move a unanimous motion about systemic racism in the RCMP, which was blocked by the Bloc, to which Singh called the Bloc’s House Leader a racist, and when called on it, admitted that he did so and refused to apologise for it. This created some drama, the Speaker had to be recalled (because the Commons had already resolved into Committee of the Whole), and Singh was named and forced to leave for unparliamentary behaviour. Normally when this happens – which is extremely rarely – said MP would head out to the microphone stand in the Foyer to say their piece, which is precisely why Speakers are reluctant to name MPs. Because of the pandemic, Singh couldn’t do that, and instead called a 5 PM press conference – guaranteed coverage on the 5 o’clock political shows – and repeated his calling the Bloc House Leader a racist, but in such a way that immediately a lot of voices started chirping that he made it sound like he was taking license to call anyone who disagrees with him a racist (which isn’t helpful guys, and you know it).

Of course, this also got the whole anti-civility gang on social media riled up, and yelling about why Singh became the story and not the Bloc. But that’s the thing about decorum – Singh made himself the spectacle, so that’s where the attention became, rather than him calling a press conference after the motion was denied and calling the Bloc to account at that point. (The Bloc, incidentally, defended their move by saying that the public safety committee was already studying the issue and that they should wait for their report). But seriously, decorum rules exist for a reason in Parliament, and it’s fairly inherent in the name, which is derived from the Old French parlement, meaning speaking or conference. Not becoming the spectacle would have probably put more pressure on the Bloc, but that isn’t how this played out, and because Singh repeated his accusation of racism at the press conference, where he doesn’t have parliamentary immunity, this could turn into a lawsuit, which will become an even bigger distraction from the point he was trying to make.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau played chicken, and lost

Posted on by

There was no presser for the prime minister yesterday, as he was instead at Carleton University delivery commencement addresses in both official languages for university graduates across the country. When the House of Commons did meet first for the usual COVID committee, it was a spectacle of Andrew Scheer making disingenuous attacks about the Auditor General’s budget, and Trudeau responding by trying to shame Scheer into supporting their bill later in the afternoon – a tactic he also tried with the attacks by the other opposition leaders.

And so, when the committee ended for the day and there was a brief pause for the Commons to transition to an actual (abbreviated) sitting, things degenerated. The government tried to pass a motion to do their usual tactic of passing the bill at all stages with a couple of hours for speeches, and that was defeated. They tried again, this time splitting out the disability portions of the bill to pass them swiftly first before going back for the rest, and that failed. Andrew Scheer tried to move a motion to suspend and reconvene a short while later, presumably so that they could engage in further negotiations, and that didn’t pass. And then the Bloc moved their own motion to suspend until such time that the House leaders signalled that they had come to an agreement. And that too failed. Out of options, the Speaker decided that since they couldn’t agree on how to conduct the day’s business, that the House would suspend until the next scheduled sitting day – next Wednesday, when they plan to pass the Estimates in one fell swoop. It was like watching some kind of farce film, but all too real.

The government played political chicken, in their presumption that one of the opposition parties would blink because this was about disability payments (for only about 40 percent of disabled Canadians, if the figures are to be believed, because this was the only real mechanism that the federal government had access to because disability supports are largely an area of provincial jurisdiction). Pablo Rodriguez says they’re still negotiating, but the Conservatives want the House of Commons to have proper sittings (though they are reticent about remote voting – quite rightly); the NDP want more support for people with disabilities and the CERB fraud penalties taken out; the Bloc are demanding a fiscal update, a first ministers’ meeting on health transfers (without strings or conditions of course) – because the weekly teleconference with premiers isn’t enough – and a ban on political parties taking the wage subsidy. I do, however, object to this being dismissed as “partisan sniping” because six months ago everyone was falling all over themselves to rave about how great hung parliaments were because they force parties to work together, and well, this is the result – everyone has priorities they want to advance and everyone thinks they have leverage, and the government tried to play chicken rather than meaningfully engaging at least one of those groups, hoping that the banner of “helping people with disabilities” would be enough to make the opposition roll over like they have been over the course of this pandemic. So no, it’s not sniping – it’s MPs doing their jobs (well, partially anyway), and we shouldn’t be dismissive of it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A horrific report

Posted on by

The theme of the day was set from the start of prime minister Justin Trudeau’s daily presser – that the military deployed to long-term care in Ontario had found troubling cases of abuse and neglect, and that Trudeau immediately forwarded on those concerns to premier Doug Ford. Trudeau then went on to talk about their contract with GM in Oshawa for more face masks, and spoke about the other partnerships for things like more ventilators and other equipment. Trudeau also spoke about funding up to 700 youth jobs in the agriculture sector, and that he was convening a meeting with the UN Secretary General and the prime minister of Jamaica as part of an international push to ensure poverty reduction as a result of the pandemic. During the Q&A, Trudeau was asked repeatedly about the request to fast-track the claims of asylum seekers who were working in long-term care facilities, and he spoke about trying to find flexibility (but apparently not about the fact that it’s hugely problematic that facilities are hiring these extremely low-wage and largely untrained workers). When asked about the pending Meng Wanzhou extradition verdict, he said that the great thing about our justice system is that governments don’t have to apologise for it. And when asked further about the report on those long-term care facilities, Trudeau reiterated that this was a provincial matter, but that the federal government needed to be “part of the conversation” going forward.

A short while later, Doug Ford released the report, then wrung his hands about how terrible it was, and how he vowed he was going to take action – kind of like he promised that they would ensure there was an “iron ring” around these facilities, and well, that didn’t exactly happen either. And he talked tough, saying that the people who ran these facilities could face charges, but his government did cut back on inspections, so he has to wear that one too. And while he mouthed the words about taking responsibility for the situation, in the same breath Ford blamed his predecessors, and then said he was going to need “federal help,” which translates to “I don’t want to have to pay to fix this,” and he wants to put this on the federal books instead of his own. Because that’s what always happens. The NDP opposition in Ontario was also making itself useless by demanding a full public inquiry, which won’t tell us anything we don’t already know, especially as we’ve just had another public inquiry on long-term care home deaths in this province, and it will simply be a justification to delay action, possibly permanently.

Meanwhile, the NDP and Greens voted in the House of Commons to prop up the Liberals’ motion to carry on with the useless “special committee” hearings rather than proper sittings of the Commons, which also included provisions that means that they will rubber-stamp some $150 billion in spending on June 17th without a proper legislative or committee process, essentially abandoning their fundamental duties as MPs. Slow clap, guys. Slow clap.

Continue reading →

Roundup: One-time benefits for seniors

Posted on by

The day began much as Monday did, with a ministerial presser in Toronto, where Bill Morneau and Deb Schulte announced a one-time additional benefit for seniors who earn low-income supports. People may ask why this was necessary given that they haven’t lost incomes (like others have), and the theoretical justification is that they may be facing some increased costs around things like deliveries, taxis, or prescription fees. There is also a particular political justification in that this is a bit of a sop to the Bloc, who have been howling about this for weeks, and we all know that it’s because seniors vote.

Shortly thereafter, Justin Trudeau held his daily presser at a slightly earlier time because of the impending sitting of the Commons “virtual” special committee, and he reiterated much of what had been announced earlier, but somewhat more unusually, stated that this pandemic has revealed uncomfortable truths about how we treat seniors in this country, and that there are serious underlying challenges that they will help the provinces with in finding lasting solutions. This particular construction is pretty key, because this is explicitly a provincial issue, and the federal government can’t just write in long-term care to the Canada Health Act as certain people have been demanding. The Act doesn’t work like that, as they should very well know. During the Q&A, Trudeau stated that the government planned to be very careful when it comes to easing border restrictions, and that he wasn’t going to ask for Carolyn Bennett’s resignation over the dispute over the Wet’suwet’en MOU.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1259819355866632192

During the special committee meeting that followed, the Conservatives were hung up on the reporting that civil servants were instructed to ignore any potential cheating on CERB applications and process them anyway, with the goal to investigate and pursue repayment after this is all over. We’ll see if this concern over the government “ignoring fraud” carries over the next few days, or if this is an instance of the opposition chasing headlines.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Dire stats as Parliament is recalled

Posted on by

It was a very busy morning – first, Statistics Canada released the March job figures, which were dismal – 1.01 million jobs lost, massive reductions in hours worked, but also (which everyone didn’t really report) that most of these jobs will likely come back once the pandemic measures are over with, which is significant. Following that, the federal Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, released some of the federal modelling on the course of the pandemic, which put everyone into a hot and bothered state.

When prime minister Justin Trudeau held his daily presser, he largely played the role of empathiser in chief – yes, these are all grim numbers, but we’ll get through them together. More to the point, we could be in this until summer, so it’s time to get used to our new normal, particularly if there are subsequent waves that follow this one (though those ones would likely not be as severe and wouldn’t require the same measures like the current lockdown – hopefully). He did also say that he respected parliament but then started making excuses for why he wanted a virtual one, and nope. Not going to fly, sorry.

It was announced later in the day that Parliament will be back on Saturday – 12:15 for the Commons, 4 for the Senate, which likely means Royal Assent by the time the day is over. That means that we’ll have yet more emergency legislation that gets maybe three hours of “debate” in the House of Commons, and that once again all of the negotiations have been done behind closed doors, and there will be no public record about what kind of amendments were requested and agreed to, which serves no one’s interests, particularly those of Canadians.

[Maclean’s has a new Q&A with Dr. Isaac Bogoch on questions people have about the pandemic]

Continue reading →

Roundup: Data-sharing and demanding models

Posted on by

For his morning presser, prime minister Justin Trudeau noted that he was planning a teleconference with the premiers that evening to talk about coordinating their efforts, and better data sharing. He also stated that they had received 1 million new N95 masks the night before, and that they were working to validate the 10 million other masts they got over the past several days and were distributing those to the provinces as well. He got more questions on modelling the pandemic, saying that it was still coming because the data wasn’t there yet, and said that those returning to Canada from abroad posted a “real risk” to the entire country if they didn’t follow the rules and immediately self-isolate.

During the ministerial briefing that followed, Patty Hajdu wouldn’t entertain questions on whether or not she trusted the data coming out of China, saying that they relied on WHO data, and dismissing some of those concerns as conspiracy theories, which had the pundit sphere in a tizzy the rest of the day. Mark Miller also said that they were considering requests from a couple of different First Nations about military field hospitals being set up in their regions, while more money for pandemic preparedness was flowing. Bill Morneau had a separate appearance before a teleconference of the Commons finance committee (which was a bit of a gong show), where he stated that they went with hard-and-fast rules for compensation that could mean that there are gaps in coverage because that was the fastest way to get compensation out the door. (Of course, he didn’t spell out the capacity challenges, which just leaves him vulnerable to more baseless criticism).

[Maclean’s has updated their Q&A on symptoms and where to get testing]

As for the debate over producing the modelling, we’re seeing some provinces promising to roll theirs out – Doug Ford promising it’ll be today – but I’m having a hard time trying to see what it’s going to do at this point that will be of any real help. I am very convinced that we don’t have enough good and consistent data right now (and there are several experts who say we don’t have enough to do proper modelling just yet), and if people want to see how bad it can get, just look at Italy or Spain. I also don’t trust in the capacity of the majority of my fellow journalists to interpret any of this modelling data anywhere near correctly, given that they have proven to be proudly innumerate already during this pandemic (and a good many of them can’t handle basic civic literacy when they cover politics), so I am largely convinced that they are demanding the models for the sake of easy narratives, such as a screaming headline about worst-case scenario death counts. (Seriously – I have been in this industry long enough to know that’s exactly what’s coming). And I also fail to see how it would offer any kind of reassurance to the public, especially as they can see the death counts in other countries as well as they could a headline about worst-case scenario modelling in Canada – add to that the additional confusion of the disputes over methodology that would follow. Models aren’t data, and according to one data analyst I know, no one will read the technical quotes associated with any released modelling, and it will serve as disaster porn – and she’s right. I mean, certain outlets who shall not be named relied on dial-a-quote outrage from certain familiar sources to bolster their case for demanding the numbers be released, in the face other outlets getting opinions from specialists who are saying it’s too soon to have good data on this. But maybe I’m just pessimistic.

https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1245825513072951297

Continue reading →