Tag Archives: Parliamentary Budget Officer

Roundup: Ahistorical expectations about project timelines

Posted on by

A couple of quick notes for the weekend. First is that for all of the projects referred to the Major Projects Office, none have actually officially been designated a PONI (Project of National Importance), so my calling the referred projects as such is admittedly premature. But that also means that none of them have the special rules that trigger the Henry VIII Clause from the legislation, which again, leads to the same question that Althia Raj asked in her most recent column about why the rush to ram that bill through Parliament with almost no debate and little stakeholder input if they haven’t bothered to use it, nearly six months later.

The other note is that the talk about timelines remain ahistorical and nothing but wishful thinking. “We used to build big things. We built a railway in four years.” Erm, not really. This is likely a reason why most of the projects that have been referred to the MPO so far have been in the works for years is for the very reason that they’re much further along. This is likely going to be one of the death knells of Danielle Smith’s pipeline plan, which is that it’s starting from zero, and there is no way, even with the magic wand of the Henry VIII clause, that they can make it go from concept to shovels in two years.

They didn't go from "Shall we build a railway?" to a railway in four years.The CPR was a Confederation promise before 1867. Construction began in 1881.Or, actually, in 1875, when they started a section in Manitoba and northern Ontario. Which hooked up to other rails built on their own earlier.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:17:30.293Z

There were planning, scandal, false starts, re-awarding of the contract. And not a lot of attention to, you know, Indigenous people's rights.Or working conditions, which were eventually the subject of Heritage Minute you might recall. www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE3I…

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:20:55.646Z

What's the right length of time to plan and build a new high-speed rail line in 2025? I don't know.But they didn't do the entire CPR from concept to completion in four years, and I don't think we want a dead temporary foreign worker for every mile of track.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:23:15.475Z

And then there’s Poilievre’s completely nonsense demanding that government “get out of the way,” or Ontario’s Stephen Lecce talking about the problems with federal regulations killing projects when that also relies on a very selective reading of history and what happened. Northern Gateway started planning before Harper took over, and over his nine years in power, Mr. “Get government out of the way” couldn’t get it past the finish line either (in part because they couldn’t even be arsed to live up to their own consultation process with First Nations). Nothing Poilievre is saying is true, so We The Media need to stop treating it like it’s credible.

Ukraine Dispatch

The attack on Kyiv early Friday killed six and injured dozens, along with more strikes on energy facilities. Ukraine hit the oil port at Novorossiyk the same day, suspending oil exports. Ukraine is now mass-producing interceptor drones to bolster their air defences.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre refuses self-reflection

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre held a press conference yesterday, where he debuted a new slogan about the “credit card budget,” as though that were clever (it’s really not), and had several of his MPs all read the same scripts about so-called “Liberal inflation,” even though inflation doesn’t work that way, and the current affordability crisis is the result of policies that have been baked in for several decades now. But where things got testy was in the media availability after, where Poilievre was taking shots at media outlets (including false accusations about corrections), and him “quoting” things Chris d’Entremont said about the Liberals in the Chamber, which might have been more damning if they simply weren’t the very same scripts that every Conservative MP reads unthinkingly. (d’Entremont later, correctly, dismissed this as just “spinning.”)

But what took the cake was when Poilievre was asked whether he was reflecting on his leadership style after the two losses to his caucus over the last week, and he said plainly “No,” and then babbled on about being the only leader fighting for affordability. (Also not true, because the only thing he’s fighting for is trickle-down economics, which created the affordability mess we’re in). But seriously, Poilievre is incapable of self-reflection, and he keeps proving that over and over again. He’s the same campus conservative he was when he was seventeen, and nothing will ever change or dissuade him from that, nor his childish, argumentative style, his need for chants and slogans, or his jejune beliefs in how monetary policy works. He is incapable of understanding complexity, and it shows. The fact that his leadership style is being referred to as a frat house is just as indicative of this fact. No self-reflection, no personal growth, and it’s a wonder why people who aren’t already Kool-Aid drinkers in the party don’t connect with him.

Meanwhile, the NDP are puffing out their chests and telling the Toronto Star that they’re getting ready for an election if the budget doesn’t pass, which I will call bullshit. They’re not getting ready for an election. The party is $23 million in debt, they’ve already mortgaged the office building they own in downtown Ottawa, and they have no more resources to draw on. This is them trying to look like they’re tough and relevant when they will see to it in one way or another that there is no election because in no way can the fight one, even if it’s to try and reclaim five seats in order to return to official party status. This is posturing, and nobody should be under any impression otherwise.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-12T23:01:55.085Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian civilians are being evacuated from settlements in the Zaporizhzhia region as fighting intensifies in the area, while forces in the area say that they have stopped the Russian advance. Here is more about the situation in Pokrovsk. Ukraine’s justice and energy ministers submitted their resignations as a result of the energy kickback scheme allegations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Empty-handed at the White House

Posted on by

After all of the build-up, the managed expectations, and all of the blustery accusations in Ottawa that prime minister Mark Carney is an inept negotiator, he came away from his “working lunch” at the White House with pretty much nothing. Carney gave Trump his usual quasi-flattering/quasi-shady “transformational president” line (because once Carney has a line he likes, he sticks with it), and he laughed off another annexation “joke” from Trump, and Trump rambled some nonsense about competing in the same ecosystem for cars, but that was about it.

Carney later on had dinner with couch-fucker vice president JD Vance, while Dominic LeBlanc was sent out to deal with the press, and said pretty much nothing other than the fact that they’re going to negotiate further and hoping for some “quick deals” on a few specific issues, which we’ve heard so many times now, and capitulated on so many particular issues that it just feels all the more meaningless. And it is meaningless, because everyone knows that there is no deal to be had because Trump will not live up to any “agreement” he signs. So naturally, the auto sector is concerned that they’re going to be thrown under the bus because Trump refuses to give up the notion that Canada stole auto production from the US, in spite of facts and evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, we’re in for another round of QP where the Conservatives denounce Carney as the incompetent negotiator when Trump is not a rational actor who can be negotiated with, because why unite against a common enemy when you could be scoring Internet points?

There wasn’t much in the way of pundit reaction so far, but Shannon Proudfoot points out that Keir Starmer figured out the key to flattering Trump before everyone else did, and how it reflected in Carney’s meeting. Althia Raj correctly calls this a cringe-worthy performance on both sides, which accomplished nothing.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-10-07T14:08:04.476Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Putin claims that Russia has seized 5000 square kilometres of Ukrainian territory this year, and that they retain the strategic initiative; Ukraine says they have failed to seize any major settlements and that their initiative is stalled.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Managing the expectations from Washington

Posted on by

Monday was a weird day of expectations management as prime minister Mark Carney headed to Washington for a “working lunch” with Trump to happen today. There were murmurs from Senior Government Sources™ that there could be some kind of relief for some—but not all—of the steel and aluminium tariffs, but those were heavily caveated and is not going to be any kind of comprehensive tariff deal, because Trump loves his tariffs. (And there is no deal to be had). Oh, and while all of this expectations management was going on, Trump declared new 25 percent tariffs on medium and heavy-duty trucks. Because of course.

Amidst this, Pierre Poilievre released a peevish open-letter to Carney that demanded “no more losing” when it comes to dealing with Trump, and a list of things he wants “wins” on, whether it’s tariffs or softwood lumber, or what have you. Because remember, under this framing, Trump is the rational actor and Carney is the one who is the inept negotiator who simply can’t get anything done. Reality of course, is entirely the opposite, that you can’t really negotiate with Trump because he has no logical basis or consistency for his “deals,” and anything he agrees to isn’t worth the paper its written on (if it’s even written down, as some “deals” were nothing more than blank pages with a signature on it).

To that end, Andrew Scheer went on Power & Politics looking to pick a fight with David Cochrane about this, and when Cochrane pointed out that yes indeed, Trump’s tariffs are both affecting our economy and we still do have the best deal of anyone with Trump, that Scheer twisted this into “agreeing” that Carney’s ineptitude has cratered the economy and soured any deal with Trump, because Scheer is a liar and a braying doofus. But this is what everyone has to deal with when it comes to the level of rhetoric and sheer sophistry coming from the Conservatives these days, which is not exactly conducive to informed debate.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-10-06T22:08:02.378Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine’s forces say that Russian sabotage groups are active in the city of Pokrovsk, which Russians have been trying to capture for months. Ukraine’s long-range drones have struck a Russian ammunition plant, a key oil terminal, and an important weapons depot.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Telling on themselves about bail

Posted on by

After Question Period today, there will be a vote on the Conservatives’ latest Supply Day motion, which is for the House of Commons to pass their blatantly unconstitutional “jail not bail” bill at all stages. This is going to be an increasingly common tactic as they have loaded up the Order Paper with a number of these kinds of private members’ bills, and they are using the rhetoric that the government is somehow “obstructing” their legislation, even though most of those bills would ordinarily never see the light of day because there is a lottery system for private members’ legislation to come up for debate, with no guarantee of passage in either chamber (because the Senate can and will sit on private members’ bills long enough for them to die on the Order Paper if they’re particularly egregious). But most people don’t understand the legislative process, or that opposition MPs can’t just bring stuff up for debate at any point in time, so this is just more rage-baiting over through use of scary crime stories to make the point about how the Liberals are “soft on crime,” and so on. It would be great if legacy media could call out this bullshit, but they won’t.

At the same time, the Conservatives calling it “Liberal bail” is telling on themselves. The law of bail stems from the pre-Charter right to the presumption of innocence, which is a cornerstone of our entire legal system. The specific law of bail has been honed through decades of Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, and the last time the Liberal government made any major bail reform legislation, it was to codify that Supreme Court jurisprudence, and to actually increase the onus for cases of domestic violence. None of this made things easier for bail, but the Conservatives haven’t stopped demanding that legislation be repealed (and only once in a while will a Liberal minister or parliamentary secretary actually call that out). This is about undermining important Charter rights, but do the Conservatives care? Of course not. They want to look tough and decisive, no matter who gets hurt in the process.

Meanwhile, much to my surprise, Poilievre says he won’t support the (really bad) omnibus border bill, C-2, so long as it contains privacy-violating sections like enhanced lawful access, which is a surprise, because the Conservatives have been champions of it for years (much as the Liberals used to be opposed to it). So, the world really is upside down now. Unless this is some kind of tactic or ploy, which I also would not be surprised by, but at the moment it looks like they’re on a “the Liberals are the real threats to your freedom” kick, which to be fair, this legislation is not helping the Liberals’ case.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched their largest aerial assault against Lviv and surrounding regions early Sunday, killing at least five. Earlier in the weekend, Russia attacked a passenger train at a station in Sumy, killing one and injuring approximately thirty others.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An eight-day sitting?

Posted on by

I don’t follow provincial legislatures too much, but this headline caught my eye—that the Nova Scotia legislature had just wrapped up an eight-day sitting, which absolutely rankles me as someone who cares (perhaps a little too) deeply about parliamentary democracy. While on the one hand, it’s not uncommon for provincial legislatures to have shorter sessions that we see in Ottawa, and for them not to have the same kind of fixed schedule that we do, eight days is frankly insulting.

What is perhaps even worse from this story is the fact that the Houston government rammed through a bunch of omnibus legislation, when clearly, they had the time and the ability to actually debate legislation on their own. Even more problematic is the fact that these omnibus bills included poison pills to try and trap the opposition parties into supporting disparate things. The one example was protections for renters, which the NDP supported, being in the same bill that imposed heavy fines or jail time on protesters on Crown land, effectively criminalising certain kinds of dissent, which they could not support (especially as these protests involve protests on logging roads). I’m sure Tim Houston thought that this was clever, when it’s just abusive. This is not how the parliamentary process is supposed to work. This is certainly a problem in most Westminster legislatures, and there are now mechanisms in the federal Parliament that can break apart omnibus bills in certain circumstances, and perhaps the province needs to adopt some of these measures on their own because that should be out of bounds.

Part of what irritates me about this is that Houston is doing this while he’s trying to sell himself to Canadians as this reasonable, progressive conservative who’s not tied to the federal party, and that he’s this kind of anti-Poilievre figure. I’ve certainly heard from people who used to sit in that legislature that he has a reputation for bullying, but even beyond that, these kinds of tactics demonstrate a kind of contempt for elected office, and for elected officials to be doing their jobs, which includes scrutinizing legislation properly, and holding government to account. A rushed eight-day sitting where you ram through omnibus bills is clearly not how a legislature is supposed to operate, and the people in the province should be raising a bigger racket about this—especially in Nova Scotia, which was where Responsible Government was first achieved in the colonies.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia targeted Ukraine’s natural gas facilities in an early morning attack on Friday, with much of the targets to being facilities in Kharkiv. A Russian drone also killed a French photojournalist on the front lines in Eastern Ukraine.

Continue reading →

QP: Pretending there are taxes on groceries

Posted on by

The PM was in town, back from one set of travels and before the next, while the day felt both like Monday as no one had sat for the previous two days, while the post-caucus Wednesday energy still suffused the Chamber. Pierre Poilievre led off in English for a change, and he lamented job losses across various sectors, and blamed the prime minister. Mark Carney offered his sympathies for families affected, and touted their actions to protect industries. Poilievre quoted the hyperbolic statements of the interim PBO, accusing the PM of killing jobs, to which Carney said that Poilievre was ignoring the effect of U.S. tariffs, and offered his “spend less, invest more” line. Poilievre went on a tear about the deficits, to which Carney offered a “fiscal lesson,” which consisted of our AAA credit rating and the lowest deficit in the G7. Poilievre accused Carney of being worse than Trudeau, and Carney chanted that the country is building industry, houses, the country, etc. Poilievre switched to French to once again quote the PBO, and Carney again cited our strong fiscal position in the G7. Poilievre returned to English, to return to the issue of food price inflation, blaming “taxes” on groceries. Carney cite that there’s no GST on food, there’s no carbon levy, there is no carbon price on farms, and that real wages are growing.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and accused the government of meddling in the Canada Post labour dispute, and considered it a “provocation.” Carney stated that Canada Post is an essential service and it needs to be viable, but they need to take action to stop it from losing millions of dollars. Blanchet said that if it was an essential service, why radical cuts would be made, and that workers learned about the cuts TV. Carney stated that he just became PM, and that they have needed to make changes for a long time. Blanchet accused Carney of being a conservative, and demanded “serious experts” to reform Canada Post. Carney said that the corporation and union need to come to an agreement between themselves, but that they also needed more flexibility. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: The supposed fiscal precipice

Posted on by

My sinking feeling about the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer continues to plummet, not only in response to last week’s committee appearance where he not only used a bunch of over-the-top adjectives to describe his read of the fiscal situation, but also telegraphed that he has taken all of the wrong lessons from his predecessor and that he intends to make himself a media darling, in defiance of what his role is actually supposed to be according to his legislated mandate:

“If the government wants to go 12 months without producing a budget, as a citizen I would feel a little bit uncomfortable. But as somebody who works in the Parliamentary Budget Office, I’d say, ‘That’s great for us. Because we will occupy all the space that they decide to give up.’”

He was back on TV this weekend, and saying a bunch of alarmist things about how we’re on a “precipice” and so on, which…is not what his office was saying just a few months ago. If anything, this is the kind of alarmism that we’re used to hearing from the “it’s 1995 and will always be 1995” crowd, where any budget deficits are treated as some kind of national catastrophe, and that we’re sitting on a “debt bomb,” but we’re not. People are actively forgetting the measures taken to save the economy during the height of COVID, pretending that it didn’t happen, and now they’re downplaying just what exactly the effect that Trump’s tariffs are having on the economy—or the fact that we have managed to avoid a recession so far (not that it has stopped Poilievre from insisting that our economy is “collapsing.”)

Meanwhile, we’re once again getting the litany of demands from business groups about the budget, and they’re entirely of the “cut taxes and deregulate” variety, because nobody has learned a single lesson about how trickle-down doesn’t work, and that the scars from the last round of government austerity have not healed. And from the looks of it, this PBO is not only trying to become a media darling, but he’s basically rooting his analysis/opinion in these very same frameworks, which I suspect is going to really start to skew just what his analysis is and what it’s saying, which is going to do a real disservice to the job that he’s supposed to be doing.

Ukraine Dispatch

There was another major attack on Kyiv early morning Sunday, with 595 drones and 48 missiles, which killed four people, including a child.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The weird fixation on east coast LNG

Posted on by

There was another report about Europeans looking for Canadian LNG, this time in The Logic in a conversation with the German ambassador. What it did not really mention was the actual business case—only that the “long timelines” involved was a reason why former prime minister Justin Trudeau said that there wasn’t a business case for it. The thrust of the piece is that demand maybe longer than just short-term because even rapid electrification will still require some gas, however there is a boatload of context about this that journalists who have this weird fetish for LNG never actually touch on.

First of all, this discussion is only about east coast LNG, not west coast, where the conditions are different, and where there a whole bunch of potential projects that are fully permitted, and have all of their approvals in place, but aren’t moving ahead because the market isn’t showing demand (and by demand, we mean signing long-term contracts to buy the product). While this was also the case on the east coast, it’s complicated by the lack of ready supply of natural gas to liquify. Neither Quebec nor New Brunswick are about to start fracking for the sake of domestic supply, and the costs to bring a pipeline from western Canada to New Brunswick for export purposes is a lot to consider when we think about what is “long term.” That means supply is likely to becoming from the US, and that in turn will drive up local prices because they’re competing with the theoretical export terminal. To add to that, the “long term” we need to keep in mind is that these kinds of plants need to be operating for a good forty years or so to get their money’s worth. Is anyone in Europe thinking about the infrastructure necessary on that kind of time scale? Unlikely, and unlikely at that time scale for the kinds of prices that Canada would be offering, which are higher than they could get elsewhere.

What do they mean by "long-term"? Because these kinds of projects need a 40-year lifespan or so to actually get their money's worth, by which time we'll be well past net-zero goals.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-25T13:37:04.762Z

This is why these stories never actually make sense, because those journalists never actually talk to an energy economist about it, or if they do, it goes right out the other ear while they maintain this weird fixation on LNG. I’m not quite sure what it’s in service of—have they simply absorbed the propaganda of the oil and gas industry, who say dumb and wrong things like how our fossil fuels are the “cleanest” (they absolutely are not), or worse, that it will displace coal (the final emissions profile is not that much lower than coal, and as David Cochrane is the only journalist to push back on this talking point, there is no guarantee that they wouldn’t just use Canadian LNG in addition to coal rather than displacing it)? Or is this some kind of sad attempt at playing gotcha with Trudeau and the business case line? Because certain journalists are relentless in badgering and hectoring European leaders about this, and it’s just weird, and just completely ignorant of the facts on the ground.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian attack on Chernihiv meant power cuts for 70,000 people. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte says that members can target Russian planes that enter their airspace as necessary. And president Zelenskyy says he is ready to leave office once the war is over.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Asking for declaratory powers, not limits

Posted on by

There is a bunch of confusion and/or bad faith arguing going on around just what the federal government said in their factum to the upcoming Supreme Court of Canada hearing on the challenge of Quebec’s Law 21, which they claim is “state secularism” but is really just wholesale discrimination and racism. The reporting hasn’t been great—in fact, the National Post’s is downright misleading—because they keep describing this like it’s a reference question to the Court, which it isn’t, but rather, the argument that they’re putting forward during the existing challenge, and something that they feel the Court should address (which is how factums tend to work).

What their argument consists of is that the Court should be able to declare when a law that is protected by the Notwithstanding Clause is actually unconstitutional. They can’t strike it down, but they can weigh in and say “Yeah, this contravenes Charter rights.” They also want the Courts to be able to do this when something has been ongoing in its use of the Clause (which only lasts for five years before it needs to be renewed in legislation), and to rule on whether it may result in the “irreparable impairment” of rights, because they argue that repeated use of the Clause amounts to “indirectly amending the Constitution.” This is also not coming out of nowhere—the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal just recently ruled that they have this right when it comes to the challenge around the province’s attack on trans youth, saying that invoking the Clause should not be the last word.

Why is this important? Because the point of the five-year time-limit on the Clause is that it allows that government to be voted out before it can be renewed. Having the courts weigh in and say “Yeah, this is discrimination,” even if they can’t strike down the law, is powerful information for voters to have. And it’s absolutely democratic. But you have conservative thinkers who are trying to say that this will cause a “constitutional crisis,” or a national unity crisis if it offends Quebec or Alberta, is frankly absurd. It’s trying to give cover for attacks on minority rights and abuse of the Clause, and they should be honest about those intentions rather than trying to sow confusion and undermining the Court.

Ukraine Dispatch

An overnight Russian attack on the Kirovohrad region has partially cut power and disrupted railway operations. A top Russian commander claims they are advancing on all fronts, in contravention to Ukrainian reports. Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies say they need more resources to crack down on the “shadow economy.”

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1968289157341647326

Continue reading →