Tag Archives: Parliamentary Budget Officer

Roundup: No, David Lametti isn’t threatening to tear up the constitution

Posted on by

You may have noticed that the Conservatives engaged in a lot of rage-farming over the long weekend, sometimes to the point of flailing and reaching. There was one particular bad-faith episode (well, they’re all bad faith episodes) that was particularly egregious, and roped in several premiers, who were also engaged in their own bad faith. Late last week, justice minister David Lametti attended a special chiefs’ assembly of the Assembly of First Nations, and was asked about the Natural Resources Transfer Act of 1930, and how these treaty nations were not benefitting from them, and Lametti said he’d look at it, but acknowledged this would be controversial.

And how! Immediately, Danielle Smith, followed by Scott Moe and later Heather Stefanson insisted this was a plan to “tear up the constitution” and nationalise the control over natural resources, and before long, Pierre Poilievre got in on it, along with a chunk of his caucus who insisted this was some sinister federal plan. It’s not, and this is more bad faith bullshit (which, of course, the gods damned CBC just both-sidesed, because they still think you can both-sides bad faith).

It’s actually in the legislation that the federal government can give back land to the First Nations to honour treaty obligations, and that’s at the heart of this. It’s their land. The treaties are to share the wealth, and, well, we haven’t been. They have a legitimate point here and the government has an obligation to at least hear them out on this. Is that going to cause a fuss? Yeah, probably, because settler governments, particularly in provinces, particularly those who are dependent on resource revenues, are not going to want to share that wealth. But the time is coming, sooner or later, when these conversations need to be had, because economic reconciliation means more than just dangling bribes to affected First Nations when resource extraction projects happen on their lands. Not that bad faith actors like Danielle Smith, Scott Moe or Pierre Poilievre will acknowledge this reality.

Ukraine Dispatch:

In what seems to be a repeating story, Russian Wagner group mercenaries claim—again—that they control most of Bakhmut, while Ukrainian forces claim, again, that they are holding firm. Not far away in Avdiivka, it is estimated that some 1800 people are still living in the city as Russian forces pound it. There was a prisoner swap of about 200 Russians and Ukrainian soldiers on Monday. Ukraine also resumed electricity exports to Europe now that they are able to meet their domestic demand after Russia targeted their energy infrastructure late last year.

https://twitter.com/denys_shmyhal/status/1645857297955192848

Continue reading →

Roundup: An abuse of parliamentary privilege

Posted on by

I’m going to start off with the caveat that I don’t know a lot of what is happening in Nova Scotia politics, but I came across this story yesterday that is pretty concerning for the practice of parliamentary democracy across Canada. During debate on a bill around use of non-disclosure agreements in sexual assault cases, an independent MLA (formerly a Progressive Conservative but was ejected from caucus in 2021) tabled a document that she claimed was a non-disclosure agreement that a former female staffer had been coerced into signing with the PC Party. (To make things more interesting, said staffer died last year, and was working for this MLA at the time, and she says the document was found in the staffer’s effects—and, the party’s former leader was forced out over inappropriate behaviour toward a female staffer, so I’m not sure how many of these factors actually connect).

A government minister has since moved a motion to force her to retract her comments about the incident, and if she doesn’t, that she should be ejected from the Chamber until she does. And that’s a capital-P Problem. Said independent MLA has since complained to the province’s justice department that the move is unconstitutional…but the justice department can’t do anything about it, because this is clearly a matter that is within parliamentary privilege. But it absolutely violates all of our constitutional norms, and should be a warning sign about the lengths to which parties will abuse their majorities in legislatures to silence or bully opposition members. It sounds like the provincial Liberals and NDP will be opposing this motion, but the PCs do have a majority, so they may not be able to do much in the long run. I would not be surprised if the Speaker finds that the motion is out of order, but this is genuinely frightening about how much they are willing to abuse process and parliamentary privilege like this.

Don’t get me wrong—parliament or the legislatures do have the power to eject members, but it needs to be for very serious wrongdoing, such as being convicted of a serious crime, and if the member refuses to resign gracefully, then they can order the seat vacated. But those are extreme circumstances that have yet to be actually tested (because in virtually every case, sanity prevails and they resign with a shred of dignity still intact). But this is an unconscionable abuse of that power, an abuse of a parliamentary majority, and sets a very dangerous precedent for the future, and the PC members who thought this was at all appropriate should not only be ashamed, but should probably consider tendering their resignations for this debacle.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say they repelled 45 Russian attacks around Bakhmut over a twenty-four-hour period, continuing to grind down the Russian forces while they await more arms from allies like the US in order to begin the spring counter-offensive.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1643326962226585604

Continue reading →

Roundup: No political interference, and an incompetent commissioner

Posted on by

The final report of the Mass Casualty Commission, arising from the Nova Scotia mass shooting, was released yesterday, and it is wholly damning on the RMCP, as well as on the state of gun control measures. While I have a column about RCMP reform coming out later today, there were a couple of other threads that I wanted to pick up on here. One is that Trudeau says that they’ll make changes to the RCMP, but I’m dubious. Like the column will point out, there’s almost nothing left to save, and I fear that inertia will carry the day—especially when Saskatchewan starts bellyaching about recommendations to phase out training at Depot in Regina, and provincialism will win the day.

The other is that the whole drama around allegations of political interference in the investigation have been resolved, and unsurprisingly, there wasn’t any. “[Commissioner Brenda] Lucki’s audio recorded remarks about the benefits to police of proposed firearms legislation were ill-timed and poorly expressed, but they were not partisan and they do not show that there had been attempted political interference,” the report concluded. Because the claims never made any sense. The gun control changes were not drawn up on the back of a napkin in the wake of the shooting—they had been worked on for months at this point, and were being finalised, and Lucki would have known that because she would have been consulted the whole way through. And there was no reason for the local detachment not to release that information because they knew where the guns came from, and there was no investigation to jeopardise. The report had a lot of things to day about the RCMP needing to be more transparent, and to learn how to admit mistakes, and yes, it did call out that they were actively lying to the public throughout the incident and its aftermath.

One of the other aspects yesterday that deserves to be called out even more is that the interim RCMP Commissioner was given the report the day before, and he couldn’t be bothered to read it, or to have an adequate briefing on its contents, before he went before the media. It’s rank incompetence, and all the more reason why the Force needs to be disbanded.

Ukraine Dispatch:

At least six Russian missiles hit the city of Kharkiv yesterday. Here is a look at Bucha, one year since its liberation.

Continue reading →

QP: Ignoring the Mass Casualty report

Posted on by

The prime minister was away in Truro, Nova Scotia, for the release of the Mass Casualty Commission report, while his deputy was on the west coast getting a head start on selling her budget to the public. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he accused the government censoring debate on a bill that would censor what people can watch online—which is a complete fabrication, because closure is not censorship, and Bill C-11 is about making web giants pay into CanCon funds and has nothing to do with censorship—saying that the bill would give “woke” Ottawa control over Quebeckers’ media, called out the Bloc for supporting the bill, and instead that only the Conservatives stand against censorship. Greg Fergus got up and insisted there is a consensus in Quebec that artists deserve to be paid, and only the Conservatives are offside. Poilievre insisted there was no culture without freedom of expansion, accused the government disinformation, said that Margaret Atwood opposes the bill (note: she did not understand what was in it, but was taken in by misinformation), he called the CRTC a “woke agency” (which is risible), said they could use algorithms to censor debate (false), and insisted that Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four was not an instruction manual. Fergus insisted that these were just the same talking points of Big Tech, and that the Conservatives won’t stand against them. Poilievre insisted that the bill would shut down any voices they don’t like, and demanded to know why the prime minister was shutting down debate. Fergus insisted that web giants are not paying their fair share, and wondered why the opposition was against that. Poilievre tried to insist this was about free speech, and tried to use a prop before he got warned about it by the Speaker. Mark Holland got up this time, and used his sanctimonious tone to admonish the Conservatives for pretending that anyone in the Chamber doesn’t believe in free speech, and that they have the free speech enough to go around the country spreading misinformation. Poilievre insisted that he would keep beating the government in debate, before switching to the topic of carbon prices, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report on carbon prices and insisting it “proved” the Liberals were wrong (never mind they cherry pick figures and butcher the statistics and distributional effects). Terry Duguid recited the good news talking points about rebate in return. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he raised the money for countering foreign interference in the budget, and demanded a public inquiry. Maninder Sidhu read talking points about those line items. Therrien insisted that this was proof that they already had concluded what David Johnston would find and demanded a public inquiry, and this time, Mark Holland got up to sing Johnston’s praise.

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and he raised the conclusion of Mass Casualty Commission report and demanded immediate funds for victims of domestic violence. Pam Damoff recited that they will examine the report and come back with actions in due course. Alexandre Boulerice took over in French, and demanded the government copy Joe Biden’s green industrial policy. Seamus O’Regan insisted that the projects will be built either by union jobs or paid prevailing union wages, which was proof they were on the right track.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The tone of the interference debate gets worse

Posted on by

Because we are in an era of bad faith and lowest-common-denominator shitposting, Pierre Poilievre called a press conference yesterday to assert that Justin Trudeau was working in China’s interests against Canada—no doubt catnip to the conspiracy theorists whom he has been trying to attract to his banner, who carry signs about “treason” and who carry nooses to rallies. Even one-time sensible moderate Michael Chong has gone on television to be “just asking questions” about Trudeau’s loyalty to Canada, which is frankly beyond the pale. (Poilievre also said some absolute nonsense about LNG in Canada and his steadfast belief that there would have been a market for it if not for red tape—never mind that proponents could find buyers and couldn’t make a business case to proceed with projects that were fully permitted).

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1633197743131750400

Trudeau later responded that Poilievre’s was eroding faith in democracy with this kind of rhetoric, but that’s kind of the point with this brand of populists. They are trying to erode faith in institutions so that they can insert themselves as the solution to the problems of democracy, without needing to worry about things like minority rights. Not that Trudeau has helped, with his back-patting and platitudes, which doesn’t push back against this kind of threat. (Some good analysis here).

In the meantime, we wait for the announcement of the special rapporteur, but if the goal is to have opposition sign-off, that could be difficult. The NDP say they are cautiously optimistic, but the Bloc want someone who has pre-determined that there needs to be an inquiry, while the Conservatives are likely to engage in bad faith regardless of what happens, so the ability for there to be consensus on a name is not a hope I am holding out for. But seriously—everybody howling for a public inquiry doesn’t seem to realise that NSICOP is likely more independent, because a public inquiry would be appointed by Cabinet, with terms of reference set by Cabinet, and would report to Cabinet. The government is trying to create some distance from themselves with this rapporteur, but nobody wants to hear the actual process or procedure around the demands they’re making.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1633129536358346755

Ukraine Dispatch:

Kyiv is disavowing a group that has been making raids over the border in Russia, while other small groups within Russia are also conducting sabotage operations in opposition to Putin. Ukrainian officials have identified the soldier in a video that was executed by Russians, in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1633042812605280256

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 →

QP: Taking personal responsibility

Posted on by

In the aftermath of the prime minister’s meeting with the premiers, and after a moment of silence for the bus crash in the daycare in Laval, things got underway. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he raised the daycare collision, and offered support and prayers for the families, and asked for an update from the federal government. Justin Trudeau echoed the sentiments, pledging support, and offering thanks to first responders. Poilievre then got back to his usual attacks, blaming the prime minister for people needing to have $1.7 million in savings to retire, and demanded the prime minister take “personal responsibility” for inflation. Trudeau noted that while some seniors face difficult situations, the government increased their benefits and listed a number of programmes. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the same question, and Trudeau said it was “ironic” that Poilievre talks about fixing things when they needed to reverse Conservative cuts when they took power, and listed more programmes for seniors. Poilievre blamed the prime minister for rent increases and for heating bills (what global oil prices) and mortgage prices, and demanded the prime minister admit he broke things so that they can fix them. Trudeau listed support programmes for low-income people and seniors, and reminded him that the Conservatives nickel-and-dimed seniors and veterans, and said he was surprised that Conservatives voted against affordability measures. Poilievre then accused the PM of banning anyone from saying that the country is broken, and yet “his own” parliamentary budget officer said that things were broken, and he wondered if the prime minister would call him to try carpet to explain himself. Trudeau said that there is always more work to do, and cited his new funding for healthcare as proof.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and first needled the prime minister on the divisions in his caucus over the official languages bill before complaining that the health care deal was woefully insufficient. Trudeau recited his points about the funds and what they hope to achieve. Blanchet accused the government of indexing underfunding, and Trudeau again recited what Canadians need around doctors and mental health service, which is why they were improving the situation in partnership with provinces.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and accused the government of not putting his foot down on more privatisation and that Doug Ford said that it didn’t come up. Trudeau said that Singh was misinformed and that the first thing he raised was the public system and the Canada Health Act. Singh repeated the question again in French, and Trudeau repeated his answer in French.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Say no to a Consultant Commissioner

Posted on by

Because a lot of people continue to be wringing their hands over government contracts to outside consultants, we’re starting to hear a few…less than stellar ideas. One of them came from Paul Wells yesterday, while on the CBC’s Front Burner podcast (Wells’ portion starts at 20:46). While there is some good context from Carleton University professor Amanda Clarke on the size of the problem (thread here), Wells is wrong about two particular portions, and he would have avoided this had he listened to my conversation with professor Jennifer Robson on my YouTube channel last week.

The first is the notion that when these consultants’ job is done, nobody is accountable for the work because most of their agreements mean that it can’t be subject to Access to Information rules, which is wrong. Fundamentally the minister is accountable no matter what. It wouldn’t matter if the work was done by outside consultants or the civil servants in the department, the minister remains responsible, and people seem to be forgetting this in their rush to condemn the consultants. The other part where he’s wrong is his idea to create a “consultant commissioner of Parliament” or other such independent officer.

No. Absolutely not.

We already have way too many gods damned independent officers of parliament, who are unaccountable, and to whom MPs have completely abandoned their constitutional responsibilities of oversight. Sure, the media and the opposition want someone independent they can quote on command to say mean things about the government, but that winds up just creating more bureaucracy, and doesn’t help the overall situation, especially as it drags us further down the road to technocracy rather than parliamentary oversight. The absolute last thing we need are more independent officers, and I wish to gods people would stop proposing them.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 335:

Russian forces have continued to pound the Donetsk region in the country’s east. Russians are also claiming Ukrainians are storing Western weapons in the country’s nuclear power plants, but have provided no proof. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is promising personnel changes at both senior and lower levels after high-profile graft allegations, as part of the country’s attempt to clean up its corruption problem.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Danielle Smith will threaten your funding

Posted on by

Danielle Smith’s Alberta is a place where Smith and her ministers will phone you up and threaten your funding if you have mask or vaccine mandates, it was revealed yesterday. Smith threatened funding for the Arctic Winter Games, and has been phoning film productions to threaten them if they have mandates, because of course she is. It’s an abusive, arbitrary exercise of power that is imposing conditions on these groups or productions that don’t have these obligations in their written agreements, but it’s not like she cares about things like legalities.

It was also revealed that she isn’t moving ahead with her plan to add protection for the unvaccinated in the province’s human rights legislation, and is instead going to focus on her so-called “Sovereignty Act,” but rumour is that it’s going to be something like “Sovereignty Within a United Canada” or some other similar bullshit to make it look like it’s not a full-on separatist movement that will spook investment, not that doing arbitrary things like phoning you up and threatening your funding will make anyone feel like they want to continue doing business in the province. I’m almost surprised that her caucus isn’t revolting already considering the absolute abuse of power on display.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 279:

Ongoing Russian strikes and power disruptions as a result are making it difficult for hospitals in Ukraine to carry out their work, and at times, surgeries are being performed with headlamps and flashlights. The US is expected to announce aid that will help with the restoration of electricity around the country. Meanwhile, 30 settlements in the Kherson region have been shelled 258 times in the past week, and Russia has kept up shelling at Bakhmut and Avdiivka in Donetsk province as they try to make gains there.

https://twitter.com/DavidLametti/status/1597320883441319936

Continue reading →

QP: Directly quoting selectively from the PBO

Posted on by

The prime minister was present once again, while his deputy was busy testifying at the public inquiry. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he worried about deficits causing inflation (which they’re not), and demanded a course correction. Justin Trudeau reminded him that they were there for Canadians during the pandemic in order to ensure it was less severe than other places on the world, and that our economy bounced back faster, and insisted that the Conservatives only want to cut. Poilievre switched to English to denounce alleged comments from Seamus O’Regan, and demanded they cut the carbon price. Trudeau dismissed the concern as twisting the words of minister, and pointed to the PBO report on the carbon price and how it helps eight out of ten families. Poilievre picked up that report and cited several numbers out of context to “prove” his talking points. Trudeau, looking rather pleased, insisted that Poilievre did not look at the section about the rebates, and called him out about not caring about climate change. Poilievre insisted that the rebates were “tiny” and didn’t cover costs—and was called out by the Speaker for using the report as a prop—and Poilievre went on a tear about how the price is ineffective and hurts people. Trudeau disputed that the rebates were tiny, and noted the other benefits they have delivered, noting that Poilievre is only playing rhetorical games. Poilievre tried to bring up the cost of the hotel for the Queen’s funeral and insisted that the report proved that people are being hit hard. Trudeau countered that the report shows that the rebates compensate most families more than they pay, because fighting climate change is important while Poilievre only wants to nickel-and-dime them.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he returned to the alleged contradictions in the reports about the Xi Jinping confrontation and demanded a return to the per-vote subsidy to prevent foreign funding. Trudeau clapped back that the Bloc only want the subsidy because they can’t raise money on their own. Therrien was incensed, and insisted that China was exploiting this vulnerability, and Trudeau countered that political financing is robust and transparent, and pointed out that the media are invited to his fundraising events, and encouraged other parties to do the same.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and decried the crisis in emergency rooms and demanded the federal government show up. Trudeau took exception to the insinuation he doesn’t care about children, and pointed out that they have transferred billions to provinces and are sitting down with provinces. Singh switched to French to repeat the question and got the same response.

Continue reading →