Tag Archives: Procurement

QP: Last chance to get clips before the summer

Posted on by

It’s a sweltering, muggy Wednesday, and everyone hopes the final day before the House rises for the summer. The prime minister was present, while his deputy was not, and the other leaders al deigned to attend for on last go-around to gather some clips for the summer break. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he lamented that the country is broken, and took a swipe at the Bloc, and demanded an election right now. Justin Trudeau said that if the leader opposite was really concerned about affordability, he would help pass their measures to help people rather than play petty partisan games. Poilievre worried that the government is threatening to “shut down” the Quebec forestry sector (not true), and Trudeau responded that unlike the Conservatives, Quebeckers know they need to protect the environment and the economy at the same time. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his assertion that everything  is broken and demanded an election, and Trudeau repeated his same assertion that the Conservatives should support their programmes. Poilievre expounded on just how much the country is a living hell thanks to his “whackonomics,” and Trudeau shot back that the Conservatives are only concerned with protecting the wealthiest, particularly over the capital gains changes. Poilievre claimed the Middle Class™ doesn’t exist anymore, and Trudeau reiterated that Poilievre only cares about himself. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and complained about anglophone mail carriers in Quebec, and Trudeau praised the government’s support for French, including in Quebec, and promised to follow up on it. Blanchet accused the government’s programmes of harming French, and Trudeau dismissed this as “identitarian” squabbling.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he accused the government of coddling CEOs, to which Trudeau patted himself on the back for raising taxes on the wealthiest, and took a shot at the Conservatives in the process. Singh tried again in French, and Trudeau listed the programmes they have delivered.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Clearing the decks before summer

Posted on by

It’s the last Wednesday of the spring sitting, and the big question is whether they’re going to pull the plug today or not. The government says there is still work to do—in particular, they want to push the Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission bill (Bill C-40) and the budget bill over the finish line, but the budget bill is up for a vote after QP tomorrow, leaving only C-40 at third reading debate, which is what is on for government orders tomorrow, and that’s the only bill they’re planning to bring forward for debate. This would make it pretty easy for them to pass a motion at unanimous consent to say something to the effect of it’ll pass on division or deemed pass at the collapse of debate at the end of the day, or some such if they really wanted, or to simply hold a vote at that point, and rise for the summer after that.

Of course, the Conservatives have been putting on a big song and dance about wanting to sit through the summer to “fix” the country, but we all know that’s all for show because that would mean nothing but more time for the government to keep passing bills and implementing their agenda, and that’s not what they want. They’re also trying to insist on committees sitting through the summer, but there are only two government bills at committee stage right now, so most of those meetings would likely be for private members’ business or for studies, and you can bet it’s going to be more of the latter, which would be little more than dog and pony shows to serve as clip factories while the House of Commons has risen. And if the Conservatives don’t agree for the House to rise tomorrow? Well, on the agenda are report stage debates on the cyber-security bill, the ports modernization bill, the (controversial) Métis self-government bill, and they have been debating the Elections Act changes, which the Conservatives and NDP are opposing because of bullshit objections to moving the fixed date back a week to avoid Diwali.

And then it’s up to the Senate to pass the number of bills on their plate, including the budget bill, and if they are true to recent form, they will race through their Order Paper until Friday, pass everything with little scrutiny other than maybe a few questions of the relevant minister at Committee of the Whole, and then rise by Friday, rather than stay another week or two to actually give things a proper review like they used to, back in the “bad old partisan days.”

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine is claiming responsibility for a drone attack causing a massive blaze at an oil reservoir in Russia’s Rostov region. Ukraine is investigating the suspected beheading of one of its soldiers by a Russian in the Donetsk region. Reuters has some photos of combat medics on the job on the front lines.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1802984596122034588

Continue reading →

Roundup: Singh’s turn with the report

Posted on by

It was NDP leader Jagmeet Singh’s turn to read the classified NSICOP report yesterday, and like Elizabeth May, he too called a press conference afterward, but there was a striking difference between the two, and Singh’s conference went off the rails shortly after he started.

First of all, there was a major difference in tone. Singh’s opening remarks were practically verbatim his condemnatory remarks from Question Period a few days ago, and stuck to those partisan scripted points trying to lay into both the Conservatives and the Liberals while trying to pretend that he’s the adult in the room (when clearly, he’s not, and that still remains Elizabeth May on this file). And after all, it’s hard to walk back the language he and Heather McPherson were using earlier in the week about the report and the supposed lack of action on the part of the prime minister, ignoring the obvious question of how he would know that the Liberals haven’t done anything if they’re keeping it quiet because the gods damned allegations are secret. Honest to Zeus, this shouldn’t be rocket science, but no, he is so intent on scoring points that he can’t seem to think through his own lines of attack. Just amateurish.

Which brings us to his point about how he says he’s more alarmed by what he read, but kept talking in circles, and refused to say whether he has concerns about any sitting MPs or senators, and his office needed to clarify to CBC later on that “Singh’s comments should not be taken as confirming or denying that the parliamentarians cited in the report are currently serving.” Really? Then what exactly was the point of this exercise? Other than to try and poke Elizabeth May in the eye, score points, and look like he’s the big man on campus? This is supposed to be a serious issue, and it would be really great if our political leaders could actually treat it that way.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine says it needs more air defences within the next few weeks, otherwise there won’t be sufficient power to get them through next winter. More than 4500 Ukrainian inmates have applied to enlist in the military under the new law, some of them eager to do their part for their country. At the G7 meeting, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been working toward getting security agreements signed with the US and Japan.

https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1801175861443383308

Continue reading →

Roundup: A political problem means classified briefings

Posted on by

The naming-names debate continued apace yesterday, starting at the public safety committee, where Dominic LeBlanc pushed back against Conservative theatrics demanding the release of the names (to atrocious behaviour from all sides), while at that that same meeting, the director of CSIS and the RCMP deputy commissioner also warned that releasing those names will cause both reputational damage to individuals who can’t defend themselves on the basis of allegations that aren’t backed up, and it can also damage ongoing investigations. There is no due process that comes with naming names for the sake of it.

Ultimately, however, this remains a political problem for the parties, because they need to know who among their ranks was compromised, and that requires all leaders to have the appropriate security classifications (and apparently for privy council members who are no longer ministers, there is a Treasury Board-esque process now that requires renewal, which is an extremely odd and concerning process because MPs are not government employees and they use intelligence in a different manner, so they shouldn’t need to use the same process). And as Philippe Lagassé points out, this isn’t necessarily a problem for law enforcement so much as it is for the parties. If the leaders get the classified briefings, they know which of their MPs may be compromised (and it’s is a “may,” not an “is” because we’re dealing with unverified intelligence that may not be true), and give them the space to either sideline them, prevent them from contesting the next election under the party banner, or to give those MPs the ability to try and exonerate themselves outside of the public eye where their reputations could be irreparably damaged. But again, this relies on the leaders doing the right thing and getting briefed, not hiding behind the bullshit excuse that they would be “muzzled” if they did.

There are a couple of other problems here. One is that in talking with people familiar with NSICOP, that they have had a tendency to exaggerate things in their reports because they also have an agenda of trying to make themselves look better and to take more of the spotlight, so we should take some of these allegations with a grain of salt. As well, some of those allegations are back to the problem that we heard about in other places where some of the intelligence was rejected by the National Security Advisor because they believed it was normal course of diplomatic engagement and not interference, which is something the Hogue Commission is struggling with. We don’t have a complete picture for a lot of reasons, and everyone is jumping to conclusions and needs to dial it down.

Programming Note: I’m away for the weekend, so there won’t be a Saturday post.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine shot down 17 of 18 Russian drones overnight, with the damage of the final drone in the Khmelnytsky region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Putting words in the Auditor General’s mouth

Posted on by

It was an Auditor General’s Report Day in the Nation’s Capital, and these reports were far more salacious than many in the past, which is in part why they dominated Question Period. The AG looked at three issues—contracts awarded to McKinsey and Company, the allegations around governance at Sustainable Development Technology Canada, and combatting cybercrime, and each report has a lot of things to say.

  1. Many of the contracts awarded to McKinsey were done sole-source with poor justification, going all the way back to 2011. And for context, these are contracts sought and awarded by the civil service, and not the political direction of the government; also, while there was a huge focus on McKinsey, they are less than one percent of these kinds of external contracts.
  2. There were governance problems at SDTC, including conflicts of interest in awarding funds, but there has been a lot of reporting in The Logic that suggests that some of this has been overblown, such as the fact that everyone on SDTC’s roster was given funds during the pandemic including operations that directors had ties to, so there couldn’t have been preferential treatment. Nevertheless, the government announced today that they are essentially pulling the plug on the organisation and folding it into the National Research Council.
  3. Cybercrime incidents have a poor record of being followed up on when reported to the wrong agency, and that many were dropped and the complainants were not told they reported to the wrong agency, meaning that a lot of files got lost along the way. The government is working on a single-window solution for reporting cyber-incidents, but that hasn’t happened yet.

On the first two, the Conservatives made up a huge fiction about these being contracts to “Liberal insiders,” or “friends of the government,” or “cronies,” or the like, when the reports said absolutely nothing of the sort. In fact, the reports quite clearly state that there was no political direction or involvement in these contracts, which means that these allegations by the Conservatives are not only false, but potentially libellous, but they want to create an air of corruption around the government. In addition, they seem desperate to avoid any scent of involvement themselves, when the McKinsey contract problems date back to when Harper was in government, and SDTC was set up by the Conservatives, including its governance structure, which proved problematic. In either case, the cries of corruption and trying to invoke the ghost of Sponsorship are little more than cheap lies, but that’s what the Conservatives do best these days, it seems, so none of it is surprising.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A pair of Russian missiles struck civilian infrastructure in Dnipro, injuring eight including two children. Ukrainian officials say that the decision to allow Ukraine to strike into Russian territory will disrupt their advances and help defend the Kharkiv region.

Continue reading →

QP: Inventing condemnation from the Auditor General

Posted on by

For likely the only time this week, both the prime minister and his deputy were both present for QP today, as were all of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he raised the Auditor General Report on SDTC, the allegations of improper spending, and demanded a taking of responsibility. Justin Trudeau said that they would look into report carefully, and that they were still focused on the green economy in a responsible manner. Poilievre noted the various contracts intended to focus McKinsey, to which Trudeau said that they have ensured that processes are now more transparent. Poilievre switched to English to praise the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and his allegation of a “gag order” on a federal report. Trudeau said that the PBO admitted to a mistake, and insisted that eight out of ten families get more money back than they spend (which is not the part of the report that was flawed). Poilievre returned to the report on SDTC spending, and demanded personal responsibility for the “costs and corruption.” Trudeau said that the minister has already taken measures to ensure that processes are properly followed while stepping up on the creation of the green economy. Poilievre then repeated his question on McKinsey, and demanded they get no more money, and Trudeau repeated that they have strengthened processes by how civil servants grant contracts to outside consultants,  before taking on a pitch about the carbon rebates. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and raised the NISCOP on the possible witting engagement by some parliamentarians with foreign powers. Trudeau thanked NSICOP for the report, and listed actions they have taken including the public inquiry, but said nothing about the parliamentarians. Blanchet demanded an answer on who was implicated, and Trudeau said it was ironic that Blanchet was asking his because he refused to get security-cleared so that he could see for himself.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, raised foreign interference particularly by India, noted the Conservatives’ refused to denounce Narendra Modi, and demanded more answers on implicated parliamentarians. Trudeau again spoke in generalities about what has been done. Singh repeated his same question in French, and Trudeau repeated his generalities. 

Continue reading →

QP: The overwrought demands for a gas tax holiday

Posted on by

The prime minister was in town but otherwise engaged, while his deputy was present for QP today. Most of the other leaders were present, and Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and recited a bunch of abject nonsense about the Bloc supporting the government, and wondered why the government didn’t formalise their supposed “coalition.” Chrystia Freeland noted that Quebeckers believe in a lot of things the government does, such as child care, and the that the Conservatives only want to cut, cut, cut. Poilievre said that he would cut taxes, and went on another rant about the Bloc. Freeland responded talking about social solidarity, and raising the rate of capital gains. Poielivre switched to English to take a swipe at the out-of-context comments by Mark Holland on Friday, and wondered if he would also call out his leader for taking his so-called “private jet” (which is not a private jet, it’s the Canadian military’s plane). Holland says that he was mistaken on the math, that it wasn’t 37,000 kilometres, but 44,000 kilometres to meet the supposed savings the Conservatives promised, and that they were meeting the existential challenge of climate change unlike the Conservatives. Poilievre dismissed this as “whacko math,” and decried the government’s climate plans before demanding the gas tax holiday. Steven Guilbeault repeated the point about the Conservatives’ math, which meant that a person could drive from the North Pole to the South Pole and back, and have kilometres remaining. Poilievre again dismissed this and demanded people get their gas tax holiday from the “miserable economy.” Guilbeault replied with another example of how far someone would have to drive to achieve the supposed savings the Conservatives claim.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and decried another Liberal MP’s comments on bilingualism, to which Pablo Rodriguez pointing out that the Bloc keeps voting against language funding. Therrien continued on his tear about the Liberals disrespecting French, and Rodriguez dismissed it as a ridicule question.

Leah Gazan rose for the NDP, and decried the lack of progress on the MMIW report, and Gary Anandasangaree read some anodyne talking points about systemic racism, and that they tabled their progress report today. Heather MacPherson went on a rant about the Liberals not doing enough to stop the war in Gaza. Mélanie Joly agreed the situation was catastrophic, which is why Canada supports the Biden plan.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The PBO immolates his credibility

Posted on by

In their need to constantly frame issues as both-sides, The Canadian Press inadvertently downplayed the severity of what happened with the notice that the Parliamentary Budget Officer quietly put on his website to say that they got some of their analysis on the federal carbon levy wrong. The CP story focused it on a Liberal MP writing the PBO to get him to broadcast the correction, rather than framing the story as the PBO made an error, and giving the briefest of mentions to the MP and his open letter, because that letter shouldn’t have been the story.

The story, as it turns out, is not only that the PBO made the mistake in his analysis, it’s that he is steadfastly refusing to take any responsibility for it, never mind that this particular report has been politically charged and is at the centre of much of the debate over the carbon levy. Putting aside that the report itself was not very well done (the distributional analysis was undermined by his insistence on including average figures and that the calculation on the impact of the price were done in the absence of any kind of counterfactual, and in a binary price/no price way that is in itself inherently misleading, the fact that the PBO didn’t advertise that there was a problem with the report, didn’t include any kind of correction (he’s planning a fully re-done report in the fall), and he’s saying thing that don’t logically follow, such as it’s too complex to recalculate like this…but the outcome from the error is unlikely to change the outcome of that portion of the report (this being the impact on the broader economy, which the Conservatives misleadingly cherry-pick to “prove” households are worse off). So, in addition to refusing to take responsibility, he won’t pick a lane.

But it gets worse. Yves Giroux went on Power & Politics to discuss this incident, and immolated his credibility as he not only continued to refuse to take any responsibility, but tried to prevaricate, and make excuses with a wall of bafflegab, but he also started arguing that his “small office” shouldn’t be responsible for the climate-related economic modelling that MPs are demanding, that the government should be doing it, but his one job is literally doing this kind of analysis to provide an independent analysis from the government’s. Of course, Giroux has always had a problem sticking within the bounds of his legislated mandate, and has preferred to act like a talking head pundit and opining on all kinds of things the government is doing, while still insisting that he’s independent and hence more credible than the government as a result. And I’m not too surprised that Giroux is trying to avoid taking any responsibility, being that he is a career civil servant for whom responsibility is something to be avoided, but in refusing to do so, he has tainted his office. There can’t be trust about his numbers going forward, and as was pointed out, especially if he’s going to be costing election platform promises (which he’s done a pretty shite job of so far, such as sticking his letterhead on Andrew Scheer’s handwaving), but that was something the PBO never should have done in the first place. This should be a resignation-worthy offence, but so should it have been when he decided he wanted to be a television pundit. But we’ll see if he can finally accept responsibility and do the right thing here and step down.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Four people were injured in a Russian missile attack on Kharkiv early Thursday morning. NATO’s secretary general is proposing a way to help Trump-proof military aid for Ukraine, but there will be obstacles that include Hungary’s objections. Reuters has a lengthy look at the front lines in Donetsk.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Recruitment rage-farming

Posted on by

It’s getting exhausting to think of the number of things that Justin Trudeau is supposedly personally responsible, whether it’s global inflation or the rise in interest rates. Today, it’s apparently the military recruitment crisis that the country faces.

First of all, in his tweet, Conservative MP James Bezan mischaracterized what the exchange between the committee chair and the Canadian Forces officer was, and the Chair said nothing about Trudeau or the government at all. But that’s what Conservatives to when they clip these committee exchanges and try to gin them up to make them look like it’s something scandalous happening, because that’s how they get their clips for their socials. To reiterate—nobody said anything at all about the government in the clip. The Chair was frustrated that the military can’t process potential recruits faster, not the government, because the government doesn’t play a role in this at all.

And even more to the point, Bezan knows this. He was a long-standing parliamentary secretary to successive ministers of defence in the Harper government, and he knows gods damned well that nobody in government approves or disapproves of recruits. But like everything these days, facts or truth doesn’t matter—it’s nothing but constant rage-farming to keep people angry, over the dumbest, most illogical things, because rage-farming doesn’t need to make sense. It’s all about feelings and vibes, and they’re willing to undermine democracy for clicks.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Three people were killed and six wounded in a Russian missile attack on the southern Mykolaiv region, while the Russians claim to have captured two more settlements—one in Kharkiv region, the other in Donetsk. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was in Spain, and secured a promise for more air defence systems to help deal with the onslaught of Russian glide bombs.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1795083380192604436

Continue reading →

QP: Gas tax holidays and make-up jabs

Posted on by

For Monday-on-a-Tuesday QP, the prime minister was off in Philadelphia, but his deputy was present, as were most of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, rattled off some slogans, and accused the Bloc and government of scheming to raise gas taxes when other countries have cut their taxes, and mentioned his demand to cut fuel taxes over the summer. Chrystia Freeland said that she was glad he raised inflation because it allows her to mention this morning’s inflation figures, which showed another decrease thanks to their responsible management. Poilievre switched to English to insist that the government shouldn’t pat themselves on the back because inflation is still 35 percent above target, and repeats the demand to cut gas taxes. Freeland noted that he doesn’t even know that the target is between one and three percent. Poilievre returned to French to insist the target was two percent, and then lambasted the government for not locking in longer-term treasury bonds, meaning higher government interest payments. Freeland insisted he was incompetent, and Poilievre returned to English to call her incompetent, and repeat his lines about treasury bonds. Freeland suggested he was grouchy because he doesn’t like that inflation is at a three-year low. Poilievre switched to a demand to support their motion on banning all hard drugs for all times. Freeland pointed out that Poilievre was wearing more make-up than she was—got a warning from the Speaker—and after withdrawing the remark pointed out that Poilievre was phoney to the core, and that he didn’t really care about the economy or people dying from opioids, but only wants to score partisan points.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and lamented a lack of government interest in the Francophonie. Freeland says that the situation of French in Quebec is not a joke, and they are taking it seriously. Normandin took a swipe at Francis Drouin and the Liberals sticking by him, and Freeland repeated her statement of support for the French language. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, raised the pending arrest International a criminal Court warrants for senior Hamas and Israeli officials and demanded to know if the government would support it. Freeland said that they respect the independence of the ICC, condemn Hamas, and doesn’t believe you can draw an equivalence of Hamas’ actions with Israel’s. Singh insisted that it wasn’t the question, and repeated it in French, but got the same answer.

Continue reading →