Tag Archives: Procurement

Roundup: The choices around Basic Income

Posted on by

Because I saw some news stories floating around this week yet again around Basic Income and the desire for the federal government to implement it, I wanted to point out that economist Lindsay Tedds has co-authored a book which was released yesterday on how to move beyond that discussion into better alternatives, drawing on her experience from the BC Basic Income panel that she was a part of.

To that end, here is Kevin Milligan providing some back-up on why this conversation involves choices that nobody likes to ever talk about. Funny that.

And yes, most Basic Income models keep gutting the supports for those who need them the most, and that is a problem.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1651260056866811904

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces pounded Bakhmut yet again, trying to destroy buildings so that the Ukrainians can’t use them as fortifications. Elsewhere, Ukraine was able to retrieve 44 POWs from Russian company, two of whom were civilians. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had an hour-long call with Chinese president Xi Jinping, which included talk of what role China could play in the peace process with Russia.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1651129503056379905

Continue reading →

QP: Deliberately conflating PCO with PMO

Posted on by

The prime minister was busy entertaining the German president, while his deputy was in southwestern Ontario talking about electric busses. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he repeated his line from last week about the “special kind of incompetence” for increasing the size of the civil service while still allowing a strike to happen, and lamented especially the soldiers suffering from heating plant shutdowns and new delays for passports. Mona Fortier praised the work of civil servants and stated the commitment to reach a negotiated solution, but that PSAC’s demands are unaffordable. Poilievre repeated the same in English, and Fortier gave the same response, before Poilievre changed topics to the news story about Trudeau foundation members meeting at PCO. Mark Holland noted that this was a meeting between public servants in a government building and not PMO, and this was just an attempt at being partisan. Poilievre tried to insist that there was a whole strange series of coincidence  that the prime minister didn’t know about it, and insisting this wasn’t credible. Holland started off on a response about Poilievre plugging cryptocurrency, but after heckles and the Speaker calming things down, Holland insisted that Poilievre was delivering a confusing mess that was full of things that weren’t true. Poilievre tried again in French, and Holland reiterated there has been no link between the prime minster and the Foundation for a decade.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he too tried to link the prime minister to that 2016 meeting between the Foundation and five deputy ministers, and Holland repeated that the prime minister was not involved and the implication is ridiculous. Therrien insisted that the Foundation was giving preferential access to the prime minister (never mind that senior officials are not the PM), and demanded a public inquiry. Holland repeated yet again that the prime minster has not had any ties to the Foundation for a decade.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he thundered about the civil service strike and demanded the government capitulate to the union. Fortier read that of the 570 demands from the union, only a few are remaining. Rachel Blaney repeated the same in English, and Fortier repeated her same response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Angst over a poor metric

Posted on by

A lot of ink (or, well, pixels, I supposed) has been spilled over the past week about those leaked documents where Justin Trudeau allegedly told NATO leadership privately that Canada will never reach the two percent of GDP defence spending target, which shouldn’t be a shock to anyone who has paid a modicum of attention. And while we get these kinds of analysis pieces that try to dig more into the two percent target and its significance, we have to remember that it’s a lousy metric. Greece has been above it for years because of a stagnant economy and including military pensions in their calculations—and you can easily get to 2 percent of GDP by tanking your economy, while growing your economy makes that spending target increase impossibly. The other thing that the two percent metric doesn’t capture is engagement—Canada routinely steps up to meet its NATO commitments even without reaching the spending target, while certain European countries may meet the spending target but don’t participate in these missions (again, looking at you, Greece, but not just Greece).

Part of the problem is that while this is a conversation that requires some nuance, the two percent target is too easy for journalists to focus on, and that becomes the sole focus. It’s a problem because We The Media keep reducing this to a single binary “are we meeting/not meeting that two percent” rate, which doesn’t help advance the conversation in any way, but most of us refuse to learn because a simple binary is easier to understand/convey.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Fighting continues in the western part of Bakhmut, as Wagner Group mercenaries are worried about the coming Ukrainian counter-offensive. Ukraine’s minister of digital transformation says that new technologies are going to help them win the war, particularly as they enhance the accuracy of modern artillery.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1649397099300093954

Continue reading →

QP: A special kind of incompetence to read the same script over and over

Posted on by

Neither the prime minister nor his deputy was present today, but neither were any of the other leaders, so that didn’t necessarily bode well from the start. Pierre Paul-His got things started in French, and he repeated Pierre Poilievre’s lead talking points from yesterday—that the prime minister has a “special kind of incompetence” for increasing the cost of the bureaucracy while still allowing them to go on strike, and demanded he fix what was broken. Mona Fortier praised the work of civil servants, and that they continue to bargain in good faith for a fair agreement. Paul-Hus demanded to know why the prime minister wasn’t answering, speculating that it was because he was too busy planning his next vacation, to which Mark Holland somewhat crankily responded that for the third day, yes the prime minister took a vacation with his family, and they stayed at the home of a family friend. Jasraj Hallan took over in English, and repeated the same “special kind of incompetence” talking points with an angrier tone, and Fortier repeated her same points about praise and good-faith negotiations. Hallan then insisted that the only people getting ahead are “crony insiders,” blamed the government for inflation, and turned this into a rant about the “scam” of the carbon price. Holland noted a lot of hypocrisy in the question, then listed the ways in which the leader of the opposition avails himself of government funding—house, car, office, staff—before he talks on the phone with American billionaires to try and destroy the CBC, and wondered if Poilievre should have a Twitter label that notes he’s 99 percent government-funded. Hallan got indignant, and said that nobody believes the government, before he completely mischaracterised the PBO’s report on carbon prices, and Holland needled back and wondered how the Conservatives are trading in conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he tried to insist that appointing people who have connections to the Trudeau Foundation could mean that the prime minister has nothing to do with it. Holland got up and recited that Trudeau has not been associated with the Foundation for ten years. Therrien went on a tear about Beijing-backed donations and demanded a public inquiry. Holland insisted that foreign interference is concerning for everyone in the Chamber.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and ranted about contracts to consultants rather than giving civil servants a good deal. Helena Jaczek stated that there is a need for flexibility but they are keeping an eye on contracts. Gord Johns repeated the same accusation in English, and Jaczek stated that the budget had plans to reduce that kind of consultant spending.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Impressing the Scots

Posted on by

The Speaker of the Scottish Parliament paid a visit to Ottawa’s Parliament earlier in the week and was apparently so impressed with our Question Period that she plans to write a report to take suggestions from it. I’m frankly a little dumbfounded, because our QP is pretty gods damned terrible in pretty much every respect, but let me first take what her observations are.

One of them is that ours operates bilingually fairly seamlessly. Well, she didn’t see the seams, in any case. In Scotland, they have translation available for those who speak Gaelic, but it’s not automatically provided like English/French is here. But she didn’t seem to see the stress that the pandemic has caused our simultaneous interpretation abilities, from the injuries to interpreters, or the strains to resources that are now severely limiting the function of our Parliament because MPs didn’t care enough about those interpreters as they abused them over Zoom, and lo, we’re staring down a crisis.

She was impressed with the “brevity” of our QP, where it operates in thirty-five second questions and answers. I’m not sure that’s a good thing, frankly, because it has largely just created a demand for talking points, both in asking and answering questions, and so much of the exercise is useless—the questions must contain key phrases (and that’s getting worse), while the answers are frequently non-sequiturs or just bland pabulum that is disconnected from what has been asked. I’m not sure what she saw that was so impressive. The fact that it happened at a rapid pace and bilingually looks impressive from afar, but spend more than a day here, and the uglier underside quickly becomes apparent. Yes, ours can be more dynamic than Westminster’s because we don’t require questions be asked in advance in order for briefings to be prepared, so the PM must be nimble when answering, but again, most of those answers are going to be vague and superficial.

It’s kind of flattering that they’re seeing the good we have to offer, but these days, our rules and system has given rise to an increasingly unserious Chamber, and that’s not something we should be exporting to anyone.

Ukraine Dispatch:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited the border with Poland and Belarus, citing a need to be ready in case Belarus became another invasion route for Russia.

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1648688637670830083

Continue reading →

Roundup: The dog and pony show around Telford at committee

Posted on by

After weeks of haranguing, filibusters, and Question Period clown shows, the prime minister’s chief of staff, Katie Telford, appeared at the Procedure and House Affairs committee. Shortly before she appeared, documents were tabled to show some dates of briefings the prime minister had with his National Security and Intelligence Advisor, but there weren’t many specifics, and in her testimony, Telford didn’t fill in any of those blanks. And nearly two-and-a-half hours were spent with Telford largely telling MPs that she couldn’t confirm or deny anything, except when the Liberals asked her to pat herself on the back for all of the actions the government has thus far taken around taking foreign interference seriously.

And of course, the Conservatives spent the time putting on a show for the camera, whether it was Larry Brock playing prosecutor—in spite of committee chair Bardish Chagger repeatedly warning him that this was a committee and not a court room—or Rachael Thomas’ rehearsed Disappointment Speech at the end. It was nothing but a dog and pony show.

This never should have happened. Telford never should have been summoned. We’ve once again damaged the fundamental precepts of parliamentary democracy and Responsible Government for the sake of some cheap theatre and clips for social media. Our Parliament should be a much more serious place, but this was just one more incidence of MPs debasing themselves and the institution for the sake of scoring a few cheap points.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian missiles struck the eastern city of Sloviansk, hitting residential buildings and killing at least nine people and wounding over 21.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1646844031190614017

Continue reading →

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 →

QP: Facile questions about the deficit

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in town and in his office, he was not available for QP on Wednesday as is his usual practice, as he was instead speaking virtually at the Summit for Democracy, before he and his deputy whisked off to a photo op. That’s right—the day after Budget Day, and the finance minister was also absent from the Chamber. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and both gave several falsehoods about deficits and inflation before complaining there was no path to balance in the budget. Randy Boissonnault pointed out the measures to help, and that this was a budget about hope. Poilievre listed four things that Chrystia Freeland said last year that he deemed false (to varying degrees of veracity), and wondered how anyone could trust anything this government says. Boissonnault listed the declining deficit and low debt-servicing charges. Poilievre returned to French to complain the government has “lost control” of finances, and this time François-Philippe Champagne said that it was the Conservatives who were disconnected because the government did the three things that Canadians were asking of them. Poilievre switched back to English to worry about people living in their parents’ basement while the country “goes broke.” (It’s not going broke). This time Karina Gould got up to decry that the Conservatives had already declared they were going to vote against things like the grocery rebate and supports for families. Poilievre denounced the budget as “tax and squander,” and once again, Gould reiterated the things the Conservatives were voting against.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he listed measures that were not green, and wanted an admission that money was going to oil companies. Steven Guilbeault said that this was not the case, and quoted the David Suzuki Foundation’s praise. Blanchet complained the budget was anti-Quebec because it meddles in provincial jurisdiction on things like dental care, but Guilbeault just kept reading praise for the budget.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, patted himself on the back for the things in the budget he liked, and said that if the government needs more ideas, they can tackle the housing crisis. Ahmed Hussen recited the elements of the National Housing Strategy that he trots out. Singh repeated his backpatting in French, and this time, Irek Kusmierczyk read their plans about reforming EI, and that it is on the way.

Continue reading →

QP: Launching a new, unconstitutional talking point

Posted on by

It was a surprise that the prime minister was present when he wasn’t initially planning to be, though most of the other leaders weren’t. Pierre Poilievre led in French, demanding to know if the debt-to-GDP ratio would fall in the coming budget. Justin Trudeau responded that he knew everyone was on tenterhooks waiting to hear what is in the budget, but reiterated what their priorities are. Poilievre changed to English, listed the number of violent deaths in the past few days and demanded the prime ministers reverse the policies that made this happen. Trudeau said that while they are concerned, they have invested in public safety while the Conservatives cut funding to them. Poilievre insisted that in Vancouver, 40 repeat offenders were arrested 6000 times in a year, and demanded the prime minster “replace bail with jail.” (That is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms). Trudeau said that if the Conservatives were concerned, they would support their gun control bill. Poilievre insisted that the government was letting violent criminals go free, and Trudeau accused the Conservatives of distracting away from their opposition to gun control bill. Poilievre made a number of specious correlations, pretended there was causation, called it “evidence,” and Trudeau said that the Conservatives loosened gun control which caused the spike in violent crime. (Erm, not sure that’s true either).

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, raised the allegations against Han Dong, and accused the government of being asleep at the switch. Trudeau cautioned Therrien of being sure of his facts so that he doesn’t mislead the House, and stated that the government took actions where necessary. Therrien wondered if Trudeau was naïve or incompetent and demanded an immediate public inquiry. Trudeau said this was just the Bloc trying to score points rather than getting to the bottom of things, which is why we should count on David Johnston.

Heather McPherson rose for the NDP, and noted that Ukrainians in Canada on visitor visas can access training programmes, to which Trudeau noted that he did sit down with union leaders, gave some bland statements about supporting Ukrainians while growing the economy. Lisa Marie Barron worried about seniors who can’t make ends meet, and that single seniors pay more in taxes than their coupled counterparts, and Trudeau insisted that they did increased the GIS for single seniors, which the NDP voted against.

Continue reading →