Tag Archives: Procurement

QP: Looking for the “secret agreement”

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau back in Europe for more NATO and G7 meetings, most of the other leaders didn’t show up either, even though it was caucus day. Candice Bergen was present, however, and led off, concern trolling about the confidence agreement between the Liberals and the NDP, and insisted there was a signed agreement between them that is being kept secret (never mind that the details of the agreement are public). Mark Holland noted that Canadians expect MPs to work together in a hung parliament, which is a foreign concept to Conservatives given that they didn’t even try when they were in similar circumstances under Stephen Harper. Bergen insisted that there must be a signed agreement and that there is a so-called new executive committee that excludes the opposition, and Holland repeated that they are always looking to work together whenever possible. Bergen railed about “social experiments” (like pharmacare?) and decried the “nightmare socialist deal” that would be hugely expensive, and Holland gave another paean about working together to get things done. Luc Berthold took over in French, and he worried about “secret committees” under the agreement, to which Dominic LeBlanc reminded him that the Conservatives wrote a whole book on how to sabotage committees, so it was rich for them to insist the government didn’t respect Parliament. (Note that this government’s parliamentary vandalism is largely relegated to the Senate). Berthold worried this agreement would trample on Quebec’s jurisdictional rights, to which Pablo Rodriguez got up to list things the government is doing for Quebec.

Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, and he too worried about Quebec’s jurisdiction, and LeBlanc lamented the Bloc’s frustration which led them to picking fights, and assured him they do respect provincial jurisdiction. Therrien read a statement from the Quebec government that gave a nonsense reading about the revenues they send to the federal government, and Rodriguez listed things they are doing that is good for Quebec, which is bad for the Bloc.

Rachel Blaney rose for the NDP, and she lamented that their motion on an excess profit tax failed, and wanted the government to tax companies and not people. (Erm, you know that people pay corporate taxes, right? That it’s not a magical money tree?) Randy Boissonnault acknowledged the sentiments behind the motion but that that the government was building a fairer and more affordable country with more benefit for people while taxing the rich. Alexandre Boulerice repeated the question in French, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Wondering who the real winner of the confidence agreement is

Posted on by

We are now on day twenty-eight, four weeks into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like Russia’s attempts at occupying Mariupol continue to be thwarted, though the city is being reduced to rubble. As well, Ukrainian forces retook a strategic suburb of Kyiv, so that is as good of news as can be hoped for in the situation. Remember how Russia thought it was a matter of marching?

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1506296240438452232

Back in Canada, the supply and confidence agreement between the Liberals and NDP was made official, and boy were there a bunch of reactions. Some of them were expected, like the Conservatives abusing the term “coalition” (it’s not a coalition) and claiming it’s a “power grab” rather than a legitimate exercise of cooperation in a hung parliament as happens not infrequently in Westminster systems. Oh, and she said that this ultimately benefits Putin. No, really—she said that. Even more problematic were certain CBC reporters pushing this bizarre notion that Canadians “elected a minority government” and that this agreement somehow violates it, which no, is not how things work. We don’t elect governments, and there is not majority/minority option on the ballot, and it’s been just as much a recurring narrative in the past two parliaments that a hung parliament means that “Canadians want us to work together” (which is just as silly a notion, frankly), but honestly, I expect better from the CBC than to push this kind of nonsense, and it’s embarrassing for them as the national broadcaster to be pushing this nonsense.

https://twitter.com/SusanDelacourt/status/1506273770176188427

In the meantime, there is a bunch of pearl-clutching that this agreement somehow means that we won’t be increasing defence-spending, even though the NDP has no veto on budgets, and the fact that we can’t even spend the current allocation so it’s way too soon to worry about this. The early indications of the outlined dental care plan could help millions—but it’s light on details and the actual mechanism that will be used given that this is an area of provincial jurisdiction (but some good perspective threads from economist Kevin Milligan here and here). The consensus seems to be that the Liberal are the real winners here and not the NDP, but others argue that the Conservatives could be the real winners because it will give the next leader time to rebuild the party and establish themselves given that the next election will be more than three years away (maybe). And then there is the question about whether this agreement gives Trudeau the runway to accomplish a few more things before turning it over to his successor, though he says otherwise when asked (which of course he will, because saying he won’t run again makes him lame duck instantly). It does make for a different dynamic for the next couple of years in any case, so we’ll see how it shapes up.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Asking the parochial questions

Posted on by

On day fifteen of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, they bombed a children’s hospital in Mariupol, at a time that it was supposed to be under a ceasefire. And it’s not surprising that Volodymyr Zelenskyy is still insisting on “closing the skies,” but that wouldn’t stop the shelling from artillery and missile batteries on the ground, and yes, it would draw the rest of NATO into a shooting war with a nuclear power. So while he’s justified in asking for the assistance, it would not actually improve the situation and would most likely wind up making things a whole lot worse. To make matters worse, a power outage at Chernobyl means that it could start leaking radiation unless power lines are repaired, which requires a cease-fire in the area, so that’s alarming. And all of the chaos is making it hard for aid efforts, including those by Canadian non-profits to reach those in the country who need it.

Justin Trudeau, Chrystia Freeland, Mélanie Joly and Anita Anand were in Berlin yesterday for more meetings on the situation in Ukraine, and Trudeau vowed that Putin would face justice for his war crimes under the International Criminal Court. He also announced another $50 million worth of military aid being sent to Ukraine, and that he had invited Zelenskyy to address Canada’s Parliament, much as he did the UK’s earlier this week. On a related note, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg addressed the Ottawa Defence Conference yesterday and said that while Canada is playing a “leading role” in NATO’s response to the invasion, he is still calling for more military spending (which may not do any good given that our military doesn’t currently have the capacity or personnel to spend its current allotment).

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1501484564564303873

And then, during a media availability with Freeland and Joly, a CBC reporter demanded to know why they were in Europe for “photo ops” rather than doing important work back home. And I can’t even—especially when he went on about the “taxpayer’s dime” when he tweeted about the exchange, trying to make himself sound put out by being smacked down about it. Aside from the “people are saying” framing, which is both ridiculous and telling, I’m not sure what pressing matters they should be attending to back home. The Commons is on March break this week and next. It’s just such parochial bullshit and the kind of cheap outrage/hairshirt parsimony that the CBC loves to engage in, and we wind up with poorer journalism as a result.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1501612357784686593

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1501614041118265345

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/1501694148642025476

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1501658691715616768

Continue reading →

QP: Some talking points about supporting Ukraine

Posted on by

For Wednesday, caucus day, and this prime minister’s proto-PMQ day, there was a very curious absence in the Chamber, as Candice Bergen was absent even though every other leader was present—even Amita Kuttner was in the gallery watching. Luc Berthold led off, script in front of him, and in French, demanded the expulsion of the Russian ambassador. Justin Trudeau stated that they have been clear in their condemnation, and said they would continue to aid Ukrainians in every way possible—but did not answer the question. Berthold insisted there was no reason for Putin’s representative to stay here and spread misinformation, and Trudeau repeated his “everything we can do” talking points rather than do something like speak about the value of diplomacy. Berthold the pivoted to provinces lifting public health orders and demanded that all federal vaccine mandates be lifted, and Trudeau read some well-worn talking points about following science, and praised Canadians for getting vaccinated. Michael Chong took over in English, and he again demanded that the a Russian ambassador be expelled, and he went on about doing everything they can do for Ukraine. Chong demanded the government order the CRTC to keep RT from Canadian airwaves, and Trudeau read a script about information warfare and that they are asking the CRTC to conduct a review, but it was important to note that this was in the hands of independent regulators and not politicians.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and worried about the government musing about sending Western Canadian oil to Europe, and Trudeau, extemporaneously, said the future depends on decarbonising but at the moment Europe needs help so they would see what they can do. Blanchet wanted more clarity about what this means, and Trudeau rebutted that his was the government that has done the most to combat climate change, but they would be there to help friends in Europe.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, in person today, and demanded visa-free travel for Ukrainians, citing Lloyd Axworthy, and Trudeau insisted they were not refusing but were working to increase the ease by which they can help Ukrainians coming to Canada, and they were looking at the best way to go about this. Singh repeated the demand in French, and a Trudeau repeated his answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford wakes up after letting Ottawa suffer

Posted on by

After being content to let Ottawa suffer under occupation by grifters, extremists and conspiracy theorists for the past two weeks, Doug Ford woke up and got serious now that the Ambassador Bridge is threatened. He declared a state of emergency and promised permanent legislation about blocking critical infrastructure, with fines of up to $100,000 and up to a year imprisonment, but that didn’t seem to help motivate police any. It was an injunction in Windsor that seems to have had more of an impact (and I find the notion that police will enforce an injunction but not uphold the laws on the statute books to be a concerning development with the rule of law). They were promising enforcement, but we’ll see, given that the crowd only grew once the injunction came into effect.

Meanwhile, I find myself a bit at a loss about the demands that Justin Trudeau “show leadership” in this situation. Every time I ask someone just which federal levers he should be deploying, I get static in reply. When pressed on the topic on Power & Politics the other day, Jagmeet Singh flailed and handwaved before resorting to a Jaida Essence Hall and trying to make a bunch of erroneous statements about healthcare funding. Trudeau cannot simply assert authority in this situation—it frankly does not meet the test for the Emergencies Act, and I’m not convinced this is a situation that requires it. I fail to see the utility of trying to get the RCMP to bigfoot the Ottawa Police as a) they don’t have the expertise in this situation, and b) they don’t have the numbers, particularly in the area. He’s not going to call in the military, because that is a very, very bad idea and more to the point, it’s the premier or his attorney general who needs to make the request for the aid to civil power under the National Defence Act. What else should Trudeau be doing? He told the convoy to go home on the first Monday (meaning, day four) during Question Period and elsewhere (you know, when members of the media accused him of being “in hiding” when he was in COVID isolation and still attending the House of Commons virtually). He’s been making calls the whole time, though not necessarily as performatively as is being demanded. So how else should he be “showing leadership”? What other powers should he be deploying? And even more to the point, why should he be playing into the trap that Ford and the extremist organizers themselves are laying out for him that is trying to put him at the centre of this?

Continue reading →

Roundup: From one rebel to another

Posted on by

With all of the tongue-wagging in Parliament over Joël Lightbound going rogue in his dissent on vaccine mandates, there have been a lot of questions about his place in caucus, and what the other caucus “rebels” think of the situation. So, the most famous of said rebels, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, tweeted a thoughtful thread on the subject.

Meanwhile, a third Liberal was thought to be joining Lightbound and Yves Robillard in their dissent, but it turns out that no, that they merely misrepresented Anthony Housefather’s position. So there’s that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole tells challengers to bring it on

Posted on by

It’s all coming undone. Erin O’Toole’s grip on the leadership of his party is even more tenuous, as a third of the caucus has now signed a letter calling for a vote on a leadership review. While “sources” insisted that Garnett Genuis was one of the ringleaders of this group, in part over anger for the way in which the conversion therapy bill vote was handled, Genuis denies this and says this is an attempt by O’Toole to smear him. Others sources say this is because the party is angry that the Conservatives allowed too many bills to pass unopposed before the end of the year, but we’ll see what other narratives emerge as more MPs start leaking.

https://twitter.com/BobBenzen/status/1488308784703414272

O’Toole responded late in the evening, essentially saying bring on the vote, apparently confident that the other two-thirds of caucus will be with him, but that’s a pretty risky gamble to be making when he’s this weakened, and there is blood in the water. Also, the fact that O’Toole tried to bring up Derek Sloan is very curious considering that he initially protected Sloan when there was a move to expel him from the party after he made racist comments about Dr. Theresa Tam, only to turn against him once O’Toole had secured the leadership thanks to using Sloan’s voters to his advantage. It’s like he doesn’t think anyone can see his blatant opportunism staring them in the face. Oh, and the notion that Andrew Scheer wants to be interim leader is just the chef’s kiss in all of this—one presumes he misses Stornoway and the perquisites that come with it. Scheer is denying it (but it’s not like he’s a paragon of truth either)

Meanwhile, Paul Wells relays more of what he’s hearing from his Conservatives about O’Toole’s likely chances (not good), and fits it into the broader pattern of the party and its predecessor’s leaders going back three-quarters of a century.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Holland breaks out the passive-aggressive open letter tactics

Posted on by

The drama over the Winnipeg Lab documents took another turn yesterday as Government House Leader Mark Holland sent a four-page open letter to the Conservative House Leader, urging him to reconsider rejecting the government’s offer to create a new ad hoc panel to have the documents vetted behind closed doors with a panel of three former judges to adjudicate any disputes. In said letter, Holland name-checks nearly every national security and intelligence expert who has weighed in on the topic of the past few weeks, with a couple of exceptions.

While Holland didn’t name Philippe Lagassé’s piece, it’s fairly irrelevant to the concerns at hand. Whether NSICOP gets turned into a full-blown committee or not, it won’t make a material difference because the Conservatives’ objections are not based on any particular matter of principle or specific objection. As I point out in my column, they are merely acting in bad faith in order to be theatrical and try and score points by winking to conspiracy theories in order to paint the picture that the government is hiding something for the benefit of the Chinese, or some other such nonsense.

I don’t expect Holland’s letter to do anything other than look passive-aggressive and ham-fisted as the issue continues to fester—not that there is an order to produce documents any longer, and the committee that made said order no longer exists either (though O’Toole has been under pressure to restore it, as though it actually did anything meaningful other than be yet another dog and pony show). We’ll see if the other two opposition parties come to some kind of agreement, but so far this issue continues to just make everyone look like our Parliament is amateur hour. Which it kind of is.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A plan to tax the unvaxxed

Posted on by

By all accounts, it sounded like Quebec premier François Legault was spit-balling policy when, at the press conference to announce the province’s new chief public health officer, he proposed that the province impose additional costs on the unvaccinated in the form of some kind of surtax that would be “significant,” meaning more than $100. There were no details, which is kind of a big deal, but you immediately had other political leaders worried about “slippery slopes,” as though we don’t have other sin taxes on things like alcohol and cigarettes which impose their own significant public health burdens, as well as concerns that this will further disenfranchise those who are already marginalised. And fair enough.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1481062196314624000

The concerns about whether this somehow contravenes the Canada Health Act seem to be overblown, as it’s not charging for healthcare services, but other concerns about just how this might be implemented remain, as professors like Jennifer Robson articulate below.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The inevitable comparisons will be flawed

Posted on by

It’s the anniversary of the Capitol Hill insurrection, so you can expect the media on both sides of the border to be full of thinkpieces about What It All Means™, particularly as America continues down the path of being a failed state. So while there is some good stuff out there, such as this good analysis piece, we’ll see some inevitable “what about Canada?” pieces out there as well. Case in point:

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1478858665423745026

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1478861864541036544

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1478865054699294726

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1478868398192930817

To answer Wherry’s question, there aren’t the same structural weak points in Canada, because our system is far more robust than the Americans’ system. For example, the insurrection happened on the date that Congress had to ratify election results, which doesn’t happen here, because Parliament is dissolved for an election. Elections Canada, which answers to the Crown, does the work of verifying election results, and they have uniform rules around the country, unlike the US, where every state and county runs their own federal polls, and there is no uniformity and voting rights are a mess across the board. We don’t have their gerrymandering because we gave that to arm’s-length judge-run panels decades ago. Nothing could prevent a transfer of power, short of a recalcitrant Governor General, and in that case, there would be the recourse of going to the Queen, but even in those cases, things tend to work behind the scenes to prevent that eventuality from ever happening (because the first rule of constitutional monarchy is that you keep the Queen out of it).

Our structure is sound, but we do have a problem with bad actors because much of our system depends on people having a sense of honour or decency to do the right thing, and when they don’t, things get sticky. They tend to work out in the long run because it’s resilient—but if we go about codifying a bunch of things that operate by convention, we would likely find things being perverted even more so, because then the impetus to find ways around those written rules becomes apparent, rather than there being a broader spirit of the convention to be upheld. It also tends to lead to all kinds of unexpected consequences—Erin O’Toole weaponizing the (garbage) Reform Act is proof of that. And it’s hard to build systems to be bad actor-proof, because bad actors will find a way to exploit the system to their ends. We do need to fix some things in our system, such as the way we’ve bastardised leadership contests and turned them into quasi-presidential primaries, the broader point is that we don’t have the same structural vulnerabilities that the Americans have, which is a good thing, but we do need to be on guard to ensure that bad actors don’t get the chance to wreak havoc.

Continue reading →