Tag Archives: Procurement

Roundup: Craven and unnecessary

Posted on by

While Andrew Scheer continues his effort to woo Quebeckers to the Conservative cause, he’s apparently decided to start carrying the Bloc’s water for them, and yesterday morning made the “important” announcement that a Conservative government would ensure that there was a single tax form for Quebec. Which…is a problem that the Quebec government created for itself and could put an end to at any time they choose by returning to the federal tax form that all other provinces use. Scheer insists that this is about listening to Quebec, but it’s just a bit more craven than that, and yes, it’s a promise fraught with problems when you get into the details. It’s also interesting to note that his message changed over Twitter over the course of the day, which makes it all the more curious that he seems to be doing this on the fly.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1011262711034867714

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1011265775573688323

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1011393533343719425

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1011397075932549120

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1011433391986655232

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1011433535368937473

Mental health and Hill staffers

A Liberal Hill staffer, Paul Wernick, went public about a second suicide attempt, brought on by crippling depression and the stress of sixty-hour work weeks that life on the Hill is known for. His story makes some very important points that more Hill denizens should beware of – though he quit drinking years ago, there is a culture of drinking at the myriad of receptions that staffers attend with their bosses, and it can serve to self-medicate the stresses of the job, which is where things can get dangerous. There are resources available for staffers, but they may not be aware of them – Wernick says that he wasn’t, which shows that there’s still work to do when it comes to helping staffers out.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Equalization, feigned outrage, and outsourced research

Posted on by

Apparently, we’re talking equalisation again after it was “revealed” that the current formula was renewed for another five years in the budget implementation bill and nobody cottoned on to the fact. Err, except that it was right there for everyone to see. And so you have a bunch of performative outrage from the likes of Jason Kenney about how this was the “deceitful scrapping of Equalization Renegotiation talks,” which is of course, utter bullshit but he need to create outrage that will drive his base – because if there’s anything that will be guaranteed to drive outrage in the West, it’s the deliberate lies being spread about how equalisation works in order to make themselves look like the victims in all of this (never mind that even in the depths of the recession they had the highest fiscal capacity in the country, and the fact that they have a deficit because they made the political choice to keep taxes low and not implement a PST in Alberta). But why be truthful and talk about the system honestly when you can foment outrage with lies? Way to go there. Sure, you can make the point that there could have been more public discussions around it, but there were discussions at the federal-provincial level, despite what Kenney claims.

Which brings us back to the issue of whether or not this change in the budget implementation bill was done underhandedly. Obviously the fact that it was a) in the budget; b) in the budget implementation bill for all to see; and c) raised at committee, clearly it wasn’t being hidden very well if that was the intention. Add to that, there have been ongoing consultations at the ministerial level for months, which again, not exactly being done sneakily. Paul Wells dug into the paper trails and found all of the receipts. And yet it’s being decried as having been done in some underhanded fashion. Why? Because the Globe and Mail reported that this was done “quietly.”

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1010183605581164545

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1010186623366164480

If this is indicative of any problem, it’s the fact that our opposition parties are not doing their jobs. The Conservatives have long-since outsourced their opposition to the Globeif their QP questions are anything to go by (and confirmed by this latest “outrage”), not to mention the outsourcing of yet more homework to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and more to the fact, rather than doing their jobs of scrutinising the legislation and the budget, they spent the entire spring session railing about the India trip, inventing much (though not all) of the outrage out of whole cloth, and demanding the “costs” for the carbon tax where much of the data is already publicly available or does not exist where provinces have not yet come up with their plans. But instead, they spent their time trying to invent smoking guns that would “prove” that this government is out to raise taxes to pay for their deficits (again, ignoring that the funds from carbon prices all get returned to the provinces). If you’re the Official Opposition and can’t do your own homework, then what exactly are you doing? You’re in parliament to do a job – not to generate outrage clips for social media. And yet here we are.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1010195426396422144

Continue reading →

Roundup: A diminishing work ethic?

Posted on by

The Senate rose for the summer yesterday after the morning’s royal assent ceremony, which I find to be extremely curious given that they were scheduled to sit for another week and had a whole new batch of bills sent to them when the House rose on Wednesday. You would think that they would want to get started on them, and possibly even pass a few more of them before rising for the summer, but apparently not, and that does trouble me a little bit. We saw this happen at Christmas, and we’re seeing it again now, where the tradition that the Senate sits at least an extra week to get through the raft of bills sent to them by the Commons is being abrogated by Senate leadership that seems less interested in demonstrating that they’re doing the work that needs to be done when MPs take off.

Speaking of Senate leadership, our good friend, the Leader of the Government in the Senate – err, “government representative” sent out a press release yesterday that pat himself on the back for all of the changes to make the Senate more independent, which he equated with making better laws. Why? Well, 13 out of 51 bills in the current session of this parliament were successfully amended by the Senate, so that must mean it’s working! Well, maybe, but it ignores the context that the current prime minister is more willing to entertain some amendments, unlike the previous one. That gives room for the Senate to propose them, but the vast majority of the amendments that do get accepted tend to be technical rather than substantive ones. Not that it doesn’t happen – the government has backed down on a couple of occasions and accepted major amendments (like with the RCMP unionisation bill, which had a Supreme Court of Canada ruling to back up the amendments), but for the most part, the government has resisted substantive amendments to its legislation, so much that you have their new appointees like Senator Pratte openly questioning why the government bothered with creating its “independent Senate” if they’re not going to listen to what it has to say. Not that I’m suggesting that the government should accept every Senate amendment, but there are recent examples where they probably should have, such as with the impaired driving bill that passed this week. There was overwhelming evidence to show that this was almost certainly unconstitutional and would create havoc within the justice system, but the government refused to listen, and senators backed down and let the government reject their amendments rather than insist upon them in the face of such overwhelming testimony. If Harder were really concerned that the Senate was improving legislation, he might not have insisted that once the government rejected those amendments that the Senate back down rather than stand up for some constitutional principles, but he didn’t. Make of that what you will.

Continue reading →

QP: Concerns about home-growth

Posted on by

While the PM was in town today, he was not in Question Period, though Andrew Scheer was, amazingly enough. Scheer led off, first congratulating everyone who participated in last night’s by-election, and after some triumphalism, he said that the Conservatives respect provincial jurisdiction, and demanded to know why the government would force home-growth on Quebec. Ginette Petitpas Taylor responded with her standard talking points about stopping the black market and regulations. Scheer then demanded that counter-tariffs be placed on Americans immediately, to which Chrystia Freeland reminded him that they were consulting industry first. Scheer then concern trolled about the government “squandering” the strong fiscal position that they were left with and not having a contingency in the budget for trade uncertainty. Bill Morneau reminded him that they were left with billions in additional debt by the previous government as well as low growth, and there is always a contingency built into every budget. Alain Rayes took over in French to offer more triumphalism about the by-election results before reiterating about cannabis home-growth, to which Petitpas Taylor read some more bland talking points, and they went a second round of the very same. Guy Caron led off for the NDP, railing about the US policy of separating children from their families at the border, and demanded an end to the Safe Third Country Agreement (not that it would help in any of those cases). Marc Garneau said that the government was concerned and in Canada, we try to avoid immigration detention at all costs. Caron tried again, and Hussen responded in English that the UNHCR was monitoring the developments. Jenny Kwan tried again in English, got the same answer, and when she tried again, Hussen listed measures that Canada has taken to minimize immigration detention.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cynical procedural gamesmanship

Posted on by

Thursday night’s tantrum vote-a-thon ended mid-morning on Friday, long before it was supposed to have run its course, and no, the government didn’t capitulate and turn over that report that the Conservatives have been portraying as some kind of smoking gun for months now. No, after hours of high-minded exhortations that this, on the anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta, was about no taxation without information, or that this was some kind of cover-up by the government intent on raising the cost of living for everyone, they decided to pull the plug as soon as the clock struck ten. Why? Because at that point, it would be too late to start Friday sitting hours in the Commons, and thus cancelling the day’s planned debates around the cannabis bill (where they would have finalized debate on the Senate amendments and send it back to the Upper Chamber). It is probably one of the most cynical procedural stunts that I have seen in all of my time on the Hill, dressed up as bringing attention to the so-called “carbon tax cover-up,” which is itself a cynical disinformation campaign.

Worst of all was the hours of sanctimonious social media warfare that was sustained throughout it, whether it was the Conservatives dressing this up as some righteous fight over the refusal to release the information (which, let’s be clear, was apparently a projection based on the campaign platform that would mean nothing given that the carbon pricing plans will be implemented by provinces, and where the revenues will be recycled by those provinces and is largely irrelevant to the discussion), or the Liberals crying that the Conservatives were keeping them away from Eid celebrations in their ridings (so much so that Omar Alghabra accused the Conservatives of Islamophobia, and then the real wailing and gnashing of teeth started). It was so much self-righteous bullshit, and it made everyone look bad.

The Trinity Western decision

Yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the law societies of BC and Ontario could decide not to accredit the graduates of evangelical Trinity Western University’s proposed law school on the grounds that the mandatory covenant that students are expected to sign infringes on the rights of LGBT students, particularly because it mandates that any sexual activity they engage in must only be within the confines of a heterosexual marriage. Of course, it’s more technical than that, because it boils down to standards of reasonableness with the decision that the Law Societies as accrediting bodies can engage in, and I can’t pretend to understand the nuances of it all – but the very smart legal minds that I follow had some trouble wrapping their minds around it all as well, because the balancing of rights is a difficult issue. Some of the legal minds I follow felt this was one of the worst decisions in years, but I’m not sure how much of that is ideological either. It’s also worth noting that this was the last decision that former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin participated in.

In reaction, here are three legal reactions to the decision, while Chris Selley worries about what it means for religious freedom, and Colby Cosh looks at what the decision means for the Supreme Court, paying particular attention to Justice Rowe’s concurring decision on the meaning of freedom of religion.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A strained partisan detente

Posted on by

There is a strange partisan cold war settling over the nation’s capital, as both government and opposition try to put up a united front against the Trumpocalypse, while at the same time not looking to give up too much advantage, and so they probe areas where their opponents may be weak, but that they won’t look too crassly partisan in exploiting it, kind of like Erin O’Toole did last week when the steel and aluminium tariffs were first announced. The Conservatives and NDP are trying to probe the previous statements about Supply Management “flexibility,” while the Liberals are essentially calling Maxime Bernier a traitor as he starts speaking about his opposition to the system once again. It’s not pretty on either side, and yet here we are.

While Trump has threatened auto tariffs, I’m not sure that’s even remotely feasible given how integrated the whole North American industry is, and those tariffs would not only devastate supply chains, but it would have as many adverse effects on the American industry as it would the Canadian one. Of course, we’re dealing with an uncertainty engine, so we have no idea what he’ll actually do, but hey, the government is working on contingency plans that include further retaliatory measures if these auto tariffs come to pass. As for Trump’s focus on dairy, here’s a look at the size of subsidies that the American dairy industry is awash in. Brian Mulroney, incidentally, thinks this is all a passing storm, for what it’s worth.

Because there are so many more hot takes about developments, Andrew Coyne thinks that there should be debate on how to best retaliate to American threats rather than just rally around the PM. Chantal Hébert notes that Trump has essentially boxed Trudeau in with regards to how he can respond to the threats. Martin Patriquin counsels patience with the Trumpocalypse, so that we don’t go overboard thanks to a few intemperate tweets. Chris Selley notes the sudden burst of solidarity and hopes that they don’t return to bickering over small differences once this crisis passes. Jen Gerson, meanwhile, notes that Trump’s attack are those of a bully trying to pick on a weaker target, but forgets that Canada isn’t weak – we’re just passive aggressive. Gerson was also on Power & Politics(at 1:08:35 in the full broadcast) to say that her genuine fear out of all of this is that it’s all a sideshow designed to turn Canada into some comic enemy for Trump to run against in the upcoming midterms, and I suspect that she’s onto something, and we may be playing into Trump’s hands when if we get self-righteous in our response.

Continue reading →

QP: A digression to the LRT

Posted on by

With the G7 meeting ramping up in Quebec City and Charlevoix, Quebec, Justin Trudeau was away from QP, and so was Andrew Scheer, as has been his wont lately. Candice Bergen led off, reading the same questions about the government not immediately imposing retaliatory tariffs on the US. Marc Garneau read that it was essential that they get this right, so they had a few days to respond. Bergen demanded that all tariffs collected by these retaliatory measures went to those impacted, and Garneau relied with the same assurances that they were there to defend steel and aluminium workers. Bergen switched topics to TPP ratification, and this time Mélanie Joly said that they had worked hard to improve the bill and it would be tabled shortly. Gérard Deltell reiterated the question in French, and got the same response in French. Deltell then repeated the earlier question about using whatever tariffs were collected to support affected workers, and Garneau reiterated earlier response in French. Guy Caron led off for the NDP, railing that fossil fuel subsidies weren’t being eliminated, among other sins, and Catherine McKenna responded with plans to implement a plastics charter at the G7 meeting. Caron demanded funding for green jobs rather than fund a pipeline, and McKenna insisted that they have stood up for the environment while growing the economy. Rachel Blaney reiterate the question in English, and McKenna listed the measures that they have taken — pricing carbon, phasing out coal, investing in public transportation and clean tech. Another round of the same yielded the same response.

Continue reading →

QP: Concern trolling about tariff compensation

Posted on by

In advance of the arrival of French president Emmanuel Macron, Justin Trudeau was present for QP, along with all other leaders. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and in French, he read some Supply Management concerns. Trudeau replied with the well-worn talking points about how they created Supply Management, would defend it, and took a shot at Maxime Bernier while he was at it. Scheer then switched to English to ask about where the budget contained any contingency funds for possible tariff relief. Trudeau noted that they ensured they had retaliatory measures ready to go, but the wanted to consult to ensure there were no unintended consequences. Scheer concern trolled about the size of the deficit and how much higher it might be with measures to help industries affected by the tariffs, to which Trudeau reminded him that the choice in the election was cuts and austerity or his government’s investments. Scheer said that the budget was built on the back of “borrowing and tax cuts” — getting applause from the Liberals — before he corrected himself and said that he wanted tax cuts for those affected by the tariffs paid for by the revenues of retaliatory tariffs. Trudeau reminded him that they gave a tax cut to the middle class. Scheer then pivoted to demand that the TPP be ratified before the House rises, to which Trudeau praised their record and that they would introduce a bill before the House rises. Guy Caron led for the NDP, railing about the Trans Mountain purchase and retention bonuses for its executives. Trudeau dispatched his lines about growing the economy while protecting the environment. Caron railed that the pipeline was against the principles of UNDRIP, and Trudeau noted that he sat down with affected First Nations communities yesterday, and that he listened to all points of view. Alexandre Boulerice repeated the first question in French, and got the same response in French. Nathan Cullen then stood up to sanctimoniously expound about fossil fuel subsidies, and he got the same response about the environment and the economy. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, this election won’t be good for electoral reform

Posted on by

I know that I really shouldn’t give bad columns more coverage, but I can’t help myself, because this is just the first of many that we are doubtlessly going to see in the coming months – that a Doug Ford win on Thursday could get the ball rolling on electoral reform, at least in Ontario. It’s a specious argument, but it’s attractive to a certain class of voter and wonk, so brace yourselves, because this red herring will be coming at you hard in the coming month.

Part of the problem with this particular column is that it doesn’t really make the argument why electoral reform is the logical follow-through for a Ford-led government, because most of the complaints have to do with how Ford won the leadership instead of Christine Elliott. This is not the fault of the electoral system – it’s the fault of our very broken leadership selection system and would largely be corrected if we returned to the system of caucus selection of leaders that our system is designed for. If we had that in place, Elliott would likely have been chosen because she was in caucus at the time that Patrick Brown challenged for the post (while he was still a federal MP, in case you’d forgotten). That would be two dark chapters in the Ontario PC party that could have been avoided, but I digress. The argument here should be that the Ford gong show should be an object lesson in how we need to restore proper leadership processes, where caucus can select and remove leaders in order to ensure that there is proper accountability and more importantly that leaders can’t throw their weight around, that caucus has more power to keep the leader in check. Sadly, that’s not the argument we got.

The balance of the column is a bunch of whinging that parties got majority mandates with less than 40 percent of the popular vote – never mind that the popular vote is a logical fallacy. It’s not a real thing – it’s an extrapolation that magnifies the sense of unfairness by those whose parties did not win, but it’s not a real thing because general elections are not a single event, they’re a series of simultaneous but separate elections for individual seats, and yes, that matters greatly in how the system works, how parliaments are formed, and in the agency afforded to individual MPs.

The other implicit argument being made in pieces like these, though this pieces doesn’t come out and say it, is that proportional representation will likely deliver us a series of coalition governments by nice leftist parties, and we’ll get solar panels on roofs, and great social programs, and no divisive politics because they’ll be forced to cooperate. Won’t it be great? Err, except that’s not what happens, and if anyone thinks it’ll be nice leftist coalitions in perpetuity, they should perhaps look at what’s going on in Europe right now, and how the populist mood there and in North America would have consequences in our own elections that wouldn’t be mitigated like our current brokerage system does, and that could be an even bigger problem. But that’s not the established electoral reform/PR narrative, even though it should be.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On track for a final cannabis vote

Posted on by

Over in the Senate, some of the drama around the cannabis bill has resolved itself and we can look forward to some structured, orderly report stage and third reading debate leading up to the June 7thfinal vote. And yes, before you say anything, the Conservative senators are playing along and have been swearing up and down that they will respect this date and not try to play any games and delay it further. (They also know that they’ve burned a hell of a lot of political capital on unnecessary fights lately and aren’t keen to burn any more).

To recap, part of the drama has been that the Conservatives still plan to move amendments at Third Reading, which is their right. But they wanted this as part of the structured plan, and the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, wasn’t playing ball, and wanted the Social Affairs Committee – which funnelled all of proposed amendments from the four other committees that studied the bill and voted on them there – to have a look at those amendments first. And the Conservatives, rightfully, refused. And then members of the Independent Senators Group started giving quotes to newspapers about how they were open to real amendments and not those that were “superficial, tactical, unenforceable, or would only serve to delay this bill.” That, and throwing more shade about how they believed the Conservatives were just playing games, because the modus operandi seems to be that anything the Conservatives do is partisan and therefore bad, but anything they do out of a shared belief is not partisan and just fine, which is a lot of bunk. And some of the Independent senators are getting downright condescending in trying to make that particular case. Suffice to say, peace has broken out after the ISG got over their issues about the amendments, and they now have a plan for debate that will carry them through to the vote on the 7th.

Meanwhile, there is talk about whether the amendments to C-46 – the impaired driving bill – will survive a full vote in the Senate after the likely unconstitutional provisions around random alcohol testing. ISG “facilitator” Senator Woo is hinting that they would vote to reinstate the provisions. I will add, however, that I am not absolutely not buying their supposition that senators were trying to simply embarrass the government by returning the omnibus transport bill to the Commons a second time because it was their own Independent senators who insisted on those amendments. Sometimes senators insist on amendments because they think they’re in the right – which is a novel concept, I’m sure.

Continue reading →