Tag Archives: Trade

Roundup: A failed attempt at fundamental reform

Posted on by

Fair warning that this is going to be super wonky and a dive into parliamentary nerdery, but it’s important to how our democracy functions. It seems that the government’s attempt to better reconcile our budget cycle and Estimates process has been declared a failure, and the deeply flawed system that has grown up over a number of years has once again returned, and that’s a huge disappointment because it was an important change that they were attempting.

Part of the problem here is that we don’t have a fixed budget date, but the Estimates cycle operates by a fixed calendar. What this has tended to mean is that the budget can be pushed back after the Main Estimates, which means that all of the spending that Parliament is supposed to approve winds up being reflective of the previous year’s budget, and then it’s up to the Supplementary Estimates later in the year to update the spending to what was in this year’s budget – a system that makes it difficult if not impossible to track spending, particularly as the accounting used in the Public Accounts at the end of the fiscal year is different still from both the budget and Estimates. If Parliament’s key function is to study these spending plans and expenditures and hold the government to account over them, it is a nigh-impossible task (which is one more reason why MPs have given up on doing it, and simply turned it over to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which is a Very Bad Thing). It was Scott Brison’s pet project when he was at Treasury Board to try and better align these cycles, but that was easier said than done, particularly given some of the sclerotic processes within our civil service, and their attempt to try and get some money out the door faster with a $7 billion fund (derided by the Conservatives as a “slush fund” despite there being a list of approved items that accompanied it) never wound up actually working, and much of that money went unspent even though it was supposed to mean things happened faster. It’s a failure all around – both with this government and within the broader civil service.

I am hoping that the Liberals have taken what lessons they can from this and take more steps to rectify some of the problems, including assigning a fixed budget date so that the civil service can adjust their own cycles and processes to reflect this and the Estimates cycle can then reflect what is in the budget (and aligning the Public Accounts with these cycles would also help). This is at the very heart of how our parliament is supposed to operate, and if we can’t get this right, it’s a very, very bad sign for the health of our system.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Will the RCMP’s pledge be enough?

Posted on by

The question as to whether or not there was progress on dismantling the protest blockades is a rather fraught one, as the news that the RCMP in BC had announced their plans to withdraw their forces from the pipeline site with the proviso that the company be allowed access, which doesn’t sound like it sits well with those hereditary chiefs, because they insist that their eviction notice for Coastal GasLink stands. However, if removing the RCMP from Wet’suwet’en territory is the condition for the sympathetic protests blockades to come down, then we’ll see if that has the promised effect – we may not find out until the four hereditary chiefs who have travelled to Mohawk territory in Ontario have their meeting. In the meantime, Justin Trudeau had a teleconference with the premiers, who expressed frustration but had no consensus on how they would solve the impasse – though François Legault is threatening to send the police after the blockade near Montreal (though we’ll see if the police there respond to political direction, because that would be a violation of police independence). Oh, and while a lot of people are claiming that CN is blaming previously announced layoffs on the current blockade situation, the Teamsters has come out to say that these current (temporary) layoffs are different from those previously announced, so there goes another talking point.

Meanwhile, there has been increased reporting about those Wet’suwet’en voices who are both in favour of the pipeline, as well as those who are don’t appreciate the protesters invoking them, given that they say the dispute is none of their business. As part of that, here is a lengthy thread that tries to get a better sense of the house and clan structure of the Wet’suwet’en, along with trying to get some clarity as to the status of hereditary chiefs, while this thread explains a bit more of their decision-making structure, and what may be an issue at present with some of the politics with the anti-pipeline factions. It’s complex, and resists easy narratives.

I would add that what I wrote yesterday still stands – that the company still needs to act here, because the reporting on the timeline of the decision-making and consultation seems to indicate that they cut the corners around consultation with the hereditary chiefs, and until they pull back and go through that process, then some of these problems won’t get resolved, and the current situation will drag on until things get really uncomfortable, and people start demanding drastic action, which will only hurt the cause for everyone.

Continue reading →

QP: Radical, anti-free market activists

Posted on by

With some progress being made on the protest blockades over the morning, it remained to see how much that would change the tone of the questions, but if the Member’s Statements were any indication, it wouldn’t do much. Justin Trudeau was in town, but absent from the Chamber. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he seemed confused that Trudeau’s message would change daily — because apparently it’s not a fluid situation — and demanded to know when the blockades would come down. Bill Blair noted that the RCMP had made the decision to withdraw from the Wet’suwet’en site, they hoped for progress. Scheer read some stilted points about the “radical, anti-free market” activists (which is somewhat ironic considering that the Conservative have abandoned free-market solutions around things like climate change) before repeating his demand, and Blair repeated the response. Scheer intimated that Blair ordered the RCMP out and demanded to know that the pipeline would be guaranteed to be built, to which Blair corrected him that they issued no order because police operations are independent of government. Alain Rayes was up next to repeat the demand for a timeline in French, to which Marc Garneau stated that they we working with the provinces, and that Trudeau was speaking to them later today. Rayes repeated his demand for a timeline, and Garneau reiterated his response, stressing the need for a peaceful resolution. Yves-François Blanchet was up next for the Bloc, and he worried that patience was being confused for inaction, and took a swipe at Trudeau not having his conversation with premiers before QP, for which Marc Miller stated that he was hoping for a meeting with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs while they were in Ontario. Blanchet worried about the situation, and Miller said that they have a clear path forward but wouldn’t make it public just yet. Jagmeet Singh was up for the NDP, and demanded that Trudeau himself meet with those chiefs, to which Miller praised the positive development of the RCMP commitment to withdraw, and stated that there were clear steps to de-escalation. Singh repeated the demand, and Miller said that everyone pretends to know what is being demanded, but he’s the one who has been talking with them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Urging calm, patience, and police action

Posted on by

Yesterday was a long and very busy day, as everyone scrambled to get their say on the ongoing protest and blockade situation across the country, with a mounting economic cost to them. First thing in the morning, the AFN National Chief, Perry Bellegarde, and several First Nations leaders held a press conference to ask the Mohawk protesters to dismantle the barricades – not as surrender, but as compassion for those who would soon be affected by shortages – but one of those Mohawk leaders also noted that his band office has been locked out and protesters among his own people say they want him out. A short while later, Justin Trudeau gave a speech in the House of Commons to counsel patience and to reiterate that dialogue remained the best way to resolve the situation – something Andrew Scheer denounced as weak, and he continued to insist that the police end the protests, insisting that this was but a group of “professional protesters” and “radicals” and that the “real” position of the Wet’suwet’en people was for jobs and resource development (even though he later said he hadn’t actually spoken to any of them) – something that both Peter MacKay and Erin O’Toole also echoed, because police action has never gone badly before. Oh, wait. (Marilyn Gladu, for the record, wants the military to step in). Shortly after Trudeau’s speech, he had a meeting with Yves-François Blanchet, Jagmeet Singh, and Elizabeth May, and made a pointed remark that Scheer had not been invited because his remarks were “disqualifying” – which led to Scheer’s agitated breathy and high-pitched performance during QP. Oh, and while all of this was going on, some activists in Victoria tried to perform a “citizen’s arrest” on BC premier John Horgan (and they got arrested instead).

By the time the five o’clock politics shows rolled around, Carolyn Bennett had concluded a meeting with some of the hereditary chiefs – who stated on one of the shows that they wouldn’t actually negotiate until the RCMP were off of their territory – and Marc Miller refused to discuss whether that was on or off the table when asked, leading the pundits to make hay of that. (“He didn’t say no!” is the worst impulse in journalism, guys). Oh, and hilariously, Jody Wilson-Raybould offered her services as a mediator, as though anyone in the government would be willing to trust her. As the day wound down, Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe said he was holding a meeting of premiers today because Trudeau “refused to act” – though I’m not sure what exactly he proposes, unless it’s to try to direct provincial police forces to start cracking skulls, both violating the rule of law and making the situation worse. And that’s where we are.

Meanwhile, here is a good primer written by a lawyer and a law professor about what “rule of law” means and why it’s important – as Scheer and company keep misusing the term. Heather Scoffield sees the business impacts of the blockades and deduces that it will be impossible to resolve them both quickly and peacefully – it would have to be one or the other. Andrew Coyne counsels patience in threating the needle that the protests can both be illegal while still noting that using force will only create martyrs. Matt Gurney worries that if the blockades go on much longer, they could fuel populist anger and damage the cause of reconciliation. Paul Wells attempts to make sense of the day that was, and the Liberals’ high-wire act in the middle of it all.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Checking Scheer’s privilege

Posted on by

The solidarity protests with the Coastal GasLink protesters continue across the country, and police continue to hold off on enforcement while dialogue continues – Carolyn Bennett is slated to meet with chiefs in BC, while Marc Miller will be meeting with the Mohawk protesters in Ontario today using the protocols of the covenant chain. And amidst this, Andrew Scheer decided he needed to get involved. It didn’t go well.

Scheer’s tone deafness over the “privilege” remarks likely stem from the belief that the Conservatives have convinced themselves of, that it’s just rich, foreign-funded radicals who are protesting while the First Nations want the projects to proceed because jobs – which some do, but it delegitimizes the legitimate grievances and differences of opinion within Indigenous communities (even if all of the protesters aren’t themselves Indigenous). Add to that, Scheer’s insistence that ministers should be directing the operations of the police is wrong-headed (and dangerous – this is how police states happen), which forgets that even if Bill Blair could get on the phone and direct RCMP to enforce injunctions, the ones in Ontario that have shut down the rail network are squarely within the jurisdiction of the OPP. Oops. There may be some debate over how much authority that governments have to direct enforcement in cases like these, but Scheer (and Scott Moe, who has also been echoing his comments) should know better. That they don’t is a bad sign for the governance of this country.

Meanwhile, Chris Selley decries the ongoing blockades but makes some interesting points about the way in which the male hereditary Wet’suwet’en chiefs displaced the female hereditary chiefs who were in support of the project. Colby Cosh is bemused at how threatening commuters in Central Canada is the kind of leverage that Alberta could only dream of having. Matt Gurney recalls Christie Blatchford’s book on the Caledonia crisis, and how the Ontario Progressive Conservatives apparently didn’t learn anything from what happened then, given their absolute silence over what is happening under their jurisdiction.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ministers inbound

Posted on by

The ongoing protests in support of those First Nations hereditary chiefs protesting the Coastal GasLink pipeline have not yet resulted in arrests, raids, or other police action to enforce the court injunctions just yet, and VIA Rail has shut down passenger rail service throughout the country, while CN Rail has shut down their eastern Canadian operations for the time being, and that means temporary layoffs. There has been more government responses now – BC premier John Horgan is setting up new meetings, while Carolyn Bennett is heading to BC to meet with those hereditary chiefs, while Marc Miller will be meeting with the Mohawk leaders setting up the blockades in Central Canada (while Justin Trudeau says he remains apprised of the situation while abroad, and will be returning to Ottawa tonight following the conclusion of the security conference in Munich). Trudeau reached out to one of the First Nations leaders leading a solidarity protest blockading the port in Prince Rupert, and that seems to have worked, as they agreed to dismantle that particular blockade.

Part of what is underlying the response to these protests seems to be an aversion to another Oka crisis – so we’ll see whether there have really been any lessons learned, thirty years later. And police action would inflame the situation, and they seem to be alive to that situation, which is probably a good thing. I have to wonder if part of the response to this isn’t also a bit of a mirror of what we saw recently with the CN Rail strike, where certain voices started immediately howling that Parliament needed to be summoned in order to ram through back-to-work legislation or there would be dire consequences, and the government held off and lo, a resolution came within about eight days. Was there some disruption? Yes. Was the outcome better than if they had taken out the sledgehammer? Undoubtedly. And it would seem to me that similar thinking is underway here. Despite a few middle aged, white male columnists are melting down over, things are not at a crisis level – they are largely inconveniences, which is the point of protest. And by not making things worse, there remains a chance to resolve this in a peaceable manner.

This having been said, the cries that Trudeau is off trying to secure a UN Security Council seat instead of dealing with this “crisis” are myopic and don’t grasp what the seat would do for Canada (articulated in this thread), though I will lay that on this government’s chronic inability to communicate their way out of a wet paper bag. I also suspect that the hereditary chiefs’ attempt to launch a constitutional challenge against the pipeline on an environmental basis is going to blow up in their faces, so I’m not sure either side is doing themselves any particular favours in all of this.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1227934187090518022

Continue reading →

QP: Melting down over court challenges

Posted on by

While the prime minister was off meeting with big city mayors before heading off to Ethiopia, Andrew Scheer was indeed present, and he led off and he read a bunch of complete lies about the supposed plan to “license” media, to which Steven Guilbeault, who reminded him that the panel recommendations specifically excluded news media and the government would not regulate news media. Scheer insisted that wasn’t good enough and the report somehow would impact free speech, and Guilbeault repeated his answer in English. Scheer tried again, and Guilbeault said that he would be happy to sit down with the opposition when they tabled a bill. Scheer then moved onto UNDRIP, and claimed it was an effective veto on energy projects, to which David Lametti said that they were moving ahead with legislation that would be co-developed with Indigenous people. Scheer tried to use the scare tactics of veto powers, and Lametti suggested that Scheer look at BC’s UNDRIP legislation and see that it is not a veto. Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, and he railed about the Court Challenges Programme funding a challenge against Quebec’s “secularism” bill, for which Guilbeault said that the government doesn’t have any control over that funding, and that they Bloc should understand the notion of independence. Therrien asked if the government supported the challenge, to which Pablo Rodriguez said that the legislation is being challenged by Quebeckers and that the government was following with interest. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and demanded changes to the federal bankruptcy laws to prioritise workers, to which Navdeep Bains said that they had made some commitments in the last budget. Singh then demanded to know how much had been spent on legal fees for the challenge around the First Nations compensation, to which David Lametti said that reports of legal fees are calculated according to a set formula.

Continue reading →

QP: Being too cute on parole and Quebec

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was in town today, he was nevertheless absent from QP, for whatever the reason. Andrew Scheer led off, and he read a question about whether the government would support their Supply Day motion on committee study of the incident of the murder of a sex worker by a prisoner on parole. Bill Blair reminded him that they have ordered an investigation, and they should wait for answers before jumping to erroneous conclusions. Scheer then read a demand for parole board officers to get sexual assault training as the government plans for judges. Blair reminded him that the judges bill is important, but there was an investigation ongoing. Scheer demanded to know if the parole board officers who made that decision were still hearing cases, and Blair circuitously stated that they weren’t while laying out additional facts. Pierre Paul-Hus demanded the training for parole board officers again in French, got the same response from Blair, and Paul-Hus then demanded that the prime minister fire the parole board members, and Blair responded that the motion contains erroneous facts, but that the government would support it anyway. Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc and, thinking he was clever, stated that if the government points to François Legault’s support for the New NAFTA, would they also support his demand for a single tax return form for Quebec, to which Diane Lebouthillier told him no, that was not going to happen. Blanchet then demanded the government respect the Quebec “secularism” bill, and David Lametti reminded him that groups were challenging it in the courts. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and demanded the government stop court challenges of compensation for First Nations children, to which Marc Miller started that they would have a compensation model to propose by February 21st. Singh then raised the strikes in Regina before demanding National pharmacare and dental care, for which Patty Hajdu reminded him they were working on it, and that she welcomed his suggestions.

Continue reading →

QP: Trying to make Orwell happen

Posted on by

Monday of the second week back, and for the anniversary of the great Centre Block fire of 1916, the wooden mace was on the table for the day. Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer were present, but most of the other leaders were not. Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he immediately raised the spectre of the torqued stories of government licensing media. Trudeau took up a script to say that the report stated that news was not to be licensed, that they believed in free media, but they continued to study the report. Scheer tried again, throwing out references to Nineteen Eighty-Four, China’s basic dictatorship, and Fidel Castro. Trudeau repeated the response, trying to be emphatic about it. Scheer then pivoted to the economy, talking down the figures, and Trudeau reminded him that they have made progress on tackling poverty and investing in growth. Scheer tried again, and Trudeau reminded him that they actually cut taxes. Scheer tried to then score points on the supposed $50 Million to MasterCard — really an investment in a cyber-security research centre — and Trudeau read back Scheer’s quotes about the importance of cyber-security from the election. Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, worrying about the potential approval of Teck Frontier Mine. Trudeau picked up a script to read that they were evaluating the proposal and would come up with a response within a month. Therrien tried again, and Trudeau listed from memory the various measures they are taking to protect the environment. Alexandre Boulerice led off for the NDP, and he worried that the government was not calling out Donald Trump’s Middle East “peace plan” as it disadvantages Palestinians. Trudeau reminded him that the government’s long-standing policy is for a two-state solution negotiated by the parties involved. Brian Masse then railed about the Volkswagen settlement, and Trudeau read that the Public Prosecution Service made all decisions independently.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ginned up outrage over accounting rules

Posted on by

My tolerance for ginned-up outrage is mighty thin, and it was exceeded yesterday as a certain media outlet ran a completely bullshit story about how in the last fiscal year, $105 million of Veterans Affairs’ budget went unspent and was returned to the consolidated revenue fund rather than simply kept in the department for the following year as the government “promised” to do following a completely inane NDP Supply Day motion a year previous. The story is one hundred percent not worth anyone’s time, and we have a media outlet who has decided to waste precious resources into putting a disingenuous framing mechanism around an NDP press release and calling it accountability.

To be clear: the whole premise of this “outrage” is the fact that the NDP have deliberately ignored how accounting and budgeting rules work in order to dial up a fake controversy for the sake of scoring outrage points in the media. The unspent money from Veterans Affairs is because they’re a demand-based department – they estimate how much they’ll need to deliver services to veterans every year, and if the funds don’t all get spent, then the law states that money goes back to general revenue, and reallocated in the following year’s budget. This does not mean there is deliberate under-spending – it means that they overestimated what the demand for services would be in an abundance of caution. And yes, there are backlogs in the department, but when you have capacity issues because they can’t hire enough qualified staff at the drop of a hat (after the previous government let hundreds of them go), you can’t just throw that “leftover” money at that problem. Pretending that it works otherwise is frankly dishonest.

One of the journalists at said outlet took exception to my calling out the disingenuous framing and insisted that the government shouldn’t have promised not to keep the funds in the department if they didn’t intend to keep the promise – and I would almost accept that as a valid argument except for the whole promise in and of itself was the result of shenanigans. The NDP’s whole Supply Day motion last year was illusory outrage, and government explained over and over how accounting rules and demand-based departments work, but if they voted against the (non-binding) motion, they would be voting against veterans and it would be bad optics. The path of least resistance is to vote for it and just keep following the rules. Because what is the alternative – vote for it, and then bring in new legislation to contort the accounting rules for this one-off bit of faux outrage over a non-scandal that is the direct result of a party that deliberately misstated how said accounting rules work in order to try to generate headlines? How is that a productive use of anyone’s time or energy? It would be great if we could get certain media outlets to engage in some critical thinking and not fall for this kind of transparent spin, and then gin it up as though it were a real scandal. We all have better things to do.

Continue reading →