Tag Archives: Auditor General

QP: Bland assurances about Arctic sovereignty

Posted on by

For Thursday, neither the prime minister nor his deputy were present, nor were most of the the other leaders, save one. Luc Berthold led off, with a script but without a mini-lectern, and in French, he worried about the disinformation circulating about the invasion of Ukraine, but wedged this into a question about expelling the Russian ambassador. Anita Anand rose, not to answer but to recognise the presence of Ukraine’s chargé d’affaires in the gallery, which was against the rules—which the Speaker reminded her of—before Anand made a bland statement. Berthold worried about the state of our military’s readiness should Putin carry on, and Anand assured him that of course we are ready and that nothing has been neglected, before she read out what new lethal aid was provided to Ukraine this morning. Raquel Dancho took over in English to again demand to know what meetings she has had to prepare for Russian threats of retaliation. Anand assured her that they were prepared for any eventuality, and mentioned working with American counterparts to modernise NORAD as a priority. Dancho worried that we did not have sufficient military assets in the Arctic, and wanted further reassurances, and Anand repeated her reassurances before saying that we need to be non-provocative and rational in this situation. Berthold took back over to repeat the question about what we are doing about deterrence to keep Russia from invading the Arctic. Anand repeated that we would work with the US, and stated that the Coast Guard would defend us.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and worried that the government’s emergency travel documents for Ukrainian refugees would take too long, and Anand read that what was announced today would reduce red tape and would hasten passage for Ukrainians, and there was no limit to how many were would take in. Normandin stated the need for an emergency airlift operation, and Anand spoke about more measures for these refugees but did not commit to an airlift.

Jagmeet Singh led for the NDP, in person, and demanded more sanctions against more Russian oligarchs, to which Anand, after some hesitation, listed those already under sanction and said that they were working with allies to impose yet more sanctions. Singh repeated the question in French, and Anand repeated her response in French.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Theatre of the absurd, housing motion edition

Posted on by

The closer the House of Commons gets to rising for the winter break, the more absurd theatre we see. Yesterday was case in point, with the Conservatives’ second and final Supply Day of the calendar year. The topic was housing, but their motion was a complete dog’s breakfast of nonsense, contradiction and outright unconstitutional demands. Because of course it was.

The point was made that the inclusion of the outright lie about capital gains taxes was a ploy for the Conservatives to say that the Liberals were not ruling it out when this motion as inevitably defeated (as indeed it was). But Liberal Mark Gerretsen though he was being crafty and tried to move a motion after QP to head off those talking points, trying to call for unanimous consent to reaffirm that they wouldn’t tax capital gains. But the motion didn’t pass, so Gerretsen tried to spin that too, and it’s just utterly stupid that I can’t even.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding the inflation target

Posted on by

With the prime minister virtually attending Biden’s “democracy summit,” and Chrystia Freeland absent, it was promising to be a rockier day in the Commons. Erin O’Toole led off, his script on his mini-lectern, and he brayed about inflation, housing prices, and coming interest rate hikes. Ahmed Hussen reminded him that they were the federal party that restored leadership to the housing file and he praised the National Housing Strategy. O’Toole raised the prospect of predicted food price hikes, and then pretended that Trudeau and Freeland were in the Chamber and not answer, and Randy Boissonnault, in his role as associate finance minster, reminded O’Toole about the Bank of Canada’s inflation target. O’Toole pretended that the prime minster ignored his responses about the Bank’s mandate and worried it would be changed, to which Boissonnault reminded him that the Bank is independent. O’Toole switched to French to misleadingly say that the Liberals planned to abandon the inflation targeting mandate, and Hussen repeated his first response, and called out the nonsense in the Conservatives’ supply day motion. O’Toole returned to braying about inflation in French, and Boissonnault repeated in French about the Bank’s mandate, before reciting some good news talking points.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he worried that the Auditor General showed that thirty percent of COVID tests were lost or mislabelled, for which Duclos said that he thanked the AG for her work, and said they would examine the results. Therrien worried about the stat that fourteen percent of those tested were never notified, but Duclos gave a bromide about working to prevent omicron.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and after citing a report on growing inequality (I would be dubious of that given that the Canadian trajectory has not been the same as the US), and he demanded a tax on the super-wealthy, for which Boissonnault listed measures to help those in need. Singh repeated the question in French, and Boissonnault read measures in the Liberal platform about taxing banks and insurance companies.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Just the Speaker doing his job

Posted on by

We got our first glimpse at the court documents related to the challenge of the House of Commons’ order demanding the production of secret documents related to the firing of the two scientists from the National Microbiology Lab. The Speaker, Anthony Rota, put in his submission that the case should be tossed because of Parliamentary privilege, and there was no explicit waiving of parliamentary privilege under the Canada Evidence Act, which is what the Public Health Agency is following in refusing to turn over unsecured documents. As a reminder, they have turned over the documents, both in redacted form to the committee that requested them, and in unredacted form to NSICOP, which has appropriate security clearances and safeguards, so it’s not like this is a blanket refusal to defy Parliament – it’s that they have their own obligations to follow. It’s also somewhat problematic that the committee wants the Commons’ Law Clerk to then redact the documents on his own, without appropriate training or context, so they ultimately claim they’re not looking for unredacted documents – only for someone else to do the redacting, at which point this is just becoming absurd.

The way this is being spun is also somewhat irritating – because this was a Canadian Press wire story, outlets who ran the piece sometimes did so with altered headlines that stated that it was the Liberals interfering with the “exclusive jurisdiction” of the Commons rather than the government, which is not really true. This isn’t a partisan issue – it’s different parts of the government acting according to the laws that Parliament passed. When the demands were made, PHAC was bound in legislation to inform the Attorney General, and while it is the same physical person as the minister of justice, under his Attorney General hat, he had obligations to follow the law and test these demands in Court.

The other commentary that is somewhat maddening is people pointing out that the Speaker is somehow going against his party in doing his job as Speaker in defending the Commons’ privileges. Again, this isn’t actually a partisan issue on either side (well, the Conservatives making these demands for the documents, with the support of the other opposition parties, are behaving in an extremely partisan manner and trying to embarrass the government, but that’s neither here nor there for the purpose of what we’re discussing). Trying to make it a partisan issue when everyone is doing their jobs is just degrading the discourse and muddying the understanding of what is going on (which is what certain parties would like to happen because it makes it easier for them to lie about the state of play). We shouldn’t be doing their dirty work for them.

Programming Note: I’m taking the next week off (as much as I am able), because it’s probably my only opportunity in advance of the possible election, and I really don’t want to have to deal with election coverage while battling burnout. Take care, and I’ll see you on the far side of the long weekend.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Some of the misconceptions around C-10

Posted on by

The other day, I made a somewhat snarky comment over Twitter in response to an op-ed in The Line, because people are still making stuff up about Bill C-10. Like, out of whole cloth, complete fiction, because they do not grasp the basic mechanics of regulation in this country.

So, with this in mind, here are a few reminders. Start by re-reading my piece in National Magazine about the bill. Individual content uploaders are not being regulated – only the platforms themselves. The CRTC is not going to takedown YouTube content, and it’s not going to regulate news. If it regulates Facebook, it’s not regulating the algorithm of timelines – it’s only regulating if Facebook is acting like a broadcaster of scripted content, or when they livestream baseball games (which they have done). The reason why YouTube as a platform, for example, is being targeted is because it is the largest music streaming platform in the world, and this is why they want to bring it into the ambit of CanCon regulations, governing both discoverability (so that the algorithm shows more Canadian artists in suggested playlists), and contributing financially to the system that helps provide grants and royalties for Canadian artists. People keep mentioning Instagram and TikTok, but they’re not really broadcasting platforms.

So how does the CRTC determine what counts as CanCon? Well, they have a formula that assigns points to it, and 6/10 or 8/10 points gets particular CanCon status. These are all determined by regulations under the Broadcasting Act. Remember that legislation is the framework and policy direction – the nitty-gritty rules get determined by regulation, and it follows a process of development that involves stakeholder engagement and consultation, and is done at the bureaucratic level. It’s not Cabinet pulling rules out of their asses, nor should it be. You don’t want Cabinet to be putting its thumb on the scale, which is why there is an arm’s length regulatory body, being the CRTC. And it’s not just the cabal of commissioners who are making these regulations either, in spite of what certain people are claiming.

https://twitter.com/G_Gallant/status/1395427604107300867

This brings me to my next point – the very notion that the CRTC is going to police the whole of social media is completely crackers on the face of it. They barely have enough resources to do their existing job (and if you listen to some of the reasoning around this week’s telecom decision, they seem to think they can’t handle doing the work of wholesale internet prices). If you think they’re going to somehow hire an army of bureaucrats to police your tweets, you should be certifiable.

Now, this isn’t to say that C-10 is without problems, because they are there. For one, the Broadcasting Act may be the wrong vehicle for this, as it was about regulating the limited bandwidth for TV and radio. It will be on platforms to adjust their algorithms to make CanCon more discoverable, which is going to be the high-level work, but there are particular concerns around meeting the objectives under the Act, which involve things like “safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada,” and whether these platforms will moderate content to try and fit those objectives, and that moderation will likely involve the use of AI, which is where we have particular concerns. And those are legitimate concerns, but they have nothing to do with the Orwellian picture being painted of moderated tweets, and newsfeeds being monkeyed with, or “takedown notices.” The level of complete hysteria around this bill, rooted in a complete ignorance of how regulatory bodies work – and a great deal of partisan disinformation – is making the debate around this bill utterly loony (at least in English Canada). Yes, it’s complicated, but don’t fall for easy narratives.

Continue reading →

QP: Confusing rapid and PCR tests

Posted on by

For a Thursday with no ministers in the chamber, we had not one but two Liberals on the government benches — Mark Gerretsen, and Francis Drouin. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and he complained there wasn’t a national rapid testing regime like Taiwan has, and then complained about the contract with Switch Health at the border. Patty Hajdu reminded him that he was conflating rapid tests – which they sent to provinces – with the PCR tests that Switch was contracted to perform at the border, and that if was worried about rapid tests, he should talk to premiers. O’Toole complained that Switch was missing its timelines in one in six cases, and 5000 cases that failed. Hajdu noted that those tests take longer because they’re PCR tests, and they were bringing on more corporate partners. O’Toole accused the government of changing the law rather than the company when it came to missing certain days, and Hajdu insisted this was incorrect, and that they were doing full due diligence to ensure travellers were protected. O’Toole then switched to French to repeat his first question, and Hajdu reiterate that O’Toole was conflating rapid tests with PCR tests, and that they are used differently. O’Toole then condemned the lack services in French at the border with Switch Health, and Hajdu agreed that this was essential, which is why Switch doubled their French capacity and they added another supplier.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she complained that the motion on Bill 96 didn’t pass, and wanted assurances that the province could use Section 45 of the constitution to make the changes — which is a trap. Mélanie Joly assured her that they were working to protect the French reality in Canada. Normandin assured her that this wasn’t a trap, and wanted those assurances, and Joly again would not give her the assurance she was looking for.

Jagmeet Singh led rose for the NDP in French, and he demanded the federal government stop banks from raising fees, for which Chrystia Freeland went into an assurance about the taxes on luxury goods. Singh repeated in English to add emphasis to the same question, and Freeland repeated the same talking points under the rubric of people paying their fair share.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bloc motion denied by Wilson-Raybould

Posted on by

The Bloc tried very hard yesterday to push a motion in the House of Commons that would essentially declare that the Commons agreed with Quebec’s Bill 96, thus trying to politically disarm any of the objections to the plans to unilaterally amend the constitution to insert clauses on Quebec being a “nation” and that its only language was French. They were thwarted by Jody Wilson-Raybould, who was the only one to deny them unanimous consent – as well she should, because everyone is trying to be too-clever-by-half on this whole thing, and that’s bound to wind up in tears at some point down the road.

Paul Wells explained some of this earlier in the week in his lengthy column on Trudeau’s quest for Quebec votes, and essentially Trudeau was saying that sure, Quebec could move this unilateral move to the constitution if it didn’t impact on other rights, which is the real trick – the whole point of Bill 96 is to weaken the rights of anglophones in the province, up to and including taking away their constitutional guarantee to be able to hear a trial in English. Jagmeet Singh similarly tried the same tactic in saying that the proposed constitutional changes are “symbolic,” and won’t impact anyone outside of Quebec (never mind that they will impact anglophones in the province). Everyone seems to think they’re clever and that there will be no long-term repercussions from this, because they all want to get on François Legault’s good side before the next election, whenever that happens, because he’s still wildly popular in the province (almost disconcertingly so). This is hardly a serious way to run a country.

Meanwhile, here’s Thomas Mulcair, a veteran of the linguistic wars in Quebec, explaining why Bill 96 is really a sneak attack on the linguistic rights that he spent his career fighting for, and it’s well worth your time to read, because it has some additional context on what the current provincial government has been up to leading up to this point.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not a tax but a regulatory charge

Posted on by

The big news yesterday was that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled 6-3 that the federal government’s carbon price backstop was indeed constitutional, and included in that ruling was that the price was not a tax, but a constitutionally valid regulatory charge. This is important for a couple of reasons – taxes go to general revenue, whereas regulatory charges must be cycled for specific purposes, and in this case, they are rebated to the provinces in which they are collected, and under the federal backstop, if a province doesn’t have a revenue recycling mechanism, these carbon charges are rebated at a rate whereby most households will get more back than they paid into it owing to the fact that institutions who pay the prices don’t get those same rebates.

Of course, you wouldn’t know it based on a bulk of the coverage in this country, for whom the common headline was “Supreme Court declares carbon tax constitutional.” CBC, iPolitics, The Globe and Mail, Global TV, the Postmedia chain – all of them using “carbon tax” throughout to describe the very ruling that says it’s not a tax. This matters for a couple of reasons – one of them is that calling it a tax is actively misleading as this charge does not go into general revenue. Why is that important? Recall that in the lead-up to the last election, then-Conservative leader Andrew Scheer kept declaring that the federal “carbon tax” would keep increasing because the government needed the revenues to pay for their deficits – a lie because it’s not a tax, and those revenues got rebated to household. But he almost never got corrected on that, because people kept using “tax.” Erin O’Toole keeps offering the lie that this “tax” is punishing low-income households, again misleading because of the rebates, which again, few people correct him on.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1375152876641746947

The other reason it matters is because using “tax” fits it into a particular ideological framing device for which “taxes” are a bad thing. “Taxation is theft,” and all of that particular bullshit, but this is a particular frame that serves those narratives. Journalists should be under no obligation to carry water for those interests, and if anyone says “calling it a tax is just easier,” then you are party to misinformation. And I am starting to wonder how many of my journalist colleagues either didn’t pay attention or skipped the class in journalism school where we discussed framing devices and how they influence coverage. A few outlets were able to get the nomenclature correct – that others couldn’t is a problem.

Meanwhile, Jason Markusoff makes note of what certain premiers did and did not say about the result, given that this is now a reality that they will be forced to contend with. Heather Scoffield considers the decision the stake to the heart of governments’ ability to drag their feet on tackling climate change. Colby Cosh takes a deep dive into the ruling’s exploration of the Peace, Order and Good Government provisions of the constitution.

Continue reading →

QP: Those aren’t the transfers we’re looking for

Posted on by

On a slightly muggy Thursday in Ottawa, in the House of Commons, the Liberal benches were back down to three MPs, including two ministers, because we can’t have nice things. Erin O’Toole led off, script on his mini-lectern, and he decried delays in vaccines that have not materialised — mere rumours thereof — and he demanded a plan to end lockdowns. Rachel Bendayan reminded him that we are actually ahead of schedule on vaccine deliveries, and we had assurances from the European Commission. O’Toole raised the dosing directives — which is not a federal responsibility — for which Patty Hajdu launched into a spiel about science and evidence and how those evolve. O’Toole switched to French to repeat his first question, and Bendayan repeated her answer in French. O’Toole then returned to English to cite the Auditor General saying that this government shut GPHIN down, for which Hajdu countered with the expert panel report that said that problems with GPHIN did not affect when were alerted to the possible pandemic. O’Toole then repeated the question in French, and Hajdu spoke about the expansion of the Public Health Agency, and exhorted him to pass Bill C-14, which has more public health supports in it.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he declared that the announced one-time transfer to the provinces was not good enough, and he repeated their original demand of $28 billion without strings. Patty Hajdu reminded him of the other transfers and federal supports already given. Therrien was not mollified and demanded more, and got much the same response.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, raised the loss of seven women in Quebec over the past seven weeks to domestic violence, and demanded an end to this femicide. Maryam Monsef assured him that the government takes this seriously and listed some actions taken. Singh switched to English to decry that the government was not doing enough for climate change, for which Jonathan Wilkinson raised this morning’s Supreme Court of Canada ruling, and stated that the plans laid out are some of the most comprehensive in the world.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pandora’s Box is open

Posted on by

With the agreement of all House Leaders in the Commons, MPs have finally done it and wrenched open the lid of Pandora’s Box (which is actually a jar) and have let loose evil into the world. That evil is their remote voting app, and Parliament will forever suffer for it.

Am I being a drama queen about this? Hardly. Because we’re already seeing the demands to make these hybrid sittings permanent. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was asked to report on “savings” of this set-up, and in spite of the increased IT and staff costs (and almost no mention of the human costs of the interpreters burning out and suffering cognitive injuries at a horrific rate), he figured that it would save about $6.2 million a year, mostly in travel costs, as well as some 2,972 metric tonnes of CO2 emissions. And the senator who commissioned the PBO report was so enthralled with the result that she wants to make hybrid sittings permanent, with the “bonus” that parliamentarians can spend more time in their “ridings” (erm, except senators don’t have ridings because they represent the whole province, Quebec’s senatorial districts notwithstanding).

What I have been warning about this whole time is that MPs would use the pandemic to normalise hybrid sittings and remote voting, because some of them – the Liberals especially – have been pushing for this for years with little success, and with the pandemic, they are not letting a good crisis go to waste. They know that once it’s over, they will contrive excuses to keep these “temporary” measures permanent, starting with the excuse that it’ll be beneficial for MPs on parental leave, and then it’ll be for those with work-life balance issues, and finally it will because they just have so many things going on in their ridings that they couldn’t possibly be in Ottawa – and now they have the added justification of cost savings and reduced GHG from flights. Parliament is facing de-population, and it will become like a homeroom that everyone attends once or twice a year, and that’s it.

The problem is that Parliament is a face-to-face institution. Some of the most important work that happens is actually on the margins of committee rooms, in the lobbies behind the Chambers, or in the corridors. Ministers can be button-holed by MPs in the Chamber waiting for votes, which is incredibly valuable. Relationships are built with stakeholders and witnesses who appear at committee, and that happens face-to-face. And more importantly, MPs need to actually be in the same room for collegiality to happen. When MPs stopped having dinner together in the Parliamentary Restaurant three nights a week after they ended evening sittings, collegiality plummeted and has never recovered. If MPs aren’t even in Ottawa with one another, they will be fully ensconced in partisan bubbles that make it easy to treat one another as the enemy rather than as fellow MPs who can play outraged in the Chamber and go for a drink together afterward (which is becoming rare enough as it is). This is antithetical to what Parliament is. And not enough of them are getting it, so they’re allowing this to go ahead full-steam ahead, and boasting about “modernisation,” and so on. It will kill Parliament, and not enough people will actually care, which is the worst part.

Continue reading →