Tag Archives: Auditor General

QP: Rota’s return to the big chair

Posted on by

Not only was the prime minister president for QP, as were most other leaders, but Anthony Rota was also back in the Speaker’s chair, for the first time in months. Before things got underway, he took a moment to thank MPs for their support during his absence, and for the care team for his surgery.

After several rounds of applause, things launched with Candice Bergen at her mini-lectern, and she accused the prime minister of trying to end the energy sector by way of the carbon price, insisting that he wants high gas prices. (Erm, Candice, Europe would like a word about gas prices). Justin Trudeau somewhat haltingly listed programmes that are indexed to inflation, and reminded her of what families in Manitoba get in the carbon rebate. Bergen then pivoted to trying to find fault with both the gun control bill and the bill that will remove mandatory minimums on some gun crimes. Trudeau took up a script to praise his own gun control bill, and to recite that removing mandatory minimums is about keeping Black and Indigenous people for; being disproportionately affected by the justice system. Bergen read some scripted outrage about criminals getting house arrest, to which Trudeau read a script about systemic discrimination or people going to jail because they struggle with addiction. Raquel Dancho took over, accusing the government of being responsible for the rise in violent crime, denouncing the removal of mandatory minimums along the way. Trudeau, extemporaneously, listed the new measures in the gun control bill tabled yesterday. Dancho insisted the government wasn’t doing enough to stop gun violence, inadvertently listing things the government was already doing as her counter to “useless” gun bans. Trudeau dismissed this as parroting talking points from the gun lobby, and noted they did invest in the same tools Dancho mentioned.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he complained that the federal government was ready to go to the Supreme Court of Canada over Quebec’s Law 21 and 96, and he wondered if English was really threatened in Quebec. Trudeau took up a script to raise the woman denied a teaching job because she wears a hijab, and it was his job to defend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Blanchet insisted this was a lie, and that secularism was being attacked, before repeating his question a to whether English was threatened in Quebec. Trudeau, extemporaneously, stated the incorrect truism that French is under threat, and insisted that this was about defending minorities throughout the country.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and in French, he noted that the government agreed to decriminalise small amounts of hard drugs in BC, and wanted support for the private member’s bill on doing this nationally. Trudeau recited a script about the opioid crisis and today’s announcement out of BC. Gord Johns repeated the question in English, and Trudeau read the English version of the same script.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unchecked officers want unchecked financing

Posted on by

It is now on or about day sixty-six of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and there has been a crackdown on “traitors” in the country who have been helping Russian forces, sometimes to their own regret later on. Some 400 people have bene detained in the Kharkiv region under anti-collaboration laws, and because of martial law, due process is not always being followed. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s wife, Olena Zelenska, says the war has not changed her husband, but has revealed his determination to prevail, and that he’s someone you can rely on. Elsewhere in Europe, a pipeline between Greece and Bulgaria that was built over the pandemic is getting ready to come online, which will help relieve the situation of Russia cutting off gas to that country.

Closer to home, I read with interest this piece by Kathryn May about the various independent officers of Parliament trying to establish a funding mechanism for their offices that essentially bypasses government, in the name of “independence.” I am dubious, because as it stands, these officers already have no accountability, and their asking to remove what few mechanisms that either parliament or the government can rein them in is worrying. We have seen how New Brunswick’s particular independent officers are trying to organise the ability so that they can essentially write their own enabling legislation (the column I wrote on this is here), which one has little doubt that the ones in Ottawa are eying with particular interest because they will want to do the same, because “independence.”

As I note in the column, these officers have moved away from their intended goal of serving Parliament and expanding the investigative capacity of MPs and using their expertise to assist with legislation and government programmes, and have instead become external bodies that rely on public opinion to mount pressure on Cabinet to act. This diminishes Parliament rather than enhances it, and it’s one reason why I really do not think it’s wise to allow these officers to accumulate any more unchecked power—especially as they have entranced the media, who not only venerate them, but refuse to believe they can be at fault, which is again a problem because it means that what these officers say is repeated uncritically, no matter how problematic some of it is (looking at you most especially, PBO). We have a problem with our independent officers, but we refuse to admit it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The competing pre-budget narratives

Posted on by

We are now on or about day forty-two of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the talk of the day was president Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s address to the UN Security Council, where he recounted (with video) the extent of Russia’s atrocities in towns like Bucha, and demanded war crimes tribunals, and more importantly, massive reform of the Security Council in order to strip Russia of its veto powers. That, of course, is far easier said than done, particularly because the major powers won’t play if they don’t get additional powers, and Russia is a nuclear power. So we’ll see what happens next (which may be nothing).

Closer to home, we are now one day away from the budget, so expect a lot of narratives about the expectations, whether the government should spend more or cut back, though I find there to be some problems with some of the assumptions therein. For example, when it comes to spending, I’m not sure why things like more money for housing or the investment in dental care would be classified the same as subsidies to industries or so on. Is an expansion of the social safety net the same as expansionary fiscal policy that would ordinarily be used to create jobs or growth (which is less relevant right now given that we are sitting around full employment)? I’m not sure they’re the same, but they seem to be treated as much in some of the pieces circulating in the Discourse right now.

At the same time, we should also be realistic about what the budget can and cannot do, such as combatting inflation. In spite of facile narratives that government spending is driving inflation, that’s not showing up anywhere in the data—what is driving it has a lot more to do with the world price of oil (which is directly impacted by the sanction on Russia as a result of their invasion of Ukraine), and the fact that there were droughts in food-producing regions including Canada, thus limiting food supplies and driving up costs, and that the invasion is going to make it worse as Ukraine was considered the breadbasket of Europe (and elsewhere), and if they can get crops planted this year, there are problems with the Russians having targeted ports. Add to that the rising cost of housing (which is largely a problem of supply driving by craven municipal governments who can’t authorize zoning changes or increase density because they’re afraid of NIMBYs and/or are in the pockets of developers), and you wind up with a whole lot of things that the federal budget can’t really do much about. Not that there won’t be an effort to put all of the weight on the federal government regardless, because that’s how we roll, apparently.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A strategic turning point?

Posted on by

We are in day seventeen of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the bombardment and shelling has intensified not only in Mariupol, but some other cities that have thus far been unaffected. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that they have achieved a strategic turning point, that they have lasted four times longer than Russia planned for them to, and asked his people for strength and patience. There are also concerns that Russians are targeting ports and grain silos, which could have a major impact on food supplies in the region as the crisis grows. In the meantime, the BBC has a chilling report out of Kharkiv, and it’s a bit grisly because of the number of Russian corpses just lying there.

https://twitter.com/sommervilletv/status/1502000265490227206

Justin Trudeau concluded his European trip, and announced yet more sanctions against Russian oligarchs including Roman Abramovich, who has interests in a steel company that has operations in Canada, so these sanctions could affect its operations.

Closer to home, Anita Anand addressed the Ottawa Conference on Security and Defence yesterday, and spoke about a “robust package” to modernise NORAD, and said that they have not forgotten about the threats posed by China while the world is focused on Ukraine. At the same conference, a senior CSIS official spoke about the vulnerability posed by cyberspace, which is why they are focusing on protecting critical infrastructure from cyber-attacks.

Continue reading →

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 →