Tag Archives: China

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 →

Roundup: Stop proposing bad rule changes

Posted on by

Sound the alarm, because MPs – and Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux in particular – are talking about changing the Standing Orders again. Lamoureux has apparently committed to bringing back Frank Baylis’ package of reforms, most of which were are either half-measures, or wrong-headed and will have unintended consequences that will simply make things worse. But as with anything, as soon as it’s been proposed, it becomes the politician syllogism – “Something must be done. This is something. Therefor we must do this.” Apparently, nobody learned a gods damned thing after Michael Chong’s garbage Reform Act, and we’re about to go through yet another attempted exercise that will wind up going badly. (I wrote about Baylis’ proposals last year).

There are a few things in the Lamoureux interview that I did want to highlight first, which is the talk about eliminating votes on Mondays and Fridays – that’s pretty much a given considering that they already don’t have votes on Fridays, barring exceptional circumstances like a vote-a-thon, and they rarely have them on Mondays either, and when they do, it’s usually in the evening, by which time most MPs should have arrived in Ottawa. I’m also going to give some major side-eye to MPs who complain that they could be doing more work in their ridings, because their jobs are in Ottawa. Their jobs are to hold the government to account by doing the work of things like scrutinizing the estimates, going through the Public Accounts, and studying legislation in committee. Their jobs are not actually about doing “casework” with constituents, most of which should be done by the civil service. An MP’s office is not supposed to be a Service Canada desk, and I wish that they would stop pretending that it was.

The other part that I’m getting increasingly irate with is the talk about developing a parallel chamber for the House of Commons, and dressing it up as “efficiency.” No. There is no reason for us to have one. It makes more sense in Westminster where they have 650 MPs, and there are fewer opportunities for them to have take-note debates on things in the main chamber, but we really don’t have either the need, or frankly the bodies to do it, because we already have enough of our MPs assigned to more than one committee outside of House Duty, so there are already not enough hours in the day for most of them. We also don’t need the hours for added “debate” on government bills – we need to reform how we’re structuring debate period. We don’t need additional time for private members’ business because it will only bottleneck in the Senate and die on the Order Paper anyway. There is zero rationale for it – but there is currently a romance with the notion, and so they keep proposing it. No. Stop it.

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: Giving credence to nonsense

Posted on by

As the Conservative leadership race starts to heat up, we’re hearing Erin O’Toole reiterate his neo-colonial “CANZUK” nonsense, and aspiring narcissist Rick Peterson has been all over talking about his “flat tax” proposal without giving any concrete numbers or context as to the trade-offs of that plan. And of course, some UK media has picked upon on O’Toole’s proposal in the wake of Brexit, giving it undue credibility – which is a problem in and of itself.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1223959683528101889

So economist Kevin Milligan actually crunched the numbers for the aspiring narcissist Peterson, and lo, it’s not pretty.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1224011123009249281

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1224103928096182272

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1224144132873961473

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1224146058088865794

In other words, it’s not novel or a “bold idea” – it’s hokum that we’re giving a free pass. Let’s do better than this.

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 →

Roundup: Expecting a regulatory overhaul

Posted on by

I’ve been keeping my eye on the Orphan Well issue in Alberta from a distance, somewhat in part because of everything I learned about the problem when writing about the Supreme Court of Canada challenge around how the obligations to clean them up interacted with federal bankruptcy law. As it turns out, the Supreme Court said no, companies can’t offload these environmental problems in order to salvage other assets, so Alberta was left with a problem as the huge problems with the way their regulatory system operates has been left with a very big problem. The province’s energy regulator (which has long been accused of being captured by the industry) is finally admitting that their system for determining liabilities has been flawed all along, and the province is saying they’ll be releasing new regulations soon, but we’ll have to see how much more stringent they’re going to be with the provincial government constantly worried that they’ll unduly harm the industry in its weakened state (which is another reason why Kenney has been pressing for those so-called “equalization rebates” from the fiscal stabilization fund in order to put toward remediating orphan wells – because why not get the federal taxpayer to deal with the remediation of environmental liabilities that the province deliberately under-funded in order to keep the good times rolling (and their tax base unsustainably low).

Meanwhile, the number of smaller oil and gas companies who haven’t been paying their taxes to municipalities or rents to farmers and landowners is climbing, leading to a great deal of frustration in the province, and there are calls essentially for these smaller companies to be allowed to go bankrupt so that larger ones can take them over, and they’ll be better capitalized to deal with their environmental liabilities, as happened in Texas several years ago. Then again, seeing as the provincial government and their federal counterparts seem to be so much more beholden to the smaller oil and gas players than they are the big ones (for whom they will deride as being big corporations, because don’t forget they’re right-flavoured populists), so we’ll see how far that line of argument gets them.

Continue reading →

QP: Putting the heat on Blair

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau fled the capital to go sell auto workers the merits of the New NAFTA over in Brampton, Andrew Scheer was elsewhere. Candice Bergen led off with the story of the murder of a sex worker of a person on parole, and demanded a denunciation of the Board’s actions. Bill Blair reminded her that an investigation has been launched into the matter. Bergen asked about MasterCard getting $50 million from the government, to which Mélanie Joly said that the government was investing into a cyber-security centre. Bergen said that MasterCard can afford to pay for their own cyber-security, and bashed the investment again, and Joly responded about the importance of job creation. Luc Berthold was up next to ask about the Auditor General’s budget, to which Jean-Yves Duclos effused about the Middle Class before citing that they would work with the Auditor General. Berthold asked again in French, and Duclos responded with the record on growth and job creation. Yves-François Blanchet was up next to worry about Teck Frontier Mine destroying the Paris Agreement, and Jonathan Wilkinson responded that they were still making their determination on the environmental assessment. Blanchet also worried that said mine would require new pipelines and wondered if they were afraid of saying no to Jason Kenney, to which Wilkinson repeated that they were still considering it. Jagmeet Singh was up for the NDP, to once again demand limiting the tax break in order to fund dental care, and Bill Morneau reminded Singh that their tax cuts have benefited 20 million Canadians. Singh asked again in French, and got much the same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Teck Frontier drama for naught?

Posted on by

There is a lot of agitation around the Teck Frontier oilsands mine, with the Alberta government and their federal counterparts howling for it to be approved immediately, and environmentalists, and certain other parties (like the Bloc) demanding the federal permits be denied. The problem? That even if it were approved, the CEO says they may not be able to build it because oil prices are too low for it to actually make any money, so this could all be for naught.

Meanwhile, here is Andrew Leach with a thread on its economics, and pushing back on the rhetoric around its emissions profile, wherein Jason Kenney and others have misconstrued what the company has actually said in order to make the project look less emitting that its plans say it will be.

Continue reading →

QP: Platitudes and the Parole Board

Posted on by

After a number of members’ statements dedicated to both the anniversary of the Quebec City mosque shooting and #BellLetsTalk, and a moment of silence for the mosque shooting, things got down to business with all of the leaders present. Andrew Scheer led off, and he railed about MasterCard getting government funding. Trudeau responded with some bland platitudes about growing the Middle Class™. Scheer tried again, got much the same response, and then Scheer demanded that the Teck Frontier Mine be approved. Trudeau said that railing about activists and celebrities didn’t help the energy sector, but working in partnership with all sectors and Indigenous people was the path forward. Scheer then switched to French to ask about a parole case, to which Trudeau picked up a script to read that they had ordered an investigation into the Parole Board’s decision. Scheer switched to English to lie about Trudeau apparently opposing mandatory minimum sentences for violent murderers, and Trudeau repeated his answer in English. Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc, to get back to his usual complaints about aluminium under the New NAFTA, and Trudeau gave his usual assurances that there are new content guarantees that don’t exist currently. Blanchet threatened to vote against the Ways and Means motion on the treaty, and Trudeau listed the good things about the agreement. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and he worried about evacuating Canadians from China — something that was addressed in a press conference moments before QP began. Trudeau read a statement about their concern, and that they were working to assist the 160 Canadians who had contacted them. Singh then raised that MasterCard contract instead of giving that money to pharmacare, and Trudeau stood up to correct him as to the actions they have taken to make prescription drugs more affordable.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No metric to measure success

Posted on by

The inevitable has happened with this government’s too-clever-by-half branding of their associate finance minister, and she has essentially been caught out by the easiest trap imaginable. The Conservatives submitted an Order Paper question asking for a definition of “middle class” by which the government could measure the success of its efforts at ensuring their prosperity, and lo, they were told that there is no measure that the government uses. Which is kind of embarrassing for a government that prides itself on data and metrics – that’s one of the reasons why they actually bit the bullet and decided on the Market-Basket Measure of poverty as their official definition, because that allowed them to track the success of their programmes in alleviating it (and yes, programmes like the Canada Child Benefit have had a measurable impact using these kinds of data). But what they can do for poverty, they can’t do for the Middle Class™.

Of course, we all know that it’s because “middle class” isn’t an economic definition to this government, but a feel-good branding exercise. It’s the Middle Class™ And Those Working Hard To Join It, because we all know that everyone thinks they’re middle class (whether or not they have ponies), and most especially people on the wealthier end of the scale in this country. It’s all about a feeling, or a hand-wavey metric about having kids in hockey (an upper-class pursuit in this country). And this lack of a definition is exactly why this minister is the Minister of Middle Class™ Prosperity®, because it means nothing. It’s a trademarked slogan, transparently winking to Canadians about how this is how they plan to address the discontent underlying the populist movements taking place across the government – hoping that if they can reassure these voters that they’re being care of and not left behind, that they’re being heard, that somehow, it’ll keep the populist forces at bay. I’m not sure that it will work, but it’s blatantly happening, so we should all be aware that this is part of their plan.

Continue reading →