Tag Archives: CRA

Roundup: Demanding the Speaker to something he can’t

Posted on by

The Liberals are no stranger to stunts, and the “poor me” stunts are some of the worst of all. With this in mind, it should be no surprise that MP Ya’ara Saks has written an open letter to the Speaker to demand apologies from Conservatives for sexist remarks, be it Michael Cooper in Committee or Rick Perkins telling Jean Yip that she deserves a participation ribbon. The problem? There’s nothing the Speaker can really do about it.

Saks didn’t cite any Standing Orders that were contravened, and the Speaker is bound to operate within the Standing Orders. Those are the rules by which he is refereeing. And for well over a generation now, the Canadian House of Commons has seen fit to effectively neuter the Speaker so that he (or she) doesn’t have much in the way of leeway in order to enforce, well, anything. Other Speakers in other Westminster parliaments have a lot more authority and latitude—Australia’s Speaker can even demand that governments answer the question when they are seen to be evasive (though this can sometimes stray into Speakers acting in potentially partisan ways). But ours? Nope—because MPs chose to have a ridiculously unempowered Speaker. The result? More of a gong show, more speaking lists, more canned speeches without any flow, and overall, an unserious Parliament, particularly in relation to our comparator countries.

And MPs could change this. But they don’t want to, so they won’t. And that is a problem.

Ukraine Dispatch:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that his country’s military chiefs are unanimous to keep defending Bakhmut, probably because they are grinding the Russian forces down there at a fairly alarming rate. Meanwhile, the Americans are accusing the Russians of downing one of their drones over the Black Sea, which Russia denies.

https://twitter.com/yermolenko_v/status/1635649300922245120

https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1635665484954718208

Continue reading →

QP: Conflating the “police stations” with the interference allegations

Posted on by

While the prime minister was present for a second day in a row, it was a question as to whether the tone of yesterday would carry forward today. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, wondering about the two alleged Chinese “police-stations” in Quebec, raised the Chinese donation to the Trudeau Foundation ten years ago (at a point where Justin Trudeau was not involved in the Foundation), and demanded the date for when a foreign agent registry would be in place. Trudeau took up a script and said that the RCMP was looking into those alleged “police stations,” and that they would take every measure to protect Canadians from foreign intimidation. Poilievre again demanded a date for the registry. Trudeau said he woudln’t take any lessons from a former democratic reform minister whose only shining achievement was making it harder for Canadians to vote, before he started patting himself on the back for the measures they have taken thus far. Poilievre raised the allegations that Chinese agents had “earmarked” a large transfer of funds to be used in the election, and demanded to know if Trudeau would return any funds he or the party in any capacity received from the PRC. Trudeau read that it was a fact that there are threats and that even the US is facing these threats, and that any suggestion that any MP is not loyal is dangerous and undermines democracy. Poilievre reiterated that the question was whether they will commit to return any money that came from the PRC. Trudeau insisted that this was not a partisan issue, and read the points of what the special rapporteur would do. Poilievre said that since Trudeau won’t commit to returning money and accused the prime minster of delaying, possibly until the next election. Trudeau shot back that when Poilievre was minster for democratic reform, he did nothing about foreign interference and only made it harder for marginalised Canadians to vote, while his government took action.

Yves-François Blanchet raised the so-called Chinese “police stations,” and accused the government of doing nothing about foreign interference and that the disqualified themselves from being able to do anything. Trudeau said that there are separate issues, and that the RCMP were investigating those alleged stations. Blanchet said he needed reassurance that the rapporteur would be independent, and Trudeau praised the fact that NSICOP contains parliamentarians from all parties.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP and talked tough about their “forcing” grocery CEOs, before railing about the grocery code of conduct being negotiated. Trudeau read a script about the minster of innovation getting the Competition Bureau involved in the matter, and that they had other measures. Matthew Green took over in English with even more bluster, and Trudeau repeated his same script in English.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A caution around more nomination “safeguards”

Posted on by

There has been some renewed interest in party nominations after the accusations of shenanigans in Liberal MP Han Dong’s nomination, and unsurprisingly, we get a rather tepid piece asking if we need more safeguards. There are a few things that this ignores, part of which is the history. MPs actively wanted to keep Elections Canada out of policing nominations (though they now have a bigger role in policing the funding of said contests). This is one of the reasons why the decision was made to have party leaders sign off on nominations forms—to keep Elections Canada out of the process. (That later turned into a problem of leaders using this power to blackmail members into staying in line, which was not something contemplated at the time, and yes, I did study the Hansards of those debates as part of research for my book).

The other thing that the piece missed is how parties have been monkeying with nomination processes to get their favoured candidates installed. The Samara Centre for Democracy has a great report on this (though they were a little too credulous at the NDP’s claims they always run open nominations when they don’t), and my particular caution is that more “safeguards” for nominations may very well mean a greater ability for the party or the leader’s office to monkey around or put their thumbs on the scale. Already we are in a veritable crisis where open nominations are fast disappearing behind the curtain of protected nominations for incumbents and invoking “electoral urgency” rules unnecessarily that allow the leader to just directly appoint candidates. Parties used to be robust enough to fight this kind of interference, but they are losing that ability, particularly in the Liberals, who rewrote their party constitution to centralize even more power in the leader’s office and disempower the grassroots after Trudeau became prime minister.

Should there be more safeguards? Probably. But that means returning the power to the grassroots riding associations so that they can run proper, open and transparent contests, rather than what has been happening.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say that in spite of Russian claims, Bakhmut is not surrounded, and the fighting continues. In fact, the head of the Wagner Group mercenaries has said that their position is at risk if they can’t get more ammunition. The Ukrainains are, however, trying to evacuate the remaining civilian population, who are still there for many different reasons.

Continue reading →

QP: Re-litigating the hotel room

Posted on by

While the PM and his deputy were on their way back from Hazel McCallion’s funeral in Mississauga, most of the other leaders were also absent from the Chamber for QP. Andrew Scheer led off, like a flashback, and after a preamble of nonsense about inflation, he demanded to know why the prime minister billed taxpayers for a “$7000” hotel room (that number has been inflated) which he neglected to mention was for the funeral of the Queen. Ahmed Hussen got up and listed housing measures that the government put in place that the Conservatives voted against. Scheer tried again, this time comparing the cost of that hotel room to mortgage payments. Hussen repeated his same response. Scheer then raised the National Post story about trying to stifle disclosure of that information, and this time Rob Oliphant raised that this was for the Queen’s funeral, and that the delegation was appropriate for that occasion. Dominique Vien took over in French, and the cost of the hotel room was back to $6000 and demanded the government cap spending. Pascale St-Onge got up to say that the spending was targeted to those who need it most, while the Conservatives seek to cut that help. Vien and St-Onge went another round of the same with little difference.

Alain Therrien led for Bloc, and he thundered about health transfers, saying that provinces don’t really agree and accused the federal government of chronic underfunding, which is not exactly true. Adam van Koeverden read a statement about how pleased they are with the “agreement.” Therrien demanded over and over about “35 percent!” This time Pablo Rodriguez wondered where Therrien was with all of the newspaper headlines talking about an “agreement.”

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and cited a StatsCan figure about people struggling, and turned this into a demand that the government stop the Rogers-Shaw merger. François-Philippe Champagne said that he wanted more competition in the sector. Singh wondered if that meant that he would oppose the merger today, then switched to French to repeat his question. Champagne repeated his enthusiasm for competition.

Continue reading →

QP: Pierre Poilievre, anti-corporate defender

Posted on by

Even though the prime minister was in town, he was away from the Chamber and QP, as were most of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre was present, and he led off in French worrying about the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s criticism that the “government” decided it’s not worth going after $15 billion in overpayments received by wage subsidy recipients, none of which is true. The CRA Commissioner, who is arm’s-length from the government, said that the $15 billion figure is over-inflated, and that it’s not worth it go after every case—he didn’t say it wasn’t worth it go after any of it. Peter Fragiskatos responded by saying that the Commissioner said verification work for COVID programmes is ongoing. Poilievre turned to English to repeat the question, calling the CRA Commissioner the “prime minister’s chief tax collector,” and repeated the same complete bad faith framing, insisting that it was about letting friendly corporations keep ill-gotten gains. Fragiskatos hit back by saying that Poilievre was talking about cuts and austerity when Canadians needed help during the pandemic, and that the Conservatives previously voted to stop the CRA’s verification work. Poilievre insisted that he told the government not to pay wage subsidies to wealthy corporations, and insisted that 37 corporations who received the subsidy paid shareholder dividends, to which Fragiskatos insisted that the subsidy was about keeping small businesses afloat, and the Conservatives cut the CRA’s budget to do the work of combatting tax avoidance, while the current government restored it and audits are up. Poilievre insisted that the Conservatives were able to collect taxes from corporations more efficiently using fewer CRA employees—seriously?—while the current government lets the CRA complain they don’t have the resources to go after these corporations who took the wage subsidy, and insisting that the government goes after the “little guy” instead of the corporations (which is not what people at the Public Accounts committee are saying). Karina Gould got up and insisted that she talked to small businesses who thanked the government for the help they gave in the pandemic. Poilievre insisted this wasn’t about small businesses, which he supported, but this was about “fraud” and corporations who illegally received these subsidies (which, again, is not really true). Randy Boissonnault took a turn and listed measures that the government undertook, such as the return on investment in the CRA, and that there were regulations in place so that companies who took the subsidy and put that money to profits would have those funds clawed back, as well as implementing their windfall tax on banks and insurance companies.

Alain Therrien led for the NDP, and he railed about the statements that certain Montreal Liberal MPs made about Quebec’s language laws, calling it misinformation and that the prime minister approved of it if he doesn’t announce it. Ginette Petitpas Taylor stood up to give a trite defence of the official languages bill. Therrien thundered about all of the ways in which Trudeau supposedly “divides” Canadians, especially around this bill, and Petitpas Taylor reminded him that she is an Acadian from 

Rachel Blaney rose for the NDP, and complained that the contract to a Loblaws-owned company to support veterans was not working out. Darrel Samson read a statement about getting veterans the help they need. Gord Johns accused the government of not delivering on their promised mental health transfer, and Bennett said that was part of the proposed bilateral agreements with provinces so that they could be ensured of transparency and accountability for those dollars.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The PBO has opinions to share

Posted on by

The Parliamentary Budget Officer appeared at the Senate finance committee this week, and seems to have unloaded a litany of complaints about the government. I’m just not sure that the things he was complaining about were actually his purview to do so. You see, in spite of the media terming him a “fiscal watchdog” or a “budget watchdog,” he’s not actually a watchdog of any kind. He has no authority to be opining on how government is operating their programs, because that’s the Auditor General’s job. His job is to provide analysis of macro-economic and fiscal policy, and promoting greater budget transparency. I’m not sure how any of what he said at the Senate had to do with that.

One of things in particular that is of concern is his attack on the CRA around recovery of possible CERB and CEWS overpayments, and the fact that they said it wasn’t worth it to go after every possible overpayment. The way Yves Giroux describes this however was that they weren’t going to follow up on any of it, which isn’t what they said. Additionally, I find it really interesting the way that absolutely everyone is just taking the Auditor General’s word that it’s $15.5 billion in potential wage subsidy overpayments because the CRA says that her methodology for arriving at that figure was flawed, and that it’s not nearly that high. Ah, but in this country, we worship the Auditor General and believe her to be a flawless entity from a higher plane of existence who is infallible. That’s not actually true, but nobody is ever willing to stick their necks out to dispute her figures, and to push back when she’s wrong, which she very well could be this time. The fact that nobody is willing to challenge those figures, including the PBO, is concerning (and frankly, given how much he enjoys inserting himself into other spaces where he doesn’t belong, it’s difficult to see why he didn’t do so here as well).

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 351:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited London and Paris to make his plea for more weapons, and most especially fighter jets. He’s off to Brussels today to continue his pleas to EU leaders. Zelenskyy also seems to be disputing accounts that he is shuffling his defence minister, so we’ll see what happens.

Continue reading →

QP: Crossing a line around MAiD access allegations

Posted on by

The prime minister was allegedly in town, but didn’t show up for QP today, while his deputy was out of town, and most of the other leaders were absent as well, save Pierre Poilievre. And he led off QP in French, worrying about how much mortgage costs have risen, rent increases, and blaming this on “inflationist policies” of the government (which is completely contrary to economic data). Pascale St-Onge, who is apparently now the designated French responder during the leaders’ round when Trudeau is away, gave the back-patting that Canadians know the government is there for them when times are tough. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the same question, demanding that the prime minister take responsibility for pricing working-class youth out of a home. Ahmed Hussen praised their measures such as the rent-to-own programme, the tax-free savings account for first-time buyers, and that the Conservatives voted against these kinds of measures. Poilievre insisted that they voted against inflationary policies, and complained about how much housing prices have gone up in markets like Toronto, demanding the federal government take responsibility for this failure (never mind that these are clearly municipality and provincial responsibilities). Randy Boissonnault reminded him that mothers who took CERB and parents who take their kids to the dentist don’t create inflation, and that the Conservatives dealt in nonsense economics. Poilievre insisted that the government created that inflation, and blamed government spending for inflating the housing market (which is lunacy), and Hussen got back up to demand that Poilievre take responsibility for voting against housing supports. Poilievre took on a tone of faux gravitas and drew a specious link between people at food banks and asking for Medical Assistance in Dying because poverty has them depressed, and accused the government of being more in favour of them accessing MAiD for depression rather than helping them (which is frankly outrageous, particularly since the expansion of MAiD for mental illness is explicitly not about simple depression, no matter what its opponents will falsely claim). Carolyn Bennett tried to dispute this and point out that the eligibility criteria screens out suicidal behaviour, but she was shouted down and the Speaker didn’t allow her to start again from the top.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc and demanded the resignation of Amira Elghawaby, because of course he did. Hussen read that she already clarified and apologised for her past comments and invited Therrien to read that statement. Therrien insisted that the position itself was a problem and that it was only about demonising Quebec, and demanded the position be abolished. Hussen got up to talk about his attending the memorial for the Quebec City mosque shooting and how many people attended it, before reiterating that she already clarified and apologised for her past comments.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the Bloc, and he yelled about use of consultants as privatisation and decried that they were being too cheap with public servants at the bargaining table. Mona Fortier recited some pabulum about good jobs for Canadians. Gord Johns read the English version of the same question with added sanctimony, wanting a full investigation into government outsourcing. Helena Jaczek said that she looked forward to answering their questions at committee. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford getting huffy about his Greenbelt plans

Posted on by

There was a hint of defensiveness from Ontario premier Doug Ford yesterday when he was asked about comments that the federal environment minister Steven Guilbeault made about the plans to develop parts of the Greenbelt. Guilbeault had pointed out that the plan goes against plans for dealing with climate change, and that he could look at potential federal tools to stop those projects, though later his office clarified that there are currently no projects proposed, so this was about potential legal processes to protect nature, which is fair enough, but is really getting up to the line on what he can actually do there.

Doug Ford, however, got a bit huffy and insisted that this is his jurisdiction, and then blamed the federal government’s immigration targets for needing to open up new spaces for housing development, which is bullshit because Ford has the tools to force cities to end exclusionary zoning that prevents densification, but he chooses not to use them. As well, much of the Greenbelt is on watersheds so you really don’t want to build housing there because it’ll be at high risk of flooding, and good luck getting those properties insured. It’s really not the place you want to build housing, so Ford is really not making any good case there for carving up those protected areas.

Of course, Jagmeet Singh also chimed in and demanded that the federal minister use his “tools” to stop the development, citing both the Species at Risk Act and the Impact Assessment Act as possibilities, but that’s on some pretty thin ice. To use the Species legislation, well, you need to prove there is endangered habitat there, which may not be a relevant consideration in those particular places. And the Impact Assessment Act would be going out on a very big limb to try and assert jurisdiction there because there is unlikely to be an interprovincial federal effect to hang it on (such as increased GHGs or mine runoff). Yes, the minister currently has the power to add any project in exceptional circumstances, but I’m not sure this would qualify, if those powers are around much longer, because they’re being challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada in March, and this is far less of a sure thing than the carbon pricing legislation. Once again, there are very few ways for the federal government to swoop in and assert jurisdiction, and they may not have the ability to come to the rescue of the Greenbelt (and yes, Ontarians are going to have to organise if they want to stop the development).

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 339:

Renewed Russian shelling in the east and south killed ten Ukrainian civilians and wounded twenty others. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that Russians are focusing on Vuhledar and Bakhmut, methodically destroying towns and villages as they go. Meanwhile, here’s the tale of Canadian medic serving on the front lines near Bakhmut in Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Say no to a Consultant Commissioner

Posted on by

Because a lot of people continue to be wringing their hands over government contracts to outside consultants, we’re starting to hear a few…less than stellar ideas. One of them came from Paul Wells yesterday, while on the CBC’s Front Burner podcast (Wells’ portion starts at 20:46). While there is some good context from Carleton University professor Amanda Clarke on the size of the problem (thread here), Wells is wrong about two particular portions, and he would have avoided this had he listened to my conversation with professor Jennifer Robson on my YouTube channel last week.

The first is the notion that when these consultants’ job is done, nobody is accountable for the work because most of their agreements mean that it can’t be subject to Access to Information rules, which is wrong. Fundamentally the minister is accountable no matter what. It wouldn’t matter if the work was done by outside consultants or the civil servants in the department, the minister remains responsible, and people seem to be forgetting this in their rush to condemn the consultants. The other part where he’s wrong is his idea to create a “consultant commissioner of Parliament” or other such independent officer.

No. Absolutely not.

We already have way too many gods damned independent officers of parliament, who are unaccountable, and to whom MPs have completely abandoned their constitutional responsibilities of oversight. Sure, the media and the opposition want someone independent they can quote on command to say mean things about the government, but that winds up just creating more bureaucracy, and doesn’t help the overall situation, especially as it drags us further down the road to technocracy rather than parliamentary oversight. The absolute last thing we need are more independent officers, and I wish to gods people would stop proposing them.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 335:

Russian forces have continued to pound the Donetsk region in the country’s east. Russians are also claiming Ukrainians are storing Western weapons in the country’s nuclear power plants, but have provided no proof. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is promising personnel changes at both senior and lower levels after high-profile graft allegations, as part of the country’s attempt to clean up its corruption problem.

Continue reading →

Roundup: That’s not what the Canada Health Act means

Posted on by

As much as I have some residual shreds of optimism that some people are starting to wake up to what is going on with the collapse of our healthcare system and are finally starting to apportion blame where it belongs—namely the provincial premiers—that doesn’t extend to everyone. And lo, there are still far too many members of the pundit class in this country, including its newest inductee, who refuse to get the memo, and who misconstrue the system in order to pin the problems on Justin Trudeau. To add to that, my reply feed is inundated with people who believe the disinformation that Trudeau has either cut or withheld half of the funding for provinces, which bears absolutely no resemblance to what is happening in reality.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1603795671760486411

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1603796262276550657

And do not start handwaving about the Canada Health Act, because you can pretty much guarantee that it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1603804047282151424

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1603805458699259904

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1603805932995182592

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1603806417819168768

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 297:

Russia launched a major missile offensive against Ukraine, whose forces intercepted some 60 of the 76 missiles fired at them. That further damaged critical infrastructure in places like Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kryvhi Rih, and Zaporhizhzhia. This of course strained electrical grids even further, as each subsequent attack strains the system even further, making it harder to recover from each attack.

Continue reading →