Tag Archives: Parliamentary Budget Officer

QP: Harvesting carbon and capital gains clips

Posted on by

As the final sitting week of the spring begins, with a heat wave starting, neither the prime minister nor his deputy were present, but most of the other leaders were. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he worried about Bloc having concerns about the capital gains changes, and that their hoped-for amendments wouldn’t happen next week when it comes into force. Anita Anand praised the plan the government put forward for the economy, which the Conservatives don’t have. Poilievre kept needling the Bloc, claiming they were taking Quebeckers’ money and giving it to Ottawa. Jean-Yves Duclos asked Poilievre to explain why people who make half a million in capital gains should pay less tax than a nurse making $50,000 in a year. Poilievre switched to English to worry about the so-called “cover up” of the costs of the carbon levy, claiming it costs the economy $30 billion per year, and wondered what else they were hiding about their other tax hikes. Steven Guilbeault pointed out the reductions in emissions while the Conservatives want to let the planet burn. Poilievre tried the same again, insisting the carbon levy won’t change the weather or stop a single forest fire, to which Jonathan Wilkinson wondered if Poilievre was a climate denier. Poilievre turned back to the capital gains changes, and cited the “Food Professor” about it (seriously?!), and Anita Anand praised…housing starts. Come on!

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he worried that the government would discredit the Hogue Commission if she didn’t come to the same conclusion as the government. Dominic LeBlanc said that he was pleased that Justice Hogue had agreed to look into this. Therrien railed that the prime minister has slept on the foreign interference file for months, and LeBlanc insisted that they have taken this seriously since the get-go.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he railed that progress on the Truth and Reconciliation calls to action were taking too long to be implemented. Patty Hajdu insisted that they have been working, and that she just stood with the National Chief to announce funding for a Northern Ontario hospital. Singh repeated the question in French, and got much the same response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Singh’s turn with the report

Posted on by

It was NDP leader Jagmeet Singh’s turn to read the classified NSICOP report yesterday, and like Elizabeth May, he too called a press conference afterward, but there was a striking difference between the two, and Singh’s conference went off the rails shortly after he started.

First of all, there was a major difference in tone. Singh’s opening remarks were practically verbatim his condemnatory remarks from Question Period a few days ago, and stuck to those partisan scripted points trying to lay into both the Conservatives and the Liberals while trying to pretend that he’s the adult in the room (when clearly, he’s not, and that still remains Elizabeth May on this file). And after all, it’s hard to walk back the language he and Heather McPherson were using earlier in the week about the report and the supposed lack of action on the part of the prime minister, ignoring the obvious question of how he would know that the Liberals haven’t done anything if they’re keeping it quiet because the gods damned allegations are secret. Honest to Zeus, this shouldn’t be rocket science, but no, he is so intent on scoring points that he can’t seem to think through his own lines of attack. Just amateurish.

Which brings us to his point about how he says he’s more alarmed by what he read, but kept talking in circles, and refused to say whether he has concerns about any sitting MPs or senators, and his office needed to clarify to CBC later on that “Singh’s comments should not be taken as confirming or denying that the parliamentarians cited in the report are currently serving.” Really? Then what exactly was the point of this exercise? Other than to try and poke Elizabeth May in the eye, score points, and look like he’s the big man on campus? This is supposed to be a serious issue, and it would be really great if our political leaders could actually treat it that way.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine says it needs more air defences within the next few weeks, otherwise there won’t be sufficient power to get them through next winter. More than 4500 Ukrainian inmates have applied to enlist in the military under the new law, some of them eager to do their part for their country. At the G7 meeting, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been working toward getting security agreements signed with the US and Japan.

https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1801175861443383308

Continue reading →

QP: Crowing about the release of a “secret report” that was not secret or a report

Posted on by

With the prime minister was off at the G7 summit in Italy, and his deputy off in Montreal, most of the other leaders didn’t bother to show up either. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, claiming that the “economic vandalism” and “carbon tax cover-up” have been exposed thanks to his party’s valiant efforts, and that the government finally revealed the data set about the cost impacts of carbon pricing beyond the retail price, and lo, it takes $30 billion out of the economy (which isn’t actually true—the figures only track one particular measure and not the other costs or offsets on the economy), and how the government attacked the PBO to hide the information (again, completely not true). Steven Guilbeault said that they have already established that math is Poilievre’s strong suit, that he can’t count above six, and that the data prove that eight out of ten households get more back, and that 25 million tonnes of GHG reductions are because of the carbon price. Poilievre accused the government of trying to hide the data (not true), raised the cost to Quebeckers, took a swipe at the Bloc, and accused the government again of attacking the reputation of the PBO for telling the truth (which isn’t what happened). Guilbeault reminded him that the carbon levy doesn’t apply in Quebec, and that he can turn to his own MPs who voted for the province’s carbon pricing system when she was in the Charest Cabinet. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the claim that the previous “hidden report” (which is not a report) costs the economy $30 billions and considered it economic vandalism. Guilbeault insisted that this is misreading the data, that most households get more back, and that the carbon pricing is responsible for half of emissions reductions. Poilievre repeated his defence of the PBO, to which Guilbeault repeated his same response. Poilievre again mischaracterised the data, and demanded that Guilbeault resign, and this time Jonathan Wilkinson got up to point to the 300 economists who explained how carbon pricing works, and that there is a cost of inaction on climate change.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc and complained about the Governor General’s budget, and demanded the medal programme be cancelled. Pascale St-Onge gave a tepid defence of the medals and the monarchy. Therrien complained that the same estimate vote contains funds for Indigenous clean drinking water initiatives and demanded the money on the medals be spent elsewhere. St-Onge pointed out that they have constituents who are interested in the medals who should be respected.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and railed about the proposed “third link” project in Quebec City, and demanded that no federal money go toward it. Pablo Rodriguez said that he should direct his ire to the provincial government. Lori Idlout decried the Indigenous infrastructure gap, and Patty Hajdu agreed that the record has been poor, and that the current government has been moving on those priorities.

Continue reading →

QP: Not taking yes for an answer on Hogue

Posted on by

The prime minister was off in Quebec City to meet with the premier of that province, but his deputy was present, having just made the formal announcement of the Ways and Means motion on the capital gains changes that they want to use as a political wedge. Most of the other leaders were away, and Pierre Paul-Hus led off in French, and raised the NSICOP report, and demanded to know the names of who was implicated. Dominic LeBlanc noted that he was surprised by the question because Andrew Scheer had sent a letter asking to send this to the Hogue Commission, and there was a Bloc motion on the same thing, and the government was going to support it. Paul-Hus wanted it clear whether the prime minister would reveal the names to Justice Hogue, and let her deal with it, and LeBlanc repeated that they were going to support the Bloc motion. Jasraj Hallan took over in English to ramp up the rhetoric, launching accusations, and LeBlanc reiterated that they agree the Commission is well-placed, and already has access to the documents in question. Hallan torqued his rhetoric even further, and LeBlanc again said they would support the Bloc motion, and LeBlanc said that he asked the deputy RCMP commissioner what would happen if he stood up and read off those names, and was told he would be criminally charged, which he would not do. Hallan switched topics to claim there was some secret carbon price report that the PBO couldn’t release (there was no report), and Steven Guilbeault recited his lines about the PBP report saying that eight out of ten households got more money back than they spent.

Alain  Therrien led for the Bloc, and patted himself on the back for their motion, claiming they were being the adults in the room. LeBlanc repeated that they would support the motion. Therrien demanded further reassurance that they would turn over any additional documents and LeBlanc assured him they were.

Jagmeet Singh conflated a number of incidents with the NSICOP report revelations, and Dominic LeBlanc gave some back-patting on the only government actually taking action. Singh repeated the conflation in French, and got much the same response. 

Continue reading →

QP: Trying to be clever about the list of names

Posted on by

The prime minister was on his way back from Normandy, while his deputy was off making announcements in Toronto, and all of the other leaders were also absent. Andrew Scheer led off with the NSICOP report, worried about Jennifer O’Connell’s outburst at committee, and demanded the names be released. Dominic LeBlanc suggested that his leader get classified briefings. Scheer asked if any implicated parliamentarians are in Cabinet (which is stupid because there is actual vetting of ministers), and LeBlanc gave Scheer credit for trying to do indirectly what he cannot do directly. Scheer tried a second time, and LeBlanc patted himself on the back for the actions the government has taken around foreign interference when the previous government didn’t. Luc Berthold took over in French, and tried to demand the names again, and got the same answer. Berthold then pivoted to a story about a woman who got chased on the streets in Montreal, and blamed this on bail and supervised injection sites. Ya’ara Saks said the safe consumption sites in the province are run by the province.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he too raised the NSICOP report, taking some swipes at Chrystia Freeland for her non-response yesterday. LeBlanc reiterated that the government his points that they have been taking action on foreign interference. Therrien made another complaint about Freeland, and got the same response. 

Heather McPherson rose for the NDP to worry about CBSA pensions per current labour negotiations. Anita Anand recited that they are committed to negotiation and that it’s a process of give-and-take. Alexandre Boulerice raised the UN’s request to raise taxes on oil companies and the government refusing. Pascale St-Onge said that she too believes Canada needs to do more to reduce emissions, and praised the elimination of subsiding and their climate resilience fund.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The demand to name names

Posted on by

The day was largely marked with the discourse around that NSICOP report, and the demand that the government name names, even though that’s never going to happen because intelligence is not evidence, there may be ongoing investigations that it might jeopardise, and the possibility of reputational damage for someone who may be unwittingly involved is great—all things the RCMP pointed to in their own release on the subject. The chair of NSICOP said that any next steps are up to the RCMP, but that hasn’t stopped reporters from asking salacious questions about whether they can trust their fellow caucus-members (because remember, reputational damage).

With all of this in mind, I went back to the report, and looked for more than just that one paragraph that every media outlet highlighted. It noted that much of that witting assistance was in relation to India, which is not a “hostile power” last time I checked, even if we have particular issues with them (such as their decision to assassinate someone on our soil). I have no doubt that some MPs would see no problem in trying to “forge closer ties” with India. The other thing that I noted was that, at least in relationship with the Chinese government is that there was an expectation of a quid pro quo relationship, that engaging with them would benefit the political player in question in the hopes that the PRC would mobilise their influence networks in favour of that candidate in the riding. I suspect that in several of these cases, the MPs in question wouldn’t think of it as foreign interference, but that they’re being so clever in leveraging diaspora politics to their advantage, and believing that they can somehow outwit Chinese agents to do it. Likewise with instances of blind eyes being turned to money flowing into ridings, particularly from the Indian government—that they think they can leverage that government to their advantage and not that they’re being played, and why I don’t think that certain media outlets and political figures screaming “name the traitors!” is doing much for the level of discourse. The report did make mention of Chinese and Indian influence in at least two Conservative leadership races, but no details provided as to how or the vectors that took shape as (money, membership sign-ups under the promise of repayment, or so on). There was also mention of one former MP who had wittingly provided information while maintaining a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer, but this was being conflated with the other allegations, which is not helpful in the slightest.

As for what’s next, it would seem to me that the real question here is why certain party leaders continue to be wilfully blind as to the full details of the report, and how they continue to refuse to accept classified briefings. The notion that it would “muzzle” them is bullshit—it would mean they can’t talk about certain specific details, but it would give them a more complete picture of what is happening and if their own MPs are implicated, which would allow them to take internal party action, even if they can’t publicize the details.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces downed 22 out of 27 Russian drones overnight Wednesday, and an industrial facility in Poltava suffered damage. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with the emir of Qatar in advance of the peace summit in Switzerland.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1798300991407940083

Continue reading →

QP: Look at the interest rate decision, not at the NSICOP report!

Posted on by

While Wednesdays are normal the day the prime minister is present and answers everything, he was instead off to France to take part in D-Day commemorations, and while his deputy was not scheduled to be here, she was after all. With Trudeau gone, one of the other leaders didn’t bother to show up. Pierre Poilievre was present, and started off in French, and he wondered about the NSICOP report about which MPs were implicated, and repeated the same in English in the same time period. Dominic LeBlanc said that no government would release security information in public, and said that if the leader opposite got his security clearance, he could read the confidential information for himself rather that casting aspersions on the floor of the House of Commons. Poilievre stuck to English to raise the AG report on SDTC, and demanded the information be turned over to the RCMP. Chrystia Freeland said that it was no surprise that Poilievre didn’t want to talk about the economic thanks to the good news that rates decreased. Poilievre returned to French to worry about daycares in Montreal where people need police escorts, and demanded changes to the Criminal Code. Freeland, however, reiterated her same response in French. Poilievre switched back to English to demand the release of the report that the Parliamentary Budget Officer claimed he was being gagged about. Freeland ignored this entirely in order to praise the Oilers winning their conference as part of a “good week for Canada.” Poilievre read the letter sent to the PBO asking him not to disclose the report in question, and Freeland said that it was Poilievre under a gag order, who couldn’t say anything nice about Canada. (Seriously?! Honest to Hermes, this is ridiculous).

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he demanded action on the NSICOP revelations of MPs as witting accomplices of foreign governments. LeBlanc praised Therrien’s cooperation on the foreign interference file. Therrien reiterated his demand, and Freeland rose to praise the economic good news of the interest rate decision. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he too demanded action on those revelation, noting that he has requested a classified briefing but railed that the prime minister has done nothing for months. LeBlanc said he was pleased to hear that he had requested the briefing before patting himself on the back for the action on combatting foreign interference so far. Singh repeated his question in French, and Freeland again got up to praise the economic good news.

Continue reading →

QP: Inventing condemnation from the Auditor General

Posted on by

For likely the only time this week, both the prime minister and his deputy were both present for QP today, as were all of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he raised the Auditor General Report on SDTC, the allegations of improper spending, and demanded a taking of responsibility. Justin Trudeau said that they would look into report carefully, and that they were still focused on the green economy in a responsible manner. Poilievre noted the various contracts intended to focus McKinsey, to which Trudeau said that they have ensured that processes are now more transparent. Poilievre switched to English to praise the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and his allegation of a “gag order” on a federal report. Trudeau said that the PBO admitted to a mistake, and insisted that eight out of ten families get more money back than they spend (which is not the part of the report that was flawed). Poilievre returned to the report on SDTC spending, and demanded personal responsibility for the “costs and corruption.” Trudeau said that the minister has already taken measures to ensure that processes are properly followed while stepping up on the creation of the green economy. Poilievre then repeated his question on McKinsey, and demanded they get no more money, and Trudeau repeated that they have strengthened processes by how civil servants grant contracts to outside consultants,  before taking on a pitch about the carbon rebates. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and raised the NISCOP on the possible witting engagement by some parliamentarians with foreign powers. Trudeau thanked NSICOP for the report, and listed actions they have taken including the public inquiry, but said nothing about the parliamentarians. Blanchet demanded an answer on who was implicated, and Trudeau said it was ironic that Blanchet was asking his because he refused to get security-cleared so that he could see for himself.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, raised foreign interference particularly by India, noted the Conservatives’ refused to denounce Narendra Modi, and demanded more answers on implicated parliamentarians. Trudeau again spoke in generalities about what has been done. Singh repeated his same question in French, and Trudeau repeated his generalities. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: The PBO immolates what little credibility he had left

Posted on by

It looks like the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Yves Giroux, decided to extend his “winning” streak and cover himself in glory at the Commons’ finance committee yesterday, and once again immolated what credibility he has left. Defending his report, claiming he had access to a confidential report from Environment Canada that he was “gagged” from releasing (which the Conservatives jumped on and launched a thousand shitposts about, because committees are now only about content generation), lamented that the government doesn’t publish more climate modelling of their own, and how he hates how his reports are politicised, even though he’s been at this job for years and knows full well that PBO reports are always politicised, because that’s why MPs like them—so that they can both wield those reports as a cudgel, while hiding behind the shield of the PBO’s non-partisan “credibility” to keep the government from attacking it.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1797780078203671008

https://twitter.com/prairiecentrist/status/1797691621708054916

While this Tony Keller column lays out four major problems with the original carbon price report that the PBO produced—which again, Giroux continues to not really apologise for—energy economist Andrew Leach has some additional comments, driving home both how shallow the analysis is, and the fact that it’s not replicable because the PBO studiously refuses to explain his methodology, relying on “trust us, that’s our job.” But as we saw on P&P and again at finance committee, he complained that the government should be doing this kind of modelling work when it’s literally his one statutorily legislated job to do.

And to be helpful, Jennifer Robson provides some unsolicited advice on how the PBO could make his methodologies more transparent, if he actually wanted to do that (which I doubt, because so many of his reports rely on his pulling a novel methodology out of his ass, according to the many economists I’ve interviewed in the past). But that’s also part of the point about why he has no credibility left, and why he should start drafting that resignation letter.

https://twitter.com/lindsaytedds/status/1797817128483254759

Ukraine Dispatch:

A civilian was killed in a Russian strike on a recreation facility in Kharkiv. Here’s a look at what to expect from Ukraine’s peace summit to be held in Switzerland next week.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A choice to be dickish about pensions

Posted on by

Over the past few days, the NDP have put on a big song and dance about the bill to update the Elections Act, which they had a hand in drafting with the government as a part of the Supply and Confidence Agreement. They now claim that they were blindsided by the provision to move the “fixed” election date by one week so that it doesn’t clash with Dwivali, because the knock-on effect is that it will qualify a number of MPs for their pensions in that extra week because they’ll have had their six years of service then. So they are now moving an amendment to the bill to return the election date to its original schedule, because who cares about Dwivali, right?

This is actually a new low for the NDP, who are trying to play populist politics but are doing it very, very badly. And if the intention is for this to come off as mean-spirited at the expense of Hindus, Jains and Sikhs who are celebrating and can’t vote of campaign on that day, well, who cares? As I believe Emilie Nicholas pointed out on Power & Politics, if the bill is to eliminate barriers to voting, why would the NDP then put up a new barrier for Hindus, Jains and Sikhs, so that they can try and outdo the astroturf charlatans in the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation? Because that’s the only group not actually is going to derive any joy from this. And media framing this as tAxPaYeR dOlLaRs is complicit in this kind of base thinking.

Frankly, we shouldn’t begrudge MPs their pensions because they put their lives on hold for years to serve the public in this way. (Whether they serve effectively is another story). We underpay them for the work they are doing (well, the work they are supposed to be doing—the current crop is not exactly doing themselves any favours), and to make these MPs lose out on the pensions they’ve earned because they are a few days shy of the cutoff is actually kind of cruel, and is the sort of thing that makes people rethink ever wanting to run for office, and to come out of it at the end with nothing for the time they put into public service when they could have made much more money and gotten a pension in the private sector. Instead of being gracious enough, every opposition party now wants to be dickish about it, which is pretty much fitting for the moment we’re in.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian missile attack overnight destroyed a power facility in Kyiv and damaged the electricity grid. Ukraine struck an oil terminal in Kavkaz in Russia thanks to missiles fired from their navy. Both Germany and the US have now said that Ukraine can use their weapons to strike inside of Russian territory, so long as it’s for the defence of Kharkiv. A prisoner swap with Russia took place on Friday, exchanging 75 people on each side. Ukraine has had four thousand prisoners apply to join the army in exchange for parole. And the factory in Ukraine that makes Oreo cookies is back online after two years of rebuilding after being damaged by the Russians.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1796518606832017524

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1796445849683419207

 

Continue reading →