Tag Archives: Parliamentary Budget Officer

Roundup: The PBO immolates his credibility

Posted on by

In their need to constantly frame issues as both-sides, The Canadian Press inadvertently downplayed the severity of what happened with the notice that the Parliamentary Budget Officer quietly put on his website to say that they got some of their analysis on the federal carbon levy wrong. The CP story focused it on a Liberal MP writing the PBO to get him to broadcast the correction, rather than framing the story as the PBO made an error, and giving the briefest of mentions to the MP and his open letter, because that letter shouldn’t have been the story.

The story, as it turns out, is not only that the PBO made the mistake in his analysis, it’s that he is steadfastly refusing to take any responsibility for it, never mind that this particular report has been politically charged and is at the centre of much of the debate over the carbon levy. Putting aside that the report itself was not very well done (the distributional analysis was undermined by his insistence on including average figures and that the calculation on the impact of the price were done in the absence of any kind of counterfactual, and in a binary price/no price way that is in itself inherently misleading, the fact that the PBO didn’t advertise that there was a problem with the report, didn’t include any kind of correction (he’s planning a fully re-done report in the fall), and he’s saying thing that don’t logically follow, such as it’s too complex to recalculate like this…but the outcome from the error is unlikely to change the outcome of that portion of the report (this being the impact on the broader economy, which the Conservatives misleadingly cherry-pick to “prove” households are worse off). So, in addition to refusing to take responsibility, he won’t pick a lane.

But it gets worse. Yves Giroux went on Power & Politics to discuss this incident, and immolated his credibility as he not only continued to refuse to take any responsibility, but tried to prevaricate, and make excuses with a wall of bafflegab, but he also started arguing that his “small office” shouldn’t be responsible for the climate-related economic modelling that MPs are demanding, that the government should be doing it, but his one job is literally doing this kind of analysis to provide an independent analysis from the government’s. Of course, Giroux has always had a problem sticking within the bounds of his legislated mandate, and has preferred to act like a talking head pundit and opining on all kinds of things the government is doing, while still insisting that he’s independent and hence more credible than the government as a result. And I’m not too surprised that Giroux is trying to avoid taking any responsibility, being that he is a career civil servant for whom responsibility is something to be avoided, but in refusing to do so, he has tainted his office. There can’t be trust about his numbers going forward, and as was pointed out, especially if he’s going to be costing election platform promises (which he’s done a pretty shite job of so far, such as sticking his letterhead on Andrew Scheer’s handwaving), but that was something the PBO never should have done in the first place. This should be a resignation-worthy offence, but so should it have been when he decided he wanted to be a television pundit. But we’ll see if he can finally accept responsibility and do the right thing here and step down.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Four people were injured in a Russian missile attack on Kharkiv early Thursday morning. NATO’s secretary general is proposing a way to help Trump-proof military aid for Ukraine, but there will be obstacles that include Hungary’s objections. Reuters has a lengthy look at the front lines in Donetsk.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Responding to events isn’t a desperation move

Posted on by

If you’ve been paying attention to Question Period over the past several days, you may have noticed that the Liberals haven’t been asking endless questions about abortion, or rather, asking the government to comment on the Conservatives’ stance about abortion. Throughout this, you had a bunch of pundits, almost all of them located outside of Ottawa, going “The Liberals are desperate! They’re using the abortion move 18 months too early!” The problem with that particular analysis is that it ignores the events going on around them.

What the Liberals were really doing, if someone bad bothered to pay attention, was responding to things the Conservatives have been doing around them. It started with Pierre Poilievre’s speech where he promised to use the Notwithstanding Clause to “make” tough-on-crime policies and laws “constitutional” (never mind that invoking the Notwithstanding Clause is a flashing red light that what you’re doing isn’t constitutional, and you’re doing to do it anyway—at least for the next five years, anyway. The Liberals were not going to pass up an opportunity to ask Poilievre just what else he planned to use those powers for, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask.

From there, Arnold Viersen tabled his petition calling for abortion restrictions, and the March for Life happened on the same week, which the Liberals (and usually the NDP) always put on a big production in Question Period about how important a woman’s right to choose is. This all happened within a few days, so of course they were going to respond to it. And once those events happened, they moved onto other things (like lambasting Poilievre’s “housing” bill). Not everything is a desperation move. They talked about abortion back in December when the Conservatives swapped a bill so that Cathay Wagantall’s backdoor abortion-banning bill could be voted on before they rose for the winter break (so it wouldn’t act as a millstone around their necks, even though the entire caucus voted for it), and everyone wasn’t insisting this was some kind of desperation move then. The moral here is that sometimes you need to pay attention to what is going on around Question Period, because it’s not the only thing going on.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine shot down 13 out of 14 drones launched by Russia on Monday night, with most of the debris falling on the Rivne region. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was in Belgium to sign another security agreement.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The NDP back away from carbon pricing

Posted on by

The NDP have shown their true colours as populist used car salesmen, and are starting to back away from supporting the federal carbon levy, with Jagmeet Singh telling the “Progress Summit” that they can fight climate change by focusing on corporations and not working families. Which is stupid, because those corporations will pass along the costs in a less transparent manner, there won’t be the rebates that benefit lower-income households, and in the biggest irony, dismantling the consumer carbon levy will only benefit the top one percent of earners.

None of this is actually surprising, considering that the NDP don’t have original thoughts or policies—virtually everything they do is just reheat American Democrat policies, with no regard for whether the situation applies in Canada or not, and then runs with it, and that means adopting the rhetoric around billionaires and corporations, never mind that the handful of billionaires who live in this country couldn’t be taxed enough to pay for the NDP’s plans, or that taxing grocery oligopolies at a higher rate won’t lower prices. Every couple of weeks, Charlie Angus will stand up and demand to know why the government isn’t aping Joe Biden’s policies. It’s embarrassing, but what can you do?

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have forced another voting marathon on report-stage amendments to the government’s sustainable jobs legislation, which the government contends were AI-generated, which the Conservatives deny. Of course, the Conservatives have been spouting complete horseshit about the substance of the bill, calling it “a global, top-down, socialist agenda to central plan a forced economic — not only energy — transition away from the sectors and businesses that underpin all of Canada’s economy: energy, agriculture, construction, transportation and manufacturing.” Utterly unhinged. Nevertheless, thanks to the motion passed in February, there won’t be any more overnight votes, and they suspended the sitting shortly after midnight, and will resume voting at 9 AM, but that will mean it’s still Thursday in the House of Commons, and there won’t be Friday QP. (Such a loss).

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian missiles and drones have completely destroyed the Trypilska coal-fired plant near Kyiv as part of what they claim to be retaliation for the Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries. A Russian missile also struck the southern city of Mykolaiv, killing four civilians. Here is a photo series about the winter war happening. Ukraine’s parliament has now passed the mobilization bill, and this is what it contains. Ukraine has also just signed a security agreement with Latvia.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1778322274304541004

Continue reading →

Roundup: Economists endorse carbon pricing, not the Liberal plan

Posted on by

Yesterday, a group of leading Canadian economists published an open letter about the facts about carbon pricing and the rebates, and debunked several claims that conservatives around the country have been making. It was a good and necessary corrective, but of course, legacy media headlined it as them defending the Liberal plan, which they weren’t doing, particularly because while the Liberal plan includes the carbon levy and rebates, it also is full of regulation and subsidies, which these economics are explicitly not in favour of. But legacy media loves to make this a partisan fight where they have to be on one side or the other. Liberal Party comms didn’t do themselves any favours either on this one.

To that end, here is energy economist Andrew Leach on carbon pricing, and throwing some shade at the PBO’s rather shite report once more.

Meanwhile, a number of premiers demanded to be heard at the House of Commons’ finance committee about the carbon levy, because they think that’ll do them any good, but instead, the Conservative chair of the Government Operations Committee invited them to testify today. The Government Operations Committee has fuck all to do with this file, but apparently, we no longer care about things like committee mandates anymore, so long as you can put on a dog and pony show, and gather clips for social media shitpost videos, that’s all that matters. This shouldn’t be allowed, but this is the state to which our Parliament has now debased itself. Ours is no longer a serious institution for doing serious work. It’s only about content creation, and I cannot stress enough about how absolutely terrifying this is for the future of democracy.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Ukrainian missile attack struck a Russian naval reconnaissance vessel as well as a large landing warship. Ukraine’s navy says that they have destroyed or disabled a third of the Russian Black Sea fleet over the past two years. Here’s a look at how Ukraine’s burgeoning domestic defence industry is ramping up to provide necessary ammunition for the war. Here’s a great explanation of Ukraine’s use of drone warfare with some excellent infographics.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1772541600591147503

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reasons to oppose a bad judgment

Posted on by

After the federal government filed their appeal of that Federal Court decision that…strongly suggested to them to appoint more judges (because it certainly wasn’t an order), the lawyer behind that suit has filed a cross-appeal because he wants tougher language and more teeth to it, but it’s not something that the courts can really force a government to do because it’s a Crown prerogative. They have no enforcement mechanism, so I’m not sure what the lawyer here is hoping to accomplish other than to keep getting his name in the papers.

Speaking of papers, I do find it to be a problem that in both the National Post and Toronto Star stories about this cross appeal that neither of them referenced the fact that the primary reason the federal government is appealing the decision is not because it’s useless, but because it’s a complete dog’s breakfast that makes up a constitutional convention from whole cloth and then runs with it. There is plenty of commentary from constitutional scholars out there, Emmett Macfarlane’s being one of the most accessible, but this is a real issue, and no government that is the slightest bit responsible wants bad precedents sitting on the books. It’s one of the reasons why they fought the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision on compensation for Indigenous families—they were willing to pay the compensation, but the Tribunal exceeded its authority and they didn’t want that to stand lest it create a precedent (and why that was one of the points of negotiation in the settlement).

Bad precedents, if left unchallenged, create bad case law, and that creates all kinds of problems in the future. Nobody is arguing that this government doesn’t need to make faster appointments, because they absolutely do, and even they recognise that. But this was a bad decision that shouldn’t be allowed to stand.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russia subjected Kyiv to intense bombardment for the third time in five days, and once again, damage and injuries were mostly from debris from intercepted missiles and drones. Russia also attacked an underground gas storage facility, at a time where there are already rolling blackouts because of attacks on power supplies, as engineers work to restore power, in particular at Kharkiv and Odesa. Meanwhile, Ukraine continues to make drone attacks on Russian refineries.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Eby calls out Poilievre’s baloney factory

Posted on by

Because the clown show never ends, Pierre Poilievre sent a letter to BC Premier David Eby yesterday, calling on him to not increase the carbon price on April 1st in line with the federal expectation. This after he has been spending months claiming he’ll “axe the tax” in BC if he forms federal government, never mind that it predates the federal system and has frequently been higher than the federal price, and very few have balked at it. Along the way, Poilievre also claimed that BC was just “administering” the federal levy, which again, is not true.

Eby, for his, part, laughed at Poilievre, pointing out that he doesn’t live in Poilievre’s “campaign office and baloney factory,” that BC has long had the price and that if they did stop the increase, it would mean less money for people in the province (who get the rebate back mostly as tax credits and not cash transfers). But seriously, this has broad-based political support in the province, it was brought in by the then-BC Liberals (who are mostly conservatives, some of whom now sit in the federal Conservative caucus), and nobody has time for Poilievre’s performative nonsense.

More to the point, Poilievre likes to play fast and loose when it comes to jurisdiction—he keeps telling Justin Trudeau to butt out of areas of provincial jurisdiction and leave the premiers to run their own provinces (especially around things like odious anti-trans policies), and how he’s writing premiers and trying to get them to do things his way and stand against valid federal laws? How exactly does he think this is going to play if he ever forms government federally? But then again, he’s counting on the cognitive dissonance that he’s training people to accept for them to not notice his inconsistencies or his complete reversals, or when he swallows himself whole, and that remains a very big problem within the population.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian missile struck a residential area in Odesa and at least twenty people have been killed and more than seventy wounded; President Volodymy Zelenskyy has promised a “fair response” against Russia for it. Ukrainian authorities are also evacuating communities in the northern Sumy region after extended periods of shelling. Ukrainian drones damaged another Russian refinery, this time in the Kaluga region. Russians claimed that they repelled another cross-border incursion by Russian rebels in Ukraine. A UN report has found evidence that Russia systematically tortures Ukrainian POWs.

https://x.com/ukraine_world/status/1768642103968485561

Continue reading →

Roundup: Paying too much attention to one senator’s opinion

Posted on by

Sometimes the way the media cycle operates in weird ways in this city, and yesterday was no exception. On Wednesday, Senator Percy Downe wrote an op-ed that said that the Liberal Party should be having discussions as to whether they think Justin Trudeau should lead them into the next election, and a few people started frothing about it, but a day later, it got particular traction because Pierre Poilievre was using it in Question Period to attack Trudeau, as though Downe was a big name or had a network that was significant.

And that’s the part that mystifies me. Once upon a time, Downe was a chief of staff to Jean Chrétien, but senators haven’t been part of the Liberal caucus since 2014, when Trudeau famously expelled them as pre-emptive damage control in advance of the Auditor General’s (massively flawed) report on the Senate’s expenses, and claimed it was to give them more independence. Furthermore, Downe jumped ship to the fledgeling Canadian Senators Group right after he helped the Senate Liberals transform their caucus into the Progressives, which alienated him from the remaining Liberals in the Senate (who no longer call themselves such in the current environment). I fail to see how he has any kind of sway or influence at all. And when Trudeau was asked about Downe’s comments on his way into Question Period yesterday, he gave a classic “I wish him well” response and laughed it off.

Meanwhile, the attempt to make Mark Carney happen aren’t stopping either, as the Globe and Mail cornered him a climate summit in town this week to demand to know his leadership ambitions and *gasp!* he didn’t say no! Let’s gossip about this more! Never mind that Carney would likely mean the second coming of Michael Ignatieff for the party, if you ignore that he has no political machinery around him that could even support a bid (which he should avoid at all costs because it damages the Bank of Canada and its current governor, whether he likes to believe it or not). But seriously, this whole thing is ridiculous, and I cannot believe how much air time and digital space has been used up on it.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian drones have hit civilian targets in Kharkiv region, but no reports of casualties as of when I’m writing this. Ukrainian forces repelled a new Russian assault on Vuhledar in the east.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A “pause” on carbon prices that hands Poilievre a victory

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau announced yesterday afternoon that the federal government would be implementing a “pause” for three years on the carbon price on home heating oil, predominantly used in Atlantic Canada, because he’s in some serious electoral trouble in the region. He also said that enriched carbon price rebates for rural dwellers would be on the way, as well as more incentives for people to switch to heat pumps. The problem? This undermines the whole carbon price scheme, ensures that it no longer is in compliance with the rules that they established, and it hands a propaganda victory to the Conservatives who are crowing that this “proves” that the price is making life unaffordable, and that they’ll kill it outright.

This also handed ammunition to Danielle Smith and Scott Moe, who will now be demanding that natural gas for heating be exempted, because now the programme is explicitly unfair. They’re not wrong, even if they’re acting entirely in bad faith over it. The NDP have joined in, also insisting that all home heating should be exempt from the price, which further undermines it. And you’d better believe that there are problems around the implementation of the heat pump programme, particularly how it rolls out to low-income households who need it the most.

The most galling thing of all, however, is that this is a victory for Irving Oil (and enabled by the provincial price regulators). They deceptively increased prices on their home heating oil and said this was for the “clean fuel standard,” which is bullshit. That standard is not a price—it’s an emissions standard that comes into place gradually, and any increased costs would be what the refineries need to do to meet those standards. This, however, wasn’t well communicated by the government, and of course the narrative got swallowed by the Conservatives calling it “Carbon Tax 2” and a poorly done report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer who framed this like it was a price, and so Irving was able to act in the way it did. And because it’s Irving, and they are more powerful than any of the provincial governments in Atlantic Canada (which is an enormous problem in a democracy), nobody challenged them on this deceptive price increase, and they successfully jammed the federal government into undermining the carbon price, so now it can be picked away at until it’s well and truly dead. Well done, everyone. You’ve just screwed yourselves, your credibility, and ultimately the planet. Slow clap.

Ukraine Dispatch:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that Wednesday’s drone attack near the nuclear power plant in Khmelnitskyi region was likely targeted. Ukrainian officials say the Black Sea corridor is working, particularly now that they’ve chased away the Russian Black Sea Fleet from occupied Crimea. Ukrainian businesses are preparing for the possibility of another winter of attacks on the power grid.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cancelling an invitation that was never issued

Posted on by

Danielle Smith is at it again, claiming that accepted “on behalf of the Government of Alberta” an invitation to appear at the federal environment committee next week, and that she was sent a letter “rejecting my attendance.” The problem? It’s yet another load of horseshit from Smith, because she was never invited to the committee. Two of her ministers were invited, and she thought that she could just show up and put on a dog and pony show, but that’s not how committees work. You can’t just invite yourself to appear. The witnesses are agreed to by all parties beforehand and a motion is passed to send the invitations. Even if she’s premier, Smith can’t just attend in place of the invited ministers—again, that’s not how committees work.

https://twitter.com/emmalgraney/status/1712598055885910272

https://twitter.com/EmmaLGraney/status/1712599648609972476

https://twitter.com/EmmaLGraney/status/1712601220232446093

https://twitter.com/EmmaLGraney/status/1712602741120684351

In any case, the meetings were cancelled because it was really about hearing from Suncor’s CEO, and they declined, so the committee abandoned that line of testimony, but in any case, Smith is lying again, and trying to spin this into some kind of federal-provincial flamewar, and people shouldn’t treat her with any level of credulity.

Oh, but wait—The Canadian Press did just that, and the headline on the wire overnight repeats the bullshit that her appearance was cancelled, which again, is not true because she wasn’t invited, and in the meagre text of the piece, it both-sides the whole thing, because of course it does. This is utterly irresponsible of CP, who should know better.

Ukraine Dispatch:

There has been fierce fighting around Avdiivka, as Russians have been moving troops and equipment there to try and make a push to show that they’re still capable of making gains in the country as they lose territory elsewhere in the counter-offensive.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Credulously repeating the 20-year line

Posted on by

The big story that everyone was credulously repeating yesterday was the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report on the Stellantis-LG Energy Solutions electric vehicle battery plant, and what he termed to be the “break-even” for the subsidies provided by the federal government and Ontario. To hear the two governments tell the tale, it would have earned back the subsidies within about five years, provided you factor in all of the indirect benefits from it. The PBO says that break-even would take twenty-years, but that didn’t take into account indirect benefits, just the revenues from the plant’s output. While I don’t trust the government’s five-year figure because it’s based on a lot of optimism and fuzzy math, I also don’t trust the PBO’s figures, because he and his office have a demonstrated history of just pulling methodologies out of their collective asses, and calling it a day, no matter how puzzling the results or the presentation.

Legacy media, however, takes the PBO at face-value, every time. “Oh, but he’s politically neutral so he’s credible!” is usually the cry, even though credible economists will tell you that his numbers don’t make sense much of the time (to say nothing of the fact that many of his reports are well outside of his legislated mandate). And if you look at the reporting, The Canadian Press, The Star, and the National Post all just quote from the report in full credulity, with some quotes from MPs or the minister in reaction. Not one of them appeared to try to get a second opinion. The CBC, however, decided to take things one step further and engage in actual journalistic malpractice by getting a quote from Ian Lee—a business studies professor with no expertise or credibility other than the fact that he answers his phone and provides bullshit answers about every topic under the sun—and the gods damned Canadian Taxpayers Federation, an Astroturf organization that exists solely to provide outraged quotes to the media. That’s what passes for getting a second opinion at the national public broadcaster.

Officers of Parliament are not infallible, and this PBO is especially a problem. In fact, one economist I was chatting with yesterday referred to him as the “Ian Lee of PBOs,” which pretty much says it all. It would be great if legacy media would actually take his utterances with a grain of salt, but they won’t, because nobody dares to challenge Officers of Parliament, and that is a problem that has a corrosive effect on our democratic institutions.

Ukraine Dispatch:

No news on the wires about any Russian strikes or the progress of the counter-offensive, but there was talk of Sweden considering donating some of its Gripen fighters to Ukraine. As well, Ukraine’s Antonov, which primarily has been in the business of building cargo planes, has been shifting their focus to building drones as the war carries on.

Continue reading →