Tag Archives: Parliamentary Budget Officer

Roundup: Another missed opportunity for the Senate

Posted on by

A mere day after the House of Commons rose for the summer, the Senate did the same after a marathon day of passing most of the bills on its Order Paper, but leaving several key pieces of legislation to languish over the summer. As I do every summer, I remind readers that it used to be normal for senators to sit for at least an extra week in the summer to clear their Order Paper, and at this particular juncture, it would make even more sense for them to do so because they no longer have to compete with the House of Commons for resources, and most especially interpreters.

The biggest bill in question is the gun control bill, which they sent to committee, where it will sit over the summer. What they should have done was use the time and resources that they have now in order to hold a week’s worth of committee hearings, and do the job of scrutinizing the bill. And sure, you’ll get a certain cohort of senators insisting that it “doesn’t make sense” for them to sit when the Commons isn’t, in case they need to make amendments, to which I will remind them that it doesn’t matter if the Commons has risen. If the Senate wants to propose amendments, they can do the study now, propose them, and send it to the House for when they get back in September. If the Government House Leader on the Commons side wants to bellyache and moan that the Senate wants the House to recall at so many tens of thousands of dollars a day, well, too bad. They don’t have to recall. They can deal with the Senate amendments in September. And I will reiterate—it would make much more sense for the Senate to deal with a bill this big and contentious now, when they’re not competing for resources, rather than letting it drag out for months in the fall like they did with a couple of other big and contentious bills.

This is a better use of the time and resources available, and it shows that the Senate isn’t afraid to work hard when the MPs have gone home. It’s too bad nobody can see this plain and obvious PR win for the Senate that’s staring them in the face.

Ukraine Dispatch:

There were overnight missile and drone attacks, largely targeted to Odesa and Kryvy Rih, hitting homes in the latter. Ukrainian forces are reporting “partial success” in their southeast and east operations, as fighting continues. An explosion has damaged the bridge between occupied Crimea and Kherson province, which is partially occupied. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that their intelligence services have information that Russia is planning a “terrorist” attack at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant and that it will involve the release of radiation, and that Russia is hiding the bodies of those killed by the breach of the Kakhovka dam. Meanwhile, the EU says that Ukraine has completed two of the seven steps necessary for membership, with progress made on other reforms, but tackling corruption remains a concern for Europe.

https://twitter.com/rubrykaeng/status/1671855902830329857

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1671756814814265344

Continue reading →

Roundup: A bad report and a bad debate

Posted on by

The Parliamentary Budget Officer released another one of his highly dubious reports yesterday, this time on the incoming clean fuel regulations. Why is it dubious? Because it’s entirely one-sided and assumes no costs to climate change, and no adaptation on the part of industry in order to bring costs down to meet their obligations under the regulations, which is the whole gods damned point of these kinds of mechanisms. Oh, and this isn’t fiscal policy, so it’s not clear why he’s even doing this kind of report in the first place.

As you may have noticed during Question Period, the Conservatives jumped all over this report and its findings, and when they were questioned, their media staff were over social media accusing people of calling the PBO a liar. Well, it’s not that he’s a liar—it’s bad data, a bad report, and the numbers taken from it were used dishonestly and entirely in bad faith. And the PBO gets the attention he’s looking for, and around and around we go.

Rachel Notley vs Danielle Smith

For the purposes of researching my column last night, I subjected myself to the leaders’ debate in the Alberta election and it was…not great. Yes, lots of people gushed at how nice it was just to have two leaders going head-to-head and not four or five, but we don’t have a two-party system federally (and it’s a bad sign that Alberta has a de facto one provincially).

My not-too-original observations were that Notley was weirdly on the defensive most of the night, while Smith was pretending to be the upstart challenger rather than the incumbent, attacking Notley on her record at every turn when Notley wasn’t effectively throwing many punches herself. Yes, she did well on the healthcare and education portions, but was not effectively countering Smith’s confident bullshit throughout, and that’s a real problem in a lower voter-information environment, where that confidence plays well regardless of the fact that Smith lied constantly with a straight face. On the very day that Smith was found to have broken the province’s Conflict of Interest Act, Notley had a hard time effectively making this point, while Smith claimed vindication because it showed she didn’t directly call Crown prosecutors, while it full-out warned that Smith’s behaviour was a threat to democracy, and Notley could barely say the words.

Programming Note: I am taking the full long weekend off, so expect the next post to be on Wednesday.

Ukraine Dispatch:

There are reports of more air raids in Ukraine early Friday morning. Russians fired 30 cruise missiles against Ukrainian targets in the early morning hours on Thursday, and Ukraine shot down 29 of them, with the one that got through striking an industrial building in Odessa, killing one and wounding two. There were also further gains made around Bakhmut, and even the Wagner Group’s leader says that they have bene in retreat. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy set up a reintegration council in order to provide advice for the restoration of Ukrainian rule when they liberate Crimean.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1659213321927794693

Continue reading →

QP: Misquoting a bad report on fuel standards

Posted on by

The prime minister was in Japan for the G7, and his deputy was off in Brampton. Most of the other leaders were also absent, save the leader of the opposition, and Elizabeth May. Pierre Poilievre led off, and in French, he tried spin the upcoming fuel standard as a second carbon “tax” that will punish Quebeckers. Steven Guilbeault said that Quebeckers believe in climate change while the Conservatives don’t. Poilievre said that the federal government was preventing Quebec from building more green hydro, and demanded they scrap this “tax.” Guilbeault said that this wasn’t true, and that refineries who made record profits need to do their fair share. Poilievre switched to English to insist this was all according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer (it’s not), to which Guilbeault quoted from a separate section of the PBO report where he said that he was not looking at the environmental costs, which were real. Poilievre insisted that those costs would not be reduced with a tax, and repeated his overwrought math. Guilbeault said that emissions went down beyond the pandemic lockdowns. Poilievre then switched to his bullshit concern trolling on safe supply and demanded it be ended in favour of treatment. Carolyn Bennett said that the deaths are from poisoned supply, and the BC coroner has said there is no evidence that safe supply had led to any deaths.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and insisted that the government was hiding Chinese interference and demanded a public inquiry. Dominic LeBlanc said said that it was hard to consider a public CSIS report to be “hiding something,” and that they have taken measures to counter it. Therrien demanded an inquiry immediately, to which LeBlanc said that Johnston would make his recommendations around an inquiry next week.

Gord Johns rose for the NDP, and he railed about McKinsey and Company and tried to tie it to the opioid epidemic. Helena Jaczek said there are open fair and transparent procurement processes, and there is an integrity regime. Jenny Kwan railed about corporate landlords and demanded the federal government do something that as clearly in provincial jurisdiction, to which Ahmed Hussen recited his usual talking points on rental assistance.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, David Lametti isn’t threatening to tear up the constitution

Posted on by

You may have noticed that the Conservatives engaged in a lot of rage-farming over the long weekend, sometimes to the point of flailing and reaching. There was one particular bad-faith episode (well, they’re all bad faith episodes) that was particularly egregious, and roped in several premiers, who were also engaged in their own bad faith. Late last week, justice minister David Lametti attended a special chiefs’ assembly of the Assembly of First Nations, and was asked about the Natural Resources Transfer Act of 1930, and how these treaty nations were not benefitting from them, and Lametti said he’d look at it, but acknowledged this would be controversial.

And how! Immediately, Danielle Smith, followed by Scott Moe and later Heather Stefanson insisted this was a plan to “tear up the constitution” and nationalise the control over natural resources, and before long, Pierre Poilievre got in on it, along with a chunk of his caucus who insisted this was some sinister federal plan. It’s not, and this is more bad faith bullshit (which, of course, the gods damned CBC just both-sidesed, because they still think you can both-sides bad faith).

It’s actually in the legislation that the federal government can give back land to the First Nations to honour treaty obligations, and that’s at the heart of this. It’s their land. The treaties are to share the wealth, and, well, we haven’t been. They have a legitimate point here and the government has an obligation to at least hear them out on this. Is that going to cause a fuss? Yeah, probably, because settler governments, particularly in provinces, particularly those who are dependent on resource revenues, are not going to want to share that wealth. But the time is coming, sooner or later, when these conversations need to be had, because economic reconciliation means more than just dangling bribes to affected First Nations when resource extraction projects happen on their lands. Not that bad faith actors like Danielle Smith, Scott Moe or Pierre Poilievre will acknowledge this reality.

Ukraine Dispatch:

In what seems to be a repeating story, Russian Wagner group mercenaries claim—again—that they control most of Bakhmut, while Ukrainian forces claim, again, that they are holding firm. Not far away in Avdiivka, it is estimated that some 1800 people are still living in the city as Russian forces pound it. There was a prisoner swap of about 200 Russians and Ukrainian soldiers on Monday. Ukraine also resumed electricity exports to Europe now that they are able to meet their domestic demand after Russia targeted their energy infrastructure late last year.

https://twitter.com/denys_shmyhal/status/1645857297955192848

Continue reading →

Roundup: An abuse of parliamentary privilege

Posted on by

I’m going to start off with the caveat that I don’t know a lot of what is happening in Nova Scotia politics, but I came across this story yesterday that is pretty concerning for the practice of parliamentary democracy across Canada. During debate on a bill around use of non-disclosure agreements in sexual assault cases, an independent MLA (formerly a Progressive Conservative but was ejected from caucus in 2021) tabled a document that she claimed was a non-disclosure agreement that a former female staffer had been coerced into signing with the PC Party. (To make things more interesting, said staffer died last year, and was working for this MLA at the time, and she says the document was found in the staffer’s effects—and, the party’s former leader was forced out over inappropriate behaviour toward a female staffer, so I’m not sure how many of these factors actually connect).

A government minister has since moved a motion to force her to retract her comments about the incident, and if she doesn’t, that she should be ejected from the Chamber until she does. And that’s a capital-P Problem. Said independent MLA has since complained to the province’s justice department that the move is unconstitutional…but the justice department can’t do anything about it, because this is clearly a matter that is within parliamentary privilege. But it absolutely violates all of our constitutional norms, and should be a warning sign about the lengths to which parties will abuse their majorities in legislatures to silence or bully opposition members. It sounds like the provincial Liberals and NDP will be opposing this motion, but the PCs do have a majority, so they may not be able to do much in the long run. I would not be surprised if the Speaker finds that the motion is out of order, but this is genuinely frightening about how much they are willing to abuse process and parliamentary privilege like this.

Don’t get me wrong—parliament or the legislatures do have the power to eject members, but it needs to be for very serious wrongdoing, such as being convicted of a serious crime, and if the member refuses to resign gracefully, then they can order the seat vacated. But those are extreme circumstances that have yet to be actually tested (because in virtually every case, sanity prevails and they resign with a shred of dignity still intact). But this is an unconscionable abuse of that power, an abuse of a parliamentary majority, and sets a very dangerous precedent for the future, and the PC members who thought this was at all appropriate should not only be ashamed, but should probably consider tendering their resignations for this debacle.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say they repelled 45 Russian attacks around Bakhmut over a twenty-four-hour period, continuing to grind down the Russian forces while they await more arms from allies like the US in order to begin the spring counter-offensive.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1643326962226585604

Continue reading →

Roundup: No political interference, and an incompetent commissioner

Posted on by

The final report of the Mass Casualty Commission, arising from the Nova Scotia mass shooting, was released yesterday, and it is wholly damning on the RMCP, as well as on the state of gun control measures. While I have a column about RCMP reform coming out later today, there were a couple of other threads that I wanted to pick up on here. One is that Trudeau says that they’ll make changes to the RCMP, but I’m dubious. Like the column will point out, there’s almost nothing left to save, and I fear that inertia will carry the day—especially when Saskatchewan starts bellyaching about recommendations to phase out training at Depot in Regina, and provincialism will win the day.

The other is that the whole drama around allegations of political interference in the investigation have been resolved, and unsurprisingly, there wasn’t any. “[Commissioner Brenda] Lucki’s audio recorded remarks about the benefits to police of proposed firearms legislation were ill-timed and poorly expressed, but they were not partisan and they do not show that there had been attempted political interference,” the report concluded. Because the claims never made any sense. The gun control changes were not drawn up on the back of a napkin in the wake of the shooting—they had been worked on for months at this point, and were being finalised, and Lucki would have known that because she would have been consulted the whole way through. And there was no reason for the local detachment not to release that information because they knew where the guns came from, and there was no investigation to jeopardise. The report had a lot of things to day about the RCMP needing to be more transparent, and to learn how to admit mistakes, and yes, it did call out that they were actively lying to the public throughout the incident and its aftermath.

One of the other aspects yesterday that deserves to be called out even more is that the interim RCMP Commissioner was given the report the day before, and he couldn’t be bothered to read it, or to have an adequate briefing on its contents, before he went before the media. It’s rank incompetence, and all the more reason why the Force needs to be disbanded.

Ukraine Dispatch:

At least six Russian missiles hit the city of Kharkiv yesterday. Here is a look at Bucha, one year since its liberation.

Continue reading →

QP: Ignoring the Mass Casualty report

Posted on by

The prime minister was away in Truro, Nova Scotia, for the release of the Mass Casualty Commission report, while his deputy was on the west coast getting a head start on selling her budget to the public. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he accused the government censoring debate on a bill that would censor what people can watch online—which is a complete fabrication, because closure is not censorship, and Bill C-11 is about making web giants pay into CanCon funds and has nothing to do with censorship—saying that the bill would give “woke” Ottawa control over Quebeckers’ media, called out the Bloc for supporting the bill, and instead that only the Conservatives stand against censorship. Greg Fergus got up and insisted there is a consensus in Quebec that artists deserve to be paid, and only the Conservatives are offside. Poilievre insisted there was no culture without freedom of expansion, accused the government disinformation, said that Margaret Atwood opposes the bill (note: she did not understand what was in it, but was taken in by misinformation), he called the CRTC a “woke agency” (which is risible), said they could use algorithms to censor debate (false), and insisted that Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four was not an instruction manual. Fergus insisted that these were just the same talking points of Big Tech, and that the Conservatives won’t stand against them. Poilievre insisted that the bill would shut down any voices they don’t like, and demanded to know why the prime minister was shutting down debate. Fergus insisted that web giants are not paying their fair share, and wondered why the opposition was against that. Poilievre tried to insist this was about free speech, and tried to use a prop before he got warned about it by the Speaker. Mark Holland got up this time, and used his sanctimonious tone to admonish the Conservatives for pretending that anyone in the Chamber doesn’t believe in free speech, and that they have the free speech enough to go around the country spreading misinformation. Poilievre insisted that he would keep beating the government in debate, before switching to the topic of carbon prices, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report on carbon prices and insisting it “proved” the Liberals were wrong (never mind they cherry pick figures and butcher the statistics and distributional effects). Terry Duguid recited the good news talking points about rebate in return. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he raised the money for countering foreign interference in the budget, and demanded a public inquiry. Maninder Sidhu read talking points about those line items. Therrien insisted that this was proof that they already had concluded what David Johnston would find and demanded a public inquiry, and this time, Mark Holland got up to sing Johnston’s praise.

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and he raised the conclusion of Mass Casualty Commission report and demanded immediate funds for victims of domestic violence. Pam Damoff recited that they will examine the report and come back with actions in due course. Alexandre Boulerice took over in French, and demanded the government copy Joe Biden’s green industrial policy. Seamus O’Regan insisted that the projects will be built either by union jobs or paid prevailing union wages, which was proof they were on the right track.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The tone of the interference debate gets worse

Posted on by

Because we are in an era of bad faith and lowest-common-denominator shitposting, Pierre Poilievre called a press conference yesterday to assert that Justin Trudeau was working in China’s interests against Canada—no doubt catnip to the conspiracy theorists whom he has been trying to attract to his banner, who carry signs about “treason” and who carry nooses to rallies. Even one-time sensible moderate Michael Chong has gone on television to be “just asking questions” about Trudeau’s loyalty to Canada, which is frankly beyond the pale. (Poilievre also said some absolute nonsense about LNG in Canada and his steadfast belief that there would have been a market for it if not for red tape—never mind that proponents could find buyers and couldn’t make a business case to proceed with projects that were fully permitted).

Trudeau later responded that Poilievre’s was eroding faith in democracy with this kind of rhetoric, but that’s kind of the point with this brand of populists. They are trying to erode faith in institutions so that they can insert themselves as the solution to the problems of democracy, without needing to worry about things like minority rights. Not that Trudeau has helped, with his back-patting and platitudes, which doesn’t push back against this kind of threat. (Some good analysis here).

In the meantime, we wait for the announcement of the special rapporteur, but if the goal is to have opposition sign-off, that could be difficult. The NDP say they are cautiously optimistic, but the Bloc want someone who has pre-determined that there needs to be an inquiry, while the Conservatives are likely to engage in bad faith regardless of what happens, so the ability for there to be consensus on a name is not a hope I am holding out for. But seriously—everybody howling for a public inquiry doesn’t seem to realise that NSICOP is likely more independent, because a public inquiry would be appointed by Cabinet, with terms of reference set by Cabinet, and would report to Cabinet. The government is trying to create some distance from themselves with this rapporteur, but nobody wants to hear the actual process or procedure around the demands they’re making.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1633129536358346755

Ukraine Dispatch:

Kyiv is disavowing a group that has been making raids over the border in Russia, while other small groups within Russia are also conducting sabotage operations in opposition to Putin. Ukrainian officials have identified the soldier in a video that was executed by Russians, in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1633042812605280256

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: Taking personal responsibility

Posted on by

In the aftermath of the prime minister’s meeting with the premiers, and after a moment of silence for the bus crash in the daycare in Laval, things got underway. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he raised the daycare collision, and offered support and prayers for the families, and asked for an update from the federal government. Justin Trudeau echoed the sentiments, pledging support, and offering thanks to first responders. Poilievre then got back to his usual attacks, blaming the prime minister for people needing to have $1.7 million in savings to retire, and demanded the prime minister take “personal responsibility” for inflation. Trudeau noted that while some seniors face difficult situations, the government increased their benefits and listed a number of programmes. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the same question, and Trudeau said it was “ironic” that Poilievre talks about fixing things when they needed to reverse Conservative cuts when they took power, and listed more programmes for seniors. Poilievre blamed the prime minister for rent increases and for heating bills (what global oil prices) and mortgage prices, and demanded the prime minister admit he broke things so that they can fix them. Trudeau listed support programmes for low-income people and seniors, and reminded him that the Conservatives nickel-and-dimed seniors and veterans, and said he was surprised that Conservatives voted against affordability measures. Poilievre then accused the PM of banning anyone from saying that the country is broken, and yet “his own” parliamentary budget officer said that things were broken, and he wondered if the prime minister would call him to try carpet to explain himself. Trudeau said that there is always more work to do, and cited his new funding for healthcare as proof.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and first needled the prime minister on the divisions in his caucus over the official languages bill before complaining that the health care deal was woefully insufficient. Trudeau recited his points about the funds and what they hope to achieve. Blanchet accused the government of indexing underfunding, and Trudeau again recited what Canadians need around doctors and mental health service, which is why they were improving the situation in partnership with provinces.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and accused the government of not putting his foot down on more privatisation and that Doug Ford said that it didn’t come up. Trudeau said that Singh was misinformed and that the first thing he raised was the public system and the Canada Health Act. Singh repeated the question again in French, and Trudeau repeated his answer in French.

Continue reading →