Tag Archives: Parliamentary Budget Officer

Roundup: A tough case for Beyak’s expulsion

Posted on by

As the end of the fall sitting in Parliament approaches, the drama in the Senate is not abating as Independent senator Mary Jane McCallum has introduced a motion to have Senator Lynn Beyak expelled from the Chamber for her ongoing racism. There is a bit of procedural legitimacy to this: there hadn’t been a formal determination on whether or not to fully reinstate Beyak after her suspension order expired, and the debate on that was not concluded when prorogation happened. What is at play, however, is that the Senate’s ethics and conflict of interest committee had recommended that Beyak’s suspension be lifted because she did finally complete proper anti-racism training, removed the offending racist letters from her website and offered a more sincere apology to the institution. Senator Murray Sinclair publicly stated that he was willing to give her another chance at redemption. McCallum, it seems, is not.

This is going to be a very tricky to pull off, however – and would be a historic first. Normally when a senator gets into a lot of ethical trouble, they will resign so that they can preserve some sense of honour (along with their pension). Beyak, however, is unlikely to do the honourable thing, and will more than likely turn herself into some kind of free speech martyr, which is where much of the danger in McCallum’s approach lies. If this is handled ham-fistedly – as in “she’s a racist and shouldn’t be a senator” – then she is likely going to find a lot of defenders coming out of the woodwork from all sides, because they will feel that she has been a) denied procedural fairness, and b) will set a terrible precedent because as soon as one person can be expelled for their beliefs, then what belief will be on the chopping block next? Yes, racism is bad – but this is where people will start to look at slippery slopes, especially in this era of “cancel culture.” More to the point, the Ethics Officer said that she did everything that was asked of her, and the committee agreed, so trying to now argue for her suspension without an iron-clad case that she has breached the rules is going to be an uphill battle.

It’s important to remember why Senators have these kinds of protections, which is to preserve institutional independence. The Senate is one line of defence in parliament against a government with a majority of seats in the Commons who can ram through unconstitutional legislation by sheer numbers. The Senate has not only an absolute veto on everything short of constitutional amendments (for which they only have a six-month suspensive veto), but they have security of tenure so that they can’t be replaced should they stand in the way of a government trying to do something like pass an unconstitutional bill. The flip-side is that it makes problematic senators much harder to get rid of, which is generally why prime ministers should be very careful about who they appoint (which Stephen Harper very obviously was not). Yes, they can discipline their own – that comes with parliamentary privilege – but I have my doubts about McCallum’s case here. She is going to have do more than just call this institutional racism.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Such a serious country

Posted on by

The country is fixated on the election south of the border, while we’re failing to effectively deal with a global pandemic, but what shiny thing caught everyone’s attention yesterday? The fact that Whole Foods’ uniform policy forbade employees from wearing poppies. The horror! The horror! Politicians from all stripes across the country were outraged – outraged! Doug Ford leapt into action to declare he would pass legislation to make it illegal for businesses to prohibit employees from wearing poppies, which is more than he’s done about dealing with the pandemic in his own gods damned area of jurisdiction, so make of that what you will. Erin O’Toole got worked up and posted a video calling on people to boycott “Woke Foods,” which is not only not clever, but not even close to a reflection of the situation – in fact, Whole Foods came under fire for not allowing their employees to wear masks that said “Black Lives Matter” on them, so that’s hardly being Woke™. (Then again, when you wield a shitpost-shaped hammer, everything is a woke-shaped nail). It was the lead question in QP. Three separate unanimous motions were passed in the House of Commons after Question Period to condemn Whole Foods, to encourage all businesses to let their employees to wear poppies, and to summon the Whole Foods CEO to the Veterans Affairs committee to explain himself. Everyone needed a piece of their outrage pie.

A couple of hours later, the veterans affairs minister, Lawrence MacAulay put out a release saying that he spoke to said CEO and everything was okay – employees would be able to wear poppies after all. Phew! Of course, we got all parties on-side for the most useless and ridiculous of symbolic controversies, because that’s just how serious we are as a country. Well done, everyone.

Meanwhile, there’s still a pandemic where the second wave is spiking in Canada, and none of the premiers seem to want to do anything about it. Doug Ford is set to loosen restrictions on some of the most hardest-hit regions of Ontario, while his promise to hire thousands of more long-term care workers lacks any details, which sounds about right for Ford. Jason Kenney is calling on people to voluntarily stop having house parties, but won’t make any actual restrictions, nor will he sign onto the federal contact tracing app. You’d think that we’d be spending the day raking these premiers over the coals for their unwillingness to do anything (because it’ll hurt small business – when they have the capability of offering supports for them), but no, we can’t even do that either.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Heading down the same road to destruction

Posted on by

As the American election results continue to grind along, there are a couple of things that have emerged that we should take to heart – one is that “Trumpism” wasn’t a fluke in 2016, and that it’s a real force that America needs to contend with honestly. The other is that the polarisation in the country has become so acute that adherents to each tribe party are now living in alternate realities, where facts don’t penetrate. This was punctuated by something that Gerald Butts has been saying over the past couple of days, that there are also two “information ecosystems” in the US, that perpetuate these alternate realities, in that each side’s news media is fairly disassociated from one another (and in some cases, facts and reality).

Why do I think this matters in particular? Because I see elements of this culture war bubbling up in this country, in somewhat inchoate and fledgling forms, but it’s there. We may not have the alternate forms of media in this country, but parties – Conservatives in particular – are building it over social media instead of traditional broadcasting (though they did make an honest effort with SunTV). The complete disregard for facts has well and truly wormed its way into the party’s discourse, and we’re now on their second party leader for whom bald-faced lying is now a daily occurrence, and this gets built into shitposts for those social media channels that they are promulgating, in some cases presenting their own alternate reality versions of situations. The NDP aren’t much better, importing wholesale the rhetoric of a segment of the American democratic party, and their own adherents refuse to believe the facts of situations (such as the existence of federalism in this country), as their leader deliberately misleads or omits facts to present the image of a government that simply doesn’t care to do things rather than the truth of their not having the jurisdiction to do them.

This is a problem that we have been complacent about addressing in this country, because we insist that it’s not as bad as in the US – and sure, we don’t have the same level of tribalism and political duality as they do, but just because we’re not as far down the road as they are doesn’t mean we’re not on the road here. There was an attempt to create that duality here – it wasn’t that long ago that the Liberals were considered to be a spent force, politically, and the Conservatives and NDP spent early Question Periods of the 41st Parliament patting themselves on the back that there was finally a real contrast in parties in the House of Commons (while the whole of the pundit class demanded that the remains of the Liberals merge with the NDP, as though the parties didn’t have fundamental ideological differences). We keep adopting Americanisms in our political systems and structures, and way too many political staffers (and more than a few reporters) spend their days LARPing episodes of the West Wing. Too many Canadians are keen to import all of the same problems that are turning America into a failed state because we think they’re more “exciting,” or somehow enviable in other ways. We should be repudiating this and shedding these American affectations from our politics, but nobody wants to do that, and this is going to cause an increasing number of problems the longer we go down this road. America is a giant flashing warning sign to turn back – can we do so in time?

Continue reading →

QP: Imagining a diplomatic snub

Posted on by

It being Wednesday, the prime minister was present and ready to respond to all of the questions being posed. Erin O’Toole led off, and lied about what David Lametti said about judicial appointments, and Trudeau said he would answer in a moment, but wanted to first assure Canadians that they were monitoring what is happening in the United States. O’Toole accused him of a cover-up and of politicising appointments, to which Trudeau read a script about major reforms to the process to make it independent after Conservative mismanagement. O’Toole tried in French, and got the same answer. O’Toole then worried that federal guidance on masks was stricter than in Quebec, and wondered who Quebeckers should listen to, and Trudeau said that they respect the advice of local public health authorities but they are trying to provide guidance. O’Toole tried again in English, and got much the same response. Yves-François Legault got up for the Bloc and accused the prime minister of preferring Biden and weakening the relationship with Americans, then wondered if he had spoke to the president of France. Trudeau reminded him that regardless of the outcome of the election, they would stand up for Canadian interests and those of allies including France. Blanchet tried to pivot this to freedom of expression, and Trudeau listed things that Canada stands with France on, and that he would be speaking with Macron in the near future. Jagmeet Singh was up for the NDP, and in French, demanded to know when the federal standards on long-term care was coming — because you can wrangle the provinces overnight. Trudeau reminded him that they are working with the provinces. Singh then lied about federal ownership over certain long-term care homes and demanded an end to for-profit care, to which Trudeau reminded him that they respect provincial jurisdiction on long-term care but are there to support provinces.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Blustering through a climbdown

Posted on by

It was a day full of bravado, as Erin O’Toole began the day with a bit of a climbdown, saying they would change the name of their proposed special committee from the blatantly inflammatory “anti-corruption committee” to the “special committee on allegations of misuse of public funds by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic,” which is exactly the same thing (and whose first four letters – which committees abbreviate to – would be SCAM, which is yet another one of their childish tactics). Government House leader Pablo Rodriguez was not mollified, quipping “If you write a book about Frankenstein and call it ‘Cinderella,’ it’s still a book about Frankenstein.” O’Toole then tried to say they would amend their motion to insist that a vote for it was not a vote for an election, to which the government said no dice – you’re saying you don’t have confidence in us, so you get to put your money where your mouth is as this is going to be a confidence vote. And then O’Toole tried to say that he doesn’t have confidence in the government, but doesn’t want an election, and sorry, that’s not how this works. You’re accusing them of corruption and misusing public funds – which is a loss of confidence in a system like ours – and then saying you don’t want an election? Yeah, no. You have confidence and the government governs, or you don’t, in which case the government falls and you go to an election.

There is going to be a monumental amount of chest-thumping and testosterone being hosed across the carpet between the aisles in the Commons today as this comes to a head, but frankly, the government is calling O’Toole out for his bluster and tough talk. The Bloc are also blustering about being in favour of an election, leaving the NDP holding the bag. Jagmeet Singh insisted that this was a “farce” and “stupid” to trigger an election in a pandemic over creating a committee – omitting that the title of the committee implied corruption, which should be a de facto loss of confidence, and the fact that said committee’s terms of reference would give it priority over all other government business, including having ministers, the prime minister, and civil servants being expected to drop everything and appear or produce documents at the committee’s beck-and-call, in the middle of a pandemic where everyone is already stretched. (There was also Conservative sniping that Singh didn’t seem to have a problem with John Horgan calling an early election in the middle of a pandemic). I know the NDP want to play the grown-ups in the room (somewhat ironic after Charlie Angus’ histrionics and theatrics on the WE Imbroglio file), but at least represent the situation for what it is.

Meanwhile, Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column explains just how the motion on creating that special committee can be considered a confidence matter. Paul Wells offers some intense snark over the current confidence showdown, and how Trudeau may not be gambling if he’s likely to win another election. Heather Scoffield sees utility in the government’s proposed pandemic spending oversight committee – assuming that it is set up as advertised.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Absent other measures

Posted on by

Yesterday, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report that unsurprisingly states that the federal carbon price will need to increase significantly, absent other measures. This is not news. We all know this is the case. We also know that the government is finalising all kinds of other non-price measures as part of their plans to exceed our 2030 Paris targets, including the Clean Fuel Standard, and we have Jonathan Wilkinson on the record stating that they are nearly ready and should be out before the end of the calendar year. Why the PBO and others feel the need to keep repeating that absent other measures the carbon price would need to increase significantly to meet those targets, I’m not sure, because all it does is start a new round of media nonsense about how awful the current prices are (they’re not), and that this is all one big socialist plot, or whatever. And there are more measures on the way, so the question becomes fairly moot.

Speaking of the Clean Fuel Standard, there was a bunch of clutched pearls and swooning on fainting couches over the past couple of weeks when a former MP and current gasoline price analyst indicated that said Standard would be like a super-charged carbon price, and a bunch of Conservatives and their favoured pundits all had a three minutes hate about it. What I find amusing is that these are the same people who a) claim to believe in the free market, b) oppose the carbon price which is a free market mechanism to reducing carbon emissions, and c) are calling for more regulation, which the Clean Fuel Standard is, even though regulations are opaquer as to the cost increases that will result. There is an argument to be had that the government should focus on increasing the carbon price over other regulatory measures (though I would disagree with the ones that say all of said measures should be abandoned in favour of the price), but getting exercised because the very regulatory measures you are looking for cost more money means that you’re not really serious about it in the first place.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An escalation of props

Posted on by

The moment that “remote sittings” began, which morphed into “hybrid” sittings, MPs began with the stunts. First it was signs in their backgrounds – which were ruled out of order as props, then it was dress code violations, and during the first “hybrid vote,” we saw MPs have their kids and dogs in the frame, and one of them was conspicuously driving while he voted. None of this is good for the practice of parliamentary democracy (and no, I don’t care what people say about how great it is they had their kids with them). And of course, one MP decided to take it to the next step.

https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/1313542759727484929

How this particular stunt wasn’t declared a de facto prop I’m not sure, but you can expect that this sort of thing is only going to escalate the longer it goes on unless the Speaker puts his foot down right now and stamps it out. And to be honest, when I’ve been cautioning against the problems that normalising “hybrid” sitting was going to bring, I didn’t think to include that MPs would start pulling stunts in the name of being “first” or “historic,” as they keep patting themselves on the back for these days, and yet they found new ways to surprise me. This is not a good thing. And because the Speaker didn’t say anything yesterday, I can only imagine how many more locales we’ll start seeing in the coming days, ever-escalating until someone comes to their senses and declares this to be the same as using props. Because honestly – this is going to be a very bad precedent.

Rideau Hall

In an unusual move, Governor General Julie Payette has contracted the services of former Supreme Court of Canada justice Michel Bastarache to be a “constitutional advisor” in the ongoing saga of the investigations of her office for harassment and bullying issues. It’s very odd and problematic, and here is professor Philippe Lagassé to provide some added context:

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1313577963565322240

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1313578978368802820

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1313581941103493121

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unnecessary closure, and problematic reports

Posted on by

The new session of parliament is not yet a week old, and it is already mired in shenanigans, and this government is the author of so many of its current misfortunes. Right out of the gate, the Liberals declared Bill C-4 to be a matter of confidence and invoked closure – not time allocation, but actual closure – which of course ate up hours in debate on the motion followed by an hour-long vote. They got their closure motion because the NDP sided with them, but wait – the Conservatives moved a motion to concur in a (problematic) report from the Ethics Commissioner about former MP Joe Peschisolido, citing that he broke the Conflict of Interest Code for MPs, and said motion would also call on Peschisolido to write a formal apology to the Commons. This motion passed with NDP support, which further delayed the debate on C-4, thanks to more hour-long votes, and C-4 wasn’t expected to pass until at least 3 AM (by which time this blog has been put to bed). And to think that this could have been avoided by a) not proroguing for five weeks, and b) not ham-fistedly ramming more legislation through the Parliament. But this government seems intent on not learning any lessons.

As for that Ethics Commissioner’s report, well, it shouldn’t actually exist, because Peschisolido hasn’t been an MP for over a year, and he’s not covered by the Conflict of Interest Act because he wasn’t a public office-holder. As an MP, he was subject to the MPs’ Conflict of Interest Code, which is part of the Standing Orders, and thus not applicable to him since he’s no longer an MP, and Mario Dion doesn’t seem to grasp this basic and fundamental fact that is at the heart of his duties. This is a problem (and the former Commons Law Clerk agrees). Also, calling Peschisolido to apologise to the House is also a problem, given the report is out of order and the Commons doesn’t actually have the power to compel him. So, yeah. This is not a good look for anyone.

Meanwhile, down the street, the Canadian Senators Group is completely fed up with having bills rammed down their throats with no time for them to actually do their jobs and study them or offering amendments, because everything is an “emergency.” To that end, they will be moving a motion in the Senate that until the end of the pandemic, all legislation will require a minimum of one week’s worth of debate in the Senate before it will be passed. It’s bold – but they are absolutely right to insist on it. I can easily see both the Conservatives and the Progressive caucuses in the Senate signing on, but the real question will be the Independent Senators Group, and how many of them will feel beholden to the prime minister. Trudeau gets to reap what he’s sown with his “independent” Senate, and I’m quite hoping that this makes him as uncomfortable as possible.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A continued abuse of process

Posted on by

The myriad ways in which this government continues to abuse process for the sake of expediency in the face of the current pandemic never ceases to amaze. After the unnecessary five-week prorogation during which things could have been accomplished, the government needed to act with alacrity to get the CERB replacements out the door, and this meant very little time for a proper legislative process – and that should have been a red flag right there. They introduced their bill, and then set about ensuring additional negotiations with the NDP that required amendments to said bill. But rather than go through a proper amendment process, the government simply tabled a new, tweaked version of the same bill, and then pushed through a motion to see it fast-tracked through the Commons with a mere four-and-a-half hours of debate and no committee process, so that it can pass in a single day – today – and head to the Senate tomorrow for rapid passage and royal assent.

This is not normal. This is not good. The Conservatives even put forward a motion last week that would see the Commons meet on Sunday so that they could do Committee of the Whole and maybe even have a proper amendment process as part of that, but the Bloc denied consent. Rather than negotiate and try again, they went with this route instead, which is a problem. This kind of nonsense may have made a limited amount of sense for the emergency legislation that passed through the early part of the pandemic when Parliament was ostensibly suspended, but it’s not suspended any longer. And the opposition parties have largely stated that they don’t want to be seen as impediment to getting people their needed benefits, so it’s not like a proper process would drag on forever – maybe an extra day to do things properly. But no.

My patience for this state of affairs is pretty much exhausted. There is no reason why we shouldn’t be running proper legislative processes, and why Parliament can’t bubble and operate in a largely normal capacity like they should be. These shenanigans are weakening Parliament, and it’s not a good look.

Continue reading →

Roundup: PBO on thin ice

Posted on by

Comments made the Parliamentary Budget Officer over the weekend should have him very nervous for his future, as he is straying far beyond his mandate. The PBO, Yves Giroux, was in the media saying that current deficit levels are “unsustainable” within one or two years, which both misreads the current situation, and is venturing into opining on policy choices, which is not his job.

As an Independent Officer of Parliament, he has a certain degree of latitude for doing the job he is tasked with doing, which is to provide costing for proposals on demand by parliamentarians – something which can be a very creative exercise at times – and to provide independent fiscal forecasts of federal budget numbers – also something which has been made redundant because the Department of Finance doesn’t publish their forecasts any longer as the current practice is to take the average of the top twenty private sector forecasts and use those in budget documents. But he’s not invulnerable – Independent Officers can still be fired for cause, and Giroux seems to be flirting with that line.

It’s possible that Giroux doesn’t understand just what he’s doing when he’s answering these media requests, but it’s not the first time that he’s said dumb things in the media, such as a few weeks ago when Bill Morneau resigned that it was akin to “changing pilots mid-flight” (apparently unaware that this is actually standard practice on long-haul flights). He’s supposed to be a lot more circumspect, by virtue of his position, and not offer up any kind of opinion on policy choices. He is not there to second-guess the government and its actions – this is not a technocracy. He is supposed to provide cost estimates when asked, and provide independent forecasts (and as we saw in the election, sometimes he has trouble with the former when he simply put certain parties’ promises on his letterhead without actually doing any analysis of them). Offering opinions on policy choices impacts his ability to be independent, which he should know if he had any particular sense about him. I suspect that someone – perhaps a former PBO who is feeling particularly charitable – needs to pull him aside and to tell him to stop answering all of these media requests, and if he does accept them, to stick to the very narrow contents of his reports. His predecessors largely did not have this problem. Other Officers of Parliament do not have this problem. He needs to undertake to rectify it.

Continue reading →