Tag Archives: Speaker Rota

Roundup: From the Bank to Finance

Posted on by

Tongues were set wagging late Sunday night as word came down that the government was planning to appoint Michael Sabia, currently the head of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, to be the new Deputy Minister of Finance. There had been a bit of concern over the last week when it was reported that Freeland was interviewing five candidates to replace her deputy, who had announced his resignation the day after the fiscal update, given that it’s unusual for this to happen in our system. But deputy ministers are Governor-in-Council appointees, so while it’s unusual for ministers to choose their own deputies rather than the Clerk of the Privy Council recommending one to the prime minister, capacity for such decisions do exist. One does wonder, however, what signal this sends to the Infrastructure Bank, given that they just put Sabia in charge a couple of months ago, and now they’re moving him again.

This having been said, it was not unexpected that the outgoing deputy would not last there too much longer, because he too was of the generation in the public service for whom it is 1995 and will always be 1995 – and already the pundit class for whom this is the unifying theory are already chirping about his departure. Why this may turn out to be important is because we are going to have to start thinking out federal finances in a different way as the pandemic moves into recovery mode. Why? Because the old obsessions around debt and deficit (which is the mindset of the 1995 crowd) may lead to more damage than good, and we could see ourselves in a Japan-like situation if we’re not careful. And while yes, there are “guardrails” and planned “anchors” once we’re fully into the recovery stage, it may be time for a fresh mindset in the senior ranks – though given how much attention they put on Sabia when they brought him into the Infrastructure Bank, moving him to Finance right away seems mighty cozy, and this will no doubt launch another round of the current witch hunt going on in committees.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1335269637769060352

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1335270894571237378

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1335271066701344768

Good reads:

  • One of Pfizer’s top executives says that Canada could be getting vaccines within 24 hours of Health Canada approval, possibly by the end of this week.
  • Major-General Dany Fortin says they are expecting a constant flow of vaccines into the country by January once approvals are completed.
  • A (small) rise in cases in PEI has the province moving to a “circuit-breaker” lockdown before the cases start rising – like other provinces should have done.
  • An internal review at Global Affairs found no standard process for vetting honorary consuls, and they have since developed a new code of conduct.
  • Speaker Rota reflects on his first year in the big chair, at a time of pandemic, “virtual” and hybrid sittings.
  • Susan Delacourt details how the Liberals are preparing for a possible election in the spring, even though they don’t necessarily want one.
  • Chantal Hébert evaluates Erin O’Toole’s first 100 days as leader, and finds it wanting, not only for the lies, but also the evasion on his own plans.

Odds and ends:

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

Roundup: A Thanksgiving stunt

Posted on by

The Conservatives decided to use Thanksgiving Monday for their latest political stunt, which is to demand the creation of an “anti-corruption committee” that they intend to use to get to the bottom of the WE Imbroglio, and they’re ready to use every tool available to them in order to get there.

What makes this a stunt in particular is the abuse of the term “corruption,” which is overly loaded in the context of what happened in the penny-ante nonsense that surrounds the WE Imbroglio. They’ve already extracted more than the usual amount of blood that something like this would engender, both seeing the finance minister resign, and WE Charity’s Canadian operations themselves have largely folded (though not their international footprint) as a result of the spotlight that this put on them. The notion that there is something to hide because of the refusal to turn over the speaking fees collected by members of the Trudeau family, despite their being private citizens, is bordering on witch-hunt territory. And because the Conservatives are calling this an “anti-corruption committee,” any refusal to play along lets them shriek that those people are allowing corruption to happen.

The problem here is that this is nothing like actual corruption that happens in other countries. Hell, there is some pretty damning corruption that happens in some provinces in this country, where specific industries have bought and controlled provincial governments for decades. And by trying to posit that what happened with WE is capital-c corruption both demeans actual corruption that happens, but it imparts false narratives onto the kinds of wrongdoing that took place here, which was about recusals as opposed to shovelling funds to friends, family members, and business associates. But then again, the Conservative playbook has long-since left spin and torque behind in favour of bald-faced lies, so here is where we are.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Payette’s personal contributions

Posted on by

With some adjustments to the pomp and ceremony to accommodate Parliament’s new dual-building status, the Speech from the Throne went ahead yesterday, and the speech itself was not all that exciting. There was a big focus on the environment and climate change, a whole section on reconciliation with Indigenous people, and this government’s watch words of “middle class prosperity,” and the government sprinkled just enough hints that could mollify the other opposition parties if they were looking for something to justify their support, though both Andrew Scheer and Jagmeet Singh came out to puff their chests out and declare that they weren’t happy with what was in the speech.

More concerning was the fact that the Governor General herself contributed to writing the speech, which is unusual, and dare I say a problem. Her role is to read the speech on behalf of the government, and there are centuries of parliamentary evolution as to why this is the case, but her having an active hand in writing the speech – even if it’s the introduction (and in particular the notions of everyone being in the same space-time continuum on our planetary spaceship), it’s highly irregular and problematic because it means that Payette is once again overreaching as to what her role in things actually is, and that she’s unhappy with it being ceremonial (a failure of this government doing their due diligence in appointing her when she is not suited to the task). While one of my fellow journalists speculated that this may have been what was offered in exchange for her having to read a prepared speech (something she does not like to do), it’s still a problem with lines being crossed.

And then there was the reporting afterward. When Andrew Scheer said that he was going to propose an amendment to the Speech during debate, Power & Politics in particular ran with it as though this was novel or unusual, and kept hammering on the fact that Scheer is going to propose an amendment! The problem? Amendments are how Speech from the Throne debates actually work. It’s part of the rules that over the course of the debate, the Official Opposition will move an amendment (usually something to effect of “delete everything after this point and let’s call this government garbage”) to the Address in Reply to the Speech, and the third party will propose their own sub-amendment, and most of the time, they all get voted on, and the government carries the day – because no government is going to fall on the Throne Speech. There is nothing novel or special about this, and yet “Ooh, he’s going to move an amendment!” Get. A. Grip.

And now, the hot takes on the Speech, starting with Heather Scoffield, who calls out that the Speech neglected anything around economic growth. Susan Delacourt makes note of how inward-focused this Speech is compared to its predecessor. Chris Selley lays out some of Trudeau’s improbable tasks in the Speech, as well as the one outside of it which is to play a supporting role to Freeland and her task at hand. Paul Wells clocks the vagueness in the Speech, but also the fact that they are setting up for games of political chicken in the months and years ahead.

Continue reading →