LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

Mark Carney’s new book is equal parts memoir, economic history textbook, leadership and management textbook, and political audition.

The memoir portions focus on his time as Governor of the Bank of Canada during the Great Recession, and of the Bank of England during the Scottish referendum, Brexit and the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.  He tells us an earlier story in brief of the man as a young Canadian athlete and academic, and as an investment banker, before entering public service in glimpses.

The memoir portions are constantly bookended by economic history: it is as if he needs to take us on discursive detours to ensure his reader has the same knowledge of our economic past such that it is prologue to his present discussions.  In this regard, it's actually more of an academic tome.  His conversational but formal tone makes it a readable trip to the economics professor.

Similarly, the memoir portions are also used as case studies for what reads like a management textbook.  In many regards, this is where the book was most engaging to me: we learn axioms from a former US treasury secretary such as "a plan beats no plan", the values of preparedness and the centrality of humility to remind oneself that global economics owes us nothing and the most worrisome words are the confident declaration from financiers that "this time is different".

The sections on the financial crisis take us inside "the room where it happened" to quote the musical, and the passages on Brexit planning reveal that Carney took seriously the need to game out all eventualities, leading him to be able to calm British and global markets even with a prime minister resigning when the Leave vote unexpectedly won.  (As a fellow Canadian who has lived, studied and worked in Britain, I enjoyed the book's occasional Britishisms and spelling.)

Carney's final chapter focuses on a prescription for Canadian economics, one that dovetails rather well into the budget the Trudeau Liberal government just unveiled (Carney is an occasional advisor to the government and spoke at the party conference).  He suggests separating spending into three buckets: emergency pandemic measures, ordinary operations of government and investments in lasting capital infrastructure projects to stimulate the recovery.  He also is sanguine but not without warning on spending now when interest rates are low; it is probably worth noting that Canada's recent budget, for all its focus on red ink, is actually a comparatively modest spending plan when compared to the Biden programme to our south, although admittedly we have many of the things Biden is seeking to implement all at once in place already.

Throughout the book, he also engages in outlining the technical reforms at the heart of transitioning finance to work to address the climate crisis.  He argues that we need to value on our balance sheets what we value in our civic conscience; this is the central conceit of the book that forms its title: that we "value our values".  He points out repeatedly, and referenced it in his speech to the Liberal party conference, that we have a valuation for Amazon the company, but the Amazon rainforest is only valuable once it is stripped for forestry or farming, not as the carbon sink and priceless ecosystem that it is.

The values he repeatedly comes back to are fairness, solidarity, resilience, responsibility, sustainability, humility and dynamism which, taken together, form a pretty thorough distillation of modern liberal economics.  We're all in this together, so things need to be fair, and we need to work together in sustainable and responsible ways, he says, but this is all fuelled by economic dynamism, the ability of the market to create value, which can fund our values, if we are humble enough to be on guard for new threats to our resiliency.

The book as a whole reveals a sense of a liberal economist who values responsibility.

Photo Credit: CBC News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


The government has introduced a bill in the Senate that would entrench in legislation some of the changes that have been made to how the Chamber operates and that's not necessarily a good thing.  Certain Senate caucus leaders have been agitating for these changes to the Parliament of Canada Act for years now, and prime minister Justin Trudeau has finally obliged them, but as with so many things this government does for the sake of looking good and progressive, they haven't taken any of the unintended consequences into consideration and there are a lot of potential unintended consequences with this bill that could impact how the Senate operates for a generation.

In large part, the bill reflects the 2018 briefing note by the Senate Law Clerk, that was included in the thirteenth report of the Senate's modernization committee.  The changes in this bill will both entrench the ridiculous nomenclature that has grown up around the different leadership roles, such as the farcical and half-pregnant "Government Representative in the Senate," and encourage its propagation.  There was a reason why there was a Government Leader in the Senate, and why that Leader was a member of Cabinet, because it reflected the Senate's role in holding government to account, and having a direct line of accountability to Cabinet was important.  By allowing for this "Government Representative" nonsense to continue, they are devaluing the role that the Senate should be playing within our parliamentary system, and tries to enforce a viewpoint that marginalizes them away from being a co-equal chamber to a diminished status of a kind of council of elders, or a glorified debating society.

It also seeks to put all Senate caucus on an equal footing, not just the government and opposition.  Traditionally the Senate has been a duopoloy, with a few independents along the way, and that did create its own problems.  There is also a good reason why the government and opposition in the Senate had broadly similar powers, which ensured that one couldn't overpower the other in spite of an imbalance of numbers, and many times, if there is a new government, there is a real imbalance in numbers in the Senate especially if a government has been in power for a while and been active in making appointments along the way.

This equal footing for all caucuses applies to both allowances for leaders, meaning that the leadership teams of the Independent Senators Group, the Canadian Senators Group and the Progressives will all now get salaries equivalent to government and opposition leaders something that the leader of the ISG in particular has spent years agitating over (while insisting that it wasn't about the money).  More than that, they will also now have sign-off authority on the appointment of officers of parliament, such as a new Auditor General or Privacy Commissioner, as well as powers related to the Emergencies Act.  Granted, up until this point, they have largely been consulted by the government as part of the appointment processes for those officers of parliament, but this has the potential to be a fairly significant change in the longer term.

Why this has the potential to backfire is that this creates the incentive to create yet more caucus groups within the Senate, especially as the ISG continues to be so unwieldly in its current state.  There could be another two or three groups that could split off and carve out their own groups that meet the requisite nine senators to achieve official status, and under these changes, they will have greater allowances, and now greater powers to sign-off including participation in groups like the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.  Joint committees will continue to grow until senators are in danger of outnumbering MPs because of the proliferation of caucus groups.  And because they are intended to be co-equal in power with government and opposition, they will set up for even more power struggles between leaders than are already happening, as evidenced by the fact that it took a year-and-a-half to get all of the Senate's committees up and running as a result of those struggles.

I will grant you that this could have been worse.  There have been calls by certain members of the Senate who think that there shouldn't be an official opposition, and that that it should be solely a chamber of independents, minus the government team and the Speaker, meaning a hundred "loose fish" to be individually co-opted by a government, and with no organizational ability to push back against problematic legislation by a government with a majority in the House of Commons.  Not that they think of these things most of these senators are still new and ideologically aligned with the government that appointed them, unaware of how much things change when another government with a very different ideology comes to power and wants to push though legislation that they find unpalatable.  Their tunes will change really fast then, but in the interim, it's a hypothetical that they refuse to even contemplate, which is a problem.

Generally, the "new" Senate has been getting a lot of praise by those who have only been seeing the surface-level activities, and insisted that the "non-partisan" changes have been great for the institution.  They have not, and there are some real problems with the way the Senate is now operating, which many people refuse to see because they are enamoured with the idea of it being a non-partisan body, when it really isn't, nor should it be.  The government, similarly enamoured with the optics of it being "non-partisan," is also studiously ignoring the problems, and bringing forward this bill to entrench the changes shows that they once again are more concerned with appearances over substance.  At some point, one of Trudeau's successors will rue the changes that have been made and legislated, but until then Trudeau can ignore the mess he made and keep patting himself on the back.

Photo Credit: CBC News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


OTTAWA — The Liberal government is being accused of undermining a climate treaty it took public credit for helping get passed by giving exemptions to some manufacturers who use a highly destructive greenhouse gas.

Soprema, a manufacturer headquartered in France, has filed a court case against the government over the exemptions. Honeywell, another international firm, has also been protesting the exemptions, arguing the government is effectively rewarding companies that haven’t put in the work to reduce emissions.

In particular, the companies are protesting an exemption handed to their competitor DuPont to continue producing and importing thermal insulation products that use hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), described by environmental organizations as a “super greenhouse gas” with a global warming impact more than a thousand times worse than carbon dioxide.

Both the federal government and DuPont argue the court case is without merit, and say the exemption permit was lawfully given out to allow DuPont more time to comply with the HFC regulation, which took effect Jan. 1. Other companies including Owens Corning were later given exemptions and are the subject of other court filings by Soprema.

The issue may be obscure to the general public, but it has been percolating for months as the companies protest to Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Honeywell asserts that the permits given out have the potential to add 1.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions.

“This exemption rewards the one company — again, DuPont — who seemingly chose to purposefully avoid making the necessary investments and preparations to meet its environmental stewardship responsibility,” Honeywell and Soprema said in a joint letter to Trudeau’s office in December. “It sets a dangerous precedent for industry participants that they may ignore their responsibility to comply with (the environment department’s) climate regulations.”

The companies also point to the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, a 2016 treaty to reduce HFC use that Canada helped draft and get passed.

“Canada played a leadership role internationally in proposing and contributing to the adoption of the Kigali Amendment to phase down HFCs,” says the federal government’s website on the Montreal Protocol. “Subsequently, Canada was among the first countries to ratify the Kigali Amendment and was active in encouraging others to do the same. Partly thanks to Canada’s efforts, by November 2017, a sufficient number of countries had ratified the Kigali Amendment to ensure its entry into force on January 1st, 2019.”

Canada enacted a regulation to ban HFCs in certain products as of Jan. 1, 2021, requiring companies to find climate-friendly alternatives. In court documents, Soprema says it was ready to comply, but then it was “informed of a rumour” in August 2020 that exemptions were being handed out. It eventually confirmed DuPont products were getting a two-year “essential purpose” permit that exempted them from the ban.

“By allowing the Competitor to continue using HFCs, the Minister has rendered a decision which has unreasonable and deplorable consequences,” Soprema says in its March 15 Federal Court filing, translated from French.

Soprema argues the exemption “violates Canada’s international obligations under the Protocol,” “thwarts the deployment of environmentally and health-friendly alternatives,” and “disadvantages and undermines companies that have invested the necessary efforts and funds to comply with the Regulations and enable Canada to respect its international commitments.”

Soprema also argues the government didn’t meet its own criteria in handing out the “essential purpose” permits, making them illegal. It says companies had three years to prepare for the regulation, and Soprema’s own efforts show it “did not involve any major technological revolution or investments of a magnitude that could jeopardize the survival of enterprises.”

The filing asks the Federal Court to declare the permits illegal and order them cancelled. The filing also seeks a wide range of documents to shed light on how the decision was made.

Environment and Climate Change Canada, the federal department, said the government is still meeting its obligations for reducing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol, and said the Jan. 1 regulation actually exceeds those obligations.

“The objective of the essential purpose permit provision is to provide flexibility in recognition of the challenges that some companies in a specific sector may face in developing and producing compliant products,” a department spokesperson said in an email. “ECCC expects applicants to demonstrate that efforts are being made to find an alternative including mitigation measures to reduce the environmental impact if possible.”

DuPont told the National Post it will fight the Soprema application in court.

“DuPont holds a permit that was issued in accordance with federal legislation, which expressly provides for the issuance of such permits,” the company said in a statement. “Permits have also been provided to other market participants. DuPont intends to vigorously oppose Soprema’s application in Federal Court, which is without merit.”

DuPont said it has a program to phase out HFCs, and the permits provide them with the time for research, securing their supply chain, and for transitioning their manufacturing sites.

Laura Reinhard, a Honeywell vice president and general manager, said Honeywell has been working on phasing out HFCs for many years now, and was caught by surprise when the exemptions were issued because manufacturers had been given plenty of time to get in compliance.

She said this regulation should have been a good news story for Canada, but now that’s been flipped.

“Canada did a really tremendous job, in my view, getting out there in front and setting regulations that were really going to help with this crisis we have on climate change,” Reinhard said. “This exemption that they gave to one very large customer, and then it morphed into three or four players, it really undermined a lot of the work that (Canada) did. And now it’s set the industry back and on pause.”

• Email: bplatt@postmedia.com | Twitter:


In the wild, filial cannibalism is an evolutionary quirk that’s actually a form of tough love. When faced with infection or overpopulation, fish, insects, and birds have been known to kill and consume some of their children so the rest may live.

In Canada, filial cannibalism is economic policy. Baby boomers gorge themselves on millennials’ futures, growing fat on wealth and stolen opportunity. However, Canada didn’t become the Hannibal of nations because of tough love. No, our savagery is the result of generational gluttony and a misguided belief that we’re so spectacularly special, one would have to be an idiot to leave.

But younger people are leaving, in droves. Faced with delusional elders who want to eat them for sport, millennials are doing what any rational person would do: get the hell out of Dodge.

A brain drain is underway, which is unambiguously bad news for the country’s future economic and cultural prospects. The good news is stopping millennial brain drain doesn’t require big new government programs or massive spending. Contrary to popular opinion, younger people aren’t looking for handouts or entitlements. Millennials just want Canadian governments to stop actively working against their interests. Simply put: get out of their way.

In the third quarter of 2020, Canada saw net migration go negative for the first time since 1971. The pattern continued in the year’s fourth quarter, with more people leaving the country than entering it. Clearly this data is impacted by COVID border closures, but drilling down on provincial migration data shows evidence of millennial flight even prior to the pandemic. The number of residents leaving Toronto and the GTA doubled between 2017 and 2019. A February analysis of Statistics Canada data from Ryerson University

attributed

this dramatic spike to Gen Z and millennials. Data for Montreal and Vancouver tells a similar story. Meanwhile, a 2018 study by Brock University and the University of Toronto found a staggering 65 per cent of Canadian software engineering students leave the country after graduation, along with about 30 per cent of grads in other STEM fields.

There’s a reason most countries actively recruit young people rather than threaten to consume them whole until they flee for cover. Young professionals aren’t just crucial to the tax base; they’re the spenders we need to rebuild everything from restaurants to concert halls post-COVID. They’re the entrepreneurs we rely on to create new jobs, the innovators we tap for big new ideas, and the creatives that drive culture.

Yet no one can blame millennials for not seeing a future here. They’ve been patient, but quite frankly, they’re not so young anymore and need to get on with their lives. The supposedly once-in-a-life-time Great Recession struck just as they entered their adult years, but Canada never fully recovered. Boomer wealth rebounded, but stable employment and good wages didn’t return for many young professionals. The country’s prescribed remedy for this? In 2014, Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz told unemployed youth living in their parents’ basements to look for unpaid work. He actually suggested, more than once, that millennials view illegal unpaid internships as “opportunities.”

Instead, millennials started their own companies in record numbers, reviving Canadian entrepreneurship for the first time since the early 1980s. This wasn’t easy. Healthy competition is crucial for innovation, but it’s something Canada lacks in many sectors in favour of state-sponsored monopolies. From the telecom industry to airlines and alcohol, we create policy that entrenches and enriches the status quo. This not only makes it more difficult for new ventures to grow, it results in wage stagnation so pervasive the concept of a “raise” is a myth among many young professionals.

When COVID hit, millennials’ small businesses went on life support. In response, many provincial governments unfairly shuttered them while leaving big businesses open for record profits. Monopolistic corporations received billions in government subsidies on top of their usual government subsidies while most support for entrepreneurs came in the form of loans that had to be paid back.

Throughout this entire period, Canadian home prices soared to such levels that even the IMF became concerned. At first, Canada denied there was a problem and lectured millennials to save more and stop buying avocado toast. Then, they conceded there might be a problem, but said anyone concerned with foreign influence in the market was xenophobic. Finally, this month, MP Adam Vaughan, parliamentary secretary for housing, admitted Canada built a housing market that’s better for foreign investors than local buyers. However, after a year that saw house prices skyrocket by 30 to 40 per cent, he wouldn’t tolerate a drop of even 10 per cent.

This commitment to preserve overinflated boomer assets to the detriment of everyone else was followed by a federal budget that all but ignored the housing crisis. You know what the federal budget did include though? Huge increases for spending on boomers, already the wealthiest generation in history. By 2025, the price tag to support seniors’ retirements will be almost triple that of the proposed new child care plan. This new money isn’t even aimed at low-income boomers; it’s a blanket generational handout.

It’s clear Canadian millennials are in a toxic relationship with their own country. Sure, sometimes things don’t work out. The best laid plans can fail. However, the dismal state of millennial life in Canada isn’t because “things just didn’t work out.” They’re victims of predatory policy, not circumstance.

Stop artificially propping up house prices. Stop pushing policies that favour foreign investors over young Canadian workers. Stop giving giant subsidies to monopolistic corporations that stymie innovation, entrepreneurial spirit, and wage growth (then turn around and lay young workers off). Stop reckless spending that’s tantamount to intergenerational theft, committing millennials and Gen Z to paying off debt for decades to come.

Millennials may get a bad rep for not “adulting,” but it’s boomers who are being coddled by government overreach. If Canada wants a bright future, it needs to stop feasting on its young and give them the freedom to succeed.

The big issues are far from settled. Sign up for the NP Comment newsletter, NP Platformed â€” the cure for cancel culture.


Hull-Aylmer MP Greg Fergus, chair of the Canadian Caucus of Black Parliamentarians, speaks to the press in a file photo from Sept. 19, 2019. Fergus is one of three MPs writer Craig Wellington, Executive Director of the Black Opportunity Fund, singles out for praise as he comments on the recent federal budget and measures intended to help Black communities.

By Craig Wellington

It’s hard to deny the past year has brought much-needed awareness to systemic anti-Black racism.

While systemic racism in Canada is not new, the disparate impacts of the pandemic and the global awakening catalyzed by the police murder of George Floyd have laid bare the need for direct systematic intervention.

The pandemic’s disproportionate impacts on Black and racialized Canadians are well-documented. Unemployment rates remain higher for Black and racialized groups, visible minorities continue to be exposed in front-line jobs in higher numbers, Black businesses have been the hardest hit, and early vaccine rollout efforts have notably favoured less at-risk majority populations.

The significant disparities facing Black Canadians today aren’t a coincidence. We as Canadians have for too long turned a blind eye to the reality that they are the result of centuries of intentional policies and practices by the government to create exactly these outcomes. The pandemic has just exacerbated these inequities. The most effective way to correct these historically entrenched disparities is for our governments to invest the same intentionality and resources into dismantling systemic anti-Black racism as our society and government put into creating it.

Over the past year, a group of more than 250 Black Canadians have come together to form the Black Opportunity Fund (BOF), to build a sustainable pool of funds to support racial equality, capacity building and economic empowerment for Canada’s Black communities.

In recent months, BOF has worked alongside grassroots community members and like-minded organizations across Canada to encourage the federal government to make a comprehensive and transformational whole of government investment for Black communities. It’s clear this message is being received.

When Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland laid out the Liberal government’s spring budget on April 19, Black Opportunity Fund was heartened to see it featured substantial investments across various tranches that will have lasting and meaningful impacts on Black communities. While these funds will not erase all the impacts of Canada’s history of anti-Black racism, this budget takes critical steps to help improve outcomes for Black Canadians. BOF is grateful to all those who helped bring this vision to life — the many individuals and community organizations for their tireless advocacy, as well as those championing this change from within government. In particular we highlight the efforts of Ahmed Hussen, Minister of Families, Children and Social Development; Bardish Chagger, Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Youth; and Greg Fergus, MP for Hull-Aylmer and Chair of the Canadian Caucus of Black Parliamentarians.

Some areas of investment, while not intended specifically for the benefit of Black communities, will have a significant positive impact for Black Canadians. The proposed investment in childcare, in particular, is transformational and will open up new opportunities for Black working women and also help to bridge the overall gender labour gap. The funding for race-based data collection will help us gain a deeper understanding of the challenges facing racialized Canadians and guide us to more informed solutions. There is also significant investment in criminal justice reform and youth skills development.

The budget also proposes to allocate $100 million to Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) to support Black-led non-profit organizations, as well as a $200-million Black-led Philanthropic Endowment Fund to improve social and economic outcomes for Black Canadians.

While this $200 million is a great start, and is historic, it falls short of the transformational investment that is required by the community. Over the past year, BOF has advocated for $800 million in government investment to establish a sustainable, long-term endowment fund.

Despite this shortfall, BOF welcomes the investment and maintains our position that it is critical these funds be controlled by the Black community, and we welcome the opportunity to participate in an open, fair and transparent process to determine how this fund will be managed.

We also maintain our position that it’s critical the government continue to contribute to this fund in future budgets. It has taken decades to entrench systemic racism across our government, social and cultural institutions and it won’t be solved in a single budget cycle. Without regular contributions, Black social and economic growth will continue to be outpaced by other groups, and Black Canadians will continue to be left behind in pandemic recovery efforts.

The recovery from this pandemic is likely to stretch on for years to come. Simply put, Canada’s recovery can’t happen if we continue to marginalize key segments of the population. Advancing and empowering the Black community will help to ensure the entire country moves forward together into a better — and more equitable — future. If not now, when? If not us, who?

Craig Wellington is the Executive Director of Black Opportunity Fund. The not-for-profit organization is guided by a vision to combat anti-Black racism in Canada by building a sustainable and long-term pool of capital for the Black community.


Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault speaks via videoconference during question period in the House of Commons Monday, May 3, 2021.

The Liberal government is promising to change broadcasting Bill C-10 following a week of controversy that an amendment to the legislation infringes Canadians’ rights to free expression.

Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault said a new amendment would make it “crystal clear” that social media posts by Canadians would not be subject to regulation by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

Guilbeault said the government wants “to make sure that the content that people upload on social media won’t be considered as programming under the [Broadcasting Act] and that it won’t be regulated by the CRTC.”

Critics who had sounded the alarm over the bill expressed caution over Guilbeault’s move.

University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist said Guilbeault’s announcement Monday came after the minister had been arguing the amended bill did not affect user-generated content.

He said Guilbeault was now acknowledging “what was obvious, namely that government changes resulted in regulating the content of millions of Canadians. Many will be waiting to see what is proposed this time as the government tries to patch up a deeply flawed bill.”

On April 23, the Heritage committee removed an exemption for user-generated content from C-10, the bill that updates the Broadcasting Act and sets up the CRTC to begin regulating online companies like Netflix.

Experts feared the exemption would bring online posts by Canadians, including video posts on social media like YouTube and TikTok, under the CRTC’s authority.

Earlier Monday, Liberal MPs on the Heritage committee agreed to send Bill C-10 back to the justice minister for a second review of the bill’s compliance with charter rights, despite shutting down debate on that motion Friday.

Parliamentary secretary Julie Dabrusin told reporters Monday the government still believed the bill didn’t infringe free expression rights. “There’s no change on the view that we’re not concerned about the freedom of expression aspect. It’s just if it provides greater comfort to get the charter review, then so be it, get the charter review,” Dabrusin said.

On Friday, a Conservative motion in the Heritage committee asked to send the bill back to the justice minister to issue an updated “charter statement.” Charter statements are issued by the justice minister and review the impact government bills could have under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The initial charter statement for C-10 specifically cited the exemption for user-generated content that was removed.

Conservative MP Rachael Harder called for the committee’s clause-by-clause consideration of the bill to be suspended until after it had received an updated charter statement and until the heritage and justice ministers appeared at committee to answer questions about the amended bill.

The Liberals on the committee, backed by the NDP, voted Friday to shut down that debate. Over the weekend, NDP MP Heather McPherson defended the amendment in a TV appearance, saying C-10 had other safeguards protecting Canadians.

But then at Monday’s Heritage committee meeting, McPherson proposed an amendment to the Conservative motion, calling for the charter review and minister’s committee appearances to happen within 10 days.

Dabrusin proposed the committee wait until the committee had finalized amendments to the bill — more than 100 have been proposed by the various parties — before it sent it to the minister. “A charter review halfway through is not a proper charter review,” she said.

The committee didn’t vote on the motion or the Dabrusin’s amendment Monday. That vote is set to happen when it meets again on Friday afternoon, though Dabrusin indicated the government wanted to agree on a compromise before then.  “I would suggest that we actually take some time, we have until Friday, to talk among the parties and see if we can arrange for resolution,” she said.

Critics of the legislation were not convinced the latest moves would fully address their concerns.

“At this point anything that provides for a pause and sober reflection is welcome,” former CRTC commissioner Peter Menzies said in an email. “But if all that comes out of it is deflection and further name-calling, it won’t help. The problems with C-10 are fundamental.”

Geist, who has said the best course of action would be to scrap the bill and start over, said the committee should have moved to the charter statement immediately.

“The solution lies in stopping [clause-by-clause] review until an updated assessment can be conducted and the responsible ministers can respond to questions about the changes,” Geist wrote in an email.

He added “it’s hard to understand why the Liberals instead chose to delay moving rapidly to a charter review.”