Roundup: “Breaking ranks” to represent his constituents

Posted on by
Reply

Every news outlet in the country is framing Liberal MP Bruce Fanjoy as “breaking ranks” because he wrote a letter to the government in opposition to the latest return-to-office mandate for civil servants. Why is this language suspect? Because he’s not a member of Cabinet, so the expectation that he must be a compliant sheep and not step out of line is frankly wrong and non-existent. Backbenchers are there to hold the government to account, even if they’re in the same party. In fact, especially if they’re in the same party, because they are no good to anyone if they are nothing more than mindless clapping seals whose only purpose is to stand up and vote for the government and its programme at every opportunity.

The thing about Fanjoy is that he worked that riding in order to oust Pierre Poilievre, and part of that was the message that Poilievre took them for granted, and that he was going to actually represent them, and that’s what he’s doing, because there are a lot of civil servants in that riding. After all of the work in his winning the riding, can you imagine the message it would send for him to say absolutely nothing as the government moves ahead with its very ill-thought-out plan for return-to-office? It’s likely he wouldn’t win it again if that were the case. So yeah, he’s going to “break ranks” to deliver this very gentle message to the government.

This being said, I am once again going to absolutely rage at the expectation that this kind of framing devices places on MPs. It’s an old media dichotomy—we insist we want MPs to act more independently, but the moment they do, they have “broken ranks,” or the leader is “losing control,” or any other means by which We The Media police MPs into being good little drones and just following the (presidentialised) leader when that’s not what they should be doing. It’s beyond frustrating that we are worse whips than the actual party whips, which is saying something in this country with our parliament. It’s just ridiculous that this keeps happening, even when the party has room for disagreement (see: Nate Erskine-Smith).

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched 149 drones and 11 missiles early Monday, killing four people. Russian forces are also trying to push ahead at Pokrovsk, in spite of previously claiming they had already captured it. Ukraine is opening up sales of its domestically-produced weapons to help finance the war effort.

Continue reading →

QP: Selectively quoting economic doom

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was in town, but wrapping up a working lunch with the prime minister of Luxembourg, while Pierre Poilievre was also absent for reasons unknown. Melissa Lantsman led off instead, and she listed the government’s many economic failings before rhetorically asking how anyone on the government benches could defend this abysmal record. Patty Hajdu responded that the Conservatives merely stand in the way of assistance for Canadians. Lantsman raised the case of a young nurse who feels like she can’t ahead, and Hajdu insisted that they tell young people to help them build big things. John Brassard took over, and accused the government of gorging at the “all-you-can-take taxpayer buffet,” and a Gregor Robertson responded with some back-patting on their homebuilding programmes, as well as the GST rebate. Brassard sanctimoniously listed everything wrong, including accusing the government of not getting a deal with the U.S. John Zerucelli reminded him that we are in a trade war before praising their investments to build Canada. Gérard Deltell took over in French, and he recited the food price inflation script, to which Mélanie Joly declared that the government was in “solution mode,” including the GST rebate. Deltell recounted that he had a conversation with the manager at his local grocery store who lamented the increase in thefts because prices are too high. Joly listed the programmes to help people in need, including an agreement signed with the Quebec government. 

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she once again raised the problems with the OAS payment software, and the figure that 85,000 people have been affected. Stephanie McLean note that this is out of seven billion seniors, and that they are working to help those affected. Normandin raised the fact that the software transformation is $5 billion over budget, and this time, Steven MacKinnon recited that they have modernised the system and to let the government know so they can fix it. Andréanne Larouche took over to demand action from the government, and MacKinnon repeated that seven million seniors get pensions and that the 85,000 was too many, but they are working to resolve the situation. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: His photo-ops were different, you see

Posted on by
Reply

Jamil Jivani has returned from his trip to Washington, and before briefing Dominic LeBlanc or anyone from the government, he turned to the pages of the National Post to pen a self-congratulatory op-ed for the trip that nobody asked for, and that op-ed says pretty much nothing but a collection of platitudes about the GM plant in his riding, and looking for ways to continue the partnership with the US, as though the US isn’t the problem. It’s empty, and has apparently accomplished absolutely nothing

What is hilarious, however, are the fact that conservative posters over on social media have been taking his photos from his meetings with various players in Washington and declaring this to be “leadership,” as opposed to photos that say nothing other than he met with them. And yes, these are the very same voices who denounce the fact that prime minister Mark Carney has travelled across the globe several times over the past nine months and has met with all kinds of world leaders, because of course, that’s just a useless photo op (per Pierre Poilievre’s talking points in Question Period), but Jivani’s pointless photo ops? Totally different. Because of course.

Meanwhile, Kirsten Hillman can’t actually say if she thinks Trump wants to preserve the New NAFTA because his positions change from day to day, and there is no consistency from anyone around him, so that’s fun. Here is more about Hillman’s time in Washington as she wraps up her diplomatic career.

Ukraine Dispatch

There was a massive drone attack on Odesa overnight, which followed a previous massive attack on energy facilities with over 400 drones and 40 missiles earlier in the weekend. The US says they want the war over by summer, but Russia can go home at any point, and these deadlines do nothing but encourage Russia.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The annual Standing Orders debate

Posted on by
Reply

Either out or morbid curiosity or as a cry for help, I watched yesterday’s House of Commons’ debate on proposing changes to the Standing Orders, and…I didn’t hate it? There were actually some good ideas in there, and there were calls to undo a couple of changes that were made during the height of the pandemic to accommodate “hybrid parliament,” which I hadn’t realised had been changed. While this was kicked off by Liberal MP Corey Hogan’s suggestions for reforming Question Period, which I wrote about in my weekend column, there were a number of other reasonable suggestions. One common theme by several MPs across party lines was to end the vestiges of hybrid sittings, which I wholeheartedly agree with, and some of that included the remote voting app (which again, is an affront to Parliamentary democracy and should be abolished), but that will be a tougher sell. A number of MPs also had gripes about the ability of the Senate to stall or kill private members’ bills through delay, but that has nothing to do with the Standing Orders, as the House does not write the rules of the Senate.

  • Michael Chong wants to restore the Speaker’s right of recognition and do away with speaking lists, and adopt the UK practice of allocating time among the number of MPs who want to speak to a specific bill or motion. (Agreed!) He also wants to ensure that the Speaker and a committee of MPs appoint the Clerks and Sergeant-at-Arms, and wants committee spots and chairs determined by secret preferential ballots, and for the Board of Internal Economy to only be comprised of backbenchers. All of these are reasonable.
  • Yves Perron wants the prayer replaced with a moment of reflection, and to have a designated time on Fridays for a more free-flowing question-and-answer session with ministers akin to the special committee of the whole sessions during COVID. He also wants limits on the size of panels at committees to ensure that they are more manageable He also wants unanimous consent motions to be held on Wednesdays and to be tabled in advance (which I’m very dubious about).
  • Jenny Kwan and Pat Kelly both want the return of voice votes/standing five to trigger recorded votes, which was one of those hybrid rule changes that needs to be undone. Kwan wants new rules on dissenting committee reports being presented, and no Supply Days on Wednesdays of Fridays (but they are already limited as to the number they can have, and that would take up all Tuesdays and Thursdays).
  • Kelly wants to invert the times for speeches and questions and answers, so you have shorter speeches and longer question/comment segments (which I’m not opposed to).
  • John-Paul Danko is concerned about parliamentary privilege being weaponized to allow slander to be clipped and shared over socials.
  • Scott Reid had some very specific concerns about ethics complaints being weaponized (but I’m not sure that’s in the Standing Orders).
  • Kevin Lamoureux wants concurrence debates to be held after government orders, as they are used as dilatory motions. He also wants a segment where MPs can speak to any bill of their choosing for five or ten minutes on a Friday.
  • Garnett Genuis wants guardrails on unanimous consent motions used to pass bills at all stages, and wants to do away with the parties asking suck-up questions during question/comment segments after speeches.

In all, there are actually a few good ideas in there, but we’ll see how much the Procedure and House Affairs committee takes up any of them (and I am not hopeful on most). Nevertheless, it was nice to see a reasonable debate on some (mostly) reasonable ideas on how to make the House of Commons work better.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-02-06T23:56:01.289Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Canada is sending AIM missiles for Ukraine’s air defence. President Zelenskyy is calling for faster action on air defence and repairing the power grids.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No federal backstop for Smith’s threats

Posted on by
Reply

Alberta premier Danielle Smith’s threats around withholding funding for her province’s justice system if she doesn’t get her own way on judicial appointments is attracting broader attention, and there was a particular exchange at a Senate committee the other day that bears pointing out. When asked about this thread, federal justice minister Sean Fraser essentially said that if Smith does this, it’ll be a choice, but also that the federal government is not going to swoop in and backstop this funding lapse with federal dollars.

https://bsky.app/profile/senatorpaulasimons.bsky.social/post/3me4zvsm23k27

This is a good thing. Frankly, if the federal government did this, it would set a terrible precent because all provinces are underfunding their justice systems, and if they backstop Alberta because Danielle Smith is acting like an entitled baby throwing a tantrum, then every other province will cut their own funding and hope for a federal backstop, and once again, things will get worse in our system because provinces aren’t living up to their obligations. They’re not right now, but this would make things infinitely worse. Of course, if this does happen, the federal government will actually have to get off their asses and loudly point this out repeatedly that this is the provincial government’s fault. They should be doing it right now, with the whole nonsense going on around bail reform, but this would be infinitely worse. Court delays for simple matters? Thank Smith. Criminals going free because they can’t get trial dates? Thank Smith. Did that accused murderer get released because they couldn’t actually hold a trial with no functioning court house, no prosecutors and no court staff? Thank Smith. That’s the kind of thing that they need to be doing as is, but they lack the gonads to do so, but they would need to step it up even more if Smith did pull that trigger.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Bar Association is speaking out about Smith’s unconstitutional demands, and other law organizations are joining them, while also explaining how the judicial appointment process works, and why Smith is wrong to characterize them as “activists” who act on the federal government’s behalf. It also bears reminding that the UCP purged the provincial judicial nomination committees in favour of partisan appointees, and that two sitting judges are under investigation for donating to the party, so maybe Smith’s concerns about supposedly political choices are just her projecting and admitting she wants to fix the process for her own political ends.

Ukraine Dispatch

Two people were injured in the overnight attack on Kyiv early Thursday. Ukrainian forces made a successful strike against one of Russia’s missile launch sites. The “peace talks” have seen another agreement on exchanges of prisoners of war.

Continue reading →

QP: Just who is standing with Trump?

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was in southwestern Ontario for his auto strategy announcement, while Pierre Poilievre was present, and he led off in French, with a somber delivery of his script on food price inflation, with the added accusation that the government gave us a weak dollar. François-Philippe Champagne said that it was the Conservatives obstructing their measures to grow the economy. Poilievre hit back that Champagne promised to stabilise food prices two years ago and they were still rising, to which Champagne quoted Poilievre’s own words around the past support for the previous GST rebate. Poilievre switched to English to denounce that auto production has fallen by half and decried that the government was subsidising American vehicles, and Champagne praised the “good news” of their auto strategy. Poilievre hammered that Champagne saw the loss of auto production and jobs, and wanted the government to eliminate the GST on Canadian-made vehicles. Champagne countered that he brought over a European auto manufacturer to Canada. Poilievre made the same demand, and Champagne patted himself on the back for their investments in the auto sector of tomorrow with EV supply chains. Poilievre pivoted and accused the government of letting Bishnoi Gang members into the country with no screening and letting them stay with refugee claims. Sean Fraser retorted that the Conservatives were obstructing lawful access measures (as well they should, because it’s unconstitutional!)

Yves Perron led for the Bloc, and he raised the Bloc’s issue of the week around the problems with pension payment software. Patty Hajdu read a script about the department working to rapidly resolve the issues. Perron tried again, and Stephanie McLean haltingly read her own statement of the same. Andréanne Larouche gave it another round of the same, and Hajdu defended her bilingualism before thanking the civil service for shrinking the backlog.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A sit-down meeting to foster cooperation?

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, prime minister Mark Carney had a sit-down meeting with Pierre Poilievre about, well, we’re not entirely sure. Both of their readouts are very different spins on their conversation, but I guess it was about looking at ways to cooperate over the next few months? But let’s take this with a shaker’s full of salt.

Carney is certainly looking to get bills passed through the current minority parliament in a way that won’t be drama with every vote, particularly as he is now down two MPs (soon to be three), while Poilievre has no actual interest in going to an election anytime soon because a) he can read the polls just as much as anyone else and Carney’s favourables are particularly high right now, and b) he wants the NDP to be able to actually fight an election so that they can peel voters away from the Liberals, as the Conservatives need a relatively strong NDP to make that happen, and they are in no position right now. So he needs to save some face while playing along with Carney, so that translates to this faux conciliatory tone, while his “specific suggestions” are always to destroy all environmental laws, and to inevitably drive investment away through uncertainty and increased litigation—such a winning strategy! In any case, I suspect that they will have agreed to pass certain bills, possibly with amendments, by a certain date, before Poilievre gets to carry on with his little song and dance about imaginary taxes and “red tape,” because he has demonstrated time and again that “cooperation” means “do what I say.”

Meanwhile, Jamil Jivani headed to Washington, and apparently got a briefing from Dominic LeBlanc before he left. That said, Carney was throwing some shade around about how Jivani is not the party’s trade critic, and that he was mostly doing it for media attention. Mélanie Joly also noted that he has never said anything about the job losses at the GM plant in his riding, so she was not exactly convinced by his desire to help. In any case, Jivani had his meetings, and tweeted that he had a message from Trump, which was that he “loves” Canadians. Gee, thanks.

Ukraine Dispatch

At least seven people were killed when Russia shelled a front-line town in Donetsk. There are evacuations taking place in Zaporizhzhia region as Russians advance on more settlements. More power cuts are expected as they expect more attacks on Kyiv. Zelenskyy says that 55,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed so far, which is a lot less than the Russian casualties, which total over a million deaths and injuries.

Continue reading →

QP: The economy is on “life support”?

Posted on by
Reply

In spite of being in town and in the building, the PM was absent from QP, while Pierre Poilievre was also absent, though it sounds like this was when he and the PM were having their private meeting. That left Luc Berthold to lead off in French to read the same food price inflation script they’ve been reading all week. Steven MacKinnon pointed out that today, the House was set to pass the bill to enhance the GST credit (under a new and stupid name). Berthold insisted this credit would do nothing to lower prices, and Mélanie Joly repeated the praise for the credit, and thanked the Conservatives for supporting the bill. Mark Strahl took over in English and claimed that cutting imaginary taxes would lower prices (hint: it absolutely will not). MacKinnon repeated the same praise that the bill on the credit is due to be passed today. Strahl tried to again, and Patty Hajdu recycled yesterday’s line that the Conservatives used to always quote Food Banks Canada until they praised the GST credit plan. Scot Davidson claimed the economy was on “life support” before reciting the food price inflation points. Joly got back up to praise all of the new jobs that have been created, including in his riding. Davidson tried again, and Hajdu praised school food, child care, and noted the Conservatives stood against these.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and once again, she raised the problems with the pension software, and Hajdu read a statement about how the new platform requires an adaptation period, and that anyone affected needs to contact Service Canada and her office. Normandin wondered if the government ordered civil servants to lie rather than fix the problems, to which Stephanie McLean read her own statement in French. Andréanne Larouche raised the same issue again, and Hajdu read her statement again in French.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Inventing a new grievance to get mad about

Posted on by
Reply

Alberta premier Danielle Smith is at it again, by inventing a grievance regarding the appointment of judges, and is threatening the federal government to withhold funding for the justice system in the province if she doesn’t get her own way when it comes to having a say in who gets appointed, both with Superior Court and Court of Appeal appointments, but also with the upcoming appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada, as the vacancy opening up is a “western” seat on the bench. This is insane, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s possibly the dumbest thing to threaten. Her claim that she needs input because of the “distinct legal traditions” of Alberta is a load of absolute horseshit—Alberta has no distinct legal traditions. Quebec has a civil code which is separate from the common law that the rest of Canada employs, so yes, they have a distinct legal tradition. Alberta does not. It’s beyond risible that she is threatening to implode the province’s justice system over something that does not exist.

1) This is blatantly unconstitutional2) Withholding funding from which judicial appointments? Provincial? Because federally-appointed judges get paid from the federal budget. That's why new judicial spots end up in federal budget bills3) Withholding any funding will make the justice system worse

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-03T21:57:28.042Z

Provinces are already underfunding their judicial systems (provincial judges, court houses, clerks, bailiffs, Crown attorneys, remand facilities, etc). If she wants to withhold more funding, and then claim the federal Liberals caused crime, well, that'll be a real choice on her part.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-03T21:57:28.043Z

Also, this is just an other invented grievance, which conservatives in Alberta love to do, and then claim that they are being oppressed because they're not getting something that nobody gets in the first place. Call it out, as just that.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-03T22:04:53.329Z

It’s almost certain that this is supposed to be some kind of a stunt to demand judges that are tougher on crime, and that she can somehow “direct” as she has been quoted as wanting to do, which is an affront to judicial independence and the very nature of the rule of law. And frankly, we don’t have a judicial culture in this country of ultra-conservative judges who throw the book at everyone like they do in the US, because those judges tend to be elected, so they go extra hard to win votes. That’s not how this works here. And frankly, the appointment of judges is for lawyers to self-nominate to a judicial advisory committee, who then vets them and then either recommends them to the minister or not. Smith trying to insert herself into this process is simply asking to undermine the process and to personally reduce confidence in the justice system. Just absolute lunacy.

She is her inventing a grievance to be mad about. There are no distinct legal traditions in the province. They are a common law jurisdiction like eight other provinces in the country. Quebec has a civil code, which is a distinct legal tradition, and Alberta does not.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-03T22:06:57.965Z

Let’s call this out for what it is—Smith is quite literally inventing things to get mad about, and then throwing a tantrum about an imaginary problem that doesn’t exist, so that she can be performative in her “Western alienation” pantomime. None of this is real, but she has determined that constantly having everyone mad at Ottawa is her ticket to staying in power perpetually, but it’s a really stupid plan. That kind of anger is exhausting, and will lead to unintended consequences, but most of all, this is just more fodder for the separatists that she claims not to represent (even though we all know that she doth protest too much over that one). Now the question becomes whether anyone in the federal government will call this out, and point-blank say that this is just an invented grievance, or will they back down, and try and placate her in some manner? Because if it’s the latter, that’s a very big mistake.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-02-03T15:08:06.097Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The attack on Zaporizhzhia on Tuesday killed two people and injured at least nine others, while a power plant in Kyiv was badly damaged. President Zelenskyy says that Russia used the US-backed “energy ceasefire” to simply stockpile more ammunition and drones, and launch another attack.

Continue reading →

QP: Asking for theories when we all know the data.

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was present today, as was Pierre Poilievre, so there was a buzz of anticipation for this show-down after his convention (though really, nothing was going to really change). As well, Stephen Harper and several of his former ministers were in the gallery to watch the proceedings in advance of Harper’s portrait unveiling. Poilievre led off in French, and launched into his spiel about “hope” and his “theory” on “hidden taxes” on food price inflation, and wondered what the government’s theory was. Mark Carney said that the industrial carbon price worked out to zero, and there was no food packaging tax, but that the biggest problem was the currency exchange, tariffs, and climate change. Poilievre insisted that it couldn’t be the problem, because other countries face lower food price inflation, and Carney registered his points. Poilievre repeated his first question in English, and got much the same response with an added bit about the clean fuel regulations being good for the canola farmers in his riding. Poilievre again tried to contest these assertions, and Carney returned that he knows that Poilievre is “just visiting his riding,” and after things calmed down, he suggested that Poilievre spend time with the farmers in nis riding to see how the biofuel charge helps canola production. Poilievre retorted that Carney was just visiting Canada, and listed towns in his riding to ask people there about the charges. Carney said he would always be happy to go back to his home province. Poilievre returned to his “theory” and demanded Carney’s, and Carney said that the fall of the Canadian dollar, thanks to Conservative obstruction, was one of the drivers.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and after an acknowledgment to Harper, he asked about the expropriation in Quebec as it related to Mirabel. Carney also acknowledged Harper before saying high speed rail is a national project that is getting consultation. Blanchet railed about the “trauma” of the expropriation related to Mirabel and wondered if he was aware that high speed rail would do the same. Carney insisted that they were cooperating closely with the constituents there about a small corridor and not a huge airport. Blanchet said that C-5 and C-15 were “heartless” bills, and Carney wondered if Blanchet was actually in favour of high speed rail.

Continue reading →