A technical recession?

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday morning, Statistics Canada reported that the first quarter of GDP was very slightly in the negative on an annualized basis—on a real GDP quarter-over-quarter basis, it was flat (and if you really want to get into it, GDP per capita was up after a second quarterly population decline). This immediately led to a flurry of speculation of whether this is a “technical recession,” meaning two quarters of negative growth, or not, given that the data were mixed. And three economists who spoke to the Financial Post said it’s not a real recession, and it was also noted that when the data are revised in the next quarter’s release, it may very well be revised upward. To add to that, the preliminary estimate for April GDP is that it rose 0.4 percent, so that means that we would already be out of said recession if we were indeed in one.

Pierre Poiliever, however, pounced on this, screaming that it’s a RECESSION and he quickly added to all of the QP scripts that morning that “Canada is the only G7 country in a recession,” but since most of the questions were on prime minister Mark Carney’s in-flight meal service on the government jet, it sounded an awful lot like he was blaming said recession on said in-flight catering. Because we’re a serious country. Poilievre then called a hasty press conference to say that this was all Mark Carney’s fault, because no other G7 country is in a recession, as though their economies weren’t as exposed to the US and its tariffs as ours is. Once again, we appear to have no actual adults in our parliament.

Noted economist Andrew Scheer has deigned to correct The Canadian Press' headline.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-05-29T22:54:32.367Z

Continue reading →

Canada Strong to help MAGA?

Posted on by
2

Prime minister Mark Carney was in New York yesterday to address the Economic Club of that city, and as part of his speech, gave the line that “Canada Strong™ will help Make America Great Again”—a line that was sure to get a reaction from the White House as much as it got a reaction from the American ambassador. Carney continues to believe he can outmanoeuvre Trump and company, and that he can be so clever as to keep with the talk about “ruptures” and diversifying trade while still trying to get “fortress North America” and even deeper integration with the Americans on other files. You want to assert sovereignty, but keep finding excuses to try and get even closer when the money is just right? Eventually something is likely to give, and it just might be Canadians’ patience.

This being said, I also noted the list of people that Carney met with, and it’s a lot of big money bosses, like Blackrock and JPMorgan Chase—the kind of money that is unconcerned that America has devolved into outright fascism. I will note that is also while the Canadian military signed an agreement with the Canadian branch-plant of an American techno-fascist’s digital asbestos firm, but justified it as being a “legitimate” procurement process. So much of this is starting to feel like the casino scene from The Last Jedi—a look at the monied class that is unconcerned that there is a war going on (or that the capital was obliterated days ago) because they are profiting by selling to both sides. Carney sucking up to this monied class in New York feels an awful lot like that right now.

The list of who the PM met with in New York today.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-05-29T01:47:21.770Z

IYKYK

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-05-29T01:47:21.771Z

effinbirds.com/post/8132596…

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-05-28T13:08:05.261Z

My Latest:

My column points to the crisis in grassroots democracy that is brewing in the Ontario Liberal Party that the Scarborough Southwest nomination contest revealed.

Continue reading →

QP: Deliberately crashing the economy?

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was in New York, fresh from his speech at the Economic Club, while Pierre Poilievre disappeared after making a statement condemning antisemitism. Lianne Rood led off, and railed about restrictive foreign investment rules. Maninder Sidhu pointed out that foreign direct investment is at a twenty-year high. Rood accused the Liberals of creating a failing economy while most of Carney’s personal investments are in the U.S. Mélanie Joly responded by patting herself on the back for the Saab Global Eye contract. Mark Strahl took over to make the same bizarre accusations, and Tim Hodgson patted himself of the back for recent investments by Shell, before they did another round of the same. Gérard Deltell read the same script in French, and Joly pointed out that Canada is now the favourite destination for investment in North America before repeating the praise for the Saab deal. Deltell tried again, and this time Steven MacKinnon enthused about building mines and military aircraft.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc to declare that the National Assembly unanimously condemned Carney’s statement about the Clarity Act, to which Lightbound countered that Quebec’s priorities are really things like mines and aircraft. Normandin demanded the Clarity Act be repealed, and Lightbound repeated his same points. Rhéal Fortin tried one more time, and Dominic LeBlanc went on a bit of a ramble about how there will be an election in Quebec in the fall.

Continue reading →

Amending the lawful access bill?

Posted on by
Reply

This government’s utter ineptitude on the lawful access file would be farcical if it wasn’t so serious. After years of opposing it because it’s unconstitutional, the Liberals did an about-face and suddenly supported it once Carney took office, and they immediately insisted that this was crucial for law enforcement. Then they had to redraft the provisions into a separate bill because there was a tonne of pushback, tacitly admitting they got it wrong, but still would say in Question Period that the opposition should have helped them pass it months ago. You know, when it was flawed. Then the minister insisted that the pushback was “misinformed” and that they simply didn’t do a good enough job communicating around the bill, and had Public Safety’s media team aggressively trying to push journalists around if they didn’t publish the government’s line, and would send the RCMP and CSIS out to media to make the case for it, while they contradicted themselves along the way. (It’s not about expanded surveillance—but we need to ensure that they have the capability to have that surveillance when we say so!)

I lived in Romania shortly after the fall of the Iron Curtain. It was rumored that the Securitate could remotely activate the microphones of any phone to turn it into a listening device. That was chilling.

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-05-28T00:02:55.364Z

Under Bill C-22 Lawful Access, the Minister of Public Safety can secretly order every phone manufacturer to embed that same capability into the phone in your pocket. That's also chilling.

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-05-28T00:02:55.384Z

Would the current Minister do that? Don't know. Would a future Minister do that? Don't know. I know that the police currently get warrants to implant spyware on phones. They'd love to have that capability without a warrant, and would put pressure on the Minister to enable that.

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-05-28T00:02:55.406Z

And now after even more pushback, they’re saying they will be introducing amendments, again admitting that they still got it wrong—but again, still chiding the opposition that it should have been passed months ago. We’ll see what those amendments look like, but the minister is not exactly instilling confidence in what he’s proposing. I worry that they plan to use their majority to bully this through regardless, but after so many admissions that they keep getting this wrong, I have zero confidence that this won’t blow up in everyone’s faces, and eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada because they ignored all of the warnings.

Meanwhile, at the moment when the Minister should be most familiar with the details of his Bill, he flubs up something pretty basic and important.

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-05-27T23:25:37.244Z

My Latest:

Continue reading →

QP: Reruns of the “credit card” script

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was in the building after attending a reception with the Olympic and Paralympic athletes, but did not stick around for QP before he headed off to New York later in the day. Pierre Poilievre was giving a press conference in the Foyer as QP got underway, leaving it up to Luc Berthold to lead off in French, reading the tired script about the supposed “national credit card.” Steven MacKinnon rose to proclaim the announcement from this morning about surveillance planes and the LNG deal with Germany. Berthold kept on with the same script, and Mélanie Joly took her own turn to boast about the aircraft sale. Carol Anstey read a variation of the same script, but in her typical Karen delivery that sounded like she wanted to speak to the government’s manager. MacKinnon got back up to loudly proclaim the same good news about the surveillance plane sale in English. Anstey read some nonsense about inflation, and Joanne Thompson took the opportunity to recite the good news talking points about the funding for small craft harbours. The very masculine Jacob Mantle tried to crack wise about the spaceport lease in Nova Scotia, and David McGuinty took his own turn to crow about the good news on those surveillance planes. Mantle demanded a copy of the lease agreement, and McGuinty read some good news talking points about the Canadian Forces.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and spoke about how those who have an environmental conscience must must Trudeau, and lamented the resignation of Steven Guilbeault. Julie Dabrusin patted herself on the back for the government’s nature strategy and methane regulations. Blanchet listed the government’s backtracking on the environment, and Dabrusin shrugged this off, saying his own record as environment minister in Quebec was nothing to brag about. Blanchet again wondered if there was anyone with an environmental conscience left in the Liberal Party, and Dabrusin took credit for our largely clean electricity grid (which this government has nothing to do with).

Continue reading →

Setting the terms of the referendum debate

Posted on by
1

As the Alberta referendum “debate” starts to heat up, you are seeing a lot of places where separatists or their proxies are trying to set the terms of debate on the federalist side, whether that’s demanding to be platformed so that they can spout lies and distortions, or treating emotional appeals as “flamethrowers” when they are allowed to use absolutely unhinged rhetoric with no consequence. They have become used to the kinds of egregious both-sidesing in legacy media that allowed MAGA to flourish in the States, or that allows Conservatives in this country to lie with wild abandon because they know they won’t be called on it, and if federalists don’t want to play that game, they cry foul.

The thing I am most concerned about, however, is federalists conceding that the invented grievances of these Alberta separatists are somehow legitimate—particularly when it comes to small-c conservatives advocating on the federalist side. And it’s going to be nigh impossible for them to actually argue against the invented grievances because they rely on them to this day to make their points. Max Fawcett made a very trenchant argument in that Albertans have become addicted to grievances politics (true!) and that Conservative politicians and pundits need give that up if they want to save confederation. That’s also true, but might be an impossible-level challenge for them to do, because that kind of grievance politics are all most of these Conservatives have ever known, and they don’t know how to argue in any other way. And this is why I worry about the Pandora’s box that’s been opened, because the people who are going to be counted on to save confederation are going to be unable to do what is required of them, because nobody will actually call bullshit on these grievances after Albertans have been force-fed them for so long that they’ve internalised them. That could wind up being a fatal flaw in the federalists’ arguments.

My Latest:

New episodes released early for C$7+ subscribers. This week I delve into the Online Streaming Act obligations, and why it's not a "Netflix tax." #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-05-27T01:34:48.770Z

Continue reading →

QP: The Clarity Act is clear

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was present today for the only time this week, while Pierre Poilievre was also present. He led off in English, and went on a rant about the Cowichan decision and his deliberate misreading of the litigation directive. Mark Carney declared that they defend private property which is why they appealed the decision. Poilievre carried on with his complete nonsense reading of the litigation directive, and Carney said the only person tossing and turning is Poilievre trying to come up with new ways to fear-monger. Poilievre switched to French to deliver his nonsense claims that it is Liberal taxes pushing up gasoline prices, and Carney pointed out how they already suspended the excise tax and the consumer carbon levy, while Poilievre opposed all measures to help people. Poilievre repeated the same nonsense claim in English, and Carney pointed to changes in refineries since the Harper days, and repeated his same swipe about Poilievre voting against help. Poilievre carried on his rant about how great things were in the Harper days, and Carney pointed to things they are delivering on like higher wages and greater participation of women in the workplace. Poilievre then read some stats from Equifax about people struggling, and Carney patted himself on the back for strength of the economy face of tariffs and global uncertainty.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and demanded Carney respect the referendum questions put forward by provinces. Carney said that he is the prime minister, that he heard back from his advisory council and Alberta’s question doesn’t trigger the Clarity Act, but any question needs to be clear. Normandin went on a rant about “democracy” and demanded the Clarity Act be repealed, to which Carney said that under the Act, the House of Commons needs to consider the clarity of the question and the majority, which is not just fifty percent plus one. Rhéal Fortin took over rail about fifty percent plus one, and claimed it was an “authoritarian overreach,” and Carney said that “the Clarity Act is clear.”

Continue reading →

The “dangerous bluff” of a referendum

Posted on by
1

Prime minister Mark Carney made a housing announcement yesterday morning, when he was inevitably asked about the proposed Alberta referendum. Carney invoked his time in the UK and the experience with Brexit, that for people who think that this kind of referendum is just a way to send a message and that there are no consequences are playing a “dangerous bluff” that will have consequences. And yes, he would know, because he watched it happen and lived with the fallout. But will this actually help? Hard to say, but Conservatives have already been seeding the narrative that Carney created a lot of the post-Brexit economic damage with claims that he was “printing money” and fuelling inflation and so on, so the very people who need to hear the message have already been primed to ignore it. So that’s helpful.

Carney was also asked about the fourteen members of his caucus that sent him a letter about his environmental backsliding, and to this, Carney basically swatted the question away saying he has 160 other members of caucus who are just fine with his moves. This, however, starts to sound a wee bit arrogant for a party leader who has been patting himself on the back for listening to his caucus more than his predecessor did. You can pretty much guarantee that it’s not just these fourteen, but there are plenty more members of caucus who aren’t quite as willing to stick their necks out just yet but are similarly unhappy. They also learned a lot of lessons about pushing back against a leader when they started organising against Justin Trudeau in caucus, so the lessons are fresh, and Carney should remember that. As well, he’s betrayed the “Value(s)” he campaigned on and wrote a book about, so he’s already on thin ice with his voters on this issue. He may want to show a bit more contrition than this particular combative stance.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-05-25T13:08:03.361Z

My Latest:

  • My weekend column on Danielle Smith’s referendum, and why this is the culmination of decades of populism rotting the politics of the province.
  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take talks about the glut of senate bills hitting the Commons, and why MPs who complain about it have only themselves to blame.
  • For National Magazine, I looked at the appointment of the new advisory body for the next Supreme Court of Canada justice.

Continue reading →

QP: Resurrecting the “Netflix tax” falsehood

Posted on by
2

The PM was in town but away from the Chamber, while Pierre Poilievre was present, and he led off in French, claiming it was an illusion that the war in the Middle East was raising gasoline prices when he claimed it was Liberal taxes and the weak dollar. (Are you kidding me?!) François-Philippe Champagne, in his usual ebullient manner, praised the “good news” of the actions the government has taken to assure affordability. Poilievre then claimed that they were blaming housing prices on Iran (huh?) and demanded the government cut all gasoline taxes. Champagne reminded him of the statements of the International Energy Agency that we are in the worst energy crisis in the history, and exhorted the  opposition to vote for their budget bill. Poilievre switched to English, and he lamented all of the taxes people need to pay, and that the government is planning to triple the “Netflix tax.” (There is no Netflix tax). Champagne decried that the Conservatives have voted against all affordability measures. Poilievre then pivoted to property rights in BC, and falsely claimed the government was forbidden to defend those rights, and Rebecca Alty read her statement that the government has defended fee simple and that they are pursuing the matter in the courts. Poilievre tried again, and Sean Fraser reminded him of the actions they are taken to protect property rights while advancing reconciliation. Poilievre insisted that he just wanted federal lawyers to make protection or property the primary argument, and claimed that they were banned of doing so. Alty read a script about the litigation directive as to why Poilievre is wrong.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and mocked that the federal government is “reviewing” the referendum question in Alberta, and that the Clarity Act is contempt for people and provinces. Dominic LeBlanc said that how is the time to work together to counter the tariff threats from the US, and they were working to show that Confederation works. Normandin was not mollified and went to bat for separatist referendums, and LeBlanc reiterated that they are focused squarely on economic issues. Rhéal Fortin took over to read his own condemnation of the Clarity Act, and LeBlanc repeated his same assurances.

Continue reading →

Changes coming to the blog

Posted on by
1

Hey everyone! From here on in, I’m making some big changes to the blog—in particular that I’m going to be cutting back on what I post and how often. The work has been unsustainable for a while now, and this is a long time coming. I’m still going to post a few times a week, but not nearly to the same volume, while Question Period recaps will remain unaffected.

I have other projects that I want to get to work on, including my next book, and there are not enough hours in the day to put in the same amount of work on this blog while pursuing these other, bigger projects, and frankly, to have a life outside of work.

As always, thanks to everyone who has been reading and following for all of these years. Your support is greatly appreciated.