Roundup: Another call for NEP 2.0

Posted on by
Reply

Pierre Poilievre has written another letter to the prime minister, this time demanding the creation of a strategic oil reserve like other countries have, never mind that unlike other countries that have said reserves, we are a net exporter and not a net importer (and yes, the US is now a net exporter, but they were not always, which is why they have a strategic reserve). The most ironic thing? This is just one more example of Conservatives demanding a redux of the hated National Energy Programme that Pierre Trudeau tried to launch in the late seventies, after the global oil crisis that happened then.

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2032212730762166778

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2032122736475337196

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2031814419584520455

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2031815720108257417

Of course, part of this has to do with Poilievre’s fantasy notion that such an oil stockpile, along with critical minerals, is going to be how he gets leverage over Trump in trade talks, and that it can be used to bolster allies—but only allies with whom we have tariff-free trade agreements. Never mind that it is unlikely to persuade Trump to abandon tariffs, which he loves. Never mind that he has no plan for how to pay for such a stockpile, and he would need to fund some kind of an oil arbitrage agency. It’s facile, and it’s deeply cynical, particularly because included in this demand are once again the insistence that we abolish environmental laws, because Poilievre has convinced himself that they’re just one big con, and that it’s a bunch of environmental elites somehow profiting off of said laws (because apparently there are no costs to climate change, and it’s all just in our imaginations).

https://twitter.com/coreyhoganyyc/status/2032214070892642460

Meanwhile, the Canadian Climate Institute published a report that says that once the industrial carbon price reaches minimum price of $130 per tonne, that it would effectively add fifty cents to a barrel of oil, in direct contravention to the pronouncements of doom that Poilievre and the Conservatives keep insisting that said price is doing to food prices and the economy. This after certain pundits claimed it would add $20 per barrel, which is of course nonsense.

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2031860654190281176

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2032152971174428885

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian drones hit an oil pumping station in Russia’s Krasnodar region. Ukraine signed a joint defence procurement with Romania, that includes the production of drones.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding a strategic oil reserve

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was on his way to Yellowknife, and Pierre Poilievre was elsewhere, in advance of his own trip to the US, leaving it up to Melissa Lantsman to lead off. She complained that there is no strategic oil reserve, and demanded the government adopt their plan to create one, to which Tim Hodgson explained how the IEA works, which is that net importers have reserves while net exporters don’t. Lantsman shot back that just because you don’t need one it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t, before she demanded the government scrap environmental laws to pump more oil. Hodgson responded that the Conservatives apparently can’t take a lesson from the Alberta government in working together to build. Gérard took over in French to demand the same oil reserve, to which Steven MacKinnon repeated Hodgson’s first response in French. Deltell accused the government of having “contempt” for Canadian energy, before he pivoted to food price inflation, and this time MacKinnon reminded him that he voted against all help for Canadians who needed it. Chris Warkentin took over, and in English, he too read the script on food price inflation with the falsehoods about “hidden taxes.” Wayne Long took a swipe about Poilievre going to Europe for no reason while Carney was in the Asia Pacific to sign trade deals including uranium. Warkentin tried again and Julie Dabrusin reminded him that the industrial carbon price has zero effect on food prices.

"A ten-year record of shutting down our oil and gas sector"

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2026-03-12T18:23:43.134Z

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she worried about the government not informing the public about Canadian personnel at a military base in Kuwait being targeted by Iran. Anita Anand said that Canada is not participating in the conflict, but could not say more for security reasons. Normandin tried again, and Anand again stated that all Canadian Armed Forces personnel in the region are safe and sound, and then made a pitch for international law. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay tried this yet again, and Anand repeated her same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Return of the security clearance punchline

Posted on by
Reply

Pierre Poilievre’s lack of a security clearance is becoming a punchline in Question Period once more, which is not really great. In the current context, it’s around the claims that there are some 700 Iranian agents in the country, a figure compiled by a civil society group in 2023, before the IRGC was listed as a terrorist entity, and included people in the country temporarily at the time, but far be it for Poilievre to include any context when he’s trying to stir up a moral panic. We should remember, however, that this is not something that opposition leaders routinely applied for, nor is it something that all MPs need.

There were a bunch of people in my social media replies claiming nonsense like daycare workers needing a clearance when MPs don’t. No. Daycare workers need to undergo background checks. They don’t need access to classified materials, nor do the vast majority of MPs (though there is a place for a group of MPs to be cleared for certain oversight activities). This conflation of what a clearance actually means is not helpful to anyone, and while I know that people like to claim that Poilievre can’t get one and is therefore some kind of security risk, that is also false and is actually disinformation.

Throughout this, prime minister Mark Carney did not help matters by dodging the questions from reporters on Indian foreign interference and transnational repression by saying that his security clearance precluded him from saying anything. Aside from the fact that this is false, it just provided fuel for Poilievre’s bullshit claims that he would be “muzzled.” The only thing that he would be muzzled about is making wildly irresponsible remarks in order to drum up outrage. Knowledge means being more circumspect in his claims, which he doesn’t want. He wants to say bold, dumb things in the House and in the media, because it gets clicks and attention. Clare Blackwood explained it perfectly here.

Because Poilievre's security clearance is once again back as an applause line in #QP, here is @clareblackwood.bsky.social to accurately explain why Poilievre won't get his.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-11T21:35:30.234Z

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian drone strike hit a civilian business in Kharkiv, killing two. Ukrainian military trainers will start preparing Germany to defend against Russian attacks by 2029, reversing the trend of western militaries training Ukraine’s.

Continue reading →

QP: Our strategic oil reserve?

Posted on by
Reply

Quite unusually in the life of this Parliament, the PM was in attendance for a second day in a row, and with yet another floor-crosser in his ranks, this time Lori Idlout from the NDP. Pierre Poilievre was also present, and he led off in French, and again insisted that there are 700 Iranian regime agents in Canada that the government has not removed. Mark Carney said that this is a serious situation, that the government has already stopped 10,000 IRGC from entering the country, that they are 140 investigations and 28 under removal orders. Poilievre then switched to English to meander about supposed flip-flops and then demanded the government develop more oil and as exports. Carney noted that they already have record production and that new projects are already approved. Poilievre gave another meandering demand for more pipelines to the Pacific, and Carney cited his own book to say that they want the lowest risk and lowest cost oil and gas sector, which is why they have the MOU with Alberta and the Bay Du Nord project. Poilievre went on a tangent about not having stockpiles of oil, and again demanded the government “get out of the way.” Carney responded with a jab about Poilievre searching for new ridings to run in before he again touted record production levels. Poilievre again went on about not having a stockpile before again demanding the government “get out of the way.” Carney reminded him that importers need strategic reserves while exporters do not, and that the G7 has authorised the release from their collective stockpile. Poilievre claimed that the stockpile logic was backwards—which his hilariously wrong, and Carney quipped that Poilievre thinks he’s tapping a rich vein when it’s just a dry well.

Idlout is sitting next to Carney for #QP.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-11T18:20:43.585Z

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and once again, she raised the pension software and demanded a public inquiry. Carney responded that Service Canada has more than 7.7 million people successfully transitioned to the system, and that the backlog was reduced by 10,000 over the past week. Normandin tried again, calling it a financial fiasco, and Carney said that her accusations don’t relate to facts and the system is on budget. Sébastien Lemire tried the same lines again, and Carney said that the Bloc have refused all offers of briefings on the matter.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Credulous takes on private members’ bills

Posted on by
Reply

There have been a few stories over the past few days that have raised my ire, so I’m going to take a few minutes to point a few things out. One of them is this CBC story yesterday about Jenny Kwan’s private member’s bill, and that as many as sixteen Liberals are considering supporting it. My beef: the sub-hed on the story reading “Vote would mark first time some in caucus split from government line under Carney.” Split from the government line? It’s a private member’s bill. Those are free votes by default. That’s the whole point of them. CBC should know better, and frankly, I really don’t like it when the media tries to play party whip while at the same time wishing that MPs were more independent.

The other story yesterday was about Conservative MP Dan Albas’ private member’s bill, which purports to empower Canada Post to deliver alcohol across provincial lines. Most of the stories in various outlets talked about how Dominic LeBlanc appeared to support the bill in Question Period, which he actually did not. What LeBlanc said was that this is an area of provincial regulation (which only the Star’s story mentions), but that he would bring it up when he meets with his provincial counterparts in a few weeks because he thinks it’s a good idea. And more to the point, this bill is a gimmick, which Albas and Pierre Poilievre insist overrides provincial regulation, but it actually doesn’t because, and just puts Canada Post in a bind. It would be great if any story could point that fact out, or talked to a lawyer, but nope, they focused on LeBlanc’s answer in QP, and even then couldn’t get the nuance right.

The third is a story from CBC on Monday, which was very concerned that a lot of bills are passing “on division,” meaning without a vote. The problem was the initial sub-hed on the story which stated “Half the bills passed in the House this session have cleared 3rd reading without a head count or consensus,” which is wrong, because “on division” is consensus you don’t need a vote—the “or consensus” was later dropped from the sub-hed. Of course, the real reason is that the Conservatives don’t want to go to an election, so they’re not going to force a vote and have Andrew Scheer and Scott Reid hide behind the curtains again to ensure that the math is right and that they won’t accidentally do something stupid with the vote counts given how everything is so close, but the person you reached as your source for your explainer is Peter Van Loan? Possibly the worst Government House Leader in decades (which is saying a lot)? It came across as amateurish, and like CBC’s parliamentary bureau has a hard time understanding how parliament works, which is not a good look.

When your parliamentary bureau doesn't understand parliament, dumb things happen.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-09T13:50:45.982Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-10T21:22:01.632Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia dropped three guided bombs on Sloviansk in the east, and hit Kharkiv and Dnipro with drones, injuring another twenty people. Ukrainian forces have pushed Russian invaders out of Dnipropetrovsk region, while Russia claims to be making gains in Donbas. Ukraine hit a missile plant in Bryansk region in Russia.

Continue reading →

QP: The phantom menaces of supposed terrorists and hidden taxes

Posted on by
Reply

While he had initially not planned to attend, things apparently changed and the PM did opt to show up today, as did Pierre Poilievre. He led off in French, and he immediately launched into his bullshit claims that the Trudeau government allowed Iranian terrorists into the country and that ten government needs to deport them. Mark Carney stated that the government deplores the shooting at synagogues and the U.S. consulate in Toronto, and they are offering police support, while the IRGC is already a listed terrorist entity. Poilievre meandered into food price inflation, and claimed it was because of the government’s “inflationary” taxes and policies. (Taxes are deflationary). Carney stayed on the claim about Iranian terrorists and said they are conducting removals, before switching to the food prices, and noted that they have provided additional support. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first bullshit claims, and this time Carney exhorted him to support Bill C-14 and gun control, and noted that the government is investigating potential IRGC members in the country and that they have committed to another thousand RCMP. Poilievre claimed that the government was more concerned with protecting turkeys from farmers than people from criminals, and again repeated his same bullshit claim about Iranian terrorists. This time Carney exhorted the Conservatives to support Bill C-9 to protect synagogues. Poilievre dismissed this as the government trying to protect the Jewish community by banning sections of the Torah, and again blamed the government for Iranian terrorists. Carney said that the Charter protects the Torah and the Bible and any other religious text. Poilievre then returned to his false claims about food prices and demanded the government cut those hidden taxes. Carney reminded him that he impact of the industrial carbon price is close to zero, but the impact of their trade agreements for the farmers in his riding is enormous. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he demanded clarity from the prime minister on his position on the Iran conflict and the strategic vision for the Middle East. Carney said that Canada supports the necessity of preventing Iran’s nuclear programme, but is not participating in the offensive operations and will not. Blanchet wondered what our European allies have come to in terms of position, and Carney listed the leaders of the G7 he has spoken to as they come up with a policy on de-escalation. Blanchet wondered if there were any short-term measures for those suffering from the affects of the conflict, such as higher inflation. Carney said the best option is de-escalation, which is why he is having conversations with other leaders in the G7 and in the Middle East.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Absent from the Iran debate

Posted on by
1

The inevitable spike in gas prices from the conflict in Iran triggered a bunch of stupidity yesterday, mostly from the Conservatives. While François-Philippe Champagne talked about meeting with his G7 counterparts about releasing part of their petroleum stockpiles to stabilise prices (note: Canada doesn’t have a petroleum stockpile, because, well, we can just pump more from the ground), the Conservatives’ solution was the same solution to every other problem—gut environmental regulations, starting with clean fuel regulations and the industrial carbon price, none of which will have a meaningful effect on prices and will do more damage in the long term, but when you have only one policy hammer, everything looks like a nail.

And then there was the take-note debate on the conflict. Even before it started, there was a bunch of chiding from opposition parties because Carney did not plan to attend of speak, because he apparently dismissed it because it’s merely a take-note debate, never mind that he has yet to address parliamentarians about his shifting positions on the conflict, and he wasn’t in Question Period yesterday, nor will he be there today, so again, his ability to be held to account for his shifting has not yet happened. Instead, Anita Anand got to stand up and deliver his current position on the conflict (“no blank cheque!”).

But the Conservatives have not only decided that they are fully in support of regime change (just ignore that nothing the US is doing will actually produce regime change, that the only real change to the regime they want is for a pliable puppet to lead it on their behalf, and that there are no current coherent opposition groups or civil society organisations that can take charge in place of the regime), but they also want to make this about Trudeau’s immigration policies. That’s right—they have declared that Trudeau’s “open borders” meant that plenty of Iranian regime members came flooding into Canada. Oh, and they’re also being blamed for shooting up synagogues in Toronto. But there never was an “open border” under Trudeau, the members of the regime were barred from the country, and there is a process to deport those who came into Canada to find that their visas had been denied. It just takes time because we are also a country that respects due process and the rule of law. But the Conservatives want to bay for deportation, because Maple MAGA, apparently. It’s all so stupid, and it would be great if The Canadian Press didn’t just ignore this whole facet of their argument because it’s inconvenient.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-09T22:08:01.495Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched another attack on an apartment block in Kharkiv, this time injuring six people including a small child.

Continue reading →

QP: Terrorists on our streets

Posted on by
Reply

After more than a week away, the PM was not present, despite being in the building, while Pierre Poilievre was also in the building but absent from QP. Andrew Scheer led off, and he railed about the industrial carbon price and the clean fuel standard, and demanded the government scrap them. Tim Hodgson pointed out to him that our energy production reached a record high, and that the government is fast-tracking projects to “solve the world’s affordability problem.” Scheer tried again, and this time François-Philippe Champagne reminded him that they already cut taxes and we are projected to have the second fastest growth in the G7. John Brassard took over, and he recited the same talking points with added sanctimony. Patty Hajdu hoped that he was not referring to things like the Canada Child Benefit or school food when he talked about “ideological programmes.” Brassard considered the government’s supposed anti-development laws are “hate-driven,” and Champagne again reminded him of the growth potential. Eric Lefebvre tried again in French, and Champagne praised the enhanced GST credit. Lefebvre railed about the things the government was doing to make things expensive, to which Mélanie Joly suggested he was basically reading the government’s game plan, except to toward the end, and invited him to cross the floor.

*hate-driven. Stupid auto-correct.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-09T18:58:38.122Z

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and yet again, decried the pension software system, and Patty Hajdu reminded her that twenty countries use this system, and that they are working through the backlog of cases. Normandin claimed the government didn’t listen to any of the concerns before it went live, and Hajdu reminded her that 7.7 million seniors are already getting benefits with no problem, and wondered if Normandin wanted them to stay on a sixty-year-old system in danger of failure. Sébastien Lemaire gave the same again, and Joël Lightbound repeated Hajdu’s same points en français. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ending a filibuster and starting the Iran debate

Posted on by
Reply

Two big things are up today in the House of Commons. First is a programming motion that would end the filibuster on Bill C-9, which is the hate crime bill that the Conservatives have been stalling on because the government agreed with the Bloc to remove the religious exemption to hate crimes. This has caused all sorts of howls, particularly from certain members of the Conservative backbench who are experienced propagandists, who claim that this is going to criminalise religious worship and that prosecutors will be combing the Bible to come after Christians, as though police have the time and resources to do that (as police are the ones responsible for laying hate crime charges—and are frequently the ones who don’t, even when merited). It’s stupid, it’s misleading, it’s dishonest, and the government has had enough, so they’re going to put their foot down and they will have the votes to pass this motion.

Yes, C-9 is a bill that is mostly just empty symbolism, and while civil liberties groups have their concerns that it could be used to criminalise legitimate protests, I would say that the bigger issue—the hate crimes that this is supposed to address—remain in the same position of waiting on police action or inaction. You can pass all the hate crime legislation you want, but if police don’t bother to investigate or lay charges (because most police do have a certain ideological bias), then it’s all for naught.

The other thing that will be coming up today will be a debate on the conflict in Iran, which will take place during the evening. The Government House Leader signalled this before needing to wait on the opposition parties to move anything in the Chamber, for all the good this is going to do. I’m sure the world is waiting with baited breath for MPs to read twenty-minute speeches into the records about how this violates international law (NDP, Bloc), that it’s great that the Supreme Leader was killed and how the Iran regime needs to be destroyed—completely ignoring that the Americans have no plan and will only make things worse (Conservatives), or just praising Mark Carney’s “leadership” and “pragmatism” (Liberals).

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile struck an apartment building in Kharkiv early Saturday, killing ten people. President Zelenskyy says that Ukraine is discussing joint arms production with the Netherlands for interceptor drones.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Making Canada work…by inventing grievances

Posted on by
Reply

Paul Wells had a lengthy interview with Danielle Smith yesterday, and let me tell you, it is just exhausting to wade through the volume of bullshit that she is flooding it with. Lots of numbers that she has pulled out of her ass, tonnes of scapegoating, revisionist history, and so, so many strawmen that she keeps fighting in order to make Alberta look like the victim. Much of what Wells had to ask her about was her plans with those nine referendums, and the possibility of at least a couple of more questions in addition, but he never really challenged her on the fundamental basis of what she was doing.

Re: Danielle Smith

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-06T05:26:00.334Z

Referendums are a way for governments to bypass parliament or the legislature, and to manufacture consent for whatever issue they’re putting forward. They control the questions and the interpretation of the answers, so they manipulate the process from start to finish. Most of the time that works out for them, because they can successfully manipulate it to suit their purposes, but sometimes it gets away from them, such as Brexit, and a giant clusterfuck was created because David Cameron was too chickenshit to stand up to the xenophobes in his own party. In this particular case, Danielle Smith is looking to manufacture consent to both engage in further scapegoating of immigrants and asylum seekers (and believe me, there is a portion of the Alberta population who will take the permission that she has granted to them and target those newcomers), but to also manufacture consent for her to continue to engage in grievance-mongering to the detriment of everyone, in Alberta or in Canada.

Smith keeps insisting that she’s trying to make people confident that Canada can work, but it’s really hard to believe her when she keeps inventing new grievances to be mad about, and then engages in an effort to make everyone else mad about them (such as through these referendum questions) even though there is no actual basis for these grievances. And being a crybaby because your preferred party didn’t win the federal election is not a legitimate grievance, and should not be ginned up as one. That said, Alberta has largely been a one-party state for more than 40 years, so it’s hard for them to understand what it’s like to actually lose an election and not consider it illegitimate. And what is most frustrating is that precious few people actually call Smith (or her predecessors) out for inventing these grievances. It’s bullshit, and it needs to be called out as such, particularly from Albertans because being force-fed these fake grievances has done a number on their psyche, and it hurts all of us as a result.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-06T23:56:01.450Z

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy visited the eastern front lines, as the second day or prisoner exchanges concluded with a total of 500 swapped over both days.

Continue reading →