Cringe-worthy Seinfeld exchanges over Europe

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was absent, off in Montreal for a digital asbestos announcement and the start of his EU summit. Pierre Poilievre was present, and he led off in French, and he accused the PM of trying to distract Canadians who can’t afford food or housing with the “associate member” conversation with the European Union, which got “rejected,” and noted that nine members of the EU haven’t ratified the existing trade agreement and wants an assurance that they will do so. Steven MacKinnon good up to praise the summit with EU leaders, and said that they were hoping to collaborate on a number of areas beyond trade. Poilievre switched to English to make the same accusation with the dated accusation that it was a “Seinfeld summit—a meeting about nothing.” (Who makes Seinfeld references anymore?) MacKinnon said the only one who knows about Seinfeld is Poilievre who wakes up and lives the same day every day, before praising the summit and the cooperation beyond trade. Poilievre insisted that the recurring nightmare was what Canadians live when they can’t afford to live, blamed government spending on inflation (false), and said the PM acts like George Costanza, running around the office trying to look busy. MacKinnon says that Poilievre acts like Kramer who just walks into the room and says something weird, before he praised free trade and collaboration with Europe, particularly on defence and procurement, as well as cooperating on democracy. Poilievre then got up and smirked, said everybody loves Kramer, and says that what’s weird is the EU’s carbon border adjustments and demanded that our goods not be subjected to them. MacKinnon noted that among the cooperation includes energy and patted himself on the back for west coast LNG going to Germany. Poilievre went into a rant about affordability and called this agreement another PR stunt, to which MacKinnon reminded him that the trade agreement with Europe is in effect even if not completely ratified, and that we are on track to doubling our non-US exports. Poilievre accused then of hubris for praising announcements they have not kept, and he then railed about beef and pork exports and called the summit a “nothingburger.” MacKinnon listed areas of cooperation and threw in a few Carney slogans along the way.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she too worried about the carbon border adjustments and how the federal abandonment of climate policy could negatively impact Quebec. MacKinnon insisted this was misinformed and listed the areas of cooperation once again. Normandin repeated her concerns that even if Quebec continues its carbon prices, their exports could still be exposed to those tariffs. MacKinnon praised how green Quebec’s aluminium sector is, and suggested that if they were concerned about GHGs, they should support high-speed rail. Mario Simard raised the auditor General’s report on pesticide management and how this too could impact trade with Europe. MacKinnon ignored this and just praised areas of collaboration.

Continue reading →

Scoring points off the interest rate decision

Posted on by
Reply

The Bank of Canada raised their policy rate 25 basis points yesterday to 2.5 percent, and as you might expect, the political reaction was bordering on unhinged. The Bank governor’s reasoning was pretty clear—global oil prices are pushing headline inflation up, and while core inflation is on target (meaning the measures that strip out the most volatile components), there is concern that businesses that are currently absorbing the increased fuel costs are going to start passing those costs on through the economy. The rate hike is more of a signal than anything—it can’t do anything about the Strait of Hormuz, but it can send a signal to the economy that the Bank isn’t going to take risings costs lying down, and they’re going to do their part to rein them in. That’s the thing about monetary policy—it’s as  much about sending signals to the market and being willing to back them up with its levers than anything.

For the opposition parties, however, reading apparently isn’t their strong suit. The Conservatives insisted that this was all about the government’s “out of control” spending and deficits, and that’s what is fuelling inflation, all of which is absolute hokum. Tiff Macklem was quite clear in the statement that what’s driving the inflation are global factors, meaning oil prices. The NDP, however, insisted that “This is a clear result of the Liberal government’s failure to get inflation under control.” First of all, managing inflation is the Bank’s job, not the government’s. And second of all, core inflation is on target. Inflation is under control. The spike in the headline number is entirely gasoline prices, which we do not control. And then they took a gratuitous shot about Carney’s initial support for the war in Iran. The cherry on top is that the government is refusing to actually dispute any of the absolutely false things the opposition is saying, and are instead patting themselves on the back for the Bank’s growth projections, because that’ll combat disinformation!

The releases from the Conservatives and NDP are both written from fantasylands that didn't read anything the Bank wrote. The Bank said nothing about deficits or government spending. They did say the source of inflation was global oil prices. Both parties ignored those facts.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-10-28T20:26:21.043Z

I'm forced to conclude that either our opposition finance critics are illiterate, or they simply lie in order to fit their narratives—likely the latter. Meanwhile, the prime minister is a former central banker but didn't bother to cite the Bank's language in QP today.We are so absolutely boned.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-10-28T20:26:21.044Z

It is frankly distressing to see just how absolutely economically illiterate the “finance critics” of our opposition parties are. I know that you have narratives that you want to push, but you don’t have to lie to the public to try and make your point. You can be concerned about the size of the deficit without lying that it is driving inflation (when core inflation is on target!) and that it forced the interest rate hike. You can express concerns about the war in Iran pushing up prices without saying that the government didn’t get inflation under control (when again, core inflation is on target! FFS!) This should not be rocket science, and yet, here we are. We don’t have to keep making this the dumbest timeline. These kinds of statements are a choice.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-10-28T13:08:06.166Z

My Latest:

My column explores the notion that the BC election is a sign that it’s time for “normie” conservatives to be in ascendance, and why that is not necessarily the case.

Continue reading →

QP: Complete fictions about inflation and interest rates

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was finally present for the first time in two weeks, and all of the other leaders were present. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he blamed “out of control” government spending for rising inflation which is why the Bank of Canada raised interest rates, which is not what the Bank said at all. Mark Carney thanked him for that lesson on monetary policy and pointed to the Bank’s statement that the inflationary factors were coming from outside Canada, and then pointed to projected growth rates. Poilievre insisted that this as an admission that Carney’s policies caused inflation, and that Canadians are the most indebted in the G7, so they would suffer under higher rates. Carney said they needed to reconcile the discrepancies between their statements, and repeated the Growth projections. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his same pronouncement that government spending and deficits were fuelling inflation, and that was the reason rates were rising. Carney repeated that the Bank was clear the causes were global and he cited the various cuts his government has made to spending. Poilievre again proclaimed the falsehood that spending was driving inflation, and Carney repeated the levels of his cuts. Poilievre selectively cited the Bank’s statement and blamed the clean fuel standard, and Carney again pointed out that the Bank’s statements were all on the record, and spoke about the price of diesel. Poilievre again insisted that Carney was out of touch, listed food banks and housing reports, and railed about affordability. Carney responded by listing measures for Canadians that Poilievre voted against. 

Poilievre is blaming government spending on the inflation that raises interest rates. The Bank of Canada was clear that this is because of global forces, especially gas prices. Too bad Carney can’t spell that out. #QP

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-10-28T18:36:00.472Z

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and noted that while Carney was hosting the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi while the UAE funds the conflict in Sudan, and compared this to the premier of Quebec not being allowed to speak at the EU summit. Carney noted that he gave PSPP a chance to greet the dignitaries and to sit at his table. Blanchet listed other countries with human rights abuses Carney was doing business with but wouldn’t deal with PSPP. Carney insisted they were doing business and raising issues. Blanchet started off on the wrong question, stopped, and restarted by demanding PSPP be allowed to speak at the summit. Carney said that the Quebec delegation already had four meetings, and that this was just the beginning of talks. 

Continue reading →

The culture war distraction

Posted on by
Reply

In the wake of her referendum flame-out, and one of her MLAs abruptly quitting, Alberta premier Danielle Smith is not wasting any time in ramping up American culture war bullshit as the legislature returns in the province. First up was new rules for flags at schools which are a convoluted mess that are essentially an overly bureaucratic way of banning Pride flags without coming out to just call it a Pride flag ban. Now the first bill her government has tabled is an effective ban on “DEI hiring” in the government or other public institutions, which is any kind of affirmative action to ensure that there are diverse hiring practices in favour of “merit,” even though we know that so-called “merit-based” hiring practices are overwhelmingly discriminatory in practice. And we’re not stupid—this, along with her anti-immigrant referendum questions are all about catering to the white nationalists in her party base, and they’re being pretty open about it. The fact that they wrap it up in culture war language and rationalization doesn’t change the fact that this is about appeasing white nationalists, end of story.

Meanwhile, in her attempt to look tough on the separatists in her ranks, Smith is also directing anyone planning on running for a board position within the UCP to sign a declaration that they’ll abide by the referendum result and not pursue independence. And all of the separatists are saying sure, I’ll sign it, but it doesn’t mean anything—particularly because they are still organising internally within the party to control the entire organisational mechanism so that they can oust Smith and put an avowed separatist in the leadership and take over the party from the inside (thanks again to Jason Kenney setting up the party so that it’s easy for them to do so). The fact that she thinks this would stop or solve anything is a weird move by Smith, but also just a first salvo in the party’s coming civil war as Smith tries to desperately hang onto power. Things could be getting messy from here.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-10-27T19:08:02.936Z

Continue reading →

QP: Bringing up PSPP’s bellyaching

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was in the building after a signing ceremony for another “strategic partnership,” this time with the Crown Price of Abu Dhabi, but once again not in the House for Question Period. Pierre Poilievre led off by declaring we already have a trade deal with Europe and a defensive alliance with NATO, but worried that we would be ceding sovereignty to the EU and its “costly policies” of taxes, immigration, and regulation, and that it would infringe on provincial jurisdiction, and turned this into the bellyache from the premier of Quebec that he’s not being allowed to speak at the Canada-EU summit in Montreal later this week. Joël Lightbound noted that the EU is 450 million consumers and 18 percent of the world’s GDP, and that Canada is negotiating an agreement that is interests of Canada and Quebec, and thanked the Quebec delegation’s work in Brussels. Poilievre noted that CETA still is not fully ratified, before he pivoted to inflation “skyrocketing” (Note: it absolutely is not) and railed about the federal debt. Lightbound noted the increase in exports out of the US, and then noted that when he speaks about “inflationary programmes,” does he mean the children who benefit from the Canada Child Benefit? Poilievre switched to English to continue his nonsense point about inflation, and the size of the federal debt. Wayne Long trotted out his talking point about the fact that Poilievre has not accomplished anything in twenty years while the PM has A Plan. Poilievre insisted the PM should be standing up to talk about his record, and he repeated the claim that interest on the federal debt costs each family $6000 per year. Long said that real leaders have a plan, like theirs does, unlike the Conservatives. Poilievre switched topics to housing, and the response to an Order Paper question staying that starts will go down, and that the government is blaming immigration. Gregor Robertson got up to say that he would “reprimand” the leader of the opposition—got drowned out—and eventually said that everyone comes from immigrant stock, so nobody should blame immigration for housing shortages. Poilievre waved the Order Paper question response in the air to say that the government themselves blamed immigration, and Robertson started saying something to the effect of the difference between immigrants and immigration, before he again got drowned out, before he got out the fact that the leader of the opposition demonises immigrants before he again got drowned out.

Yves-François Blanchet then led for the Bloc, and he too whinged that the prime minister isn’t letting the new Quebec premier speak at the Canada-EU summit. Lightbound reminded him of how many Quebec Liberals got elected and patted himself on the back for the increased trade with Europe, in collaboration with the provinces. Blanchet continued to bellyache on PSPP’s behalf, and Lightbound insisted that Quebeckers want the government to carry on with their trade plans. Blanchet got increasingly pissy about the supposed snub, and Lightbound said an invitation was extended for him to greet dignitaries and to be at the dinner, and he hoped the premier would be there.

Continue reading →

Life came at David Eby fast

Posted on by
1

So, the BC election was quite something. On one level, David Eby will replace David Peterson as the cautionary tale for calling an election too early and being punished at the ballot box for it. And it looks a lot like the this was not so much the strength of the BC Conservatives’ vote, but rather that the NDP stayed home because they were mad or discouraged with Eby, so this was their way of punishing him. Also? There has been a lot of media nonsense abotu how this was the first BC Conservative win in over a century. No. It may have been the first time the brand has one in a century, but the anti-NDP forces in the province keep changing their name and their voter coalition fragments and coalesces, but these are for the most part the same people who governed as the BC Liberals just a few years ago. Let’s be real about this.

https://bsky.app/profile/jmcelroy.bsky.social/post/3myqd4zmaws2u

In British Columbia there is the NDP and the anti-NDP. The latter change their name every few decades. These guys haven't been out of power a decade.

— Alex Usher (@alexusherhesa.bsky.social) 2026-10-25T07:36:16.825Z

Meanwhile, the BC Conservatives’ future is going to be interesting, considering how much of a Frankenstein’s monster the party is. I am not confident that the caucus is built to last, because as I have said in many places before, this is not a party that has a coherent ideology or policy book other than “We’re not the NDP,” and that causes problems. And sometimes, power can be disciplining—it worked for Stephen Harper for many years, until it didn’t. But sometimes power also means that people in the party want to lead, and will do anything to get that leaders. (See: Alberta’s PC Party post-Ralph Klein). We’ll see what wins out, and whether a moderate like Lorne Doerkson can have enough force of personality to hold the party together. On a side note, maybe the fact that Doerkson was a caucus-selected leader who didn’t implode the party and won an election is a sign that maybe, just maybe, we might see the light and return to caucus-selected leaders in this country? (Yeah, I know, I’m dreaming. But still).

As for what is coming, there are some warning signs ahead, particularly when it comes to First Nations in BC, because so much of what the BC Conservatives ran on was the repeal of what they call DRIPA (being the legislation to enact UNDRIP) becuase of a moral panic from a bad misreading of the Cowichan decision and the false belief that it spells the end of property rights in the province. It doesn’t, that’s not what the decision said, and this has been a racist attempt to undo the work of reconciliation in the province. There are some other concerns about queer and trans rights, given that there is a contingent of the Conservatives that were about repealing “SOGI” in schools (sexual orientation/gender identity), even though they weren’t quite as extreme about it as the far-right OneBC party was. Plus, the party had to dump one candidate for Hitler statements, so I’m not all that confident about their candidate vetting. Lots is still up in the air, but we’ll see how things start to shake out.

David Eby Is Just Wondering Why British Columbia Is Mad At Him youtu.be/WeSd4Vvrqx8

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2026-10-25T22:10:20.754Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-10-26T19:08:05.260Z

My Latest:

My weekend column points to how the Conservatives are trying to be “clever” in how they are framing their anti-immigration stances, and trying to blame it on the Liberals.

Continue reading →

QP: One national credit card or three?

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was in town meeting with premiers and First Nations leaders, but not in the House of Commons. Pierre Poilievre was present and led off in French, worrying about a Quebec headline about rising food bank use, and blamed it on government spending and inflation. (Note: While headline inflation is elevated on oil prices, core inflation is on target). François-Philippe Champagne noted how many Canadians and Quebeckers benefitted from their programmes and that the Conservatives voted against it. Poilievre railed about national debt and inflation and that taxpayers were servicing the debt instead of paying for hot meals, to which Champagne again pointed to the benefits delivered to Canadians and wondered if Poilievre would cut them. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the nonsense that the debt was “out of control,” that this would fuel inflation, and that it was all on the “natonal credit card.” Champagne cited that we have the most educated workforce in the world, we have the ability to build everything, and they are doing everything to build the country. Poilievre accused the government of “cooking the books” and spouted some utter nonsense about the spending being split between “three credit cards,” referencing operational spending, investment, and Crown corporatios, which doesn’t actually make any sense whatsoever. Champagne accused him of talking the economy down and repeated some Build Canada Strong™ talking points. Poilievre decried how much was being spent on interest on said debt, to which Tim Hodgson listed the jobs created by major projects. Poilievre continued to rail about debt interest, and claimed to break it down to how much in taxes a family has to pay for that interest. Champagne suggested he read the Fiscal Monitor to see how our public debt charges are still near historic lows.

Marilène Gill led for the Bloc, and she turned to the party’s usual denunciations of C-39. Dominic LeBlanc accused her of characterising decisions in an inaccurate way, and insisted that moving faster doesn’t mean that standards or consultations aren’t being respected. Gill raised the lawsuit by “youth” about the environment and suggested the government not fight them but move in the right direction. Steven MacKinnon said that young people in Quebec dream about jobs, that they will build with projects like Churchill Falls. Andréanne Larouche then raised the labour provisions of C-39, and MacKinnon dismissed these concerns.

Continue reading →

Canada’s reputation up for sale

Posted on by
1

Prime minister Mark Carney is currently in Türkiye to sign a new “strategic partnership” with the Erdogan regime, and once again pretend that there are no human rights concerns in that country, or that the government of a supposed democracy hasn’t been acting in an autocratic manner and delegitimizing its opposition parties, and civil society groups including a recent crackdown on LGBTQ+ groups in the country. Even when a number of European countries put out a statement about the crackdowns, Canada refused to sign on because we’re trying to sign a bilateral trade deal with Türkiye before the end of the year.

In case it hasn’t become perfectly obvious, the government’s line that “Where we have differences of opinion, we discuss those in private” is clearly not good enough. What the public silence means is that a country like Canada doesn’t have a problem with what they’re doing, so it becomes a signal that they can continue such behaviours without repercussions. I’m sure a private scolding is really going to make them sorry! It’s also a tacit signal that our reputation as a defender of human rights is now up for sale. If countries with horrific records (China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and now Türkiye) want Canada to shut up about it, well, all they have to do is wave some dollar signs in front of Carney’s face, and suddenly he’s their best friend, and touting “pragmatism” and “realism.” This kind of transactionalism isn’t values-based (which, remember, Carney claims to care about), nor is it “realistic” or “pragmatic.” It’s crass, money-grubbing, and a betrayal of the things that Canada has at least publicly claimed to stand up for over the past number of decades (even if we had our own issues).

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3myirjyqqu22o

There is a whole other discourse around this about Canada doing business with unsavoury regimes rather than just democracies, because that’s somewhat limiting, but even if that’s the case, it doesn’t mean that we need to be silent and tacitly endorse the things that they’re doing. We can publicly say we’re going to trade with you, but we want to actually engage on human rights. We’ve done it before, and had a whole human rights agreement as part of the free trade deal with Colombia that included reporting mechanisms. The silence is damning, and if Carney wants to at least pretend that he’s a Liberal, he should actually say something out loud for a change.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-10-22T19:08:02.001Z

My Latest:

  • My column worries about the fact that Mark Carney has signalled an openness to constitutional negotiations with some bad actors among the premiers.
  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take points out that it’s going to be impossible to deprive Alberta separatists of oxygen if we keep treating the false grievances as real.

Continue reading →

QP: Questions about “hot meat markets”

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was off to Türkiye to advance trade talks, while Pierre Poilievre was present. Poilievre led off in French, and cited that Statistics Canada says that they undercounted the people in the country by 300,000, and wondered how this could mean we need more immigration. Curiously, Jill McKnight got up to say that they have been working on immigration since the start of the “new government.” Poilievre then tried to needle that the PM was abroad again, got warned by the Speaker, and then went into a question about food bank use. François-Philippe Champagne retorted that Poilievre has been here for twenty years and done nothing to help people. Poilievre switched to English to lambaste that the PM was signing an “unenforceable” agreement while people in Canada go hungry and unfocused. Champagne repeated his same response. Poilievre then repeated the question about undercounting immigrants, and Champagne stated that they have been getting immigration “under control” before he went on a paean about people who want to choose Canada. Poilievre tried again, and Patty Hajdu suggested he speak to his caucus about not demonising immigration because immigrants are hard workers who build businesses, and his own caucus members keep asking for more temporary foreign workers in their ridings. Poilievre kept at it, and insisted the system was “out of control,” and demanded provinces get more powers over immigration. Hajdu said that they have been working closely with provinces and territories to ensure that they have the flexibility they need, before tearing into the Conservatives for demonising immigration.

Patty Hajdu lambasted the Conservatives for demonizing immigration, which was met by howls of “shame on you!” from the Conservative benches. #QP

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-10-22T18:31:44.846Z

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she cited 59 scientists from the Royal Society of Canada against Bill C-39, and wondered if the government would listen to science. Joël Lightbound trotted out the talking points about building more in Canada. Normandin then quoted Steven Guilbeault’s criticism of the bill, and Lightbound raised Churchill Falls as a need for the bill. Patrick Bonin repeated Normandin’s quotes into a single question, and Julie Dabrusin insisted they are building clean energy projects with that bill.

Continue reading →

Danielle Smith tries to play both sides—again

Posted on by
Reply

Alberta premier Danielle Smith has launched the next phase of saving her political skin with an address to her party to declare that separatists should exit the party and form their own. Contrast this to a few days ago where she said that they need to remain united in order to keep the NDP from forming government, and she’s not actually threatening expulsion, torn-up membership cards, or unsigned nomination papers. Instead, she’s appealing them to respect the vote, and saying that in a democracy, when you don’t win, you respect the result.

Being absolutely pedantic, the "block" on their supposed "path to prosperity" was the collapse of global oil prices in 2014. It had fuck all to do with Trudeau.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-10-21T20:30:18.844Z

I’m sorry, what? She and her predecessors spent a decade ginning up crybaby separatist threats because the Liberals were in power federally. She overturned legitimate municipal zoning regulations because she doesn’t like the mayors who won in Calgary and Edmonton. The whole reason the UCP exists is because people like Jason Kenney were so outraged that the NDP dared to win an election in a one-party state like Alberta that they needed to pull out all of the stops and bring all of the crazies into the party, including the separatists, in order to gain an overwhelming numerical superiority to force them out. She is in the process of literally gerrymandering the electoral map so that she can’t lose the next provincial election. And she has the absolute gods damned temerity to say that you need to respect the result when you lose? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

This is just Smith trying to play both sides so that she can keep everyone inside the tent for the time being so that she can survive long enough until the next election. It won’t stop the separatists from plotting against her, but she probably thinks she can out-organize them, even though she literally handed them the ability to level up their own organizing on a silver platter. I can’t wait to see this blow up in her face, but for the time being, I’m just going to continue to boggle at her sheer shameless hypocrisy.

Danielle Smith Hopes Alberta Is Happy Now youtu.be/bkk04sAzcMM?…

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2026-10-21T14:20:05.460Z

American election interference

The US Embassy released a statement that contained claims that Canada was engaging in “election interference” in the US, and it included things like Doug Ford’s Ronald Regan ads months ago, Mélanie Joly’s counter-tariffs strategy, and the fact that a Liberal MP *gasp!* canvased with a Democrat candidate for a primary earlier this year. Oh, and eleven Canadians illegally voted in US elections between 2012 and 2024. It’s so patently absurd, but they are trying to build up their “Blame Canada” narrative so that they can find new excuses to punish us after the midterms. Just risible.

The U.S. Embassy Wants Canada To Stop Interfering In Its Electionsyoutu.be/thdHKQ4hMcs

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2026-10-21T23:12:08.377Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-10-21T19:08:03.700Z

My Latest:

Continue reading →