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 →

Roundup: Oil sands histrionics, Jackpine edition

Posted on by
Reply

Oil and gas company Canadian Natural Resources Limited is deferring an expansion to one of their oilsands mines, citing uncertainty until the federal government finalises their environmental policies, which naturally led the Conservatives to theatrically start going into histrionics. The problem, of course, is that the facts don’t exactly line up with this kind of outsized reaction. These mines have not really been subjected to carbon pricing and have, in fact, generated carbon credits for the company that they can sell at a profit (thanks to Alberta’s absurdly generous carbon credit system that undermines the effect of more stringent carbon pricing). And their talk about sequestering emissions misses the point.

As always, Andrew Leach is here to explain.

I noticed that in some of the replies, it was stated that CNRL’s owner is trying to leverage this for more corporate welfare, which would not surprise me in the least.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-05T22:27:01.603Z

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian drone damaged a civilian ship carrying corn from the port of Odesa. Repair crews have restored power to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, necessary for its cooling operations. Russia and Ukraine have swapped 200 prisoners of war, out of a planned 500 each. Ukraine’s new F-16 fighter jets have been starved of American-made missiles for more than three weeks, limiting their ability to shoot down missiles and drones.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Carney hits Sydney and Canberra

Posted on by
Reply

From Carney’s Australia trip, we saw him first in Syndy at a fireside chat event at the Lowry Institute, where he regaled the attendees with talk about how Trump is different behind closed doors than in public, as well as talking about his interactions with Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi. Interestingly in the part about Xi, there was a lot of talk about how Xi was basically drilling into him that he wasn’t to be ambushed on any topics not discussed beforehand, and that he wasn’t to be lectured to in public. He also regaled them with tales of wine-fuelled central bankers’ meetings, for what it matters.

Carney then headed to Canberra to address Parliament, where his speech was not only about Canada’s ties and similarities to Australia, but also invited them to join his middle power alliance in the “post-rupture” world. He also had a joint press conference with prime minister Albanese, where he said that the possibility exists that Canada could need to deploy troops to defend our allies in the Iran conflict, but this may be another situation where just which allies we’re defending may be the question—could we be talking the US (who is only dubiously an ally), or Türkiye? In either case, Carney’s language is being deliberately vague, because he’s all about that these days.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/2029390627197055057

 

Meanwhile, there is a side drama happening around the technical briefing before the trip, where that senior official said that India was no longer engaging in foreign interference and transnational repression. When confronted with this, Carney got shirty with a reporter and said that the quote was “not for quotation,” erm, even though the transcript came from PCO, and it was “not for attribution,” which means that the official is and has remained nameless in the press. Carney also made comments about his security clearance, which pretty much gave Poilievre vindication for why he’s refused to get his clearance so as to avoid being “silenced,” which is again nonsense—he could talk, but in generalities. Nevertheless, because Carney decided to be flip about the security clearance remark, he’s undermined the whole case for Poilievre getting his clearance as opposition leader, so good job there. (Honest to Zeus, you guys…)

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-04T23:02:03.515Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia attacked rail infrastructure in the south of Ukraine, injuring at least five. It is likely that the conflict in Iran will prevent promised weapons from being shipped to Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An increasingly incoherent position on Iran

Posted on by
1

From Sydney, Australia, prime minister Mark Carney finally held a press conference, nearly six days into the tour. There, he was forced to somewhat walk back his position on what is happening in Iran, and while he may think he’s trying to nuance the situation, he instead sounds increasingly incoherent. He says that he supports the attack “with regret,” but that support isn’t a blank cheque, and there was a failure of international law. But remember, his Davos speech was about how international law was built on hypocrisy, and we’re dealing with the world as it is, but now we’re calling on rapid de-escalation and a ceasefire, and for diplomacy and international law to prevail, the same international law that you said is pretty much over? Huh? He also had to somewhat walk back the assertions that India is no longer engaging in foreign interference and repression…but he also wouldn’t say that they are, because again, incoherence, with a side of an amoral focus on dollar signs.

This Carney statement is puzzling. If, as he says, we must accept "the world as it is" – including the purported failure of previous diplomatic efforts and of the international order – then why call for a diplomatic solution, de-escalation, and respect for international law?

— Roland Paris (@rolandparis.bsky.social) 2026-03-03T22:58:19.535Z

Meanwhile, the situation in Iran remains hard to gauge, because there is no plan, and frankly, where people call for negotiations, it’s unclear with whom they are supposed to negotiate with, and when Trump calls on Iranian the military to surrender its weapons, there is nobody for them to surrender them to. There is an interesting piece on Radio Atlantic where Iranian writer Arash Azizi and Anne Applebaum discuss the fact that there isn’t a coherent opposition within Iran who can reasonably be expected to turn power over to. And then Trump is also suggesting that he may leave someone from the existing regime in charge, which then changes nothing and possibly makes things worse if it’s a hardliner determined to consolidate power and punish civilians for disloyalty, of whatever.

Meanwhile, from his London sojourn, Pierre Poilievre is trying to bring back CANZUK as a concept, which I always quite qwhite telling when conservatives sing its praises. But his ideas for CANZUK are also making a bunch of promises he can’t keep, because things like credentials recognition are provincial jurisdiction and good luck with that, while promising East Coast LNG is something that is never, ever going to happen. He also gave a Margaret Thatcher lecture where he praised capitalism, and called environmentalism a grift, and so on, because he’s very smart like that.

To file under promises Poilievre can't keep:-Credentials recognition is provincial jurisdiction. It's hard enough getting recognition across provincial borders and he wants to extend it to CANZUK?-East Coast LNG is never, ever going to happen because there is no market case.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-03T16:10:49.461Z

From the extraordinary intellect that brought you “the Nazis were lefties because it says socialist in the party name,” I bring you…

— Chris Turner (@theturner.bsky.social) 2026-03-04T01:20:40.650Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-03T15:08:04.120Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Continue reading →

Roundup: We are one (murderous) family

Posted on by
Reply

From New Delhi, Mark Carney had his big meeting with Narendra Modi, and they announced their plans on a comprehensive trade agreement by the end of the year, along with a number of other trade plans, including a uranium agreement. Carney even said that “We are one family” with Modi, erm, except Modi’s government has very likely murdered Canadians on Canadian soil, which is a pretty strange definition of “family.” But then Carney refused to take media questions, cancelled a planned press conference, citing the need to get into the air to avoid the flight crew’s scheduling regulations, and apparently decided that he couldn’t scrum on the plane either, meaning that all of those media outlets who shelled out thousands of dollars to be there are being given nothing for the time and trouble. This is turning into a habit for Carney, as is the fact that at least one of his meetings was found out by social media and wasn’t on his itinerary.

Pretty much.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-02T15:19:39.900Z

Meanwhile, Anita Anand had to pick up the media slack, but even then, she refused to say whether she believes the attack on Iran violated international law, and only will say that Canada is not militarily involved, though she also says she wants to see a “diplomatic solution.” Other members of the government has also been backtracking on the assertion that India stopped engaging in foreign interference and repression, including secretary of state for combatting crime, Ruby Sahota, which makes it look an awful lot like that senior official was set up to try and deflect questions on the interference ahead of the trip (which backfired spectacularly because we could all tell that it was bullshit).

Meanwhile, while in London, Pierre Poilievre expounded on his idea of a critical mineral stockpile available to allies with tariff-free trade agreements (but again, I fail to see how this will change Trump’s mind). He is also getting all hot and bothered by the impact that the Iran conflict is having on the oil market, but it’s making him say dumb things about Canada trying to step in and displace that Middle Eastern oil and gas. It’s never going to happen, and none of what he’s saying is true, but nobody’s going to challenge him on it (other than Andrew Leach).

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2028513969766560215

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-02T23:08:01.907Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine’s military continues to make gains reclaiming territory in Zaporizhzhia region, while a naval drone attack his the Russian oil terminal at Sheskharis, suspending operations. President Zelenskyy says that Russia won’t be able to fulfil its short-term goals in the invasion.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Davos speech vs Iran support

Posted on by
Reply

In the early hours of Saturday morning, the Americans and Israelis stuck Iran under dubious pretences—later confirming that nuclear talks were merely a ruse, and that Trump and Netanyahu had been planning this for weeks—and managed to effectively decapitate the country’s leadership, including killing Ayatollah Khomeini. Within hours, prime minister Mark Carney sent out a statement from his trip in Mumbai, where he effectively supported the actions, but also did not promise any Canadian support, military or otherwise. Nevertheless, everyone went on a big round of hand-wringing about how this statement jived with his big Davos speech.

My statement on Iran-related hostilities in the Middle East:

— Mark Carney (@mark-carney.bsky.social) 2026-02-28T12:31:32.929Z

It's not small-dick energy.It's smallest dick energy.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-28T19:10:15.695Z

Of course, the thing about the Davos speech is that it was a bit of a Rorschach test, depending on one’s priors. Sure, Carney talked about sovereignty and territorial integrity, but he also made it clear that the existing system of international law was a mirage, so he was kind of saying that it didn’t matter? In either case, I don’t think we should expect anything other than “pragmatism” without much in the way of principle, because that is the tone Carney has been setting for a while now, which could eventually work to our detriment.

People keep saying that this goes against the Davis speech. It does not. Carney said the rules based international order was always hypocritical, is now dead, and we live in a time of rupture. I disagree with support but this is not against what he said. The sign is gone. GONE GONE.

— Stephanie Carvin (@stephaniecarvin.bsky.social) 2026-02-28T14:54:02.726Z

In Davos, Carney argued that only countries w/ strong economies could afford “principled” foreign policies. Carney’s pro-US, pro-illegal war statement is that idea in action.The thing is, this view is both self-serving and wrong. Wrong because there is always a cost to standing up for principles.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-02-28T14:14:37.709Z

But if you always subordinate principles (i.e., non-economic interests like international law) to economic growth, you’ll never stand for anything. ESPECIALLY Canada, since the best we can hope for is only sending HALF of our exports to the US. They will ALWAYS have leverage over us.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-02-28T14:14:37.711Z

In reaction, Bob Rae wonders what happens after the military operation ends, which has long been the question for those who want to attack Iran. Anne Applebaum lays out the fact that Trump has no plans for what to do next with Iran, and has already dismantled programmes which might have helped, which is a huge danger of creating something worse. Justin Ling wonders why Carney chose the route he did of cheering on such a dangerous gambit.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-02-28T22:10:01.821Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Zelenskyy’s chief of staff says that Russia has accepted the proposal for post-war security guarantees (which…means not much).

Continue reading →