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 →

QP: Cutting and pasting the new food banks numbers

Posted on by
Reply

The PM in the building, just down the hall, making an announcement with Doug Ford, but not in QP, and won’t be this week at all as he jets off to Türkiye later today. Pierre Poilievre was present, however, and he led off in French, and he raised Food Banks Canada’s latest report, and wondered what happened to Mark Carney saying people can judge him by the prices at the grocery store. Joël Lightbound thanked him for the question and recited how many Canadians benefit from programmes like dental care and the Canada Child Benefit. Poilievre complained that the government voted against their Supply Day motion that there is an affordability crisis, and Lightbound responded that Poilievre has spent twenty years voting against help for Canadians. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the question about the Food Banks Canada report, and Evan Solomon got up to first express his thanks for the work Poilievre did in Wainwrigth, before patting himself on the back for programmes the government delivers. Poilievre quoted a line from the Food Banks report, to which Solomon thundered about the benefits that they deliver to Canadians, and insisted that the Conservatives were all talk on because they opposed it. Poilievre took the bait, and listed the things that the government as all talk about (even though most of the items on that list were either torqued or out of context). Solomon got up to repeat his same points with added excitement. Poilievre insisted that the only thing the government was feeding was interest on the federal debt, and Solomon listed the statistics on growth and cherry-picked job numbers.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and denounced Bill C-39 as conservative authoritarian overreach, that this exceeded the wildest dreams of Stephen Harper, and it was no surprise that Conservatives were crossing the floor to the Liberals. Sean Fraser disputed this and praised its goal of building more. Normandin listed groups that are against the bill, and said the only people in favour are the Conservatives. Julie Dabrusin patted herself on the back for all of the green projects that this legislation would support. Andréanne Larouche took over to decry that the same bill is an attack on labour rights, and wondered how the Liberals could be more anti-union than the Conservatives. Joël Lightbound insisted that they only want parties in labour negotiations to get along.

Continue reading →

Alberta separatists are not chastened

Posted on by
Reply

Even though ballots are still (still!) being counted as of writing time, the general sense is that the remain side of the separation referendum won by approximately 75-25, which is a stomping, but not a roflstomp, and despite what some people are claiming, this is not putting anything to bed. Because Danielle Smith was venal and grasping enough to hold this referendum to appease the separatists she cultivated in her base, she has given them no end of gifts in this referendum—organization, voter lists, and now MAGA-run apps to help with voter identification and organizational support. This is not trivial, because it means that a small but dedicated base can have an outsized impact on the electoral process as a whole in the province, and we’re already seeing that, and they will continue to howl that they are one in four voices in the province (never mind that of that 25 percent, a not insignificant percentage were people who voted yes to “send Ottawa a message,” meaning they didn’t learn their lesson after sending a message to Jim Prentice got Rachel Notley elected). Separatist leaders are already organizing to ensure that Smith doesn’t survive a leadership challenge so that they can install one of their own in the leadership position in the party, and turn the UCP into an actual separatist vehicle. (This may derail the party entirely, mind you, but they have determined that this is their vehicle to achieve their goals without actually organizing their own party). This did not put anything to bed—it has entrenched and emboldened a group who should have been kept marginalized, so thanks for that.

"I'm going to keep feeding you grievance porn but you need to believe in Canada and our capacity to make them give us what we want."What utter fucking bilge.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-10-21T02:25:13.320Z

And then there are the noxious nine other questions. It looks like a lot of voters didn’t even bother with them, but for those that did, eight of the nine are on track to pass with a little over 50 percent each. (The only one failing is the question on letting the province opt out of social programmes and still getting federal dollars, because there is enough distrust in the competence of a provincial government that is routinely mired in corruption). Nevertheless, the purpose of the exercise was for Smith to manufacture consent to go harder on scapegoating immigrants for the problems she caused with her incompetent government, and the worst part is that a) Pierre Poilievre is chomping at the bit to join in, and b) Mark Carney is also participating, and talking about how they’re going to work with provinces to reduce immigration numbers even more. This is not a good look for a country that is going to be in dire need of more labour to help build the big things they want to build, while it continues to let chronically incompetent provincial governments off the hook for doing fuck all about expanding housing, health care and education capacity for new arrivals which are needed to keep us from population decline.

They're both just going to go gung-ho on scapegoating immigrants, and take this referendum as permisison to do so.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-10-21T03:14:30.435Z

There is a further issue out of this referendum is that this is yet more confirmation of the rural-urban split in the province, where you have rural areas much more in favour of separation (and opposing immigration, of course). This is one more problem for Danielle Smith and the UCP, as the demographics are irrevocably shifting in the province in a way that will disadvantage them moving forward (which is why she is trying to gerrymander the next provincial election in a desperate move to preserve the status quo). This is something that needs addressing.

https://bsky.app/profile/blakeshaffer.bsky.social/post/3myctl24t5227

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-10-20T19:08:02.085Z

Continue reading →

QP: Commissionaires and deficit numbers

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was in the building but not present, while Pierre Poilievre was in Calgary. After some tearful statements about Wainwright, it was Michael Barrett who led off, and he lamented that the CRA went with an American-linked security firm instead of the Canadian Commissionaires for a contract (ignoring that the Commissionaires are no longer a company that primarily hires veterans). Wayne Long reminded him that politicians are not involved with such decisions and the CRA operates independently, and that the CRA has a policy of prioritising Canadian procurement, and that this was a Canadian-owned firm. Barrett repeated the question, and got the same response. Melissa Lantsman took over and raised the PBO’s latest report and its dire warnings, and demanded the government rein in spending. François-Philippe Champagne replied with the “good news” of our growth figures and the fact that we have the lowest debt and deficit in the G7. Lantsman disputed this, and Champagne carried on with more good news, decrying the Conservatives talking down the economy. Luc Berthold took over to read the same script about the PBO en français, and Champagne listed some benefits available to Canadians. Berthold retorted that every new benefit means more Canadians at food banks (erm, correlation ≠ causation, my dude), and Champagne decried that the Conservatives only vote against supports for Canadians.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he denounced Bill C-39 as an abuse of power, and Steven MacKinnon took the opportunity to thank Albertans for voting in favour of Canada, and then mouthed some platitudes about the bill. Blanchet listed ways that C-39 could be an attack on Quebec or national unity, and MacKinnon shrugged this off. Gabriel Ste-Marie listed the former employers of the Energy Regulator—all former oil executives, but Dominic LeBlanc gave him some bland assurances about valuing science and it only applying to federal bodies.

Continue reading →

The aftermath of the referendum starts now

Posted on by
Reply

While the votes for the referendum are being tallied at the time of this writing, the question is mostly how badly the separatists got stomped, but also what comes next. Even if they get roflstomped, as the kids say, this won’t go away quietly, because the separatists are now better organized, they have voter lists, and they are organizing to consolidate power in the UCP, which means Danielle Smith’s days are very likely numbered. But that also isn’t stopping people like Pierre Poilievre and his chosen Alberta referendum appointee, Dane Lloyd, from feeding more grievance porn to the separatists to keep feeding their movement.

This is exactly the problem with the "Lead Not Leave" crowd and the federal Conservatives in this referendum debate—they refuse to disavow any of the manufactured grievances, so they just keep feeding the separatists' machine. www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/opi…

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-10-18T02:16:11.388Z

But it’s not just the separatists, but also the other questions from Smith’s noxious nine questions, which has a lot of immigrants worried about their futures, and is creating a worse environment for everyone involved. Scapegoating immigrants is a Very Bad Thing, but don’t worry, Poilievre thinks he’s clever when he says “It’s not the immigrants, it’s Liberal immigration policy!” Yeah, that’s not what people hear, and frankly, it’s not the lesson that the white nationalists that make up the separatists are taking. The fact that Poilievre doesn’t get that isn’t surprising, but he’s also not nearly as clever as he thinks he is, and that’s a problem.

Meanwhile, the Carney government’s responses are not exactly encouraging either. It sure sounds like they are already capitulating on the immigration question, talking with the province about how they can do more to accommodate Alberta’s wishes (remember two years ago when Smith complained she needed MOAR IMMIGRANTS and that Justin Trudeau was hobbling their economic growth as a result?) This just rewards their bad behaviour and scapegoating. And now Carney himself is essentially opening the door to constitutional talks, but says he needs there to be consensus, but this just sounds to me like inviting trouble. Premiers can’t even get their shit together long enough to finally deal with interprovincial trade barriers, and now you want them to start finding ways to come up with constitutional amendments? How is this remotely responsible given the urgency of the crisis that Carney keeps insisting we’re in. Completely irresponsible behaviour, and I would say he should know better, but it’s not like he’s exactly paying too much attention to how federalism is working these days.

Danielle Smith Needs Albertan Separatists To Keep It Together Todayyoutu.be/eB_hFFSZboM?…

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2026-10-19T14:43:34.058Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-10-18T23:08:01.909Z

My Latest:

  • For National Magazine, I delve into Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision on how “rape-shield” laws don’t automatically extended to questions on past sex work.
  • My weekend column points to the choice that Danielle Smith now has with the UCP—kick out the separatists, or let them drag her and her party to defeat.

New episodes released early for C$7+ subscribers. This week I'm with @hscoffield.bsky.social to talk about the Canadian Tax Observatory's recent reports on the "Mega Deductions" and the Disability Tax Credit. #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-10-19T04:13:40.097Z

Continue reading →