Prime minister Mark Carney made a housing announcement yesterday morning, when he was inevitably asked about the proposed Alberta referendum. Carney invoked his time in the UK and the experience with Brexit, that for people who think that this kind of referendum is just a way to send a message and that there are no consequences are playing a “dangerous bluff” that will have consequences. And yes, he would know, because he watched it happen and lived with the fallout. But will this actually help? Hard to say, but Conservatives have already been seeding the narrative that Carney created a lot of the post-Brexit economic damage with claims that he was “printing money” and fuelling inflation and so on, so the very people who need to hear the message have already been primed to ignore it. So that’s helpful.
Carney was also asked about the fourteen members of his caucus that sent him a letter about his environmental backsliding, and to this, Carney basically swatted the question away saying he has 160 other members of caucus who are just fine with his moves. This, however, starts to sound a wee bit arrogant for a party leader who has been patting himself on the back for listening to his caucus more than his predecessor did. You can pretty much guarantee that it’s not just these fourteen, but there are plenty more members of caucus who aren’t quite as willing to stick their necks out just yet but are similarly unhappy. They also learned a lot of lessons about pushing back against a leader when they started organising against Justin Trudeau in caucus, so the lessons are fresh, and Carney should remember that. As well, he’s betrayed the “Value(s)” he campaigned on and wrote a book about, so he’s already on thin ice with his voters on this issue. He may want to show a bit more contrition than this particular combative stance.
My Latest:
- My weekend column on Danielle Smith’s referendum, and why this is the culmination of decades of populism rotting the politics of the province.
- My Loonie Politics Quick Take talks about the glut of senate bills hitting the Commons, and why MPs who complain about it have only themselves to blame.
- For National Magazine, I looked at the appointment of the new advisory body for the next Supreme Court of Canada justice.
Ukraine Dispatch:
Russia pounded Kyiv and surrounding regions over the weekend with drones, hypersonic and ballistic missiles. That attack included targeting museums and cultural sites as a deliberate assault on Ukraine’s history and culture. Russia has since declared they will launch “systematic strikes” on Kyiv, including decision-making centres.
Noteworthy:
- Parts of Bill C-22 on lawful access could be moving us toward integrated surveillance with the US’ CLOUD Act.
- Justin Ling points to concrete ways that Canada can do more to support Ukraine as the momentum shifts in that conflict.
- Philippe Lagassé comments on how only Carney may be the person who can negotiate any kind of “fortress North America” agreement with the US.
- Jared Wesley exhorts everyone to stop repeating the unverified claim that “300,000 people” signed the separation referendum petition, as it is almost certainly false.
The Conservatives have decided this week's fight is the imaginary "Netflix Tax," and have mischaracterized it from top to bottom. www.conservative.ca/scrap-the-la…
— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-05-25T20:32:13.710Z
Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.
I get why it’s asked about, but the “inevitably” kind of excuses the press since they decide what to ask and what not to ask. I was sick of this story long ago, but it has to get stale for the chattering-class at some point and hard to see if the national press can really go on until October making this THE issue every day. I don’t doubt a journo can find somebody who will say, “I voted for something stupid because I was offended,” but that’s just lame and dishonest so unsure why placate it.
The PM’s support in outside Alberta (2 MPs not withstanding), but even his support within Alberta is the crowd that really don’t like this nonsense. The provincial Finance Minster and Health Minster resign because of this and it’s barely a blip in the seemingly never-ending coverage. I thought one of the lessons of 1980 and 1995 referendums was learning you can’t solely speak to those who agree with a lot of sovereigntists’ grievances, but also realizing (a bit late) to energize those who oppose it.