Author Archives: Dale

About Dale

Journalist in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

QP: The MOU and the stilted scripts praising it

Posted on by
Reply

With the PM in Calgary for his big MOU signing with Danielle Smith, and his resource minister along with him for the photos, it was a real question as to who would be answering for this issue in QP today. Pierre Poilievre led off in English, and with a smug grin on his face, asked what year construction would begin on a pipeline to the Pacific. Steve MacKinnon stood up and read a statement about how the economy changed after the “rupture” with the U.S., and that was why this MOU was so great and so important. Poilievre then asked in what decade construction would begin on a pipeline, to which Julie Dabrusin listed the things Alberta agreed to. Poilievre mocked Dabrusin for not answering his question, and then lamented that this was all process to ensure that a pipeline would be built in the year…never. MacKinnon read a list of superlatives about the agreement. Poilievre insisted this was about keeping his own caucus quiet, and hands an unconstitutional veto to David Eby, and MacKinnon lamented that Poilievre wasn’t being a serious leader, because there was a duty to consult with the duly elected premier and the affected First Nations. Poilievre insisted that constitutionally, the premier minister is the only barrier to a pipeline, and he exhorted him to get out of the way. Dabrusin spoke about how great it was that they could move ahead and work cooperatively with Alberta. Poilievre zeroed in on the portion of the agreement regarding an industrial carbon price, lied about what effect it would have, and said that if they were in charge, they would approve the pipeline immediately (because who cares about the Coastal First Nations?) MacKinnon again listed things that were in this agreement and how great they were.

Yves-François Blanchet got up for the Bloc, and lamented that this agreement meant the government was abandoning its climate goals. MacKinnon in turn lamented that the leader of the Bloc only looks to sow division when the agreement was about working together for more clean energy. Blanchet said the document was pretty clear that they want a single Canadian economy that belongs to Calgary, ignoring BC or Quebec or First Nations. Dabrusin insisted that they would need an agreement with BC and the First Nations, and that Alberta has agreed to significant action on carbon pricing and methane emissions. Blanchet needled Dabrusin that it was terrible that she could endorse this document, and accused MacKinnon of saying things that are the “opposite of the truth,” and MacKinnon responded with more praise for what is in the agreement.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Low expectations for the Alberta MOU

Posted on by

Today’s the big day where prime minister Mark Carney will be in Calgary to sign that Memorandum of Understanding with Alberta premier Danielle Smith regarding the province’s plans for their energy future. Everyone is focused on the potential for a pipeline to the BC coast as part of it, though it is apparently about more, such as maybe giving Albertan an out from other environmental regulations if they can complete certain other measures (which still leaves them off the hook considering that they are one of the largest emitters in the country).

But again, there is no actual pipeline deal as part of this. It lays out conditions that are probably going to be impossible to meet (particularly given that the Coastal First Nations, who are the rights and title holders in the area, have repeatedly said there is never going to be a pipeline that is acceptable). And while industry wants the tanker ban lifted, even as a “symbolic measure,” again that ban was the social licence for a number of other projects in the area to move ahead. And industry observers will still point out that even if they get everything they want, it’s still unlikely to find a proponent because the existing pipeline network can absorb the planned production capacity—and it’s no longer the world it was before 2014 and the oil market has changed significantly. That’s one reason by BC’s energy minister says this is little more than a $14 million “communications exercise.”

Meanwhile, Carney’s caucus problem is not going away, and while government thinks that they did a great job having Tim Hodgson explain things to BC caucus, members of said caucus were not exactly thrilled as Hodgson used words like “naïve” and “ideological” when responding to their concerns (thus cementing his status as the most overrated members of Carney’s front bench). And it also sounds like they’ve needed to calm Steven Guilbeault down from resigning in protest, though the current line is that he’s staying to do more good on the inside, but that’s not exactly offering much in the way of reassurance. So much of this goes back to what we were saying yesterday, that Carney is still operating like a boss and not a leader, and who thinks that he can dictate to caucus rather than live in fear that they can oust him if he oversteps (because they absolutely can, even if they don’t think they have that ability).

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-26T23:01:36.461Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The toll from the attack on Zaporizhzhia late Tuesday has risen to 19 injuries. The background of that “peace plan” has been leaked and proven to be Russian in origin, but Russia claims the leaks amount to “hybrid warfare.”

Continue reading →

QP: Brookfield conspiracy theories

Posted on by

In spite of being in the building and preparing to make an announcement, the PM was not at QP, but Pierre Poilievre sure was. He led off in French, lamenting that there haven’t been any wins in tariff relief, no matter the concessions made, but nothing has come of it other than a contract for Brookfield, and he wondered if Brookfield was the only one getting wins. Dominic LeBlanc reminded Poilievre that Canadians didn’t place their trust in him, and the government was trying to find a good deal, while taking more measures to help Canadian industries. Poilievre switched to English to declare that David Eby has no constitutional authority to block a pipeline, but that the prime minister has the authority authorize one, and demanded that a pipeline to the Pacific be approved today. Tim Hodgson suggested he buy a ticket to Calgary tomorrow so that he can see how to work with provinces to Build Canada Strong™. Poilievre suggested that Carney stand up to his own caucus to build this pipeline. Hodgson suggested Poilievre ask Danielle Smith why she was working with the federal government. Poilievre again gave a jejune constitutional lesson and demanded the PM use his powers to approve a pipeline today. (What pipeline? What proponent? What route?) This time, Steve MacKinnon got up to praise Carney’s leadership. Poilievre intimated to Carney’s absence and got warned by the Speaker, said that if Carney is not there, he doesn’t care, and suggested Carney get up to show he cares. Hodgson repeated his line about buying a ticket to Calgary. Poilievre then pivoted to the Brookfield contract with the White House, intimating Carney had something to do with it, and LeBlanc reminded him that we have the best deal available as it is.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, repeated the accusation of yesterday that the federal government “cheated” in the 1995 referendum, but then pivoted to a question about trade. Lina Diab said that she’d not focused on the past, but on working to make the immigration system strong for Quebec and Canada. Blanchet then asked Steven Guilbeault if he was comfortable with Carney trying to do an end-run around emissions laws, to which Guilbeault hit back with Blanchet’s record as a provincial environment minister. Blanchet then needled Guilbeault again to demand a promise the no project would get approval without the consent of the provinces of First Nations. MacKinnon said that the answer was yes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Assuaging Carney’s BC caucus

Posted on by

The lead-up to this Memorandum of Understanding with Alberta is becoming politically fraught for prime minister Mark Carney as a whole bunch of his caucus, not the least of which is the party’s BC caucus, are getting pretty angry about the whole thing. And so, natural resources minister Tim Hodgson is supposed to go to BC caucus this morning to explain things and calm them down, but that seems like something that should have been done ages ago when this was first being discussed, so that they could both hear their concerns and alleviate any anxieties earlier in the process. And it doesn’t help that the message keeps changing from “BC has to agree,” to “We’re not giving them a veto,” and back to “BC has to agree, and so do the coastal First Nations.” But again, this is sloppy.

There was a pretty good explanation for this yesterday, on Power & Politics, when columnist Emilie Nicolas said that Carney needs to learn how to “be a leader and not a boss,” which is exactly it. Carney is still operating in CEO mode, and that’s just not how politics works. And this mentality keeps exposing Carney’s many blind spots, not the least of which has been his ignoring human rights violations and atrocities when he thinks he can get a trade deal with some dollars attached, or the debacle with the end of the “feminist foreign policy.” And yes, it’s been over six months now that he’s been in charge, and there are a number of lessons he’s still learning, but how much he’s internalising these lessons is up for debate.

Meanwhile, we are back to the discussion of what this MOU is supposed to accomplish, particularly considering that Alberta didn’t live up to the last “grand bargain” that they agreed to in 2017 with the Trans Mountain pipeline, so I’m not sure why Carney thinks they will this time. There have been suggestions that this is a way to try and defuse the situation by looking like Danielle Smith is being given a win even though the conditions for this fictional pipeline proposal are never going to be met, but the danger there is that a future government will start waiving these conditions (and let the litigation commence). Again, I’m not sure that Carney understands the political game here, but we’ll see.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-25T22:22:02.600Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia, starting fires and injuring at least twelve people. Ukrainian drones hit a Russian oil refinery in Krasnodar, and an oil terminal in the port of Novorossiysk. President Zelenskyy says he’s willing to work with Trump on that “peace plan,” while Trump is now saying there is no firm deadline to reach an agreement.

https://twitter.com/Denys_Shmyhal/status/1993350012848197980

Continue reading →

QP: Admitting a poor choice of words

Posted on by

After a week away, they PM was back in the Chamber for QP, and so were most of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, declaring that Mark Carney hasn’t been able to reduce a single tariff in his 28 trips abroad, but he did manage to find gains for Brookfield, including a deal that was signed days after his meeting with Trump, and he also noted that the European Space Agency is on a Brookfield-owned campus, and wondered why every time he goes abroad, Canadians get poorer and Brookfield gets richer. Carney dismissed this, saying that Poilievre should check his figures as Indonesia reduced their tariffs on Canadian goods, and that they got a $70 billion commitment of investment from the UAE. Poilievre then switched to English to declare how much he cares for workers after Carney made his “Who cares?” aside at the G20. Carney noted that since he became PM, Canada has secured the lowest tariff rate in the world, and that there are sectors for whom they are under pressure, and the he does care and they are enacting further supports. Poilievre gave another “who cares?” exhortation, and Carney took a swipe at Poilievre not getting elected before admitting that he made a poor choice of words on a serious issue, and rounded off with some back-patting about his trade deals. Poilievre insisted that Carney has made nothing but mistakes on trade, and raised that Stephen Harper got a softwood deal when he came into office, before going on another paean about how much the cares. Carney insisted that they care about Canadians, which is why they have a budget to “catalyze” investments, while the Conservatives voted against Canada’s future. Poilievre returned his first question on Carney not getting any wins on tariffs and the supposed gains for Brookfield. Carney repeated out that Indonesia is reducing its tariffs by 95 percent, that we have the best deal with the Americans, and the UAE wants to invest $70 billion in Canada. Poilievre again insisted this was about Brookfield, before pivoting to the MOU with Alberta and demanded to know what date construction would begin on a new pipeline. Carney said that this was about necessary conditions, not sufficient conditions, and that the government of BC and the First Nations need to agree.

Christine Normandin rose for the Bloc and immediately accused the Liberals of cheating, and said that Chrétien sped up citizenships to help sway the Quebec in 1995, and wondered if they would cheat again in a new referendum. Carney pointed out that they have more Liberals in their caucus than the Bloc, and they respect Quebeckers. Normandin repeated her accusations, and again demanded a fair fight in a future referendum. Carney said the Bloc dwell in the past while he is turned to the future. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe took over to make the same accusations, and Carney gave the same bland assurances around building for the future.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Political support for a new pipeline?

Posted on by

More details are emerging about the Memorandum of Understanding that prime minister Mark Carney looks set to sign with Alberta premier Danielle Smith on Thursday, which would set the stage for political support for a pipeline to the northwest coast of BC if certain conditions are met. Those conditions include a stricter industrial carbon price in the province, and a “multibillion-dollar investment in carbon capture from the Pathways Alliance,” and there is apparently some language about Indigenous ownership and equity. In return, it looks like Alberta also gets a bunch of exemptions from other environmental legislation, which it would seem to me is just setting up fights with every other province who will want their own special deals and carve-outs.

BC premier David Eby is rightfully upset about being left out of the process (as Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe initially claimed he was part of the talks, which turned out to be mere self-aggrandisement). And while it’s true that the province can’t veto a project that falls under federal jurisdiction (and we have Supreme Court jurisprudence on this), it definitely feels impolitic to freeze him out, considering that making an agreement with Smith to overrule Eby’s stated wishes—and the wishes of the coastal First Nations—certainly has the feel of the US and Russia coming up with a “peace plan” for Ukraine. Eby also, correctly, points out that they would never do this with Quebec, which is a good point.

This being said, this remains about a hypothetical pipeline that may never come to fruition because they are unlikely to get a private sector proponent, because the oil market changed in 2014 and Alberta refuses to accept that fact. What I am more concerned about is just how many billions of public dollars are going to be consume by Pathways in order to try and make it viable, and it just won’t be, and we’ll have wasted years, billions of dollars, both of which could have been better spent coming up with a more reasonable transition to a greener future, because again, it’s not 2014 anymore.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-24T23:08:02.124Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones and missiles have hit residential buildings in Kyiv, starting fires and killing at least one person. Ukrainian officials are apparently working with the Americans on the so-called “28-point peace plan” to make it more palatable.

Continue reading →

QP: Fumbling around “Who cares?”

Posted on by

The PM had just returned home from his trip to the G20, but was not present as a result. Pierre Poilievre, however, was, and he led off in French, and he raised that when Carney was elected, it was on the notion that tariffs were an “existential threat,” but when asked over the weekend about the state of talks with Trump, Carney said “Who cares?” and Poilievre railed that he doesn’t care about forestry or auto workers. Steve MacKinnon ignored the question, and raised that last week, Conservative MP Bob Zimmer took up MAGA talking points that immigrants drag down the Canadian economy, and wondered if Poilievre approved of those comments. Poilievre said that his question was for the PM, who was in Ottawa (but he couldn’t directly say that he wasn’t preset in the Chamber), and repeated his incredulity about the “Who cares?” and how the prime minister couldn’t care about the people losing their jobs due to his “incompetence.” MacKinnon responded in English by again asking about Zimmer’s comments, and asked again if Poilievre endorses such claims. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his incredulity about the “who cares?”, but MacKinnon again raised comments made by Zimmer and Stephanie Kusie, and wondered if there would be apologies. Poilievre raised an $80 billion contract Brookfield got from the White House, and accused Carney of being more concerned about that. MacKinnon insisted that this was another attack questioning the prime minister’s loyalty to Canada. Poilievre listed industries affected by tariffs and declared that he about them, and this time Dominic LeBlanc got up to say that the government was elected to defend Canadian workers, which the budget does, and the Conservatives voted against it. Poilievre repeated the claim about a Brookfield deal, and François-Philippe Champagne got up to praise the good news in the budget.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and he relayed that he was shocked that the government has given up on its feminist foreign policy, and he demanded to know if gender equating was still a Canadian value. Mona Fortier got up to read a script about how Canada continues to support gender equality and is still committed to eliminating gender-based violence, but that the foreign policy will be guided by three values, the third of which includes feminism. Blanchet needled that there was discomfort on the other side over this “gaffe” by the PM, and wondered if this was about pleasing the sexist regime in the U.S. Fortier repeated that they still hold feminism and a value. Blanchet called this speaking out of both sides of his mouth, pointed out that Carney said this as he was trying to get billions out of the UAE. Fortier read the same statement about values.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Confusion over who authored the “peace plan”

Posted on by

It has been a crazy weekend when it comes to making heads of tails of what is happening with the so-called “28-point peace plan” between Russia and Ukraine. A bunch of US legislators at the Halifax Security Conference were insisting that they were told that the plan was the starting point of negotiations, that the deadline of Thursday was to start talks, and that this was all a big misunderstanding. You had other reports saying that people were saying that this was the Russian plan that was just for discussion purposes. Then you had reports saying that no, the White House said that this is the plan, leaving everyone in the dark as to just what the hell was going on.

What the actual fuck is going on.America put forward a nearly carbon copy version of the Russian plan for Ukrainian conquest, admitted it and backtracked, then doubles down.

— Justin Ling (@justinling.ca) 2025-11-23T02:54:54.829Z

As this was happening, world leaders, including Canada, were treating this as if it’s a starting off point that “needs work” as opposed to being a betrayal of Ukraine and that it should be killed with fire, because nobody wants to make Trump too angry, because they rely too much on the Americans for too many things still (though Ukrainians have pointed out that it’s no longer 2023, and they are much more self-reliant). European leaders did come out with their own suggested 28 pointswhich are far more fair to Ukraine, but seem to be willing to let Russia continue to occupy territory it has gained by force (unless I’m misreading it), and still doesn’t call for much in the way of penalties other than to pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine.

PMO readout of Carney's call with Zelenskyy. Maintaining the façade that the "peace plan" is a good start (when it is in fact a betrayal).

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-23T20:07:37.708Z

Meanwhile, Anne Applebaum savages the plan as not being anything more than a starting off point for a larger future war, while the only beneficiaries are some unnamed Russian and American investors, because this is what Trump is really all about. Paul Wells laments the “don’t wake Trump” tactic that those world leaders are using, because it rewards how much of a betrayal it is, and soft-pedals the fact that it invites future wars of aggression.

G20 Outcomes

There were a number of things coming out of the G20 summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, and it leave a whole lot of questions about prime minister Mark Carney and his values and priorities. Carney had plenty of praise for his hosts, and talking about the G20 being a bridge following the rupture of the US withdrawing from its role with global institutions, and that he has no “burning issue” to talk with Trump at the moment, and they’ll talk when they’re ready to. This being said, Carney also declared that the government’s “feminist foreign policy” was effectively dead, in spite of it being about the best way to achieve outcomes and at a time when the US is doing things like calling reproductive rights and gender equity “human rights violations” (no, seriously). Carney announced a joint technology partnership with India and Australia, and that talks were being revied about a comprehensive trade agreement with India, in spite of their foreign interference in Canada and trans-national repression (that their High Commissioner insists is all a delusion).

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3m6dt3iyjjc2i

So, nothing on trans-national repression or India's foreign interference.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-23T22:26:23.696Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Four people were killed in a drone attack on Kharkiv on Sunday. The death toll from last week’s missile strike on Ternopil is now up to 34. Ukraine has struck power and heat stations in the Moscow region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A 28-point capitulation plan

Posted on by

Things are heating up for Ukraine now that Trump has presented his so-called 28-point “peace plan,” which is nothing of the sort, and he’s giving president Volodymyr Zelenskyy one week to agree to it, or he is threatening to withdraw American support, even though that support has been mercurial and dwindling for the past year. Nevertheless, they have some key defensive technologies that Ukraine relies upon, particularly for air defences. But in no way is this plan at all acceptable, and is little more than a demand for Ukraine to capitulate, and to pay America for the privilege because Trump is a gangster running a protection racket.

This is what a protection racket looks like, although they are rarely put in writing

— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman.bsky.social) 2025-11-21T17:56:08.496Z

The “plan” (full text here) proposes that Ukraine turn over remaining areas in the regions Putin has been unable to conquer after four years, which are essentially a fortress belt. Turning those over, plus reducing the size of Ukraine’s army, is essentially an invitation for Putin to come back and invade with nothing to stop him the next time. The “deal” wants Ukraine to forgo NATO membership, which essentially gives Putin a veto over NATO. It wants Ukraine to pay the US for security guarantees, but no agreement with Trump is worth the paper it’s written on. It wants Ukraine to abandon any attempt to hold Russia accountable for its actions, including mass torture and crimes against humanity. And it wants Russia’s frozen assets returned. So Russia gives up nothing, and it positions itself to fully conquer Ukraine in a few months or a year, when Trump gets bored, and then creates an existential threat for the rest of Europe given that Putin will have gotten rid of the biggest obstacle to his expansionary plans.

Zelenskyy says he will work earnestly with the Americans on this, but that he won’t betray Ukraine’s interests, which pretty much means that he can’t accept these terms. European leaders say that they’re standing behind Ukraine, because they know the danger. But some of the reporting in Canada is abysmal, treating the plan like it’s serious when getting defence minister David McGuinty to comment on it. At least he says that any plan has to be “acceptable,” but this plan clearly is not, so I’m not sure why anyone is bothering to ask if he supports it because there is no way he could or should. This “plan” merely confirms that there is no point in relying on the US any longer, which means that Europe and Canada need to step up right now, and give Ukraine all of the support possible right now because anything less is a disaster for the future of western democracies.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-21T14:24:03.043Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims it has taken a string of four settlements in the Donetsk region, which Ukraine denies. They also claim that 5000 Ukrainian troops are trapped in the Kharkiv region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Laughable “dedicated partners”

Posted on by

Yesterday was Trans Day of Remembrance, to commemorate trans people who have died from violence and discrimination, and there were places across the country who did things like flag-raisings, and talked about the importance of inclusion, or their vague promises for LGBQT+ Action Plans™, which they haven’t delivered on (ahem, Nova Scotia). But nothing takes the cake compared to Alberta.

Alberta, which this week invoked the Notwithstanding Clause to shield three of its laws that delegitimise and attack trans rights in the province, and where a UCP backbencher compared gender affirmation to cattle castration in defending said invocation of the Notwithstanding Clause. Where a UCP candidate was temporarily booted from caucus for comparing trans students in a classroom to faeces in cooking dough, only to be reinstated months later with no questions asked. Who went through a major exercise in book-banning that aimed squarely on trans and queer materials. And with all of this, the province’s status of women minister put out a statement that, I shit you not, said “Our government remains a dedicated partner of transgender Albertans.”

The Alberta government putting out a statement for Trans Day of Remembrance two days after using the Notwithstanding Clause to override trans kids rights feels like parody at this point "Our government remains a dedicated partner of transgender Albertans.”

— Mel Woods (@melwoods.me) 2025-11-20T16:37:36.723Z

I just can’t. Words fail. It’s beyond parody. It’s just cruelty for the sake of cruelty, but Danielle Smith is doing this because she doesn’t want the swivel-eyed loons in her party base to eat her face, especially with another party convention on the way where she could face a leadership review. (And a good deal of blame falls on Jason Kenney for empowering these loons when he kicked the centrist normies out of the party). And because it bears reminding, trans people are always the first targeted by fascists, so what’s happening is the canary in the coal mine. Nothing good can come of this.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-20T15:05:10.130Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims that they have taken the city of Kupiansk, but Ukraine denies this. There was an exchange of soldiers’ bodies—Ukraine received 1000, while Russia got 30. The Russian-US “peace plan” involves turning over the fortified areas of the Donbas region Putin hasn’t been able to seize, and limiting the size of Ukraine’s military, none of which is acceptable.

Continue reading →