Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

Roundup: More defection talk swirling

Posted on by
Reply

A day later, the Ma floor-crossing is being dissected with more questions about what this means for Poilievre’s leadership of the Conservative party now that he’s lost two MPs to floor-crossings and one to a very suspicious resignation. We have learned that Tim Hodgson played a part in Ma’s decision, and that their wives are friends (and it is worth noting they are from neighbouring ridings). And now you have Conservatives telling the National Post of all places that they expect another couple of defections because Poilievre is so unable to read the room in his own caucus. Oh, and there’s also a whole side note about how Ma was apparently the “secret Santa” for Jamil Jivani and Jivani didn’t get his gift.

Listen, let's not rule out that drawing Jamil Jivani's name in Secret Santa might have been what actually prompted the floor crossing.

— Emmett Macfarlane 🇨🇦 (@emmettmacfarlane.com) 2025-12-12T23:52:46.988Z

Government House Leader Steve MacKinnon proclaimed that he knows more disgruntled Conservatives and hinted that there yet may be another floor-crossing, and this has everyone wringing their hands about “backroom deals,” and saying dumb things like “Canadians didn’t elect a majority,” and that cobbling one together is somehow illegitimate. Poilievre himself is making this particular argument. But that’s not how elections work. We elect 338 individual MPs. Not parties. Canadians can’t select “majority” or “minority” on their ballots. In fact, parties have become political shorthand for how MPs sort themselves into configurations to achieve confidence in the Chamber, but at its core, we elect individual MPs, and they get to make their own decision including who they sit with, and on how to determine how a government is given confidence, and yes, that can include so-called “backroom deals” and floor-crossings, and if voters don’t like it, they can punish them in the next election. That’s how parliamentary democracy works.

If there is another defection or two, and it puts the Liberals into a majority, the most dramatic effect will not be just the fact that every confidence vote isn’t going to rely on Andrew Scheer and Scott Reid hiding behind the curtains to count abstentions, but rather that it will force the committees to be rebalanced, at which point the Conservatives and Bloc will no longer be able to team up to obstruct all business, as they have been doing. That will be a material change for the ability of this Parliament to get things done, and maybe finally break the dysfunction and deadlock that has plagued it since 2019.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-12T14:24:02.995Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia attacked two Ukrainian ports, damaging three Turkish vessels, one of them carrying food supplies. Russia also attacked energy facilities in Odesa region. Ukraine, meanwhile, hit two Russian oil rigs in the Caspian Sea, the Yaroslavl oil refinery, and two Russian vessels carrying military equipment. President Zelenskyy visited Kupiansk, as Ukrainian forces are encircling the Russians in the area, weeks after Russia claimed to have captured it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ignoring the true meaning of the Statute of Westminster

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday was the Anniversary of the Statute of Westminster (1931), which is one of the most pivotal moments in our evolution as a sovereign country, but it rarely gets much mention. When I was in junior high, I remember them talking about how this ensured that Canada could control its own foreign policy, but they never said why. And it turns out that no official account or even the Government of Canada’s web page gave the reason either. The reason is that this was the creation of the Canadian Crown as a separate and distinct legal entity from the Crown of the UK, which mean that we could control our own foreign policy, and were seen as an equal to the UK and not a subordinate. But absolutely nobody mentions the Crown of Canada as the reason. Nobody.

The government's page undersells the importance of this date, because today is the anniversary of the creation of the Crown of Canada as a separate and distinct entity from the UK crown. That's why we gained control over our foreign affairs and "our own voice" on the world stage.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-11T14:17:20.569Z

The Governor General did not put out a release about the day or its importance to the Canadian Crown. Mark Carney did not put out a release about the day at all. Pierre Poilievre did, but not only did he not mention the Canadian Crown, but he talked up conservative figures from the era of history to try and distract from the fact that Mackenzie King was prime minister at the time, which was frankly sad and a little bit pathetic. Nobody else put out a release, and absolutely nobody mentioned the anniversary of the Canadian Crown.

Nothing about the Crown of Canada.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-11T21:53:33.606Z

The creation of the Canadian Crown is one of the most pivotal moments in our history, and it goes completely unremarked because the department of Canadian Heritage is full of republicans, and too many members of civil society are quietly embarrassed by our status as a constitutional monarchy, as though it’s still colonial or “not grown up” when it’s not that at all. The separate Canadian Crown means we are grown up, that we control our own Crown and destiny. And if you don’t want to time-share the monarch with the UK and the other Realms, well, we can change that at any point as well (with the unanimous consent of Parliament and the provinces), and I for one would not be averse to making Princess Anne the full-time Queen of Canada, as she is not only the best royal, but her grandchildren are already Canadian, so that helps with the succession issues. Suffice to say, we have to stop effacing the fact that the Canadian Crown is the central reason why we gained full independence then.

Another floor-crossing

After both Houses of Parliament rose for the winter break, and just before the Liberals had their Christmas party, Conservative MP Michael Ma crossed the floor to join the Liberal ranks. He’s from Markham—Unionville, which is John McCallum’s old riding, so it’s flipped back-and-forth between the Liberals and Conservatives, and Ma has been almost anonymous in the House of Commons, pretty much never put up in QP to read a script for the sake of clips, so he has no profile in the party. His statement talked about “unity and decisive action” for Canadians, which could translate to the fact that he (and possibly his constituents) is tired of the petty little games that Poilievre and his caucus spend all of their time doing.

It also puts the Liberals one seat away from a workable majority, and the House Leader, Steve MacKinnon, hinted that there are more conversations ongoing with Conservatives, and according to the journalists and pundits on the political talk shows, Ma’s name has never been bandied about as a possibility, so this was a complete surprise. But it will also serve to shut Don Davies up if they do get that one more MP, because Davies will have no leverage to try and blackmail Carney with. So, I guess we’ll see what happens by the time Parliament returns.

Well. That happened.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-11T23:22:51.428Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian commanders claim to have taken Siversk in the east, but Ukraine denies this. Here is an analysis of how the potential fall of Pokrovsk won’t collapse Ukraine’s front lines. In the back-and-forth on “peace” plans, the US wants to turn ceded lands in the Donbas into a “free economic zone,” and no, I don’t get it either.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Davies again demands official status

Posted on by
Reply

I will have to give it to NDP interim leader Don Davies that he has some big cajónes as he is once again demanding official party status as the House of Commons finds itself in a near deadlock on most legislation. He’s now into full-on blackmail territory—if you want this Parliament to work, give us status. But there are a few problems with this:

  • The NDP have nowhere near earned the right to be trusted after they tore up their previous agreement with the Liberals in bad faith;
  • The NDP were complaining that they were tired of being seen to be propping up the Liberals, but they’re once again offering to do just that, which leads back to the trust question; and
  • The math as it relates to committees has not changed. The NDP do not have the numbers to sit on committees in a fair manner

Davies says that Parliament will work better if the NDP get seats on committees, but which committees? The whole point of the cut-off of 12 for official party status is that it’s just barely enough MPs to be able to cover-off a member on every committee (and that means they are doing double or triple duty). Is he suggesting that they just get to pick five or six committees that they should be allowed to sit on but not the others? How is that fair to those other committees, or those other issues that the NDP are effectively ignoring? Yes, Davies is desperate for more resources and staff that official status would offer, but you cannot demonstrate the fundamentals of being able to be present. Rules exist for a reason.

The current budget bill — C-15 — was tabled on Nov. 18. It's been debated on 10 different sitting days. It still hasn't received a vote at second reading and made it to committee. Would things move faster if C-15 was a dozen different bills?I'm unconvinced.

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-12-10T18:02:17.857Z

MPs seemingly:a) don't want to spend much time in Ottawa and b) don't like to agree to move legislation along without undue delay.

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-12-10T18:00:25.458Z

The current budget bill — C-15 — was tabled on Nov. 18. It's been debated on 10 different sitting days. It still hasn't received a vote at second reading and made it to committee. Would things move faster if C-15 was a dozen different bills?I'm unconvinced.

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-12-10T18:02:17.857Z

Meanwhile, the fact that the budget implementation bill was debated over some eleven days at second reading is a problem. Yes, it’s a problem that it’s a giant omnibus bill, but the Commons has been getting worse about debate times since at least 2011, and nobody shows any willingness to start doing anything differently, and that’s a problem. One of the things I keep reminding people is that in Westminster, second reading debate is one afternoon, because that’s all it needs to be because you’re debating the general principle of the bill—that’s it. Your entire caucus does not need to weigh in with repetitive talking points and slogans. You do not need to put everyone one to get clips. House Leaders need to grow up and start cracking down on this abuse of procedure, and that starts with the Government House Leader, who needs to put his foot down. Enough is enough.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-10T14:25:06.076Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian forces have been fending off an “unusually large” mechanised assault on Pokrovsk. Russian drones hit the gas transport system in Odesa. Ukrainian sea drones have disabled another vessel in Russia’s “shadow fleet” in the Black Sea.

Continue reading →

Roundup: MOU motion down in flames

Posted on by
Reply

As expected, the Conservatives’ Supply Day motion to try and force a vote on some of the language from the Alberta MOU went down in flames as the Liberals were wise to their bullshit, and didn’t play ball. They made it clear that the language was deliberately provocative in what it excluded, so Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives scrambled to try and amend their own motion, so that it included a bunch of other things, except one thing—any mention of the carbon price (without which, the Pathways carbon capture project can’t operate because it’s not fiscally viable). And so that’s what the Liberals hung their arguments on—that this wasn’t the full MOU, and it didn’t include the carbon price, or methane regulations, or anything else, so they weren’t going to vote for it. And nobody did.

The Conservatives could have probably done more damage to the Liberals if they tried to force a vote on the entire MOU, to really suss out the divisions in the caucus about it, but they couldn’t actually do that, because the MOU has the carbon price as part of it, and if the Conservatives voted to support the full MOU including the carbon price, they would be hypocrites because every day in Question Period, they falsely blame said carbon price for food price inflation (when in reality, the industrial carbon price’s impact on food is statistically zero). Their attempt at being clever blew up in their faces, because they’re not clever. They’re not the slightest bit intelligent. Of course, that isn’t going to stop them from shouting for the next eight weeks that “The Liberals voted against their own MOU! They don’t want to build a pipeline!” Of course, it’s not true because the Conservatives ensured that they weren’t voting on the actual contents of the MOU, but it’s not going to matter. They’re going to record videos of them claiming the Liberals voted against their own plans, and spread them across social media, but well, it’s not like we can expect the Conservatives—and Poilievre and Andrew Scheer in particular—to actually be honest for once.

Speaking of honesty, Tim Hodgson took to the microphone in the Foyer during the day to denounce the Conservatives’ stunt, but in the process declared that “caucus is united” behind the full MOU, when he knows full well that they are not. If the point of the day was to make the Conservatives look like the clowns, well, Hodgson didn’t exactly do his part. Then again, Hodgson is one of the worst performers on the front bench and he has absolutely zero political skills, so I’m not sure why anyone would be surprised here.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-09T22:22:02.273Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia’s top general says they are advancing their “entire front line” and moving into the town of Myrnohrad, which Ukraine denies, and says that Russia is paying a heavy cost for modest advances. Likewise, Ukraine still holds out in parts of Pokrovsk, and it has not fallen. President Zelensky has been rallying European allies as he says that any “peace” deal will not include ceding land to Russia. Ukraine is rolling out more restrictions on power usage as they repair their infrastructure from Russian attacks.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Being too clever about the MOU’s language

Posted on by
Reply

Today is the Conservatives’ big Supply Day, where they are bringing forward their motion that cherry-picks two phrases from the MOU with Alberta, and hopes to jam the Liberals with it. Pierre Poilievre may claim that the language is “lifted directly from the MOU,” so the Liberals should put up or shut up, but of course, he’s being too cute by half. It’s not language directly lifted from the MOU. The MOU states a “private sector constructed and financed pipelines, with Indigenous Peoples co-ownership and economic benefit, with at least one million barrels a day of low emission Alberta bitumen with a route that increases export access to Asian markets as a priority” whereas the motion simply says “pipelines enabling the export of at least one million barrels a day of low-emission Alberta bitumen from a strategic deepwater port on the British Columbia coast to reach Asian markets,” and adds “respecting the duty to consult Indigenous people.” One of these things is not like the other.

— Kady O'Malley (@kadyo.bsky.social) 2025-12-08T22:44:00.568Z

"low emissions Albertan bitumen"Charlatans always always think other people are stupid.

— Emmett Macfarlane 🇨🇦 (@emmettmacfarlane.com) 2025-12-09T00:21:28.775Z

Liberal MP Corey Hogan, the party’s sole Calgary MP, called out these shenanigans, both in a media scrum and on his Twitter, where he points out entirely why the Conservatives haver phrased it this way—to either make the Liberals look like they’re ignoring Indigenous consultation and consent, or to make it look like they’re not serious about building it, and in either case, it sends a signal to someone that will cause doubt and will inevitably delay any decisions. And the government indicated last night that they’re going to vote against it, citing that the Conservatives are not using the full language from the MOU. This in turn will set up weeks of Conservatives screaming that they knew the Liberals were lying the whole time and never had any intention of building a pipeline.

The thing we need to remember in all of this is not the shenanigans, or the Conservatives thinking they’re too clever, or any of that—rather, it’s that they think they can ram through these projects without Indigenous consent. Sure, they’ll talk about “meaningful consultation,” but consultation is not consent, and in their press releases, consent is never mentioned, nor is even consultations. That’s not realistic, nor even legal in the current framework. Of course, they also think a new pipeline will “unblock the trillions of dollars of privatesector energy investment to produce more oil and gas, build profitable pipelines and ship a million barrels of oil to Asia a day at world prices.” My dudes—this is a post-2014 world. It’s not going to be trillions of dollars, and world oil prices are tanking because of a supply glut. All of this is fantasyland.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-08T14:08:03.419Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians have attacked Sumy for the second night in a row, cutting off power in the region. Here is a look at those remaining in Kostiantynivka, as Russians approach.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sandboxing powers?

Posted on by
Reply

Over the weekend, Althia Raj published a column that points to a power the government is trying to give itself in the budget that lets ministers exempt certain people and companies from non-criminal laws, and the fact that this felt like it was being snuck into the budget implementation bill when it wasn’t in the main budget document. Jennifer Robson, inspired by Raj’s column, delves into the Budget Implementation Act to see the sections in question for herself, and makes some pretty trenchant observations about the fact that the powers in here are giving ministers a pretty hefty amount of leeway without necessarily a lot of transparency, because they have the option of simply not publishing or reporting which laws they’re suspending for whom, and that we need to worry about the injuries to democratic norms.

So, what is up with these particular powers? Well, it turns out that this is very likely some long-promised action on creating “regulatory sandboxes,” and the means to implement them.

The 2024 budget talked about working up a plan for "regulatory sandboxes"—temporary exemptions from restrictions to allow experiments with new things, especially products, that existing regulations didn't anticipate. It's in a few places, like this:

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T13:55:47.297Z

They'd consulted publicly on it before. This is generally a pretty dull type of government consultation, but it was done. www.canada.ca/en/governmen…

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T13:58:04.805Z

Having announced plans to legislate on it in 2024, the Trudeau government did not follow through, in either of the two "budget bills" that stemmed from the budget.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T13:59:51.381Z

But the regulatory-sandbox idea returned in the 2025 budget. Not at length, but it's in the roundup of legislative changes that implementing the 2025 budget requires. (Some people start with the deficit numbers when first picking a new budget up; I start with the legislative changes.)

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T14:03:09.547Z

My point is that you have to be careful with premises like, "I didn't know about it, so they've been hiding it and being sneaky."Tech businesses have been calling for regulatory sandboxes for *years,* there've been public consultations, and it was promised in two successive budgets.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T14:06:02.132Z

The idea's history goes back much farther than 2024, to be clear. Here's a Logic story from 2018, the first year we existed, noting a promise on regulatory sandboxes in the 2018 fall economic statement: thelogic.co/news/special…

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T14:10:57.100Z

So, this could very well be what that is referring to. This being said, I do see the concerns of Robson when it comes to some of the transparency around these measures, because these powers give ministers all kinds of leeway not to report on their suspension of laws for this “sandboxing,” and you have to remember that Carney already gave himself broad Henry VIII powers under his Build Canada Act legislation, which is ripe for abuse, particularly in a parliament that has largely lost its ability to do necessary oversight. I think the government needs to be extremely careful here, because this could easily blow up in their faces.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-06T15:08:02.695Z

Ukraine Dispatch

At least seven people have been injured in a drone strike in Sumy region. Russia claims to have taken two more villages in the Kharkiv and Donetsk regions. Here is a look at Ukraine’s naval drone operations, and the growing number of women in combat roles.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to jam the Liberals on the MOU

Posted on by
Reply

Because Pierre Poilievre thinks he’s a tactical genius, he has announced that next week’s Conservative Supply Day motion will be about the MOU with Alberta, and forcing a vote on the language about a pipeline to the Pacific, in defiance of the tanker ban.

It’s a transparent attempt to try and jam the Liberals, at least rhetorically, into supporting the motion in order to show support for the MOU, after which Poilievre can keep saying “You supported it!” and “Give me the date when construction starts,” as though there’s a proponent, a project and a route already lined up (to say nothing about the long-term contracts about who is going to buy the product once it’s built, because yes, that does matter). The thing is, these kinds of motions are non-binding, and really means nothing in the end. So if a number of Liberals vote against it, it doesn’t actually mean anything, other than the rhetorical notion that lo, they are not fully in lock-step on something, which actually sets them apart from pretty much every other party where uniformity and loyalty to the leader and all of his positions are constantly being enforced in one way or another. Maybe he will tolerate differences of opinion—or maybe he’ll crack the whip. We’ll see when Tuesday gets here.

Ukraine Dispatch

The International Atomic Agency says the protective shield around Chornobyl has been damaged by Russian strikes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another weaponized committee appearance

Posted on by
Reply

There was drama at the immigration committee yesterday as Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner decided to go after minister Lina Diab for the sake of putting on a show for the cameras, so that she can harvest as many clips from it as she can for social media. Now, I will be the first to say that Diab is not a great minister, and she is unable to answer basic questions on her file during Question Period, and yesterday as no exception. That being said, Rempel Garner was harassing her over things that are outside of Diab’s purview as minister.

In particular, Rempel Garner was going after Diab on foreign nationals who have committed crimes, but who have received lenient sentences so as to avoid removal. Part of this is no doubt part of a campaign of scapegoating of immigrants, along with blaming them for housing shortages, the collapse of the healthcare system, and youth unemployment, which is gross and unbecoming, but we are now in a political era where parties have let the anti-immigration sentiments fester while trying to blame it on the Liberals (and for which Carney has gone along with that scapegoating and alarmingly has adopted Nigel Farage’s language to blame it on Trudeau). But Diab has nothing to do with court sentences, and saying that she was “pro-raper” for pointing out that sentencing decisions are made by courts independent of government crosses a line, and its’ incredibly disappointing in particular because Rempel Garner used to be one of the most progressive members of the Conservative caucus, but has apparently decided to turn herself into one of its most vociferous attack dogs for the sake of ingratiating herself with the leadership after she was initially kept on the outs for her support of Erin O’Toole.

It was also noted by the committee chair that previous witnesses at the committee, who were all civil servants, were subject to harassment after their previous committee appearances because they were used for social media clips, because that’s what committees have devolved to. It’s a denigration of Parliament and it’s making it so that nobody will want to appear at a committee again, which diminishes the role of Parliament, to say nothing of the fact that it is turning MPs into a bunch of performing monkeys for the party’s social media team. MPs need to stop this behaviour before we find ourselves at a point of no return.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-04T15:03:21.264Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians attacked power and heating systems for Kherson and Odesa in the south. Drone footage shows the devastated city of Myrnohrad nearly surrounded by Russian forces, even though Putin claims they already control it. Ukraine has attacked and damaged the Asov Sea port of Temryuk, as well as a large chemical plant in Stavropol. Five drones were spotted in the flight path of president Zelenskyy’s aircraft on his approach to Ireland, but his early arrival avoided them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rustad’s reluctant ouster

Posted on by
Reply

It’s some chaos in the BC Conservative Party after the majority of the caucus let the party’s board of directors that they have no confidence in John Rustad’s leadership (though this may not have been an actual caucus vote—it may have been something like a letter signed with enough signatures). The board said that a caucus vote confirmed Trevor Halford as interim leader, and they declared Rustad “professionally incapacitated,” given that incapacitation is one of the only ways to replace a leader per the party’s constitution. And then John Rustad said he’s not going anywhere.

This is, of course, insane. No leader can survive a vote of non-confidence from the majority of his or her caucus. The confidence convention is one of the most fundamental aspects of our parliamentary order as part of the conventions that govern our unwritten constitution. And if Rustad continues to insist that he’s the leader and refuse to leave with any shred of his dignity left intact (but good luck with that at this point, because yikes), the next step is likely for the majority of his caucus to simply remove themselves and form official opposition as a splinter party (though the legislature ended the fall sitting yesterday, so that may not actually happen). There is some precedent for this—when the then-Alliance Party got fed up with Stockwell Day’s leadership, a number of its MPs broke away and sat as a separate caucus until Day stepped down, and the when the Bloc were reduced to a rump caucus in the Commons and had a leader without a seat who also became a problem, most of them removed themselves from caucus until she stepped down.

This whole sorry exercise should be a reminder that the current system of membership election and removal of leaders is antithetical to our system, and creates problems with leaders who refuse to take a hint. That’s why a confidence vote is the ultimate tool, and if he refuses to abide by it, like a mad king, he just isolates himself ever further into irrelevance. In any case, Rustad is finished, even if he is going to throw a tantrum about it for the next day or two.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-03T14:25:05.918Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine hit the Druzhba oil pipeline in Russia with remote-controlled explosives, which supplies Russian oil to Hungary and Slovakia.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unclear goals means poor accountability

Posted on by
2

The Parliamentary Budget Officer released his report on the plans for Build Canada Homes yesterday, and the headline conclusion is that the $13 billion fund will only produce some 26,000 new housing units, which is not a lot. He also tracks the declining funding in other existing housing programmes, that BCH doesn’t really make up for, though the government’s response that has been that his report merely assumes that funding agreements coming to an end won’t be renewed, and that they could be three or four years down the road when they do expire, so fair enough.

New PBO report out today, that finds that in the first 5 years of the Build Canada Homes program, it's will have $7.3 billion of spending on an accrual basis ($13 billion on a cash basis) and lead to fewer than 26,000 homes being built.Read here: www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/pu…

— Dr. Mike P. Moffatt (@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social) 2025-12-02T15:11:25.000Z

The fed reaction to PBO's housing report makes clear what I said at a conference last week: The gov't has no long-term plan, no targets, no KPIs, no accountability metrics. 5 years from now we won't know if BCH worked, because there's no benchmarks.www.cbc.ca/news/poli…

— Dr. Mike P. Moffatt (@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social) 2025-12-02T20:12:57.000Z

That said, Mike Moffatt makes the point that the report highlights the lack of long-term planning, and metrics by which BCH can be held to account. Sure, it’s supposed to “catalyse” investment from the private sector, and do things like make federal lands available for development, but it’s fair to point out that the lack of planning makes it hard to tell just what they’re planning to do, and how that funding will be applied. Gregor Robertson insists that this is just the initial investment, that more will come in future years, and so on, but again, you would think they would have a better grasp on the plan and what it’s supposed to entail. I know it’s been a few months, but clear goals would really help set the direction they are supposed to be headed in. This government has thus-far relied on a lot of hand-waving regarding their plans, and this is very much an example of what that looks like and why it’s not very helpful for evaluating what they’re supposed to be doing.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-02T22:22:02.159Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine continues to deny Russia’s claim that they control Pokrovsk. Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines don’t believe in the current “peace deal,” saying Russia will simply invade again in the future.

Russian propaganda in full force for the Witkoff visit: Putin is claiming to have captured Ukrainian cities that he doesn't control, and having himself photographed in military uniformkyivindependent.com/putin-claims…

— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum.bsky.social) 2025-12-02T12:18:09.879Z

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1995802755034734819

Continue reading →