Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

MPs increasingly relying on digital asbestos

Posted on by
Reply

An analysis from The Economist estimates that one-fifth of all of the words spoken in our House of Commons originally came from digital asbestos. That same analysis puts us on par with Australia, whereas the UK Parliament’s House of Commons is about one-tenth (though it also found the House of Lords at a higher percentage). At first blush, this figure seems high, if only because supposed “AI-detectors” are not necessarily that accurate, and we have a high degree of rote speechifying in our Parliament, in large part because MPs especially rely on the talking points supplied to them by their leaders’ offices, while backbench MPs have access to speeches written by civil servants on the topic of certain bills (and yes, I do find this practice absolutely scandalous). On the other hand, it doesn’t come as a complete surprise to me because our parliamentarians are so reliant on scripts that they don’t write themselves that learning that those who prepare these speeches are offloading the process onto digital asbestos would be fitting—especially because the Carney government is so committed to boosting the use of this digital asbestos.

The solution to this, of course, is to ban prepared speeches, which we should have done decades ago. As I wrote in my book, there is a 1956 Speaker’s ruling about the only acceptable uses of prepared speeches that we need to return to, because the current state of affairs is untenable. There is no excuse for MPs to spend their days reading prepared speeches into the record that nobody pays attention to, only to fill time. You can get battle droids to do this job (and vote on command for the party line). If we want to reclaim our Parliament, the first step is banning these speeches and changing the speaking clocks so we don’t have MPs just filling time for twenty-minute stretches. Continuing with the status quo is just ridiculous at this point.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-24T19:08:02.855Z

Continue reading →

Opposing Alberta separatism is inconvenient for many Conservatives

Posted on by
Reply

In find myself extremely annoyed with Conservatives who are whining that they’re accused of not helping enough with the Remain side in the upcoming Alberta referendum, because they’re not helping. And why aren’t they helping? There are a number of reasons. One of them is that they don’t want to alienate the separatists, who are also in their voter base. Remember that their electoral strategy has been to court the far-right (and yes, the separatists are far-right), including adopting their language and pandering hard to them, rather than courting the political centre. Another reason is that they can’t stop using the same lies that the separatists use in order to attack the Liberals, many of those being around the so-called “strangling” of development, which is and always has been bullshit. Their resources have been constrained by the world price of oil, especially after it collapsed in 1981, and again in 2014. In both cases, they blamed a Trudeau (even though Stephen Harper was in power in 2014), but the effect is the same. Finally, the Conservatives are sympathetic to the cry-baby nature of the separatist threat, that it’s more about there being a Liberal government federally. Manh Albertans have developed a warped view of democracy because they have lived in what is essentially a one-party state for most of their lives, and they cannot fathom that it’s legitimate if a party other than the Conservatives governs, and so they throw these tantrums. So, when Dane Lloyd says “They don’t have a problem with Canada. They have a problem with Ottawa,” what he is effectively saying is that they have a problem with Liberals, so by “fixing that,” they mean Conservatives need to be in power. It’s all bullshit and they’re not helping the Remain side so long as they continue to lie and treat this like an excuse to score partisan points.

Meanwhile, separatist leaders are trying to trot out the line about voting for “Option 2” (meaning a “binding referendum”) as a means of giving Alberta “leverage” against the federal government, which is also a big lie. You don’t announce you are doing something to gain leverage, because that announces that you actually have none, and you know that these lying shitbags will then say “Look at all of the people who voted for separation, we need to continue the process” even though they have absolutely no democratic legitimacy to do so (and the fact that referendums are elite-driven fuckery). Do not give them the excuse—and that especially means not boycotting this referendum out of protest. Danielle Smith is trying to burn democracy to the ground in the province for her own benefit, and that means it’s all hands on deck to stomp this whole thing down.

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2102832673043648730

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-23T13:08:05.225Z

My Latest:

My column looks at the ways in which Danielle Smith is trying to engineer a crisis of confidence in democracy in the province as she sabotages Elections Alberta.

My Loonie Politics Quick Take looks at the return of Parliament for the fall sitting.

Continue reading →

The most cynical of election calls

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, BC premier David Eby went to Government House to request a dissolution in one of the most cynical moves I have ever witnessed politically, and now BC is dealing with simultaneous provincial and municipal elections. No, seriously. Municipalities vote on the 17th, and then provincial polls are on the 24th, which is suicidally stupid for any political operatives because your volunteers are now split between different campaigns. Eby made a big song and dance about how this is “necessary” because of the Trump threat—because apparently the thought to try and take a card from Doug Ford, who called his own unnecessary early election because he was worried that if Pierre Poilievre won the election federally then Ontario voters would turf him because of the silly notion that in Ontario, there is often a pattern of having opposite parties in charge federally and provincially (which is not a hard and fast rule in any way).

Of course, the real reason is that the opposition in BC is in complete disarray, and Eby wanted to take full advantage of that fact. The BC Conservatives just had their leader resign, and there are two other contenders on the right side of the spectrum—the centre-right CentreBC, which took in a lot of those Conservative defectors and was standing up a new party and had some big-name organisers attached, and the far-right OneBC. And then things got weird. A bunch of CentreBC MLAs, including the leader, headed back to the Conservatives now that Kerry-Lynne Findlay is gone, leaving just one CentreBC MLA in place, who automatically became the leader, and she’s not going back to the Conservatives, having been burned by them too badly. And then Kerry-Lynne Findlay’s husband left the Conservatives to join OneBC, which also gives you an idea about where the pair of them should have been all along. (Leader profiles here).

I don’t for a minute believe that the BC Conservatives’ problems were solve by Findlay’s departure, and that the party still has no existential ideology, and that they only exist to try and find advantageous voter math, which didn’t work for them the last time, and is unlikely to continue to work for them. (Timeline of the drama here). Parties need to have a reason to exist other than “We’re not the NDP,” and “uniting the right” keeps leading to all kinds of problems because there are whole segments on the right that you DO NOT want to “unite” with, and lo, both the UCP in Alberta and the BC Conservatives have found this out the hard way, and yet neither party seems to have learned this lesson. We’ve let mainstream centre-right parties radicalise and slide towards fascism in order to appease these worst possible elements (the alternative is that these worst possible elements simply don’t vote, and they want those votes), and nobody seems to have woken up to the fact that this is a very bad thing that we do not want in a Liberal democracy. And yet, nobody seems willing to stop them. Just the worst possible outcome, and it’s playing out in real-time in BC as this cynical exercise gets underway.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-22T13:08:01.985Z

Continue reading →

An omnibus bill to burn down their goodwill

Posted on by
2

The Carney government opened the fall sitting by tabling a massive 243-page omnibus bill, titled the—wait for it—Building Canada Strong Act. Dear reader, I am beyond tired of every iteration of “Build Canada Strong” that the prime minister utters and names things with. Get some new adjectives. Please. I implore you. This aside, the bill covers three major areas—a promise to reform environmental assessments so that they only take a year; amending the Canada Labour Code so that they can try to head off labour disputes in federally-regulated sectors; and putting in place a trade corridors strategy that includes a council to monitor the situation with said corridors.

First of all: Steven MacKinnon claiming this isn’t an omnibus bill because it’s all related to the economic situation is pure bullshit, and he should be absolutely shame-faced that he tried to get away with saying with a straight face on live television. We’re not idiots, and it’s not great when the government tries to treat us like we are. Secondly, trying to fast-track environmental assessments is likely to just wind up in more lawsuits. Stephen Harper tried this tactic and it failed. And trying to rush resource-strapped First Nations through consultations on an expedited basis without providing them with more resources to do the work is going to result in more delays and more litigation. And I really, really dislike the notion that proponents can both just pay a fee when they disrupt fish habitats, because that just means it’s the cost of doing business and doing nothing for actual environmental protection. Or that they can start construction before project approvals, because then that just turns into “Well, now you have to approve it, because of sunk costs.”

Between this environmental betrayal and the government’s dubious actions when it comes to labour rights, they are trying really hard to burn all of their progressive credentials while claiming it’s because we’re in some kind of crisis, and because the country is still in love with Finance Daddy that they’re going to get away with it for a while, but that will eventually come to bite them in the ass, and right now, I don’t think any of them are thinking that far ahead. Burning the public’s trust is a dangerous game, and a Teflon leader only lasts so long before it starts to peel and flake, and turn toxic.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-21T19:08:01.518Z

Potash

Also yesterday, Trump tried to troll Canada by saying he was going to get potash from Belarus for cheaper than he could get it from Canada, and that set off a whole bunch of people, clearly unaware that earlier in the day, noted ABBA superfan Alexander Lukashenko said that they don’t have any spare potash to send to the US even if they wanted to (to say nothing about the logistics of transporting it, since they are landlocked and it couldn’t go through the EU). But boy, did a bunch of people fall for it. Especially the “Blame Canada” crowd.

Setting aside the fact that Belarus wouldn’t come close to having enough potash available for export to replace Canadian imports, imagine thinking relying on **Belarus** to grow your country’s food supply was a viable option! 🤦🏼‍♂️

— Blake Shaffer 🇨🇦 (@blakeshaffer.bsky.social) 2026-09-21T18:58:29.803Z

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2102118094487630058

My Latest:

  • For National Magazine, I delve into Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision about that election nullification in Terrebonne, and the interesting 6-3 split.
  • My weekend column worries about the chaotic state of the Alberta referendum.
  • For National Magazine, I preview the fall sitting of Parliament and what’s on the Order Paper now that they’re back.

New episodes released early for C$7+ subscribers. This week I'm talking to @patricklennox.bsky.social about his new book, "On Treason: Alberta Separatism, Foreign Interference, and Canada's Survival in a Revolutionary Age" #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-09-22T00:26:01.392Z

Continue reading →

A future alliance whose shape requires negotiation

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Carney delivered his speech to the European parliament in Strasbourg, and got heckled by a far-right MEP, because of course he did. Most of the speech was pretty standard Carney fare, with a historical anecdote, talk about upheavals and ruptures, sovereignty and digital asbestos, praising what Canada has to offer. He then moved toward welcoming the “ambition” of what Ursula von der Leyen spoke about with “associate membership” without actually saying that it’s what he wants, and spoke about things like the Erasmus+ programme, and other opportunities for cooperation.

Of course, everything remains up for negotiation, and what shape this kind of new agreement will look like is yet to be discussed, but Carney promises a vote in Parliament on whatever the final package is, which is not unexpected. Any treaty accession requires parliamentary approval regardless, but expect much caterwauling about this from certain suspects. There will no doubt be more threats from Trump and certain segments of this country who will insist that we’re just trying to provoke Trump, or that we’re somehow abandoning the US (we’re not) or that this is has something to do with Beijing (it doesn’t), but that’s also a reflection of the state of discourse.

Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre is trying to insist that this alliance of the future, which hasn’t even begun negotiation, is a done deal and that Carney has been lying about it all the time, while he rails about “EU taxes, EU bureaucracy, and EU migrant crisis,” even though this has nothing to do with this kind of alliance because we’re not becoming members of the EU, and more to the point, we’re not sitting next to Syria or North Africa, so we don’t have boats of migrants coming over. Of course, Poilievre and his caucus will raise these things because they have a voter base whose brains have been rotted on Fox News and the like, and have been conditioned to rail about how Europe is being overrun by Muslim migrants who are “killing its culture,” and yes, Poilievre and his MPs are playing directly to these racist tropes. (Poilievre then slipped out the back from his caucus retreat rather than take reporters’ questions, so there’s also that).

Gods bless David Cochrane for trying to push back against the dumbest of Conservative talking points on this EU stuff, while new critic Eric Duncan is just mindlessly repeating the three talking points his leader gave him. #PnPCBC

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-09-17T21:30:27.904Z

Noted media critic Andrew Scheer is currently having a toddler meltdown.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-09-17T19:47:28.443Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-17T19:08:02.736Z

Continue reading →

Choose your own associate membership adventure

Posted on by
2

Yesterday in Strasbourg, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen gave her state of the union address to the European Parliament, and said that she wanted Canada to become the first “associate member” of the EU, which is not a Thing, and suddenly had a bunch of people’s backs up about it. Our new ambassador to the EU, Jonathan Wilkinson, poured a bunch of cold water on this suggestion, essentially saying that we need to define what this relationship is supposed to mean before we can actually assign any kind of label to it. Other European countries who are waiting for membership are also questioning what this means (including Ukraine), especially because there is a huge process around actual EU membership, and a lot of questions about what the obligations/benefits equation, and levels of integration, because there are already relationships that the EU has with other European countries that aren’t full membership. Carney’s speech will be today.

As Lauren notes, the CAP would be an eye-opener for Canadian ag. Add to that the Euro + the ECB stuff. And then there is the 'four freedoms'….hmmm.I'm not an EU expert, but I follow European politics enough to understand what *full* 'membership' means. Nein, danke. bsky.app/profile/ldob…

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-09-16T15:17:45.192Z

Meanwhile, after Trump signed a memorandum to ban Canadian products from US federal procurement, he had a whole unhinged rant about how any “associate membership” deal with the EU would be considered a “hostile act” with new tariffs on Europe, in violation of the agreement he signed with them thirteen months ago—because he’s totally making the case that their attempted new trade deal wasn’t impacting on Canada’s sovereignty and would give Americans control over our other trading relationships. Then again, Trump also went on an absolutely incoherent rant about cutting off trade with countries and pocketing the “deficit” which makes no sense because that’s not what a trade deficit means, but his brain is rotted and he has no conception of any economic concepts, so it’s hopeless, but that doesn’t mean people won’t still try to implement these decisions in order to curry favour.

I fear that people might be getting sick of hearing my views on the world.So this time, an open thread for econ faculty to grade this submission on the meaning of a trade deficit.

— Justin Wolfers (@justinwolfers.bsky.social) 2026-09-16T23:45:58.544Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-16T13:08:03.577Z

My Latest:

My column points to how Americans, and Democrats in particular, are trying to guilt-trip us into backing down on counter-tariffs than actually cleaning up their own mess.

Continue reading →

Super deduction vs mega deduction

Posted on by
Reply

The big investment summit has come and gone, and the government has been busy patting itself on the back for the announcements they’ve generated. The Logic has a look at the deal book, and a list of some of the deals that were announced, including plans to invest in a sovereign internet network. It was not entirely without controversy. One of the announcements was around a plan to invite “more private investment” in the four largest airports in the country (which the government would still own the land and assets of), but no one has yet explained how this private investment can both get a rate of return and money to re-invest in smaller airports (as is the stated aim), without massively increasing fees or reducing services.

The other big thing announced was a “Productivity Mega Deduction,” which builds on the “productivity super deduction” from the last budget. This was mostly praised by economists, who are saying it’ll cover something like 65 percent of capital investment (the “super deduction” was fifteen percent), and puts us at the lowest effective tax rate among the G7. For what it’s worth.

This is really smart. The federal government is now allowing full capital expensing on 2/3rds of capital investments by businesses to incentivize investing back into companies, rather than sitting on dead money.www.canada.ca/en/dep…

— Dr. Mike P. Moffatt (@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social) 2026-09-15T14:23:15.000Z

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3mvlkxuvbms2y

Productivity Mega Deduction vs Productivity Super Deduction is my all-time favourite kaiju film.

— Dr. Mike P. Moffatt (@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social) 2026-09-15T14:25:51.259Z

And then there was Stephen Harper’s closing speech. Much of it was pretty benign, and oh look, a former Conservative prime minister is teaming up with a current Liberal prime minister (but you should probably add air quotes around “Liberal” because Carney is the second coming of the Progressive Conservatives), and isn’t that just so amazing? And he also talked about how as the chair of AIMCo, which is Alberta’s public pension fund, he knows Canada’s good investment. But in the middle, he went on a bit of a dig about how in 2015, the country was on the “verge” of being an energy superpower, but thanks to “deliberate policy choices” over the next decade we didn’t become it—but now we could again! He didn’t name Justin Trudeau in there (or Rachel Notley, or Steven Guilbeault), but the implication was there, and it’s just such utter bullshit. Once again, Harper has absolutely ignored that there was a global oil price crash in 2014—when he was still in power—and it permanently altered the market. Trudeau actually approved more oil sands permits, but they didn’t get built because it wasn’t economical anymore given the price of oil. But that hasn’t stopped every conservative under the sun from blaming Trudeau, because it’s convenient to do so. The truth is harder to swallow, so they pretend it doesn’t exist, just like Harper did again yesterday. It’s just absolutely boggling how so many supposed adults can be so afraid of a hard truth.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-15T19:08:01.525Z

Continue reading →

There’s no such thing as associate membership in the EU

Posted on by
Reply

Because everything is stupid, over the weekend, an American newspaper made reference to prime minister Mark Carney working toward “associate membership” with the European Union, which to be clear, is not actually a Thing. It’s not a real title, and means nothing. That didn’t stop the Conservatives from rising up en masse to declare this to be the worst thing ever. Remember that this crew has more than a few people in their ranks who believed that Brexit was a good thing, and lent their support to the cause. And so, Pierre Poilievre decried that we weren’t going to be the 51st state, or the 28th state in the EU, and then decried the whole thing, and demanded Parliament be recalled (it’s back next week regardless), and that he doesn’t have a mandate for this, so he would need an election. Other members of the caucus chimed in with their own bugaboos around “mass migration” and so on, because of course they did. But remember that at no time did anyone say anything about actually joining the EU.

I’m just getting so tired of this desperate search for relevance in the current moment. We’re not going to be EU members. “Associate membership” is not the same thing, and it’s especially nowhere near forced annexation by the US. Grow the fuck up, guys. We need a competent opposition party.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-09-13T20:22:37.264Z

Carney and his office had to engage in damage control to insist that Canada is not seeking EU membership (which we can’t join anyway, because it’s quite explicit in their constitution that it’s not open if you’re not in Europe), but that he is merely seeking an “unique alliance,” to which the EU will be opening an “antenna office” in Ottawa to help with coordination. None of this is EU membership. But that didn’t stop the Conservatives from going absolutely haywire over it, because they can’t resist the siren song of American culture war bullshit, where the far-right derides “decadent” Europe and claim that it’s dying economically and socially, while they act as catspaws for the tech bros who resent that Europe is trying to regulate the internet and force them to be responsible, which they don’t want to be, and for which they’ve coopted the US government to protecting them. More than anything, this is just a sign of how desperate and grasping the Conservatives have become for relevance in the current moment. It was a pathetic display that just demonstrates how adrift they are as a party.

My Latest:

  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take has a concrete suggestion for what the new Digital Transformation Canada should be doing, and it’s not pushing more digital asbestos.
  • For National Magazine, I delve into Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision on sentencing delays and why they’re fundamentally different from pre-trial delays.
  • My weekend column calls out Evan Solomon for complicity in manufacturing consent for worse digital asbestos outcomes, including deaths, rather than regulating it.

New episodes released early for C$7+ subscribers. This week I talk about the Alberta referendum and why it won't solve the imaginary grievances Albertans have been told to believe in. #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-09-14T02:20:29.215Z

Continue reading →

An intent for a 100-year agreement

Posted on by

Yesterday was the first day of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Canadian visit, where there was an announcement in Calgary with prime minister Mark Carney before the pair headed to Banff to address the Cabinet retreat. There were a number of different announcements made, largely with the signature on a “declaration to establish a 100-year partnership,” which means that it’s not finalised, but they still wanted to put on a production. The 100-year thing has already been signed with the UK, and will be more of an intention of long-term support than a binding 100-year agreement of any particular variety, but Ukraine gets the validation of a partner like Canada, amidst the other supports. There was also an energy-partnership signed, new funds for Ukrainian war veterans, and the coordination around new anti-ballistic missile sanctions that Canada is taking the lead on.

One of the big items was a drone deal, where Canada is standing up a drone production industrial base as opposed to an inventory of several thousand drones because of the pace of technological change. A third of that production will head to Ukraine immediately, but this is where Ukraine leads in developing the technology, and Canadian industry will help fund and carry out the production. This is where the future of warfare is headed, and Canada is the first to sign such a deal in the Americas (a number of countries in the Persian Gulf have signed their own deals because of the Iran conflict demonstrated their necessity), but it certainly help ensure that Ukraine has what it needs as the conflict carries on.

Meanwhile, we learned that Carney is still communicating regularly with Trump on issues like Ukraine and Iran (not that he’s bothered to publish a readout of any of these conversations). He spoke about compartmentalising these conversations about the broader trade war happening, but okay. And then he said that he still thinks that there’s a deal to be had with the US, and that we can “strike a fair deal.” We have a fair deal—it’s the New NAFTA. There is no deal to be had with Trump because he doesn’t keep his word, and is a gangster who will always try to take more. Carney may think he’s going for optimism, but he’s just delaying action when we need to make it clear that there’s no going back to “normal” for at least a generation, if not more.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-10T13:08:02.542Z

My Latest:

My Xtra column looks at the documents that Alberta separatists have been putting out, and why they may sound great on the surface but have hidden warnings if you look.

Continue reading →

Was it really always “Plan A”?

Posted on by

Over the long weekend, prime minister Mark Carney released another one of this “Forward Guidance” videos, to talk about the current moment we find ourselves in with the trade war. Some of this was a good bit of history in that one of the reasons for confederation was to guard against American predation, though he didn’t fully spell out that Sir John A Macdonald was very concerned that a newly militarized US post-Civil War would turn their attention northward. And yes, American tariffs did force the newly-united Canadians to better develop their own internal markets because yes, we did a lot of north-south trade at the time as well. He brought up the “iron spine” of the trans-Canada railway with some lip-service as to the human cost of it (more than he has in the past), but from there his metaphors started to drift again. The thing is, that “iron spine” has weakened considerably since free trade, and it’s been a whole lot of north-south trade once again, and his trying to say that the new north-south iron spine would be around energy, both electricity and crude oil, didn’t really make a lot of sense.

More than that, however, Carney was engaging in some revisionist history of his own, insisting that building up our industry domestically and to export to more markets was “always Plan A” didn’t really mesh with his stated desire during negotiations to have a stronger security and defence relationship with the US. He lamented in the video that the Americans were trying to force dependency, but Carney’s own goals included a stronger comprehensive relationship, so it feels a lot like he’s trying to play both sides here. He also said that there’s no going back to “normal” with the US, but again, this has been his whole strategy up until two weeks ago. It feels like he’s only just started saying things he was supposed to be saying all along two weeks ago, and is now pretending like it’s what he was always saying.

And then, of course, he brought up digital asbestos, because it’s “important,” and insisted that Canada would be maintaining its values and sovereignty with it. Erm, really? How? This is just lip service while he continues to swallow the CEO hype around it rather than waking up to the fact that this is garbage tech that is burning cash and the environment, and like he’s trying to be the last guy in before the bubble bursts. It’s getting cringey how much Carney and Evan Solomon are still enthralled by the false promises, like their lives depended on it.

My Latest:

  • For National Magazine, I got some reaction to the news that the Ontario Courts’ case management system suffered a hack.
  • My weekend column wonders if it’s time that we get serious about domestically-built EVs, as the age of the integrated North American auto industry appears to be over.
  • My column on the Conservatives on the Remain side of the Alberta referendum trying to have it both ways by blaming Liberals, playing into Separatist hands.

Continue reading →