Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

Roundup: Do something about privatization!

Posted on by

If there is something I am getting mighty tired of, it’s the constant demands by certain healthcare groups that the federal government needs to stop in and “do something” about creeping provincial privatisation, and most especially Alberta’s proposed legislation on essentially creating a two-tiered system. Yesterday the demand came from community leaders in PEI who are afraid that Alberta will poach their doctors. To all of them, I ask just what exactly they think the federal government should do, and to be specific.

I am getting so tired of these."Ottawa must intervene!"How? Be specific. The Canada Health Act doesn't just the federal government swoop in and take over, or give them the power to stop a province doing something you don't like. At most, it lets them claw back funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-17T14:20:41.917Z

The thing is, this is provincial jurisdiction. The federal government can’t just swoop in and overrule them. The Canada Health Act doesn’t work like that. It is a funding agreement that if provinces abide by the five conditions laid out, then they get federal dollars, and if they don’t, those dollars get clawed back. And every year, Health Canada provides a report on provincial compliance and that includes lists of clawbacks, which are dollar-for-dollar what people get charged inappropriately. But that’s the extent of their powers. And in spite of what certain people (and certain journalists most especially) may think, a funding agreement does not make it “shared jurisdiction.” It’s fully provincial jurisdiction, and the federal government has conditions on their funding. That’s it.

So, while the Canadian Health Coalition may keep having press conferences and rallies in Ottawa, it won’t do any good. Their call to action for the federal government on Alberta is basically 1) Conduct a compliance review for Alberta which, again, already happens every year; 2) Urge the Alberta government to “pause implementation” of their legislation; and 3) use the penalties available to them, which again, they already do. Wow. Do what you’re already doing and urge Alberta not do go ahead. Wow. So effective! Meanwhile, the place they’re not rallying day in and day out is in front of the Alberta legislature, and everywhere Danielle Smith goes, even though that’s where the pressure needs to be applied. The federal government is not the provinces’ daddy, and it can’t send bad premiers to bed with no dinner if they misbehave. That’s not how the constitution works, and people need to grow up and hold their own premiers to account.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian attack damaged port and energy infrastructure in Odesa. Russia claims to have taken villages in Sumy and Donetsk, which Ukraine has not confirmed. President Zelenskyy was in London to meet with Keir Starmer about continued support for Ukraine; he also met with the King while there.

https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/2033913628059992551

Continue reading →

Roundup: Longest Ballot Committee is back at it

Posted on by

The losers at the Longest Ballot Committee are back at it, this time targeting the by-election in Terrebonne, because of course they are. Despite the fact that their supposed protest has not garnered them any actual traction to their cause, which tracks, because their means of protest is pretty divorced from the results they’re trying to achieve, which is to convince people that what we really need is proportional representation. Flooding the ballot with names nobody will vote for doesn’t scream “We need PR,” but what do I know? And then, their “longest ballot” turned into the shortest ballot in Battle River—Crowfoot, when it simply became a write-in ballot because it was easier for Elections Canada at that point (even though those ballots take more time to verify).

This being said, we could have had measures to help blunt their attempts when the House of Commons was trying to pass changes to the Canada Elections Act in the previous parliament, and the Chief Electoral Officer had suggestions for how to thwart these losers, but none of it got implemented. Why? The Conservatives, led mostly by the antics of Michael Cooper. The Conservatives decided to fuck around with that bill instead of treating it seriously for a myriad of reasons, some of which included the fact that one of the proposals was to move the “fixed” election date a week later to avoid Diwali, but it also would have put a bunch of MPs (mostly Conservatives) over the line for their pensions, and the Conservatives (and Bloc and NDP) decided that this was a ploy by the Liberals to get their MPs those pensions (again, even though it was mostly the Conservatives who would benefit).

Cooper then spent his time on dilatory motions, such as “reasoned amendments” at second reading to prolong debate, and then once at committee, it was all manner of silly buggers, like “Change the fixed election date to three weeks from now so that the election is before Jagmeet Singh’s pension comes to pass,” and on and on it went, until we had the prorogation for Trudeau’s announced resignation, and the election call once the leadership had passed, before prorogation ended. That meant the bill died, and no changes were made to blunt the losers at the Longest Ballot Committee from doing this over, and over again, no matter that the Conservatives complained when Poilievre was targeted. And so, here we are, with them going at it yet again.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia made a rare daytime drone attack on Kyiv, that included targeting the city’s independence monument. Russia claims to have taken a dozen settlements over the past two weeks, which Ukraine is disputing (as they push Russian lines back).

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/2033471908142789046

Continue reading →

Roundup: Myth-busting the carbon price on diesel

Posted on by

For months, we’ve been hearing the Conservatives blame the industrial carbon price and the clean fuel standard for rising food prices, often citing the so-called “Food Professor” as the source of these claims. They’re hilariously wrong, but just how wrong? Energy economist Andrew Leach does the math, and demonstrates where the “Food Professor” went so wrong. (Some of these are threads, so be sure to click through because they were too long to replicate in this post).

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2033225831443816578

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2033222229048402224

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2033324064933347805

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2033266288559267987

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2033249810875314549

And the longest explainer thread is here:

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2033309960902426664

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2033309985384628491

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched 430 drones and 68 missiles at Ukraine on Saturday, and six people were killed, five of them in Kyiv. President Zelenskyy says that Ukraine wants money and technology in return for the anti-drone assistance they are providing to countries in the Gulf region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to politicize the Order of Canada

Posted on by

Because everything needs to be stupid all of the time, Conservative MP and obnoxious windbag Andrew Lawton started circulating a petition in support of his nomination of Don Cherry to the Order of Canada. The Order of Canada advisory board does not respond to petitions. It is an arm’s-length body chaired by the Chief Justice in order to apolitically weigh the nominations for the Order. I make this point because the honours system in Canada is held by the Crown in order to keep it apolitical (which is one reason why constitutional monarchy is superior). Lawton circulating this petition, which is being signed and championed by members of his caucus, including his leader, is the very definition of politicising these honours for the sake of culture war bullshit—after all, Cherry eventually lost his lucrative CBC gig because of racist commentary.

But because Lawton was so keen to gin up the culture war grift, he inadvertently pissed off members of his own caucus—specifically, most of the Quebec members, who are not fans of Cherry because Cherry also spent his career insulting Quebec and European players, and they are not looking to forgive and forget. And now this is spiralling because culture war grifting is by its very definition stupid and self-defeating. But when your political fundraising is tied to this same grifting complex, is it any wonder that this kind of self-own happens? And will they learn any lessons from this? Of course not.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-13T13:24:01.664Z

Carney-versary

It’s the one-year anniversary of Mark Carney being sworn-in as prime minister, so there are a few retrospectives. The National Post takes stock of what we know and don’t know about him, and the fact that there are still a few mysteries. JDM Stewart enumerates the expectations placed on Carney that he will need to deliver on. Althia Raj talks to 33 sources about that first year in office, and it’s a pretty honest assessment of the trends both good and bad he has demonstrated.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian shelling killed one and wounded six in Dnipropetrovsk region, and an attack in Zaporizhzhia region injured four. President Zelenskyy warned that pausing Russian oil sanctions will only prolong the war.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another call for NEP 2.0

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre has written another letter to the prime minister, this time demanding the creation of a strategic oil reserve like other countries have, never mind that unlike other countries that have said reserves, we are a net exporter and not a net importer (and yes, the US is now a net exporter, but they were not always, which is why they have a strategic reserve). The most ironic thing? This is just one more example of Conservatives demanding a redux of the hated National Energy Programme that Pierre Trudeau tried to launch in the late seventies, after the global oil crisis that happened then.

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2032212730762166778

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2032122736475337196

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2031814419584520455

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2031815720108257417

Of course, part of this has to do with Poilievre’s fantasy notion that such an oil stockpile, along with critical minerals, is going to be how he gets leverage over Trump in trade talks, and that it can be used to bolster allies—but only allies with whom we have tariff-free trade agreements. Never mind that it is unlikely to persuade Trump to abandon tariffs, which he loves. Never mind that he has no plan for how to pay for such a stockpile, and he would need to fund some kind of an oil arbitrage agency. It’s facile, and it’s deeply cynical, particularly because included in this demand are once again the insistence that we abolish environmental laws, because Poilievre has convinced himself that they’re just one big con, and that it’s a bunch of environmental elites somehow profiting off of said laws (because apparently there are no costs to climate change, and it’s all just in our imaginations).

https://twitter.com/coreyhoganyyc/status/2032214070892642460

Meanwhile, the Canadian Climate Institute published a report that says that once the industrial carbon price reaches minimum price of $130 per tonne, that it would effectively add fifty cents to a barrel of oil, in direct contravention to the pronouncements of doom that Poilievre and the Conservatives keep insisting that said price is doing to food prices and the economy. This after certain pundits claimed it would add $20 per barrel, which is of course nonsense.

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2031860654190281176

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2032152971174428885

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian drones hit an oil pumping station in Russia’s Krasnodar region. Ukraine signed a joint defence procurement with Romania, that includes the production of drones.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Return of the security clearance punchline

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre’s lack of a security clearance is becoming a punchline in Question Period once more, which is not really great. In the current context, it’s around the claims that there are some 700 Iranian agents in the country, a figure compiled by a civil society group in 2023, before the IRGC was listed as a terrorist entity, and included people in the country temporarily at the time, but far be it for Poilievre to include any context when he’s trying to stir up a moral panic. We should remember, however, that this is not something that opposition leaders routinely applied for, nor is it something that all MPs need.

There were a bunch of people in my social media replies claiming nonsense like daycare workers needing a clearance when MPs don’t. No. Daycare workers need to undergo background checks. They don’t need access to classified materials, nor do the vast majority of MPs (though there is a place for a group of MPs to be cleared for certain oversight activities). This conflation of what a clearance actually means is not helpful to anyone, and while I know that people like to claim that Poilievre can’t get one and is therefore some kind of security risk, that is also false and is actually disinformation.

Throughout this, prime minister Mark Carney did not help matters by dodging the questions from reporters on Indian foreign interference and transnational repression by saying that his security clearance precluded him from saying anything. Aside from the fact that this is false, it just provided fuel for Poilievre’s bullshit claims that he would be “muzzled.” The only thing that he would be muzzled about is making wildly irresponsible remarks in order to drum up outrage. Knowledge means being more circumspect in his claims, which he doesn’t want. He wants to say bold, dumb things in the House and in the media, because it gets clicks and attention. Clare Blackwood explained it perfectly here.

Because Poilievre's security clearance is once again back as an applause line in #QP, here is @clareblackwood.bsky.social to accurately explain why Poilievre won't get his.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-11T21:35:30.234Z

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian drone strike hit a civilian business in Kharkiv, killing two. Ukrainian military trainers will start preparing Germany to defend against Russian attacks by 2029, reversing the trend of western militaries training Ukraine’s.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Credulous takes on private members’ bills

Posted on by

There have been a few stories over the past few days that have raised my ire, so I’m going to take a few minutes to point a few things out. One of them is this CBC story yesterday about Jenny Kwan’s private member’s bill, and that as many as sixteen Liberals are considering supporting it. My beef: the sub-hed on the story reading “Vote would mark first time some in caucus split from government line under Carney.” Split from the government line? It’s a private member’s bill. Those are free votes by default. That’s the whole point of them. CBC should know better, and frankly, I really don’t like it when the media tries to play party whip while at the same time wishing that MPs were more independent.

The other story yesterday was about Conservative MP Dan Albas’ private member’s bill, which purports to empower Canada Post to deliver alcohol across provincial lines. Most of the stories in various outlets talked about how Dominic LeBlanc appeared to support the bill in Question Period, which he actually did not. What LeBlanc said was that this is an area of provincial regulation (which only the Star’s story mentions), but that he would bring it up when he meets with his provincial counterparts in a few weeks because he thinks it’s a good idea. And more to the point, this bill is a gimmick, which Albas and Pierre Poilievre insist overrides provincial regulation, but it actually doesn’t because, and just puts Canada Post in a bind. It would be great if any story could point that fact out, or talked to a lawyer, but nope, they focused on LeBlanc’s answer in QP, and even then couldn’t get the nuance right.

The third is a story from CBC on Monday, which was very concerned that a lot of bills are passing “on division,” meaning without a vote. The problem was the initial sub-hed on the story which stated “Half the bills passed in the House this session have cleared 3rd reading without a head count or consensus,” which is wrong, because “on division” is consensus you don’t need a vote—the “or consensus” was later dropped from the sub-hed. Of course, the real reason is that the Conservatives don’t want to go to an election, so they’re not going to force a vote and have Andrew Scheer and Scott Reid hide behind the curtains again to ensure that the math is right and that they won’t accidentally do something stupid with the vote counts given how everything is so close, but the person you reached as your source for your explainer is Peter Van Loan? Possibly the worst Government House Leader in decades (which is saying a lot)? It came across as amateurish, and like CBC’s parliamentary bureau has a hard time understanding how parliament works, which is not a good look.

When your parliamentary bureau doesn't understand parliament, dumb things happen.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-09T13:50:45.982Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-10T21:22:01.632Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia dropped three guided bombs on Sloviansk in the east, and hit Kharkiv and Dnipro with drones, injuring another twenty people. Ukrainian forces have pushed Russian invaders out of Dnipropetrovsk region, while Russia claims to be making gains in Donbas. Ukraine hit a missile plant in Bryansk region in Russia.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Absent from the Iran debate

Posted on by

The inevitable spike in gas prices from the conflict in Iran triggered a bunch of stupidity yesterday, mostly from the Conservatives. While François-Philippe Champagne talked about meeting with his G7 counterparts about releasing part of their petroleum stockpiles to stabilise prices (note: Canada doesn’t have a petroleum stockpile, because, well, we can just pump more from the ground), the Conservatives’ solution was the same solution to every other problem—gut environmental regulations, starting with clean fuel regulations and the industrial carbon price, none of which will have a meaningful effect on prices and will do more damage in the long term, but when you have only one policy hammer, everything looks like a nail.

And then there was the take-note debate on the conflict. Even before it started, there was a bunch of chiding from opposition parties because Carney did not plan to attend of speak, because he apparently dismissed it because it’s merely a take-note debate, never mind that he has yet to address parliamentarians about his shifting positions on the conflict, and he wasn’t in Question Period yesterday, nor will he be there today, so again, his ability to be held to account for his shifting has not yet happened. Instead, Anita Anand got to stand up and deliver his current position on the conflict (“no blank cheque!”).

But the Conservatives have not only decided that they are fully in support of regime change (just ignore that nothing the US is doing will actually produce regime change, that the only real change to the regime they want is for a pliable puppet to lead it on their behalf, and that there are no current coherent opposition groups or civil society organisations that can take charge in place of the regime), but they also want to make this about Trudeau’s immigration policies. That’s right—they have declared that Trudeau’s “open borders” meant that plenty of Iranian regime members came flooding into Canada. Oh, and they’re also being blamed for shooting up synagogues in Toronto. But there never was an “open border” under Trudeau, the members of the regime were barred from the country, and there is a process to deport those who came into Canada to find that their visas had been denied. It just takes time because we are also a country that respects due process and the rule of law. But the Conservatives want to bay for deportation, because Maple MAGA, apparently. It’s all so stupid, and it would be great if The Canadian Press didn’t just ignore this whole facet of their argument because it’s inconvenient.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-09T22:08:01.495Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched another attack on an apartment block in Kharkiv, this time injuring six people including a small child.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ending a filibuster and starting the Iran debate

Posted on by

Two big things are up today in the House of Commons. First is a programming motion that would end the filibuster on Bill C-9, which is the hate crime bill that the Conservatives have been stalling on because the government agreed with the Bloc to remove the religious exemption to hate crimes. This has caused all sorts of howls, particularly from certain members of the Conservative backbench who are experienced propagandists, who claim that this is going to criminalise religious worship and that prosecutors will be combing the Bible to come after Christians, as though police have the time and resources to do that (as police are the ones responsible for laying hate crime charges—and are frequently the ones who don’t, even when merited). It’s stupid, it’s misleading, it’s dishonest, and the government has had enough, so they’re going to put their foot down and they will have the votes to pass this motion.

Yes, C-9 is a bill that is mostly just empty symbolism, and while civil liberties groups have their concerns that it could be used to criminalise legitimate protests, I would say that the bigger issue—the hate crimes that this is supposed to address—remain in the same position of waiting on police action or inaction. You can pass all the hate crime legislation you want, but if police don’t bother to investigate or lay charges (because most police do have a certain ideological bias), then it’s all for naught.

The other thing that will be coming up today will be a debate on the conflict in Iran, which will take place during the evening. The Government House Leader signalled this before needing to wait on the opposition parties to move anything in the Chamber, for all the good this is going to do. I’m sure the world is waiting with baited breath for MPs to read twenty-minute speeches into the records about how this violates international law (NDP, Bloc), that it’s great that the Supreme Leader was killed and how the Iran regime needs to be destroyed—completely ignoring that the Americans have no plan and will only make things worse (Conservatives), or just praising Mark Carney’s “leadership” and “pragmatism” (Liberals).

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile struck an apartment building in Kharkiv early Saturday, killing ten people. President Zelenskyy says that Ukraine is discussing joint arms production with the Netherlands for interceptor drones.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Making Canada work…by inventing grievances

Posted on by

Paul Wells had a lengthy interview with Danielle Smith yesterday, and let me tell you, it is just exhausting to wade through the volume of bullshit that she is flooding it with. Lots of numbers that she has pulled out of her ass, tonnes of scapegoating, revisionist history, and so, so many strawmen that she keeps fighting in order to make Alberta look like the victim. Much of what Wells had to ask her about was her plans with those nine referendums, and the possibility of at least a couple of more questions in addition, but he never really challenged her on the fundamental basis of what she was doing.

Re: Danielle Smith

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-06T05:26:00.334Z

Referendums are a way for governments to bypass parliament or the legislature, and to manufacture consent for whatever issue they’re putting forward. They control the questions and the interpretation of the answers, so they manipulate the process from start to finish. Most of the time that works out for them, because they can successfully manipulate it to suit their purposes, but sometimes it gets away from them, such as Brexit, and a giant clusterfuck was created because David Cameron was too chickenshit to stand up to the xenophobes in his own party. In this particular case, Danielle Smith is looking to manufacture consent to both engage in further scapegoating of immigrants and asylum seekers (and believe me, there is a portion of the Alberta population who will take the permission that she has granted to them and target those newcomers), but to also manufacture consent for her to continue to engage in grievance-mongering to the detriment of everyone, in Alberta or in Canada.

Smith keeps insisting that she’s trying to make people confident that Canada can work, but it’s really hard to believe her when she keeps inventing new grievances to be mad about, and then engages in an effort to make everyone else mad about them (such as through these referendum questions) even though there is no actual basis for these grievances. And being a crybaby because your preferred party didn’t win the federal election is not a legitimate grievance, and should not be ginned up as one. That said, Alberta has largely been a one-party state for more than 40 years, so it’s hard for them to understand what it’s like to actually lose an election and not consider it illegitimate. And what is most frustrating is that precious few people actually call Smith (or her predecessors) out for inventing these grievances. It’s bullshit, and it needs to be called out as such, particularly from Albertans because being force-fed these fake grievances has done a number on their psyche, and it hurts all of us as a result.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-06T23:56:01.450Z

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy visited the eastern front lines, as the second day or prisoner exchanges concluded with a total of 500 swapped over both days.

Continue reading →