Roundup: Dabrusin does damage control

Posted on by
Reply

There is some damage control happening, as environment minister Julie Dabrusin is making the rounds on the weekend political talk shows to insist that the MOU with Alberta is not abandoning climate action, and that the clean electricity regulations, for example, are not being carved out, but given more flexibility for each province to come up with equivalency plans. That might be more believable if Danielle Smith wasn’t doing a victory lap claiming that it was being scrapped (after she lied about what it entailed for the past several years).

Meanwhile, I have to question the editor who let this particular CBC headline run over the weekend: “Do activists have a role in government? Steven Guilbeault’s resignation raises questions.” Seriously? Activism is the lifeblood of politics, and that includes roles within government (meaning Cabinet). We don’t live in a technocratic state where bureaucrats are governing and making policy decisions. Activism is what gets people involved, precisely because they have issues that they care about and want to make change. That’s part and parcel of the system.

What this winds up doing is trying to paint Guilbeault as some kind of zealot unable to make compromises, which is again, something that is not borne out by the facts. Guilbeault ran for the Liberals federally after the Trans Mountain decision. He was very much seen as a pragmatist within the environmental movement. The piece mentions that he was first given the heritage portfolio and wasn’t immediately slotted into environment, but that was also something Trudeau started doing more broadly, to give someone somewhere to get their training wheels on and learn how to deal with how government works before giving them the portfolio from their previous career, because it didn’t always go well from his first Cabinet when he tried to simply slot subject-matter expertise into Cabinet roles where they may wind up being captured, or simply not suited in spite of all appearances (*cough*Jody Wilson-Raybould*cough*). The whole piece is just poorly conceived and written, and someone should have exercised more editorial oversight.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched nearly 600 drones and 36 missiles at Ukraine overnight Saturday, killing six and wounding dozens, while knocking out electricity to much of Kyiv. Ukrainian naval drones struck two Russian tankers as part of their “shadow fleet” used to evade sanctions. Reuters tracked a cohort of 18-24-year-olds fighting in Ukraine; none of them are fighting any longer.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1995035870307483725

Continue reading →

Roundup: The details behind Guilbeault’s exit

Posted on by

If there’s a story you need to read this weekend, it’s Althia Raj’s look behind the scenes on how Steven Guilbeault’s resignation went down. It’s a tale of deception, freezing Guilbeault out during the process, undermining all of the work on climate action that had been done on this point, creating special carve-outs for Alberta that will piss off every other province, and breaking the word that had been given to Elizabeth May in order to secure her support. And then, they wanted Guilbeault to say some bullshit thing like he was “putting them on notice” until April or something like that, and it was untenable for him to stay, so he resigned. It was complete amateur hour. And Carney undermining his word is a very big problem, particularly because when he was a central banker, his word needed to be believed in order for it to have power. That’s why central bankers need to be ruthlessly apolitical, so that they don’t have the appearance of making calls for partisan benefit. Carney has undermined his credibility entirely because he has shown that his word now means nothing.

This point is disturbing: Guilbeault "was also deeply troubled by the ease with which the PMO was casting aside its moral obligation to May. What was the Liberals’ word worth?"Mark Carney seems to have forgotten the first rule of central banking: Your word, your credibility, is all.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2025-11-29T02:23:29.613Z

There are some particular threads in here that should be unpacked, which is that the motivation for this whole exercise seems to have been that they felt it “necessary for Canadian unity and to combat separatism in Alberta.” This doesn’t achieve that at all. It weakens unity because it gives Alberta special treatment that includes a lower carbon price and an exemption from other emission regulations that no other province gets, which makes it look an awful lot like they got it because the whined the loudest (and they’re not wrong). And it will do nothing about separatism because it fundamentally misunderstands it. It’s not about “unfair treatment,” because that was never the case—it was about a culture of grievance.

Albertans have been force-fed grievance porn for decades, like a goose being fattened for fois gras.You'll never guess what happens next…

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-28T22:43:39.019Z

To that end, Danielle Smith is at the UCP annual general meeting this weekend, and when she crowed to the crowd about all the things she secured from Carney—she got him to bend the knee, give her everything she wants, and she has to give up pretty much nothing in exchange—they booed her. Nothing any government will do will actually satisfy them, because they don’t know how to process success. They have been force-fed grievances by successive premiers as a way of distracting from their failures and the fact that they have tied themselves to the external forces of world oil prices, and it’s not giving them unlimited wealth anymore. They don’t have the same future they hoped for because world oil prices never recovered after 2014, and the industry is increasing productivity, laying off workers while increasing production. They’re angry about that, and they’ve been conditioned to blame Ottawa, ever since the 1980s when they blamed the National Energy Programme for a global collapse in oil prices, and they’ve been blaming Ottawa and anyone named Trudeau ever since. Jason Kenney in particular threw gasoline on that fire, and then pretended like he wanted to put it out by pouring a glass of water on that fire and patted himself on the back for it, and then Danielle Smith came in with a brand-new box of matches. There is no satisfying them, and Carney was a fool for thinking he could swoop in and be the hero. Now he’s alienating voters in BC and Quebec where he can’t afford to lose seats, for no gain in Alberta of Saskatchewan. He didn’t outplay Danielle Smith—he capitulated, and got nothing in return, just like every time he has capitulated to Trump.

Danielle Smith gets booed at UCP convention after mentioning working with Canada

— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson.bsky.social) 2025-11-28T22:17:35.805Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones and missiles attacked Kyiv overnight, killing at least one and injuring at least eleven. Ukrainian forces are still fighting in Kupiansk, in spite of Russian claims that they control the settlement. President Zelenskyy says that his chief of staff has resigned over the ongoing corruption investigations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The MOU and a resignation

Posted on by

Prime Minister Mark Carney and Danielle Smith signed that MOU which will set up the conditions for Alberta to set up a process to build a bitumen pipeline to the coast where the tanker ban would be eviscerated, while also giving them a bunch of exemptions to other emissions reductions regulations, and the promise on Alberta’s part is to reduce emission intensity—meaning as they produce more, emissions are still increasing, just by a smaller amount in theory, though I certainly believe that intensity reductions in the oilsands flatlined a while ago. It also means that this relies even more on Pathways, which is expensive and is going to keep demanding money, and I have no confidence that Carney’s government will resist the calls to subsidise it directly. David Eby went on to refer to this future pipeline as an “energy vampire,” while coastal First Nations continue to insist it’ll never happen. And then Steven Guilbeault resigned from Cabinet, because this goes against everything he has been fighting for his entire life, and his time in office, while other MPs in his caucus are increasingly angry about how they are being treated over this issue.

https://bsky.app/profile/supriya.bsky.social/post/3m6ngogmhqs2x

In the midst of this, Andrew Leach has been reminding us about the real history of Northern Gateway, not the sanitized and revisionist version that the Conservatives have been promoting, and the fact that their constant demands that the government “get out of the way” didn’t seem to apply to the entirety of the Harper government, as the project started under the Martin government, and ultimately failed at the end of Harper’s tenure, when his government couldn’t even be arsed to follow their own process for Indigenous consultation.

In pundit reaction, Jason Markusoff notes that this agreement will do little to mollify the separatists in Danielle Smith’s base when her leadership review comes up. Andrew Coyne sees this as a shift in Canadian politics back toward building things, and capturing the political centre. Stephen Maher wonders just how politically canny Carney really is, considering the traps for himself that this agreement sets.

No it fucking won't. They've been gorging themselves on grievance porn for decades now. Nothing any government does is going to calm them.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-28T03:30:10.597Z

Danielle Smith Celebrates Her Glorious Pipeline Victoryyoutu.be/GVk54cla9zw

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2025-11-27T21:13:16.340Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Putin claims that Russian forces have surrounded Pokrovsk, while Ukraine contends that the fighting continues in the city centre, and that they are pushing back hard. He also says it’s no use signing an agreement with “illegitimate” Ukrainian leadership (because he really wants peace, you guys).

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1994013852753702989

Continue reading →

QP: The MOU and the stilted scripts praising it

Posted on by

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 →