MPs increasingly relying on digital asbestos

Posted on by

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 →

QP: Demanding an emergency diesel plan

Posted on by

The PM was present today, unusually for both a Thursday and a second day in a week, while he took a break from entertaining the president of Vietnam. Pierre Poilievre led off, and noted the death of a civil servant, and invited the prime minister to share condolences, and Mark Carney did, and hoped that the perpetrator would be caught.

Poilievre then turned to French to decry the rising cost of diesel, and demanded the government cut taxes and costs to bring the price down. Carney noted that it is a difficult situation, and noted that this is a result of the wars in Iran and Ukraine, and that the government has responded by cutting the gas excise tax and giving help to households who need it. Poilievre switched back to English to decry a full “diesel price crisis,” and dismissed that this was because of “foreign factors,” and demanded the government do more. Carney noted that they had cut the excise tax and then stated that they are working with refiners to increase supply. Poilievre complained that diesel is more expensive in Canada than elsewhere, and Carney reminded him that the provinces put their own taxes on diesel and gasoline, and that was a difference between Canada and the US, and then said that the Build Canada Act could help build new refineries. (No, that is never going to happen). Poilievre demanded other taxes be cut to lower prices, and Carney hit back by intimidating that Poilievre has been here twenty years and done nothing while he has done a lot in a little over a year. Poilievre demanded an emergency diesel price reduction plan, and Carney reminded him that they need to pass C-38 on fuel excise taxes. Poilievre repeated the demand in French, and Carney said that it’s not the federal government’s job to remove provincial taxes, and patted himself on the back for major project legislation. 

Carney says that the Build Canada Act could see a new diesel refinery built. Oh, no. No, no, no. Nobody is going to build a new refinery and he should know that. #QP cc @aleach.ca

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-09-24T18:33:36.680Z

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he decried the “special economic zone” portions of Bill C-39, which would intrude on provincial jurisdiction. Carney denied this, and said the bill was about more efficient reviews so they are done under a year. Blanchet wanted an amendment to the bill to affirm provincial jurisdiction, and Carney insisted this was solely about federal regulations, and they have agreements with six provinces to use their provincial assessment tools. Blanchet worried that this could suspend the rule of law or sidestep the constitution to benefit foreign corporate inserts, and Carney again accused him of dreaming this up.

Continue reading →

Opposing Alberta separatism is inconvenient for many Conservatives

Posted on by

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 →

QP: Disingenuous questions about parole

Posted on by

The PM was wrapping up his trip to the UN, while Pierre Poilievre was again absent. Melissa Lantsman led off, and quote a National Payroll Institute study about people using their entire income on expenses, to which François-Philippe Champagne insisted that they have acted for Canadians, with new housing programmes, the enhanced GST credit, and extending the excise fuel tax exemption. Lantsman insisted that if the government’s plans worked, then they wouldn’t have these stories, before she recited the story of a totally real constituent. Champagne responded by listing benefit programmes that help people, which the Conservatives voted against. Sandra Cobena took over, and she quoted a downgraded OECD report on reduced growth expectations, and also gave a constituent sob story. Champagne was shocked that she would talk the economy down, and listed off good news talking points. Cobena insisted that the Liberals were driving the economy down and listed projects with timelines that were a decade out (because you can deliver a major project overnight). Tim Hodgson listed projects currently underway and how many jobs they were generating. Luc Berthold took over in French, and he read his own script that said the very same quotes of the payroll report. Champagne reiterated his first response about the three major actions they have taken to help Canadians. Berthold recited a sob story from “Jessie” in Quebec Centre, and Joël Lightbound asked how he explains to “Jessie” how he voted against programmes that help people like her.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, even though Yves-François Blanchet was present, and she decried the latest omnibus bill, and in particular noted the “special economic zone” portion of the bill. Steven MacKinnon grumbled that she was ignoring the work the government was doing, and raised the Churchill Falls agreement as an example. Normandin asked about ports privatisation, and he insisted that wasn’t happening. Jean-Denis Garon took over to denounce that the Quebec government was not consulted on a tax cut that would hurt the province’s finances, and Champagne insisted they provided breathing room for Quebec businesses.

Continue reading →

The most cynical of election calls

Posted on by

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.

https://twitter.com/vancolour/status/2102409115696054670

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

Continue reading →

QP: Totally true stories about very real constitutents

Posted on by

The PM was off to New York, while Pierre Poilievre was also absent. That led Pierre Paul-Hus to lead off in French, and he touted the supposed Conservative Economic Action Plan™, and demanded that the government adopt it. François-Philippe Champagne responded by listing off the second quarter growth numbers from other G7 countries, and the fact that Canada was at the top of the list. Paul-Hus said that this wouldn’t help affordability, and Champagne insisted that they are taking action, and demanded the opposition support their bill to formally lower the gas excise tax. Melissa Lantsman took over in English to read a couple of sob stories before demanding the government adopt their plan. Champagne trotted out the “take no lessons” line before again exhorting them to support the gas tax bill. Lantsman claimed that the Conservatives identified $150 billion in wasteful spending, and Champagne retorted by wondering why the Conservatives voted against affordability measures. John Brassard then got up, and read more sob stories, but in a sanctimonious tone, and this time, Gregor Robertson got up to tout that rental costs have come down and they are helping with the rental housing boom. Brassard tried again, and Robertson praised the enhanced GST credit. 

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and denounced the omnibus bill tabled yesterday as destroying what was built around labour and the environment. Dominic LeBlanc dismissed this as exaggeration while the country is in crisis. Blanchet tried again, and took a swipe at the Liberals for their swing between what they supported under Trudeau versus Carney, to which Steven MacKinnon shrugged this off, and dismissively said that they would have a chance to debate this. Blanchet worried that all climate measures are being scrapped and handed over to American-owned oil companies. LeBlanc listed Quebec projects the government is supporting.

Continue reading →

An omnibus bill to burn down their goodwill

Posted on by

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.

https://bsky.app/profile/blakeshaffer.bsky.social/post/3mw2fezlrts2y

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 →

QP: Back in the saddle for another fall sitting

Posted on by

The first day back from summer break, and the PM graced us with his presence for the only time in the next two weeks, before he jets off to New York. Pierre Poilievre led off by asking about the shooting at the Belleville synagogue last night, and asked for “prayers and love” for the Jewish community and the injured contestable, and a condemnation of violence. Mark Carney, haltingly, with Shatner commas, offered thoughts and prayers for the officer, the community, and condemned all forms of violence. Poilievre turned to French, and spoke to the camera about the Conservatives “fighting for you,” before turning to Carney to accuse him of increasing inflation by “doubling deficits.” Carney, in French, said that they would work “tooth and nail” to make lives more affordable and listed tax cuts they have undertaken, and benefits they have enhanced. Poilievre switched to English to do the exact same thing, and Carney this time staged when the next benefits cheque is coming and listed things Poilievre voted against. Poilievre relayed a sob story from a constituent that was totally real about how hard she has it, and Carney noted that there are three wars affecting how much Canadians pay, before repeating when the next benefit cheque is released. Poilievre then spouted a tonne of bullshit about supposed “Liberal taxes” and Carney listed how those items don’t affect prices. Poilievre then read another sob story from “Justin” and Carney said that the government is working for the “Justins and Justines” around the country, and patted himself on the back for trade talks. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he suggested the government bring back the digital services tax so that the web giants can pay their fair share. Carney, en français, patted himself of the back for the highest contributions in history, and that they don’t need new taxes that would hurt Canadians. Blanchet disputed this, and in the interests of working with Europe, wanted the same tax. Carney simply said no. Blanchet again called for these taxes on web giants, who are richer than some countries, and Carney said it was the Americans who failed to bring constraints on the French language and culture while his government protects them.

Continue reading →

A future alliance whose shape requires negotiation

Posted on by

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

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 →