Roundup: Naïve assumptions about the energy transition

Posted on by

There were a couple of longreads over the weekend that are worth your time when it comes to understanding where we are at with the current government. The first was a deep dive into Carney’s past climate “leadership,” from his time at central banks to the UN, and a pattern emerges throughout where much of this “leadership” was fairly surface-level. Scratch the surface, and you find a lot of on naïve assumptions around a market response to the clean energy transition, coupled with some arrogant beliefs that he was right and no one could tell him otherwise (as those companies he was touting were also heavily invested in fossil fuels). In the time since, we have all watched as Carney has systematically betrayed that former climate leadership, and continues to rely on a “just trust me” approach to that clean energy transition as he breaks his word with little regard.

The second longread was in the Globe & Mail about Tim Hodgson and his adjustment going from banker CEO to Cabinet minister, with his belief that government bureaucrats are essentially lazy and stupid, and needing to learn how to be politically sensitive to the realities that he has little patience for as he looks to secure deals as quickly as possible. Along the way, he is learning that things don’t work like that, and that there are plenty of other considerations that he continues to ignore, like obligations regarding First Nations. And how he continues to alienate the actual clean energy people in his own department, along with the part of the Liberal caucus that actually care about climate change, because hey, he needs to be Mr. Business. This is what “running government like a company” is bringing, and it comes with a hell of a lot of ideological blind spots, while they insist that they’re not being ideological.

As well, in year-enders, Carney has been criticising the Trudeau approach to climate change as “too much regulation, not enough action,” which goes back to his particular assumptions about the market and why the government wasn’t able to rely on carbon pricing alone to achieve its goals, Oh, and he’s still completely sold on the belief that carbon capture is the route to go, even though it only captures a fraction of the emissions from the production process (and none of the downstream uses), so the math doesn’t even work there. He also talks about “guardrails” in dealing with China, but considering there has been no hint of that with India, I’m not holding my breath.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-20T15:08:01.975Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Following more Russian airstrikes and bombings in the Odesa region, president Zelenskyy says that Russia is trying to cut off Ukraine’s Black Sea access. Russian forces have crossed the border in Sumy region and kidnapped 50 villagers. Ukraine has signed an agreement with Portugal go co-produce sea drones. Here is a look at a Ukrainian artist who is reflecting the war through his collection and work.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Lessons learned for the NDP?

Posted on by

NDP interim leader Don Davies have his year-ender to The Canadian Press, talking about getting out to listen to Canadians, and reflect on the party’s devastating loss, and joking that the best part about being burnt to the ground is the ability to rebuild the foundation. And he’s not entirely wrong there, so long as he’s taking the right lessons. But in the same interview, he’s waxing poetic about pharamacare without actually seeming to understand what the issues are (i.e. the provinces), and totally ignoring the work that Trudeau did into building up the programme from the ground up (such as establishing the Canadian Drug Agency) so that provinces could sign on once they were ready, as PEI did (and NDP provinces refused to, particularly BC and John Horgan most especially).

On the same day, the NDP’s Renew and Renewal Report from the last campaign was also released, and it has a few interesting things to say. Once you get past the usual back-patting about how hard everyone worked and how it didn’t feel like it was doomed, and how the leader’s campaign went well, you start getting into some of the structural problems within the party that really do need addressing. Things like the sense that there is an allergy to fundraising in the party, and that nobody wants to actually do it, which doesn’t really help anyone (but also perpetuates the weirdness that bequests from the estates of dead people are one of the party’s top fundraising sources). And there was also a lot in there about the party not properly developing riding associations, and relying too heavily on the central party at the expense of those associations. And to be frank, this should have been a lesson the party internalized after they got nearly entirely wiped out from Quebec in 2015, because they didn’t build up their riding associations during the “Orange Wave,” but assumed that somehow those MPs would have incumbency advantage forever when they didn’t really establish grassroots after all of those accidental victories.

The other thing that is worth noting is that once again, it draws American examples for inspiration, and again it’s Zohran Mamdani. I suspect the reason for this is that too many people in the NDP’s brain trust are terminally online, and as with so many things, the American discourse pervades and they simply think that it can apply to Canada if you divide it by ten, even though we are very separate countries and that we are not just a maple cupcake version of Americana. I’m also going to note that the report said pretty much nothing about the NDP constantly trying to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction (particularly with their “bold progressive ideas”), because again, their American analogues don’t translate to Canada in the same way, but this was apparently an area of introspection they didn’t want to engage in. Alas.

This reminds me of something I've been wondering about. Given the various examples of the NDP being the government or official opposition at the provincial level, I'm not sure why federal New Democrats so often — or so recently? — look to the U.S. for inspiration.

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-12-19T21:14:07.891Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-19T14:24:03.406Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched another missile attack on Odesa, killing seven and wounding at least 15 late Friday. There was an exchange of bodies by both governments—1003 dead Ukrainian servicemen for the bodies of 26 Russians. Ukraine and Poland are working out a cooperation agreement around drones.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Shrugging off the trade irritant list

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney made remarks on the trade situation with the US yesterday, saying that the timelines being what they are, hope for any sectoral tariff deals will likely be rolled into the broader New NAFTA review taking place next year, in spite of the fact that we had apparently been close to a deal before they got blown up by the Reagan ads (though one should contend that it is more than likely that if it wasn’t the ads, something else would have been used as justification to call off the talks, because this is Trump exercising the so-called “art of the deal.”)

Carney was somewhat dismissive of the capitulation list that the US Trade Representative has laid out, and insisted that this was really nothing, that there are dozens of irritants on all sides, but made the promise again to protect Supply Management, because reasons. This being said, there has been commentary that within the existing market cap there could be better efforts for US dairy access, because of how the supply management system works in that only certain producers are allowed to hold the quotas for imports, and if they want to make it difficult, then the market cap doesn’t get reached. This has long been a complaint for Europe, because frankly, the Canadian system is designed with fuckery in mind. Fixing that might help alleviate some of the complaints, but it would take political will to actually do that (though I’m not sure just what American dairy we would be so eager to import, given that their cheese is nothing special compared to Europe or the UK).

Nevertheless, I am most especially worried about the Online Streaming Act and Online News Act complaints from the Americans, and that Carney would be tempted to dump those as capitulation for the sake of “continuing negotiations” like he did with the Digital Services Tax. The problem here is that Trump is going to bat for the tech broligarchy because they have pledged their fealty to him and offered him up large bribes, so he is bullying other countries on their behalf because they don’t want to be regulated. The fact that these specific complaints continue to be treated as trade irritants and not just tech bros being whinging babies is a problem, and will continue to be a problem so long as they remain his loyal backers.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian shelling near Odesa has killed one person, and hit power systems. This comes after an attack on power systems in five regions the night before. European countries have agreed on another €90 billion loan for Ukraine, putting off the question of frozen Russian assets once again. Here is a look at Russia’s hybrid warfare sabotage operations across Europe, designed to distract and overwhelm those country’s resources.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More bespoke agreements that undermine certainty

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney is set to sign an agreement with Doug Ford about “reducing the regulatory burden” for major projects in the province, again with the “one project, one review” line (which I have reservations about as I mentioned yesterday). Ford is keen to use this to develop the “Ring of Fire” region, in spite of the fact that a) there are much more accessible critical mineral projects that could be more easily developed, and b) they have yet to get most of the First Nations in the region to agree, mostly because they are looking for revenue-sharing agreements because they have been burned by proponents who promised them all kinds of things for previous developments and didn’t live up to their agreements. Funny that.

As Andrew Leach points out, this pattern of bespoke deals with provinces is going to wind up being a bigger problem than it winds up solving because there won’t be consistent rules across the country, and inconsistent rules and malleable agreements mean regulatory uncertainty, particularly because they are likely to change further as governments change on either level of government. Letting Alberta undermine federal standards as part of the MOU was a prime example of just that (not that Alberta plans to live up to their end of the agreement).

Meanwhile, here’s a callout about the things the oil and gas industry likes to promise before reneging because it will cost them too much money, such as with the methane regulations that were announced yesterday. Funny that.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-17T14:25:03.817Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia has attacked Zaporizhzhia, injuring at least 26 people. Ukraine reports that they control over 90 percent of Kupiansk, which Russia claimed to have conquered weeks ago. President Zelenskyy says that any territorial concessions would need to be put to a referendum (which would fail).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Methane regulations, and Alberta’s exceptions

Posted on by

There were some movements on the environment front today, as Mark Carney admitted to a Radio-Canada year-end interview that we’re not on track for either our 2030 or 2035 emissions targets (we knew 2030), but tried to make the case that they need to find climate solutions in the current economic climate, which seems to go against what they’re actually doing, by eliminating the consumer carbon levy, weakening or outright undermining the industrial carbon price, and weakening emissions to make it easier for the oil and gas sector to produce and export more, which isn’t going to bring in billions because there is a supply glut on the market that will keep depressing prices. Meanwhile, the costs of climate change continue to increase, and will get even more expensive the longer we delay action.

With this in mind, Julie Dabrusin announced new methane regulations with the aim to reduce them by 75 percent over 2014 levels by 2035, which is great—except if you’re Alberta. You see, part of the MOU with Alberta means that the methane regulations that Carney and Dabrusin keep patting themselves on the back for don’t have to reach their targets until 2040, which means weaker regulations and longer timelines so that they can pollute more for longer because the industry whinged and cried that it wasn’t fair they had to spend more money.

Meanwhile, the federal government has signed a “one project, one review” agreement with New Brunswick, which sounds fine in theory, but the thing that I keep getting hung up on in competencies. Everyone keeps saying they don’t need two reviews because it’s “duplication,” but each level is assessing different things, because each of them has specific competencies, such as species at risk (provincial), fish habitats or migratory birds (federal), site contamination (provincial—unless it crosses a border), and so on. And there were already provisions for joint review panels, so again, I’m not sure what this is all about other than reducing the actual oversight because it would seem to be ensuring that less rigorous assessments are done than with a joint review panel, particularly if the provincial assessors are supposed to be assessing federal areas of responsibility, which they may not have the expertise in.

Ukraine Dispatch

Europe has launched an international commission for war damages in the invasion of Ukraine. The Kremlin says a proposed Christmas ceasefire depends on the status of peace talks (which essentially means it’s not going to happen).

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/2000830874183712972

Continue reading →

Roundup: Getting played by your leakers

Posted on by

The Department of National Defence is investigating the leak of selective information by F-35 proponents that made that fighter look like a clear winner in the competition with the SAAB Gripen-E fighter, and the journalists who accepted the leak and wrote that story is getting a bit huffy about it. His story on the investigation quotes a Quebec journalists’ union about how important it is that journalists “do their work freely,” and that such a big purchase deserves scrutiny. This kind of self-righteousness is not unexpected.

That said, he also quoted security expert Wesley Wark who basically took him to the woodshed because the leak was quite obviously propaganda as it was selective, they didn’t provide information on the criteria that the scores were based on (just that it looked like the F-35s were the clear winner with no actual context), and this should have been completely obvious as part of the original story. It’s no secret that there is a cadre within the Canadian Forces that is heavily invested in acquiring as much American military tech as possible, in part because they operate so closely with American forces, but also because they are socialised into believing that it’s the very best and they want the very best, so they have been doing everything they can to manipulate the purchase of these fighters from the very beginning, starting with the Harper government who credulously just said “okay, we’ll sole-source it” on the military’s recommendation in the first instance, before it turned into something of a scandal because of the escalating price tag. (This is not how you do civilian control, guys). These same military folks seem to think that the Americans will never turn on us, and that Trump’s threats are not to be taken seriously.

I should be surprised—but really, I’m not—that the journalist in question allowed himself to be played like this, and clearly it did the job the leakers wanted because you had a bunch of pundits take the story to proclaim that the F-35 is the fighter for Canada, hands-down. That’s ultimately why I find the self-righteous response to a leak investigation to be…funny? Sad? Either way, I’m not a defence expert, but I do read and I do talk to people a lot, and I could see clearly that what got leaked was a frame-up job, and the journalist who wrote the original piece should have seen that as well, and done a better job of canvassing dissent to the leak rather than seeking out sources to confirm what the leakers were selling. But he didn’t, and so he got the head of a journalists’ union to get self-righteous on his behalf. It’s not great for the trust in the institution of journalism if we let ourselves get played like this.

Ukraine Dispatch

An underwater Ukrainian drone struck and disabled a Russian submarine docked at a Black Sea naval base (though Russia denies this). European leaders are meeting in The Hague to launch an International Claims Commission to compensate Ukraine for hundreds of billions of dollars in damages from Russia’s attacks and war crimes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Speaker hypothetical

Posted on by

It looks like NDP interim leader Don Davies may have been done dirty by CTV News over the weekend as their headline suggested that his “party ‘open’ to Speaker of the House role in exchange for resources.” While the text of the story presents this as a proposal that no one has actually discussed, the fact that this is the headline from an interview on CTV Question Period makes it sound like this was somehow being floated. It was not.

Instead, in the interview, he was asked about his scenario as a hypothetical for him to weigh in on, given that it could give the Liberals one more vote in order to be an effective majority, and he said he’d be open to it, as the discussion around official party status was now closed (which was not what he was telling the Star a week ago, but perhaps those illusions have since been shattered) but he’s still trying to get additional resources, never mind that it’s not like his party needs them for caucus management or committee research or anything like that.

This is an object lesson in why politicians don’t like to answer hypothetical questions—because they get blown up like this, and to be frank, it feels like that kind of question is borderline, if not outright, irresponsible. And sure, Davies could have simply said “I’m not going to answer hypotheticals like that,” and probably will going forward, but asking these kinds of hypotheticals also doesn’t get you very useful answers in journalism either, and so you’ve built an entire story around this this hypothetical scenario that is outright delusional. Nobody came out ahead here, especially the readers, so I fail to see the point.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-12T23:56:01.838Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Odesa suffered further attacks on Saturday, leading to a major blackout.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More defection talk swirling

Posted on by

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

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3m7tbupdrrs2p

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

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

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

Ukraine Dispatch

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

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1999435026300076425

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ignoring the true meaning of the Statute of Westminster

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

Nothing about the Crown of Canada.

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

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

Another floor-crossing

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

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

Well. That happened.

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

Ukraine Dispatch

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

Continue reading →

QP: Like ABBA Gold, but worse

Posted on by

For what promised to be the final QP of 2025 (for real this time!), the PM was once again absent in spite of being in town. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and after claiming that his was the party of “hope,” he denounced the “hidden taxes” increasing the cost of food and demanded they be repealed. Steve MacKinnon replied that nobody calls the Conservatives the party of hope, but we wishes them a Merry Christmas all the same, and then reminded him that these taxes don’t exist. Poilievre took a swipe at Mark Carney’s absence, got his question taken away by the Speaker, and then he claimed the Liberals were blocking the attempts to pass crime bills. MacKinnon pointed out that the Conservatives have been the ones blocking except for the final day when they suddenly decided to want to move them ahead. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question on imaginary taxes, and Patty Hajdu stood up to remind him those taxes don’t exist, and then praised that the Canada Child Benefit cheques were going out early. Poilievre read about the Clean Fuel Regulations, and called them a tax, and Julie Dabrusin suggested he read the entire report, and pointed out that those regulations are good for canola farmers who can feed into the biofuel sector. Poilievre then returned to his horseshit assertions about the Liberals “blocking” their bail bill. MacKinnon accused Poilievre of living in a parallel universe and listed the crimes the Conservatives have been blocking the Liberals from fighting.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she said that under Carney, Canada has become a business which no longer cares about climate change, and took a swipe at Carney’s French. Dabrusin insisted that they have committed to strengthening the price on carbon and methane regulations, as clean electricity. Normandin went further on her analogy, calling Carney the CEO of Canada Inc., who needs to be reminded he is in a democratic Parliament. Joël Lightbound praised all of the measures the government is taking, and the things the Bloc voted against. Patrick Bonin took over to again lament the abandonment of climate, and this time Nathalie Provost said that they will meet the goal but needed to change their strategy because of changing circumstances.

Continue reading →