Tag Archives: Bank of Canada

Roundup: Missing the point about the Senate

Posted on by
1

Because everything is so stupid all of the time, a new conservative think tank popped up in Calgary that is issuing stupid polls, some of the questions of which fundamentally do not understand how Parliament works. They call themselves the “Aristotle Foundation,” and it’s a collection of the usual right-wing (and in some cases, far-right) suspects, and when they claim to be championing “reason, democracy and civilization,” well, you can start picking up where the dog-whistles are sounding.

In any case, they published this stupid poll (and of course, the National Post picked it up, because a bunch of their columnists are members of this think tank), and the very premise of their questions are absurd. “55 percent of non-Western respondents would be open to negotiating with Alberta or other Western provinces amid the threat of separation.” As well, there was a question on whether they “favoured reform of the House of Commons and Senate in the case of threats from Western separatism and Quebec separatism.” Why anyone would want to negotiate with a group of crybabies who make up a marginal fraction of the population is beyond me, but it’s not my poll. Nevertheless—negotiating about what, you ask? Supposed under-representation in the House of Commons and the Senate. They even have a handy chart about population per senator to make their case. I swear to Zeus, I am going to lose my mind.

If you're complaining about "per capita representation" in the Senate, might I suggest you read a fucking book for once in your life? nationalpost.com/news/canadia…

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-19T04:29:03.776Z

The Senate is not and has never been a rep-by-pop chamber. It is, in fact, designed not to be. That’s the whole fucking point of why it was constructed the way it was in 1867. It’s explicitly designed along regional lines in order to counter the rep-by-pop of the House of Commons, because having two rep-by-pop chambers would be stupid and counter-productive. Yes, the Atlantic provinces have outsized representation explicitly to counterbalance their small populations in the Commons. That’s why the breakdown is regional: 24 seats for Quebec, 24 for Ontario, 24 for the Maritimes, and 24 for the west (and then the three for the territories and six for Newfoundland and Labrador were later additions). If you don’t understand this basic bit of Canadian civics, what exactly are you doing? Other than shit-disturbing? This is beyond idiotic, and I cannot believe that they want to be taken seriously.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-18T22:01:56.308Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones struck several apartment buildings in Odesa. Ukraine struck two Russian plants building and maintaining military and cargo planes. Here is a look at the interceptor drones that Ukraine is sharing with several Gulf states.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Inventing a new grievance to get mad about

Posted on by

Alberta premier Danielle Smith is at it again, by inventing a grievance regarding the appointment of judges, and is threatening the federal government to withhold funding for the justice system in the province if she doesn’t get her own way when it comes to having a say in who gets appointed, both with Superior Court and Court of Appeal appointments, but also with the upcoming appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada, as the vacancy opening up is a “western” seat on the bench. This is insane, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s possibly the dumbest thing to threaten. Her claim that she needs input because of the “distinct legal traditions” of Alberta is a load of absolute horseshit—Alberta has no distinct legal traditions. Quebec has a civil code which is separate from the common law that the rest of Canada employs, so yes, they have a distinct legal tradition. Alberta does not. It’s beyond risible that she is threatening to implode the province’s justice system over something that does not exist.

1) This is blatantly unconstitutional2) Withholding funding from which judicial appointments? Provincial? Because federally-appointed judges get paid from the federal budget. That's why new judicial spots end up in federal budget bills3) Withholding any funding will make the justice system worse

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-03T21:57:28.042Z

Provinces are already underfunding their judicial systems (provincial judges, court houses, clerks, bailiffs, Crown attorneys, remand facilities, etc). If she wants to withhold more funding, and then claim the federal Liberals caused crime, well, that'll be a real choice on her part.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-03T21:57:28.043Z

Also, this is just an other invented grievance, which conservatives in Alberta love to do, and then claim that they are being oppressed because they're not getting something that nobody gets in the first place. Call it out, as just that.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-03T22:04:53.329Z

It’s almost certain that this is supposed to be some kind of a stunt to demand judges that are tougher on crime, and that she can somehow “direct” as she has been quoted as wanting to do, which is an affront to judicial independence and the very nature of the rule of law. And frankly, we don’t have a judicial culture in this country of ultra-conservative judges who throw the book at everyone like they do in the US, because those judges tend to be elected, so they go extra hard to win votes. That’s not how this works here. And frankly, the appointment of judges is for lawyers to self-nominate to a judicial advisory committee, who then vets them and then either recommends them to the minister or not. Smith trying to insert herself into this process is simply asking to undermine the process and to personally reduce confidence in the justice system. Just absolute lunacy.

She is her inventing a grievance to be mad about. There are no distinct legal traditions in the province. They are a common law jurisdiction like eight other provinces in the country. Quebec has a civil code, which is a distinct legal tradition, and Alberta does not.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-03T22:06:57.965Z

Let’s call this out for what it is—Smith is quite literally inventing things to get mad about, and then throwing a tantrum about an imaginary problem that doesn’t exist, so that she can be performative in her “Western alienation” pantomime. None of this is real, but she has determined that constantly having everyone mad at Ottawa is her ticket to staying in power perpetually, but it’s a really stupid plan. That kind of anger is exhausting, and will lead to unintended consequences, but most of all, this is just more fodder for the separatists that she claims not to represent (even though we all know that she doth protest too much over that one). Now the question becomes whether anyone in the federal government will call this out, and point-blank say that this is just an invented grievance, or will they back down, and try and placate her in some manner? Because if it’s the latter, that’s a very big mistake.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-02-03T15:08:06.097Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The attack on Zaporizhzhia on Tuesday killed two people and injured at least nine others, while a power plant in Kyiv was badly damaged. President Zelenskyy says that Russia used the US-backed “energy ceasefire” to simply stockpile more ammunition and drones, and launch another attack.

Continue reading →

Roundup: All smiles with the premiers

Posted on by

Mark Carney is meeting with the premiers today, after having them all over for dinner last night, and already everyone is having a big love-in, showing that they have a big united front as the country deals with the ongoing threats from the US and Trump administration. They’re all in agreement that these aren’t “normal times,” and David Eby and Danielle Smith played nice on the issue of Alberta looking to ram a pipeline through their territory (which appears to have Carney’s enthusiastic support, per Question Period on Tuesday), and I will admit that this is a big change from the latter Trudeau days, where nearly all of the premiers were lining up to take shots at the federal government.

However. Carney is letting them get away with all of their bullshit, particularly on the big things that the provinces need to be doing to Build Canada Strong™, whether that’s building housing, or taking care of their major infrastructure, or doing something about healthcare rather than letting the collapse continue. If you have a “Canada is broken” complaint, you can pretty much be guaranteed that it’s because of provincial underfunding, but the federal government is taking and will continue to take the blame, because the federal government refuses to call them out on it, and Carney is keeping this up. It’s all smiles and laughs, when it was the premiers who created the situation with immigration that the federal government had to step in with (to the long-term detriment of the country), and it’s the provinces who are exacerbating things like the affordability crisis. If Carney wants to fix things, that means leaning on the provinces to start doing their gods damned jobs.

With that in mind, I’m going to look askance as the territorial premiers want dual-use infrastructure funds to flow to them rather than have the federal government fund these projects directly, because we’ve never had provinces or territories take federal funds and spend it on other things before. And Gregor Robertson is calling on premiers to increase their spending on transitional housing, given the scale of need. Oh, you sweet summer child. The premiers don’t want to spend their own money on these things, even though it’s in their wheelhouse. They want you to spend federal dollars instead, because that’s how they’ve learned how to play this game. Just asking them to increase spending nicely isn’t going to do anything, but I can pretty much guarantee that the federal government won’t play hardball on this so that they don’t look like the bad guy, even though they’re going to take all of the blame. What a way to run a country.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-01-28T23:01:45.031Z

Ukraine Dispatch

More Russian drone and missile attacks on Kyiv and across the country overnight, and it could be as much as three weeks for some Ukrainians to get power back because of the attacks on infrastructure. Meanwhile, the US keeps stalling to give more time for Russia to keep up these attacks.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The “$200 from insolvency” zombie myth

Posted on by

Have you heard that statistic that almost have of Canadians are less than $200 away from insolvency? It’s a zombie statistic that keeps coming up every few months, and well, Pierre Poilievre has revived it yet again as part of his economically illiterate campaign against the government (where his solution is more neoliberal cuts to government capacity and supports in the hopes that it’ll lead to trickle-down economics for real this time). Anyway, that number is not true, nor has it ever been true. But it keeps. Coming. Back.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have also been claiming that the latest job numbers showed 73,000 lost jobs. Which isn’t actually true, because there was a net positive, and more than that, the data showed that losses in part-time work were offset by more jobs in full-time work. But they think people are as economically illiterate as they are, so they will torque numbers to say things they didn’t really say to “prove” that the Liberals are terrible for the economy, as if we aren’t in the midst of a trade war that we have been more resilient then anticipated in. But who cares about facts, data, or context?

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy is declaring a state of emergency in the energy sector over the blackouts cause by Russian attacks. Ukraine’s new defence minister says that he plans to overhaul their organizational structure, and that they face a two million “draft dodgers” and 200,000 desertions. Here is a photo gallery of Ukrainians coping with the blackouts in the middle of winter.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Coastal First Nations aren’t budging

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney was in Prince Rupert, BC, to meet with the coastal First Nations, and by all accounts, it was a welcome and cordial meeting, and most of what they discussed were ongoing projects and conservation commitments in the region, along with the promises of renewed funding for ongoing projects in the area. This being said, nothing has changed on the part of these First Nations when it comes to their opposition to a pipeline in their territories or on lifting the tanker ban. The prime minister’s readout from the meeting talked glowingly about the commitments, but what was absent was any kind of commitment in writing to respecting their right to consent to projects in their territories.

Readout of Carney's meeting with Coastal First Nations.I don't see any commitment to respect their wishes if they don't grant consent to a pipeline through their territory.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-01-13T21:02:12.244Z

While this was happening, Pierre Poilievre decided to concern troll that there hadn’t been any meeting sooner, which wasn’t going to get things built faster. Of course, this concern is false because Poilievre has already declared that any consultation he will do will be perfunctory, and that he will ram through projects without any kind of consent (and a former Alberta minister was on Power & Politics to again insist that the obligation is consultation not consent, but that is dated with the adoption of UNDRIP which stipulates free, prior and informed consent).

Quite the concern troll given that Poilievre has flat-out said he'll build pipelines regardless of First Nations' objections.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-01-13T15:20:49.737Z

Meanwhile, when it comes to the Pathways project that Carney insists needs to move ahead if a pipeline is to move ahead (while the MOU also states that a pipeline needs to happen for Pathways to happen), this is your reminder that it’s a scam that will only happen if the government pays for it (and it’ll only remove about 12 percent of production emissions, to say nothing about downstream emissions).

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-01-13T15:08:05.432Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones have struck infrastructure in Kryvyi Rih, forcing power cuts, while the attacks overnight Tuesday consisted of nearly 300 drones, 18 ballistic missiles and seven cruise missiles, hitting eight regions and killing at least four people. Ukraine’s parliament rejected former prime minister Denys Shmyhal as the new energy minister.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/2010987717274861983

Continue reading →

Roundup: A stop before the China trip

Posted on by

Today is the big day, as prime minister Mark Carey is departing on his big ten-day tour to China, Qatar, and Davos, Switzerland, but before he leaves, he will be making a stop in Prince Rupert, BC, for a meeting with Coastal First Nations, months after he signed his MOU with Danielle Smith about a pipeline that they intend to push through their territory over their objections. (Carney says no project will go ahead without them, but I would not put much stock in that particular promise).

We have also learned that Scott Moe will be joining Carney on the trip, because if there’s one thing that Carney needs, it’s Canada’s smoothest-brained premier to bleat on about canola. The federal officials who briefed reporters ahead of the trip suggested that there may be some relief from the current tariffs being imposed by China on canola, beef and seafood, but for the dispute not to be at an end just yet. Apparently there are “active discussions” about dropping the EV tariffs, which some people still think would be a good idea given that we are no longer counting on a North American EV strategy, but that presupposes that China’s intentions with the EV market are pure, which they’re not—they would be collecting massive amounts of data from Canadians, and they could cripple those EVs through software if they wanted, beyond the economic damage they would be doing to our auto industry by displacing it with product that they have subsidised at uncompetitive rates.

Meanwhile, two Liberal MPs cut short their trip to Taiwan to “avoid confusion” with Carney’s upcoming trip, which seems like bad form, and of course, they are being accused of “kowtowing” to the Chinese government. It’s hard to say whether this should be interpreted as a gesture or as “clarity,” or whatnot, considering that the Chinese government may not understand the nuances of who is a backbencher and who is government (and to be frank, there are plenty of Canadians, including those within parliament, who don’t understand the difference), but it does leave a bad taste to look like they are complying in advance with yet another authoritarian (and Carney seems to be doing a whole lot of complying).

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-01-12T23:08:02.309Z

Ukraine Dispatch

There has been another intense bombardment of Kyiv and Kharkiv overnight. Russian drones hit two foreign-flagged vessels in port near Odesa, which were carrying corn and vegetable oil. The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine says that civilian casualties were up sharply last year.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Davies again demands official status

Posted on by

I will have to give it to NDP interim leader Don Davies that he has some big cajónes as he is once again demanding official party status as the House of Commons finds itself in a near deadlock on most legislation. He’s now into full-on blackmail territory—if you want this Parliament to work, give us status. But there are a few problems with this:

  • The NDP have nowhere near earned the right to be trusted after they tore up their previous agreement with the Liberals in bad faith;
  • The NDP were complaining that they were tired of being seen to be propping up the Liberals, but they’re once again offering to do just that, which leads back to the trust question; and
  • The math as it relates to committees has not changed. The NDP do not have the numbers to sit on committees in a fair manner

Davies says that Parliament will work better if the NDP get seats on committees, but which committees? The whole point of the cut-off of 12 for official party status is that it’s just barely enough MPs to be able to cover-off a member on every committee (and that means they are doing double or triple duty). Is he suggesting that they just get to pick five or six committees that they should be allowed to sit on but not the others? How is that fair to those other committees, or those other issues that the NDP are effectively ignoring? Yes, Davies is desperate for more resources and staff that official status would offer, but you cannot demonstrate the fundamentals of being able to be present. Rules exist for a reason.

The current budget bill — C-15 — was tabled on Nov. 18. It's been debated on 10 different sitting days. It still hasn't received a vote at second reading and made it to committee. Would things move faster if C-15 was a dozen different bills?I'm unconvinced.

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-12-10T18:02:17.857Z

MPs seemingly:a) don't want to spend much time in Ottawa and b) don't like to agree to move legislation along without undue delay.

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-12-10T18:00:25.458Z

The current budget bill — C-15 — was tabled on Nov. 18. It's been debated on 10 different sitting days. It still hasn't received a vote at second reading and made it to committee. Would things move faster if C-15 was a dozen different bills?I'm unconvinced.

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-12-10T18:02:17.857Z

Meanwhile, the fact that the budget implementation bill was debated over some eleven days at second reading is a problem. Yes, it’s a problem that it’s a giant omnibus bill, but the Commons has been getting worse about debate times since at least 2011, and nobody shows any willingness to start doing anything differently, and that’s a problem. One of the things I keep reminding people is that in Westminster, second reading debate is one afternoon, because that’s all it needs to be because you’re debating the general principle of the bill—that’s it. Your entire caucus does not need to weigh in with repetitive talking points and slogans. You do not need to put everyone one to get clips. House Leaders need to grow up and start cracking down on this abuse of procedure, and that starts with the Government House Leader, who needs to put his foot down. Enough is enough.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-10T14:25:06.076Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian forces have been fending off an “unusually large” mechanised assault on Pokrovsk. Russian drones hit the gas transport system in Odesa. Ukrainian sea drones have disabled another vessel in Russia’s “shadow fleet” in the Black Sea.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sandboxing powers?

Posted on by

Over the weekend, Althia Raj published a column that points to a power the government is trying to give itself in the budget that lets ministers exempt certain people and companies from non-criminal laws, and the fact that this felt like it was being snuck into the budget implementation bill when it wasn’t in the main budget document. Jennifer Robson, inspired by Raj’s column, delves into the Budget Implementation Act to see the sections in question for herself, and makes some pretty trenchant observations about the fact that the powers in here are giving ministers a pretty hefty amount of leeway without necessarily a lot of transparency, because they have the option of simply not publishing or reporting which laws they’re suspending for whom, and that we need to worry about the injuries to democratic norms.

So, what is up with these particular powers? Well, it turns out that this is very likely some long-promised action on creating “regulatory sandboxes,” and the means to implement them.

The 2024 budget talked about working up a plan for "regulatory sandboxes"—temporary exemptions from restrictions to allow experiments with new things, especially products, that existing regulations didn't anticipate. It's in a few places, like this:

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T13:55:47.297Z

They'd consulted publicly on it before. This is generally a pretty dull type of government consultation, but it was done. www.canada.ca/en/governmen…

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T13:58:04.805Z

Having announced plans to legislate on it in 2024, the Trudeau government did not follow through, in either of the two "budget bills" that stemmed from the budget.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T13:59:51.381Z

But the regulatory-sandbox idea returned in the 2025 budget. Not at length, but it's in the roundup of legislative changes that implementing the 2025 budget requires. (Some people start with the deficit numbers when first picking a new budget up; I start with the legislative changes.)

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T14:03:09.547Z

My point is that you have to be careful with premises like, "I didn't know about it, so they've been hiding it and being sneaky."Tech businesses have been calling for regulatory sandboxes for *years,* there've been public consultations, and it was promised in two successive budgets.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T14:06:02.132Z

The idea's history goes back much farther than 2024, to be clear. Here's a Logic story from 2018, the first year we existed, noting a promise on regulatory sandboxes in the 2018 fall economic statement: thelogic.co/news/special…

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T14:10:57.100Z

So, this could very well be what that is referring to. This being said, I do see the concerns of Robson when it comes to some of the transparency around these measures, because these powers give ministers all kinds of leeway not to report on their suspension of laws for this “sandboxing,” and you have to remember that Carney already gave himself broad Henry VIII powers under his Build Canada Act legislation, which is ripe for abuse, particularly in a parliament that has largely lost its ability to do necessary oversight. I think the government needs to be extremely careful here, because this could easily blow up in their faces.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-06T15:08:02.695Z

Ukraine Dispatch

At least seven people have been injured in a drone strike in Sumy region. Russia claims to have taken two more villages in the Kharkiv and Donetsk regions. Here is a look at Ukraine’s naval drone operations, and the growing number of women in combat roles.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre refuses self-reflection

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre held a press conference yesterday, where he debuted a new slogan about the “credit card budget,” as though that were clever (it’s really not), and had several of his MPs all read the same scripts about so-called “Liberal inflation,” even though inflation doesn’t work that way, and the current affordability crisis is the result of policies that have been baked in for several decades now. But where things got testy was in the media availability after, where Poilievre was taking shots at media outlets (including false accusations about corrections), and him “quoting” things Chris d’Entremont said about the Liberals in the Chamber, which might have been more damning if they simply weren’t the very same scripts that every Conservative MP reads unthinkingly. (d’Entremont later, correctly, dismissed this as just “spinning.”)

But what took the cake was when Poilievre was asked whether he was reflecting on his leadership style after the two losses to his caucus over the last week, and he said plainly “No,” and then babbled on about being the only leader fighting for affordability. (Also not true, because the only thing he’s fighting for is trickle-down economics, which created the affordability mess we’re in). But seriously, Poilievre is incapable of self-reflection, and he keeps proving that over and over again. He’s the same campus conservative he was when he was seventeen, and nothing will ever change or dissuade him from that, nor his childish, argumentative style, his need for chants and slogans, or his jejune beliefs in how monetary policy works. He is incapable of understanding complexity, and it shows. The fact that his leadership style is being referred to as a frat house is just as indicative of this fact. No self-reflection, no personal growth, and it’s a wonder why people who aren’t already Kool-Aid drinkers in the party don’t connect with him.

Meanwhile, the NDP are puffing out their chests and telling the Toronto Star that they’re getting ready for an election if the budget doesn’t pass, which I will call bullshit. They’re not getting ready for an election. The party is $23 million in debt, they’ve already mortgaged the office building they own in downtown Ottawa, and they have no more resources to draw on. This is them trying to look like they’re tough and relevant when they will see to it in one way or another that there is no election because in no way can the fight one, even if it’s to try and reclaim five seats in order to return to official party status. This is posturing, and nobody should be under any impression otherwise.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-12T23:01:55.085Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian civilians are being evacuated from settlements in the Zaporizhzhia region as fighting intensifies in the area, while forces in the area say that they have stopped the Russian advance. Here is more about the situation in Pokrovsk. Ukraine’s justice and energy ministers submitted their resignations as a result of the energy kickback scheme allegations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A floor-crossing during the budget reveal

Posted on by

So, that was the “generational” budget, which is cutting away at the civil service, and claiming “efficiencies” in most government departments (though a few defence and security related departments, as well as Indigenous Services only faced a two percent cut), while there are plenty of those investments for resource projects. The “climate competitiveness” strategy is promising to remove the emissions cap if provinces and industry can get other things like methane emissions reductions and carbon capture implemented at scale, but considering the latter isn’t cost-effective without a sufficiently high carbon price, I’m guessing that’s going to wind up failing (and no, there is “grand bargain” because Alberta and the industry won’t respect it). The deficit is at $78 billion, which is actually smaller than Stephen Harper’s $55.6 billion deficit in 2009-10 if you adjust for today’s dollars.

Here are some highlight stories, starting with some key numbers:

  • A $2 billion “critical minerals sovereign fund” that can include equity stakes
  • A suite of new tax measures designed to help compete with the US
  • $73 billion for national defence by the end of the decade, but there are few details about how it will all happen..
  • Slashing temporary immigration numbers and freezing permanent resident intake (because that’ll help with labour shortages)
  • $150 million more for CBC, and “exploring” participation in Eurovision.
  • Using buying power to spur the development of data centres without actually funding those projects (because it’s likely a bubble).
  • Moving ahead with regulating stablecoins.
  • Oversight over open banking was moved from the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to the Bank of Canada.
  • Ending investment transfer fees to encourage more banking competition.
  • $2.7 billion in cuts to foreign aid over four years (as the destruction of USAID has created a massive need for foreign aid, so well done there).
  • Research and Development tax incentives aren’t limited to Canadian-owned firms.
  • They lifted the tax on luxury yachts and on foreign-owned vacation homes.
  • Weakening the laws around greenwashing, because of course they are.
  • Establishing sovereign space-lift capabilities.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-04T21:31:12.741Z

The seemingly outsized cuts to Global Affairs Canada in Budget 2025 are hard to square with the government’s repeated call to expand and deepen Canada's international partnerships. Reinvesting in the military is welcome – but defence is just one tool of our international policy.

— Roland Paris (@rolandparis.bsky.social) 2025-11-04T22:00:30.407Z

https://bsky.app/profile/plagasse.bsky.social/post/3m4tnilpugk2j

We're cutting $s to low-income 18 year-olds to access education, but we still have half a billion a year to make student loans interest-free for early-career 20-somethings "to help with the rent" AS DUMB AS A BAG OF HAMMERS.

— Alex Usher (@alexusherhesa.bsky.social) 2025-11-04T23:47:10.318Z

Staring at Canada's own gender-based analysis of its budget. Give you one guess at the main beneficiary of all the major spending investments….

— Lauren Dobson-Hughes (@ldobsonhughes.bsky.social) 2025-11-05T01:09:27.537Z

In pundit reaction, Heather Scoffield has a quick overview of some of the tax and investment measures. Mike Moffatt is sorely disappointed in just how little there was for the housing crisis in the budget, particularly as it puts too much focus on reducing immigration. Justin Ling notes the corporate tax cuts, and the fact that the budget doesn’t acknowledge the short-term problems associated with Trump’s gangster economics. Kevin Carmichael considers this a hybrid of Harper and Trudeau’s budgets, which winds up missing the mark as a result. Paul Wells remarks on some of the political considerations in the budget that is geared to investment when business hasn’t been keen to do so, and that there is a whole lot of downside in the budget, some of which is the fact that our chronic weaknesses of low productivity and internal barriers are an even bigger problem than they were before. Susan Delacourt says the budget misses the mark, being too vague in where the cuts will come from, and does a poor job in telling its story.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-04T22:22:02.466Z

Floor-crossing

In amidst budget being delivered, Conservative MP Chris d’Entremont went on record with Politico that he was considering crossing the floor to the Liberals, and my immediate thought was that there was some residual bitterness because he was forbidden from running to be Speaker, and to be put forward as Deputy Speaker once Francis Scarpaleggia had been voted in. But he has also seemed dejected when I’ve seen him in the Chamber of late, never wearing a tie, not participating in anything. Once this was public, I heard from a source that there was screaming happening in the opposition lobby outside of the House of Commons. d’Entremont quickly resigned from caucus, and within an hour, had formally crossed to the Liberals, who were happy to have him, particularly because he’s an affable Red Tory, and it doesn’t hurt that this completes the Liberals’ sweep of Nova Scotia. The Conservatives later put out a bitter statement (and by contrast, when Leona Allslev crossed from the Liberals to the Conservatives, Justin Trudeau wished her well). This means that the Liberals only need two more votes or abstentions to get their budget through, so we’ll see what that looks like in the days ahead.

Continue reading →