Tag Archives: Bank of Canada

Roundup: Predictable threats over passing the budget

Posted on by

The whole thing about Government House Leader Steve MacKinnon openly going on media to decry that they don’t have enough votes to pass the budget is turning into a very tiresome bit of melodrama in Parliament, now that every party is trying to mug for the camera on it. The Conservatives say they want a hard cap on the deficit (which is far below what they promised in their own election campaign), plus the destruction of environmental programmes like the industrial carbon price under the bullshit excuse that it’s causing food price inflation. The Bloc say they want to negotiate, but presented a list of “non-negotiables” which are both expensive and foolhardy, like a bunch of transfers with no strings attached (because premiers have never taken that money and spent it on other things or delivered tax cuts instead. Looking at one Jean Charest most especially). And the NDP say they want to see the budget first, but are making noises about how they don’t want austerity.

And so, the threats are now in place—or blackmail, as some have termed it. MacKinnon’s new line in Question Period has been about how he hopes the opposition doesn’t send Canadians to a Christmas election, which is not exactly subtle. Andrew Scheer rushed out to the Foyer after QP to breathlessly decry that the Liberals are trying to engineer an election with their budget, which is overplaying things just a little, especially considering that the Conservatives, as official opposition, would never vote for the budget in any case, even if their demands were actually reasonable (which they’re not). That leaves either the Bloc to swallow themselves whole in accepting anything less than their unreasonable “non-negotiables,” or the NDP to pretty much debase themselves by once again propping up the Liberals, even though they have absolutely no choice because they have no leader and the party’s coffers are completely bare and they can’t even mortgage their office building for a second time to pay for an election as they have no way of currently paying off the last one. The government knows this. They are also not looking like they want to get into bed with the NDP yet again, after they pretty much derailed the government’s agenda in the last parliament with the supply-and-confidence agreement that the NDP couldn’t be bothered to live up to their own end of. Nobody wants an election (and you have a bunch of Liberals being a bit theatrical about this), and it’s not going to happen, but instead, we’re going to have to live through this dog-and-pony show for the next five weeks or so. Gods help us.

effinbirds.com/post/7810072…

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-10-29T13:25:05.419Z

Meanwhile, it looks like the budget leaks are starting early, as Senior Sources™ are talking about cuts to the civil service that go beyond attrition, and more aggressive capital cost write-downs. As well, François-Philippe Champange and Rechie Valdez said that there will still be some funding for women’s organisations and for security at Pride events, but this still means cuts to other programmes. Tim Hodgson announced millions for clean tech projects, including four carbon capture projects. (Here is the updated tally of budget promises to date).

Ukraine Dispatch

Putin claims that Russian troops have encircled the cities of Pokrovsk and Kupiansk, which Ukrainian officials vigorously deny. They are, however, struggling in Pokrovsk, which is strategically valuable.

Continue reading →

QP: Concern trolling about Mexico’s growth rates

Posted on by

The prime minister was off to Mexico City, and most of the other leaders weren’t present either. Pierre Poilievre was, however, and he led off in English, and compared Mexico’s economic growth compared to Canada’s (as though there were different baselines or circumstances). Mélanie Joly praised Carney’s trip before reminding him that there is a global trade war that is affecting us. Poilievre insisted that we both trade with the U.S., and that they must be doing something right. Joly accused Poilievre of always talking down Canadian workers, and praised yesterday’s interest rate cuts. Poilievre switched to French to say that they support workers, then accused the Liberals of “collapsing” the economy, before repeating his first question about their growth rates. Joly said that Poilievre doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and praised the interest rate cuts as good news, and said that we need to work with trade partners to grow the economy. Poilievre returned to English to accuse Carney of only heading to Mexico for a photo op, and then repeated the line that the economy is “collapsing,” and Joly said that Poilievre believes in isolationism while the government is engaging abroad. Poilievre said that we already have trade agreements and that this trip was just for fake engagement, and said Carney could ask those other counties why they’re doing so much better than we are. Maninder Sidhu patted himself on the back for the trading relationships Canada has. Poilievre said he was taking credit for things he never did while the economy collapses, to which Sidhu said he wouldn’t go to personal attacks, before reading off some trade statistics with Mexico.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she accused the government of attacking the ability of Quebec to pass their own laws with their factum to the Supreme Court of Canada in an upcoming hearing. Steven Guilbeault says that the government has a duty to protect the Charter. Normandin repeated the accusation, which was wholly specious in its arguments, and again Guilbeault said that they are not preventing any province from invoked the Clause, and he could organise a presentation through the department of Justice. Rhéal Fortin returned to his same questions as earlier in the week, attacking a judicial appointment on false grounds. Patricia Lattanzio read a statement about the independence of the judiciary.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Asking for declaratory powers, not limits

Posted on by

There is a bunch of confusion and/or bad faith arguing going on around just what the federal government said in their factum to the upcoming Supreme Court of Canada hearing on the challenge of Quebec’s Law 21, which they claim is “state secularism” but is really just wholesale discrimination and racism. The reporting hasn’t been great—in fact, the National Post’s is downright misleading—because they keep describing this like it’s a reference question to the Court, which it isn’t, but rather, the argument that they’re putting forward during the existing challenge, and something that they feel the Court should address (which is how factums tend to work).

What their argument consists of is that the Court should be able to declare when a law that is protected by the Notwithstanding Clause is actually unconstitutional. They can’t strike it down, but they can weigh in and say “Yeah, this contravenes Charter rights.” They also want the Courts to be able to do this when something has been ongoing in its use of the Clause (which only lasts for five years before it needs to be renewed in legislation), and to rule on whether it may result in the “irreparable impairment” of rights, because they argue that repeated use of the Clause amounts to “indirectly amending the Constitution.” This is also not coming out of nowhere—the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal just recently ruled that they have this right when it comes to the challenge around the province’s attack on trans youth, saying that invoking the Clause should not be the last word.

Why is this important? Because the point of the five-year time-limit on the Clause is that it allows that government to be voted out before it can be renewed. Having the courts weigh in and say “Yeah, this is discrimination,” even if they can’t strike down the law, is powerful information for voters to have. And it’s absolutely democratic. But you have conservative thinkers who are trying to say that this will cause a “constitutional crisis,” or a national unity crisis if it offends Quebec or Alberta, is frankly absurd. It’s trying to give cover for attacks on minority rights and abuse of the Clause, and they should be honest about those intentions rather than trying to sow confusion and undermining the Court.

Ukraine Dispatch

An overnight Russian attack on the Kirovohrad region has partially cut power and disrupted railway operations. A top Russian commander claims they are advancing on all fronts, in contravention to Ukrainian reports. Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies say they need more resources to crack down on the “shadow economy.”

Continue reading →

QP: The “sword” hanging over the PBO

Posted on by

All of the leaders were present today, as is customary for a Wednesday, even if Wednesdays are no longer the pronto-PMQs of Trudeau’s era. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and demanded to know the size of the deficit. Prime minister Mark Carney responded that the budget will be on November 4th, and it would have the biggest investment in the country’s future. Poilievre asked the same in English, and got much the same response. Poilievre returns to French to lament that we still don’t have an answer on the deficit, which creates uncertainty for business, and demanded to know the number. Carney thanked him for the compliment about being a fiscal expert, and said that the trade war left uncertainty that made sure they have to do what they can control. Poilievre repeated the same in English, and this time, Carney boasted that interest rates were lower in Canada than the U.S. Poilievre dismissed this as saying that was because the economy was collapsing, and then claimed that a liberal members of the finance committee threatened the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s job (while someone chirped that didn’t happen). Carney said that he just the PBO, and that he didn’t recognise the characterisation. Poilievre said that the post was temporary in order to hold a sword over his head, and then demanded he be made permanent and demanded a deficit figure. Carney said that if they wanted him to be permanent, he would be open to consulting on that in the new spirit of collaboration.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and worried that the government was going to table something on the use of the Notwithstanding Clause, and demanded it be allowed to be used by provinces, even in a “preventative” measure. Carney said that the government’s job is to uphold the Charter and it was up to the Supreme Court to determine what is and is not legal. Blanchet claimed that putting limits on use of the Clauses was denigrating the Memory of a Pierre Trudeau, and Carney dismissed this, saying this was up to the Supreme Court to rule on.  Blanchet accused the government of hiding behind the Court, and attacking Quebec’s state secularism, to which Carney reminded him that this is the legislative branch, not the judiciary. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Parliament returns, fall 2025 edition

Posted on by

Today is the day that the children are back in Parliament, and I wonder about just what horrors await us. Pierre Poilievre will take his seat just before the start of Question Period, where prime minister Mark Carney will be in attendance, and it will be their first face-off since the election debates, not that those debates have anything in common with QP. I have little doubt that there will be no taking of high roads, that Poilievre will denounce the Major Projects Office, the choice of those five projects, the lack of a pipeline amongst them (even though there is no project proposal on anyone’s table), and the usual bluster about crime rates and housing that doesn’t miraculously get built with the snap of a finger. Oh, and of course, the fact that there is no trade deal with Trump (even though there is no deal to be had).

The PM will be at Question Period tomorrow. #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-15T00:00:30.816Z

I fully expect Carney and the Liberals to pat themselves on the back for the Office being launched and those five projects being chose, and for the Build Canada Homes launch, and the summer spent trying to find savings in government departments in advance of the budget. They’ll pat themselves on the back for the legislation they passed before the summer, and for the bills they are introducing, and generally for what a good job they think they’re doing. And sure, they’ll say that there’s more work to be done, but it will nevertheless be couched in a whole lot of self-congratulations. Count on it.

Meanwhile, we’re waiting on that budget in October, but there are still a lot of bad bills on the Order Paper. The Border bill is a mass of privacy violations and data-sharing with American authorities who can’t be trusted, to say nothing about the loss of due process for refugee claimants. The cyber-security bill has a great many problems with it that should have been corrected but weren’t. We’re going to get a bail bill that is likely going to start infringing on Charter rights, to be paired with more legislation on “bubble zones” around churches and cultural community centres. And they’re running out of time on passing bills about citizenship for “lost Canadians” and for those unfairly excluded from Indian Act status, so they need to get a move on those too. There is a lot that needs to get accomplished this fall, and we’ll see how much of it actually happens, or if the Bloc will side with the Conservatives at committee and grind everything to a halt once again.

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy says that Ukrainian forces have pushed the Russian advance back further in Sumy region, and that they have caused significant losses to Russian forces in Donetsk and Kharkiv regions. Ukrainian drones have also struck the Kirishi oil refinery.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More “Blame Ottawa” clown performance

Posted on by

Sometimes, it gets very, very difficult to take the state of politics seriously in this country because so much of it is just clown performance. Two examples from yesterday:

1) Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner held a press conference to announce that she was going to table a Private Member’s Bill to stop courts from considering possible deportation in sentencing decisions—even though the sentencing rules were about asking judges to be aware of the potential for unintended consequences, so this bill is really about punching down—and along the way wound up talking about the wildfire situation. In her estimation, the federal government is to blame, and she blamed the federal government for the “forest bans” in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick…except those rules were from the provincial governments. And wildfires are provincial jurisdiction. Nevertheless, she thinks that the federal government needs to do more, but this gets back to the whole point I was making in my latest Quick Take—provinces have the responsibility but have been under-funding their emergency management systems because they know they can call on the Canadian Forces and get them to do it for free. That’s a problem. Rempel Garner is just feeding into this problem through this performance of hers.

2) Pierre Poilievre demanded that the federal government cancel the loan for the BC Ferries contract which will have those new ferries built in China, in retaliation for the latest round of Chinese tariffs on canola. Erm, except that’s a provincial Crown Corporation who contracted for those ships, and the federal government didn’t make the loan, the Infrastructure Bank did, which the federal government doesn’t exercise control over, and even more to the point, no Canadian shipyards bid on that contract. This is just more performance for social media, rage-bait to get his followers angry and opening up their wallets.

1) It is not a "Liberal" loan or a government loan. It's from the Infrastructure Bank, which is arm's-length from government. The loan was made before the procurement process was completed.2) NO CANADIAN SHIPYARDS BID ON THIS PROJECT!Is Poilievre going to force a Canadian yard to build them?

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-08-13T17:53:19.054Z

The absolute mendacity of all of this is just exhausting, which is part of the point. It’s a common authoritarian tactic to lie about everything so that people give up trying to inform themselves, and not a single legacy media outlet in this country will actually call them on it. It’s a problem, and we need to do something about it now, before we get any further down the path that the US is taking.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-08-12T14:08:02.942Z

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy says that he told Trump ahead of his meeting with Putin on Friday that Putin is “bluffing” about his desire to end the war—and he’s correct.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Historical revisionism of federalism in the past decade

Posted on by

Last week had largely been spent trying to determine what the love-in with the premiers all means, so much so that Danielle Smith is losing her grip on reality as she insists that she’ll convince BC premier David Eby to let another pipeline cross his province (in spite of there being no actual proposals for one), while also claiming that Albertans have the “lowest living standards in the world,” and I just can’t even.

Meanwhile, I’m seeing comments from the pundit class that I’m just finding hard to square with reality. This one quote from the weekend dispatch of The Line is a good example of these pundit narratives that are completely ahistorical.

The Liberals under Justin Trudeau were so fantastically uninterested in working with the provinces, and so relentlessly hostile to basic economic growth, that having a prime minister simply acknowledge (as Carney has) that we are in an economic emergency seems like a massive step forward.

Trudeau did work with the provinces a lot in his first parliament—he had the first face-to-face meeting with them as a group in years after Harper refused to, and they got big things done—the agreement on carbon pricing, enhancing CPP, a suite of health measures that Jane Philpott negotiated with the provinces. None of this was inconsequential, but there was a very different group of premiers in 2015 than there was in 2024. And let’s also be frank—the premiers didn’t want to work together with the federal government anymore. They wanted to gang up on him for more money with no conditions (those health transfers that Philpott negotiated didn’t go toward fixing anything), while the pleading that everyone was making around finding exceptions to the carbon levy was very unproductive (not that Trudeau did any favours in his “pause” on the price for heating oil rather than a better system of rebates in areas where energy poverty was a problem). But seriously, the premiers get away with blaming Trudeau for all of the things that they refused to do that were their responsibility, and somehow he was the problem?

As well, the notion that Trudeau was hostile to basic economic growth is, frankly, unhinged. How many trade deals did he sign or push over the finish line? What was the whole attempt to stand-up a North American EV supply chain? What were the billions spent to keep the entire economy afloat during COVID? If you’re going to cite the capital gains changes as being “hostile,” then congratulations—you’re a gullible numpty who bought the lines of people who engage in tax arbitrage and want that sweet roll to continue. If you think environmental regulation was killing economic growth, just wait until you see what climate change is already doing to the economy and is going to get exponentially worse. Just because Trudeau didn’t bow to the tax-cut-and-deregulate crowd, it doesn’t mean he was hostile to economic growth. Yes, he and his government had problems. A lot of them. But let’s not make up things that are blatantly ahistorical or outright fictional just to help put a shine on Carney.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-06-07T21:10:14.180Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drone and missile attacks killed four people in Kharkiv on Saturday. Russian forces claim to have crossed into the Dnipropetrovsk region, while a row is now brewing over an agreement to exchange bodies of dead soldiers, which Ukraine says they are not delaying. Meanwhile, a drone attack on a Russian electronics factory has forced them to suspend production.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1931395337958084711

Continue reading →

Roundup: The confidence vote that wasn’t

Posted on by

Debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech From the Throne was due to wrap up, meaning a final vote. Media outlets insisted that this would be the first major confidence vote of the new Parliament, and that if the Liberals lost it, we could go back to an election, and there was all this building drama because of how they lost the vote on the Conservatives’ amendment (to “urge” the government to table a spring budget). And my headache started.

The vote on the Address in Reply is not automatically a confidence vote. It is if the opposition amendments explicitly state that they have no confidence in the government, and sometimes that happens because this is the first opportunity to test the confidence of the Chamber, especially in a minority parliament or legislature, but again, that was not the case here. But along the way, the NDP decided that they were going to play tough and declare that they would vote against it for specious reasons (and because Don Davies is an idiot, and has a long track record of being an idiot and a blowhard), while the Government House Leader, Steve MacKinnon, told reporters that this would be a confidence vote. So, if the government says it’s a confidence vote, it’s a confidence vote, and it was likely intended to be something of a bit a put-up-or-shut-up dare, which can be risky in a minority parliament, but sometimes you also need to play hardball with the opposition. This was likely going to mean that the Bloc would either vote in support or abstain (because they did say they would give the government a year before they started to seriously oppose anything, given the Trump situation), but the government was never in any serious danger of falling. If, by some fluke, they did lose a vote they declared to be confidence, they could simply hold another vote and basically say “Did you mean it?” and chances are they would win that vote, and all would go back to normal.

And in the end, there wasn’t even a vote. News of Marc Garneau’s death reached the Chamber just before the vote was to be taken, and it seems like the appetite for drama was gone, and it passed on division, meaning that they agreed to disagree, that they were going to let it pass, but not bother with a recorded vote. And thus, the least exciting outcome happened.

I must advise the beings of Bluesky that, in a truly only-in-this-particular-Canadian-parliament twist, the much-anticipated will-they-or-won't-they-trigger-an-election over it motion on the Throne speech as amended — has been adopted on division.

— Kady O'Malley (@kadyo.bsky.social) 2025-06-04T22:25:39.121Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-06-04T22:02:26.904Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones struck an apartment building in Kharkiv, injuring at least seventeen. Russian forces have also pushed further into Sumy region. Here’s a look at how Operation Spiderweb was carried out.

Continue reading →

Roundup: 611 votes short

Posted on by

In more election fallout, it looks like the Liberals were just 611 votes, between two Ontario ridings and Nunavut, from getting a majority Parliament. That’s an incredibly close number for this race, and once again goes to show how every vote really does count, particularly in smaller ridings. There is also some pretty good analysis from the numbers to show that all those southwestern Ontario seats that went Conservative was not because of progressive vote-splitting, but because they were quite clearly turned off of the NDP. That clarity is going to matter if the party wants to start rethinking their path forward. Oh, and the vast majority of NDP candidates didn’t make their ten percent vote threshold for Elections Canada rebates, so the party is going to really be hurting financially for the next couple of years.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1917541319209046324

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1917541365925253229

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1917678086385959124

Elsewhere, every legacy media journalist is trying to get a story about NDP MPs crossing the floor to the Liberals (they won’t), or about Elizabeth May either becoming Speaker or getting into Cabinet, neither of which is going to happen. Ever. Especially Speaker because, as much as I respect May, nobody in the House of Commons is going to vote to put her in the Big Chair because they don’t want a sanctimonious scold in the position. There’s a reason they have voted in incredibly weak chairs for the past couple of Parliaments, and why they didn’t vote for Geoff Regan a second time when he was being a firmer hand. Stop indulging in these stupid fantasies. It’s not going to happen. Oh, and no, official party status isn’t something that is going to be negotiated, much as Don Davies likes to claim that the magic number of 12 MPs is “arbitrary,” but it’s not. You need that many MPs to fit onto committees, and that’s already doubling up. You physically cannot have enough MPs to be in all places when there are six+ committees meeting at the same time outside of QP.

Meanwhile, taking advantage of Carney’s win for her own ends is Danielle Smith, who introduced a very Trump-like package of electoral law amendments which brings back big corporate money into Alberta politics, feeds conspiracy theories, and lowers the threshold for citizen-initiated referendums, and while she didn’t outright say she would bring a separation referendum, essentially encouraged someone else to, and they already started gathering signatures. You might ask whose interest this serves, and the answer is hers, in part because she is facing a major growing scandal about health services procurement that is getting bigger by the day, and the former Cabinet minister she has since expelled from caucus, who tried speaking up about the issue, tabled a bunch more documents about what he knew, and it’s pretty damning stuff. So, what is Smith’s best weapon of mass-distraction? Stoking separatist sentiment, pretending she’s not behind it, and watching it take over the news cycle. It’s terrible, and nobody should take their eye off the ball while she pulls the fire alarm.

"If you or any other Canadians are not happy living on Treaty lands, they are free to apply for citizenship elsewhere."Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation issues a scathing rebuke of Danielle Smith's talks on a national unity crisis.

— Courtney Theriault (@ctheriault.bsky.social) 2025-05-01T03:29:35.719Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones attacked Odesa early morning, killing two and injuring at least five. A Ukrainian drone strike hit a weapons factory in Russia. South Korean intelligence says that some 600 North Korean troops have been killed out of a deployment of 15,000 soldiers.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Two platforms released

Posted on by

Day twenty-eight, and two of the parties had platform releases, while one of them played silly games with media (and I’ll let you guess which is which). We also heard from Elections Canada that a record two million people voted in the advance polls on Friday, (but nobody knows what it means). It also looks like nobody will be downing tools for the holiday today, so there’s that.

Mark Carney was in Whitby, Ontario, where he unveiled his “costed” platform, which did talk a lot about the scale of the challenge facing us with decoupling from the US, but remained vague on a lot of details. (Costing details here). One of my biggest issues, upon first reading, is the assumption made throughout that it’ll be easy to work with provinces on things like credentials recognition when we have been trying this for decades with little progress. Yes, the moment is different, but these things have been slow to change for a reason, so essentially promising to get this done in a few months is dubious at best. I am also incredibly dubious with the reliance on AI as the way to “increase efficiency” in the civil service, as though AI has ever shown itself to be reliable. (Write-ups from The Logic, the Star, CTV, CBC). There are also the start of some threads below that are worth clicking through. Afterward, Carney stopped in Newcastle and Peterborough. Carney will be in his home riding of Nepean today.

Here's the costing on the Liberal housing promises. Thoughts:1. Limiting the GST cut to first-time homebuyers really does render it near-useless. Very few $s.2. Reintroducing MURB really is a big deal.3. No way municipalities agree to halve DCs in exchange for 1.5B.

— Dr. Mike P. Moffatt (@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social) 2025-04-19T16:37:19.000Z

Finally got a chance to read the Liberal platform. On Defence, some of this stuff was already in process such as reforming recruitment, but more can be done. So, quickening clearances is a good thing. More pay, better housing/health care/childcare all easier ways to spend more 1/

— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman.bsky.social) 2025-04-19T20:30:14.086Z

A few comments on the @mark-carney.bsky.social platform released today. You can find it here: liberal.ca/cstrong/.I provided some 'sounding board' advice here and there to those working on the platform. As always: I disclose, but you can decide what weight to put on that.Thread below…

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2025-04-19T18:04:43.522Z

tl;dr for this thread.1. The LPC platform would re-orient Canada in the face of epoch-defining US aggression. 2. Strength is focus on investment while aiming at fiscal sustainability.3. Weakest parts are i) reliance on spending restraint to make numbers work ii) blowing $22B on a PIT tax cut.

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2025-04-19T19:32:20.492Z

$25 million won't do much if provinces continue to dismantle their universities.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-04-19T17:03:06.508Z

 

Pierre Poilievre was in Richmond, BC, where he promised mandatory drug treatment for people with addictions, which is both against the Charter, and is hard to square with a party who thought that vaccine mandates were too much of an imposition on their personal liberties. They also refused to take questions from national media and took questions from local media who looked to have had planted questions, because of course they did. Poilievre will be in Surrey, BC, today.

Jagmeet Singh was in Burnaby, BC, to release their, well, not platform but “commitments,” including their costing, since they’re not going to form government. But of course, so many of those commitments are also in provincial jurisdiction, so it’s not like they would be able to achieve any of them anyway, so this is mostly just fairytale maths. (Write-ups from the Star, CTV, CBC) Singh will be in Victoria and Nanaimo today.

Here's the NDP housing plan costing. 7B a year. Not much to say on this one. Unclear to me how the Homes Transfer and Community Fund are meaningfully different from the government's Housing Accelerator and Housing Infrastructure Fund.

— Dr. Mike P. Moffatt (@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social) 2025-04-20T00:40:37.000Z

In other campaign news, the Star has pre-election profiles of Carney, Poilievre, Singh, and the Elizabeth May-Jonathan Pedneault team-up. Here is a look into Poilievre’s promise to fight “wokeness” in universities (just like Trump).

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claimed they would have an “Easter ceasefire,” but kept up their attacks, particularly on the front lines, because of course they did.

Continue reading →