Tag Archives: Border

Roundup: Preparing for another tariff climbdown

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney held a (virtual) Cabinet meeting yesterday, followed by a virtual meeting with the premiers, and so far, the signs aren’t terribly encouraging. It was ostensibly about an update on trade talks with the US, given that the deadline passed and we’re not only no closer to any kind of resolution, but Trump raised the tariffs they are charging on non-New NAFTA items (which does nevertheless effectively mean we’re still one of the lowest tariff-rate countries overall), if you ignore all of the other sectoral tariffs that are having the biggest impact. And the premiers have also started to drift in their positions, whether it’s Doug Ford demanding more retaliation (even though he immediately backed down on his electricity export retaliation), or Danielle Smith and Scott Moe preferring to lick fascist boots instead.

Nevertheless, the tone coming out of Carney and the Cabinet is increasingly one where they are openly laying the groundwork for reducing or removing retaliatory tariffs or other measures, because really, appeasing Trump is clearly the way to go. Look at what pulling back on the Digital Services Tax got us. The question then becomes what happens to the increasingly large fiscal hole that eliminating these counter-tariffs will do to the balance sheet, because they booked a bunch of revenues from them, while they’re already promising deep cuts to government spending.

Just keep making concessions. That'll clearly get us a favourable deal.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-08-06T21:26:09.762Z

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have decided to go full-bore on the notion that Carney has broken his signature campaign promise because he has not only failed to reach a deal with Trump, but that tariffs have increased since then. Of course, this is premised on the completely false notion that Trump is a rational actor, but pretty much the entire Conservative caucus was tweeting variations of this very thing all day, because absolutely everything they do has to be about social media posts. Even more eye-rolling was Roman Baber lying about what the president of Mexico said about Anand and Champagne’s visit (her comments were that we don’t need a bilateral trade deal because the New NAFTA is still in effect, and even if it wasn’t, we’re both signatories to the CPTPP), because this is the state of the Conservative Party today.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian strikes killed two people and wounded at least ten in Zaporizhzhia, while shelling killed three and injured at least four in Nikopol. Russians also hit a key gas interconnector, which Ukraine says was about trying to undermine their preparations for winter (when Russia always attacks power supplies).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Longest Ballot nuisances reach a new record

Posted on by

The Longest Ballot Committee crybabies have reached a high—or low—by organising some hundred candidates to be on the ballot for the Battle River—Crowfoot byelection, and they want to reach 200 when the nominations close on the 28th. It’s ridiculous and abusive, and they’re now full-on masturbating in the media insisting this is about the purity of democracy and that it’s not even about protest when this is about trying to force the government to hold a citizen’s assembly for electoral reform, because they don’t think politicians should write their own rules. Erm, except that’s what self-government means. Politicians write their own rules so that the King doesn’t. Revolutions were fought for this ability.

As for citizen’s assemblies, they are demonstrably bullshit—they’re tools used to launder accountability because there is no way to hold them accountable because you can’t vote them out for the decisions they make, and most of the time, they are easily manipulable to deliver the kinds of answers you want them to give, usually by gaming the “experts” who guide them. It’s another form of manufacturing consent, much like how referendums are easily manipulable by the government who organizes them, by shaping the questions and the conditions of those referendums to deliver results they want, at which point they manipulate the responses they get. In this case, they want this citizen’s assembly to deliver proportional representation for them (which system of PR? Who can say? But yes, that matters), because they’re crybabies who seem to think that if the person/party you vote for doesn’t automatically win, then your vote is “wasted.” There’s a technical term for that—it’s “sore loserism.” And Parliament really needs to get their shit together to close the loopholes in the rules so that the Longest Ballot organisers are stopped.

Meanwhile, the push to lower the voting age has been given a new push because the voting age is being lowered to sixteen in the UK, amidst complaints that Labour are trying to put their thumbs on the scale of the next election because their popularity is plummeting. I’m not a big fan of lowering the voting age to sixteen—teenagers make a lot of dumb choices, and just yesterday, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that youth frequently don’t have the moral blameworthiness to know the severity of consequences in criminal activity, but they would for voting? I can guarantee you that it would mean that voter turnout percentages would plummet even further, just like they did when the voting age was lowered to 18, and we’d be in for a whole new round of handwringing about that. If teenagers want to be politically active, they should join political parties and learn how to organise, and participate in nominations and leadership contests (which is another reason why we need to reinvigorate grassroots party democracy). I’m just not convinced that lowering the voting age to 16 is going to solve any problems.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-07-18T22:56:07.793Z

Ukraine Dispatch

A mass Russian drone attack overnight has killed at least one person when they struck apartment buildings. Russian forces claim to have taken control of three villages along different parts of the front lines. Ukraine’s top commander says that their forces are holding firm outside of the key city of Pokrovsk.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A few amendments, but very telling ones

Posted on by

It seems that Bill C-5 did not emerge from committee unscathed, as the opposition forced a number of amendments to the bill through, most of them creating an added list of laws that the government cannot opt itself out of using the giant Henry VIII clause that is the second half of said bill. The issue here? That aside from the Indian Act being one of those laws, the remainder are mostly done for the theatre of the Conservatives (and Bloc to a lesser extent) putting on a show about trying to keep said Henry VIII clause being used in a corrupt manner. To that end, the laws protected from opt-outs include:

  • Access to Information Act,
  • Lobbying Act,
  • Canada Elections Act,
  • Criminal Code,
  • Conflict of Interest Act,
  • Investment Canada Act,
  • Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act,
  • Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act,
  • Railway Safety Act,
  • Trade Unions Act,
  • Explosives Act,
  • Hazardous Products Act,
  • Indian Act,
  • Auditor General Act, or
  • Official Languages Act

Do you notice what’s missing? Any kind of environmental laws, which the Conservatives continue to demand be repealed, or any kind of UNDRIP legislation, which would ensure free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous people when it comes to these projects.

The government says they are considering the amendments and whether to support their adoption or not (but given that every opposition party has lined up behind them, they may not have a choice), but the fact remains that they have refused adequate consultation with Indigenous people in developing and passing this legislation (they could barely be arsed to hear from one Indigenous witness at committee, let along several rights-holders), or that they are damaging the trust the government spent the past decade trying to rebuild. Just amateur galaxy-brained antics that you would think a government that is ten years into their time in office would actually have learned a lesson or two by this point.

Meanwhile, you have some Indigenous voices calling on the Governor General to delay or to deny royal assent for Bill C-5, which is not going to happen. If it did, it would cause a constitutional crisis, and I can’t believe we need to keep saying this every time someone makes the suggestion because they don’t understand how Responsible Government works. This is a political problem, and it demands a political solution, not one where you pull out the constitutional fire extinguisher and try to wield it. That’s not how this works, and people need to both stop suggesting it, and journalists need to stop taking this kind of talk seriously. Just stop it.

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy says that the increasing attacks demonstrate why more pressure needs to be applied to Russia to force a ceasefire. There was another POW swap yesterday, but no word on how many were exchanged on either side.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Countdown to a trade deal?

Posted on by

Even before the G7 summit officially got underway, prime minister Mark Carney had his bilateral meeting with Trump, and it was this somewhat awkward situation where Trump defended having a “tariff concept” and said that Carney had a “more complicated” plan (how could “free trade” be more complicated?”) but there was word that talks were “accelerating,” and later in the day, we got a readout from that conversation that said that they were aiming to get a trade deal within 30 days, so no pressure there (not that you could really accept such a deal for the paper it’s written on because this is Trump and he doesn’t honour his agreements). Trump also claimed to have signed a trade deal with the UK (which he called the EU at the time), and held up a blank page with his signature on it. So that…happened.

Holy crap. The US-UK trade deal is a blank sheet of paper and only Trump signed it. (Genuine screen grab).

— Justin Wolfers (@justinwolfers.bsky.social) 2025-06-17T00:13:56.113Z

The rest of the summit took place, and then suddenly Trump decided he needed to leave early, right after the Heads of Government dinner, citing important business in Washington, with allusions to the Israel-Iran conflict, but he did wind up signing a joint communiqué that calls for de-escalation in said conflict, so we’ll see how that holds up. Trump leaving early does mean that he won’t be around the arrival of either Volodymyr Zelenskyy or Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum, who had hoped to have bilateral meetings with Trump on the sidelines of the summit, so that does blow a hole in what they expected to come for, particularly for Sheinbaum who rarely travels.

Meanwhile, here are some of the highlights of the day. Tsuut’ina Nation council member Steven Crowchild spoke about his meeting with Trump during his arrival in Calgary. EU officials confirmed that Carney is likely to sign a defence procurement agreement with them during his visit to Brussels in two weeks.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-06-16T22:08:16.537Z

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian drone and missile attack struck Kyiv in the early morning hours, wounding at least twenty. Ukraine received another 1,245 bodies, ending this repatriation agreement, bringing the total to over 6000 war dead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Countdown to the G7 summit

Posted on by

It’s the run-up to the G7 summit on Monday and Tuesday, and it will start with dinner with UK prime minister Keir Starmer tonight, before everyone starts heading to Calgary, where Danielle Smith will be greeting delegates as they arrive for the G7, starting on Sunday, and will host an event with them. We already know that there will be some different features in this summit in that they will forgo the usual joint communiqué, but instead, Carney will put out a chair’s statement (because there is unlikely to be any kind of consensus to be had with Trump in the room).

Another question is about what some of the discussions will wind up being about, given the chaotic nature of what is happening right now, such as Israel and Iran attacking one another, while there are wildfires burning in Alberta, and the conflict in Ukraine has intensified after Ukraine destroyed a significant portion of Russia’s strategic bomber fleet. The number of other non-G7 members invited to attend will also help shape the discussions, which includes Indian prime minister Narendra Modi (whose activities we are apparently overlooking for the sake of the conference), though it should also be noted that “bone saws” Mohammed bin Salman won’t be attending after all, despite being invited. Here is a rundown of the additional invitees to the summit.

Meanwhile, Canada and India have reached an agreement to share information about cross-border crimes, such as transnational crimes, syndicates, terrorism, and extremist activities. That makes the obvious question to be whether the Indian government will disclose its transnational repression and contracting of syndicates to carryout transnational crimes (like extrajudicial killings)? Or do they simply expect Canada to turn over information about the legal activities of Khalistani advocates in this country? Because if we’re not getting any of the former, I’m not sure what value this agreement really has as a “reset” of the relationship.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine and Russia had another swap of bodies of fallen soldiers yesterday.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The price of going around consultations

Posted on by

As prime minister Mark Carney gets set to ram his major project legislation through Parliament—Henry VIII clause and all—a couple of philosophical questions are popping up about the nature of what it is they’re doing to speed through these approvals. Doug Ford is trying to do it by essentially creating lawless zones, whereas Carney is giving himself the power to override other laws through regulation alone, which is ripe for abuse and which the Liberals would be screaming bloody murder about if they were in opposition. (The Conservatives, incidentally, are not up in arms about this use of a Henry VIII clause). The thing is, though, these laws and regulations exist for a reason—they’re not there just to thwart investment or development (in spite of what the Conservatives might tell themselves), and you’re asking for trouble if you go around it.

Part of that trouble is Indigenous consultation, and what they seem to believe it entails. It’s not just a meeting where you sit down and go “Here’s what we want to do on your lands.” It’s way more complicated, especially as you have some particular First Nations that have been burned in the past by other developers who promised them all kinds of benefits for that development and then reneged on their agreements (often leaving an environmental catastrophe in their wakes that they won’t pay for, leaving these First Nations off even worse). And they are already talking about litigation if their rights are violated, and those rights include free, prior and informed consent. This is a big deal, and we’re not sure that either Carney or Ford have actually thought this through. Things take time—especially within First Nations. Carney may be in for an unpleasant surprise about his timelines.

[Mallory Archer voice]: Do you want litigation? Because that's how you get litigation.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-06-10T04:18:21.071Z

Meanwhile, oil prices have crashed to rock-bottom prices, meaning it will be even more unlikely that we’ll see companies willing to invest in new pipeline infrastructure, even if the Carney government thinks they can ram projects through in a two-year window (which, again, I remain dubious about). Danielle Smith is trying to entice a proponent for some sort of pipeline, but again, money talks. Those rock-bottom prices are also going to hit Alberta’s government hard, because they budgeted for much higher royalties, and that in turn will make Smith panicky and try to pick even more fights, all because she refuses to implement a sales tax that would avoid being dependent on oil revenues above a certain level to balance the books.

Ukraine Dispatch

It was another night of heavy drone attacks, with the hardest-hit area being Kharkiv, killing three people and a total of 64 wounded across the country. Ukraine says that they struck a large gunpower factory in Russia. Another prisoner swap was held yesterday, but it was less prisoners than 1212 bodies.

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: A lost vote for the sake of point-scoring

Posted on by

The opposition shenanigans manifested during one of the very first votes of the new Parliament, where the government was not able to defeat the Conservative amendment to the Address in Reply to the Speech From the Throne. Said amendment urged the government to table a spring budget, but it’s not binding, and it looks like Mark Carney and the rest of Cabinet will take it under advisement and leave it at that (because you can’t produce a budget within two weeks’ notice, and the Conservatives know that very well).

What gets me is that you have the Conservatives (and others) going “what does it say when the government loses their first vote?” when it says nothing at all. If anything, it says that in a minority parliament, the opposition parties will do everything they can to embarrass the government, just as they have in previous parliaments, and given the current configuration of parties, this is really just a continuation of the constant juvenile bullshit we’ve seen over and over again that resulted in a paralyzed House of Commons last fall. Nothing really changed, and we’re going to see more that very same thing because we have the same insistence on juvenile point-scoring from the opposition, and we have the same Liberal government that is both inept at communicating their way out of a wet paper bag, and who are tactically incompetent because they think that they will somehow come out looking sympathetic to the procedural warfare and gamesmanship when they absolutely won’t because legacy media will simply not actually call anyone’s bullshit, but just both-sides the whole thing, and the Liberals will always lose in that framing. And I suppose what it says about the government is that they haven’t learned a single gods damned lesson from their near-death experience, and Carney’s complete political inexperience isn’t doing them any favours here either.

Meanwhile, the government introduced their big omnibus border bill, and it has a lot of troubling elements, from lowering thresholds for electronic data collection by law enforcement that won’t always require a warrant, and gives Canada Post more authority to open mail they deem suspicious. It also changes particular thresholds for asylum claims, and gives the government powers to simply stop claims or immigration processes with no explanation or apparent avenues for appeal. There are some positives, such as more resources for financial crimes, but in the grand scheme of things, I’m not sure it balances the negatives. The government claims they found the right balance that respects Charter rights, but I am dubious, and I suspect that law enforcement convinced them that they need these rights-violating powers and used Trump’s threats as a justification to get what they want.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian rocket attack killed at least four and injured at least 25 in Sumy. The city of Sumy remains under threat as Russians advance in that region. Ukraine detonated explosives on the concrete piers supporting the bridge linking Russia to Crimea, forcing its closure.

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1929871991034568954

Continue reading →

QP: The difference between budgets and estimates

Posted on by

A Tuesday in June, and the prime minister was present today, as were the other leaders. Even though Andrew Scheer was present, but stayed seated, and left it up to Dan Albas to lead off, who crowed that the House voted last night to make the government table a spring budget (the motion doesn’t actually require, it merely “urges”) and went on to mischaracterise how the Budget and Estimates work, and gave the nonsense quote about how people need a budget before they spend, before demanding that the “minority” government table a budget immediately. Mark Carney praised the London Knights hockey team, and patted himself on the back for his successful meeting with the premiers. Albas listed supposed “facts,” and demanded to know when a spring budget would be tabled. Carney listed a bunch of other non sequiturs, also punctuated by “fact.” Kelly McCauley read another demand for the spring budget, and Carney noted that Canadians deserve the transfers in the Main Estimates. McCauley said those things would be in a budget, and again demanded one. Carney said that he knows the difference between the Main Estimates and the budget, unlike the members opposite, and there was an uproar. When things calmed down, Carney repeated the line and said that they know how to grow the economy without spending money. Joël Godin took over in French to read the same demand for a budget and falsely called the Estimates a “blank cheque.” (It has line items for departmental spending, for fuck sakes). Carney said in French they took note of the vote, but they stand with the premiers of Quebec to have one Canadian economy. Godin trotted out the nonsense line about people needing a budget before spending, and Carney said that they would be a budget, but in the meantime they would boost growth with a bill to build a strong economy.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and wondered about the potential project to create a pipeline to Hudson Bay. Carney said that they had plenty of projects around infrastructure and green energy. Blanchet wondered whether they were trying to find markets in Europe or refine heavy crude in western Canada. Carney said they hadn’t come to any decisions, but the projects need to have environmental standards and have a big impact. Blanchet demanded that the prime minister respect Quebec’s environmental agency. Carney said that they discussed the possibility with the premier, and that they need to have commitments around environmental standards.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More provincial buck-passing, FCM edition

Posted on by

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities had their big conference in Ottawa over the past couple of days, and there were a host of mayors and councillors on the Hill to meet with MPs. Yesterday afternoon, Mark Carney addressed their conference to basically give the same speech he’s been giving for the past couple of weeks about things like “moving to delay to delivery,” and so on. But I did find it interesting that as part of this address to the FCM, he essentially told them that he’ll be too busy with nation-building projects to reform municipal funding structures.

It’s kind of funny, but at the same time, I have to ask how that’s actually his job, or the job of the federal government at all. Cities are creatures of provincial legislation. If you want to reform their funding structures, the provinces need to sit down and hammer that out, unless you want to start amending the constitution, and I’m pretty sure that nobody wants to open that particular Pandora’s Box (which, incidentally, was not a box but a jar). We could let cities collect their own income or sales taxes, or other forms of financing that would be better than simply property taxes, but provinces refuse, and in some cases, have specifically legislated against it. And we’ve known for decades now that cities have funding challenges that they need something to be done about, but have provinces responded? Of course not. They simply demand the federal government send them more money.

With this in mind, Toronto mayor Olivia Chow was also here for the FCM meeting, and she says she is encouraged by Carney’s sense of urgency on tackling the housing crisis, but again, she too is here calling for the federal government to directly intervene with money. One thing she has proposed is for necessary infrastructure to build more housing, for the federal government to basically pay the municipality’s one-third share (so they essentially pay two-thirds and the province pay the other third), and it’s just so infuriating. The federal government is not the purse for every other jurisdiction. Provinces have the very same revenue-generating tools as the federal government does, but they refuse to use them because they would rather beg for money and let the federal government be the bad guy with their taxes than the province. This kind of absolute immaturity is just exhausting, and it’s one of the reasons why things just aren’t getting done in this country.

Or ever, if we're being honest.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-05-30T13:30:00.766Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia’s massive drone attack overnight Thursday injured two people in Kharkiv, and hit a town that sits on the border with Romania, which is a NATO member.

Continue reading →