Tag Archives: Budget 2025

QP: Supporting the MOU includes a carbon price

Posted on by
Reply

On a day when the Conservatives were preoccupied with their Supply Day motion shenanigans, the PM was present, where he was doubtlessly going to be grilled on the topic. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and declared that Canada needs a pipeline to the Pacific, to strengthen our economy, strengthen the dollar and restore purchasing power, then declared that Carney’s caucus rebelled, so Poilievre took the words from the MOU, and asked if he would vote for them, or if they couldn’t believe his words. Carney replied that the MOU isn’t something you can pick and choose from, and that they chose only a few words and left out the industrial carbon price, the methane regulations, the Net-Zero 2050 goals, and that they need to eat the whole meal and not just the appetizer. Poilievre took this as an invitation to falsely claim that the industrial carbon price was causing food inflation, and demanded it be abolished, to which Carney reminded him there is no carbon taxes on Canadian farms, and that the impact of that price, according to the Canadian Climate Institute, is effectively zero. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the claim that we need a pipeline to the Pacific, at the supposed rebellion, and that he took the wording for his motion came right from the MOU. Carney quoted the Canadian cricket team about needing to play the whole T20 and not just a couple of overs (a not-so-subtle reference to the fact that the national cricket team was in the Gallery) and that the MOU wasn’t just about the pipeline, it’s also Pathways, methane reductions and Net-Zero 2050. Poilievre insisted that if the government votes against the motion, they vote against things like consultation with First Nations. Carney responded that this was the first time that Poilievre acknowledged the constitutional duty to consult, but he hasn’t acknowledged working with provinces or industrial carbon pricing. Poilievre claimed that they believe in it and put it in their motion (but said nothing of consent), and claimed Carney was quietly telling his caucus the pipeline was never going to happen. Carney insisted that the MOU was about pipeline, carbon capture, inter-ties for electricity, digital asbestos data centres, industrial carbon pricing, and methane reductions. Poilievre then said the quiet part out loud and that the only thing the motion doesn’t include a carbon price, and demanded a pipeline without a carbon price. Carney responded by suggesting they instead vote for the whole MOU.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, raised Steven Guilbeault’s op-ed, and wondered if the government was choosing his caucus or the shareholders in the oil sector. Carney said he was choosing the Canadian economy which includes clean and conventional energy. Blanchet moved to the religious exemption for hate speech, and wanted Carney’s personal views. Carney said that Bill C-9 is about protecting religions, such as temples, synagogues and mosques, and the committee was considering this matter. Blanchet then raised someone who has preached “anti-Zionism” under religious freedom, before moving topics again to the issue of “discount drivers” on roads. Carney said that unacceptable word are always unacceptable, and that they are working to protect truckers, which is why they were tightening the rules.

Continue reading →

QP: Supporting the “entire” MOU

Posted on by
Reply

As the final sitting week for the year began, the prime minister was in town but absent from QP. Pierre Poilievre was present, however, and he led off in French, and called the Liberals “grinches” before raising the Food Price Report, blaming “inflationary taxes and deficits,” which is of course, nonsense. François-Philippe Champagne said that Poilievre is talking about imaginary taxes, while the main measure in the budget is a tax cut for 22 million Canadians. Poilievre repeated the same question in English, listing the imaginary “hidden grocery taxes” this time. Champagne boisterously praised the “good news” in the budget after being warned by the Speaker for using the budget document as a prop. Poilievre said that if the Liberals want to solve the cost of living crisis, they should build more pipelines to boost the dollar so that they can buy more food and houses, and then gave some revisionist history around the demise of Northern Gateway, and wanted the government members to vote for their own MOU to build a pipeline. Tim Hodgson said it was a “sad day” because conservatives are divided, listing conservative premiers who support the MOU “in its entirety.” Poilievre declared that in the “spirit of Christmas,” he engaged in an “act of generosity” to lift words from that MOU as part of their Supply Day motion tomorrow, to get Liberals to vote on a pipeline to the Pacific and lift the tanker ban, admitting that they were wrong. Hodgson suggested he not cherry-pick parts of the MOU and support the entire MOU like premiers were doing. Poilievre said the only ones dived is the prime minister who is “divided against himself,” and demanded he take a position and vote for their motion. Hodgson repeated the premiers that support the full MOU, and invited the Conservatives to support it. Poilievre said that meant there were parts that they didn’t agree with, and again demanded the government vote for their motion. MacKinnon praised Danielle Smith for signing the MOU and listed the other measures in it that the Conservatives apparently don’t care about.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and took swipes at the Conservatives for pushing back against removing the religious exemption for hate crimes, and now the prime minister has also pushed back. Sean Fraser stood up and said that they need to take action to combat hate, and that the house needs to support it, but suggested that amendments were the responsibility of the justice committee. Normandin wondered why the prime minister sided with the Conservatives and the religious right to keep the religious exemption. Fraser again talked around this before again insisting this was the domain of the committee. Rhéal Fortin took over to ask the same question, and Fraser defended the bill in order to protect communities facing hate crimes, which means collaborating with different parties, and that he looked forward to the decision of the committee.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sandboxing powers?

Posted on by
Reply

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: Trying to jam the Liberals on the MOU

Posted on by
Reply

Because Pierre Poilievre thinks he’s a tactical genius, he has announced that next week’s Conservative Supply Day motion will be about the MOU with Alberta, and forcing a vote on the language about a pipeline to the Pacific, in defiance of the tanker ban.

It’s a transparent attempt to try and jam the Liberals, at least rhetorically, into supporting the motion in order to show support for the MOU, after which Poilievre can keep saying “You supported it!” and “Give me the date when construction starts,” as though there’s a proponent, a project and a route already lined up (to say nothing about the long-term contracts about who is going to buy the product once it’s built, because yes, that does matter). The thing is, these kinds of motions are non-binding, and really means nothing in the end. So if a number of Liberals vote against it, it doesn’t actually mean anything, other than the rhetorical notion that lo, they are not fully in lock-step on something, which actually sets them apart from pretty much every other party where uniformity and loyalty to the leader and all of his positions are constantly being enforced in one way or another. Maybe he will tolerate differences of opinion—or maybe he’ll crack the whip. We’ll see when Tuesday gets here.

Ukraine Dispatch

The International Atomic Agency says the protective shield around Chornobyl has been damaged by Russian strikes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another weaponized committee appearance

Posted on by
Reply

There was drama at the immigration committee yesterday as Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner decided to go after minister Lina Diab for the sake of putting on a show for the cameras, so that she can harvest as many clips from it as she can for social media. Now, I will be the first to say that Diab is not a great minister, and she is unable to answer basic questions on her file during Question Period, and yesterday as no exception. That being said, Rempel Garner was harassing her over things that are outside of Diab’s purview as minister.

In particular, Rempel Garner was going after Diab on foreign nationals who have committed crimes, but who have received lenient sentences so as to avoid removal. Part of this is no doubt part of a campaign of scapegoating of immigrants, along with blaming them for housing shortages, the collapse of the healthcare system, and youth unemployment, which is gross and unbecoming, but we are now in a political era where parties have let the anti-immigration sentiments fester while trying to blame it on the Liberals (and for which Carney has gone along with that scapegoating and alarmingly has adopted Nigel Farage’s language to blame it on Trudeau). But Diab has nothing to do with court sentences, and saying that she was “pro-raper” for pointing out that sentencing decisions are made by courts independent of government crosses a line, and its’ incredibly disappointing in particular because Rempel Garner used to be one of the most progressive members of the Conservative caucus, but has apparently decided to turn herself into one of its most vociferous attack dogs for the sake of ingratiating herself with the leadership after she was initially kept on the outs for her support of Erin O’Toole.

It was also noted by the committee chair that previous witnesses at the committee, who were all civil servants, were subject to harassment after their previous committee appearances because they were used for social media clips, because that’s what committees have devolved to. It’s a denigration of Parliament and it’s making it so that nobody will want to appear at a committee again, which diminishes the role of Parliament, to say nothing of the fact that it is turning MPs into a bunch of performing monkeys for the party’s social media team. MPs need to stop this behaviour before we find ourselves at a point of no return.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-04T15:03:21.264Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians attacked power and heating systems for Kherson and Odesa in the south. Drone footage shows the devastated city of Myrnohrad nearly surrounded by Russian forces, even though Putin claims they already control it. Ukraine has attacked and damaged the Asov Sea port of Temryuk, as well as a large chemical plant in Stavropol. Five drones were spotted in the flight path of president Zelenskyy’s aircraft on his approach to Ireland, but his early arrival avoided them.

Continue reading →

QP: False attribution to the food price report

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was apparently in town but had nothing on his schedule, and was not at QP. Pierre Poilievre was, however, and he led off in French, worrying about Canadians not able to afford nutritious food after the Food Price Report said that families can expect to spend an additional $995 a year on groceries this year, and demanded the government abolish the “taxes” and “inflationary spending” driving those prices. (That is not what is causing the prices to rise). Julie Dabrusin rose to say that the industrial carbon price doesn’t apply to farms, and that the Food Price Report said that climate change is the biggest driver of food prices, and if the Conservatives were ready to fight climate change. Poilievre cited the report to point out that the average weekly grocery bill for a family of four doubled over the past ten years, and again blamed government spending and “taxes.” Steve MacKinnon dismissed the talk of these imaginary taxes, and that Poilievre systematically votes against things that help people in need. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question, and took aim at “inflationary taxes on food.” Patty Hajdu got up and pointed out that he didn’t read the report, and that the report highlights that the highest drivers of costs are related to climate changes, such as drought in Western Canada, and that is why the governments were helping Canadians with things like child care. Poilievre declared that Carney declared that the was to be judged on the prices of food, and that he is now making excuses for food prices doubling over the past year thanks to “Liberal taxes.” Hajdu again dismissed the menace of “hidden taxes” and that’s why they ensure that there is more money in people’s pockets, and then jabbed that the Conservatives apparently don’t understand market forces, before praising the renewed child care agreements with provinces. Poilievre insisted that those programmes have only made child poverty worse, and this time Dabrusin praised the Canada Child Benefit before taking her own turn chiding the imaginary taxes. Poilievre enumerated those supposed “hidden taxes” and demanded the government scrap them. Hajdu pointed out that Poilievre didn’t obviously read the report, and cited its passages on inflation.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and accused the government of bowing to religious lobbies as they have slowed down progress on the hate crime bill. Patricia Lattanzio said that the work on the bill was progressing. Normandin again accused the government of being cowardly, and Marc Miller got up to ask if the Bloc, like their provincial counterparts, think that artists need to swear loyalty to the Quebec nation. Rhéal Fortin got up to take his own turn to make the same accusation of government, and this time Joël Lightbound said that the Bloc are trying to distract, and said that the government is investing in culture not to demand the fealty of artists.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The details behind Guilbeault’s exit

Posted on by
2

If there’s a story you need to read this weekend, it’s Althia Raj’s look behind the scenes on how Steven Guilbeault’s resignation went down. It’s a tale of deception, freezing Guilbeault out during the process, undermining all of the work on climate action that had been done on this point, creating special carve-outs for Alberta that will piss off every other province, and breaking the word that had been given to Elizabeth May in order to secure her support. And then, they wanted Guilbeault to say some bullshit thing like he was “putting them on notice” until April or something like that, and it was untenable for him to stay, so he resigned. It was complete amateur hour. And Carney undermining his word is a very big problem, particularly because when he was a central banker, his word needed to be believed in order for it to have power. That’s why central bankers need to be ruthlessly apolitical, so that they don’t have the appearance of making calls for partisan benefit. Carney has undermined his credibility entirely because he has shown that his word now means nothing.

This point is disturbing: Guilbeault "was also deeply troubled by the ease with which the PMO was casting aside its moral obligation to May. What was the Liberals’ word worth?"Mark Carney seems to have forgotten the first rule of central banking: Your word, your credibility, is all.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2025-11-29T02:23:29.613Z

There are some particular threads in here that should be unpacked, which is that the motivation for this whole exercise seems to have been that they felt it “necessary for Canadian unity and to combat separatism in Alberta.” This doesn’t achieve that at all. It weakens unity because it gives Alberta special treatment that includes a lower carbon price and an exemption from other emission regulations that no other province gets, which makes it look an awful lot like they got it because the whined the loudest (and they’re not wrong). And it will do nothing about separatism because it fundamentally misunderstands it. It’s not about “unfair treatment,” because that was never the case—it was about a culture of grievance.

Albertans have been force-fed grievance porn for decades, like a goose being fattened for fois gras.You'll never guess what happens next…

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-28T22:43:39.019Z

To that end, Danielle Smith is at the UCP annual general meeting this weekend, and when she crowed to the crowd about all the things she secured from Carney—she got him to bend the knee, give her everything she wants, and she has to give up pretty much nothing in exchange—they booed her. Nothing any government will do will actually satisfy them, because they don’t know how to process success. They have been force-fed grievances by successive premiers as a way of distracting from their failures and the fact that they have tied themselves to the external forces of world oil prices, and it’s not giving them unlimited wealth anymore. They don’t have the same future they hoped for because world oil prices never recovered after 2014, and the industry is increasing productivity, laying off workers while increasing production. They’re angry about that, and they’ve been conditioned to blame Ottawa, ever since the 1980s when they blamed the National Energy Programme for a global collapse in oil prices, and they’ve been blaming Ottawa and anyone named Trudeau ever since. Jason Kenney in particular threw gasoline on that fire, and then pretended like he wanted to put it out by pouring a glass of water on that fire and patted himself on the back for it, and then Danielle Smith came in with a brand-new box of matches. There is no satisfying them, and Carney was a fool for thinking he could swoop in and be the hero. Now he’s alienating voters in BC and Quebec where he can’t afford to lose seats, for no gain in Alberta of Saskatchewan. He didn’t outplay Danielle Smith—he capitulated, and got nothing in return, just like every time he has capitulated to Trump.

Danielle Smith gets booed at UCP convention after mentioning working with Canada

— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson.bsky.social) 2025-11-28T22:17:35.805Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones and missiles attacked Kyiv overnight, killing at least one and injuring at least eleven. Ukrainian forces are still fighting in Kupiansk, in spite of Russian claims that they control the settlement. President Zelenskyy says that his chief of staff has resigned over the ongoing corruption investigations.

Continue reading →

QP: Fumbling around “Who cares?”

Posted on by

The PM had just returned home from his trip to the G20, but was not present as a result. Pierre Poilievre, however, was, and he led off in French, and he raised that when Carney was elected, it was on the notion that tariffs were an “existential threat,” but when asked over the weekend about the state of talks with Trump, Carney said “Who cares?” and Poilievre railed that he doesn’t care about forestry or auto workers. Steve MacKinnon ignored the question, and raised that last week, Conservative MP Bob Zimmer took up MAGA talking points that immigrants drag down the Canadian economy, and wondered if Poilievre approved of those comments. Poilievre said that his question was for the PM, who was in Ottawa (but he couldn’t directly say that he wasn’t preset in the Chamber), and repeated his incredulity about the “Who cares?” and how the prime minister couldn’t care about the people losing their jobs due to his “incompetence.” MacKinnon responded in English by again asking about Zimmer’s comments, and asked again if Poilievre endorses such claims. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his incredulity about the “who cares?”, but MacKinnon again raised comments made by Zimmer and Stephanie Kusie, and wondered if there would be apologies. Poilievre raised an $80 billion contract Brookfield got from the White House, and accused Carney of being more concerned about that. MacKinnon insisted that this was another attack questioning the prime minister’s loyalty to Canada. Poilievre listed industries affected by tariffs and declared that he about them, and this time Dominic LeBlanc got up to say that the government was elected to defend Canadian workers, which the budget does, and the Conservatives voted against it. Poilievre repeated the claim about a Brookfield deal, and François-Philippe Champagne got up to praise the good news in the budget.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and he relayed that he was shocked that the government has given up on its feminist foreign policy, and he demanded to know if gender equating was still a Canadian value. Mona Fortier got up to read a script about how Canada continues to support gender equality and is still committed to eliminating gender-based violence, but that the foreign policy will be guided by three values, the third of which includes feminism. Blanchet needled that there was discomfort on the other side over this “gaffe” by the PM, and wondered if this was about pleasing the sexist regime in the U.S. Fortier repeated that they still hold feminism and a value. Blanchet called this speaking out of both sides of his mouth, pointed out that Carney said this as he was trying to get billions out of the UAE. Fortier read the same statement about values.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A 28-point capitulation plan

Posted on by

Things are heating up for Ukraine now that Trump has presented his so-called 28-point “peace plan,” which is nothing of the sort, and he’s giving president Volodymyr Zelenskyy one week to agree to it, or he is threatening to withdraw American support, even though that support has been mercurial and dwindling for the past year. Nevertheless, they have some key defensive technologies that Ukraine relies upon, particularly for air defences. But in no way is this plan at all acceptable, and is little more than a demand for Ukraine to capitulate, and to pay America for the privilege because Trump is a gangster running a protection racket.

This is what a protection racket looks like, although they are rarely put in writing

— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman.bsky.social) 2025-11-21T17:56:08.496Z

The “plan” (full text here) proposes that Ukraine turn over remaining areas in the regions Putin has been unable to conquer after four years, which are essentially a fortress belt. Turning those over, plus reducing the size of Ukraine’s army, is essentially an invitation for Putin to come back and invade with nothing to stop him the next time. The “deal” wants Ukraine to forgo NATO membership, which essentially gives Putin a veto over NATO. It wants Ukraine to pay the US for security guarantees, but no agreement with Trump is worth the paper it’s written on. It wants Ukraine to abandon any attempt to hold Russia accountable for its actions, including mass torture and crimes against humanity. And it wants Russia’s frozen assets returned. So Russia gives up nothing, and it positions itself to fully conquer Ukraine in a few months or a year, when Trump gets bored, and then creates an existential threat for the rest of Europe given that Putin will have gotten rid of the biggest obstacle to his expansionary plans.

Zelenskyy says he will work earnestly with the Americans on this, but that he won’t betray Ukraine’s interests, which pretty much means that he can’t accept these terms. European leaders say that they’re standing behind Ukraine, because they know the danger. But some of the reporting in Canada is abysmal, treating the plan like it’s serious when getting defence minister David McGuinty to comment on it. At least he says that any plan has to be “acceptable,” but this plan clearly is not, so I’m not sure why anyone is bothering to ask if he supports it because there is no way he could or should. This “plan” merely confirms that there is no point in relying on the US any longer, which means that Europe and Canada need to step up right now, and give Ukraine all of the support possible right now because anything less is a disaster for the future of western democracies.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-21T14:24:03.043Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims it has taken a string of four settlements in the Donetsk region, which Ukraine denies. They also claim that 5000 Ukrainian troops are trapped in the Kharkiv region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Laughable “dedicated partners”

Posted on by

Yesterday was Trans Day of Remembrance, to commemorate trans people who have died from violence and discrimination, and there were places across the country who did things like flag-raisings, and talked about the importance of inclusion, or their vague promises for LGBQT+ Action Plans™, which they haven’t delivered on (ahem, Nova Scotia). But nothing takes the cake compared to Alberta.

Alberta, which this week invoked the Notwithstanding Clause to shield three of its laws that delegitimise and attack trans rights in the province, and where a UCP backbencher compared gender affirmation to cattle castration in defending said invocation of the Notwithstanding Clause. Where a UCP candidate was temporarily booted from caucus for comparing trans students in a classroom to faeces in cooking dough, only to be reinstated months later with no questions asked. Who went through a major exercise in book-banning that aimed squarely on trans and queer materials. And with all of this, the province’s status of women minister put out a statement that, I shit you not, said “Our government remains a dedicated partner of transgender Albertans.”

The Alberta government putting out a statement for Trans Day of Remembrance two days after using the Notwithstanding Clause to override trans kids rights feels like parody at this point "Our government remains a dedicated partner of transgender Albertans.”

— Mel Woods (@melwoods.me) 2025-11-20T16:37:36.723Z

I just can’t. Words fail. It’s beyond parody. It’s just cruelty for the sake of cruelty, but Danielle Smith is doing this because she doesn’t want the swivel-eyed loons in her party base to eat her face, especially with another party convention on the way where she could face a leadership review. (And a good deal of blame falls on Jason Kenney for empowering these loons when he kicked the centrist normies out of the party). And because it bears reminding, trans people are always the first targeted by fascists, so what’s happening is the canary in the coal mine. Nothing good can come of this.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-20T15:05:10.130Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims that they have taken the city of Kupiansk, but Ukraine denies this. There was an exchange of soldiers’ bodies—Ukraine received 1000, while Russia got 30. The Russian-US “peace plan” involves turning over the fortified areas of the Donbas region Putin hasn’t been able to seize, and limiting the size of Ukraine’s military, none of which is acceptable.

Continue reading →