Tag Archives: Budget 2025

Roundup: Ahistorical expectations about project timelines

Posted on by

A couple of quick notes for the weekend. First is that for all of the projects referred to the Major Projects Office, none have actually officially been designated a PONI (Project of National Importance), so my calling the referred projects as such is admittedly premature. But that also means that none of them have the special rules that trigger the Henry VIII Clause from the legislation, which again, leads to the same question that Althia Raj asked in her most recent column about why the rush to ram that bill through Parliament with almost no debate and little stakeholder input if they haven’t bothered to use it, nearly six months later.

The other note is that the talk about timelines remain ahistorical and nothing but wishful thinking. “We used to build big things. We built a railway in four years.” Erm, not really. This is likely a reason why most of the projects that have been referred to the MPO so far have been in the works for years is for the very reason that they’re much further along. This is likely going to be one of the death knells of Danielle Smith’s pipeline plan, which is that it’s starting from zero, and there is no way, even with the magic wand of the Henry VIII clause, that they can make it go from concept to shovels in two years.

They didn't go from "Shall we build a railway?" to a railway in four years.The CPR was a Confederation promise before 1867. Construction began in 1881.Or, actually, in 1875, when they started a section in Manitoba and northern Ontario. Which hooked up to other rails built on their own earlier.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:17:30.293Z

There were planning, scandal, false starts, re-awarding of the contract. And not a lot of attention to, you know, Indigenous people's rights.Or working conditions, which were eventually the subject of Heritage Minute you might recall. www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE3I…

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:20:55.646Z

What's the right length of time to plan and build a new high-speed rail line in 2025? I don't know.But they didn't do the entire CPR from concept to completion in four years, and I don't think we want a dead temporary foreign worker for every mile of track.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:23:15.475Z

And then there’s Poilievre’s completely nonsense demanding that government “get out of the way,” or Ontario’s Stephen Lecce talking about the problems with federal regulations killing projects when that also relies on a very selective reading of history and what happened. Northern Gateway started planning before Harper took over, and over his nine years in power, Mr. “Get government out of the way” couldn’t get it past the finish line either (in part because they couldn’t even be arsed to live up to their own consultation process with First Nations). Nothing Poilievre is saying is true, so We The Media need to stop treating it like it’s credible.

Ukraine Dispatch

The attack on Kyiv early Friday killed six and injured dozens, along with more strikes on energy facilities. Ukraine hit the oil port at Novorossiyk the same day, suspending oil exports. Ukraine is now mass-producing interceptor drones to bolster their air defences.

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: Remembrance Day 2025

Posted on by

For Remembrance Day, here is a look at the national ceremony in Ottawa, which was cold and snowy this year, and facing a dwindling number of veterans from the Second World War and Korea. As well, here are reports from ceremonies in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, and across BC.

Here is a look at the problem of digital asbestos fakes that are tainting remembrance across the internet, and glorifying Nazis in the process. Here is a look at the phenomenon of Unknown Soldiers in the era of DNA testing. Former MP and current MPP Karen McCrimmon, the first female air navigator in the Canadian Forces, talks about the importance of Remembrance Day.

As well, here is the tale of Wiliam Baldwin, who served, and whose calligraphy wrote down the names of the dead in the Book of Remembrance for the First World War. He enlisted in the Second World War, and signed up for a second tour when he was killed in action, and his name is in the Book of Remembrance for that war.

Ukraine Dispatch

There was a drone attack on Odesa’s energy and transport infrastructure. Russians are entering into Pokrovsk and Kupiansk “Mad Max-style,” while the situation in Zaporizhzhia is worsening. President Zelenskyy paid a visit to the front-line city of Kherson, while seven people have been charged in the energy kickback scheme.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not being a trained seal

Posted on by

Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith put out a video on his YouTube channel where he gives an honest assessment of the budget, including places where it fails to live up to the hype. As a backbench MP, this is not only his right, but his obligation, but boy howdy, a bunch of partisans from all stripes are losing their gods damned minds over this. A backbencher who doesn’t just lobotomise himself to read the scripts handed to him by his leader’s office? The nerve!

It's possible that Erskine-Smith has normalized dissent sufficiently — at least from him — that he can do stuff like this without it becoming a huge deal.www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jtC…

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-11-10T23:00:21.434Z

I was particularly struck by the partisan talking heads on Power & Politics last night who kept going on and on about how politics is a “team sport,” and that as a “member of the government,” he needs to be on-side. Erm, except he’s not a member of the government. Government=Cabinet, and while he is on the government side of the aisle, he is not a member. This is not be just being pedantic—it’s the very nature of how our parliamentary system works. Every member of Parliament, no matter which side of the aisle you’re on, are supposed to hold the government to account, and to keep them in check. Yes, that means government-side backbenchers too. That’s the whole raison d’être of Parliament, but everyone has become so used to the us-versus-them aspect that they have lost sight of that, and it really doesn’t help that Canada has largely lost the culture of backbenchers holding their own side to account because they are so desperate to get into Cabinet, or at least become a parliamentary secretary, that they are generally one ministerial screw-up away from a promotion, so they keep their mouths shut and stand up and clap and read their scripts like a good boy or girl, and that’s something that is fundamentally wrong with how the Canadian parliament operates.

Brad Lavigne and Kate Harrison telling Nate Erskine-Smith that he needs to be a trained seal is some bullshit.Backbenchers have an obligation to hold government to account as much as opposition MPs do. Learn how a Westminster system works, FFS. #PnPCBC

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-10T23:05:20.204Z

The UK, where you have a Chamber of 650 MPs, and a smaller Cabinet (though generally a larger number of junior ministers), generally means you have a lot of backbenchers who know they’ll never get into Cabinet, so they feel empowered to stand up to their own side. Some of them are former ministers who are still serving their constituents, and will let the current government know where they are going wrong. (There are some fantastic videos of Theresa May doing just this, and some videos of her absolutely savaging her successor, Boris Johnson, in PMQs). This is a culture we need to develop here. Of course, adding another hundred or so MPs to our chamber would help (and would really help us have enough bodies for committees without having parliamentary secretaries on them).

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-10T23:08:02.225Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Fighting continues in Pokrovosk, Dobropillia, and towns surrounding. Here is a look at life in Kherson, where Russians hunt civilians with drones on a daily basis. The anti-corruption bureau says it has found a $100 million kickback scheme in the state nuclear power company.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Running the party like a frat house

Posted on by

With the House of Commons not sitting this week, one can expect the drama of the Conservative ranks to continue to reverberate this week, seeing as the government’s big budget roll-out has been ringing a little bit flat, in part because they already announced everything ahead of time, but also the fact that it’s missing the mark in some key places. Regardless, MP Chris d’Entremont is now speaking to media a bit more now that he’s crossed the floor, and it’s revealing.

d’Entremont told the CBC over the weekend that he hadn’t been 100 percent on board with crossing the floor until his remarks were published in Politico, and Andrew Scheer and Chris Warkentin barged into his office to yell at him and call him a snake, which was the point he knew it was time to go. And frankly, that’s not a surprise, but my dudes, this did not work for Erin O’Toole when he was in the dying days of his leadership, so why do you think that bullying your caucus is going to work for you? And for Poilievre’s office to respond by saying that d’Entremont is a “liar” for “wilfully deceiving his voters, friends and colleagues” is rich coming from known liars like Poilievre and Scheer. And d’Entremont also said that it wasn’t just Poilievre, but his entire leadership team who are running the party like a frat house, which sounds about right because there are no adults in the room.

I will add that something that has come up a couple of times online but not in the media was the fact that d’Entremont has been a pro-life voter throughout his political career and time in Parliament, which was something that would have mattered in the Trudeau years, but looks like Carney has dumped (possibly because he is more devoutly Catholic than Trudeau was). That wasn’t to say that certain pro-life Liberals weren’t still in Trudeau’s caucus, likely under some kind of promise extracted from them not to vote in certain ways on those issues, but there has been no discussion as to whether any similar promise was extracted from d’Entremont, or if being resolutely pro-choice is no longer a requirement for the Liberal caucus.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-09T15:08:04.404Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Over the weekend, Russia targeted the power sub-stations to two nuclear power plants, killing seven, along with other strikes on cities like Dnipro. Ukrainian strikes have apparently disrupted power and heat in two Russian cities near the border.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Heavy-handed caucus management

Posted on by

The Ways and Means motion on the budget survived its second confidence vote, on the Bloc’s amendment, as no other party supported it (unsurprisingly). But outside of that, the drama inside the Conservative caucus room continues to spill out into the open as the party tries to deflect scrutiny. Leaks are talking about ten to fifteen very unhappy members, though nothing to indicate they’re going to cross the floor or leave caucus. At least not in the immediate future. Nevertheless, it is probably not lost on anyone that Andrew Scheer and Chris Warkentin storming into Chris d’Entremont’s office to yell at him when he let it be known he was contemplating crossing the floor is probably not great caucus management.

To that end, Scheer huffed and puffed his way out to the Foyer after Question Period yesterday to claim that it’s the Liberals who are harassing Conservatives, and it was that “harassment” that drove Matt Jeneroux to tender his resignation when there are accounts about how he was meeting with senior Liberals and was allegedly “eighty percent there” in terms of being convinced to cross over before this all blew up. Of course, nothing Scheer says is remotely believable, and his trying to claim that the Liberals are manufacturing this to “distract” from their budget is beyond risible considering just how complete and total their sales job on said budget is. The fact that Scheer is resorting to that kind of a dismissal is a sign of just how completely out of his depth he is here.

Scheer says Liberals are trying to “undemocratically” get a majority through backroom deals and accuse Liberals of harassing Conservatives to cross the floor. (Sure, Jan)

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-07T17:16:03.099Z

Scheer claims Jeneroux was pressured into resigning because Liberals were harassing him. He’s actually claiming that.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-07T17:18:59.423Z

What gets me is that no one in that caucus seems to have learned a single gods damned lesson after Erin O’Toole’s final days. For those of you who memory-holed the whole incident in trying to rehabilitate O’Toole’s image while trying to turn him into a statesman, in the dying days of his leadership, he weaponized the (garbage) Reform Act to kick out any member of caucus who dared to question him, and that member of caucus was Senator Batters, which was a big mistake because she has some pretty deep networks. Within days, the vote in caucus on O’Toole’s leadership was organised and he lost decisively. And despite this object lesson, Poilievre and Scheer are trying to use a heavy-hand and threats to enforce loyalty? Seriously? The other thing that seems to be emerging is a rift between the eastern and western flanks of the party, as eastern Tories are much more progressive and even-tempered than the Reform-rooted Conservatives, who are increasingly turning MAGA, and Poilievre needs to get a handle on this and start mending some fences before this blows up in his face.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-07T14:24:04.975Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The fighting continues in Pokrovsk, while Ukrainian forces are stepping up their assault on Russian forces in Dobropillia to ease the pressure on Pokrovsk. Ukrainian soldiers fighting with drones are being rewarded with points for confirmed hits and kills, leading to ethical concerns about the gamification of war. Ukraine says that 1400 Africans from dozens of countries have signed up to fight for Russia as mercenaries, but mostly are just used in “meat assaults.”

Continue reading →

Roundup: Jeneroux heads for the exit

Posted on by

It’s been a strange couple of days in the House of Commons. First of all, Pierre Poilievre made his speech on the budget (technically on the Ways and Means motion for the budget), and traditionally, the official opposition moves an amendment, followed by the next-largest party, in this case the Bloc. And these amendments are usually things like “the budget not pass because x, y, z.” But for some reason, Poilievre didn’t move the amendment in his speech like he normally would, so the Bloc took up the opportunity do so, meaning they got the amendment, and the Conservatives had to suffice with a sub-amendment, which doesn’t matter other than it being kind of embarrassing because they obviously don’t have their shit together.

And this got compounded by the votes. Unless I’m mistaken, normally these amendments/sub-amendments happen at the same time as the main vote on the Ways and Means motion, so it’s done in one fell swoop. Not this time. The Government House Leader declared that the vote on the Conservative sub-amendment would happen yesterday evening, and the Bloc amendment tomorrow afternoon, and that these would be considered confidence votes (which they aren’t normally—only the main vote). And let me stress—it is very, very, very unusual for any vote to happen on a Friday, let alone a confidence vote, and that’s only because they can now vote on their phones (which is a parliamentary abomination). This is not how this normally goes, and it’s a bunch of really childish gamesmanship. But suffice to say, the government passed the first vote as neither the Bloc nor the NDP would support the Conservative sub-amendment, and the NDP have already indicated they won’t vote for the Bloc’s amendment either—but they’re still not decided if they’re voting on the actual motion, sometime in the week after next (because next week is a constituency week).

It’s very, very unusual that they would hold any vote on a Friday, let alone a vote they have deemed to be a confidence vote.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-06T20:21:34.500Z

And then, as this was all going on, Conservative MP Matt Jeneroux announced he was going to resign his seat, and the language in his letter sounded like it was going to be pretty soon, saying he hoped he could speak in the House one more time. But then Pierre Poilievre tweets that he’s not going to retire until spring, which is weird. Paul Wells likened this to negotiating in public, and having a silent “or else.” And this is while rumours have been swirling that the Liberals have been having conversations with Jeneroux about crossing the floor, and other rumours swirling that Conservative MPs are being threatened if they follow d’Entremont across the floor. And then to compound the weirdness, Jeneroux posts on Facebook that he totally wasn’t coerced and that he’s still determining his resignation date, but it will “probably” be in the spring. This is not normal. And if you needed reassurance that things totally aren’t falling apart inside caucus, Gérard Deltell told the media that d’Entremont’s defection was an isolated case. Guys. You’re in five-alarm clown show territory now.

Per Paul Wells: I take Pierre here to be bargaining in public. The “next spring” directly contradicts Jeneroux and, the way it's placed, all clever at the end, amounts to an “if you know what's good for you.”

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-07T02:00:51.437Z

I totally wasn't coerced, he says.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-07T02:52:25.993Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims they are advancing in the ruins of Pokrovsk, as fighting continues. Ukraine has hit the major Volgograd oil refinery in a drone strike, and shut down its operations. And here’s what Angelina Jolie was doing in Kherson.

Continue reading →

QP: Trading “Food Professor” quotes back-and-forth

Posted on by

The PM was present for a second day in a row, and you would have expected all the other leaders would be as well, but Pierre Poilievre was absent. That left Melissa Lantsman to lead off instead, and she dutifully read the script about the size of the deficit that accomplishes so little. Mark Carney thundered that the budget is about building the country and that they will put $3000 in the pockets of very Canadian by the end of the decade. Lantsman worried about debt servicing charges and that it goes to “bankers” (as opposed to, say, pension funds), and Carney said that the health transfers were preserved and that the interest charges are less than they were under Harper. Luc Berthold took over in French to read the lines in French about fuelling inflation and children lining up at food banks, to which Carney responded with his lines about 75 percent of the budget is about protecting sovereignty, and that repeated the $3000 claim. Berthold insisted that Carney would go down in history as the most expensive, before repeating his canard about inflation. Carney countered that it was not the most costly budget, but the most ambitious. Jasraj Hallan took over to rush though some swipes at Carney possibly holding money in offshore tax havens. Carney responded that the budget fights for tax fairness and cuts taxes for 22 million people. Hallan repeated the same accusation, and Carney said that he was proud of his time in the private sector but now he is helping to grow the country.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and he complained about the so-called “discrimination” in Old-Age Security, and Carney noted the social transfers in the budget, and that it was indeed just that older seniors can get more. Blanchet then raised their plan for credits to help young people buy a first home, and Carney said that there is already an advantage for young people, which was on top of their investment in housing. Blanchet then demanded higher health transfers with no conditions attached, and Carney said that Quebec is getting $12 billion for healthcare and $5 billion for infrastructure, along with a few other big numbers.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Red flags around the “grand bargain”

Posted on by

The more I read about the budget’s “climate competitiveness,” the more I find myself questioning just what is on offer from Mark Carney. There is an attempt to build this so-called “grand bargain” that failed the last time it was tried, where approving the Trans-Mountain Expansion was supposed to help fund the green transition and provide the social licence for doing things like the tanker ban on the northwest coast of BC, and yet here we are, where the oil and gas sector and by extension, the provincial government of Alberta, have not lived up to their end of the bargain at all. The companies that insisted they were going to meet their 2025 Net-Zero targets suddenly started to complain that it was too hard, and when the greenwashing legislation kicked in, suddenly all of those Net-Zero pledges vanished, as though they were never real to begin with.

That’s why I’m particularly unimpressed that one of the promises in the budget is to water down the greenwashing legislation, which sounds an awful lot like Carney is looking for the industry to lie to him once more about all of the reductions that they’re totally going to make in the future—really! You just need to let them have a free hand with even fewer environmental regulations in the meantime. As well, the fact that Carney is pinning his hopes on so-called “decarbonized” oil production with the Pathways project is even looking like he’s going to lose a tonne of money trying to get it to scale up, because hey, he’s offering a bunch of tax credits for them to operate, which is a de facto subsidy for oil operations. But it’s extremely expensive, and all of those oil companies want even more taxpayer money to make it work, while they pocket their profits, naturally. Nevertheless, it looks an awful lot like Carney is going to capitulate to that sector and remove the emissions cap on a bunch of half-hearted greenwashed promises and pretend that he still cares about the environment.

Speaking of the tanker ban, BC premier David Eby and the coastal First Nations are organising a pushback against any move by the federal government to lift it in order to push a pipeline through the region, while Danielle Smith puts ever more pressure on the federal government to approve that project (even though there’s no proponent, or route, or even just a line on a map). Will it be enough to dissuade Carney? At the pace he’s going, I’m not taking any bets.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-05T14:25:06.884Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The fighting continues in the streets of Pokrovsk, which is the kind of fighting that can’t be done with the same kind of drone warfare that the rest of the front line has become accustomed to.

Continue reading →

QP: Continually invoking the so-called “Food Professor”

Posted on by

Post-budget, the PM was finally present for the first time in two weeks, as were all of the other leaders, ready to put on a show. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he declared that never has any budget forced Canadians to pay more for so little, decried the size of the deficit. Mark Carney insisted that Canada still has the best position in the G7, and that this was about building for the future. Poilievre decried that the cost to service the debt meant less money for doctors, and Carney retorted that debt servicing charges were less than they were under Harper. Poilievre repeated his first question in English, and threw in a couple of added slogans. Carney declared that 75 percent of the measures in the budget are to protect are sovereignty while the rest are for help for the cost of living, such as their tax cut. Poilievre insisted that the industrial carbon price was threatening “food sovereignty,” and quoted the so-called “Food Professor” to make his point. Carney patted himself on the back for killing the consumer carbon levy, that farms all fell below the industrial carbon price cut-off, and that the Climate Institute calculated that the impact of the industrial carbon price on inflation is zero. Poilievre tried to tie this to steel production and food prices, and Carney repeated that the effect of the industrial carbon price on food inflation is zero. Poilievre then switched to Friday’s Supreme Court decision, falsely characterised it, and demanded the government invoke the Notwithstanding Clause. Carney said that they would come up with new legislative measures in response. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, to lament that their priorities were not in the budget, and Carney responded that clean electricity tax credits was a good measure. Blanchet insisted that a tax credit was just creative accounting, and Carney insisted that Hydro-Quebec would be the biggest beneficiary, and that carbon capture was needed for the oil Quebec uses. Blanchet decried that the budget was just austerity, and Carney insisted this was about investing and that this was a growth budget.

Continue reading →