Tag Archives: Budget 2025

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: Freeland out—for good this time

Posted on by

It was nine months to the day since Chrystia Freeland first resigned from Cabinet, previously under Justin Trudeau, when he told her that he planned to replace her as finance minister with Mark Carney, but would she mind first delivering the fall economic update that had a bigger-than-promised deficit number in it? Carney had not said yes to the position at the time, and things went downhill from there. This time, Freeland says she’s leaving to take up new opportunities—in this case, a position of special envoy related to the reconstruction of Ukraine. Her roles got split up, as the transport portfolio was given to Steve MacKinnon, and the internal trade to Dominic LeBlanc.

https://twitter.com/cafreeland/status/1967994021227401685

I do think that this move solidifies a few narratives that have been floating around, one of which is that Carney is consolidating loyalists. Freeland supporters were pretty much entirely frozen out of Cabinet and other senior roles, and Freeland herself was made a minister as a gesture of unity in the party, but six months later, she’s out. That’s fairly problematic on its face. As well, it’s one more woman out of a senior role, and one who had influence behind the scenes, which again consolidates the bro atmosphere in the PMO, which is not good, and will cause plenty of problems going forward as the blind spots start to grow. For the moment, Freeland is keeping her seat, but will eventually resign it once she has consulted with her riding association and so on. With rumours that Carney plans to offer diplomatic posts to at least two other former ministers, he could be looking to free up a handful of fairly safe seats that he can put more friends or loyalists into (like he did with Evan Solomon).

Alberta carbon price

Danielle Smith is making changes to her province’s industrial carbon price, exempting companies from paying it if they invest in their own emissions reduction projects. You know, which the carbon price incentivised them to do so that they didn’t have to pay as much, because that’s the whole gods damned point of carbon pricing. Absolutely unbelievable stupidity on display here.

About that ovation

There has been a lot of talk about how the House of Commons gave a standing ovation about Charlie Kirk on Monday. That’s not exactly true, and has been torqued by people who may or may not be acting in good faith. The ovation had more to do with standing against political violence rather than Kirk himself. That said, of course it was Rachael Thomas who got up to praise a fascist like Kirk, because this is who Thomas is. She has been marinating in the fever swamps of the American far-right discourse for years, and imports it into Canadian politics all the time, including the very careful creation of an alternate dystopian reality where Justin Trudeau is a “dictator,” and the Liberals are busy censoring tweets on the Internet and are generally being authoritarians, in all defiance of the logic and reality. Thomas absolutely deserves to be called out for venerating a fascist, but I think everyone needs to calm down about the applause that happened afterward because it’s pretty clear the context was about the broader message.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-09-16T21:22:02.480Z

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy is calling for a combined European air defence system given that Russia’s attacks are now extending beyond just Ukraine. Here is a look at the struggle for Ukrainian authorities to identify their war dead.

Continue reading →

QP: Day two, and the front bench is useless

Posted on by

An hour before things got underway, it was announced that Chrystia Freeland was leaving Cabinet (but not her seat) to take on a special envoy role for Ukrainian reconstruction, meaning the front bench got shifted one day into the new sitting, and the gender balance skewed just a little more male. The PM was not present, as he was off to meet with Scott Moe, but other leaders did show up.

Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and decried that a budget had not been delivered yet, and claimed that the deficit had been doubled—higher than Trudeau’s. He claimed that inflation was fifty percent higher than the target (it’s not), and worried about people relying on food banks; if people were to judge Carney based on food prices, then what was the verdict? François-Philippe Champagne said that Canadians chose a government that would focus on change, and that they were going to be rigorous in spending and ambitious in investment. Poilievre worried that empty promises led to empty stomachs, to which Champagne again praised their tax cut, which was going to help the Middle Class™. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his faux concern that deficits cause food price inflation, and the empty promises/empty stomachs line. Champagne recited the “spend less to invest more” line, before praising their tax cut and the elimination of the carbon levy. Poilievre said this government’s failure led to human suffering, and this time, Tim Hodgson stood up to praise their pledge to expand the LNG terminal in BC. Poilievre said it was insulting that nobody would answer a question on the price of food, and Gregor Robertson said that while they were concerned about the cost of food, they were taking action on housing. Poilievre again pounced on the fact that the question was about food, and this time Adam van Koeverden got up to chide Poilievre for voting against school food programmes, and that Poilievre voted against the other measures in the Food Banks Canada report, like strengthening the social safety net.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and he worried about the state of talks with the U.S. Dominic LeBlanc assured him that the talks continue, and that they are preparing for the review of the New NAFTA. Blanchet said that he heard in Washington that there is disappointment that Carney is not in Washington more often, and LeBlanc agreed that the U.S. is an essential economic partner, and that with the trade relationship changing they need to work to get the best deal. Blanchet wondered if Carney would speak to Trump on the summit circuit, or go to Washington, and LeBlanc again reiterated that we treat the American relationship with great respect, but we are also diversifying out trade relationships.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions about Carney’s lack of political judgment

Posted on by

It was announced early in the morning that the Christo-fascist that prime minister Mark Carney invited to address the Cabinet retreat couldn’t make it after all, but don’t worry—they fully planned to continue to engage with him. No, seriously. The mind absolutely boggles, and I can scarcely believe that there wasn’t a revolt in the room from members of Cabinet who absolutely should know better. And then there was François-Philippe Champagne, who insisted that it was important to hear from “different perspectives.” What Christo-fascist perspective is so important to hear about? Removing the rights of women, or LGBTQ+ people? Re-segregating the United States? The destruction of the separation of church and state? Which of these issues, pray tell, did Cabinet most need to hear all about from the guy who wrote the 900-page playbook that Trump’s acolytes are following? Honest to Zeus, does a single person in that Cabinet have any political judgment whatsoever?

The Christo-fascist couldn't attend the Cabinet retreat after all, but don't worry, Carney's office says they will continue to engage with him.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-04T13:12:41.573Z

And then there are Carney’s defenders online, who insisted over and over again that Carney needs to “know your enemy,” and that it was important to get a sense of their “motivations and goals.” As though the 900-page manifesto doesn’t spell any of that out? And to be perfectly frank, does nobody remember the homily about the Nazi bar? This should not be difficult, but apparently Carney is not only demonstrating a lack of political judgment, but a lack of judgment period, and his defenders will praise him up and down and insist that this is just very clever strategy. It’s not. Stop pretending that making nice with fascists is at all acceptable.

The Carney stans are having another normal one in my replies, justifying consorting with Christo-fascists, I see.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-04T15:25:19.693Z

EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS WHO THEY ARE.Stop pretending there is a valid reason to make nice with fascists.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-04T15:15:13.455Z

https://bsky.app/profile/alwayslate.bsky.social/post/3lxzwrjhyyc2c

Meanwhile, Carney and several ministers will be making a series of “sector-based” announcements this morning, which could include things like measures to help sectors affected by tariffs, or the EV mandates. At the retreat yesterday, Champagne was using the corporate euphemisms of “adjustments” to the civil service in service of their austerity plans, but what struck me was his language about how they were trying to “rebuild Canada.” Erm, rebuild from what? You were part of the government for the past ten years, and it’s not like there was a smoking crater left in Trudeau’s wake. Champagne believed in that spending, whether through COVID or in implementing new social programmes that were helping with the cost of living. So again, I ask—what exactly are we rebuilding from?

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile strike hit a de-mining operation near Chernihiv, killing two. Ukraine’s top military commander is looking for increased use of interceptor drones. Twenty-six countries have pledged to provide security guarantees if there is a cease-fire (which Putin is not interested in). Here is a look at some of the people who are evacuating ruined cities in the country’s east after holding out in the hopes that the war would end.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The rules Poilievre defended are no longer good enough

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre decided he needed some more media attention yesterday, so he called a press conference in Ottawa, and declared that following the public disclosure of prime minister Mark Carney’s ethics filings, that none of this was good enough, that Carney needed to cash out all of his investments instead of putting them into a blind trust, and that nothing was good enough because he’ll be constantly managing conflicts (even though the point of the ethics screen is that he isn’t managing conflicts, his chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council manage the conflict so that he’s not involved). Perish the thought that this special set of rules for Carney will only serve to keep other accomplished individuals away from political life.

Of course, the whole episode is rife with hypocrisy. These are the conflict-of-interest laws that the Harper government put into place, of which Poilievre was not only a part of, but defended them, particularly when questions arose around Nigel Wright and his assets when he was Harper’s chief of staff, and Poilievre personally swore up and down at committee that these rules were amazing and that the blind trust was blind, and so on. Of course, now that it’s convenient, his tune has changed, but that didn’t stop the CBC from pulling out the footage from the archives.

Meanwhile, Poilievre also told reporters that the country needs “more people leaving than coming,” which is not even a dog-whistle at this point but a bullhorn. If this is pandering to the far-right elements of the riding he’s trying to win, well, it is likely to backfire on his attempts to continue wooing other newcomer communities, particularly the Sikh and Punjabi communities he spent so much time wooing in the leadup to the last election. Immigration numbers have already flatlined, and it’s going to cause problems down the road, sooner than later. For Poilievre to say this as the mass deportations south of the border pick up speed shows he’s not only incapable of thinking through the implications of the things he says, but he’s fine with mouthing the words of fascists, and that’s a real problem.

(Incidentally, Poilievre once again said he opposes Alberta separation but says that they have “legitimate grievances,” and repeated his same bullshit line about the Ottawa telling Alberta to “pay up and shut up.” They pay the same income tax as the rest of us, and have the same representation in Parliament).

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones killed two people in the Kherson region. President Zelenskyy is proposing a major government reshuffle that includes a new prime minister, while the current one is to be shuffled to defence. Trump’s “ultimatum” to Putin to reach a ceasefire in 50 days is just license for him to keep firing drones and missiles at Ukraine for another 50 days, and probably longer.

Continue reading →

QP: Faux shock that not everyone gets a maximum tax break

Posted on by

Fresh from the G7 summit, and with the days in the sitting nearly expired, the prime minister was present for QP today, as were the other leaders. Andrew Scheer was present, but left it up to Jasraj Hallan to lead off, and he raised the PBO’s calculation that most people won’t get the full $850 savings thanks to the tax cut, which he insisted was a broken promise, but in a way that was full of accusations and overwrought invective. Mark Carney played down what the PBO said and pointed out that the Conservatives voted for the bill. Hallan took another swipe at Carney and accused the government of raising the prices of groceries, rising crime, and said that Carney was “on his knees” for Trump and demanded a budget. Carney said that a tax cut is for those who pay taxes, with 22 million Canadians pay, and that the maximum was $850. Michael Barrett took over to accuse the PM of conflicts of interest, to which Carney said that unlike the member opposite, he ways proud to have been in the private sector and insisted that that he did have conflict screens in place. Barrett took exception, saying that he served in uniform, and again accused Carney of conflicts. Carney responded by patting himself on the back for their recent increased military spending commitment. Gérard Deltell returned to the PBO assertion French, and Carney repeated that the maximum was indeed $850, and for up to 22 million Canadians. Deltell tried to equate this to a Brookfield statement, and Carney turned to a paean about their single Canadian economy bill.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and didn’t believe there was any connection between the haste of Bill C-5 and the trade war. Carney insisted that there was a connection, particularly for the steel and aluminium industries, because they needed to create demand domestically. Blanchet said that projects take years so there couldn’t be a direct link, but Carney insisted that because projects take too long, they needed this legislation. Blanchet pointed out that there as supposed to be some movement with Trump at the G7, to which Carney pointed that we have some of the lowest tariff rates with the Americans, but there was still more to do.

Continue reading →

QP: A specious connection between food prices and a budget

Posted on by

The prime minister was out at Fort York, having made his big defence spending announcement, while the opposition was having their first allotted Supply Day in the Commons, with a nonsense motion calling for a budget because of food price inflation, blaming it on government spending when that’s not even remotely correct. 

Even though Andrew Scheer was present, he didn’t lead off, leading that up to Michael Barrett, who signalled to their motion, and demanded a budget that will bring down grocery prices (How? Price controls?) François-Philippe Champagne assured him that there will be a budget in the fall, and said it was ironic that the Conservatives consistently voted against measures to help people. Barrett claimed that the savings from the tax cut would be “vapourised” by “inflationary spending,” and demanded a budget again. Champagne said that they will always side with Canadians, like they sided with children to give them a national school food programme, or seniors with dental care, or families with child care. John Brassard took over to give the same mendacious framing of food price inflation, to which Wayne Long praised their cutting the consumer carbon levy. Brassard repeated the line about tripling food price inflation, and Long praised the headline inflation number, the workforce participation number, and the triple-A credit rating. Luc Berthold cited the “food professor” to blame food price inflation on government spending in French, to which Champagne pointed out that the Conservatives voted against any measures to help Canadians. Berthold repeated the same falsehoods to demand a budget, and Champagne retorted that the responsible thing to do was to cut taxes which they did.

Once again confused about all these questions in QP about food prices.Eliminating the carbon tax was supposed to take care of that.

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-06-09T18:21:50.749Z

Christine Normandin worried that the bill on trade barriers would force a pipeline through Quebec, and demanded the bill be split apart. Chrystia Freeland said that this is a critical moment for the country, so everyone needs to work together to build one Canadian economy. Normandin called the bill a step backward for the environment and democracy, and this time, Steve MacKinnon said that this bill is a response to an economic crisis caused by the Americans. Patrick Bonin also worried about the declaratory powers in the legislation, and Dabrusin says the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is that the Liberals believe in protecting the environment. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: What transnational repression?

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney had a big day planned with the tabling of his big “One Canada Economy” bill, and he managed to stomp all over his own message with news that he had a call with Indian prime minister Narendra Modi and invited him to attend the G7 summit in Kananaskis in a couple of weeks. There was a bit of a collective WTF from around the country considering that we still have not resolved the issue with the Modi government being credibly accused of ordering the murder of Canadian citizens on Canadian soil, along with other extortion rackets. Not only was this upsetting to Sikhs in Canada, but it also came on the anniversary of the attack on the Golden Temple in India, showing once again that Carney has inadequate political sense and is being poorly advised by those who allegedly have more political experience than he does.

chat is it normal to invite the head of a govt alleged to have been involved in the extrajudicial killing a canadian citizen on canadian soil to canada asking for a diaspora

— Supriya Dwivedi (@supriya.bsky.social) 2025-06-06T14:11:12.637Z

honestly hard to see this as anything other than the Carney govt thinking some canadian lives matter more than others it will also be incredibly difficult to take anything this govt says on transnational repression and foreign interference seriously given this pivot

— Supriya Dwivedi (@supriya.bsky.social) 2025-06-06T14:12:22.745Z

Carney defended the move by insisting this was about economic ties, and that he had reassurances that the law-enforcement process was ongoing (which India has refused cooperation around, and instead chose to make up a bunch of absolute horseshit about drugs supposedly being found on Trudeau’s plane). Others insisted that this was a diplomatic necessity, because diplomacy is not a reward for good behaviour (true!) and also stated that the other six members of the G7 have no problem with India and that Canada is an outlier. I would caveat that, however—the US has had their problems with India around this very problem, because some of it was also happening on US soil, and many other G7 countries don’t have the same Indian diaspora as Canada, which doesn’t mean that they would be safe from these kinds of activities. I would also say that there is an added implicit message with this invitation that you can essentially get away with murder if you’re economically important enough, and that’s a really, really bad message to send in this era of increasing authoritarianism and the democratic backsliding happening in Western countries.

On that note, Carney also had a call with Chinese premier Li Qiang, at his behest, about regularising communications channels. No doubt Carney has motivations of trying to get China to lift their tariffs on our agricultural and seafood products, which were in retaliation for our EV tariffs (because China is trying to behave in a predatory manner by trying to build a tech monoculture to suffocate our own EV industry). Not to mention, China continues to be a bad actor with its own foreign interference and transnational repression, so again, it is looking a lot like Carney is behaving like it’s 1995 and just one more trade deal with China will make them more democratic and respect human rights. Really! We mean it this time!

The last word goes to The Beaverton, who got it just right.

Carney limits G7 guests to one assassination each

— The Beaverton (@thebeaverton.com) 2025-06-06T21:09:26.706Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched another missile and drone attack on Ukraine in the early hours of Friday, killing at least six people. They claim this these are “military targets” in retaliation for Ukrainian “terrorist acts” against Russia, when of course we know this is nothing but bullshit. Ukrainian drones hit an industrial enterprise in Russia’s southern city of Engels.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Back-channel tariff talks?

Posted on by

Ever since the latest round of steel and aluminium tariffs went into place, there have been questions as to when and how Canada will respond, and earlier in the week, prime minister Mark Carney counselled patience and that there were “intensive negotiations” happening, but retaliatory measures were also being prepared. We found out yesterday that Carney and Trump have been having back-channel conversations on the subject, so retaliation while this is happening may be counter-productive. But you also have industry worrying that the longer this goes without retaliation, the more they become vulnerable to other things like steel imports from other countries being diverted to Canada, which could make their situation even worse.

That being said, we may not be able to eliminate all tariffs, and some level could remain because Trump does love tariffs, and has a completely wrong-headed notion about them because of the people he has been surrounding himself with. Never mind that our auto sector can’t survive with tariffs, or that the Americans will simply pay through the nose for aluminium that they can’t smelt themselves.

Meanwhile, the Star has a really good five-point explainer about the counter-tariffs, and why the Conservatives’ claims that they were “secretly removed” is false, but rather a certain number of counter-tariffs were suspended for six months to give Canadian companies time to adjust supply chains, but there are still plenty of counter-tariffs in place.

Ukraine Dispatch

There was another missile and drone attack overnight which hit Kyiv, has killed at least four people.

Continue reading →