Tag Archives: Canada Post

Roundup: Cold water on that fantasy pipeline

Posted on by

Ever since Alberta premier Danielle Smith started her latest scheme of trying to get the ball rolling on a bitumen pipeline to the northwest coast of BC, everyone has been trying to get some kind of answer as to whether this project—which has no actual proponents, no route, and no hint of buyer contracts—is going to get some kind of fast-track approval. Of course, that’s the kind of thing that the government’s Major Projects Office push has engendered by its very existence, because Smith and the Conservatives federally have been ratcheting up their rhetoric to stake the future of the country on this imaginary project.

At a committee appearance, Major Projects Office CEO Dawn Farrell didn’t answer MPs questions as to whether her powers include being able to violate the BC tanker ban, which would be essential for such a project to happen. But of course, this response was because there is no project, no route, nothing to judge any hypotheticals on, so the safest course is not to answer, because hypotheticals have a way of spinning out of control. And such a question may not wind up mattering at all, because natural resources minister Tim Hodgson came out to say that any pipeline through BC needs approval of the provincial government and affected First Nations. So good luck with that.

So now we will start seeing the fallout from this, with more threats from Danielle Smith, and howling denunciations from the Conservatives. Apparently, the country can’t work so long as we have things like environmental laws, and who cares that oil production increased while emissions as a whole declined (though not necessarily within the sector), so it’s not like those laws were exactly detrimental to the sector. “Oh, but we could have been making even more money!” Really? Would pumping more supply into the market not have possibly depressed prices? There is no guarantee that just trashing our environmental laws would increase investment and make us more prosperous, because things are complex, and climate change has costs. We need to start talking about that fact.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-10-09T14:05:25.084Z

Programming Note: I’m going to take the full long weekend off, so have a great Thanksgiving everyone.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian attack on Kyiv hit an apartment building and targeted energy sites. Here is a look at the use of saboteurs in the war, both in Russia recruiting them in Ukraine, and Ukraine employing them within Russia. President Zelenskyy is taking credit of the gas shortages in Russia, thanks to new missile and drone strikes against Russian energy facilities. That could be one reason why the Russian war economy has stalled, forcing producers to furlough staff.

Continue reading →

QP: Trolling about a trade deal

Posted on by

While the PM was in Washington, things carried on as usual back here in Ottawa as Question Period got underway. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and complained that the only thing accomplished at the White House was a trillion dollar concession, and wondered why every time the prime minister goes to lunch at the White House, Canada winds up losing. Steven MacKinnon reminded him that Trump invited Carney in order to further the relationship, and that the entire country was hoping it could advance the file. Poilievre griped that a billion in a U.S. investment was offered with nothing in return, and wondered why the PM had sold out the country. MacKinnon called it absurd, and said that these investors in the U.S. were bringing their profits back to Canada. Poilievre switched to English, go repeated the first question, and MacKinnon repeated that the PM is advancing Canada’s interests. Poilievre read the quote again about the trillion dollar investment, and MacKinnon responded that if this was about pension funds, those profits get returned to Canada. Poilievre hammered away at this point, and MacKinnon started shouting about the pride Canadians feel when they see Carney there. Poilievre kept at it, and again accused Carney of selling out Canadian workers, and MacKinnon insisted that they will continue to open mines and expand ports as the Build Canada.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she worried that nothing was accomplished at the meeting as there are new tariffs on softwood lumber and trucking, and cast doubts about the prime minister’s negotiating abilities. MacKinnon insisted that Carney is trying to improve the situation. Normandin repeated her concerns, and MacKinnon reminded her of the supports they have for affected sectors. Yves Perron worried that the government was ready to make concessions on Supply Management, and MacKinnon reminded him that everyone voted in favour of a law to protect Supply Management.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Managing the expectations from Washington

Posted on by

Monday was a weird day of expectations management as prime minister Mark Carney headed to Washington for a “working lunch” with Trump to happen today. There were murmurs from Senior Government Sources™ that there could be some kind of relief for some—but not all—of the steel and aluminium tariffs, but those were heavily caveated and is not going to be any kind of comprehensive tariff deal, because Trump loves his tariffs. (And there is no deal to be had). Oh, and while all of this expectations management was going on, Trump declared new 25 percent tariffs on medium and heavy-duty trucks. Because of course.

Amidst this, Pierre Poilievre released a peevish open-letter to Carney that demanded “no more losing” when it comes to dealing with Trump, and a list of things he wants “wins” on, whether it’s tariffs or softwood lumber, or what have you. Because remember, under this framing, Trump is the rational actor and Carney is the one who is the inept negotiator who simply can’t get anything done. Reality of course, is entirely the opposite, that you can’t really negotiate with Trump because he has no logical basis or consistency for his “deals,” and anything he agrees to isn’t worth the paper its written on (if it’s even written down, as some “deals” were nothing more than blank pages with a signature on it).

To that end, Andrew Scheer went on Power & Politics looking to pick a fight with David Cochrane about this, and when Cochrane pointed out that yes indeed, Trump’s tariffs are both affecting our economy and we still do have the best deal of anyone with Trump, that Scheer twisted this into “agreeing” that Carney’s ineptitude has cratered the economy and soured any deal with Trump, because Scheer is a liar and a braying doofus. But this is what everyone has to deal with when it comes to the level of rhetoric and sheer sophistry coming from the Conservatives these days, which is not exactly conducive to informed debate.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-10-06T22:08:02.378Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine’s forces say that Russian sabotage groups are active in the city of Pokrovsk, which Russians have been trying to capture for months. Ukraine’s long-range drones have struck a Russian ammunition plant, a key oil terminal, and an important weapons depot.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding a win from the Trump meeting

Posted on by

The PM was in town but readying himself for a meeting with Danielle Smith before he flew out to Washington, but only some of the other leaders were present for QP. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he recited a scary crime story before exhorting the government to pass their “jail not bail” bill. Sean Fraser said that they have made commitments to reforms to the system, and that they are willing to work across the aisle to advance sensible legislation and not cut-and-paste American legislation. Poilievre switched to English to recite another scary tale, decried so-called “Liberal bail,” and demanded the vote on their bill. Fraser reminded him that some of the laws he decries came in under Harper, when Poilievre was in his Cabinet. Poilievre returned to French to wonder if Carney was going to announce the elimination of tariffs with the U.S., and Dominic LeBlanc gave a general assurance of issues they will be discussing but no promises of announcements. Poilievre switched back to English, and repeated the same demand, and got the same response from LeBlanc. Poilievre was outraged that there was no deal, and decried all of the capitulations, and LeBlanc reminded him that we remain in the best position of any other country, and wondered if Poilievre would turn down an invitation to a working lunch if he was in government. Poilievre tried to poke holes in the assurance that we have the best deal, as though it wasn’t all relative. Mélanie Joly accused Poilievre of talking down workers and the economy, before she listed new job announcements.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she praised the visit to Washington before lamenting his past capitulations, and demanded some gains for Quebec. LeBlanc got back up praise the work they are doing to get a deal. Normandin again listed failures, and demanded the government let the promised aid for the forestry sector flow to companies. Joly said that different streams of funding “will be available,” but didn’t give an indication as to when. Xavier Barsalou-Duval worried about immigrant truck drives in Ontario who don’t have proper certification and demanded the government do something about it. Patty Hajdu read a statement about truckers advancing the economy, and that they have created a specialised inspection team to enforce the law rigorously, while working with provinces to fight against false classifications.

Continue reading →

QP: Scary crime script day

Posted on by

Unusually for a Thursday, the PM was present, and maybe he would correct false accusations again? Maybe? Pierre Poilievre led off in French, reciting scary tales of an murder while on bail and a child who found a crack pipe, and blamed it on “Liberal laws.” Mark Carney offered sympathy for families, and said that “comprehensive” legislation was on the way. Poilievre switched to a English to only mention the murder, and told the government to “get out of the way” to pass their bill. Carney expounded on how the government’s consultations and said that they have evidence-based laws on the way, and not just cut-and-paste American laws. Poilievre accused him of “screaming” and “ranting and raving,” and again decried the bail system. Carney, more calmly, said that they have only been in government for six months, and that comprehensive was on the way. Poilievre insisted that there were “massacres” happening in the streets, and Carney repeated that they have comprehensive bail reform on the way in a few weeks. Poilievre ranted about me tales of victims of crime, and got the same answer again from Carney. Poilievre again spouted falsehoods about past laws, and demanded the government set-aside partisanship to pass their own bill at all stages. Carney said that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms won’t just “get out of the way” like the Conservatives want, and invited the Conservatives to support their incoming legislation. 

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and accused the government of letting the postal strike happen. Carney said that Canada Post is no longer viable and that they need reforms, which is why they need to implemented the policies from the industrial report. Normandin said the government was absent on reforms for the years, and allowed things to get to this point. Carney again raised that report as a path forward and said that they need to come to an agreement. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau read a script that said the same thing, and Carney repeated that they need a real solution.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Forcing a pipeline project

Posted on by

Believing herself clever, Alberta premier Danielle Smith is trying to lay a trap for prime minister Mark Carney, but it’s a really obvious trap and Admiral Ackbar can see it from a mile off. Because she is apparently now a socialist, Smith has decided that the provincial government will take the lead on proposing a pipeline to the northern coast of BC, with the “advice” of three pipeline companies, but none of them will actually be the proponent as this goes to the Major Projects Office. Smith claims that she is trying to get around the “chicken and egg” problem of not having any interested proponents in such a pipeline, and hopes that she can get it off the ground so that a private company will take it over, but remember that it’s not 2014, and there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of market demand. (Oh, and she wants to use digital asbestos to help map the route, which is even more hilariously sad).

This is very much a dare to everyone to oppose her. BC premier David Eby has called this out as a stunt because it’s not a real project, with no real proponent, and no buyers lining up for any of the product. The Indigenous rights and title-holders in the area are not interested in the project, and are opposed to a bitumen pipeline going through their territory and off their coast, because this would also require lifting the tanker ban because Smith wants to ship bitumen through it, which is a “persistent” product unlike LNG. Carney has previously said that if the province and First Nations are opposed to the project, it won’t go ahead, but he has also given himself the power to override pretty much any objection, or the tanker ban, or any of it, if he really wants to. But a refusal is largely what Smith is counting on, so that she can once again play the victim, and blame the federal government for a lack of market interest.

In a sense, the province wasting millions of dollars on this for the sake of grievance theatre is not new. Jason Kenney sunk $1.3 billion into the dead Keystone XL project in an attempt to revive American interest in it, even going so far as to proposed to fund its construction if the proponent wouldn’t to try and challenge the Biden veto. This feels like more of the same, where she is sinking money she doesn’t have into a losing prospect in an empty gesture in order to secure her political future by playacting as the great defender of Alberta and its ossifying industry. But there are going to be epic tantrums, and she’s going to try and use the threat of separatism to try and get her way (because she thinks it worked for Quebec and doesn’t understand how much it devastated the economy in that province), and we’ll see if Carney is actually prepared to handle it, because so far, he’s telling a lot of people what they want to hear, and those messages are starting to collide.

Ukraine Dispatch

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant is now going the longest it’s been without external power for cooling reactors, increasing concern. This after Russia also attacked the area near Chornobyl, which also briefly cut its external power supply.

Continue reading →

QP: Pretending there are taxes on groceries

Posted on by

The PM was in town, back from one set of travels and before the next, while the day felt both like Monday as no one had sat for the previous two days, while the post-caucus Wednesday energy still suffused the Chamber. Pierre Poilievre led off in English for a change, and he lamented job losses across various sectors, and blamed the prime minister. Mark Carney offered his sympathies for families affected, and touted their actions to protect industries. Poilievre quoted the hyperbolic statements of the interim PBO, accusing the PM of killing jobs, to which Carney said that Poilievre was ignoring the effect of U.S. tariffs, and offered his “spend less, invest more” line. Poilievre went on a tear about the deficits, to which Carney offered a “fiscal lesson,” which consisted of our AAA credit rating and the lowest deficit in the G7. Poilievre accused Carney of being worse than Trudeau, and Carney chanted that the country is building industry, houses, the country, etc. Poilievre switched to French to once again quote the PBO, and Carney again cited our strong fiscal position in the G7. Poilievre returned to English, to return to the issue of food price inflation, blaming “taxes” on groceries. Carney cite that there’s no GST on food, there’s no carbon levy, there is no carbon price on farms, and that real wages are growing.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and accused the government of meddling in the Canada Post labour dispute, and considered it a “provocation.” Carney stated that Canada Post is an essential service and it needs to be viable, but they need to take action to stop it from losing millions of dollars. Blanchet said that if it was an essential service, why radical cuts would be made, and that workers learned about the cuts TV. Carney stated that he just became PM, and that they have needed to make changes for a long time. Blanchet accused Carney of being a conservative, and demanded “serious experts” to reform Canada Post. Carney said that the corporation and union need to come to an agreement between themselves, but that they also needed more flexibility. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: The supposed fiscal precipice

Posted on by

My sinking feeling about the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer continues to plummet, not only in response to last week’s committee appearance where he not only used a bunch of over-the-top adjectives to describe his read of the fiscal situation, but also telegraphed that he has taken all of the wrong lessons from his predecessor and that he intends to make himself a media darling, in defiance of what his role is actually supposed to be according to his legislated mandate:

“If the government wants to go 12 months without producing a budget, as a citizen I would feel a little bit uncomfortable. But as somebody who works in the Parliamentary Budget Office, I’d say, ‘That’s great for us. Because we will occupy all the space that they decide to give up.’”

He was back on TV this weekend, and saying a bunch of alarmist things about how we’re on a “precipice” and so on, which…is not what his office was saying just a few months ago. If anything, this is the kind of alarmism that we’re used to hearing from the “it’s 1995 and will always be 1995” crowd, where any budget deficits are treated as some kind of national catastrophe, and that we’re sitting on a “debt bomb,” but we’re not. People are actively forgetting the measures taken to save the economy during the height of COVID, pretending that it didn’t happen, and now they’re downplaying just what exactly the effect that Trump’s tariffs are having on the economy—or the fact that we have managed to avoid a recession so far (not that it has stopped Poilievre from insisting that our economy is “collapsing.”)

Meanwhile, we’re once again getting the litany of demands from business groups about the budget, and they’re entirely of the “cut taxes and deregulate” variety, because nobody has learned a single lesson about how trickle-down doesn’t work, and that the scars from the last round of government austerity have not healed. And from the looks of it, this PBO is not only trying to become a media darling, but he’s basically rooting his analysis/opinion in these very same frameworks, which I suspect is going to really start to skew just what his analysis is and what it’s saying, which is going to do a real disservice to the job that he’s supposed to be doing.

Ukraine Dispatch

There was another major attack on Kyiv early morning Sunday, with 595 drones and 48 missiles, which killed four people, including a child.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giving credence to Poilievre’s trolling

Posted on by

In spite of it being an exhaustingly packed news week, The Canadian Press took time out to get some reaction to Pierre Poilievre’s trolling tweets about prime minister Mark Carney’s many international trips of late. Yes, it’s summit season right now and there is a lot more travel coming up, but he has made a number of trips since he was appointed PM, and we have to ensure that it’s not “excessive” or something. Never mind that we’re in a moment of global crisis as the United States has turned into an authoritarian regime that is upending the post-war international order and tacitly siding with other authoritarian regimes, and this requires a global realignment of liberal democracies, but is he travelling too much? Guys.

The one thing that irked me the most in the story was the point about Carney having only attended three Question Periods since Parliament resumed last week, and only nine in the four-week spring session. There was no context to this, which is that it means once or twice per week, which is perfectly normal for any sitting prime minister. Once or twice a week was all Stephen Harper could deign to attend. Justin Trudeau started out with three a week, but then fell back to two on most weeks, but sometimes was just once. The difference of course was that Trudeau made it his practice to answer every question on Wednesdays, which no previous PM had done, and which Carney has not kept up (possibly because he may not have stamina enough to pat himself on the back for a full forty-five minute). In other words, Carney’s QP attendance is fully within the norm, and you would think that the national wire service could point this out, but that might mean that they would have to have someone with enough institutional knowledge and memory to know this, but pretty much every bureau on the Hill no longer has either. (As a reminder, I am the only journalist who goes to QP every day, because someone has to).

This being said, I think we need to once again have a discussion about the kind of insular nativism that Poilievre is stoking by making it sound like foreign travel by the prime minister is somehow illegitimate, or that every trip must come with some kind of signed agreement (even though we may already have signed agreements with countries like Mexico, and forging stronger ties is important beyond just a signed piece of paper). Trying to create this false expectation that the PM can’t go anywhere so long as there is “crime and chaos” at home is juvenile and frankly troubling, because it means that they have absolutely no idea how the real world works, and are playing with fire, especially if they ever want to form government one day.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-09-26T13:24:02.797Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The front line in the conflict has grown to nearly 1250 km in length, as Russian forces have shifted tactics to try and make breakthroughs. That said, both president Zelenskyy and his top military commander say that Russia’s 2025 offensive has failed to meet their goals, and suffered heavy losses in the process. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s assessment of the drone incursions into NATO airspace is that Russia is trying to stoke fatigue in Ukraine’s allies in the hopes of drawing down military support.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The weird fixation on east coast LNG

Posted on by

There was another report about Europeans looking for Canadian LNG, this time in The Logic in a conversation with the German ambassador. What it did not really mention was the actual business case—only that the “long timelines” involved was a reason why former prime minister Justin Trudeau said that there wasn’t a business case for it. The thrust of the piece is that demand maybe longer than just short-term because even rapid electrification will still require some gas, however there is a boatload of context about this that journalists who have this weird fetish for LNG never actually touch on.

First of all, this discussion is only about east coast LNG, not west coast, where the conditions are different, and where there a whole bunch of potential projects that are fully permitted, and have all of their approvals in place, but aren’t moving ahead because the market isn’t showing demand (and by demand, we mean signing long-term contracts to buy the product). While this was also the case on the east coast, it’s complicated by the lack of ready supply of natural gas to liquify. Neither Quebec nor New Brunswick are about to start fracking for the sake of domestic supply, and the costs to bring a pipeline from western Canada to New Brunswick for export purposes is a lot to consider when we think about what is “long term.” That means supply is likely to becoming from the US, and that in turn will drive up local prices because they’re competing with the theoretical export terminal. To add to that, the “long term” we need to keep in mind is that these kinds of plants need to be operating for a good forty years or so to get their money’s worth. Is anyone in Europe thinking about the infrastructure necessary on that kind of time scale? Unlikely, and unlikely at that time scale for the kinds of prices that Canada would be offering, which are higher than they could get elsewhere.

What do they mean by "long-term"? Because these kinds of projects need a 40-year lifespan or so to actually get their money's worth, by which time we'll be well past net-zero goals.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-25T13:37:04.762Z

This is why these stories never actually make sense, because those journalists never actually talk to an energy economist about it, or if they do, it goes right out the other ear while they maintain this weird fixation on LNG. I’m not quite sure what it’s in service of—have they simply absorbed the propaganda of the oil and gas industry, who say dumb and wrong things like how our fossil fuels are the “cleanest” (they absolutely are not), or worse, that it will displace coal (the final emissions profile is not that much lower than coal, and as David Cochrane is the only journalist to push back on this talking point, there is no guarantee that they wouldn’t just use Canadian LNG in addition to coal rather than displacing it)? Or is this some kind of sad attempt at playing gotcha with Trudeau and the business case line? Because certain journalists are relentless in badgering and hectoring European leaders about this, and it’s just weird, and just completely ignorant of the facts on the ground.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian attack on Chernihiv meant power cuts for 70,000 people. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte says that members can target Russian planes that enter their airspace as necessary. And president Zelenskyy says he is ready to leave office once the war is over.

Continue reading →