Tag Archives: Canadian Forces

QP: Spinning an EV conspiracy

Posted on by

The prime minister was still on his way back from hosting the G7 in Kananaskis, and the Commons was moving along without him being there on a Wednesday. The other leaders were present, and Andrew Scheer did lead off today, and he returned to the party’s mendacious talking points about the supposed “insane” ban on gas-powered vehicles (which is not actually a ban), and he claimed that favourite vehicles will be “illegal,” and that the government is pricing people out of buying a vehicle. Julie Dabrusin started with the fact there is no ban, before lamenting that the Conservatives are talking down the auto sector at a time when it is under threat from Trump tariffs. Scheer insisted there is a ban, and that it would “devastate” the auto sector, blamed Carney for not getting a deal on tariffs with Trump, and claimed the “ban” on gas-powered vehicles would kill 90,000 jobs. Dabrusin praised the auto sector and praised the fact that EVs are cheaper to operate and maintain. Scheer then tried to tie this to a conspiracy about Brookfield and insisted this was about Carney’s private interests. Evan Solomon got up to recite a script about how much the government invested in the auto sector. Pierre Paul-Hus read the French script that this was taking away choice. Dabrusin reminded him that they are not banning vehicles, and that Quebec already has regulations about access ps to EVs. Paul-Hus claimed this was about trying to “control” Canadians, and Dabrusin repeated that they are not banning gas-powered vehicles, and that EVs are cheaper to maintain. Paul-Hus said that the government tried to “control” people through the carbon levy, and wanted this scrapped as well. Dabrusin called this out as absurd, and praised the auto sector.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he decried the concessions made around the border and defence, and worried that the PM came away from the G7 “empty handed.” Dominic LeBlanc said that Carney’s meeting with Trump was “constructive,” and that he was convinced they made progress. Blanchet decried Bill C-5, and LeBlanc raised the tariff war and insisted that they would respect environmental regulations and First Nations. Blanchet insisted that C-5 wouldn’t do what they claim, and Chrystia Freeland stood up to take exception to this assertion.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Auditor General on F-35s and ArriveCan

Posted on by

Yesterday saw the release of the Auditor General and Environment Commissioner’s reports, and lo, these ones actually got a tonne of media attention and took centre stage in Question Period, which is a far cry from most of their recent reports. The reason, of course, is that the topics were sexy—F-35 fighter jets and the ArriveCan app gong show in particular, the latter of which the Conservatives have been salivating over for three years now, which made the day pretty much insufferable as a result. But there was more than just those.

  • The F-35 procurement costs have ballooned because of delays, pilot shortages, infrastructure, and inflation but acknowledged the Canadian government has little control over most of these factors.
  • CBSA failed to follow procurement and security rules when it used GC Strategies to contract out work on ArriveCan, and didn’t follow-up to ensure work had been done before more contracts were awarded.
  • Public Services and Procurement has been slow to modernise and downsize office space, and turn over surplus buildings for housing.
  • Indigenous Services has failed to process Indian Act status applications within the required six-month timeline, with a backlog having grown to over 12,000 applications.
  • The climate adaptation plan is falling short, with only one of its three pillars in place and little connection between spending and results.

I’m not sure that the F-35 news is all that surprising, but it does actually work to either justify a potential move away from the platform, or to reflect increases in defence spending calculations. The GC Strategies findings are also not unexpected, but one thing the Conservatives have been failing to mention is that CBSA is an arms’-length agency, so ministers had no real say over any of its contracting practices (as the Conservatives try to insist that any minister who had carriage on the file should be fired). Meanwhile, their narrative that this was somehow about “Liberal friends” was never mentioned in the report, nor was there any mention about partisan considerations, or indication that the firm had any connection to the government, so these are just rage-bait accusations used solely for the performance art, which is how most things go with these guys.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-06-10T21:22:14.366Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Tuesday’s attack from Russia was one of its largest strikes on Kyiv, which also hit civilian targets in Odesa, and Kharkiv was subjected to a nine-minute-long drone attack that killed at least two and injured 54. Another prisoner swap took place yesterday, this time for an undisclosed number of sick and wounded soldiers.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A big defence commitment?

Posted on by

Yesterday, at Fort York in Toronto, prime minister Mark Carney announced that Canada would meet its NATO commitment of two percent of GDP by the end of next fiscal year instead of by 2030, in part through use of greater pay, more funds for sustainment, support for the defence industry, and some good ol’ creative accounting. Carney prefaced this by making a very real point about the changing nature of America’s place in the world: “The United States is beginning to monetize its hegemony, charging for access to its markets and reducing its relative contribution to our collective security.”

One of the big question marks has to do with the status of the Coast Guard, and how it gets folded into the calculation around defence spending—there were mixed messages on whether it stays under Department of Fisheries and Oceans, of if it will be moved into Department of National Defence (though there is also an argument for it to go to Public Safety), and the question of whether or not to arm those ships is a fraught one because of the training requirements for armaments. It sounds like there will be things like CSE’s cyber-capability being counted as part of this calculation as well, which again, seems to be more fudging numbers that we typically accused other nations of doing while we were more “pure” in terms of what we counted toward our spending commitments, and that seems to be going away.

I would add that while we get a bunch of competing narratives around the target, whether it’s the Conservatives’ memory-holing the fact that they cut defence spending to below one percent of GDP (in order to achieve a false balance on the books in time for the 2015 election), or the notion that we are nothing more than freeloaders in NATO, we should keep reminding people that even with lower per-capita defence spending, we have been punching above our weight taking on the tough missions in NATO (Kandahar, leading a multi-country brigade in Latvia) where as other allies who have met their two percent targets don’t contribute (looking at you, Greece). A poor metric of spending is not a good indicator of contribution, but it has created a whole false narrative that we should be correcting, but that’s too much work for the pundit class, who are more interested in hand-wringing and calling Justin Trudeau names than they are in looking at our actual contributions. (Here’s a timeline of the spending target melodrama).

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia made another massive overnight attack against Ukraine, launching 479 drones and twenty missiles of various types, targeting the western and central parts of the county. Another prisoner swap did go ahead yesterday.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1932086386145841186

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: More provincial buck-passing, FCM edition

Posted on by

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

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

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

Or ever, if we're being honest.

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

Ukraine Dispatch

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

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ontario MPPs get a raise

Posted on by

I don’t often write about Ontario politics, but I did want to make a couple of remarks on the fact that Doug Ford pushed through both pay raises for MPPs, as well as a restoration of their pensions, and this actually a Good Thing. MPPs have had their salaries frozen since 2009, when Dalton McGuinty froze them in response to the global financial crisis (which is always one of those dumb populist moves that astroturf groups like the so-called “Canadian Taxpayers Federation” demand, and it always ends up bad). Ford’s legislation will peg MPP salaries at 75 percent of those of MPs, who already have their own salaries adjusted automatically per a particular formula, and it pegs itself to something like judges’ salaries, all in an attempt to depoliticise the issue (and has largely been successful).

The thing about salaries for elected officials is that you want them to be high enough to discourage them from either freelancing on the job, or being susceptible to financial inducements (aka bribery) by keeping them at a reasonably comfortable level (without being obviously lavish or ostentatious). And frankly, the fact that anyone who is in a profession, like a doctor or lawyer, needing to take a pay cut to get into elected politics is usually a bad sign, because it discourages them from running or contributing in a meaningful way. And as for pensions, which Mike Harris killed in more populist excesses, it again helps to keep MPPs from pursuing other remuneration given the low salaries they’re already accepting, when they’re not earning pensionable income from their previous employers. Over time, there have been complaints that certain MPPs wouldn’t retire because they couldn’t afford to, and there was recently one story about a former Toronto MPP who wound up sleeping in a shelter after a financial collapse from a divorce. This was pretty sad indictment of how petty Ontario’s legislature had become on these questions.

This having been said, I’m still dubious about Ford’s motives, given that he has stuffed his Cabinet with MPPs in order to give them raises while going on about how hard they work. This feels a little bit like spoils of war as the province’s books get in worse and worse shape, but again, this is still the right thing to do. I know the books are a mess, and hospitals are crumbling, and they’re dismantling post-secondary education, but not giving these raises doesn’t fix any of that. Let’s hope that we’re not going to witness a bunch more hand-wringing about how nest-feathering, otherwise I can see the dumb populism making things even worse, as they force MPPs to start competing over who does sackcloth and ashes best.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-05-29T21:27:21.302Z

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy says that Russia is engaging in yet another deception by not handing over its peace settlement proposal ahead of their planned talks.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Platforms, budgets, and estimates

Posted on by

The news that there won’t be a spring budget meant a day of wailing and gnashing of teeth, much of it misunderstanding about what the budget actually is and does. Pierre Poilievre summoned the media outside of West Block to decry that Mark Carney “has no plan” because there isn’t a budget, and his MPs have been tweeting up a storm to insist that “Carney lied” by not having a budget, but this, as usual, is little more than low-rent disinformation that treats voters like idiots because they don’t know the parliamentary budgetary cycle.

Budgets by their very nature are political documents. They provide guideposts for spending plans, but we just had an election and the Liberals have a reasonably comprehensive platform document, so that can provide the broad strokes for spending plans in the same way that a budget document does. The thing we are missing is an updated chart of what the current debt/deficit projections look like, and what the growth projections are, but again, the growth projections are merely an amalgamation of private sector forecasts and are no longer based on Department of Finance projections, and we’re in a moment of profound economic uncertainty because of Trump’s trade war, so they could very well go up in smoke next week, and wouldn’t be of much use to anyone. There is also the practical reality that the election was three weeks ago, and the Department of Finance wouldn’t have time to prepare a budget document, even based on the projections from the platform document, nor have it ready before the Commons rises for the summer. And if anyone thinks they want to sit in Ottawa’s hot and muggy summer climate, well, no they actually do not. That’s just political posturing (or sheer ignorance of what summer is like here).

I did also want to point you to this thread which corrects something from this The Canadian Press explainer about the budget document, budget implementation acts, and the Estimates. The estimates are the actual spending documents about how much the government plans to spend. A budget implementation act is legislation that enacts things like tax changes from the budget document, which are proper omnibus bills, but in recent years have become abusive omnibus bills as governments will stuff extraneous things into the budget document in order to include them in the omnibus BIA for the sake of expediency. It abuses process and shouldn’t be allowed (including with the fig leaf of “it was in the budget document!”) but this is also was six years of unrelenting procedural warfare has wrought—if you can’t pass bills because the opposition parties want to play games, then you shove everything into an abusive BIA, and the cycle perpetuates, which isn’t good for anyone (which is also a reminder that actions have consequences). Suffice to say, there will be an Estimates Bill passed in the four weeks that Parliament is back, so it’s not like there isn’t anything from government on spending plans.

Programming Note: I am taking the full long weekend off, because I’m utterly exhausted. See you on Wednesday.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims that they have taken two more settlements in Eastern Ukraine, which Ukraine disputes. President Zelenskyy is in Türkiye for the “peace talks” that aren’t actually going to happen because he called Putin’s bluff.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Wheedling for official party status

Posted on by

The official party status debate seems to be moving ahead without any consideration of logic, or why the rule exists, or the importance of rules actually being followed. And so, Don Davies says he’s reaching out to Carney to try and get official party status, but insists that he’s not going to try and threaten quid pro quo about it. I’m going to point back to my column from earlier in the week that there is no reason they should qualify for it—or to trust the “no quid pro quo” line either, but I’m really, really not swayed by all the capital-p Pundits who think that the Liberals should give them that status just because, or because they feel bad (or perhaps grateful?) that all those NDP voters switched to Liberals to stop Poilievre and Trump (even though that’s not what the data shows in most ridings), and it lets the NDP off the hook for running a poor campaign with a leader who was past his best-before date, and for their inability to present a vision for voters to believe in. If they want to have their official party status, they need to earn it back in the next election. (A few more details on the state of the party here).

One of the other things the big-P Pundits keep bringing up is the issue of the number of staff that would be lost, and the fact that there wouldn’t be salaries for a party whip or House Leader, but again, they’re seven MPs. You don’t need a staff to wrangle those MPs, to get them onto committees and ensure that if they’re absent that they’re covered off, and so on. It’s not a consideration. Does it suck? Yes. But let’s be realistic about just what those seven MPs are going to be contributing and how much staff they need to do it. They are not actually owed anything here, and perhaps we need to be a little hard-nosed about it. You can bet that if the situation was reversed, the NDP would be ruthless about it (and they were in 2011 when they formed the official opposition and broke established courtesies and rules around seniority for offices in Centre Block and so on in their fit of triumphalism). And the Bloc remember that the NDP refused to extend official party status to them after 2015 when they had ten seats.

There were also news stories about the supposed “feelers” that Liberals have allegedly put out for any NDP floor-crossers, but in the conversations I’ve had with staffers, it has been a lot of “Erm, we don’t want them. Especially that crew.” So, while maybe someone made a few phone calls, or “feelers,” I would seriously doubt that there is an honest effort being made here, but this is merely what I’ve heard, so take that with a grain of salt.

My life reporting on #cdnpoli, basically.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-05-09T13:31:29.079Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians hit 8 settlements in Zaporizhzhia region 220 times during their so-called “ceasefire.” Some 40 world leaders, including Canada, are supporting the creation of a special international tribunal to prosecute Russia for their war of aggression. President Zelenskyy is hosting leaders from the “coalition of the will” today.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Danielle Smith’s weapon of mass distraction

Posted on by

Alberta premier Danielle Smith continues to be in increasing hot water—and oh, look, her justice minister is related by marriage to someone at the centre of the healthcare procurement scandal—so she has decided to go full-bore into her weapon of mass distraction, which is to attack the federal government and to try and call out Mark Carney for…reasons. She’s asking Carney for a “reset” of relations with Alberta (translation: Give me everything I want), because of course she is. One of the things she announced was a new court challenge of the clean electricity regulations, because of course she is. Nothing like making the lawyers a bunch more money.

https://twitter.com/maxfawcett/status/1917945085674791322

Throughout this, Smith insists she’s not stoking separatism *cough* and that these are just “hypotheticals” about the group of loons in the province itching to trigger a plebiscite by starting to gather signatures (before the bill has even passed), but the fact that she is lowering the threshold for just this eventually is a sign that she knows she’s doing it deliberately. And hey, she even says that there’s no appetite in the province for their own separate pension plan after all (because she got spanked by the reality that she couldn’t raid the majority of the CPP on the way out), so that must mean she’s serious about not stoking separatism, right? Does she think we’re all stupid and can’t see through her transparent bullshit?

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3lo4edxbfjs2l

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3lo4eimwtas2l

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3lo4ekdqy2s2l

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3lo4en275nc2l

Of course, because Scott Moe can’t help himself, he said that he’s a “true Canadian” but wouldn’t stop a public vote on separation if they triggered a plebiscite under provincial legislation. So…as premier he’s willing to also drive out investment and opportunity from companies that have no interest in dealing with this kind of nonsense? Wow, that’s some smart politicking!

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian drone attack late Thursday set houses ablaze in Zaporizhzhia and injured 14, but didn’t cause any deaths.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Duelling tax cut offers

Posted on by

Day two of the campaign, and the first full day of campaigning. Mark Carney began in Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, where he played up the Canadiana and the fact that Gander hosted passengers from aircraft stranded on 9/11 (which became the basis for the musical “Come from Away.” This was part of his appeal to Canadian values in the face of Trump and the trade war, before he jetted off to Halifax. (Day one recap here, and more about the fishers protesting his speech.). Carney also released a second, more earnest ad with Mike Myers, who officially endorsed him in it. Carney also added that he hasn’t spoken to Trump yet, but he suspects Trump is waiting until after the election to call.

Pierre Poilievre was still in the Greater Toronto Area, where he had pledged his own, larger income tax cut, and gave a faux assurance that it would be paid for with “cuts to bureaucracy, consultants, and foreign aid.” (Yeah, that’s not going to get you the money for this kind of a tax cut, it will absolutely disproportionately benefit the wealthy, and you can bet that social programmes will be on the chopping block). He also regaled the crowd with a stupid meme tale about telling a child that income tax is a “punishment for doing well,” rather than the entry fee for civilization. Because Poilievre is fundamentally an anti-government conservative (in spite of having spent his entire life in public office). (Day one recap here).

The NDP started off in Montreal, where he promised to set aside even more public land for rent-controlled homes, but didn’t exactly spell out how this would be different than what the federal government is already doing about leasing public lands (nor did he address the fact that a lot of that “government-owned land” are actually contaminated sites). He also took some jabs at a punching bag in an outdoor gym—because he’s spent the last few weeks trying to burnish a tough-guy image—before the bus went down the 401 to Toronto. (Day one recap here). He’ll spend much of the day there today, before heading to Hamilton later afternoon.

Given the two promises around tax cuts, here are some analyses of what it might mean, once we get more details. Economists, however, are pretty sceptical thus far that the maths are going to work out for these cuts.

The lowest federal income-tax bracket is currently 15%.The Liberals have promised to cut it to 14%.The Conservatives have promised to cut it to 12.75%.Here's a chart depicting how much less tax that would mean for you, depending on your income.(Earn more than $177,882? Read the fine print!)

— Robson Fletcher (@robsonfletcher.com) 2025-03-24T19:35:49.136Z

I agree with Emmett. One party is promsing a 1 point cut to the lowest income tax rate; the other 2.25 points. Neither has proposed a credible way to pay for it.We need to see credible plans for big economic challenges and big defence/security threats.Hope that will be coming soon.

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2025-03-24T19:16:57.508Z

The Leadership Debates Commission announced the dates for the two official “consortium” debates as April 16th and 17thin Montreal, French first, then English, each with a single moderator after the complete gong show of the previous two election cycles. There will not be a TVA “face-à-face” debate this time, as they planned to charge the leaders $75,000 each to “offset costs,” and the Liberals balked, so it won’t go ahead. The other campaigns are trying to say Carney was too afraid of a second French debate, but charging the parties to hold it was a very, very bad precedent, and it’s probably for the best that it wasn’t’ allowed to take hold.

Leaders' debates are planned for April 16th and 17th, with one moderator apiece, and it's not going to be Shachi Kurl (who handed the Bloc the win they were looking for). #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-03-24T15:08:02.031Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-03-24T13:08:03.483Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian missiles hit a densely-populated part of Sumy, wounding 88 people, while there were further air attacks on Kyiv, wounding one and damaging houses. A Russian cyberattack also hit Ukraine’s state railway service, adding to the chaos of the situation.

Continue reading →