Tag Archives: China

Roundup: Credulous takes on private members’ bills

Posted on by
Reply

There have been a few stories over the past few days that have raised my ire, so I’m going to take a few minutes to point a few things out. One of them is this CBC story yesterday about Jenny Kwan’s private member’s bill, and that as many as sixteen Liberals are considering supporting it. My beef: the sub-hed on the story reading “Vote would mark first time some in caucus split from government line under Carney.” Split from the government line? It’s a private member’s bill. Those are free votes by default. That’s the whole point of them. CBC should know better, and frankly, I really don’t like it when the media tries to play party whip while at the same time wishing that MPs were more independent.

The other story yesterday was about Conservative MP Dan Albas’ private member’s bill, which purports to empower Canada Post to deliver alcohol across provincial lines. Most of the stories in various outlets talked about how Dominic LeBlanc appeared to support the bill in Question Period, which he actually did not. What LeBlanc said was that this is an area of provincial regulation (which only the Star’s story mentions), but that he would bring it up when he meets with his provincial counterparts in a few weeks because he thinks it’s a good idea. And more to the point, this bill is a gimmick, which Albas and Pierre Poilievre insist overrides provincial regulation, but it actually doesn’t because, and just puts Canada Post in a bind. It would be great if any story could point that fact out, or talked to a lawyer, but nope, they focused on LeBlanc’s answer in QP, and even then couldn’t get the nuance right.

The third is a story from CBC on Monday, which was very concerned that a lot of bills are passing “on division,” meaning without a vote. The problem was the initial sub-hed on the story which stated “Half the bills passed in the House this session have cleared 3rd reading without a head count or consensus,” which is wrong, because “on division” is consensus you don’t need a vote—the “or consensus” was later dropped from the sub-hed. Of course, the real reason is that the Conservatives don’t want to go to an election, so they’re not going to force a vote and have Andrew Scheer and Scott Reid hide behind the curtains again to ensure that the math is right and that they won’t accidentally do something stupid with the vote counts given how everything is so close, but the person you reached as your source for your explainer is Peter Van Loan? Possibly the worst Government House Leader in decades (which is saying a lot)? It came across as amateurish, and like CBC’s parliamentary bureau has a hard time understanding how parliament works, which is not a good look.

When your parliamentary bureau doesn't understand parliament, dumb things happen.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-09T13:50:45.982Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-10T21:22:01.632Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia dropped three guided bombs on Sloviansk in the east, and hit Kharkiv and Dnipro with drones, injuring another twenty people. Ukrainian forces have pushed Russian invaders out of Dnipropetrovsk region, while Russia claims to be making gains in Donbas. Ukraine hit a missile plant in Bryansk region in Russia.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre’s big foreign trip

Posted on by

As Pierre Poilievre heads to London and Berlin for his first actual foreign trips as opposition leader, his office released his itinerary, which includes attending a CANZUK reception in London after meeting with parliamentarians and business leaders, and then delivering a keynotes speech in Berlin, along with meeting with officials and business leaders and touring an LNG facility.

And there’s the rub. This is going to turn into another tedious exercise of Poilievre doing a little song and dance about “Look! Europe wants our oil and gas!” when really, European leaders, after much badgering and hectoring, actually said something like “Sure, we’d like it if it was available and the right price,” neither of which is going to happen. We’ve seen this before. Certain political show hosts in our country like to engage in this very same badgering and hectoring whenever they interview a visiting European leader in order to say “Look! There’s a business case! Trudeau was wrong!” But they ignored the caveats and the economics.

The reason why LNG to Europe is never going to happen include:

  1. There is no local supply of natural gas on the east coast, so most of the feed stock would be imported from the US, raising prices locally, and if you think a cross-country pipeline is feasible, that will also increase prices in the east coast;
  2. It would take years to build an export facility, and it would take years to convert the one existing import terminal (which serves not only the local market, but also feeds into the northeastern US market);
  3. Even if these facilities existed, there has been no interest by European buyers in signing a long-term contract, which is one of the reasons why proposals for east coast LNG terminals never got off the ground. Also remember that these facilities essentially need to operate for a good thirty or forty years to make their money’s worth, and Europe is already rapidly decarbonizing.

Of course, Poilievre will ignore all of that, and declare that Europe wants our LNG, and we’ll go through this whole exercise yet again. It’s so tiresome that nobody actually wants to listen to reality on this subject.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-02-27T23:56:01.183Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia says a temporary ceasefire has been reached around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in order to ensure repairs. Ukraine is setting up a joint venture with allies to produce more air defence ammunition.

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/2027352819905249375

Continue reading →

Roundup: Jeneroux crosses over

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney got one step closer to a majority parliament yesterday as Conservative MP Matt Jeneroux formally crossed the floor, weeks after he said he would resign after floor-crossing discussions happened, and there have been rumours of threats. There is some irony in this development—Pierre Poilievre insisted that Jeneroux not resign immediately, but that it not become official until sometime in the spring, and Jeneroux simply absented himself from the Commons and from votes, and because he had not formally resigned as he might have at the time, it meant he still had a seat to cross the floor with. Oops. Jeneroux says that what changed his mind was Carney’s speech in Davos, and also made mention of a “national unity crisis,” and that he couldn’t sit on the sidelines. So that’s something. Also, Carney has bestowed upon him the title of “special advisor on economic and security partnerships,” but apparently this is not paid or a retitled parliamentary secretary position like Chrystia Freeland’s special advisor role was before she resigned.

Well. I guess Jeneroux has reconsidered his retirement. That statement:

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-18T15:33:27.661Z

JENEROUX: "After further reflection with my family, and conversations with colleagues and constituents, I will be continuing to serve in Parliament — and I will be working with PM Carney as a part of his new government to help build our country's strength as we face the challenges ahead."

— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson.bsky.social) 2026-02-18T15:48:31.398Z

This, naturally, led to the usual bouts of hand-wringing and accusations of betrayal from the Conservatives, and the usual nonsense lines that Canadians had somehow voted against a majority parliament (not government—government is government, regardless if they have a majority of seats or not in the legislature), because that simply doesn’t happen. Canadians vote for a single representative, and that’s it. They don’t vote for the configuration of the Chamber, and they because they vote for the individual, that individual also gets to make the choice of whether or not to stay in the party that they were elected with, because that choice is sacrosanct in our system, no matter what anyone tells you.

It's going well.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-18T16:48:36.623Z

And the reactions? Well, former MP Rick Perkins tweeted that MPs should live in the province and community they represent, but well, that would disqualify his party’s deputy leader Tim Uppal (who made a song and dance about living in Ottawa and not Edmonton and declared he would not move back there if elected), and yes, Poilievre himself, but I am willing to give that one latitude because as opposition leader, he lives in Stornoway. But still. Perkins quickly deleted that tweet. Another unnamed former MP and two other sources in the Conservative party each told the Hill Times that ““Pierre Poilievre has become the Justin Trudeau of the Conservative Party,” which is absolutely hilarious.

Has anyone told Tim Uppal about this rule?

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-18T17:22:45.316Z

Matt Jeneroux leaves Conservative party after being too intimidated by Poilievre's workout regime

— The Beaverton (@thebeaverton.com) 2026-02-18T18:37:31.796Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-02-18T14:25:04.438Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine has been able to reduce some electricity imports as the weather improves. The former head of the military is talking more about his rift with Zelenskyy.

Continue reading →

QP: Back to the housing jabs

Posted on by

The PM was absent, presumably on his way to Tumbler Ridge, BC, while Pierre Poilievre was also absent. That left it up to Andrew Scheer to lead off, and he led off by reiterating condolences for Tumbler Ridge, and asked for an update as to supports being provided. Steven MacKinnon read a statement about their own condolences, and said that at the invitation of the mayor, the prime minister would be there on Friday and that he also invited other party leaders to join him. Scheer thanked him, and then launched into his denunciation into the government’s housing record and demanded the government eliminate the GST on all new homes. Jennifer McKelvie responded with praise for the Building Canada Homes Act before the House currently. Scheer then denounced the state of the auto sector and demanded the government adopt the Conservatives’ plan of removing the tax on all Canadian-made vehicles. Joly first gave her condolences, before reminding him the subsidies are for Canadians. Pierre Paul-Hus took over in French to read the same script in l’autre langue officiel, and Joly reminded him that their auto strategy is about ensuring the sector is still viable in the decades to come. Paul-Hus then blamed increased immigration for making housing unattainable in Quebec City, and Caroline Desrochers read a statement praising their housing programmes. Paul-Hus tried again, and Desrochers read a script about how the Conservatives only have slogans.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she once again asked about the new pension software, and once again, Stephanie McLean read a statement saying that the project was under budget and that seven million seniors are getting their cheques on time, and to forward any names of anyone affected. Normandin was theatrically outraged that there are 85,000 people not getting payments and demanded a commission of inquiry. Patty Hajdu read a statement about the modernization and that any unresolved cases need to contact the government. Sébastien Lemire mocked the answer that the project was on budget, and got a warning from the Speaker. Hajdu offered him a briefing on the system and stated that the ability for people to apply online relieves the burden on the department.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The annual Standing Orders debate

Posted on by

Either out or morbid curiosity or as a cry for help, I watched yesterday’s House of Commons’ debate on proposing changes to the Standing Orders, and…I didn’t hate it? There were actually some good ideas in there, and there were calls to undo a couple of changes that were made during the height of the pandemic to accommodate “hybrid parliament,” which I hadn’t realised had been changed. While this was kicked off by Liberal MP Corey Hogan’s suggestions for reforming Question Period, which I wrote about in my weekend column, there were a number of other reasonable suggestions. One common theme by several MPs across party lines was to end the vestiges of hybrid sittings, which I wholeheartedly agree with, and some of that included the remote voting app (which again, is an affront to Parliamentary democracy and should be abolished), but that will be a tougher sell. A number of MPs also had gripes about the ability of the Senate to stall or kill private members’ bills through delay, but that has nothing to do with the Standing Orders, as the House does not write the rules of the Senate.

  • Michael Chong wants to restore the Speaker’s right of recognition and do away with speaking lists, and adopt the UK practice of allocating time among the number of MPs who want to speak to a specific bill or motion. (Agreed!) He also wants to ensure that the Speaker and a committee of MPs appoint the Clerks and Sergeant-at-Arms, and wants committee spots and chairs determined by secret preferential ballots, and for the Board of Internal Economy to only be comprised of backbenchers. All of these are reasonable.
  • Yves Perron wants the prayer replaced with a moment of reflection, and to have a designated time on Fridays for a more free-flowing question-and-answer session with ministers akin to the special committee of the whole sessions during COVID. He also wants limits on the size of panels at committees to ensure that they are more manageable He also wants unanimous consent motions to be held on Wednesdays and to be tabled in advance (which I’m very dubious about).
  • Jenny Kwan and Pat Kelly both want the return of voice votes/standing five to trigger recorded votes, which was one of those hybrid rule changes that needs to be undone. Kwan wants new rules on dissenting committee reports being presented, and no Supply Days on Wednesdays of Fridays (but they are already limited as to the number they can have, and that would take up all Tuesdays and Thursdays).
  • Kelly wants to invert the times for speeches and questions and answers, so you have shorter speeches and longer question/comment segments (which I’m not opposed to).
  • John-Paul Danko is concerned about parliamentary privilege being weaponized to allow slander to be clipped and shared over socials.
  • Scott Reid had some very specific concerns about ethics complaints being weaponized (but I’m not sure that’s in the Standing Orders).
  • Kevin Lamoureux wants concurrence debates to be held after government orders, as they are used as dilatory motions. He also wants a segment where MPs can speak to any bill of their choosing for five or ten minutes on a Friday.
  • Garnett Genuis wants guardrails on unanimous consent motions used to pass bills at all stages, and wants to do away with the parties asking suck-up questions during question/comment segments after speeches.

In all, there are actually a few good ideas in there, but we’ll see how much the Procedure and House Affairs committee takes up any of them (and I am not hopeful on most). Nevertheless, it was nice to see a reasonable debate on some (mostly) reasonable ideas on how to make the House of Commons work better.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-02-06T23:56:01.289Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Canada is sending AIM missiles for Ukraine’s air defence. President Zelenskyy is calling for faster action on air defence and repairing the power grids.

https://twitter.com/FedorovMykhailo/status/2019728147579871319

Continue reading →

QP: Another round of same “gas tax” nonsense again

Posted on by

The PM was in town and in the building, but was meeting with premiers instead of being at QP, which was mighty unusual for a Wednesday, but that’s Mark Carney for you. Pierre Poilievre was also absent, so it was up to Gérard Deltell to lead off in French, where he listed the nonsense “hidden taxes” as it relates to food price inflation, and François-Philippe Champagne responded with praise for their GST rebate and the other investments promised in the same announcement. Deltell reiterated the nonsense about the “gas tax,” to which Champagne praised the government’s actions, while the Conservatives only have rhetoric. Tim Uppal took over in English to make the specious arguments, and Julie Dabrusin noted that Poilievre represents one of the biggest canola-growing ridings in the country, and noted how much they stand to benefit from clean fuel regulations and biofuels. On  another go-around, Champagne admonished them to support their benefits. Lianne Rood read another tired script of the same, and Patty Hajdu noted that the Conservatives liked to raise the plight of food banks, they are now fighting against supports for them. Rood accused the government of “gaslighting” (that’s not what that means, guys), and Hajdu raised the other support for families like child care and the school food programme. 

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and said that the promised lifting of Chinese tariffs on pork has not happened, and worried the government created false hopes. Anita Anand said they were working with partners and diversifying trade relationships. Blanchet was not mollified by this answer, and demanded more specifics. Anand said that discussions were ongoing with China, including pork, and they they are working in Canada’s interests. Blanchet then wondered about action on forestry, and Champagne said they are working with the industry and have invested hundreds of millions of dollars.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More threats, more attempts at vassalage

Posted on by

Because everything is so stupid all the time, we began the weekend with more threats from Trump that he was going to slap 100 percent tariffs on Canadian products if we come to a trade deal with China to avoid them trans-shipping into the US. Oh, and they had “Governor Carney” in them, because of course they did. This was, of course, days after he said it was a great idea that we were pursuing a deal with China, because he would to, and he is doing so. So why the change of heart? (Because he’s addled?)

Cue Dominic LeBlanc, and others, to tell the Americans that no, we’re not pursuing a free trade deal with China, but that this was a fairly discreet tariff issue, which Carney himself repeated for the cameras on the way into the Liberals’ caucus retreat on Sunday. Nevertheless, this has a bunch of people panicking about the future of the New NAFTA review and the potential that the deal could be torn up entirely, because of course they remain our largest trading partner even as we try to diversify (and yes, because of geography, and because Canadian industry is frankly lazy, they are likely to remain so). But it got most of the premiers lined up in support behind Carney, for what it’s worth.

And then, of course, everything backed down, with a bunch of TACO jokes aside, but there is nevertheless a very serious underlying concern that if Carney and the government were to try and walk back their agreement to appease Trump, that this would essentially confirm that we have become little more than a vassal state to the US. We’re not entirely there, but Carney has made so many appeasements in the pursuit of a trade deal that isn’t going to happen that we are in very serious danger of that being the case if we relent on anything more.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-01-24T22:10:01.975Z

Ukraine Dispatch

More than 1300 apartment buildings in Kyiv are still without power after last week’s attacks. Some people in Kyiv, particularly those with disabilities, are trapped in their apartments amidst the blackouts. President Zelenskyy says the security guarantees document with the US is ready to be signed and ratified (not that any agreement with Trump is worth the paper it’s written on).

Continue reading →

Roundup: The domestic speech and the response

Posted on by

Back on Canadian soil, prime minister Mark Carney gave a speech to a domestic audience in advance of his Cabinet retreat, in which he used the location of the Plains of Abraham—where the retreat is being held, at the Citadelle in Quebec City—to praise the foundation of Canada (which the Bloc took exception to), our pluralism and shared values, and our choice to offer a vision of something different to the world. Oh, and he clapped back at Trump saying we live only because of the US. It might have been nice, but he kept veering off onto weird tangents about praising digital asbestos, or federal social programmes like pharmacare that he hasn’t done a single thing with in the past year and has outright stated he’s not interested in expanding. And if anything, the speech exposed a streak of hypocrisy—Canadian values, and pluralism, but we just signed a “strategic partnership” with a country genociding an ethnic minority. We’re going to create thousands of good-paying union jobs, but we just signed “strategic investments” with a country that employs slave labour. If you’re going to pat yourself on the back for your values, maybe try and at least pretend you’re trying to live up to them?

This Carney speech is giving me whiplash. Hooray for Canadian values! (But we’re also going to do deals with people who commit genocide and practice slave labour, and scapegoat immigrants).Hooray for our social programmes, but let’s do more digital asbestos!

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-01-22T19:04:50.878Z

Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre released his own statement in response to Carney’s speech at Davos. The gist of Poilievre’s remarks is that of course Carney isn’t doing enough, that we shouldn’t alienate the Americans and by that we should engage with allies in the country who will help us post-Trump, and that he plans to move a motion next week to pass his ridiculous Canadian Sovereignty Act bill at all stages. (Transcript here).

And make no mistake—that bill is ridiculous. The primary gist of it is to tear up any and all environmental regulation to build more pipelines (who cares about a market case of First Nations consent?), to incentivise the reinvestment of capital gains in Canada (which was a plan so complex that Jim Flaherty walked it back after trying to do it during the Harper years), paying provinces a “bonus” for eliminating any remaining trade barriers, and to require the government to stop letting innovators in this country sell their intellectual property to Americans (and good luck with that one). It’s stupid and unfeasible and will only create a tonne of new problems while solving absolutely none, but he somehow thinks this is genius.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-01-22T15:05:14.665Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian strikes hit locations in Zaporizhzhia, as well as Kryvyi Rih. At Davos, president Zelenskyy gave a speech highly critical of Europe’s indecisiveness and inability to organise enough to project any strength. (Transcript here).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mixed messages in Carney’s Davos speech

Posted on by

There has been much praise for prime minister Mark Carney’s speech in Davos yesterday, but I have some fairly mixed feelings about it. For one, much of the speech was a collection of the lines he’s used in previous speeches, and put them all into one place, so rhetorically, there wasn’t much new, even if he invoked Thucydides or Havel. And he’s not wrong that the truth of the rules-based international order was that the “great powers”—meaning the US—exempted itself whenever they wanted, but they also guaranteed its operation, so it was double-edged. And he was also correct in calling out that the instinct to go along to get along won’t save anyone. And he did pledge support for Greenland, NATO and Article V, so that was all good.

Some thoughts from me on Mark Carney’s important speech in Davos. youtu.be/Xj1VHwVgsAY?…

— Roland Paris (@rolandparis.bsky.social) 2026-01-20T18:26:05.275Z

However. The fact that he very carefully avoided naming Trump and the US means that this was not nearly as brave as some people would like. And it exposed some of the hypocrisy of his own positions—for example, saying that appeasing won’t save you is all well and good, but for months now, he has been constantly appeasing the Americans to “keep talks going,” such as how he killed the Digital Services Tax. I also have grave reservations about simply declaring the rules-based order dead and saying that “nostalgia is not a strategy” (while back home, he keeps invoking a false nostalgia about being a country that built things) because the middle powers need that structure, even if America isn’t playing ball. That means leaning into those rules collectively, and appealing to Europe to be the vanguards of that. There was an inherent hypocrisy in talking about his “values-based realism” because there are no values to be displayed when you deal with people who engage in slave labour and whom your government declared was perpetrating a genocide. He wants us to leverage a network of relations with other countries and trade blocs, but he’s cutting Global Affairs and the diplomats who would do this work. There is just so much inconsistency in what he’s saying and what he’s actually doing.

From Carney's Davos speech. This is one of the things I referred to in this morning's column—I fail to see the "respect for human rights" in all of the so-called "strategic partnerships" he's been signing, and shrugging that off as "pragmatic" just winds up reeking of hypocrisy instead.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-01-20T16:33:28.210Z

Carney has spent the past year subtweeting Trump.At a certain point, these words mean nothing if he won't actually come out and say what he's criticizing.

— Justin Ling (@justinling.ca) 2026-01-20T16:15:56.156Z

This is the right understanding of our geopolitical reality, but Carney's actions aren't in line with these statements. We need investment in our diplomatic corps and a clear foreign policy to mobilize Canada to meet the moment. www.cbc.ca/news/politic…

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2026-01-20T16:13:17.066Z

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3mcum6ygq3c2h

And getting into bed with other illiberal regimes to counter the one south of us risks tainting us as well.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-01-20T16:54:40.840Z

There was a contrast with Justin Trudeau, who was also at Davos, with Katy Perry in tow, and of course all of the focus was on her, and not the speech Trudeau gave. Where people did know about it, most of the comments were dismissive, but I think he actually has a relevant point in contrast to Carney. While both pointed out that the era of the rules-based international order that protected rights and freer trade is over, Trudeau made a point of talking about respect for international law and respect for allies as the way through the crisis, and that Canada has built up enough credibility globally that people know that if we are in a conflict zone, it’s not to steal oil or sell them Coca-Cola while we replace their system of government. I think that is something that Carney was missing, and it goes the point I was making in my latest column that we have soft power leverage we can use, if Carney wasn’t so intent on just squandering it.

Ukraine Dispatch

The attacks on power infrastructure in Ukraine risks nuclear meltdowns because of the to run cooling systems, which is part of Russia’s strategy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More “strategic investments” from a brutal dictator

Posted on by

Mark Carney was in Doha, Qatar, over the weekend, to meet with the Emir and get a commitment on “strategic investment” in Canadian infrastructure projects, while the Qatar Philharmonic Orchestra serenaded them with old CanCon hits. Carney also invited the Emir to visit Ottawa later in the year. The problem? Qatar is a pretty brutal dictatorship that employs slave labour, has no women’s or LGBTQ+ rights, and they play a role in being middlemen for a number of listed terror groups in the name of mediation and facilitation of conflict resolution. But hey, they have money and access in the Middle East, and they might want to partner with Canada for humanitarian and development work, which is darkly ironic considering the cost of that money.

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3mcptad3tqk24

Meanwhile, Carney has brushed off Doug Ford’s concerns about the EV deal with China, and there seems to be this expectation that they can get investment to build these cheap EVs in Canada, but I have doubts about this considering that the reason they’re cheap is because they are being subsidized to overproduce for foreign market consumption so that they can get a foothold in those markets, and undermine them in order to create a tech monoculture. Carney also said that he’s “concerned” about Trump’s threats over Greenland, and it sounds like we may send some additional troops there, even though we already have an existing presence.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-01-18T21:02:07.506Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drone strikes in Zaporizhzhia on Saturday have left 200,000 Ukrainians without power.

Continue reading →