Tag Archives: Competition Bureau

Roundup: The domestic speech and the response

Posted on by
Reply

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: Eight non-binding agreements signed

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday was prime minister Mark Carney’s big day in Beijing, where he met with premier Li Qiang, as well as the chairman of the standing committee of the National People’s Congress, Zhao Leji. Carney billed this as building a “strategic partnership” with China, and that he hoped this to be an “example to the world of co-operation amidst a time globally of division and disorder.”  There were high-level meetings away from journalists, and in the end, they had a big show about signing six non-binding agreements as well as two declarations to facilitate more trade, because hey, all of those ministers on the trip needed their photo-op moments. One of those agreements included the BC government and had to do with use of Canadian timber and increasing use of wood-frame construction in China, in order to expand the market beyond just pulp for paper. Another was an MOU on oil and gas—but doesn’t actually commit them to buying any more of our product.

This being said, there has been no progress on the tariff issues, though any announcement might be after the meeting with Xi Jinping today. Carney said that he is “heartened” by Xi’s leadership, which…is a bit problematic considering how much more Xi has cracked down on the country and has consolidated his own power within the Party. (Photo gallery here).

Of course, during the big meeting, Carney said that this “partnership” sets them up for the “new world order,” and hoo boy did every extremely online conservative and conspiracy theorist pick up on that one. Clearly, he meant that the shift away from American dominance was reshaping the global economy, but boy the choice of phrase “New World Order” was catnip to the absolute worst people online, and is once again an own-goal by Carney.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian attacks have destroyed a major energy facility in Kharkiv, as the country faces blackouts in the middle of winter. President Zelenskyy insists that Ukraine is interested in peace after Trump and Putin have lied that Ukraine is the holdout. Emmanuel Macron says that France is now providing two thirds of Ukraine’s intelligence, taking over from the Americans.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ignoring the true meaning of the Statute of Westminster

Posted on by

Yesterday was the Anniversary of the Statute of Westminster (1931), which is one of the most pivotal moments in our evolution as a sovereign country, but it rarely gets much mention. When I was in junior high, I remember them talking about how this ensured that Canada could control its own foreign policy, but they never said why. And it turns out that no official account or even the Government of Canada’s web page gave the reason either. The reason is that this was the creation of the Canadian Crown as a separate and distinct legal entity from the Crown of the UK, which mean that we could control our own foreign policy, and were seen as an equal to the UK and not a subordinate. But absolutely nobody mentions the Crown of Canada as the reason. Nobody.

The government's page undersells the importance of this date, because today is the anniversary of the creation of the Crown of Canada as a separate and distinct entity from the UK crown. That's why we gained control over our foreign affairs and "our own voice" on the world stage.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-11T14:17:20.569Z

The Governor General did not put out a release about the day or its importance to the Canadian Crown. Mark Carney did not put out a release about the day at all. Pierre Poilievre did, but not only did he not mention the Canadian Crown, but he talked up conservative figures from the era of history to try and distract from the fact that Mackenzie King was prime minister at the time, which was frankly sad and a little bit pathetic. Nobody else put out a release, and absolutely nobody mentioned the anniversary of the Canadian Crown.

Nothing about the Crown of Canada.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-11T21:53:33.606Z

The creation of the Canadian Crown is one of the most pivotal moments in our history, and it goes completely unremarked because the department of Canadian Heritage is full of republicans, and too many members of civil society are quietly embarrassed by our status as a constitutional monarchy, as though it’s still colonial or “not grown up” when it’s not that at all. The separate Canadian Crown means we are grown up, that we control our own Crown and destiny. And if you don’t want to time-share the monarch with the UK and the other Realms, well, we can change that at any point as well (with the unanimous consent of Parliament and the provinces), and I for one would not be averse to making Princess Anne the full-time Queen of Canada, as she is not only the best royal, but her grandchildren are already Canadian, so that helps with the succession issues. Suffice to say, we have to stop effacing the fact that the Canadian Crown is the central reason why we gained full independence then.

Another floor-crossing

After both Houses of Parliament rose for the winter break, and just before the Liberals had their Christmas party, Conservative MP Michael Ma crossed the floor to join the Liberal ranks. He’s from Markham—Unionville, which is John McCallum’s old riding, so it’s flipped back-and-forth between the Liberals and Conservatives, and Ma has been almost anonymous in the House of Commons, pretty much never put up in QP to read a script for the sake of clips, so he has no profile in the party. His statement talked about “unity and decisive action” for Canadians, which could translate to the fact that he (and possibly his constituents) is tired of the petty little games that Poilievre and his caucus spend all of their time doing.

It also puts the Liberals one seat away from a workable majority, and the House Leader, Steve MacKinnon, hinted that there are more conversations ongoing with Conservatives, and according to the journalists and pundits on the political talk shows, Ma’s name has never been bandied about as a possibility, so this was a complete surprise. But it will also serve to shut Don Davies up if they do get that one more MP, because Davies will have no leverage to try and blackmail Carney with. So, I guess we’ll see what happens by the time Parliament returns.

Well. That happened.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-11T23:22:51.428Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian commanders claim to have taken Siversk in the east, but Ukraine denies this. Here is an analysis of how the potential fall of Pokrovsk won’t collapse Ukraine’s front lines. In the back-and-forth on “peace” plans, the US wants to turn ceded lands in the Donbas into a “free economic zone,” and no, I don’t get it either.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unclear goals means poor accountability

Posted on by

The Parliamentary Budget Officer released his report on the plans for Build Canada Homes yesterday, and the headline conclusion is that the $13 billion fund will only produce some 26,000 new housing units, which is not a lot. He also tracks the declining funding in other existing housing programmes, that BCH doesn’t really make up for, though the government’s response that has been that his report merely assumes that funding agreements coming to an end won’t be renewed, and that they could be three or four years down the road when they do expire, so fair enough.

New PBO report out today, that finds that in the first 5 years of the Build Canada Homes program, it's will have $7.3 billion of spending on an accrual basis ($13 billion on a cash basis) and lead to fewer than 26,000 homes being built.Read here: www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/pu…

— Dr. Mike P. Moffatt (@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social) 2025-12-02T15:11:25.000Z

The fed reaction to PBO's housing report makes clear what I said at a conference last week: The gov't has no long-term plan, no targets, no KPIs, no accountability metrics. 5 years from now we won't know if BCH worked, because there's no benchmarks.www.cbc.ca/news/poli…

— Dr. Mike P. Moffatt (@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social) 2025-12-02T20:12:57.000Z

That said, Mike Moffatt makes the point that the report highlights the lack of long-term planning, and metrics by which BCH can be held to account. Sure, it’s supposed to “catalyse” investment from the private sector, and do things like make federal lands available for development, but it’s fair to point out that the lack of planning makes it hard to tell just what they’re planning to do, and how that funding will be applied. Gregor Robertson insists that this is just the initial investment, that more will come in future years, and so on, but again, you would think they would have a better grasp on the plan and what it’s supposed to entail. I know it’s been a few months, but clear goals would really help set the direction they are supposed to be headed in. This government has thus-far relied on a lot of hand-waving regarding their plans, and this is very much an example of what that looks like and why it’s not very helpful for evaluating what they’re supposed to be doing.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-02T22:22:02.159Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine continues to deny Russia’s claim that they control Pokrovsk. Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines don’t believe in the current “peace deal,” saying Russia will simply invade again in the future.

Russian propaganda in full force for the Witkoff visit: Putin is claiming to have captured Ukrainian cities that he doesn't control, and having himself photographed in military uniformkyivindependent.com/putin-claims…

— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum.bsky.social) 2025-12-02T12:18:09.879Z

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1995802755034734819

Continue reading →

Roundup: A major far-right terror arrest

Posted on by

The big news yesterday was that four people were arrested and charged in terrorism-related charges for plans to start an anti-government militia, and to violently seize land near Quebec City for their own purposes, and more to the point, that two of those charged are serving members of the Canadian Forces, and not reservists as we have seen in the past. They were also heavily armed and had a number of explosive devices prepared—and it was likely the largest number of weapons and devices seized in a terror-related event in Canadian history.

I can’t speak to the nature of the plot (too few details) but this is the largest amount of weapons and devices seized as part of a terrorism incident in Canada. Ever.

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-07-08T14:20:46.149Z

Details are still scarce, but former CSIS analyst Jessica Davis has some particular observations.

Not small time: "Searches conducted in January 2024 in the Québec City area led to the seizure of 16 explosive devices, 83 firearms and accessories, approximately 11,000 rounds of ammunition of various calibres, nearly 130 magazines, four pairs of night vision goggles and military equipment."

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-07-08T13:19:41.537Z

This is an ideologically motivated plot. In Canada, 77% of terrorist attacks have been carried out by ideologically-motivated actors: newsletter.insightthreatintel.com/p/rising-thr…

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-07-08T13:29:30.504Z

Over the last two decades, however, most terrorism charges have been laid against religiously-motivated terrorists. That has slowly been changing, with more ideologically-motivated individuals getting caught: newsletter.insightthreatintel.com/p/terror-on-…

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-07-08T13:29:30.505Z

They do point to the ideology — anti-government extremism. And there's a long history in Canada of breaking down our terrorism into different categories. (ideological, political, and religious). There's a lot to criticize the RCMP about, but this is not top of the list.

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-07-08T20:09:49.002Z

Another issue here has to do with the military not doing an adequate job of investigating the full extent of far-right extremism in their ranks, in part because they refuse to let outsiders do the investigating, as Leah West demonstrates in this thread. Some of this has to do with an insistence on cleaning up their own messes, but, well, their history on that score has not been great given the sexual misconduct problems and abuse of power scandals they have been dealing with over the past couple of decades. There is still work to do, and it doesn’t help when things happen, such as the commander of the Canadian Army saying he wasn’t notified about certain army members posting to an “abhorrent” Facebook group during the investigation into it.

There is much about this story that is staggering. But the inclusion of military members while deeply troubling is not surprising. A story:I was part of the RWE CAF research network funded by the Department of National Defence to study IMVE in the military for three years 2020-2023.

— Leah West (@leahwest-nsl.bsky.social) 2025-07-08T22:30:36.625Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The only real Ukraine news today is that Trump is planning to resume weapons shipments to Ukraine, feeling hurt that Putin was bullshitting him, but more concerningly, says he doesn’t know who ordered the shipments to stop (because he’s clearly not running his own show).

https://bsky.app/profile/united24media.com/post/3ltixwozuor2a

Continue reading →

Roundup: A few amendments, but very telling ones

Posted on by

It seems that Bill C-5 did not emerge from committee unscathed, as the opposition forced a number of amendments to the bill through, most of them creating an added list of laws that the government cannot opt itself out of using the giant Henry VIII clause that is the second half of said bill. The issue here? That aside from the Indian Act being one of those laws, the remainder are mostly done for the theatre of the Conservatives (and Bloc to a lesser extent) putting on a show about trying to keep said Henry VIII clause being used in a corrupt manner. To that end, the laws protected from opt-outs include:

  • Access to Information Act,
  • Lobbying Act,
  • Canada Elections Act,
  • Criminal Code,
  • Conflict of Interest Act,
  • Investment Canada Act,
  • Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act,
  • Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act,
  • Railway Safety Act,
  • Trade Unions Act,
  • Explosives Act,
  • Hazardous Products Act,
  • Indian Act,
  • Auditor General Act, or
  • Official Languages Act

Do you notice what’s missing? Any kind of environmental laws, which the Conservatives continue to demand be repealed, or any kind of UNDRIP legislation, which would ensure free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous people when it comes to these projects.

The government says they are considering the amendments and whether to support their adoption or not (but given that every opposition party has lined up behind them, they may not have a choice), but the fact remains that they have refused adequate consultation with Indigenous people in developing and passing this legislation (they could barely be arsed to hear from one Indigenous witness at committee, let along several rights-holders), or that they are damaging the trust the government spent the past decade trying to rebuild. Just amateur galaxy-brained antics that you would think a government that is ten years into their time in office would actually have learned a lesson or two by this point.

Meanwhile, you have some Indigenous voices calling on the Governor General to delay or to deny royal assent for Bill C-5, which is not going to happen. If it did, it would cause a constitutional crisis, and I can’t believe we need to keep saying this every time someone makes the suggestion because they don’t understand how Responsible Government works. This is a political problem, and it demands a political solution, not one where you pull out the constitutional fire extinguisher and try to wield it. That’s not how this works, and people need to both stop suggesting it, and journalists need to stop taking this kind of talk seriously. Just stop it.

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy says that the increasing attacks demonstrate why more pressure needs to be applied to Russia to force a ceasefire. There was another POW swap yesterday, but no word on how many were exchanged on either side.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The confidence vote that wasn’t

Posted on by

Debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech From the Throne was due to wrap up, meaning a final vote. Media outlets insisted that this would be the first major confidence vote of the new Parliament, and that if the Liberals lost it, we could go back to an election, and there was all this building drama because of how they lost the vote on the Conservatives’ amendment (to “urge” the government to table a spring budget). And my headache started.

The vote on the Address in Reply is not automatically a confidence vote. It is if the opposition amendments explicitly state that they have no confidence in the government, and sometimes that happens because this is the first opportunity to test the confidence of the Chamber, especially in a minority parliament or legislature, but again, that was not the case here. But along the way, the NDP decided that they were going to play tough and declare that they would vote against it for specious reasons (and because Don Davies is an idiot, and has a long track record of being an idiot and a blowhard), while the Government House Leader, Steve MacKinnon, told reporters that this would be a confidence vote. So, if the government says it’s a confidence vote, it’s a confidence vote, and it was likely intended to be something of a bit a put-up-or-shut-up dare, which can be risky in a minority parliament, but sometimes you also need to play hardball with the opposition. This was likely going to mean that the Bloc would either vote in support or abstain (because they did say they would give the government a year before they started to seriously oppose anything, given the Trump situation), but the government was never in any serious danger of falling. If, by some fluke, they did lose a vote they declared to be confidence, they could simply hold another vote and basically say “Did you mean it?” and chances are they would win that vote, and all would go back to normal.

And in the end, there wasn’t even a vote. News of Marc Garneau’s death reached the Chamber just before the vote was to be taken, and it seems like the appetite for drama was gone, and it passed on division, meaning that they agreed to disagree, that they were going to let it pass, but not bother with a recorded vote. And thus, the least exciting outcome happened.

I must advise the beings of Bluesky that, in a truly only-in-this-particular-Canadian-parliament twist, the much-anticipated will-they-or-won't-they-trigger-an-election over it motion on the Throne speech as amended — has been adopted on division.

— Kady O'Malley (@kadyo.bsky.social) 2025-06-04T22:25:39.121Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-06-04T22:02:26.904Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones struck an apartment building in Kharkiv, injuring at least seventeen. Russian forces have also pushed further into Sumy region. Here’s a look at how Operation Spiderweb was carried out.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A mixed bag from the English debate

Posted on by

The Liberals’ English-language debate was held last night, and it was a much more lively affair, given that they weren’t speaking in very slow and deliberate French to get their points across. The first few minutes were a complete English-dub replay of Monday’s debate, with the exact same opening statements and first responses to the same question, so it took them a while to actually get to something new, but the longer it went on, the more annoyed I started to get at some of the absolute inanities that were on display. (Here are liveblogs from the Star and The Canadian Press, while I was live-tweeting Bluesky here).

One of the early topics was Canada’s place in the world, and after the initial chest-thumping about Trump, they got into things like NATO targets. Chrystia Freeland was probably the most clear-eyed here, talking about building a new democratic world order with allies that included the UK and France because they have nuclear capabilities (which was a sign of how serious this is), because America is no longer the “leader of the free world.” But when discussing spending to hit NATO targets, everyone was quick to say that they didn’t want those dollars going to American companies, but nobody seemed to have much of an idea of just what the Canadian defence industry was capable of producing for our needs, or the fact that we need to look to other allies because our defence industry is not large and can’t produce a lot of things we need quickly (lest we start buying into vapourware that companies like Bombardier will promise but have no guaranteed ability to deliver on). Oh, and Karina Gould deserves a time-out for pitching a “procurement czar.” No! Stop with this American bullshit!

Freeland has a very clear-eyed statement about building a new democratic world order now that the US is no longer the "leader of the free world." Baylis wants to get allies to bankruptcy Boeing as an example. (Good luck with what that's going to do to our military procurement).

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T01:29:48.917Z

Boy, there is a lot of wishful thinking about the state of the Canadian defence industry, and what capabilities that Canadian industry can produce. (We may have to look to other allies' industries, guys. Be frank and forthright about it.)

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T01:34:57.570Z

And now we're into another round of AI platitudes. And Baylis wants to recreate a research and development programme that already exists and has had challenges turning R&D into procurement. Like, it already exists. That's not the problem.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T01:40:12.215Z

The cost-of-living segment was…unenlightening, and had some of the worst pitches. Chrystia Freeland wants to cut red tape (how? You’ve had nine years!), and Karina Gould wants to modernise social services (provincial jurisdiction) and bring in a basic income (not going to work—there is research to prove it). There was a question on how to improve productivity that nobody could give an actual answer to except to wave their hands and say “AI,” as though it’s a magic incantation.

Moving onto the cost of living theme.You'll never guess, but Carney wants to "build our economy."

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T01:45:12.030Z

Baylis repeats his utter nonsense about fiscal discipline raising the value of the dollar (WHICH DOESN'T MAKE ANY GODS DAMNED SENSE!)And did he mention that he was a businessman? Because he's a businessman.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T01:47:14.001Z

Ireland, where a significant fraction of the paper economy is just US tech companies moving money in and out as a tax dodge? That Ireland?

— Nick P (@npilon.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T02:14:58.888Z

The topic that broke my brain completely was asking them how they could work with provinces to increase the number of doctors. Only Gould gave something resembling a coherent answer here. And again, when the topic changed to the carbon levy, everyone on the stage but Gould was utterly incoherent about how they would replace it (Gould would keep the levy but freeze it).

We've been convening the medical colleges for decades. How do you change that?!Baylis wants to redesign the system for chronic care (again, how is this federal?!) Freeland has an anecdote about a nurse practitioner! But doesn't say anything the *federal* government can do.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T02:25:28.637Z

Gould, correctly, says provinces don't have enough accountability for federal transfers, and points to how childcare agreements have specific guideposts. (The last round of federal transfers to have more strings and required action plans by provinces).

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T02:28:35.715Z

These answers on the carbon levy are *completely* incoherent (except for Gould, who is keeping but freezing it). Gould does admit that they didn't do a good job of talking about it, which no one else could muster the self-awareness to do.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T02:37:41.651Z

Baylis keeps saying "we'll build two pipelines."Who will? The federal government? Or do you think some proponent will swoop in with little economic case for it?

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T02:43:50.642Z

The final question was asking how they would differentiate themselves from Trudeau, and at first Freeland ignored the question, Gould talked around it before bringing up the fact that the party needs to get back to the grassroots, Baylis said he was going to be “focused on the economy” while Carney said he would be “laser-focused on the economy,” before adding that he’s very hands-on, and has heard from the supporters in caucus that Trudeau didn’t build many relationships with MPs, which he would do. The moderator circled back to Freeland, who talked about the campaign being a “personal liberation,” and that her style of leadership isn’t to be a “one-man band,” which is a pretty big repudiation of Trudeau’s leadership style (though I would say it’s more like a two-man band, because it’s more of a joint Trudeau-Katie Telford effort).

Overall, it was a mixed bag, and I couldn’t really determine someone I felt was a winner. Chrystia Freeland had some of the strongest responses, but some of the weakest delivery and framing of responses, and was very invested in playing nice in order to get second-place votes (because this is a ranked ballot). Gould was strong on many responses, but completely out to lunch on others, which tainted her credibility. Mark Carney kept repeating that he wants to “build the economy.” Over and over and again. Constantly. He still resorted largely to platitudes, and didn’t seem to have a good grasp of a lot of files because they have been out of his bailiwick, and his attempt at attacking Poilievre got cringey in place (Poilievre worships Trump? Really?) And then there was Frank Baylis, who kept reminding us that he’s a businessman. Over and over again, but his constant bizarre refrains about strengthening the dollar (at the expense of our exports?) and the whole thing about Ireland were just completely out to lunch, to say nothing about the fantasy economics of his pipeline plans.

Maybe I’m being too harsh of a critic, but nobody came out ahead.

Ukraine Dispatch

Another overnight attack on the Kyiv region has killed one person, injured four, and set several houses on fire. There also appears to be some progress on a critical minerals deal between the US and Ukraine, but we’ll see if it actually happens.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1894322734047310319

Continue reading →

Roundup: Turnabout is fair play in procedural warfare

Posted on by

If you needed yet another example of how the state of the current parliament continues to degrade, yesterday was yet another example. It was the first of the allotted Supply Days (aka “opposition days”) that the Speaker had to intervene in order to schedule, and it barely happened at all. Why? The NDP used procedural shenanigans to delay the debate on the confidence motion that used Jagmeet Singh’s words as the fodder by calling for concurrence debate on a committee report that dealt with abortion access, and the Liberals played along, which meant that the Conservatives’ debate didn’t end up happening until after QP, meaning they only had a couple of hours’ worth of clip-gathering instead of a full day, and boy were they put out about it. But that’s the thing with procedural warfare—if you wage it against others, eventually they will wage it against you.

There were other shenanigans that happened after QP—Liberal MP Jaime Battiste tried to move a unanimous consent motion to get the First Nations water bill out of committee and over to the Senate, but the Conservatives refused. As they did, Battiste took his water glass and started shouting at the Conservatives, and went into the aisle, apparently planning to throw the glass at them before he thought better of it. And then Andrew Scheer tried to move a motion that would have had the same effect, but with language that denigrated the government, and of course that too was shut down, and Scheer had the audacity to play the victim after that stunt.

It’s good that there’s only one sitting week left, because my tolerance for this kind of bullshit is at its end.

Ukraine Dispatch

The Americans have been pressuring Ukraine to lower the conscription age to 18 in order to bolster their fighting force, which is creating dilemmas for those teenaged boys.

Continue reading →

Roundup: GST “holiday” bill passes

Posted on by

The federal government got their wish, with the cooperation of the NDP, to get their GST “holiday” bill through the House of Commons thanks to a programming motion that paused the ongoing privilege filibuster for the sitting day. In spite of the Bloc and Conservatives slow-walking it with dilatory amendments, it did pass late at night, with the terms of the motion being that once it passed second reading vote, it would automatically be deemed to have been referred to committee of the whole and passed, and then passed at third reading. (The Senate won’t see it until Tuesday at the earliest). It’s the first opportunity the Commons has had to do real work in more than six weeks, for what it’s worth. The Liberals and NDP, however, think they’ve found a big gotcha, that by forcing the Conservatives to vote against this legitimately terrible policy will be the key to reversing their fortunes in the polls, and their attempts remain cringe-worthy.

Pierre Poilievre took to the microphones to denounce it as “inflationary,” which is actually nonsense because we’re no longer in an overheated economy. Nevertheless, he relies on the simplistic notion that any government spending or deficits are inflationary (and claims that Chrystia Freeland herself this, which isn’t really what she said—not that the truth has ever mattered to Poilievre). Then again, his entire understanding of economics comes from crypto bros on YouTube, so probably best not to take him seriously. It’s still a terrible policy, however, so their opposition to it somewhat accidentally puts them on the right side of the issue, even if the reasons are entirely false and misleading (but broken clocks being right twice a day, and all of that).

As for the implementation of this terrible policy, it just looks even worse as the details emerge. What counts and what doesn’t for the rebate are all over the map, and it’s so chaotic that businesses are, quite rightly, frustrated at just how much work it’s going to be to implement for those two months. None of this should have happened, and the Liberals should have come up with a better measure than this (and rubbed the NDP’s faces in their own ill-conceived GST cut plan), but here we are, and it just keeps getting worse by the day. Well done, guys. Slow clap.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia fired another nearly 200 missiles and drones, targeting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure to leave more than a million people without power. Fragments from downed drones hit two buildings in Kyiv, injuring one person.

Continue reading →