Poilievre’s plan to fuel inflation

The July inflation data was released yesterday, which means that Pierre Poilievre had something to say about it, and it was…mind-numbingly wrong and stupid. The data were not terrible—yes, it ticked up to 3.0% because of gasoline prices thanks to Trump’s misadventures in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz (and there was also an effect from World Cup tourism prices in there as well), but core measures (which strip out the volatile categories) are all hovering at two percent, and that’s a pretty good thing. This is what we want. Poilievre, however, wants to say dumb things.

In which Poilievre selectively reads this morning's inflation data in order to support his pre-determined but purely bullshit narrative.

Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-17T14:43:12.309Z

For starters, grocery prices. They are actually at their lowest rate of inflation in months, but when you look at the things driving it (fresh fruit, coffee, beef), all of it has fuck all to do with federal deficits. But that’s what Poilievre keeps his focus on. Federal deficits, and taxes. But the thing is, taxes are disinflationary, because they take available spending money out of the system. So, advocating for a continued or larger “gas tax” cut (and to be clear, they’re not all taxes, and won’t equal 25 cents per litre, which is another lie he keeps telling) is actually an inflationary policy. He is literally advocating for what he doesn’t want. Because of course he is.

Poilievre keeps fancying himself an economic genius because he watches crypto bros on YouTube, but he absolutely does not understand anything he’s talking about, and the tax cut/deregulate ideology he espouses got us into the mess we’re in as a society, where the young people he claims to advocate for can’t get ahead. Doubling down on those measures won’t help young people, but he refuses to change his mind, and when your only plan is to betray the audience you claim to be fighting for, well, I’m not sure what to tell you.

My Latest:

My weekend column takes issue with the gross mismatch in funds the government is spending on pipelines rather than climate mitigation and adaptation measures.

New episodes released early for C$7+ subscribers. This week I discuss the various legal challenges to the different oaths to the King. #cdnpoli

Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-17T00:14:10.972Z

Continue reading

Our supposed democratic freefall

Earlier in the week, someone forwarded me this piece about how Canada’s democracy is “quietly eroding” while we all watch the US turn into a fascist hellscape, and they had this chart from the latest V-Dem Institute report on how Canada’s democratic scores are in apparent freefall. It looks dubious, so I tried to do a bit more digging (and spent way, way more time doing it than I should have, because I still have columns to write that I get paid for). Nevertheless, I was left wanting. The Institute doesn’t consider us to be a Liberal Democracy, but rather an Electoral Democracy, but what they define as being required for the “liberal dimension”—well-functioning checks and balances on the executive power by the legislature and the judiciary, and a strong rule of law ensuring that equal civil liberties are respected—all sounds like features that are fully intact in this country.

I tried to dig into their methodology, and apparently, they give five “experts” a survey to complete, and they code the results, based on the five metrics that they define, some of which are supposedly in freefall. The “participatory component,” which saw the second-biggest drop, apparently measures the “extent to which citizens actively participate in political processes, both electoral and non-electoral.  It emphasizes engagement beyond voting, focusing on direct democracy, civil society involvement, and subnational governance.” How has this been in freefall for the past nine years? Electoral turnout figures have been reasonably steady, and how exactly is civil society involvement measured? The “deliberative component,” the largest drop, is apparently the “extent to which leaders provide public, evidence-based rationales for policies; the degree to which decisions are oriented toward societal well-being; citizens’ willingness to acknowledge and engage with opposing views; the success at integrating diverse societal groups into policy discussions; and the extent to which deliberation involves grassroots or independent organization.” Again, how has this been in decline over nine years? If anything, there is more stakeholder consultation, there was a (partial) attempt at incorporating GBA+ into decision-making, and we’re not jailing opposition voices here. How has this fallen so drastically? The report doesn’t say.

The professor who wrote the piece linking to the report cited decades-old complaints about the “centralization of power,” and the “uselessness of MPs,” and so on, but these complaints go back decades, and there has been little material change since then. He lists a bunch of Carney’s bills that are either not passed or just passed, which he is justifiably concerned about, but frankly, most of this legislation is not going to survive court challenges, so again, how is this indicative of some kind of democratic decline? The opaqueness of the V-Dem report doesn’t fill me with any confidence, and this sounds a whole lot like alarmism. Yes, there are problems. Yes, Carney is ramming through bad bills, but they can and will be challenged. This is how a liberal democracy functions. Because we are a liberal democracy, despite what V-Dem may think based on its survey scores.

Continue reading

QP: A trio of bad faith assertions

The PM was in town but otherwise preoccupied, while Pierre Poilievre was also absent, which led Melissa Lantsman to stand up and lament the lack of investment building in the country. Tim Hodgson stood up, suggested she stop the clickbait, and then listed major projects approved in each province. Lantsman dismissed this as nothing actually built (because it can happen overnight), before lamenting the food inflation numbers and demanded the government bring down the cost of government. François-Philippe Champagne got up to list the “good news” of IMF projections, and high Canadian Forces recruitment. Lantsman went on a tear about affordability, to which Patty Hajdu accused the Conservatives of sticking “spokes in the wheels” of Canadians. Pierre Paul-Hus took over in French to slam Carney’s video and the lack of pipelines built of new trade deals. Dominic LeBlanc thanked him for his support of C-5 and noted the projects that are getting underway. Paul-Hus lamented food prices, and Champagne reiterated his “good news” talking points en français. Paul-Hus then mischaracterised the deal with China and falsely claimed Carney had promised a trade deal by now, and LeBlanc got back up to remind them that they are working to improve the situation, which included diversifying trade with other reliable partners and building major projects.

In advance of today's #QP and the inevitable wailing and gnashing of teeth about food price inflation, here is what StatsCan said the biggest driver was last month.Spoiler: It's still climate. www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quo…

Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-04-20T15:07:22.716Z

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she also raised Carney’s video and the lack of a deal with the U.S. as they keep imposing new tariffs. LeBlanc repeated his line about diversifying trade partners and building national projects while understanding the importance of steel and aluminium at home. Normandin demanded ties with the U.S. be strengthened and not discarded (which nobody is actually proposing), and Champagne got back up to note that he was in Washington last week and they are still talking, while pointing to the importance of diversifying trade. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay lamented that Carney is not consulting enough on his files, to which LeBlanc disputed the premise of the question. 

Continue reading

Roundup: The 44th Charter anniversary

Yesterday was the 44th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it comes at a time when the Charter is increasingly under attack by provincial governments who have realised that the prohibition against using the Notwithstanding Clause has worn off, and that the public no longer cares about it—at least not enough to actually punish a government that does it, mostly because it’s right-wing governments using the Clause to punish minorities, and there isn’t enough political will to care about trans and gender diverse youth, or the rights of visible minorities in Quebec.

While everyone waits for the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the Law 21 case out of Quebec, there is some using about ways that the federal government could try and introduce some kinds of guardrails against its use federally, but that immediately had the Bloc Québécois howling, and the brand new Quebec premier striking a combative tone, until she got reassurances from Carney and a text message apology from the federal justice minister, which strikes me as far too much appeasement. And then you have people calling for the constitutional power of disallowance if a province invokes the Clause, but that’s extremely dangerous. Disallowance is a constitutional dead letter—it existed mostly as a way of ensuring provinces would stay within their constitutional lanes, and that function has been taken up by the Supreme Court of Canada’s reference function. Disallowance would essentially be a declaration of war, which is a very bad thing for any federal government.

So, what can we do about provinces who abuse the power? The same way you effect any political change—you organize, and you protest, and you get out the vote. But that’s hard, and people don’t want to do that, even though that’s the way politics works. There is no easy way to curb the abuse of these powers other than the public letting it be known that it’s unacceptable, and that’s hard work. But it’s the only way to ensure that you not only get change, but that said change is actually durable. Make premiers afraid of you. It’s the only way we’re going to fix what’s wrong with this country.

Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-04-17T13:13:12.555Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones hit the Danube port of Izmail once again, and at least one drone strayed into Romanian territory as a result. Ukrainian drones made hits at oil facilities in the Black Sea port of Tuapse and Krasnodar.

Continue reading

QP: The supposed worst in the G7

The PM was present today for the first time in two weeks, and it will be the last time for three as the next two weeks the House is not sitting. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and as he did yesterday, raised the Auditor General’s report on student visas to once again demand that the current and past two immigration ministers be fired. Mark Carney said that he was blessed to have a great Cabinet, and that he has “taken back control” of immigration. Poilievre switched to English to compare current immigration numbers compared to under Harper, and returned to the AG’s report and demanded those minister be fired. Carney repeated his same answer in English. Poilievre recited the talking points about how poorly we are doing economically, and Carney noted how many jobs Canada grew versus the U.S., that wages are outpacing inflation, and rents are down to recent lows. Poilievre recited the same economic doom points again, getting some of his figures wrong, and Carney again praised our economic performance before listing off the strategies they have launched. Poilievre said that strategies won’t pay the bills, and declared how much cheaper Americans get gasoline, before demanding the industrial carbon price and clean fuel standard be repealed. Carney patted himself on the back for scrapping the consumer carbon levy, and again repeated that wages are outpacing inflation. Poilievre spun a complete fiction about carbon pricing, and Carney patted himself on the back once again for how much they are building.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he first claimed that the Bloc supports freedom of religion before noting that Carney quoted from the Bible in a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, and he wondered about church-state separation. Carney admitted he did quote from the Bible, but also Marcus Aurelius, because he had some good ideas. Blanchet then used this to pivot to the Supreme Court of Canada case on the Law 21 challenge, and demanded the government lawyers scrap their arguments. Carney noted that this is about the Charter, and that they would wait for its ruling. Blanchet tried to insist that Carney either say that religion can’t influence government or they have to stop fighting Law 21. Carney said this was a false choice, and praised their hate crime bill on protecting the Jewish community and others.

Continue reading

QP: Demands to fire the current and two former immigration ministers

Unusually for a Tuesday in the current Parliament, the PM was not present today even though he was in the building, but Pierre Poilievre was present, and led led off in French, and he raised the Auditor General’s into student visas, and he torqued and misrepresented what was found. Lina Diab got up to recite that they have taken on the AG’s recommendations, and provided a corrective in terms of what triggers investigations. Poilievre declared that the question was for the PM who “is in Ottawa” (skirting the line of what is allowed), and demanded the PM fire the current and past two immigration ministers. Marc Miller, one of those past ministers, got up and took a gratuitous swipe at Poilievre. Poilievre then switched to English to again demand those three minsters be fired, and Sean Fraser, the third of those former minsters, said that if anyone is guilty of political incompetence, it is Poilievre. Poilievre claimed that Carney is encouraging incompetence, and again recited torqued and misleading claims from the report, and again demanded they be fired. Diab got back up to repeat her first response in English. Poilievre mocked her response, and Diab again got back up to praise that the Auditor General for agreeing that they tightened the system. Poilievre took a swipe at the absent Carney and demanded he “stand up now,” and this time Steven MacKinnon to praise the Liberal record and Diab’s performance, and touted the decline in population as though that was a good thing.

Backbench Liberal to Poilievre: “How many antivaxx billionaires did you meet with?” #QP

Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-24T18:24:49.144Z

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and badmouthed the lawyers at the Supreme Court on the Law 21 challenge, and demanded the government withdraw their arguments. Fraser said that they are standing up for the constitution, and that the Supreme Court is the best place to have this debate. Blanchet treated this as the assertion that the federal government is superior to Quebec’s, and this time Joël Lightbound expressed some confusion with the question, and pledged that the government would not use disallowance. Blanchet then took swipes at Pierre Trudeau, and claimed that the argument is a “colony of Canada,” to which Lightbound reminded him that Quebeckers are challenging the law at the Court.

Continue reading

Roundup: MOU motion down in flames

As expected, the Conservatives’ Supply Day motion to try and force a vote on some of the language from the Alberta MOU went down in flames as the Liberals were wise to their bullshit, and didn’t play ball. They made it clear that the language was deliberately provocative in what it excluded, so Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives scrambled to try and amend their own motion, so that it included a bunch of other things, except one thing—any mention of the carbon price (without which, the Pathways carbon capture project can’t operate because it’s not fiscally viable). And so that’s what the Liberals hung their arguments on—that this wasn’t the full MOU, and it didn’t include the carbon price, or methane regulations, or anything else, so they weren’t going to vote for it. And nobody did.

The Conservatives could have probably done more damage to the Liberals if they tried to force a vote on the entire MOU, to really suss out the divisions in the caucus about it, but they couldn’t actually do that, because the MOU has the carbon price as part of it, and if the Conservatives voted to support the full MOU including the carbon price, they would be hypocrites because every day in Question Period, they falsely blame said carbon price for food price inflation (when in reality, the industrial carbon price’s impact on food is statistically zero). Their attempt at being clever blew up in their faces, because they’re not clever. They’re not the slightest bit intelligent. Of course, that isn’t going to stop them from shouting for the next eight weeks that “The Liberals voted against their own MOU! They don’t want to build a pipeline!” Of course, it’s not true because the Conservatives ensured that they weren’t voting on the actual contents of the MOU, but it’s not going to matter. They’re going to record videos of them claiming the Liberals voted against their own plans, and spread them across social media, but well, it’s not like we can expect the Conservatives—and Poilievre and Andrew Scheer in particular—to actually be honest for once.

Speaking of honesty, Tim Hodgson took to the microphone in the Foyer during the day to denounce the Conservatives’ stunt, but in the process declared that “caucus is united” behind the full MOU, when he knows full well that they are not. If the point of the day was to make the Conservatives look like the clowns, well, Hodgson didn’t exactly do his part. Then again, Hodgson is one of the worst performers on the front bench and he has absolutely zero political skills, so I’m not sure why anyone would be surprised here.

Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-09T22:22:02.273Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia’s top general says they are advancing their “entire front line” and moving into the town of Myrnohrad, which Ukraine denies, and says that Russia is paying a heavy cost for modest advances. Likewise, Ukraine still holds out in parts of Pokrovsk, and it has not fallen. President Zelensky has been rallying European allies as he says that any “peace” deal will not include ceding land to Russia. Ukraine is rolling out more restrictions on power usage as they repair their infrastructure from Russian attacks.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1998317649025966396

Continue reading

Roundup: Rustad’s reluctant ouster

It’s some chaos in the BC Conservative Party after the majority of the caucus let the party’s board of directors that they have no confidence in John Rustad’s leadership (though this may not have been an actual caucus vote—it may have been something like a letter signed with enough signatures). The board said that a caucus vote confirmed Trevor Halford as interim leader, and they declared Rustad “professionally incapacitated,” given that incapacitation is one of the only ways to replace a leader per the party’s constitution. And then John Rustad said he’s not going anywhere.

This is, of course, insane. No leader can survive a vote of non-confidence from the majority of his or her caucus. The confidence convention is one of the most fundamental aspects of our parliamentary order as part of the conventions that govern our unwritten constitution. And if Rustad continues to insist that he’s the leader and refuse to leave with any shred of his dignity left intact (but good luck with that at this point, because yikes), the next step is likely for the majority of his caucus to simply remove themselves and form official opposition as a splinter party (though the legislature ended the fall sitting yesterday, so that may not actually happen). There is some precedent for this—when the then-Alliance Party got fed up with Stockwell Day’s leadership, a number of its MPs broke away and sat as a separate caucus until Day stepped down, and the when the Bloc were reduced to a rump caucus in the Commons and had a leader without a seat who also became a problem, most of them removed themselves from caucus until she stepped down.

This whole sorry exercise should be a reminder that the current system of membership election and removal of leaders is antithetical to our system, and creates problems with leaders who refuse to take a hint. That’s why a confidence vote is the ultimate tool, and if he refuses to abide by it, like a mad king, he just isolates himself ever further into irrelevance. In any case, Rustad is finished, even if he is going to throw a tantrum about it for the next day or two.

Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-03T14:25:05.918Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine hit the Druzhba oil pipeline in Russia with remote-controlled explosives, which supplies Russian oil to Hungary and Slovakia.

Continue reading

QP: Brookfield conspiracy theories

In spite of being in the building and preparing to make an announcement, the PM was not at QP, but Pierre Poilievre sure was. He led off in French, lamenting that there haven’t been any wins in tariff relief, no matter the concessions made, but nothing has come of it other than a contract for Brookfield, and he wondered if Brookfield was the only one getting wins. Dominic LeBlanc reminded Poilievre that Canadians didn’t place their trust in him, and the government was trying to find a good deal, while taking more measures to help Canadian industries. Poilievre switched to English to declare that David Eby has no constitutional authority to block a pipeline, but that the prime minister has the authority authorize one, and demanded that a pipeline to the Pacific be approved today. Tim Hodgson suggested he buy a ticket to Calgary tomorrow so that he can see how to work with provinces to Build Canada Strong™. Poilievre suggested that Carney stand up to his own caucus to build this pipeline. Hodgson suggested Poilievre ask Danielle Smith why she was working with the federal government. Poilievre again gave a jejune constitutional lesson and demanded the PM use his powers to approve a pipeline today. (What pipeline? What proponent? What route?) This time, Steve MacKinnon got up to praise Carney’s leadership. Poilievre intimated to Carney’s absence and got warned by the Speaker, said that if Carney is not there, he doesn’t care, and suggested Carney get up to show he cares. Hodgson repeated his line about buying a ticket to Calgary. Poilievre then pivoted to the Brookfield contract with the White House, intimating Carney had something to do with it, and LeBlanc reminded him that we have the best deal available as it is.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, repeated the accusation of yesterday that the federal government “cheated” in the 1995 referendum, but then pivoted to a question about trade. Lina Diab said that she’d not focused on the past, but on working to make the immigration system strong for Quebec and Canada. Blanchet then asked Steven Guilbeault if he was comfortable with Carney trying to do an end-run around emissions laws, to which Guilbeault hit back with Blanchet’s record as a provincial environment minister. Blanchet then needled Guilbeault again to demand a promise the no project would get approval without the consent of the provinces of First Nations. MacKinnon said that the answer was yes.

Continue reading

Roundup: Assuaging Carney’s BC caucus

The lead-up to this Memorandum of Understanding with Alberta is becoming politically fraught for prime minister Mark Carney as a whole bunch of his caucus, not the least of which is the party’s BC caucus, are getting pretty angry about the whole thing. And so, natural resources minister Tim Hodgson is supposed to go to BC caucus this morning to explain things and calm them down, but that seems like something that should have been done ages ago when this was first being discussed, so that they could both hear their concerns and alleviate any anxieties earlier in the process. And it doesn’t help that the message keeps changing from “BC has to agree,” to “We’re not giving them a veto,” and back to “BC has to agree, and so do the coastal First Nations.” But again, this is sloppy.

There was a pretty good explanation for this yesterday, on Power & Politics, when columnist Emilie Nicolas said that Carney needs to learn how to “be a leader and not a boss,” which is exactly it. Carney is still operating in CEO mode, and that’s just not how politics works. And this mentality keeps exposing Carney’s many blind spots, not the least of which has been his ignoring human rights violations and atrocities when he thinks he can get a trade deal with some dollars attached, or the debacle with the end of the “feminist foreign policy.” And yes, it’s been over six months now that he’s been in charge, and there are a number of lessons he’s still learning, but how much he’s internalising these lessons is up for debate.

Meanwhile, we are back to the discussion of what this MOU is supposed to accomplish, particularly considering that Alberta didn’t live up to the last “grand bargain” that they agreed to in 2017 with the Trans Mountain pipeline, so I’m not sure why Carney thinks they will this time. There have been suggestions that this is a way to try and defuse the situation by looking like Danielle Smith is being given a win even though the conditions for this fictional pipeline proposal are never going to be met, but the danger there is that a future government will start waiving these conditions (and let the litigation commence). Again, I’m not sure that Carney understands the political game here, but we’ll see.

Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-25T22:22:02.600Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia, starting fires and injuring at least twelve people. Ukrainian drones hit a Russian oil refinery in Krasnodar, and an oil terminal in the port of Novorossiysk. President Zelenskyy says he’s willing to work with Trump on that “peace plan,” while Trump is now saying there is no firm deadline to reach an agreement.

https://twitter.com/Denys_Shmyhal/status/1993350012848197980

Continue reading