Tag Archives: CSIS

Roundup: Boulerice reaches for the exit

Posted on by
Reply

Multiple sources have confirmed to multiple news outlets that NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice is about to pull the plug and make the jump to provincial politics, running for Québec Solidaire in the upcoming election. Boulerice is the sole survivor of the 2011 “Orange Wave” that swept Quebec and made inroads into metro Toronto, but in many ways, Boulerice has been a reminder of the party’s failure to capitalise on the gains they made in that election, particularly in Quebec.

The most obvious failure was the party’s inability to cultivate grassroots in the province. Riding associations in most of the province existed on paper only, and they had a habit of running paper candidates for the sole purpose of being able to say they ran candidates in every riding so that they could maximise their spending caps. In the 2011 election, you had a group of McGill students who were placed as paper candidates in several ridings they had never visited, as well as a bar manager from Carleton University, and because of the fluke of Quebec voting emotionally for “Le Bon Jack” after Jack Layton had his bout of cancer and he would wave his cane everywhere, these paper candidates won. But did they do the work of actually building grassroots organisations at this point? Nope. Because the NDP is a party where they consider their federal and provincial wings to be the same organisation, they tend to leave their provincial wings to do the grassroots organising, and well, there isn’t a provincial NDP in Quebec, and so they didn’t, and they paid for it when Quebec’s mood shifted.

The party did try to start up a provincial wing at one point, running candidates in a provincial election, but they failed miserably and got nowhere with it, in part because the NDP didn’t know what it wanted to be in Quebec, where there is already a crowded field that is complicated by federalist, separatist and (ethnic) nationalist convictions, and I seem to recall there was a whole issue of trying to discern just which Quebec NDP MPs were actually separatists. Suffice to say, that provincial failure still wasn’t enough of a lesson for them, and their only anchor in the province was Boulerice, and now he’s leaving. Avi Lewis has ruled himself out of running in that riding (which they will likely lose), and in Beaches—East York once Nate Erskine-Smith steps down in the coming weeks, meaning he is going to make himself irrelevant much the way that Jagmeet Singh did when he won his own leadership contest. If anything, this makes the job of rebuilding the party’s fortunes even harder, and there aren’t enough Zohran Mamdani gimmicks in the world that they can imitate to fix that.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian drone attack on Odesa early Friday killed an elderly couple and wounded more than a dozen others. There was a prisoner exchange yesterday, swapping 193 captured personnel on each side. President Zelenskyy was in Saudi Arabia to develop their new security agreement. Here is a look at the problems facing Chernobyl after drone strikes in the area.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Moving the majority motion

Posted on by
1

Government House Leader Steven announced yesterday that he will be moving a motion in the House of Commons today regarding changing the committee make-up for the remainder of this parliament in order to reflect the government’s new majority status, which feels a little bit like jumping the gun. While he does need to give notice of the motion, it won’t be debated until next week sometime at the earliest (because Thursday is a Supply Day for one of the Opposition Parties, and I doubt he would debate this motion on a Friday), but there’s no way the government can vote on it yet. Why? Because the three new MPs haven’t been sworn in yet, and it’s generally a three-to-four-week process for Elections Canada to fully certify the results and report back to the Commons so that the swearing-in can happen, and well, it’s only been a week-and-a-half.

I do find it interesting that they have decided to go the route of adding MPs to the committees to make them twelve members instead of ten, which may be a mistake on the government’s part. Yes, removing a Conservative instead of adding a Liberal to each committee might have seen them howl more, but the things is, we actually barely have enough MPs to go around when it comes to staffing committees properly (remember, this is the reason why official party status is twelve MPs—so that they can have coverage on every standing committee). During Trudeau’s majority parliament, committees were down to ten MPs, which meant that parliamentary secretaries didn’t have to be voting members, which is better for all because they couldn’t essentially be putting their thumbs on the scales on the government’s behalf, but when they were back to minority parliaments, committee memberships went back up to 12 in order to accommodate more opposition members, thus meaning parliamentary secretaries were back to voting members. It looks like Carney and MacKinnon have no problem with this, even though they should—it’s bad form for the independence of committees, but they don’t actually care about that.

It also looks like MacKinnon is doing this now and not later is a power move. I had previously suspected that this move wouldn’t be fully implemented until autumn because the last four sitting weeks before summer would have the committees slammed to get things passed before the break, but now they’re going to mess up their ability to work until the Procedure and House Affairs Committee can produce their report on the new committee memberships because the Conservatives decided to play stupid games on the Ethics committee and force a vote on making François-Philippe Champagne appear before them to answer theatrical questions about his non-existent conflict of interest with the Alto high speed rail project. By pushing this motion and vote to as soon as the government can make it, once the new MPs are sworn-in, it gives them a chance to try and head off the committee before Champagne appears for the sole purpose of having the Conservatives (and probably Bloc) call him corrupt on camera so that they can get clicks on their social media channels. Just ridiculous, and even more ridiculous that MacKinnon has to get in on the dick-swinging in the process.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-04-21T19:08:01.767Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims to have captured 80 settlements and 1700 square kilometres since the start of the year, while Ukraine has recaptured some of that territory back. As Ukraine is about to resume pumping oil through the Druzhba pipeline to Hungary, now that repairs are completed, it looks like Ukrainian drone attacks have reduced Russian oil export capacity by 300,000 to 400,000 barrels per day.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Carney’s Forward Guidance

Posted on by
Reply

On Sunday morning, prime minister Mark Carney released a ten-minute piece on his YouTube channel called “Forward Guidance,” because he’s still doing his central banker shtick, and it was a direct-to-camera (with three other cameras intercutting) discussion about the place we find ourselves in. Most of this was not new, repeating the same lines from past speeches including the one at Davos, while promising to never sugarcoat things—but he kind of did. I also have to question why this had to be over YouTube and not a speech in the House of Commons, which is why there is allotted time every day for ministers to make statements if they so choose. This could have been done there.

Carney pointed to a “statue” of Isaac Brock that Mike Myers gave him, but by statue he meant two-inch figurine, and that led him to launch into a whole War of 1812 narrative about the people who built this country, which, okay, sure, but you’re not doing much to show you’re not just the second coming of Stephen Harper. When he talked about the building of big things in the post-war period, this is again where things got a bit sugar-coated because there was still complexity to these old projects, and usually practices that would be unacceptable today for good reason. (I also noted that he mentioned universities being built in this period, without mention of the fact that provincial governments are in the process of dismantling our university systems). He also spoke about protecting social programmes (except for letting the funding of a bunch of groups who deliver services lapse), and he mentions pharmacare like it’s not limited to two types of drugs in a handful of provinces. And further sugar-coating was essentially by omission—the fact that so many Canadian businesses have become apathetic to growth or increasing productivity because they have taken the lesson that all they need to do is become rent-seekers.

Predictably, Pierre Poilievre decided he was going to have something to say about this, and that it was all just an illusion because nothing has actually been built yet (because you can build things overnight). He railed about Carney just enriching “well-connected elites,” but Poilievre’s whole scheme is to double down on trickle-down economics, which by definition enriches a small group of elites because the money does not, in fact, trickle down. Melissa Lantsman put out her own rebuttal that included the incredulous and false claim that the Liberals have cost the economy a trillion dollars in the past decade, which is completely fiscally illiterate, but that’s how the Conservatives roll.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-04-19T23:08:01.392Z

Ukraine Dispatch

There was a massive overnight attack Saturday on Chernihiv which killed a sixteen-year-old boy, and wounded others. Ukraine is continuing its own drone strikes on Russian oil facilities in Samara, occupied Crimea, and the Baltic Sea.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The benefit of the doubt for Gladu

Posted on by

The Liberal convention is happening this weekend in Montreal, and it’s in part a way that prime minister Mark Carney is putting his stamp on the party now that he’s been leader for a year. It’s a different kind of convention—claimed to be the largest policy convention in the party’s history, and there are no American Democrats giving keynote speeches for the party faithful to fangirl over for a change—the keynote was Canadian Rick Hansen, which again, is a marked shift from years past.

Of course, so much of the oxygen is being taken up by the recent floor-crossers, Marilyn Gladu most especially, and while you have news stories talking about a “mixed reaction,” there is nevertheless a sense that pervades the quotes across news stories that delegates are Carney fans, and that they’re giving him the benefit of the doubt for welcoming them into the party, particularly if it gets them to a majority parliament that will being some stability. Chris d’Entremont and Matt Jeneroux have made comments of their own about feeling secure in their decisions, while progressive Liberals like Karina Gould and Stephen Guilbeault are couching their reservations about Gladu into an optimism that she knew what she was signing up for when she crossed over. For her part, Gladu is also talking about how she hopes this move will benefit her riding, though governments aren’t really supposed to favour only ridings they hold (even though it happens, especially provincially).

As for policy, it has been noticed that there isn’t much talk about Trump, even though he continues to dominate the political airwaves and is giving Carney much of his raison d’être for what he’s doing. There are policy resolutions on banning social media for minors, or limiting use of chatbots (but nobody seems to understand the massive problems associated with age verification).

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy says that they are facing pressure both military as spring arrives, but also diplomatically as allies want them to stop hitting Russian oil and gas facilities as prices are so high. Farmers in Ukraine are now being hit by high fertilizer prices thanks to the Iran conflict.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to deflect on forced labour

Posted on by

There was a lot of talk about newly-minted Liberal MP Michael Ma’s performance at the industry committee, where he questioned a witness about whether she had personally witnessed forced labour in China, in a tactic to try and dismiss her in favour of a witness who was pro-trade in Chinese EVs. Ma later apologised, and there was apparently some confusion over just which region in China he was referring to, but still, it made for a poor clip from committee (and of the CBC reporter chasing him on the Hill), and bad clips would seem to be a cardinal sin in Parliament these days.

This being said, there would seem to me to be a tension in all of this that very few people want to actually discuss, which is the fact that Carney’s “strategic partnerships” that he’s been patting himself on the back for post-Davos speech involve countries that involve forced labour—China and Qatar—while at the same time praising all of the “good, union jobs” that those partnerships will create back home in Canada. This while the Liberals still insist that they opposed forced labour in all of its forms, and that they have strong rules about eliminated forced labour from supply chains. There is a fundamental disconnect that they seem incapable of bridging coherently, because they simply ignore the dissonance, or in Ma’s case, his attempt to throw confusion around it just wound up making him look like an ass.

This is why I wrote my column earlier in the week about the Canadian Ombud for Responsible Enterprise, whose office was designed to look for forced labour in supply chains and call it out, and the fact that Carney has left the office vacant for the past year and will almost certainly smother it in its sleep and scrap the office in the name of budget cuts—so that there is no embarrassment caused over these “strategic partnerships” with forced-labour countries in the name of being “pragmatic” in the post-rupture world of global trade. Ma just gave the government a black eye over this, so we’ll see if they can handle themselves any better in the face of these embarrassing contradictions.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims to have taken a village in eastern Ukraine, while Ukraine reclaimed a village in the Dnipropetrovsk region. President Zelenskyy arrived for an unannounced visit to Saudi Arabia, one of the countries Ukraine is supplying drone expertise.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Return of the security clearance punchline

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre’s lack of a security clearance is becoming a punchline in Question Period once more, which is not really great. In the current context, it’s around the claims that there are some 700 Iranian agents in the country, a figure compiled by a civil society group in 2023, before the IRGC was listed as a terrorist entity, and included people in the country temporarily at the time, but far be it for Poilievre to include any context when he’s trying to stir up a moral panic. We should remember, however, that this is not something that opposition leaders routinely applied for, nor is it something that all MPs need.

There were a bunch of people in my social media replies claiming nonsense like daycare workers needing a clearance when MPs don’t. No. Daycare workers need to undergo background checks. They don’t need access to classified materials, nor do the vast majority of MPs (though there is a place for a group of MPs to be cleared for certain oversight activities). This conflation of what a clearance actually means is not helpful to anyone, and while I know that people like to claim that Poilievre can’t get one and is therefore some kind of security risk, that is also false and is actually disinformation.

Throughout this, prime minister Mark Carney did not help matters by dodging the questions from reporters on Indian foreign interference and transnational repression by saying that his security clearance precluded him from saying anything. Aside from the fact that this is false, it just provided fuel for Poilievre’s bullshit claims that he would be “muzzled.” The only thing that he would be muzzled about is making wildly irresponsible remarks in order to drum up outrage. Knowledge means being more circumspect in his claims, which he doesn’t want. He wants to say bold, dumb things in the House and in the media, because it gets clicks and attention. Clare Blackwood explained it perfectly here.

Because Poilievre's security clearance is once again back as an applause line in #QP, here is @clareblackwood.bsky.social to accurately explain why Poilievre won't get his.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-11T21:35:30.234Z

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian drone strike hit a civilian business in Kharkiv, killing two. Ukrainian military trainers will start preparing Germany to defend against Russian attacks by 2029, reversing the trend of western militaries training Ukraine’s.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Davos speech vs Iran support

Posted on by

In the early hours of Saturday morning, the Americans and Israelis stuck Iran under dubious pretences—later confirming that nuclear talks were merely a ruse, and that Trump and Netanyahu had been planning this for weeks—and managed to effectively decapitate the country’s leadership, including killing Ayatollah Khomeini. Within hours, prime minister Mark Carney sent out a statement from his trip in Mumbai, where he effectively supported the actions, but also did not promise any Canadian support, military or otherwise. Nevertheless, everyone went on a big round of hand-wringing about how this statement jived with his big Davos speech.

My statement on Iran-related hostilities in the Middle East:

— Mark Carney (@mark-carney.bsky.social) 2026-02-28T12:31:32.929Z

It's not small-dick energy.It's smallest dick energy.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-28T19:10:15.695Z

Of course, the thing about the Davos speech is that it was a bit of a Rorschach test, depending on one’s priors. Sure, Carney talked about sovereignty and territorial integrity, but he also made it clear that the existing system of international law was a mirage, so he was kind of saying that it didn’t matter? In either case, I don’t think we should expect anything other than “pragmatism” without much in the way of principle, because that is the tone Carney has been setting for a while now, which could eventually work to our detriment.

People keep saying that this goes against the Davis speech. It does not. Carney said the rules based international order was always hypocritical, is now dead, and we live in a time of rupture. I disagree with support but this is not against what he said. The sign is gone. GONE GONE.

— Stephanie Carvin (@stephaniecarvin.bsky.social) 2026-02-28T14:54:02.726Z

In Davos, Carney argued that only countries w/ strong economies could afford “principled” foreign policies. Carney’s pro-US, pro-illegal war statement is that idea in action.The thing is, this view is both self-serving and wrong. Wrong because there is always a cost to standing up for principles.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-02-28T14:14:37.709Z

But if you always subordinate principles (i.e., non-economic interests like international law) to economic growth, you’ll never stand for anything. ESPECIALLY Canada, since the best we can hope for is only sending HALF of our exports to the US. They will ALWAYS have leverage over us.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-02-28T14:14:37.711Z

In reaction, Bob Rae wonders what happens after the military operation ends, which has long been the question for those who want to attack Iran. Anne Applebaum lays out the fact that Trump has no plans for what to do next with Iran, and has already dismantled programmes which might have helped, which is a huge danger of creating something worse. Justin Ling wonders why Carney chose the route he did of cheering on such a dangerous gambit.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-02-28T22:10:01.821Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Zelenskyy’s chief of staff says that Russia has accepted the proposal for post-war security guarantees (which…means not much).

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 →

Roundup: Getting played by your leakers

Posted on by

The Department of National Defence is investigating the leak of selective information by F-35 proponents that made that fighter look like a clear winner in the competition with the SAAB Gripen-E fighter, and the journalists who accepted the leak and wrote that story is getting a bit huffy about it. His story on the investigation quotes a Quebec journalists’ union about how important it is that journalists “do their work freely,” and that such a big purchase deserves scrutiny. This kind of self-righteousness is not unexpected.

That said, he also quoted security expert Wesley Wark who basically took him to the woodshed because the leak was quite obviously propaganda as it was selective, they didn’t provide information on the criteria that the scores were based on (just that it looked like the F-35s were the clear winner with no actual context), and this should have been completely obvious as part of the original story. It’s no secret that there is a cadre within the Canadian Forces that is heavily invested in acquiring as much American military tech as possible, in part because they operate so closely with American forces, but also because they are socialised into believing that it’s the very best and they want the very best, so they have been doing everything they can to manipulate the purchase of these fighters from the very beginning, starting with the Harper government who credulously just said “okay, we’ll sole-source it” on the military’s recommendation in the first instance, before it turned into something of a scandal because of the escalating price tag. (This is not how you do civilian control, guys). These same military folks seem to think that the Americans will never turn on us, and that Trump’s threats are not to be taken seriously.

I should be surprised—but really, I’m not—that the journalist in question allowed himself to be played like this, and clearly it did the job the leakers wanted because you had a bunch of pundits take the story to proclaim that the F-35 is the fighter for Canada, hands-down. That’s ultimately why I find the self-righteous response to a leak investigation to be…funny? Sad? Either way, I’m not a defence expert, but I do read and I do talk to people a lot, and I could see clearly that what got leaked was a frame-up job, and the journalist who wrote the original piece should have seen that as well, and done a better job of canvassing dissent to the leak rather than seeking out sources to confirm what the leakers were selling. But he didn’t, and so he got the head of a journalists’ union to get self-righteous on his behalf. It’s not great for the trust in the institution of journalism if we let ourselves get played like this.

Ukraine Dispatch

An underwater Ukrainian drone struck and disabled a Russian submarine docked at a Black Sea naval base (though Russia denies this). European leaders are meeting in The Hague to launch an International Claims Commission to compensate Ukraine for hundreds of billions of dollars in damages from Russia’s attacks and war crimes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The second tranche of PONIs

Posted on by

Yesterday was the day that Mark Carney announced the second tranche of PONIs to be referred to the Major Projects Office, which consisted of six existing projects and one “concept,” which I’m pretty unsure how it was supposed to work. Three of those projects are mines—Sisson Mine for tungsten in New Brunswick, Crawford Nickel project in Ontario, and the Nouveau Monde Graphite phase 2 project in Quebec. Those very much align with the desire to make Canada a more trustworthy supplier of critical minerals than China (though pat of the problem is that they have a near-monopoly on refining and processing). A hydro project for Iqaluit was on the list, as was a transmission line between northwestern BC and the Yukon, and an LNG Project on the BC coast that has some Indigenous partnerships (but  not every First Nation in the area is in favour, and there are concerns about its ownership structure). As for that “concept,” it is referred to as the Northwest Critical Conservation Corridor, also between northwest B.C. and Yukon., and it could include critical minerals and clean power transmission developments in the area. Again, I’m not sure how that works with no actual project or proponent.

In some of these cases, as in the first tranche of projects, some of them are fairly well developed and along the process, while in others, they’ve been discussed forever and have some Indigenous buy-in, but shovels have never been in the ground (like the Sisson Mine). It again raises questions about what the MPO is supposed to do here, but its head, Dawn Farrell, was talking about ensuring that these processes happen in parallel and not sequentially, and would also do things like security financing, guaranteeing pricing, and ensuring a supply of skilled labour, which seems like an awful lot of things for them to try and control for.

And then there’s Alberta and its imaginary pipeline, which Danielle Smith insists she’s still working on, so she’s supportive of these projects, because she is still “negotiating” for that pipeline to the northwest BC coast that neither the province nor the affected First Nations want, while there is a growing supply glut in the market. I’m pretty sure another pipeline won’t save her province’s finances, but she’s going to keep trying.

Ukraine Dispatch

Kyiv was under another “massive” attack early this morning, and at least eleven people have been wounded. President Zelenskyy visited troops near the front lines in Zaporizhzhia.

https://twitter.com/KI_Insight/status/1988670405981118746

Continue reading →