Tag Archives: Danielle Smith

Roundup: Letting Trump’s lackeys spin the narrative

Posted on by
Reply

Because everything is so stupid all the time, there was a whole ridiculous bit of drama yesterday as US treasury secretary Scott Bessent went on TV to claim that prime minister Mark Carney aggressively walked back his Davos speech on the phone to Trump, when the rest of us didn’t know there even was a call because there was no readout. When Carney came in for his caucus meeting yesterday and was asked about it, he disputed the characterisation, said he meant what he said at Davos, and then turned it into one of those quasi-flattering but also quasi-shady remarks akin to calling Trump “transformational,” in saying that Canada was the first to recognize the changes to global trade that Trump instituted. I’m sure he thinks he was very clever about it too.

Nevertheless, the point stands that the lack of a readout from PMO about the call means that it let the Americans get out ahead in terms of spinning the call and what was said, and as this administration does with everything, is to just lie. Part of this is also transparency, so that we know when there are calls with world leaders, particularly given the situation we’re in with Trump, and the fact that they had a thirty-minute call on a range of topics that included Ukraine is actually kind of important to know, but Carney has refused to be transparent and has said he’s not going to provide readouts for these “informal” calls going forward. So you just keep letting Trump and his people lie about what’s being said? I do not understand why they refuse to understand how to deal with this kind of behaviour.

Amidst this are a bunch of conservatives, some MPs, some designated talking heads on media shows, who were so very eager to take Trump’s side and blaming Carney for harming the relationship, or in trying to insist that it’s Carney who is holding up a tariff deal instead of Trump being mercurial and untrustworthy. I get that for a lot of these people, it’s “anything to own the Libs,” and they will contort themselves to almost the point of treason in order to get that thrill they’re looking for, but for the love of Zeus, have some self-respect.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian drone struck a passenger train near Kharkiv, killing five, while drones attacking Odesa killed at least three. There was also a strike against a natural gas facility in western Ukraine. The US says that Ukraine needs to sign a peace deal with Russia to get security guarantees (but Russia has no interest in a peace deal).

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Donbas of Canada

Posted on by
2

The mask is off. US treasury secretary Scott Bessent was on a far-right TV show to mouth the faux grievances of Alberta, and is providing succour and support for the separatist loons in the province, making it abundantly clear that the US plans to do to Alberta what Putin did with the Donbas region in Ukraine. We’ve watched the Americans also make these promises to independence-minded politicians in Greenland, some of whom naively believe that the US will simply recognise their independence from Denmark and leave them be when that isn’t their plan at all. And you can bet that they’ll start making these same promises to the Parti Québécois if they form power in the province in the next election, because they would absolutely love to break up Canada so that they can absorb the pieces.

So far, the government is downplaying this, with François-Philippe Champagne saying he’ll “remind” Bessent that they are working with Alberta to develop their resources, which is frankly not nearly enough. The US is openly meeting with separatists—those separatist organisers are openly bragging about their “high-level” meetings in Washington—and one of the top members of Trump’s Cabinet is openly supporting them. At the bare minimum, the US ambassador needs to be summoned, and if he doesn’t properly explain and apologise, then he should be expelled in order to send a message that this kind of interference is absolutely unacceptable.

And then there’s the problem of those separatists who are taking it upon themselves to “negotiate” in Washington. You might think that someone like Danielle Smith might denounce them for these actions, but she has bent over backwards to ensure that they have the easiest ride possible to their referendum, because Smith thinks that she can leverage it for her benefit. And Carney has been utterly silent, believing that his bending the knee to Smith is what is going to solve the separatism issue, even though these people have no interest in actual policy resolutions and have made hating Ottawa (and anyone named Trudeau) their whole personality. This is going to need a much stronger hand, and a forceful pushback against this American interference before it can fester even more than it already has.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-01-23T23:56:01.434Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Kyiv and Kharkiv have come under Russian attack in the early hours of the morning. The constant attacks have worsened the power grid situation, as temperatures have been falling as low as -16ºC.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Loosening the advertising rules they put into place

Posted on by

The federal government, in their infinite communications wisdom, has decided to change the rules around government advertising so that they can do things like more easily use slogans, and to advertise programmes before they have been passed by Parliament. Worse, their excuses for doing so are utterly ridiculous, saying that the more “dangerous and divided world” needs faster communications and the old process was “too slow and duplicative.” Sorry, you think you need to be able to advertise slogans or programmes that do not officially exist yet because it’s faster? Are you kidding me?

The point of these rules is to create a separation between party and government, and the Harper government had incidents where this got them into trouble, such as when Pierre Poilievre, as minister of Employment and Skills Development, showed up at a government announcement in party-branded attire and got in trouble with Elections Canada for it. These rules exist for a reason, but Carney has decided that they’re inconvenient for him, so he needs to alter them. If the Liberals’ usual kryptonite is arrogance, Carney’s personal brand of it is acting like a magnifying glass. He should be reminded of this fact, before he drives the party off the very cliff he rescued them from.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia used hypersonic medium-range missiles to strike Lviv early Friday morning, which is being considered a “warning” to Europe. That same day, drones hit two foreign-flagged civilian vessels in ports in the Odesa region. Here are Kyiv residents dealing with damage to their homes as a result of these attacks.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Freeland’s botched departure announcement

Posted on by

Early Monday morning, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that he had appointed Chrystia Freeland as a new advisor on economic development, which was a little peculiar considering that she is still a sitting MP, and still holds the role of a parliamentary secretary in her capacity as the prime minister’s special representative on Ukrainian reconstruction. This being said, we know she’s on her way out the door because her new job with the Rhodes Trust starts in July, so she had a definite end date in being before that.

Immediately, Conservatives like Michael Chong demanded her immediate resignation because of the conflict of interest this posed, and it wasn’t for several more hours that she announced that she will be formally resigning by the end of the month, with an immediate tweet from Carney to praise her for her work and for Ukraine, but Great Cyllenian Hermes, this was so badly handled by Carney’s PMO.

While I will grant that this pretty much went down while he was in the air on the way to Paris, they should have been prepared for this to go live at the same time as Zelenskyy’s announcement, and been aware of the time zones in play, because all they manged to do was muddy the waters around the potential conflict of interest, what is going on with any kind of approvals from the Ethics Commissioner, and not spent the bulk of daylight hours looking stunned or blindsided—especially as there was talk that the offer from Zelenskyy came in late December, even if most of Official Ottawa has been shut down for the bulk of that time period. This kind of thing continues to make Carney’s PMO look like amateur hour, and that once again, a Liberal government can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag. Honestly…

In Case You Missed It:

  • My column on whether Carney is capable of adapting to a post-neoliberal world in order to be the right prime minister for the moment (as Poilievre sure can’t).
  • My year-end episode taking a cue from the Ellie Goulding meme about how anything could happen—and did in Canadian politics in 2025.
  • My weekend column on the credulousness by which the supposed “end of the consensus on immigration” gets covered, and what gets omitted in the retelling.
  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take on changes that Carney has made to Canada over the past year, and what we should be watching out for as a part of it.
  • My column on the faux debate raging over whether Carney wants to turn the Senate back to a two-party system when they should worry about his appointments.
  • My weekend column on how Carney’s plans to Build Canada requires better data from the provinces, which we can’t keep waiting for them to get their acts together.

Very chuffed to see several of my stories on this list, including the most-read story of the year. Thanks to all of my readers!

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-29T22:50:06.873Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones hit a hospital in Kyiv on Sunday night, and struck energy infrastructure in Kharkiv as well as a US-based agricultural producer in Dnipro late Monday. President Zelenskyy is shaking up his top officials, including his spy chief.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Naïve assumptions about the energy transition

Posted on by

There were a couple of longreads over the weekend that are worth your time when it comes to understanding where we are at with the current government. The first was a deep dive into Carney’s past climate “leadership,” from his time at central banks to the UN, and a pattern emerges throughout where much of this “leadership” was fairly surface-level. Scratch the surface, and you find a lot of on naïve assumptions around a market response to the clean energy transition, coupled with some arrogant beliefs that he was right and no one could tell him otherwise (as those companies he was touting were also heavily invested in fossil fuels). In the time since, we have all watched as Carney has systematically betrayed that former climate leadership, and continues to rely on a “just trust me” approach to that clean energy transition as he breaks his word with little regard.

The second longread was in the Globe & Mail about Tim Hodgson and his adjustment going from banker CEO to Cabinet minister, with his belief that government bureaucrats are essentially lazy and stupid, and needing to learn how to be politically sensitive to the realities that he has little patience for as he looks to secure deals as quickly as possible. Along the way, he is learning that things don’t work like that, and that there are plenty of other considerations that he continues to ignore, like obligations regarding First Nations. And how he continues to alienate the actual clean energy people in his own department, along with the part of the Liberal caucus that actually care about climate change, because hey, he needs to be Mr. Business. This is what “running government like a company” is bringing, and it comes with a hell of a lot of ideological blind spots, while they insist that they’re not being ideological.

As well, in year-enders, Carney has been criticising the Trudeau approach to climate change as “too much regulation, not enough action,” which goes back to his particular assumptions about the market and why the government wasn’t able to rely on carbon pricing alone to achieve its goals, Oh, and he’s still completely sold on the belief that carbon capture is the route to go, even though it only captures a fraction of the emissions from the production process (and none of the downstream uses), so the math doesn’t even work there. He also talks about “guardrails” in dealing with China, but considering there has been no hint of that with India, I’m not holding my breath.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-20T15:08:01.975Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Following more Russian airstrikes and bombings in the Odesa region, president Zelenskyy says that Russia is trying to cut off Ukraine’s Black Sea access. Russian forces have crossed the border in Sumy region and kidnapped 50 villagers. Ukraine has signed an agreement with Portugal go co-produce sea drones. Here is a look at a Ukrainian artist who is reflecting the war through his collection and work.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Lessons learned for the NDP?

Posted on by

NDP interim leader Don Davies have his year-ender to The Canadian Press, talking about getting out to listen to Canadians, and reflect on the party’s devastating loss, and joking that the best part about being burnt to the ground is the ability to rebuild the foundation. And he’s not entirely wrong there, so long as he’s taking the right lessons. But in the same interview, he’s waxing poetic about pharamacare without actually seeming to understand what the issues are (i.e. the provinces), and totally ignoring the work that Trudeau did into building up the programme from the ground up (such as establishing the Canadian Drug Agency) so that provinces could sign on once they were ready, as PEI did (and NDP provinces refused to, particularly BC and John Horgan most especially).

On the same day, the NDP’s Renew and Renewal Report from the last campaign was also released, and it has a few interesting things to say. Once you get past the usual back-patting about how hard everyone worked and how it didn’t feel like it was doomed, and how the leader’s campaign went well, you start getting into some of the structural problems within the party that really do need addressing. Things like the sense that there is an allergy to fundraising in the party, and that nobody wants to actually do it, which doesn’t really help anyone (but also perpetuates the weirdness that bequests from the estates of dead people are one of the party’s top fundraising sources). And there was also a lot in there about the party not properly developing riding associations, and relying too heavily on the central party at the expense of those associations. And to be frank, this should have been a lesson the party internalized after they got nearly entirely wiped out from Quebec in 2015, because they didn’t build up their riding associations during the “Orange Wave,” but assumed that somehow those MPs would have incumbency advantage forever when they didn’t really establish grassroots after all of those accidental victories.

The other thing that is worth noting is that once again, it draws American examples for inspiration, and again it’s Zohran Mamdani. I suspect the reason for this is that too many people in the NDP’s brain trust are terminally online, and as with so many things, the American discourse pervades and they simply think that it can apply to Canada if you divide it by ten, even though we are very separate countries and that we are not just a maple cupcake version of Americana. I’m also going to note that the report said pretty much nothing about the NDP constantly trying to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction (particularly with their “bold progressive ideas”), because again, their American analogues don’t translate to Canada in the same way, but this was apparently an area of introspection they didn’t want to engage in. Alas.

This reminds me of something I've been wondering about. Given the various examples of the NDP being the government or official opposition at the provincial level, I'm not sure why federal New Democrats so often — or so recently? — look to the U.S. for inspiration.

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-12-19T21:14:07.891Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-19T14:24:03.406Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched another missile attack on Odesa, killing seven and wounding at least 15 late Friday. There was an exchange of bodies by both governments—1003 dead Ukrainian servicemen for the bodies of 26 Russians. Ukraine and Poland are working out a cooperation agreement around drones.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Speaker hypothetical

Posted on by

It looks like NDP interim leader Don Davies may have been done dirty by CTV News over the weekend as their headline suggested that his “party ‘open’ to Speaker of the House role in exchange for resources.” While the text of the story presents this as a proposal that no one has actually discussed, the fact that this is the headline from an interview on CTV Question Period makes it sound like this was somehow being floated. It was not.

Instead, in the interview, he was asked about his scenario as a hypothetical for him to weigh in on, given that it could give the Liberals one more vote in order to be an effective majority, and he said he’d be open to it, as the discussion around official party status was now closed (which was not what he was telling the Star a week ago, but perhaps those illusions have since been shattered) but he’s still trying to get additional resources, never mind that it’s not like his party needs them for caucus management or committee research or anything like that.

This is an object lesson in why politicians don’t like to answer hypothetical questions—because they get blown up like this, and to be frank, it feels like that kind of question is borderline, if not outright, irresponsible. And sure, Davies could have simply said “I’m not going to answer hypotheticals like that,” and probably will going forward, but asking these kinds of hypotheticals also doesn’t get you very useful answers in journalism either, and so you’ve built an entire story around this this hypothetical scenario that is outright delusional. Nobody came out ahead here, especially the readers, so I fail to see the point.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-12T23:56:01.838Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Odesa suffered further attacks on Saturday, leading to a major blackout.

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: Davies again demands official status

Posted on by

I will have to give it to NDP interim leader Don Davies that he has some big cajónes as he is once again demanding official party status as the House of Commons finds itself in a near deadlock on most legislation. He’s now into full-on blackmail territory—if you want this Parliament to work, give us status. But there are a few problems with this:

  • The NDP have nowhere near earned the right to be trusted after they tore up their previous agreement with the Liberals in bad faith;
  • The NDP were complaining that they were tired of being seen to be propping up the Liberals, but they’re once again offering to do just that, which leads back to the trust question; and
  • The math as it relates to committees has not changed. The NDP do not have the numbers to sit on committees in a fair manner

Davies says that Parliament will work better if the NDP get seats on committees, but which committees? The whole point of the cut-off of 12 for official party status is that it’s just barely enough MPs to be able to cover-off a member on every committee (and that means they are doing double or triple duty). Is he suggesting that they just get to pick five or six committees that they should be allowed to sit on but not the others? How is that fair to those other committees, or those other issues that the NDP are effectively ignoring? Yes, Davies is desperate for more resources and staff that official status would offer, but you cannot demonstrate the fundamentals of being able to be present. Rules exist for a reason.

The current budget bill — C-15 — was tabled on Nov. 18. It's been debated on 10 different sitting days. It still hasn't received a vote at second reading and made it to committee. Would things move faster if C-15 was a dozen different bills?I'm unconvinced.

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-12-10T18:02:17.857Z

MPs seemingly:a) don't want to spend much time in Ottawa and b) don't like to agree to move legislation along without undue delay.

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-12-10T18:00:25.458Z

The current budget bill — C-15 — was tabled on Nov. 18. It's been debated on 10 different sitting days. It still hasn't received a vote at second reading and made it to committee. Would things move faster if C-15 was a dozen different bills?I'm unconvinced.

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-12-10T18:02:17.857Z

Meanwhile, the fact that the budget implementation bill was debated over some eleven days at second reading is a problem. Yes, it’s a problem that it’s a giant omnibus bill, but the Commons has been getting worse about debate times since at least 2011, and nobody shows any willingness to start doing anything differently, and that’s a problem. One of the things I keep reminding people is that in Westminster, second reading debate is one afternoon, because that’s all it needs to be because you’re debating the general principle of the bill—that’s it. Your entire caucus does not need to weigh in with repetitive talking points and slogans. You do not need to put everyone one to get clips. House Leaders need to grow up and start cracking down on this abuse of procedure, and that starts with the Government House Leader, who needs to put his foot down. Enough is enough.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-10T14:25:06.076Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian forces have been fending off an “unusually large” mechanised assault on Pokrovsk. Russian drones hit the gas transport system in Odesa. Ukrainian sea drones have disabled another vessel in Russia’s “shadow fleet” in the Black Sea.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sandboxing powers?

Posted on by

Over the weekend, Althia Raj published a column that points to a power the government is trying to give itself in the budget that lets ministers exempt certain people and companies from non-criminal laws, and the fact that this felt like it was being snuck into the budget implementation bill when it wasn’t in the main budget document. Jennifer Robson, inspired by Raj’s column, delves into the Budget Implementation Act to see the sections in question for herself, and makes some pretty trenchant observations about the fact that the powers in here are giving ministers a pretty hefty amount of leeway without necessarily a lot of transparency, because they have the option of simply not publishing or reporting which laws they’re suspending for whom, and that we need to worry about the injuries to democratic norms.

So, what is up with these particular powers? Well, it turns out that this is very likely some long-promised action on creating “regulatory sandboxes,” and the means to implement them.

The 2024 budget talked about working up a plan for "regulatory sandboxes"—temporary exemptions from restrictions to allow experiments with new things, especially products, that existing regulations didn't anticipate. It's in a few places, like this:

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T13:55:47.297Z

They'd consulted publicly on it before. This is generally a pretty dull type of government consultation, but it was done. www.canada.ca/en/governmen…

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T13:58:04.805Z

Having announced plans to legislate on it in 2024, the Trudeau government did not follow through, in either of the two "budget bills" that stemmed from the budget.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T13:59:51.381Z

But the regulatory-sandbox idea returned in the 2025 budget. Not at length, but it's in the roundup of legislative changes that implementing the 2025 budget requires. (Some people start with the deficit numbers when first picking a new budget up; I start with the legislative changes.)

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T14:03:09.547Z

My point is that you have to be careful with premises like, "I didn't know about it, so they've been hiding it and being sneaky."Tech businesses have been calling for regulatory sandboxes for *years,* there've been public consultations, and it was promised in two successive budgets.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T14:06:02.132Z

The idea's history goes back much farther than 2024, to be clear. Here's a Logic story from 2018, the first year we existed, noting a promise on regulatory sandboxes in the 2018 fall economic statement: thelogic.co/news/special…

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T14:10:57.100Z

So, this could very well be what that is referring to. This being said, I do see the concerns of Robson when it comes to some of the transparency around these measures, because these powers give ministers all kinds of leeway not to report on their suspension of laws for this “sandboxing,” and you have to remember that Carney already gave himself broad Henry VIII powers under his Build Canada Act legislation, which is ripe for abuse, particularly in a parliament that has largely lost its ability to do necessary oversight. I think the government needs to be extremely careful here, because this could easily blow up in their faces.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-06T15:08:02.695Z

Ukraine Dispatch

At least seven people have been injured in a drone strike in Sumy region. Russia claims to have taken two more villages in the Kharkiv and Donetsk regions. Here is a look at Ukraine’s naval drone operations, and the growing number of women in combat roles.

Continue reading →