Tag Archives: David Eby

Life came at David Eby fast

Posted on by
1

So, the BC election was quite something. On one level, David Eby will replace David Peterson as the cautionary tale for calling an election too early and being punished at the ballot box for it. And it looks a lot like the this was not so much the strength of the BC Conservatives’ vote, but rather that the NDP stayed home because they were mad or discouraged with Eby, so this was their way of punishing him. Also? There has been a lot of media nonsense abotu how this was the first BC Conservative win in over a century. No. It may have been the first time the brand has one in a century, but the anti-NDP forces in the province keep changing their name and their voter coalition fragments and coalesces, but these are for the most part the same people who governed as the BC Liberals just a few years ago. Let’s be real about this.

https://bsky.app/profile/jmcelroy.bsky.social/post/3myqd4zmaws2u

In British Columbia there is the NDP and the anti-NDP. The latter change their name every few decades. These guys haven't been out of power a decade.

— Alex Usher (@alexusherhesa.bsky.social) 2026-10-25T07:36:16.825Z

Meanwhile, the BC Conservatives’ future is going to be interesting, considering how much of a Frankenstein’s monster the party is. I am not confident that the caucus is built to last, because as I have said in many places before, this is not a party that has a coherent ideology or policy book other than “We’re not the NDP,” and that causes problems. And sometimes, power can be disciplining—it worked for Stephen Harper for many years, until it didn’t. But sometimes power also means that people in the party want to lead, and will do anything to get that leaders. (See: Alberta’s PC Party post-Ralph Klein). We’ll see what wins out, and whether a moderate like Lorne Doerkson can have enough force of personality to hold the party together. On a side note, maybe the fact that Doerkson was a caucus-selected leader who didn’t implode the party and won an election is a sign that maybe, just maybe, we might see the light and return to caucus-selected leaders in this country? (Yeah, I know, I’m dreaming. But still).

As for what is coming, there are some warning signs ahead, particularly when it comes to First Nations in BC, because so much of what the BC Conservatives ran on was the repeal of what they call DRIPA (being the legislation to enact UNDRIP) becuase of a moral panic from a bad misreading of the Cowichan decision and the false belief that it spells the end of property rights in the province. It doesn’t, that’s not what the decision said, and this has been a racist attempt to undo the work of reconciliation in the province. There are some other concerns about queer and trans rights, given that there is a contingent of the Conservatives that were about repealing “SOGI” in schools (sexual orientation/gender identity), even though they weren’t quite as extreme about it as the far-right OneBC party was. Plus, the party had to dump one candidate for Hitler statements, so I’m not all that confident about their candidate vetting. Lots is still up in the air, but we’ll see how things start to shake out.

David Eby Is Just Wondering Why British Columbia Is Mad At Him youtu.be/WeSd4Vvrqx8

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2026-10-25T22:10:20.754Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-10-26T19:08:05.260Z

My Latest:

My weekend column points to how the Conservatives are trying to be “clever” in how they are framing their anti-immigration stances, and trying to blame it on the Liberals.

Continue reading →

Carney says no to the nine

Posted on by
1

It was the first of two days in Alberta for Mark Carney in advance of the Alberta referendum, where he spent the day in Calgary doing a bunch of glad-handing in places across the city, including an Indian restaurant and the University of Calgary in advance of his appearance at the Forever Canadian rally. What was most notable was that Carney did tell the attendees of one of his events to “Vote no to the nine,” as a reference to the noxious nine other referendum questions, which include attempting to manufacture consent for further racist scapegoating of immigrants, and to try and get a faux “mandate” to pursue constitutional changes, even though the question on trying to insist on provincial paramountcy of laws under the constitution would actually make it harder to build interprovincial pipelines.

There has never been an "open borders" policy in this country, and she knows it. She was demanding more immigrants until it became convenient to scapegoat those immigrants for the very failures of her government in housing and healthcare. She's just bald-faced lying for her own political benefit.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-10-16T01:36:15.030Z

Danielle Smith got pissy about Carney’s “No to the nine” statement, and insisted that Carney just doesn’t understand the horrors of the supposed “open-border policy” of Justin Trudeau, which is one hundred percent abject horseshit. There were never open borders, and premiers like Smith decided it was suddenly acceptable to scapegoat immigrants for their failures to properly fund healthcare and education or build housing, or in the case of Ontario especially, to crack down on their scam strip mall colleges, so that’s what they did. Never mind that Smith just two years before was writing to Trudeau to demand more immigrants for their economic growth—the tides turned (thanks in part to a poisoned information ecosystem and far-right actors), so suddenly it was “immigrants bad.” It’s frankly disgusting that this narrative goes unchallenged (and no, both-sidesing is not challenging scapegoating).

Meanwhile, the Star wrote about the “Christian” push for Alberta separatism, but couldn’t bring themselves to write that this is not “Christianity,” it’s Christian nationalism. The most galling part is that it named an American who is part of the Christian nationalism movement in that country as though it’s separate and distinct when in fact, it’s the very same movement in Alberta. And I cannot stress this enough—Alberta separatism is a white nationalist and Christian nationalist project. There is nothing to be cute about, or to try and downplay—it’s explicitly the roots of the movement, and the animating discourse throughout it (including why Smith is going hard on her scapegoating). Legacy media shouldn’t soft-pedal this because it needs to be called out for what it is.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-10-15T19:08:03.898Z

My Latest:

My column points out that with separatism at low levels of support in Alberta and Quebec, the problem is not national unity, but populist politicians exploiting division.

Continue reading →

The most cynical of election calls

Posted on by

Yesterday, BC premier David Eby went to Government House to request a dissolution in one of the most cynical moves I have ever witnessed politically, and now BC is dealing with simultaneous provincial and municipal elections. No, seriously. Municipalities vote on the 17th, and then provincial polls are on the 24th, which is suicidally stupid for any political operatives because your volunteers are now split between different campaigns. Eby made a big song and dance about how this is “necessary” because of the Trump threat—because apparently the thought to try and take a card from Doug Ford, who called his own unnecessary early election because he was worried that if Pierre Poilievre won the election federally then Ontario voters would turf him because of the silly notion that in Ontario, there is often a pattern of having opposite parties in charge federally and provincially (which is not a hard and fast rule in any way).

Of course, the real reason is that the opposition in BC is in complete disarray, and Eby wanted to take full advantage of that fact. The BC Conservatives just had their leader resign, and there are two other contenders on the right side of the spectrum—the centre-right CentreBC, which took in a lot of those Conservative defectors and was standing up a new party and had some big-name organisers attached, and the far-right OneBC. And then things got weird. A bunch of CentreBC MLAs, including the leader, headed back to the Conservatives now that Kerry-Lynne Findlay is gone, leaving just one CentreBC MLA in place, who automatically became the leader, and she’s not going back to the Conservatives, having been burned by them too badly. And then Kerry-Lynne Findlay’s husband left the Conservatives to join OneBC, which also gives you an idea about where the pair of them should have been all along. (Leader profiles here).

I don’t for a minute believe that the BC Conservatives’ problems were solve by Findlay’s departure, and that the party still has no existential ideology, and that they only exist to try and find advantageous voter math, which didn’t work for them the last time, and is unlikely to continue to work for them. (Timeline of the drama here). Parties need to have a reason to exist other than “We’re not the NDP,” and “uniting the right” keeps leading to all kinds of problems because there are whole segments on the right that you DO NOT want to “unite” with, and lo, both the UCP in Alberta and the BC Conservatives have found this out the hard way, and yet neither party seems to have learned this lesson. We’ve let mainstream centre-right parties radicalise and slide towards fascism in order to appease these worst possible elements (the alternative is that these worst possible elements simply don’t vote, and they want those votes), and nobody seems to have woken up to the fact that this is a very bad thing that we do not want in a Liberal democracy. And yet, nobody seems willing to stop them. Just the worst possible outcome, and it’s playing out in real-time in BC as this cynical exercise gets underway.

https://twitter.com/vancolour/status/2102409115696054670

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-22T13:08:01.985Z

Continue reading →

Placating Eby for a pipeline?

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney had a big day of announcements yesterday, starting in Vancouver with premier David Eby, where he announced a bunch of infrastructure projects in the province, most notably a major federal contribution to a tunnel project that the province has been waffling over for years, plus money to expand the port of Vancouver, and a couple of other ports further north. But he also tipped off the coming pipeline announcement with Alberta by saying the northwest coast tanker ban would remain in place, which pretty much assured that any proposed pipeline route would be to the south.

And lo and behold, following a meeting with the president of the Philippines, Carney headed to Calgary to announce with Danielle Smith the next phases of the pipeline project, which would go to the southern route, largely along the existing TMX corridor, and would be a beneficiary of the Port of Vancouver expansion. However, what was not announced was a private proponent for said pipeline—yes, a company expressed interest in a stake, but only a minor one, meaning the federal and provincial governments are going to be the main proponents, with an unknown dollar figure at stake (but justified by talking about how TMX has already delivered a billion-dollar dividend for the federal government). They also claim that they’ve come to an agreement with the Pathways project, which I will believe when I actually see it, because Pathways has been pretty clear that in no way did they want to have to pay for this, and they have made a pretty implicit case that their rhetoric since their creation was nothing but greenwashing and spin to take the heat off of them for their carbon emissions.

Everything about this smells, and all of those conditions Carney laid out with the initial MOU are being proven to be fictional after all. And for Smith to also talk about doubling production in the next fifteen years (while also making announcements about gas-fired electricity plants to power digital asbestos data centres) is just proving how much Carney lied to everyone about his environmental beliefs and credentials.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Authoritarian theatre, separatist referendum edition

Posted on by

Danielle Smith’s attempt to engineer a separation referendum in Alberta went entirely off the rails yesterday in one of the most cynical yet spectacular ways yesterday. The legislative committee that is supposed to make the determination on the petition process met yesterday, in a somewhat desperate move, to consider the Forever Canada petition, which Smith has been poised to weaponise as her referendum because it wouldn’t require First Nations consultation because it’s framed in the positive of remaining in Canada. Never mind that petition author and former deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk doesn’t actually want this as a referendum—he wants it to be a vote in the legislature, so that the UCP owns it. Nevertheless, midway through the meeting, the UCP sent out a press release saying that they had agreed to turn this into a referendum, complete with quotes from the chair, when no votes had been taken.

And then all hell broke loose. The UCP sent out a note to disregard the press release, while inside the committee, NDP members were moving points of privilege which will need to be adjudicated by the Speaker of the Assembly. It also turns out that Danielle Smith had booked airtime tonight, so this entirely looks like the fix was in, and that the committee process was merely authoritarian theatre to manufacture consent, so that Smith can continue to placate the separatists in her base. The whole thing is both cowardly on Smith’s part, and just amateurish beyond belief.

Now we know.Smith committed to give separatists a referendum. She pre-recorded her tomorrow’s TV address, before the Legislature committee had a chance to vote on the #ForeverCanadian petition. UCP sent out a press release on a vote that didn’t happen, while they supposedly listened to me#ableg

— Hon. Thomas A. Lukaszuk (@lukaszukab.bsky.social) 2026-05-21T00:17:52.059Z

But there is a point to this amateurishness, which Jen Gerson points out here—these people think that they’re strategic geniuses for engineering conservative victories in Alberta, and so they’re overconfident in their abilities. Jason Kenney was, and lo, the leopards he let into the house at his face, while Smith has tied herself into so many knots to try and placate those same leopards in the hope that they won’t eat their face, while they are staring at her and licking their chops, but she insists that she’s the strategic genius here. None of this is going to end well, in part because these are deeply stupid and unserious people, and the country is going to suffer as a result.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-05-20T19:08:01.746Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian missile, drone and artillery attacks on Dnipro killed two and injured six. Ukraine is bolstering their northern defences over concerns of a planned new attack on Kyiv. Oil refining in central Russia is at a standstill thanks to Ukrainian attacks.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Immediately approve what pipeline?

Posted on by

In the wake of the Venezuela happenings, Pierre Poilievre has decided to do what Pierre Poilievre does best, which is come up with a half-baked pronouncement and make it confidently—in this case, demand the immediate approval of a pipeline to the Pacific. Erm, you know, with absolutely no plan attached, or any of the necessary details about said pipeline. But sure, approve it. (Incidentally, Alberta launched a website for its attempt to get proponents for such a plan).

Poilievre and his followers are so insistent that if government just “got out of the way” that things would get built. Of course, the other thing that Poilievre has said outright is that even though he will “consult” with local First Nations, he will push through a pipeline without their consent, on their lands, where they hold treaty rights. I don’t think he understands what that actually means, and that’s going to be a problem that will merely ensure that all of his plans will land in protracted litigation, and eventually fail (and no, you can’t invoke the Notwithstanding Clause on treaty rights).

And because of course he is, David Eby is musing about refineries instead of export pipelines, which isn’t going to happen because they are extremely expensive to build and would require billions and billions in government subsidies for little return (and yes, the Alberta government tried that and is still paying for that particular error in judgment.

Ukraine Dispatch

The new Czech prime minister says they will continue to run the ammunition sourcing programme for Ukraine, but won’t contribute money to it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Political support for a new pipeline?

Posted on by

More details are emerging about the Memorandum of Understanding that prime minister Mark Carney looks set to sign with Alberta premier Danielle Smith on Thursday, which would set the stage for political support for a pipeline to the northwest coast of BC if certain conditions are met. Those conditions include a stricter industrial carbon price in the province, and a “multibillion-dollar investment in carbon capture from the Pathways Alliance,” and there is apparently some language about Indigenous ownership and equity. In return, it looks like Alberta also gets a bunch of exemptions from other environmental legislation, which it would seem to me is just setting up fights with every other province who will want their own special deals and carve-outs.

BC premier David Eby is rightfully upset about being left out of the process (as Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe initially claimed he was part of the talks, which turned out to be mere self-aggrandisement). And while it’s true that the province can’t veto a project that falls under federal jurisdiction (and we have Supreme Court jurisprudence on this), it definitely feels impolitic to freeze him out, considering that making an agreement with Smith to overrule Eby’s stated wishes—and the wishes of the coastal First Nations—certainly has the feel of the US and Russia coming up with a “peace plan” for Ukraine. Eby also, correctly, points out that they would never do this with Quebec, which is a good point.

This being said, this remains about a hypothetical pipeline that may never come to fruition because they are unlikely to get a private sector proponent, because the oil market changed in 2014 and Alberta refuses to accept that fact. What I am more concerned about is just how many billions of public dollars are going to be consume by Pathways in order to try and make it viable, and it just won’t be, and we’ll have wasted years, billions of dollars, both of which could have been better spent coming up with a more reasonable transition to a greener future, because again, it’s not 2014 anymore.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-24T23:08:02.124Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones and missiles have hit residential buildings in Kyiv, starting fires and killing at least one person. Ukrainian officials are apparently working with the Americans on the so-called “28-point peace plan” to make it more palatable.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Making his own budget shoes

Posted on by

On Budget Eve, finance minister François-Philippe Champagne summoned the media to Saint-Tite, Quebec, where he was not just buying new shoes for the budget, in that strange Canadian tradition, but he was actually helping to make them at a shoe manufacturer, which was to symbolise the importance of investing in Canadian business. His message was that there will be no surprises in the budget, which they keep describing with the term “generational investment.” (Carney has also used “austerity,” so there’s that as well).

Meanwhile, more leaks about what’s in the budget are coming out, like the cancellation of the two billion trees programme (meaning by the time the current contracts are fulfilled, it will be about one billion trees). Or the fact that they have rejected calls to increase judges’ salaries to attract more talent to the bench. There are also going to be tax changes and updates to things like the capital cost allowances, because of course there are. Here is the updated tally of what has been promised so far. Also of note is that it looks like about $3 billion was collected in counter-tariffs in the trade war with the US before most of them were lifted—but they promised to raise $20 billion as part of their election platform.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives keep making the same demands for things that are imaginary—ending supposed “hidden taxes” which are not taxes, and in some cases are regulatory regimes either for the environment or other purposes, but they’re calling them taxes because dur, taxes are bad. But the worst canard that they have been allowed to get away with scot-free is this bullshit notion that somehow, deficits are being financed by “printed money” which is driving up inflation, which is not true at all. No money has been printed, even at the height of COVID, when the Bank of Canada did briefly engage in quantitative easing to keep liquidity in the market, but that’s not printing money, and they have been engaged in quantitative tightening for at least two years now. And even more to the point, if inflation was rampant, the Bank of Canada wouldn’t have cut interest rates again, but what are facts? And Carney, as a former central banker, should be putting a stop to this kind of thing, but he refuses, and sticks to his four prepared bullet points instead. To what end? I do not understand the reluctance to challenge this economic disinfo.

The Conservatives' budgetary demands include fiction. There are no "hidden taxes" on food. The industrial carbon price doesn't apply to agriculture. There is no "food packaging tax," and plastic regulations largely exempt food packaging. The clean fuel standard "17¢" was one scenario over time. 1/2

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-03T14:31:01.939Z

And most egregious of all, nobody is printing money to pay for deficits. Nobody. There isn't even quantitative easing happening as there was during the height of the pandemic, and the Bank of Canada has been on quantitative tightening since. These are all lies that the Liberals just let fester. 2/2

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-03T14:31:01.940Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-03T23:08:02.163Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims they have advanced within Pokrovsk, but Ukraine says they continue to hold them at bay. Meanwhile, Ukrainian troops have advanced near Dobropillia, reclaiming territory. Ukrainian drones have attacked a Russian petrochemical plant in Bashkortostan.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Danielle Smith’s Notwithstanding hypocrisy

Posted on by

Danielle Smith is planning to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause to protect her anti-trans legislation before the courts can weigh in, much as what happened in Saskatchewan. If you’ve been following that case, at the first court injunction, Scott Moe hurriedly not only invoked the Notwithstanding Clause, but also enacted legislation to shield his government from lawsuits for any harm that may come to these youths as a result of his policy—because if that’s not telling on himself, I’m not sure what else is.

But it gets better. Danielle Smith is also self-righteously opposing the federal government’s factum to the Supreme Court of Canada on the upcoming challenge to Quebec’s Law 21, saying that provinces have a right to use this clause, but then says she disagrees with Quebec’s use of it, but they should have the right. So, she disagrees with using it to attack religious minorities, but she’s totally justified in using it to attack trans or gender-diverse youth? The absolute hypocritical audacity. She’s also built an entire false discourse that the federal factum is going to cause a national unity or constitutional crisis, which mischaracterises what the federal factums says. The federal government position is that the courts can weigh in on whether the law the Clause is protecting violates rights or not. A declaration of no force or effect. But she doesn’t want them to do that, because they would expose her for attacking the rights of vulnerable youth, and that makes her look bad. The poor dear.

Meanwhile, the meltdowns over the federal factum continue, with the Bloc insisting that this is an attack on Quebec’s ability to legislate for itself (it’s not), and conservatives all over insisting that this is going to tear the country apart, and that the Supreme Court needs to be removed if they impose limits, and so on. Not one of them has read the factum, of course, but they’re treating this like political Armageddon, because that’s never backfired before. I’m not sure the minister is helping by soft-pedalling the message of the federal position, especially since pretty much every media outlet is getting the very basics of this factum wrong. But of course, he would be explaining, and “when you’re explaining, you’re losing,” so they never explain, and things continue to slide downhill at an alarming rate.

Ukraine Dispatch

Fragments of a drone attack over Kyiv have damaged the city’s trolley bus network. President Zelenskyy says that Ukrainian forces are pushing Russians back in a counteroffensive along the eastern front. Ukrainian drones have hit Russia’s Gazprom Neftekhim Salavat oil processing and petrochemical complex, one of the largest in the country. Russia has turned over the bodies of over 1000 Ukrainian soldiers. Ukrainian forces are training their Polish counterparts on more effective ways to counter Russian drones following the incursion.

Continue reading →

Roundup: “Forcing” nothing but a press release

Posted on by

As the parliamentary cycle starts to wind down now that MPs have gone home for the summer (minus the couple who will take part in the royal assent ceremony that usually ends the Senate sitting in June), I did want to take a moment to appreciate David Reevely’s particular annoyance at the way MPs constantly use the term “forced” when describing using ordinary parliamentary procedure to get their own way.

In this particular example, where the Speaker agreed to split the vote on Bill C-5 (and no, he did not split the bill, as some have suggested—and mea culpa that I was not sufficiently clear on that in my last post), the most that the NDP accomplished here was symbolism. Yes, they could show that they voted to support one part of the bill and not the other, but the bill in its entirely goes through regardless. But again, they didn’t really “force” anything. The Speaker granted their request without a vote. This language is endemic, and the Conservatives like to use it, particularly in committee, when they would team up with the Bloc and NDP to send the committee off on some chase for new clips to harvest, but even there, simple math in a minority parliament is hardly “forcing,” because that’s pretty much a function of a hung parliament. The opposition gets to gang up on the government as a matter of course.

I get that they like to use the language to flex their political muscles, and the NDP in particular right now are desperate to show that they’re still relevant now that they have lost official party status, but maybe have some self-respect? If all you’re accomplishing is providing yourselves with new opportunities to create content for your social media rather than doing something tangible and substantive, then maybe that’s a problem that you should be looking into, especially if it’s in the process of trying to prove that you’re still relevant to the political landscape. (And also, maybe why you lost official party status). And I get that their claims that they “forced” the government to do a bunch of things during COVID earned them the praise of their existing fan-base, but they didn’t force anything then either—they pushed on an open door, and patted themselves on the back for it. (Seriously, the Liberals weren’t going to wind down those pandemic supports early, and if the NDP thinks they were the deciding factor, they have spent too long drinking their own bathwater). But no, you didn’t force anything, and stop pretending that’s what you did.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians attacked Kyiv overnight, killing at least five and damaged the entrance to a metro station used as a bomb shelter. Russians claim to have captured the village of Zaporizhzhya in the Donetsk region. Ukrainian forces say that they are fighting 10,000 Russian soldiers inside of Russia’s Kursk region, which is preventing Russia from sending more forces into the Donetsk region. President Zelenskyy says that during the recent POW and body swaps with Russia, that Russia turned over at least twenty bodies of their own citizens (complete with passports) because they are so disorganised.

Good reads:

  • Mark Carney arrived in Brussels for both an EU and a NATO summit back-to-back. He also called for calm and diplomacy in the situation with Iran.
  • Ambassador Kirsten Hillman says that there is progress on trade talks with the US, and she sees a path forward.
  • A recent report shows that CSE inappropriately shared information on Canadians to international partners without a ministerial authorization.
  • Those promised pay raises for the military may not be an across-the-board increase, but a combination of different bonuses (because of course).
  • Here is a look at the retention crisis within the Canadian Forces.
  • Some Indigenous youth are preparing for a summer of protest over the different federal and provincial fast-track legislation.
  • The Eagle Mine in Yukon, which suffered a catastrophic contaminant release, is going up for sale.
  • Former Cabinet minister John McCallum passed away at age 75.
  • David Eby says he’s not opposed to a pipeline in northern BC, but he is opposed to one being publicly funded, especially as TMX still has plenty of capacity.
  • Kevin Carmichael reminds us that climate change is an existential economic threat and that it needs to be tackled, as MAGA politics has spooked efforts to combat it.
  • Anne Applebaum reflects on Trump’s complete lack of strategy, whether it’s with Iran, the Middle East, or anywhere.
  • Susan Delacourt and Matt Gurney debate what Poilievre has been up to since he dropped out of the spotlight, and the security of his future as leader.
  • My weekend column points out that the solution to parties hijacking their own nominations is not to demand that Elections Canada take the process over.

Odds and ends:

*laughs, cries*

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-06-22T21:23:58.539Z

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.