Tag Archives: Elections Canada

Roundup: It’s not five percent

Posted on by

Now that the big NATO summit is over, can we please stop saying that the commitment is to five percent defence spending? Because it’s not. It’s 3.5 percent within a decade, but the whole other 1.5 percent is stuffing a whole lot of things to pad the numbers, whether it’s ports, or airports, or critical mineral mines. It’s creative accounting designed to make Trump think everyone is doing more (because he doesn’t understand NATO and tries to treat it like a protection racket), from a summit that was pretty much an exercise in placating him at all costs. (Takeaways more broadly, and for Canada specifically).

I’m much more concerned about Carney’s vague talk that this spending means trade-offs and possible cuts in other areas, but won’t give any examples of what that could look like. I’m especially concerned because of the way he’s talked about things like using AI, which is entirely in the vein of his having bought into the hype, and what that will inevitably mean are job cuts/losses, and a very, very costly mistake by government when it turns out that AI can’t do what they were sold on it doing for them, and it will compound all of those problems. I’m also not convinced about all of those future revenues that he thinks critical minerals are going to bring in, which sounds a little too much like counting chickens before they’ve hatched, and so on.

Bill C-5 in the Senate

Bill C-5 began deliberations in the Senate yesterday, and passed second reading on a pro forma voice vote, and will have study in committee of the whole today. There was a minor bit of disruption as Senator Patrick Brazeau collapsed from an unspecified “medical event” as he was asking questions to Senator Housakos following his speech as opposition leader, but we’re going to see a lot of hand-wringing about whether the Senate will actually amend the bill. There is pressure from the AFN national chief to slow the bill down, but there will be pressure from both the Government Leader and the Conservatives to pass it as quickly as possible, without amendments, and we’ll hear the usual doom arguments about how it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to recall the House of Commons if they did amend it—never mind that the world would not end if the bill didn’t pass until September.

Meanwhile, we see columnists like Tanya Talaga once again calling on the Governor General to deny royal assent to the bill, and I just can’t. This is actual journalistic malpractice. She can’t deny royal assent. It goes against every tenet of Responsible Government, and if she did, it would be a constitutional crisis of absolutely epic proportions. If it passes and you disagree with it, challenge it in the courts. That’s how the system works. But that column should not have been published, and the editors should have either told her to take out the references to the GG going outside of her authority, or the column should have been spiked. There is absolutely no excuse for this.

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy had a meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the NATO summit (in a more “calibrated” wardrobe), and Trump said he would “consider” more Patriot missiles, but that means absolutely nothing.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1937826703255994570

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.

QP: Counter-tariff concern-trolling

Posted on by

The PM was away in Saskatoon, meeting with the premiers, while things got underway back in Ottawa. Even though Andrew Scheer was present, he didn’t lead off Question Period, and instead left that up to Kyle Seeback, and he worried that the prime minister ran on a platform of “elbows-up,” and promised to get $20 billion in retaliatory tariffs, but most of the counter-tariffs were “secretly” cancelled (not true), before he raised the prospect of higher steel and aluminium tariffs, and demanded to know how much the counter-tariffs would generate. François-Philippe Champagne promised to fight the unjust tariffs, and that they would build the Canada of tomorrow. Seeback complained that the Liberals don’t answer questions, and accused the prime minister of lying to steel workers. Mélanie Joly responded that she was in contact with industry leaders, and that they were in “solution mode” by promising to use Canadian steel and aluminium in major projects. Raquel Dancho took over and she too concern trolled about the dollar-for-dollar tariffs and demanded to know how much had been collected. Joly congratulated Dancho for being named her critic and said that no executive order has been signed yet. Dancho said that she could assume the figure was zero, and tried again while adding in the “punishing carbon tax” as a drain on business. Champagne insisted that they were defending workers and Canadian industry. Richard Martel took over in French to again demand to know how much in counter-tariffs have been collected, and Joly spoke about meeting with aluminium industry and union leaders over the weekend. Martel took some gratuitous swipes at Carney and said he talks out of both sides of his mouth, and Champagne insisted that they did not capitulate, and that they were standing up for industry and workers.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she claimed that the first ministers’ meeting was about forcing a “dirty oil pipeline” through Quebec. Joly pointed out the size of the Liberals’ Quebec caucus, and trotted out the lines about the standing up for industry workers. Normandin raised Carney’s meeting with oil and gas executives, and accused him of putting them first. Joly said that the job of the prime minister is to meet with everyone, and that right now they were focused on building, including high-speed rail. Mario Simard took over and repeated the same accusation, and Joly said that job creation was in the national interest. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: The King and the Speech from the Throne

Posted on by

The King delivered the Speech from the Throne yesterday, and it went about as well as expected. His French was strong, and the introduction that he wrote himself (or that his office wrote) included language about reconciliation, Canadian identity, and the parts of the country that he takes with him. The bulk of the speech was pretty predictable Mark Carney points, but it was weird hearing the King read out how much the tax cut is expected to save families. (Here are five key messages, the focus on joining ReArm Europe, and some deeper analysis).

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3lq5yh6k44k2u

The responses to the speech were, frankly, rote and predictable. Pierre Poilievre complained that it didn’t spell out implementation, which no Speech does, and then demanded a whole bunch of non sequitur legislation be repealed, because he said so. The Bloc, naturally, claimed that Carney wants to centralize power and ignore Quebec’s interests. And Don Davies of the NDP said there wasn’t anything about workers in there, and called the King “foreign.” Does every opposition party in this country have to be so gods damned lazy? Is it really so difficult to actually come up with a new answer about something (while also not making up absolute bullshit, holus-bolus?)

Every bill he lists he has lied about what it actually does. Every. Single. Bill.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-05-27T17:30:33.538Z

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3lq67lfvxic2k

Meanwhile, whether by coincidence or by design, shortly after the Kiing and Queen departed Canada, Trump declared that the price tag for Canada to join the so-called “Golden Dome” is $61 billion, but free if they become the 51st state. You know, after the new US ambassador to Canada said that the “51st state” talk was over and that we need to “move on.” Yeah, that was really going to happen.

Old enough to remember this from the new U.S. ambassador to Canada:“From my standpoint, from the president’s standpoint, 51st state’s not coming backs.”(Ten days ago.)www.nytimes.com/2025/05/17/w…

— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) 2025-05-27T21:50:20.627Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-05-27T14:08:17.858Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The number of Russian drones attacking Ukraine fell to about 60 overnight Tuesday, but there were still several injuries.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Delay to delivery?

Posted on by

The new natural resource minister, Tim Hodgson, gave a speech in Calgary yesterday and everyone in the energy sector was all hot and bothered because he insisted that they were moving to a culture of delivery instead of delay. And you’ll have to forgive my cynicism, but that seems to completely ignore what the actual issues of delay have been, and if you say “Liberal regulation!” you’re going to get a smack. The premise of saying they need “one project, one review” ignores that that’s been the case for ages now—there are no duplicative reviews, because federal and provincial reviews look at different things, and on projects where they had shared jurisdiction, they set up a joint review panel so that it was *gasp!* one review. Anyone who says they were mired in duplication is frankly not being that honest.

The real issue has been proper consultation, which is what leads projects to wind up in litigation, particularly from Indigenous groups. Harper’s attempt to reform assessments to “streamline” them meant that most of those projects wound up in litigation because, well, they ignored their obligations. In some cases, like Northern Gateway, the Conservatives ignored the process that they put into place for meaningful consultation, and well, the project died on the vine as a result. And with BC and Ontario both pushing legislation to “streamline” projects which basically means bulldozing over environmental and Indigenous obligations, well, that’s all going to wind up in litigation too. This was the whole point of the Impact Assessment Act that Jason Kenney in particularly successfully villainized—it was to ensure proper consultation up-front, at the design phase of a project, so that the rest of the process would go faster because you did the hard work at the beginning. But it became the subject of lies and disinformation, and yes, the federal government’s attempt to exert jurisdiction over certain projects because the polluting effects cross borders didn’t convince the Supreme Court of Canada, but that didn’t render the entire statute or the issues of up-front consultation obsolete or moot, and nobody seems to want to explain that part.

One more thing about Hodgson’s speech was the he singled out Pathways Alliance as a project he wants to see move forward. I’m really hoping that this means he’s telling them to put up or shut up, because we know that they basically went dark because their claims about building a massive carbon capture and storage hub were overblown and they were about to face legal consequences for greenwashing thanks to new powers for the Competition Bureau. And frankly, the whole point of the emissions cap was to tell the energy sector to put up or shut up—that they have been boasting about how they’re going to reduce their emissions, so when the government basically told them to prove it, suddenly they started crying about how this as a “production cap” and it was unfair to them. Girl, please. You insisted you could do this, so prove it.

Meanwhile, we’ve had our first glimpse into Mark Carney’s PMO, and while he’s insistent on punctuality, business attire, and UK spellings (hooray!), and decision paralysis is not setting in (so far), he’s also starting to micromanage all kinds of things that he shouldn’t be, which sounds an awful lot like a Harper trait. Part of the problem so far is a lack of a proper chief of staff, and that ministers haven’t staffed up yet either, and yet he wants to operate at a breakneck pace. But there are other warning signs—because he doesn’t understand politics, he really hasn’t given thought to how to navigate a minority House of Commons, to say nothing of the Senate (ahem), and not knowing how to deal with Parliament could lead to a situation where the Conservatives can team up with the Bloc and the NDP yet again to start frustrating anything passing once again—and for all of their talk about working together and getting things done, don’t think for a second that they’re actually not more interested in scoring points and embarrassing the Liberals. Trudeau lost the ability to manage these things, in part because of disinterest, and we’ll see if Carney doesn’t make the same mistake.

Ukraine Dispatch

There was a massive missile and drone attack against Kyiv overnight, which has injured at least eight people (Photos). Ukraine and Russia exchanged 390 prisoners each on Friday, marking one of the largest swaps since the war began.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Platforms, budgets, and estimates

Posted on by

The news that there won’t be a spring budget meant a day of wailing and gnashing of teeth, much of it misunderstanding about what the budget actually is and does. Pierre Poilievre summoned the media outside of West Block to decry that Mark Carney “has no plan” because there isn’t a budget, and his MPs have been tweeting up a storm to insist that “Carney lied” by not having a budget, but this, as usual, is little more than low-rent disinformation that treats voters like idiots because they don’t know the parliamentary budgetary cycle.

Budgets by their very nature are political documents. They provide guideposts for spending plans, but we just had an election and the Liberals have a reasonably comprehensive platform document, so that can provide the broad strokes for spending plans in the same way that a budget document does. The thing we are missing is an updated chart of what the current debt/deficit projections look like, and what the growth projections are, but again, the growth projections are merely an amalgamation of private sector forecasts and are no longer based on Department of Finance projections, and we’re in a moment of profound economic uncertainty because of Trump’s trade war, so they could very well go up in smoke next week, and wouldn’t be of much use to anyone. There is also the practical reality that the election was three weeks ago, and the Department of Finance wouldn’t have time to prepare a budget document, even based on the projections from the platform document, nor have it ready before the Commons rises for the summer. And if anyone thinks they want to sit in Ottawa’s hot and muggy summer climate, well, no they actually do not. That’s just political posturing (or sheer ignorance of what summer is like here).

I did also want to point you to this thread which corrects something from this The Canadian Press explainer about the budget document, budget implementation acts, and the Estimates. The estimates are the actual spending documents about how much the government plans to spend. A budget implementation act is legislation that enacts things like tax changes from the budget document, which are proper omnibus bills, but in recent years have become abusive omnibus bills as governments will stuff extraneous things into the budget document in order to include them in the omnibus BIA for the sake of expediency. It abuses process and shouldn’t be allowed (including with the fig leaf of “it was in the budget document!”) but this is also was six years of unrelenting procedural warfare has wrought—if you can’t pass bills because the opposition parties want to play games, then you shove everything into an abusive BIA, and the cycle perpetuates, which isn’t good for anyone (which is also a reminder that actions have consequences). Suffice to say, there will be an Estimates Bill passed in the four weeks that Parliament is back, so it’s not like there isn’t anything from government on spending plans.

Programming Note: I am taking the full long weekend off, because I’m utterly exhausted. See you on Wednesday.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims that they have taken two more settlements in Eastern Ukraine, which Ukraine disputes. President Zelenskyy is in Türkiye for the “peace talks” that aren’t actually going to happen because he called Putin’s bluff.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Signing decision notes as performance art

Posted on by

It was Mark Carney’s first Cabinet meeting yesterday after the election and the shuffle, and hoo boy, is there a lot to talk about, starting with the fact that Carney once again called the media into the Cabinet room so that they could film him signing a “decision note” about implementing his planned tax cut. This is pure theatre—essentially this note is to instruct the civil service to prepare the legislation that will make this happen, but having the media witnessing him signing a document is both very Trumpy, and also a continuation of Trudeau-era politics by comms exercise. It’s not how things work in our system, and this is a very bad sign about how they’re doing things “differently” from Trudeau.

I have to say, I'm really not a fan of this new performance art of calling the media into the Cabinet room so that Carney can sign a mysterious document in front of them, Trump-style.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-05-14T17:29:26.165Z

Oh, look, it's another "Decision Note." Glad that this is now a vehicle for policy performance.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-05-14T17:40:41.329Z

And then there was the gauntlet of ministers saying things unfiltered to the press, with no message discipline. On the one hand, it’s pretty glorious to finally have ministers unleashed. On the other hand, the kinds of trouble that they are inviting is exactly why iron-fisted message discipline has been implemented for the past two decades. First up was François-Philippe Champagne saying that there won’t be a budget tabled in the short spring sitting, but that there will be a “comprehensive” fall economic update. He could have articulated that there simply isn’t time for the civil service to put one together in those four weeks or to talk about how the private sector forecasts are pretty much unusable in the current trade war uncertainty, but he went on about the Speech from the Throne, because reasons.

New Secretary of State Wayne Long says that it sounds like government is going to be run “like a corporation,” and I cannot even. This kind of thinking never, ever works out in government because it doesn’t have a bottom line to deliver to shareholders—it has to do the things that companies won’t, and government is set up to be held to account, whereas corporations are explicitly set up in a way to limit accountability and liability.

There was Gregor Robertson who stumbled on his very first outing, saying that housing prices don’t need to come down and that more supply will make housing affordable—except the math on that one is that it would take 20 to 40 years to do so. This is a tightrope to walk because of the number of people who have their nest eggs in their home equity, but he’s going to have to do better than what he answered.

The Housing Minister suggested that home prices don't need to go down to restore affordability. We examined this, and it's technically true. They don't. However, in large parts of the country, it would take 20-40 years to reach affordability.Read here: www.missingmiddleini…

— Dr. Mike P. Moffatt (@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social) 2025-05-14T15:50:37.000Z

And Steven Guilbeault. Oh, boy. Guilbeault was asked about Carney’s comments around building more pipelines, and Guilbeault—whose new job is “Canadian identity” (and good luck to him on that Pandora’s box)—said that we should actually use our existing capacity for building more. And he’s right—but he got the current TMX values wrong. He also pointed out that both the Canadian Energy Regulator and the International Energy Agency have said that peak demand is going to happen is around 2028-29 (so it may not make sense to build a bunch of assets to be stranded), but man, did this go over like a lead balloon. And of course, Danielle Smith pounced on it, while every TV pundit declared that Guilbeault should have just shut up since it’s not his portfolio anymore. But he has a point—there are no pipeline projects waiting to go ahead, and there is no demonstrable market demand for more, so everyone is getting hot and bothered over a fantasy or a dead letter (such as Energy East), which absolutely nobody is asking for. We’re twisting ourselves into absolute knots over imaginary projects.

https://twitter.com/maxfawcett/status/1922731670043517191

https://twitter.com/maxfawcett/status/1922722025291858017

Feds bought & built TMX. Complain about the cost but it’s operating. They delivered. This was supposed to be a bargain. Tidewater in exchange for meaningful reductions in GHGs.Has the oil industry delivered there? That’s the starting point for discussions about further pipelines. #ableg #cdnpoli

— Martin Z. Olszynski (@molszyns.bsky.social) 2025-05-15T00:21:34.144Z

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile killed three people in Sumy. President Zelenskyy looks to still be headed for Istanbul to continue to call Putin’s bluff on “peace talks”, and it looks like Trump won’t be there either.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Lots of new faces, but a few questionable choices

Posted on by

The Cabinet shuffle proceeded apace yesterday morning, and Mark Carney put together a Cabinet of 28 ministers and ten secretaries of state (as opposed to ministers of state, meaning they are subordinate to ministers). Some of the big names stayed in—Dominic LeBlanc, François-Philippe Champagne, Chrystia Freeland, while Anita Anand and Mélanie Joly swapped roles. Sean Fraser is back in Cabinet as justice minister, but Nathaniel Erskine Smith is out, and everyone was all over the fact that he was the mildest bit sore about it considering that he decided to run again for the sake of taking on the housing portfolio, and he probably would have been better staying there than giving it to former Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson, who has been accused of being asleep at the wheel as housing prices in Vancouver skyrocketed and their housing crisis accelerated on his watch. There is gender parity in the Cabinet itself, but not the secretaries of state, but there are a number of indigenous ministers, including Mandy Gull-Masty as the first Indigenous minster of Indigenous Services. Carney says that this new Cabinet will work with “urgency and determination” to bring about the greatest economic transformation since the Second World War, but those are a lot of expectations. (Photo gallery here).

I’m genuinely pissed Nate Erskine Smith is out at housing — and all together from Cabinet. It’s a terrible call. Whatever you think of Robertson — not much, for me — NES was a perfect fit for housing. He knew what he was doing. He could communicate it well. Own goal.

— David Moscrop (@davidmoscrop.com) 2025-05-13T20:04:24.898Z

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3lp2tf65jnc2j

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3lp3n3fhvk22h

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3lp3n3fii3s2h

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3lp3n3fij322h

I am going to spend a minute to rail about the fact that Evan Solomon was named minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation, because there is something so absolutely grubby about it. Solomon is forever ethically tainted from the manner of his departure at CBC, but Carney was one of the people he brokered art sales for, and the two are good friends. So Carney found him a safe seat in a city that Solomon hasn’t lived in for over a decade, and then slid him into Cabinet in a bullshit made-up portfolio (that a bunch of the Canadian tech sector are projecting their hopes and dreams on), while at the same time Carney pats himself on the back for how “pared down” this Cabinet is. Pared down except for this made-up portfolio for his friend (and a few other questionable decisions, like a secretary of state for “nature.”) This is exactly the kind of thing that makes people cynical, and that’s even before we get to the problematic nature of the state of AI, the fascism of tech bros, and gullible people believing that this technology will solve all kinds of problems when there is little proof that plagiarism machines can actually do so. This whole thing just gives a complete sinking feeling about the judgment involved.

So was including Evan fucking Solomon.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-05-13T21:19:59.501Z

I thought this was supposed to be a pared-down, gimmick-free cabinet.Canadian digital policy is about to take three enormous steps backwards, as Mark Carney confirms what’s I’ve suspected since I read his leadership platform: he’s 100% on board the AI hype train.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2025-05-13T16:13:15.407Z

As was expected, Pierre Poilievre responded to the shuffle, and while he made a few contrite remarks off the top about working together for the country and not “reflexively opposing” everything, he then turned to gratuitous swipes about the people chosen, and implored Carney to “steal his ideas,” even though they were incoherent, and his platform was made up of fantasy math. Frankly I’m not seeing much of a change in tone, nor do I actually expect there to be a real one, because that’s not who Poilievre is, and him trying to show his softer side is going to be impossible for him to maintain.

In other reaction, here is The Logic’s analysis about what this Cabinet says about Carney’s economic plans for the country. My colleague Mel Woods at Xtra notes that Rechie Valdez is the new point person on LGBTQ+ issues, and it remains to be seen what that is going to look like in an age where you have provinces like Saskatchewan and Alberta who are legislating attacks on trans youth, while we look at what is happening south of the border. Susan Delacourt remarks on how Carney is carefully trying to construct distance from Trudeau with this Cabinet, but some of the Trudeau-era impulses remain. Justin Ling is much more critical of some of the choices made in this shuffle (and some of them were a choice).

Ukraine Dispatch

Continuing to call Putin’s bluff, president Zelenskyy is prepared to head to Istanbul for “peace talks.” And if Putin doesn’t show, the EU is prepared to tighten sanctions even more, which is going to really squeeze the Russian economy, which is in worse shape than they like to claim.

Continue reading →

Roundup post: Shuffle expectations

Posted on by

It’s Cabinet Shuffle Day, and the “leaks” and PMO lines are that it will be more than 50 percent new faces, though it sounds like some of the key players—Dominic LeBlanc, Chrystia Freeland, David McGuinty, Anita Anand—are staying put. CTV had two sources tell them Freeland was out before being told that no, she’s staying. It also sounds like Sean Fraser will get back in, as it was the understanding for him running again after saying he was going to retire to spend more time with his family. One also has to wonder about Nathaniel Erskine-Smith in a similar boat, so we’ll see. New faces are supposed to include Gregor Robertson and Carlos Leitao, and you can bet that Buckly Belanger from Saskatchewan will have a role, as will either of the two Alberta MPs. (More rumours and speculation from the National Post, The Canadian Press, CBC, the Star, and the Globe and Mail).

It was also confirmed that it will return to a tiered structure, with a smaller core of ministers, with other portfolios likely being given to secretaries of state (who are subordinate to ministers) rather that ministers of state (who can have their own departments like regional development portfolios or certain agencies). This is in part where the commitment to gender parity will become apparent—will there be women leading in major portfolios, or will there be a disproportionate number of women relegated to secretaries/ministers of state? Trudeau decided to make everyone ministers to ensure that they were all equal in rank and salary, and that there was less of a “pink ghetto” effect with second-tier appointments. Carney will have to work to avoid playing into that effect (which is also an example of formal versus substantive equality.

Meanwhile, Jennifer Robson has some thoughts on the probable structure of Cabinet we’ll see.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched over 100 drones overnight after president Zelenskyy called Putin’s bluff on peace talks in Istanbul.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hinting at ballot shenanigans

Posted on by

A Conservative fundraising email suggests the Liberals are somehow trying to tip the scales on the election results with the upcoming judicial recounts on close election races, so that they can get a majority, and I am both unsurprised, but also shocked and appalled. Anyone in this country with a handful of functioning brain cells should recognise that casting doubt on Elections Canada and its processes is nothing short of democratic poison, because we are already at a point where people believe conspiracy theories at the drop of a hat, or are too willing to make up conspiracies to fit their priors.

One also has to ask if the Conservatives are capable of learning a single gods damned lesson from the current moment, where they have a cohort of voters who are itching to swallow MAGA lines whole, and who cannot wait to start applying Big Lie ideology to this country’s elections, and try and claim that the Liberals have somehow “stolen” the election. To couple with that, we have accusations that Poilievre lost his seat in Carleton because the Liberals had gerrymandered the riding to include more urban dwellers, which is the opposite of what happened—to say nothing of the fact that redistribution efforts are led by judicial panels, not political actors. It’s the exact opposite of what happens in the US, but when you consume so much American media, you recreate the world in their image. (I will grant that some of the demographics in the riding may have shifted over the past election cycle, but it was not what re-distribution did in the riding, but rather ongoing housing issues in this province).

Suffice to say, it’s a Problem that someone thought this kind of fundraising appeal was a good idea, and they should get spanked for it, preferably by Elections Canada. This kind of democratic poison should never be used, regardless of your partisan stripes, because undermining trust in the system when you’re being a crybaby is never, ever acceptable.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine says that Russia has violated their own “ceasefire” 734 times between midnight and midday Thursday, proving the whole thing to be a farce. Russia claims that Ukraine made two attempts to cross into Kursk region during the “ceasefire.”

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1920358258268639512

Continue reading →