Tag Archives: Environment

Poilievre endorses the Big Lie

Posted on by
Reply

Pierre Poilievre gave a “major speech” in Edmonton last night, which was supposed to be his big speech for the Remain side in the upcoming Alberta referendum, and wouldn’t you just know it, he endorsed Danielle Smith’s Big Lie, once again insisting that the fake grievances that successive provincial leaders have drummed up for political gain were not only real, but that they were because the federal government—not saying “Liberal”—was guilty of constitutional overreach. The problem is not only that by endorsing the Big Lie, he feeds the separatists’ cause, but that he’s articulating a fairytale version of federalism that has never existed and that no province actually wants.

According to Poilievre, Albertans keep having their “personal freedoms” trampled on by a federal government, who are supposed to only take care of “borders, national defence and criminal law,” while provinces should be left alone to deal with health care and education. But this is fantasy—the federal government may write a common criminal code, but provinces enforce and administer it. The federal government has steered clear of education, and when it comes to healthcare, the provinces were not strong-armed into accepting federal dollars for it. If anything, they would rather not pay for any of it at all (while still insisting on retaining full control). And add to that, the federal government has not been “regulating our resources”—there is shared jurisdiction over the environment, particularly because emissions do not stop at provincial borders, but the federal government is not regulating the resources. The market has done that after the oil price crash of 2014 (which Poilievre conspicuously ignores). And frankly, not that many Albertans are that exercised about hunting rifles.

But what pisses me off in addition to the capitulation to Smith’s Big Lie is the fact that the National Post (the only major outlet to actually write about the speech), insisted that Poilievre “never once mentioned the federal Liberal Party or Prime Minister Mark Carney, leaving aside politically-charged attacks in favour of a more statesmanlike appeal to the problem of government excess.” He didn’t say “Liberal” but he spoke about the previous decade of government, which was the Liberals. That’s not being “statesmanlike.” It’s being a petulant child who continues to lie because it suits his purposes. Stop trying to give him a pass because he can barely manage the bare minimum.

Continue reading →

The lessons from Trump’s lies

Posted on by
Reply

Circulating online over the weekend was a piece by Daniel Dale over on CNN about what it’s been like fact-checking Trump for ten years, and what this kind of industrial scale lying is doing to the landscape. He does correctly lay part of the blame on legacy media outlets who simply treat all of the lying as background noise, as they have few fact-checkers on staff, and they are overwhelmed by the volume of it. In this, Dale correctly surmises, the Steve Bannon tactic of “flooding the zone with shit” has proven affective, because there is so much that it goes unchallenged, so the lies fester, particularly among adherents who treat it like gospel. What he doesn’t do, however, is point out that the continued insistence by legacy media to both-sides everything led to this situation. Conservatives in the US and Canada have long-since figured out that they can lie with impunity because the most that will happen is that it will be both-sidesed, and thus not actually challenged.

In amidst these recollections, I wanted to note that this problem is not confined to the US, but it’s present here on a smaller scale, particularly with Pierre Poilievre and his constant stream of out-of-context, cherry-picked statistics, or his outright bald-faced assertions that are not only incorrect, but hysterical lies that virtual nobody (David Cochrane excepted) has any appetite to challenge. This is especially true for any economic data, which Poilievre spouts unchallenged even though it’s almost all wrong. But because it goes unchallenged, you have a lot of people who think that he knows what he’s talking about so they believe that he’s some kinds of economic genius. He’s not—he learned what he knows from crypto bros on YouTube, and if you actually have an inkling of what the actual data is, then you would see that he is hilariously wrong, but nobody will call him on it, least of all the government.

The other point that Dale made in his post was that the other side-effect of Trump’s constant lies is that because he “authentically speaks his mind” when he lies constantly, it has the effect of making him seem more “honest” than his opponents, which is utterly baffling, and yet populist and wannabe populist leaders, including Poilievre and his would-be challengers, have taken this lesson to heart. There are just so many compounding failures, and yet legacy media in this country refuses to learn any lessons, and most outlets have been even more timid when it comes to challenging any of this, and that’s a very worrying prospect.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-27T23:08:01.337Z

My Latest:

My (belated) weekend column points to areas of arrogant presumption on the government’s part with their latest omnibus legislation and why it may yet backfire.

New episodes released early for C$7+ subscribers. This week I look at the study that says that 20 percent of MPs' speeches were assisted with digital asbestos, and why we need a major change in Parliament now more than ever. #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-09-27T22:34:15.933Z

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding an emergency diesel plan

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was present today, unusually for both a Thursday and a second day in a week, while he took a break from entertaining the president of Vietnam. Pierre Poilievre led off, and noted the death of a civil servant, and invited the prime minister to share condolences, and Mark Carney did, and hoped that the perpetrator would be caught.

Poilievre then turned to French to decry the rising cost of diesel, and demanded the government cut taxes and costs to bring the price down. Carney noted that it is a difficult situation, and noted that this is a result of the wars in Iran and Ukraine, and that the government has responded by cutting the gas excise tax and giving help to households who need it. Poilievre switched back to English to decry a full “diesel price crisis,” and dismissed that this was because of “foreign factors,” and demanded the government do more. Carney noted that they had cut the excise tax and then stated that they are working with refiners to increase supply. Poilievre complained that diesel is more expensive in Canada than elsewhere, and Carney reminded him that the provinces put their own taxes on diesel and gasoline, and that was a difference between Canada and the US, and then said that the Build Canada Act could help build new refineries. (No, that is never going to happen). Poilievre demanded other taxes be cut to lower prices, and Carney hit back by intimidating that Poilievre has been here twenty years and done nothing while he has done a lot in a little over a year. Poilievre demanded an emergency diesel price reduction plan, and Carney reminded him that they need to pass C-38 on fuel excise taxes. Poilievre repeated the demand in French, and Carney said that it’s not the federal government’s job to remove provincial taxes, and patted himself on the back for major project legislation. 

Carney says that the Build Canada Act could see a new diesel refinery built. Oh, no. No, no, no. Nobody is going to build a new refinery and he should know that. #QP cc @aleach.ca

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-09-24T18:33:36.680Z

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he decried the “special economic zone” portions of Bill C-39, which would intrude on provincial jurisdiction. Carney denied this, and said the bill was about more efficient reviews so they are done under a year. Blanchet wanted an amendment to the bill to affirm provincial jurisdiction, and Carney insisted this was solely about federal regulations, and they have agreements with six provinces to use their provincial assessment tools. Blanchet worried that this could suspend the rule of law or sidestep the constitution to benefit foreign corporate inserts, and Carney again accused him of dreaming this up.

Continue reading →

QP: Disingenuous questions about parole

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was wrapping up his trip to the UN, while Pierre Poilievre was again absent. Melissa Lantsman led off, and quote a National Payroll Institute study about people using their entire income on expenses, to which François-Philippe Champagne insisted that they have acted for Canadians, with new housing programmes, the enhanced GST credit, and extending the excise fuel tax exemption. Lantsman insisted that if the government’s plans worked, then they wouldn’t have these stories, before she recited the story of a totally real constituent. Champagne responded by listing benefit programmes that help people, which the Conservatives voted against. Sandra Cobena took over, and she quoted a downgraded OECD report on reduced growth expectations, and also gave a constituent sob story. Champagne was shocked that she would talk the economy down, and listed off good news talking points. Cobena insisted that the Liberals were driving the economy down and listed projects with timelines that were a decade out (because you can deliver a major project overnight). Tim Hodgson listed projects currently underway and how many jobs they were generating. Luc Berthold took over in French, and he read his own script that said the very same quotes of the payroll report. Champagne reiterated his first response about the three major actions they have taken to help Canadians. Berthold recited a sob story from “Jessie” in Quebec Centre, and Joël Lightbound asked how he explains to “Jessie” how he voted against programmes that help people like her.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, even though Yves-François Blanchet was present, and she decried the latest omnibus bill, and in particular noted the “special economic zone” portion of the bill. Steven MacKinnon grumbled that she was ignoring the work the government was doing, and raised the Churchill Falls agreement as an example. Normandin asked about ports privatisation, and he insisted that wasn’t happening. Jean-Denis Garon took over to denounce that the Quebec government was not consulted on a tax cut that would hurt the province’s finances, and Champagne insisted they provided breathing room for Quebec businesses.

Continue reading →

QP: Totally true stories about very real constitutents

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was off to New York, while Pierre Poilievre was also absent. That led Pierre Paul-Hus to lead off in French, and he touted the supposed Conservative Economic Action Plan™, and demanded that the government adopt it. François-Philippe Champagne responded by listing off the second quarter growth numbers from other G7 countries, and the fact that Canada was at the top of the list. Paul-Hus said that this wouldn’t help affordability, and Champagne insisted that they are taking action, and demanded the opposition support their bill to formally lower the gas excise tax. Melissa Lantsman took over in English to read a couple of sob stories before demanding the government adopt their plan. Champagne trotted out the “take no lessons” line before again exhorting them to support the gas tax bill. Lantsman claimed that the Conservatives identified $150 billion in wasteful spending, and Champagne retorted by wondering why the Conservatives voted against affordability measures. John Brassard then got up, and read more sob stories, but in a sanctimonious tone, and this time, Gregor Robertson got up to tout that rental costs have come down and they are helping with the rental housing boom. Brassard tried again, and Robertson praised the enhanced GST credit. 

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and denounced the omnibus bill tabled yesterday as destroying what was built around labour and the environment. Dominic LeBlanc dismissed this as exaggeration while the country is in crisis. Blanchet tried again, and took a swipe at the Liberals for their swing between what they supported under Trudeau versus Carney, to which Steven MacKinnon shrugged this off, and dismissively said that they would have a chance to debate this. Blanchet worried that all climate measures are being scrapped and handed over to American-owned oil companies. LeBlanc listed Quebec projects the government is supporting.

Continue reading →

An omnibus bill to burn down their goodwill

Posted on by
2

The Carney government opened the fall sitting by tabling a massive 243-page omnibus bill, titled the—wait for it—Building Canada Strong Act. Dear reader, I am beyond tired of every iteration of “Build Canada Strong” that the prime minister utters and names things with. Get some new adjectives. Please. I implore you. This aside, the bill covers three major areas—a promise to reform environmental assessments so that they only take a year; amending the Canada Labour Code so that they can try to head off labour disputes in federally-regulated sectors; and putting in place a trade corridors strategy that includes a council to monitor the situation with said corridors.

First of all: Steven MacKinnon claiming this isn’t an omnibus bill because it’s all related to the economic situation is pure bullshit, and he should be absolutely shame-faced that he tried to get away with saying with a straight face on live television. We’re not idiots, and it’s not great when the government tries to treat us like we are. Secondly, trying to fast-track environmental assessments is likely to just wind up in more lawsuits. Stephen Harper tried this tactic and it failed. And trying to rush resource-strapped First Nations through consultations on an expedited basis without providing them with more resources to do the work is going to result in more delays and more litigation. And I really, really dislike the notion that proponents can both just pay a fee when they disrupt fish habitats, because that just means it’s the cost of doing business and doing nothing for actual environmental protection. Or that they can start construction before project approvals, because then that just turns into “Well, now you have to approve it, because of sunk costs.”

Between this environmental betrayal and the government’s dubious actions when it comes to labour rights, they are trying really hard to burn all of their progressive credentials while claiming it’s because we’re in some kind of crisis, and because the country is still in love with Finance Daddy that they’re going to get away with it for a while, but that will eventually come to bite them in the ass, and right now, I don’t think any of them are thinking that far ahead. Burning the public’s trust is a dangerous game, and a Teflon leader only lasts so long before it starts to peel and flake, and turn toxic.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-21T19:08:01.518Z

Potash

Also yesterday, Trump tried to troll Canada by saying he was going to get potash from Belarus for cheaper than he could get it from Canada, and that set off a whole bunch of people, clearly unaware that earlier in the day, noted ABBA superfan Alexander Lukashenko said that they don’t have any spare potash to send to the US even if they wanted to (to say nothing about the logistics of transporting it, since they are landlocked and it couldn’t go through the EU). But boy, did a bunch of people fall for it. Especially the “Blame Canada” crowd.

https://bsky.app/profile/blakeshaffer.bsky.social/post/3mw2fezlrts2y

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2102118094487630058

My Latest:

  • For National Magazine, I delve into Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision about that election nullification in Terrebonne, and the interesting 6-3 split.
  • My weekend column worries about the chaotic state of the Alberta referendum.
  • For National Magazine, I preview the fall sitting of Parliament and what’s on the Order Paper now that they’re back.

New episodes released early for C$7+ subscribers. This week I'm talking to @patricklennox.bsky.social about his new book, "On Treason: Alberta Separatism, Foreign Interference, and Canada's Survival in a Revolutionary Age" #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-09-22T00:26:01.392Z

Continue reading →

Super deduction vs mega deduction

Posted on by

The big investment summit has come and gone, and the government has been busy patting itself on the back for the announcements they’ve generated. The Logic has a look at the deal book, and a list of some of the deals that were announced, including plans to invest in a sovereign internet network. It was not entirely without controversy. One of the announcements was around a plan to invite “more private investment” in the four largest airports in the country (which the government would still own the land and assets of), but no one has yet explained how this private investment can both get a rate of return and money to re-invest in smaller airports (as is the stated aim), without massively increasing fees or reducing services.

The other big thing announced was a “Productivity Mega Deduction,” which builds on the “productivity super deduction” from the last budget. This was mostly praised by economists, who are saying it’ll cover something like 65 percent of capital investment (the “super deduction” was fifteen percent), and puts us at the lowest effective tax rate among the G7. For what it’s worth.

This is really smart. The federal government is now allowing full capital expensing on 2/3rds of capital investments by businesses to incentivize investing back into companies, rather than sitting on dead money.www.canada.ca/en/dep…

— Dr. Mike P. Moffatt (@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social) 2026-09-15T14:23:15.000Z

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3mvlkxuvbms2y

Productivity Mega Deduction vs Productivity Super Deduction is my all-time favourite kaiju film.

— Dr. Mike P. Moffatt (@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social) 2026-09-15T14:25:51.259Z

And then there was Stephen Harper’s closing speech. Much of it was pretty benign, and oh look, a former Conservative prime minister is teaming up with a current Liberal prime minister (but you should probably add air quotes around “Liberal” because Carney is the second coming of the Progressive Conservatives), and isn’t that just so amazing? And he also talked about how as the chair of AIMCo, which is Alberta’s public pension fund, he knows Canada’s good investment. But in the middle, he went on a bit of a dig about how in 2015, the country was on the “verge” of being an energy superpower, but thanks to “deliberate policy choices” over the next decade we didn’t become it—but now we could again! He didn’t name Justin Trudeau in there (or Rachel Notley, or Steven Guilbeault), but the implication was there, and it’s just such utter bullshit. Once again, Harper has absolutely ignored that there was a global oil price crash in 2014—when he was still in power—and it permanently altered the market. Trudeau actually approved more oil sands permits, but they didn’t get built because it wasn’t economical anymore given the price of oil. But that hasn’t stopped every conservative under the sun from blaming Trudeau, because it’s convenient to do so. The truth is harder to swallow, so they pretend it doesn’t exist, just like Harper did again yesterday. It’s just absolutely boggling how so many supposed adults can be so afraid of a hard truth.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-15T19:08:01.525Z

Continue reading →

Was it really always “Plan A”?

Posted on by

Over the long weekend, prime minister Mark Carney released another one of this “Forward Guidance” videos, to talk about the current moment we find ourselves in with the trade war. Some of this was a good bit of history in that one of the reasons for confederation was to guard against American predation, though he didn’t fully spell out that Sir John A Macdonald was very concerned that a newly militarized US post-Civil War would turn their attention northward. And yes, American tariffs did force the newly-united Canadians to better develop their own internal markets because yes, we did a lot of north-south trade at the time as well. He brought up the “iron spine” of the trans-Canada railway with some lip-service as to the human cost of it (more than he has in the past), but from there his metaphors started to drift again. The thing is, that “iron spine” has weakened considerably since free trade, and it’s been a whole lot of north-south trade once again, and his trying to say that the new north-south iron spine would be around energy, both electricity and crude oil, didn’t really make a lot of sense.

More than that, however, Carney was engaging in some revisionist history of his own, insisting that building up our industry domestically and to export to more markets was “always Plan A” didn’t really mesh with his stated desire during negotiations to have a stronger security and defence relationship with the US. He lamented in the video that the Americans were trying to force dependency, but Carney’s own goals included a stronger comprehensive relationship, so it feels a lot like he’s trying to play both sides here. He also said that there’s no going back to “normal” with the US, but again, this has been his whole strategy up until two weeks ago. It feels like he’s only just started saying things he was supposed to be saying all along two weeks ago, and is now pretending like it’s what he was always saying.

And then, of course, he brought up digital asbestos, because it’s “important,” and insisted that Canada would be maintaining its values and sovereignty with it. Erm, really? How? This is just lip service while he continues to swallow the CEO hype around it rather than waking up to the fact that this is garbage tech that is burning cash and the environment, and like he’s trying to be the last guy in before the bubble bursts. It’s getting cringey how much Carney and Evan Solomon are still enthralled by the false promises, like their lives depended on it.

My Latest:

  • For National Magazine, I got some reaction to the news that the Ontario Courts’ case management system suffered a hack.
  • My weekend column wonders if it’s time that we get serious about domestically-built EVs, as the age of the integrated North American auto industry appears to be over.
  • My column on the Conservatives on the Remain side of the Alberta referendum trying to have it both ways by blaming Liberals, playing into Separatist hands.

Continue reading →

Pinky-swearing data centre expectations

Posted on by

Yesterday morning, minister of digital asbestos, Evan Solomon, was in Markham to announce that the government had created a new framework of “key expectations” for building data centres in Canada, and that 23 major digital asbestos companies had signed on. It all sounds good, until you realise that this is a voluntary code of conduct made with bad faith actors, and that the federal government has pretty much no levers to enforce any of these promises that these companies make, because so much of the regulation is either a provincial or municipal responsibility. So what you have instead is Solomon once again putting on a performance for the cheap seats at the community theatre, and is expecting applause and bouquets for said performance. It’s like we’re back in the Trudeau era of “the announcement is the policy.” This is not serious governance, and governance is the cornerstone of digital sovereignty—that thing that Solomon keeps claiming to care about.

Non-binding 'expectations'? Solomon & Carney are not serious about governing data centres in Canada; they're offside w/ the large & growing anti-data centre public sentiment. These companies won't comply w/ voluntary 'rules.' They have lied about energy & water use. This is weak & shameful.

— Natasha Tusikov (@ntusikov.bsky.social) 2026-09-03T18:53:05.383Z

In technical terms, this is referred to as a "pinky swear." And it's just as binding and effective."The responsible development principles do not include any compliance mechanism or penalties for broken pledges."This is not serious governance.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-09-03T17:01:43.644Z

@ntusikov.bsky.social and I wrote this oped about social media regulation, but its main point stands here. Regulatory theory tells us that voluntary agreements don't work with bad actors. The companies listed above are some of the least trustworthy of the past several decades.This is just empty PR.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-09-03T17:01:43.645Z

Later in the day, prime minister Mark Carney announced via press release the launch of Digital Transformation Canada, which aims to “refine how the government develops, buys and uses technology.” While this could be a good thing, particularly if it means developing home-grown digital solutions that would get us off of American platforms, that was not really mentioned in the release at all. Instead, it was more about the CEO bullshit around digital asbestos, with “eliminating duplication” and “improve outcomes,” which just sounds like more hype that Carney has swallowed. We have real needs when it comes to our digital sovereignty, but if there is any consideration about how to do that, it doesn’t appear to be coming from this plan as outlined.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-03T13:08:02.353Z

Programming Note: I am taking an extra-long weekend, so posts will resume later in the week. Enjoy!

Continue reading →

Tariffs to change our behaviour

Posted on by

As we wait for the deadline on whatever trade “agreement” is supposed to be signed today, there are still a lot of concerning signs about what is in it, whether that’s with the tariff levels, or the “digital trade alignment,” which is very concerning. But much of the discussion today kept going back to the issue of the “booze ban,” which requires premiers to cooperate (and apparently Carney was pleading with them to do so on their call on Wednesday), and they’re not all on board. Some want to ensure that there is actual tariff reductions for industries in their province, while others are sounding more amenable, though there is still a combative tone around the fact that they may put it back on the shelf, but nobody is obligated to buy it, and they will actively discourage people from doing so. And fair enough. But as Jennifer Robson points out here, an official ban could find legal basis for certain of Trump’s tariffs (even though these bans were retaliatory in nature), so perhaps a more unofficial ban and popular boycott action may be the more legalistic approach to take.

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3mtkceer5q224

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3mtkcefexjc24

Wrote this alongside the very funny @ianmmacintyre.bsky.social, mostly just so I had an excuse to invent the atrocity that is "lobster wine"

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2026-08-20T22:08:22.467Z

Meanwhile, I’m at my limit with the California winemakers whinging that it’s not fair that we’ve banned their product, claiming that they’re allies and not the problem. Erm, except that a good half of the California vintner lobby donated to Trump and his proxies, so yeah, I would say that makes you a problem and that you’re not actually allies. I also don’t exactly see them doing anything to stand up to Trump in any way, so again, not seeing how that’s being a good ally. Meanwhile, JD Vance gave an interview that was trying to belittle prime minister Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre (who is a non-entity as far as the Americans are concerned), and says that the whole point of this exercise is to change Canadians’ behaviour, and that they think we’re moving in a more Trumpian direction, so they’re going to claim that as a win, particularly as they are already boasting that they got “significant concessions” from us as part of this deal. Why do I suspect this is going to wind up being a slow-motion disaster?

I'm at my limit with these guys. Half of the California wine-growers' lobby donated or endorsed Trump and his candidates (and @davidreevely.bsky.social went through and gathered all the receipts a few weeks ago). Don't go insisting you're allies being unfairly treated when you enabled this.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-21T01:03:48.040Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-08-20T19:08:01.415Z

Continue reading →