Tag Archives: Environment

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 →

Poilievre’s plan to fuel inflation

Posted on by

The July inflation data was released yesterday, which means that Pierre Poilievre had something to say about it, and it was…mind-numbingly wrong and stupid. The data were not terrible—yes, it ticked up to 3.0% because of gasoline prices thanks to Trump’s misadventures in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz (and there was also an effect from World Cup tourism prices in there as well), but core measures (which strip out the volatile categories) are all hovering at two percent, and that’s a pretty good thing. This is what we want. Poilievre, however, wants to say dumb things.

In which Poilievre selectively reads this morning's inflation data in order to support his pre-determined but purely bullshit narrative.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-17T14:43:12.309Z

For starters, grocery prices. They are actually at their lowest rate of inflation in months, but when you look at the things driving it (fresh fruit, coffee, beef), all of it has fuck all to do with federal deficits. But that’s what Poilievre keeps his focus on. Federal deficits, and taxes. But the thing is, taxes are disinflationary, because they take available spending money out of the system. So, advocating for a continued or larger “gas tax” cut (and to be clear, they’re not all taxes, and won’t equal 25 cents per litre, which is another lie he keeps telling) is actually an inflationary policy. He is literally advocating for what he doesn’t want. Because of course he is.

Poilievre keeps fancying himself an economic genius because he watches crypto bros on YouTube, but he absolutely does not understand anything he’s talking about, and the tax cut/deregulate ideology he espouses got us into the mess we’re in as a society, where the young people he claims to advocate for can’t get ahead. Doubling down on those measures won’t help young people, but he refuses to change his mind, and when your only plan is to betray the audience you claim to be fighting for, well, I’m not sure what to tell you.

My Latest:

My weekend column takes issue with the gross mismatch in funds the government is spending on pipelines rather than climate mitigation and adaptation measures.

New episodes released early for C$7+ subscribers. This week I discuss the various legal challenges to the different oaths to the King. #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-17T00:14:10.972Z

Continue reading →

Section 338 tariffs?

Posted on by

With the World Cup out of the way, Trump decided it was time to beat up on Canada again, so he announced the intention to hit us with new 50 percent tariffs, and no, not because of the wildfire smoke crossing the border (which prime minister Mark Carney said he talked to Trump about at the World Cup final). No, these are under Section 338 in their trade law, which has to do with “discrimination.” Because retaliation for their illegal and unjustified tariffs apparently counts as “discrimination” in their eyes, and no, there won’t be any NAFTA exemptions under these tariffs, apparently.

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3mr4ivv6mlk2l

But they’re also weird. Some of them are calculated for symbolic effect (like hockey sticks, or Canadian wine), but some of them make no sense (Canadian tequila?). And maybe this is more “art for the deal” nonsense,

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3mr4hk7wqcs2w

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3mr4hk7wz422w

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3mr4hk7x23c2w

Raking the Forests

Some Canadians got in on the whole “Rake the Forests!” MAGA meme, and it’s very embarrassing. Others decided that after years of insisting that these fires were set by climate arsonists, that now wildfires are natural, so there’s no climate change involved. (Erm, guys…) I can’t even.

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2078166450540519719

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2078912872625868932

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2079276027340362039

New right wing talking points dropped! The forest fires have nothing to do with climate change. Nothing to see here.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-07-18T19:42:56.807Z

My Latest:

My weekend column looks at how Carney capitulated to industry on the Pathways project, making it essentially costly and useless, likely in a bid to simply kill it.

Continue reading →

Elder pundit nonsense about the Senate

Posted on by

I should have left well enough alone and not clicked, but I got curious. That was a mistake. John Ibbitson published some absolute tripe in the Globe and Mail yesterday morning that was ignorant to say the very least. In making reference to Carney’s Senate appointments, Ibbitson says the real problem is the west’s “under-representation” in the Chamber, which would require constitutional change. He then goes on to half-assedly explain why PEI got four seats when they joined Confederation, but missed the entire thinking behind the regional breakdown of the Chamber (24 seats for the Maritimes, 24 seats for Quebec, 24 seats for Ontario, and 24 seats for the west; the territories each get one, and Newfoundland and Labrador, as latecomers, got six). The whole point of the regional breakdown is because it’s not a rep-by-pop chamber, and the Maritimes as a region got the same number as Ontario and Quebec in order to provide a counterbalance to the rep-by-pop House of Commons. But apparently when you’re an elder pundit, you don’t need to care about facts.

How could someone who spent as many years in the Ottawa bureau as Ibbitson did and not a) learn the logic behind Senate regional seat distribution, and b) that telling the premiers to fight amongst themselves about constitutional change will only exacerbate "regional grievances"? For. Fuck. Sakes.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-07-16T14:04:58.949Z

From there, Ibbitson basically says to let the provinces hash out a new distribution in the Senate as a way of “tamping down” regional grievances, which is absolutely ridiculous. 1) That particular grievance is imaginary, and Alberta in particular has long flirted with other forms of Senate reform to Americanise the institution, when their real beef is that other parts of the country don’t vote conservative enough for their liking, and no change to the Senate will fix that; and 2) Getting the provinces to fight over constitutional amendments is not only opening up Pandora’s Box, it’s inviting nothing more than the wholesale destruction of the country as each tries to one-up the other, take even more power from the federal government that they will then not use, and demand federal transfers instead. Federalism is not working well in this country right now, but it’s not because of the Senate’s composition, or our de-centralised federation, but rather because provinces can operate with impunity and no responsibility. The fact that Ibbitson remains blind to these very basic facts of Canadian politics makes me despair for the state or our nation’s punditry, because great Cyllenian Hermes, that’s we are not served well by aging white guys who can’t be bothered to actually learn something.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-07-16T19:08:01.544Z

Scott Gilmore

Someone asked the other day if I had any thoughts on Scott Gilmore becoming Mark Carney’s new principal secretary, and I don’t have too much to say except this one thing—back in 2017, Gilmore declared himself a “self-loathing Tory” and tried to go around hosting meetings to see about drumming up support for a new conservative party that wasn’t socially conservative, and believed in things like climate change and gay rights. Establishment Conservatives all got hot and bothered about it, and it never went anywhere (ditto Dominic Cardy’s attempt at creating a new centrist party), but the fact that this same Scott Gilmore is now at the heart of Carney’s PMO sounds to me like conclusive proof that thanks to Carney, the Liberals have become the second coming of the Progressive Conservatives.

Continue reading →

A fantasy pipeline to Sarnia

Posted on by

Doug Ford and Danielle Smith held a joint press conference yesterday to announce a proposal for a northern pipeline route from Alberta to Sarnia, entirely through Canadian territory. Currently Alberta oil transits to Sarnia through the US because it’s a much shorter and flatter route, and that network is working just fine. Yes, a northern route might be more secure from American threats, but I will reiterate—a Canadian route is much longer, and over much rougher terrain, and is unlikely to find private sector proponents because they have no desire to strand the current pipeline network’s assets.

This sounds an awful lot to me like wishful thinking. There’s no timeline, there’s no price tag, there’s no agreement with Manitoba to go through that province—it’s a line on a map that rests on the wishful thinking that the oil market is going to keep growing in perpetuity. Ford keeps talking about how great it would be if the pipeline could go all the way to the Irving refinery in New Brunswick, but that’s never going to happen because Irving has no interest in paying a premium for Alberta oil when they can get imports for cheaper. (On a similar note, hopes to ship oil or LNG out of the Port of Churchill is also fantasy, because it’s only open for three months out of the year, and if they think that they need icebreakers the rest of the year, well, that’s one hell of a government subsidy).

Meanwhile, Smith going on about how the plan is to build this out now and decarbonise later is also ridiculous. There is a supply glut in the global oil market already (and prices will fall precipitously once the Strait of Hormuz issue is resolved, which it will be). Alberta increasing production to fill all of these pipelines is not going to bring plenty of more dollars, because adding supply to a supply glut further lowers the prices they get. That’s the reason why so much investment dried up after the price crash in 2014. It’s not coming back. This is just fantasy.

Danielle And Doug Ford Are Making A Beautiful Pipeline Togetheryoutu.be/BbOvIjvbMMw

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2026-07-06T19:40:58.929Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-07-06T13:08:02.411Z

My Latest:

  • My column on the justice committee hearings being largely a clown show because we don’t have serious bunch of MPs who asked questions of the new SCC justice.
  • My weekend column points out that the extreme weather on Canada Day in Ottawa should have been a wake-up call for Carney, but he refuses to listen.

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 →

Some admissions in the latest “Forward Guidance”

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney released another of his “Forward Guidance” videos yesterday, and it was…revealing. The historical figure that Carney used as his hook was the founder of Ontario Hydro, and it was all about the energy crises that we find ourselves living through. The problem? That so much of what Carney used as his frames of reference were based on 1) old myths that were not true; 2) revisionist history of the Trudeau government; and 3) wishful thinking. To break it down, Carney gave a line about how when he grew up in Edmonton, the National Energy Project made Albertans feel like “our resources weren’t our own,” which goes to the falsehoods around the NEP, and the generations of grievance politics that emerged from it. The NEP was never the problem—the collapse in global oil prices were. Alberta blamed the NEP, but to this day wishes they had the benefits, like west-east pipelines and a country-wide energy market instead of going north-south. Imagine that. Carney also says that more recently, “we were made to feel that our energy contributions were running against the tides of history.” Really? Trudeau, who bent over backwards for Alberta, built them a pipeline at the cost of his own political capital, and who kept giving money to the industry (who then squandered it)? And under whose leadership production rose to its highest levels ever, which Carney also admitted? Yeah, he was really making them feel bad about their energy contributions—except of course that they blamed him for the oil crash of 2014, that happened before he was in office. Huh. Carney didn’t mention that. Oh, and when Carney talks about how Alberta developed the oil sands, he omits that said development came with federal money and favourable tax treatment (thanks to Jean Chrétien). When your federalist leader keeps conceding the points of the separatists (which are falsehoods), it’s hard to see how he’s defending the country as a whole.

I have zero confidence that Carney will insist on the conditions of having a private sector proponent, or that Pathways happens (and I can pretty much guarantee that he'll shrug and say "Well, it was only going to capture 12 percent of emissions anyway").

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T15:11:12.884Z

From there, Carney kept going on about building our energy sector, and made some nonsense points about home-grown electrification, which…is already home-grown. We’re not importing electricity in any significant way. We export more. He talks about needing this new pipeline to have “new options,” but once the Strait of Hormuz opens up (which it will eventually), it’ll just be feeding a supply glut, which is going to further depress prices. And then he goes on about building trust internationally, before admitting that we’re not going to meet our climate targets (so, betraying the trust that we were building by saying we were going to meet our targets?) He kept insisting that the commitment to fighting the climate crisis is “absolute,” but he wants to do that by doubling down on oil and gas while also increasing electrification (omitting that said electrification will also mean more natural gas, particularly in Alberta). He also claimed that Trudeau’s climate plan, while it would meet our targets, was “unsustainable” and “too expensive.” Erm, you know how much more expensive climate change is, right? We’re talking orders of magnitude here. Oh, and it was “too divisive,” but only if you’re listening to liars and grifters, which apparently Carney is.

If I were Julie Dabrusin, I’d be pissed. Carney had sent her around to every media outlet to insist that they were “committed” to meeting those climate targets, and essentially demanding that she lie about it, only to pull a bait and switch and say that yeah, you guys were right, we’re not going to meet our targets after all, after spending months insisting that everyone else was wrong. So why should we believe anything this government says? Serious question.

Oh, and if you were playing the “Building Canada Strong™” drinking game, you’d be puking right now.

Continue reading →

QP: Call it “Soliloquy Period”

Posted on by

For the final QP of the spring sitting, the PM was once again absent—back from France, but off again to Vancouver to watch a World Cup match. Priorities. Pierre Poilievre was present for the first time this week, and he led off in French, to read a soliloquy about our woeful economic situation, and demanded the prime minister defend it. Steven MacKinnon got up to pat himself on the back for delivering 21 pieces of legislation and the supposed biggest criminal justice reform ever. (Really?) Poilievre launched into the old tactic of the question being for the prime minister and that he wasn’t answering, and after being cautioned by the Speaker, Poilievre asked when the recession would end. François-Philippe Champagne go up to say that he was surprised that Poilievre didn’t thank the PM for the success at the G7. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question, framing intact, and MacKinnon repeated his same response as before. Poilievre declare that they plan to spend the summer fighting the “Liberal recession” and he launched into a his demand that the prime minister standup to defend it. Champagne got back up and patted himself on the back for increased investment, and recited a couple of slogans along the way. Poilievre accused this of being a “hallucination” and railed about the shrinking economy, and again demanded the PM stand up. Patty Hajdu took this as an insult to people in the skilled trades (erm, really?). Poilievre launched into another soliloquy about the supposed “recession” we are not actually in. Tim Hodgson listed the conservative premiers who are interested in working with the government. 

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she accused the prime minister of betraying the environment and Quebec culture, undoing a generation of struggle. MacKinnon got up to praise their “generational investment” and that the government is investing hundreds of millions in culture, and got a swipe about high-speed rail in there as well. Normandin called out the constant concessions to Trump, and the lack of respect shown to Parliament. Miller was incredulous that the Bloc were talking about betrayal when they want to destroy the country. Mario Simard took over, and repeated the same points. Joël Lightbound listed things that the Bloc were voting against.

Continue reading →