Tag Archives: Environment

QP: Fumbling around “Who cares?”

Posted on by

The PM had just returned home from his trip to the G20, but was not present as a result. Pierre Poilievre, however, was, and he led off in French, and he raised that when Carney was elected, it was on the notion that tariffs were an “existential threat,” but when asked over the weekend about the state of talks with Trump, Carney said “Who cares?” and Poilievre railed that he doesn’t care about forestry or auto workers. Steve MacKinnon ignored the question, and raised that last week, Conservative MP Bob Zimmer took up MAGA talking points that immigrants drag down the Canadian economy, and wondered if Poilievre approved of those comments. Poilievre said that his question was for the PM, who was in Ottawa (but he couldn’t directly say that he wasn’t preset in the Chamber), and repeated his incredulity about the “Who cares?” and how the prime minister couldn’t care about the people losing their jobs due to his “incompetence.” MacKinnon responded in English by again asking about Zimmer’s comments, and asked again if Poilievre endorses such claims. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his incredulity about the “who cares?”, but MacKinnon again raised comments made by Zimmer and Stephanie Kusie, and wondered if there would be apologies. Poilievre raised an $80 billion contract Brookfield got from the White House, and accused Carney of being more concerned about that. MacKinnon insisted that this was another attack questioning the prime minister’s loyalty to Canada. Poilievre listed industries affected by tariffs and declared that he about them, and this time Dominic LeBlanc got up to say that the government was elected to defend Canadian workers, which the budget does, and the Conservatives voted against it. Poilievre repeated the claim about a Brookfield deal, and François-Philippe Champagne got up to praise the good news in the budget.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and he relayed that he was shocked that the government has given up on its feminist foreign policy, and he demanded to know if gender equating was still a Canadian value. Mona Fortier got up to read a script about how Canada continues to support gender equality and is still committed to eliminating gender-based violence, but that the foreign policy will be guided by three values, the third of which includes feminism. Blanchet needled that there was discomfort on the other side over this “gaffe” by the PM, and wondered if this was about pleasing the sexist regime in the U.S. Fortier repeated that they still hold feminism and a value. Blanchet called this speaking out of both sides of his mouth, pointed out that Carney said this as he was trying to get billions out of the UAE. Fortier read the same statement about values.

Continue reading →

QP: Grousing about the PM’s travels

Posted on by

With the PM still in Abu Dhabi, other leaders opted not to show up as well, nor did Pierre Poilievre did show, so it was up to Andrew Scheer to lead off in English, where he breathily recited the script about things get worse every time Mark Carney travels. Maninder Sidhu read a response about Carney signing a Foreign Investment and Promotion Agreement with the UAE. Scheer then pivoted to the tanker ban on BC’s northwest coast, and wondered if American tankers were included. Tim Hodgson read a non-response about working with stakeholders about a potential pipeline. Scheer then answered his own question and railed that American can still travel those waters, and said the government was hampering its own industry. Hodgson dismissed this as empty anger. Pierre Paul-Hus took over in French to repeat the same snide remarks about Carney’s travels, to which Dominic LeBlanc said that his colleague across the way might be confused, and praised the agreement signed in the UAE. Paul-Hus claimed that the government was elected on false pretences, before pivoting to the CRA and the problems with the call centres. Joël Lightbound assures him that they are well on the way with their 100-day plan, and things were getting better. Paul-Hus noted the cuts that were made by the previous minister, and demanded that the government treat this like an emergency. Lightbound insisted that it was what they were doing, and the online portals were now working.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc lambasted Carney for choosing travel to a petro-monarchy instead of the COP30 conference in Brazil. Stephen MacKinnon said that he chose to be in Ottawa to vote for the budget. Normandin accused the government of setting the country back ten years on climate, and MacKinnon assured her that the UAE is one of top ten investors in renewable energy. Patrick Bonin repeated the same accusations, to which Julie Dabrusin assured him that she was at the conference and that they were Building Canada Strong™.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions about the “energy accord” with Alberta

Posted on by

The news broke early yesterday that Alberta and the federal government are getting close to striking an “energy accord” of some variety with a memorandum of understanding that could allow for a bitumen pipeline to the northwest coast of BC with “limited exemptions” to the tanker ban so long as conditions are met, including changes to industrial carbon pricing, carbon capture, and lowering or eliminating the emissions cap. There were also Sources™ who said that it would require a private sector proponent, buy-in from coastal First Nations, and environmental approvals, which could mean it won’t happen at all.

As the day went on and other outlets started to get their own sources to confirm the story, differing details emerged. While Tim Hodgson said in Question Period that the BC government would need to be on-side, his office later said that no, they’re not getting a veto as part of the MOU. And then there are the Liberals themselves, many of whom are deeply opposed and will point out that ending the tanker ban will risk billions in ongoing projects from First Nations in the region. And those First Nations are not going to give consent, which would seem to make this whole thing moot anyway, unless the plan is ultimately to run roughshod over their rights yet again.

So, while we await the details, where the devil will lie, I am once again going to point out that we shouldn’t count on any kind of “grand bargain” with the oil companies or Alberta as a condition because they won’t live up to it. They have proven time and again that they won’t, or that they will lie to claim that they will do all kinds of things to reduce their emissions and to decarbonise when they actually have no intention of doing so. Meanwhile, the market may ultimately prove to be the veto here, because it’s no longer the world from before 2014, and nothing the federal or provincial government will do is going to change that fact.

Ukraine Dispatch

The death toll from the attack on Ternopil early Wednesday has risen to 25, with more than 73 injured. The latest US “peace plan” proposal is just more of the same rehashed Russian propaganda. Ukraine also plans to seek $44 billion in damages from Russia for their carbon emissions as a result of the war.

Continue reading →

QP: What about baby formula?

Posted on by

The PM was away in Abu Dhabi, while the other leaders and their fired-up caucuses were raring to go. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, where he claimed that the deficit in the budget is the highest outside of COVID (not true) and worried about people having to pay for it. Mélanie Joly supposed that Poilievre had not read the budget, or that he’s operating in bad faith in opposing the necessary investments. Poilievre then lamented that Carney is off on yet another trip, which have not resulted in any reduced tariffs. Joly retorted that the only one hiding under a rock is Poilievre when he has to face his focus, and that he apparently wants us to remain dependent on the American market. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question on the size of the deficit, and Patty Hajdu lambasted the Conservatives voting against the Canadians that they claim to care about. Poilievre repeated his same condemnation of Carney’s travels, and this time Maninder Sidhu said that Poilievre has been in the House for nearly twenty years with nothing to show for it, before he listed off new trade agreements they have been working on. Poilievre then pivoted to pipelines, gave some revisionist history about Northern Gateway and demanding a new pipeline to the Pacific. Tim Hodgson reads that there are productive discussions underway with premiers. Poilievre demanded the tanker ban on the BC Northwest coast be lifted, and MacKinnon taunted that the Liberals got a pipeline to tidewater built when the Conservatives couldn’t.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and raised cultural investments in the budget, and said that it could have been more if they still had the Digital Services Tax, so that web giants could pay for it. Steven Guilbeault corrected to a higher investment figure, which the Bloc voted against. Blanchet then worried about the lack of funding for private broadcasters, to which Guilbeault continued to list funding in the budget that the Bloc voted against, but didn’t really answer the question. Blanchet accused the government of not understanding the crisis for private broadcasters in Quebec, to which Guilbeault encouraged him to read the CBC/Radio-Canada annual plans for expanding in Quebec. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Abstentions to avoid an election

Posted on by

After all the build-up, the artificial drama of whether or not the government was going to fall, all of the stories written about the various possibilities of what might happen, the final vote came down 170-168, the government surviving the day. Deciding this was the fact that Elizabeth May got the assurances she was looking for in order to vote for the budget (she hopes not naively), and there were abstentions—two from the Conservatives, two from the NDP.

There was never going to be an election. Nobody wanted one, and it would very likely go badly for a least two of the opposition parties, but they all still had to look like they were talking tough (and swinging their dicks), but in reality, the Conservatives were engineering it so that they would ensure it would pass. Not only were Matt Jeneroux and Shannon Stubbs not voting, the latter on medical leave, but it appears that Andrew Scheer and Scott Reid camped out in the lobby behind the Chamber when the vote started, and only when things were wrapping up and it was clear the government was going to win, did they rush into the Chamber at the end, and claim that they couldn’t vote remotely so that they could record their votes as being against. (It’s one more argument why remote voting should be abolished, so that these kinds of shenanigans don’t happen).

Of course, as soon as this was over, the Conservatives started recording videos for their socials to denounce the NDP and the Greens for propping up the government, when they were doing just the same and were prepared to go further, because they know full well that an election right now is very likely to go badly for them, but they have to perform for their audience all the time. And sure, it’s fun to watch people call them out over this partisan bluster, but we shouldn’t even be having it, but everyone has to keep putting on a show for their chosen audience, because this is the hell that is politics in the era of the attention economy.

Speaking of today's artificial drama (and partisan dick-swinging…)

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-17T23:18:51.205Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine has allegedly attacked power plants in the Russian-controlled areas of Donetsk. Ukraine has signed a deal to obtain 100 Rafale warplanes from France, in addition to the 100 Gripens they bought. AP profiles Ukrainian energy workers who have to restore power after Russian attacks on energy systems.

Continue reading →

QP: Food prices versus budget back-patting

Posted on by

In advance of the budget vote, the PM was present today, as were most of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, where he trotted out his new line likening the budget to credit card spending “with no limits,” and that this created surges in inflation and taxes, and raise the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s concerns that the size of the deficit has doubled. (And no, a federal budget has absolutely no relation to a credit card, and I wish to the gods our politicians would stop making these comparisons). Mark Carney praised the budget as a “generational investment” budget, and cited the PBO that the policy was sustainable in the long term. Poilievre cried that this was multigenerational debt that is driving up food prices (it is not), and read the food price inflation data from this morning, and blamed “Liberal taxes” (which is also nonsense). Carney reminded him that inflation has slowed down and has been within the Bank of Canada’s target for the past two years. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the line about the national credit card and inflation. Carney repeated in English that it’s a day because inflation is down, unemployment is down, and they have an opportunity to vote for their budget. Poilievre was not slowed, and uttered some complete bullshit about food price inflation, and repeated his nonsense about credit cards. Carney repeated the lines about inflation and unemployment while confidence in our economy is “sky high.” Poilievre repeated nonsense about “hidden taxes,” and Carney pointed out that wages have grown faster than inflation, and exhorted the Conservatives to vote for their budget. Poilievre switched to the rise in extortion, calling it a result of “soft-on-crime policies” and “open borders,” which is a foghorn and not a dog-whistle, and Carney called on them to support their future legislation.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, worried about tariffs, and wanted the PM to admit his strategy has failed. Carney reminded him that we have the best trade agreement currently and they are working to a better on. Blanchet mocked this, and demanded the same, and Carney said that Trump is calling his back, before praising investments for Quebec in the budget. Blanchet then demanded that the government capitulate to their requests for the budget, and Carney again repeated the investments for Quebec in the budget.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ahistorical expectations about project timelines

Posted on by

A couple of quick notes for the weekend. First is that for all of the projects referred to the Major Projects Office, none have actually officially been designated a PONI (Project of National Importance), so my calling the referred projects as such is admittedly premature. But that also means that none of them have the special rules that trigger the Henry VIII Clause from the legislation, which again, leads to the same question that Althia Raj asked in her most recent column about why the rush to ram that bill through Parliament with almost no debate and little stakeholder input if they haven’t bothered to use it, nearly six months later.

The other note is that the talk about timelines remain ahistorical and nothing but wishful thinking. “We used to build big things. We built a railway in four years.” Erm, not really. This is likely a reason why most of the projects that have been referred to the MPO so far have been in the works for years is for the very reason that they’re much further along. This is likely going to be one of the death knells of Danielle Smith’s pipeline plan, which is that it’s starting from zero, and there is no way, even with the magic wand of the Henry VIII clause, that they can make it go from concept to shovels in two years.

They didn't go from "Shall we build a railway?" to a railway in four years.The CPR was a Confederation promise before 1867. Construction began in 1881.Or, actually, in 1875, when they started a section in Manitoba and northern Ontario. Which hooked up to other rails built on their own earlier.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:17:30.293Z

There were planning, scandal, false starts, re-awarding of the contract. And not a lot of attention to, you know, Indigenous people's rights.Or working conditions, which were eventually the subject of Heritage Minute you might recall. www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE3I…

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:20:55.646Z

What's the right length of time to plan and build a new high-speed rail line in 2025? I don't know.But they didn't do the entire CPR from concept to completion in four years, and I don't think we want a dead temporary foreign worker for every mile of track.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:23:15.475Z

And then there’s Poilievre’s completely nonsense demanding that government “get out of the way,” or Ontario’s Stephen Lecce talking about the problems with federal regulations killing projects when that also relies on a very selective reading of history and what happened. Northern Gateway started planning before Harper took over, and over his nine years in power, Mr. “Get government out of the way” couldn’t get it past the finish line either (in part because they couldn’t even be arsed to live up to their own consultation process with First Nations). Nothing Poilievre is saying is true, so We The Media need to stop treating it like it’s credible.

Ukraine Dispatch

The attack on Kyiv early Friday killed six and injured dozens, along with more strikes on energy facilities. Ukraine hit the oil port at Novorossiyk the same day, suspending oil exports. Ukraine is now mass-producing interceptor drones to bolster their air defences.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not being a trained seal

Posted on by

Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith put out a video on his YouTube channel where he gives an honest assessment of the budget, including places where it fails to live up to the hype. As a backbench MP, this is not only his right, but his obligation, but boy howdy, a bunch of partisans from all stripes are losing their gods damned minds over this. A backbencher who doesn’t just lobotomise himself to read the scripts handed to him by his leader’s office? The nerve!

It's possible that Erskine-Smith has normalized dissent sufficiently — at least from him — that he can do stuff like this without it becoming a huge deal.www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jtC…

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-11-10T23:00:21.434Z

I was particularly struck by the partisan talking heads on Power & Politics last night who kept going on and on about how politics is a “team sport,” and that as a “member of the government,” he needs to be on-side. Erm, except he’s not a member of the government. Government=Cabinet, and while he is on the government side of the aisle, he is not a member. This is not be just being pedantic—it’s the very nature of how our parliamentary system works. Every member of Parliament, no matter which side of the aisle you’re on, are supposed to hold the government to account, and to keep them in check. Yes, that means government-side backbenchers too. That’s the whole raison d’être of Parliament, but everyone has become so used to the us-versus-them aspect that they have lost sight of that, and it really doesn’t help that Canada has largely lost the culture of backbenchers holding their own side to account because they are so desperate to get into Cabinet, or at least become a parliamentary secretary, that they are generally one ministerial screw-up away from a promotion, so they keep their mouths shut and stand up and clap and read their scripts like a good boy or girl, and that’s something that is fundamentally wrong with how the Canadian parliament operates.

Brad Lavigne and Kate Harrison telling Nate Erskine-Smith that he needs to be a trained seal is some bullshit.Backbenchers have an obligation to hold government to account as much as opposition MPs do. Learn how a Westminster system works, FFS. #PnPCBC

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-10T23:05:20.204Z

The UK, where you have a Chamber of 650 MPs, and a smaller Cabinet (though generally a larger number of junior ministers), generally means you have a lot of backbenchers who know they’ll never get into Cabinet, so they feel empowered to stand up to their own side. Some of them are former ministers who are still serving their constituents, and will let the current government know where they are going wrong. (There are some fantastic videos of Theresa May doing just this, and some videos of her absolutely savaging her successor, Boris Johnson, in PMQs). This is a culture we need to develop here. Of course, adding another hundred or so MPs to our chamber would help (and would really help us have enough bodies for committees without having parliamentary secretaries on them).

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-10T23:08:02.225Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Fighting continues in Pokrovosk, Dobropillia, and towns surrounding. Here is a look at life in Kherson, where Russians hunt civilians with drones on a daily basis. The anti-corruption bureau says it has found a $100 million kickback scheme in the state nuclear power company.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Running the party like a frat house

Posted on by

With the House of Commons not sitting this week, one can expect the drama of the Conservative ranks to continue to reverberate this week, seeing as the government’s big budget roll-out has been ringing a little bit flat, in part because they already announced everything ahead of time, but also the fact that it’s missing the mark in some key places. Regardless, MP Chris d’Entremont is now speaking to media a bit more now that he’s crossed the floor, and it’s revealing.

d’Entremont told the CBC over the weekend that he hadn’t been 100 percent on board with crossing the floor until his remarks were published in Politico, and Andrew Scheer and Chris Warkentin barged into his office to yell at him and call him a snake, which was the point he knew it was time to go. And frankly, that’s not a surprise, but my dudes, this did not work for Erin O’Toole when he was in the dying days of his leadership, so why do you think that bullying your caucus is going to work for you? And for Poilievre’s office to respond by saying that d’Entremont is a “liar” for “wilfully deceiving his voters, friends and colleagues” is rich coming from known liars like Poilievre and Scheer. And d’Entremont also said that it wasn’t just Poilievre, but his entire leadership team who are running the party like a frat house, which sounds about right because there are no adults in the room.

I will add that something that has come up a couple of times online but not in the media was the fact that d’Entremont has been a pro-life voter throughout his political career and time in Parliament, which was something that would have mattered in the Trudeau years, but looks like Carney has dumped (possibly because he is more devoutly Catholic than Trudeau was). That wasn’t to say that certain pro-life Liberals weren’t still in Trudeau’s caucus, likely under some kind of promise extracted from them not to vote in certain ways on those issues, but there has been no discussion as to whether any similar promise was extracted from d’Entremont, or if being resolutely pro-choice is no longer a requirement for the Liberal caucus.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-09T15:08:04.404Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Over the weekend, Russia targeted the power sub-stations to two nuclear power plants, killing seven, along with other strikes on cities like Dnipro. Ukrainian strikes have apparently disrupted power and heat in two Russian cities near the border.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Jeneroux heads for the exit

Posted on by

It’s been a strange couple of days in the House of Commons. First of all, Pierre Poilievre made his speech on the budget (technically on the Ways and Means motion for the budget), and traditionally, the official opposition moves an amendment, followed by the next-largest party, in this case the Bloc. And these amendments are usually things like “the budget not pass because x, y, z.” But for some reason, Poilievre didn’t move the amendment in his speech like he normally would, so the Bloc took up the opportunity do so, meaning they got the amendment, and the Conservatives had to suffice with a sub-amendment, which doesn’t matter other than it being kind of embarrassing because they obviously don’t have their shit together.

And this got compounded by the votes. Unless I’m mistaken, normally these amendments/sub-amendments happen at the same time as the main vote on the Ways and Means motion, so it’s done in one fell swoop. Not this time. The Government House Leader declared that the vote on the Conservative sub-amendment would happen yesterday evening, and the Bloc amendment tomorrow afternoon, and that these would be considered confidence votes (which they aren’t normally—only the main vote). And let me stress—it is very, very, very unusual for any vote to happen on a Friday, let alone a confidence vote, and that’s only because they can now vote on their phones (which is a parliamentary abomination). This is not how this normally goes, and it’s a bunch of really childish gamesmanship. But suffice to say, the government passed the first vote as neither the Bloc nor the NDP would support the Conservative sub-amendment, and the NDP have already indicated they won’t vote for the Bloc’s amendment either—but they’re still not decided if they’re voting on the actual motion, sometime in the week after next (because next week is a constituency week).

It’s very, very unusual that they would hold any vote on a Friday, let alone a vote they have deemed to be a confidence vote.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-06T20:21:34.500Z

And then, as this was all going on, Conservative MP Matt Jeneroux announced he was going to resign his seat, and the language in his letter sounded like it was going to be pretty soon, saying he hoped he could speak in the House one more time. But then Pierre Poilievre tweets that he’s not going to retire until spring, which is weird. Paul Wells likened this to negotiating in public, and having a silent “or else.” And this is while rumours have been swirling that the Liberals have been having conversations with Jeneroux about crossing the floor, and other rumours swirling that Conservative MPs are being threatened if they follow d’Entremont across the floor. And then to compound the weirdness, Jeneroux posts on Facebook that he totally wasn’t coerced and that he’s still determining his resignation date, but it will “probably” be in the spring. This is not normal. And if you needed reassurance that things totally aren’t falling apart inside caucus, Gérard Deltell told the media that d’Entremont’s defection was an isolated case. Guys. You’re in five-alarm clown show territory now.

Per Paul Wells: I take Pierre here to be bargaining in public. The “next spring” directly contradicts Jeneroux and, the way it's placed, all clever at the end, amounts to an “if you know what's good for you.”

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-07T02:00:51.437Z

I totally wasn't coerced, he says.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-07T02:52:25.993Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims they are advancing in the ruins of Pokrovsk, as fighting continues. Ukraine has hit the major Volgograd oil refinery in a drone strike, and shut down its operations. And here’s what Angelina Jolie was doing in Kherson.

Continue reading →