Tag Archives: Ethics

QP: The MOU and the stilted scripts praising it

Posted on by
Reply

With the PM in Calgary for his big MOU signing with Danielle Smith, and his resource minister along with him for the photos, it was a real question as to who would be answering for this issue in QP today. Pierre Poilievre led off in English, and with a smug grin on his face, asked what year construction would begin on a pipeline to the Pacific. Steve MacKinnon stood up and read a statement about how the economy changed after the “rupture” with the U.S., and that was why this MOU was so great and so important. Poilievre then asked in what decade construction would begin on a pipeline, to which Julie Dabrusin listed the things Alberta agreed to. Poilievre mocked Dabrusin for not answering his question, and then lamented that this was all process to ensure that a pipeline would be built in the year…never. MacKinnon read a list of superlatives about the agreement. Poilievre insisted this was about keeping his own caucus quiet, and hands an unconstitutional veto to David Eby, and MacKinnon lamented that Poilievre wasn’t being a serious leader, because there was a duty to consult with the duly elected premier and the affected First Nations. Poilievre insisted that constitutionally, the premier minister is the only barrier to a pipeline, and he exhorted him to get out of the way. Dabrusin spoke about how great it was that they could move ahead and work cooperatively with Alberta. Poilievre zeroed in on the portion of the agreement regarding an industrial carbon price, lied about what effect it would have, and said that if they were in charge, they would approve the pipeline immediately (because who cares about the Coastal First Nations?) MacKinnon again listed things that were in this agreement and how great they were.

Yves-François Blanchet got up for the Bloc, and lamented that this agreement meant the government was abandoning its climate goals. MacKinnon in turn lamented that the leader of the Bloc only looks to sow division when the agreement was about working together for more clean energy. Blanchet said the document was pretty clear that they want a single Canadian economy that belongs to Calgary, ignoring BC or Quebec or First Nations. Dabrusin insisted that they would need an agreement with BC and the First Nations, and that Alberta has agreed to significant action on carbon pricing and methane emissions. Blanchet needled Dabrusin that it was terrible that she could endorse this document, and accused MacKinnon of saying things that are the “opposite of the truth,” and MacKinnon responded with more praise for what is in the agreement.

Continue reading →

QP: Brookfield conspiracy theories

Posted on by
Reply

In spite of being in the building and preparing to make an announcement, the PM was not at QP, but Pierre Poilievre sure was. He led off in French, lamenting that there haven’t been any wins in tariff relief, no matter the concessions made, but nothing has come of it other than a contract for Brookfield, and he wondered if Brookfield was the only one getting wins. Dominic LeBlanc reminded Poilievre that Canadians didn’t place their trust in him, and the government was trying to find a good deal, while taking more measures to help Canadian industries. Poilievre switched to English to declare that David Eby has no constitutional authority to block a pipeline, but that the prime minister has the authority authorize one, and demanded that a pipeline to the Pacific be approved today. Tim Hodgson suggested he buy a ticket to Calgary tomorrow so that he can see how to work with provinces to Build Canada Strong™. Poilievre suggested that Carney stand up to his own caucus to build this pipeline. Hodgson suggested Poilievre ask Danielle Smith why she was working with the federal government. Poilievre again gave a jejune constitutional lesson and demanded the PM use his powers to approve a pipeline today. (What pipeline? What proponent? What route?) This time, Steve MacKinnon got up to praise Carney’s leadership. Poilievre intimated to Carney’s absence and got warned by the Speaker, said that if Carney is not there, he doesn’t care, and suggested Carney get up to show he cares. Hodgson repeated his line about buying a ticket to Calgary. Poilievre then pivoted to the Brookfield contract with the White House, intimating Carney had something to do with it, and LeBlanc reminded him that we have the best deal available as it is.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, repeated the accusation of yesterday that the federal government “cheated” in the 1995 referendum, but then pivoted to a question about trade. Lina Diab said that she’d not focused on the past, but on working to make the immigration system strong for Quebec and Canada. Blanchet then asked Steven Guilbeault if he was comfortable with Carney trying to do an end-run around emissions laws, to which Guilbeault hit back with Blanchet’s record as a provincial environment minister. Blanchet then needled Guilbeault again to demand a promise the no project would get approval without the consent of the provinces of First Nations. MacKinnon said that the answer was yes.

Continue reading →

QP: Admitting a poor choice of words

Posted on by

After a week away, they PM was back in the Chamber for QP, and so were most of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, declaring that Mark Carney hasn’t been able to reduce a single tariff in his 28 trips abroad, but he did manage to find gains for Brookfield, including a deal that was signed days after his meeting with Trump, and he also noted that the European Space Agency is on a Brookfield-owned campus, and wondered why every time he goes abroad, Canadians get poorer and Brookfield gets richer. Carney dismissed this, saying that Poilievre should check his figures as Indonesia reduced their tariffs on Canadian goods, and that they got a $70 billion commitment of investment from the UAE. Poilievre then switched to English to declare how much he cares for workers after Carney made his “Who cares?” aside at the G20. Carney noted that since he became PM, Canada has secured the lowest tariff rate in the world, and that there are sectors for whom they are under pressure, and the he does care and they are enacting further supports. Poilievre gave another “who cares?” exhortation, and Carney took a swipe at Poilievre not getting elected before admitting that he made a poor choice of words on a serious issue, and rounded off with some back-patting about his trade deals. Poilievre insisted that Carney has made nothing but mistakes on trade, and raised that Stephen Harper got a softwood deal when he came into office, before going on another paean about how much the cares. Carney insisted that they care about Canadians, which is why they have a budget to “catalyze” investments, while the Conservatives voted against Canada’s future. Poilievre returned his first question on Carney not getting any wins on tariffs and the supposed gains for Brookfield. Carney repeated out that Indonesia is reducing its tariffs by 95 percent, that we have the best deal with the Americans, and the UAE wants to invest $70 billion in Canada. Poilievre again insisted this was about Brookfield, before pivoting to the MOU with Alberta and demanded to know what date construction would begin on a new pipeline. Carney said that this was about necessary conditions, not sufficient conditions, and that the government of BC and the First Nations need to agree.

Christine Normandin rose for the Bloc and immediately accused the Liberals of cheating, and said that Chrétien sped up citizenships to help sway the Quebec in 1995, and wondered if they would cheat again in a new referendum. Carney pointed out that they have more Liberals in their caucus than the Bloc, and they respect Quebeckers. Normandin repeated her accusations, and again demanded a fair fight in a future referendum. Carney said the Bloc dwell in the past while he is turned to the future. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe took over to make the same accusations, and Carney gave the same bland assurances around building for the future.

Continue reading →

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 →

Roundup: Laughable “dedicated partners”

Posted on by

Yesterday was Trans Day of Remembrance, to commemorate trans people who have died from violence and discrimination, and there were places across the country who did things like flag-raisings, and talked about the importance of inclusion, or their vague promises for LGBQT+ Action Plans™, which they haven’t delivered on (ahem, Nova Scotia). But nothing takes the cake compared to Alberta.

Alberta, which this week invoked the Notwithstanding Clause to shield three of its laws that delegitimise and attack trans rights in the province, and where a UCP backbencher compared gender affirmation to cattle castration in defending said invocation of the Notwithstanding Clause. Where a UCP candidate was temporarily booted from caucus for comparing trans students in a classroom to faeces in cooking dough, only to be reinstated months later with no questions asked. Who went through a major exercise in book-banning that aimed squarely on trans and queer materials. And with all of this, the province’s status of women minister put out a statement that, I shit you not, said “Our government remains a dedicated partner of transgender Albertans.”

The Alberta government putting out a statement for Trans Day of Remembrance two days after using the Notwithstanding Clause to override trans kids rights feels like parody at this point "Our government remains a dedicated partner of transgender Albertans.”

— Mel Woods (@melwoods.me) 2025-11-20T16:37:36.723Z

I just can’t. Words fail. It’s beyond parody. It’s just cruelty for the sake of cruelty, but Danielle Smith is doing this because she doesn’t want the swivel-eyed loons in her party base to eat her face, especially with another party convention on the way where she could face a leadership review. (And a good deal of blame falls on Jason Kenney for empowering these loons when he kicked the centrist normies out of the party). And because it bears reminding, trans people are always the first targeted by fascists, so what’s happening is the canary in the coal mine. Nothing good can come of this.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-20T15:05:10.130Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims that they have taken the city of Kupiansk, but Ukraine denies this. There was an exchange of soldiers’ bodies—Ukraine received 1000, while Russia got 30. The Russian-US “peace plan” involves turning over the fortified areas of the Donbas region Putin hasn’t been able to seize, and limiting the size of Ukraine’s military, none of which is acceptable.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The rules Poilievre defended are no longer good enough

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre decided he needed some more media attention yesterday, so he called a press conference in Ottawa, and declared that following the public disclosure of prime minister Mark Carney’s ethics filings, that none of this was good enough, that Carney needed to cash out all of his investments instead of putting them into a blind trust, and that nothing was good enough because he’ll be constantly managing conflicts (even though the point of the ethics screen is that he isn’t managing conflicts, his chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council manage the conflict so that he’s not involved). Perish the thought that this special set of rules for Carney will only serve to keep other accomplished individuals away from political life.

Of course, the whole episode is rife with hypocrisy. These are the conflict-of-interest laws that the Harper government put into place, of which Poilievre was not only a part of, but defended them, particularly when questions arose around Nigel Wright and his assets when he was Harper’s chief of staff, and Poilievre personally swore up and down at committee that these rules were amazing and that the blind trust was blind, and so on. Of course, now that it’s convenient, his tune has changed, but that didn’t stop the CBC from pulling out the footage from the archives.

Meanwhile, Poilievre also told reporters that the country needs “more people leaving than coming,” which is not even a dog-whistle at this point but a bullhorn. If this is pandering to the far-right elements of the riding he’s trying to win, well, it is likely to backfire on his attempts to continue wooing other newcomer communities, particularly the Sikh and Punjabi communities he spent so much time wooing in the leadup to the last election. Immigration numbers have already flatlined, and it’s going to cause problems down the road, sooner than later. For Poilievre to say this as the mass deportations south of the border pick up speed shows he’s not only incapable of thinking through the implications of the things he says, but he’s fine with mouthing the words of fascists, and that’s a real problem.

(Incidentally, Poilievre once again said he opposes Alberta separation but says that they have “legitimate grievances,” and repeated his same bullshit line about the Ottawa telling Alberta to “pay up and shut up.” They pay the same income tax as the rest of us, and have the same representation in Parliament).

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones killed two people in the Kherson region. President Zelenskyy is proposing a major government reshuffle that includes a new prime minister, while the current one is to be shuffled to defence. Trump’s “ultimatum” to Putin to reach a ceasefire in 50 days is just license for him to keep firing drones and missiles at Ukraine for another 50 days, and probably longer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pushing back retaliation, again

Posted on by

The latest Trump eruption has prime minister Mark Carney backpedalling some more, and he has said that his deadline for retaliatory tariffs, which was July 21st, is now going to be August 1st, since this is when he’s extended the negotiation deadline to, again letting Trump continue to string him along. Nevertheless, he has also called a Cabinet meeting next week, and will be meeting with the premiers on the 22nd in Huntsville, Ontario. The Conservatives immediately jumped on this and tried to insinuate that this was rich snob Carney being too good to have meetings in Ottawa…except that Doug Ford had already called the Council of the Federation to meet there, and Carney will now be joining in to make it a First Ministers’ meeting.

There is further clarity that New NAFTA-compliant goods will continue to be exempt from these new tariffs (for now, anyway), and energy and potash tariffs will continue to be ten percent instead of the new threat of 35 percent, but it’s entirely incoherent, other than the usual threats about Supply Management (with no reciprocal offer to reduce any American agricultural subsidies). Of course, Trump said a lot of wrong things about Supply Management, so that’s not helping matters any either.

The latest from @clareblackwood.bsky.social on the constantly shifting tariffs.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-07-11T18:11:42.200Z

In the meantime, the Conservatives want to recall the trade committee to hear from trade-exposed businesses. Of course, this is really just about getting clips for social media, since they’re not getting them from Question Period, and much like the transport committee and the ferries to be built in China, this will likely be members of all parties shaking their heads and expressing their dismay at Trump and his tariffs, but not too much dismay because that’s what they do—performative displays of dismay (again, to feed their social media channels). I expect nothing to come out of these meetings (other than a fresh supply of clips), but performers gotta perform, and that’s pretty much all MPs are these days (and yes, that is a Very Big Problem).

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian attack on Kharkiv on Friday damaged a maternity hospital. Ukrainian drones, in contrast, hit a Russian fighter aircraft plant and a missile production facility. It’s almost like there’s a very different way in which the war is being conducted on either side.

Continue reading →

QP: Faux shock that not everyone gets a maximum tax break

Posted on by

Fresh from the G7 summit, and with the days in the sitting nearly expired, the prime minister was present for QP today, as were the other leaders. Andrew Scheer was present, but left it up to Jasraj Hallan to lead off, and he raised the PBO’s calculation that most people won’t get the full $850 savings thanks to the tax cut, which he insisted was a broken promise, but in a way that was full of accusations and overwrought invective. Mark Carney played down what the PBO said and pointed out that the Conservatives voted for the bill. Hallan took another swipe at Carney and accused the government of raising the prices of groceries, rising crime, and said that Carney was “on his knees” for Trump and demanded a budget. Carney said that a tax cut is for those who pay taxes, with 22 million Canadians pay, and that the maximum was $850. Michael Barrett took over to accuse the PM of conflicts of interest, to which Carney said that unlike the member opposite, he ways proud to have been in the private sector and insisted that that he did have conflict screens in place. Barrett took exception, saying that he served in uniform, and again accused Carney of conflicts. Carney responded by patting himself on the back for their recent increased military spending commitment. Gérard Deltell returned to the PBO assertion French, and Carney repeated that the maximum was indeed $850, and for up to 22 million Canadians. Deltell tried to equate this to a Brookfield statement, and Carney turned to a paean about their single Canadian economy bill.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and didn’t believe there was any connection between the haste of Bill C-5 and the trade war. Carney insisted that there was a connection, particularly for the steel and aluminium industries, because they needed to create demand domestically. Blanchet said that projects take years so there couldn’t be a direct link, but Carney insisted that because projects take too long, they needed this legislation. Blanchet pointed out that there as supposed to be some movement with Trump at the G7, to which Carney pointed that we have some of the lowest tariff rates with the Americans, but there was still more to do.

Continue reading →

QP: Day three of the same GC Strategies response

Posted on by

As the countdown to the G7 summit was on, the PM was not in the House for Question Period today, nor was Andrew Scheer. That left it up to Leslyn Lewis to lead off, raising their Supply Day motion to force GC Strategies to repay their contracts. Anita Anand said she would get go the question, but wanted to raise their air crash in India that included one Canadian aboard. Lewis also extended condolences, before repeating her question. This time, Joël Lightbound recited the talking points about barring GC Strategies, and that there are RCMP investigations and legal actions ongoing. Bob Zimmer read the same script, and demanded support for their motion. Lightbound released his same response. Zimmer said that the answer wouldn’t cut it, but got much the same response. Dominique Vien recited the French version of the same script, and Lightbound recited his same points en français. Vien tried again, and got the same answer one last time. 

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and decried that the government is planning to invoke closure on Bill C-5, which would steamroll fossil fuel projects and gut environmental assessments. Steven MacKinnon insisted that this was necessary in response to the trade war that the Americans started. Normandin corrected stated that this bill needed more study, and MacKinnon responded that Quebec voted for 44 Liberal MPs, as though that justified a Henry VIII clause in that bill. Patrick Bonin took over and said those 44 Quebec Liberals voted to steal from Quebec when they voted against the Bloc motion to extend the rebates for Quebeckers. This time Steven Guilbeault pointed out that there is still an industrial pricing system, and that Quebec’s price under cap-and-trade is below the price in the rest of the country.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Duelling tax cut offers

Posted on by

Day two of the campaign, and the first full day of campaigning. Mark Carney began in Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, where he played up the Canadiana and the fact that Gander hosted passengers from aircraft stranded on 9/11 (which became the basis for the musical “Come from Away.” This was part of his appeal to Canadian values in the face of Trump and the trade war, before he jetted off to Halifax. (Day one recap here, and more about the fishers protesting his speech.). Carney also released a second, more earnest ad with Mike Myers, who officially endorsed him in it. Carney also added that he hasn’t spoken to Trump yet, but he suspects Trump is waiting until after the election to call.

Pierre Poilievre was still in the Greater Toronto Area, where he had pledged his own, larger income tax cut, and gave a faux assurance that it would be paid for with “cuts to bureaucracy, consultants, and foreign aid.” (Yeah, that’s not going to get you the money for this kind of a tax cut, it will absolutely disproportionately benefit the wealthy, and you can bet that social programmes will be on the chopping block). He also regaled the crowd with a stupid meme tale about telling a child that income tax is a “punishment for doing well,” rather than the entry fee for civilization. Because Poilievre is fundamentally an anti-government conservative (in spite of having spent his entire life in public office). (Day one recap here).

The NDP started off in Montreal, where he promised to set aside even more public land for rent-controlled homes, but didn’t exactly spell out how this would be different than what the federal government is already doing about leasing public lands (nor did he address the fact that a lot of that “government-owned land” are actually contaminated sites). He also took some jabs at a punching bag in an outdoor gym—because he’s spent the last few weeks trying to burnish a tough-guy image—before the bus went down the 401 to Toronto. (Day one recap here). He’ll spend much of the day there today, before heading to Hamilton later afternoon.

Given the two promises around tax cuts, here are some analyses of what it might mean, once we get more details. Economists, however, are pretty sceptical thus far that the maths are going to work out for these cuts.

The lowest federal income-tax bracket is currently 15%.The Liberals have promised to cut it to 14%.The Conservatives have promised to cut it to 12.75%.Here's a chart depicting how much less tax that would mean for you, depending on your income.(Earn more than $177,882? Read the fine print!)

— Robson Fletcher (@robsonfletcher.com) 2025-03-24T19:35:49.136Z

I agree with Emmett. One party is promsing a 1 point cut to the lowest income tax rate; the other 2.25 points. Neither has proposed a credible way to pay for it.We need to see credible plans for big economic challenges and big defence/security threats.Hope that will be coming soon.

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2025-03-24T19:16:57.508Z

The Leadership Debates Commission announced the dates for the two official “consortium” debates as April 16th and 17thin Montreal, French first, then English, each with a single moderator after the complete gong show of the previous two election cycles. There will not be a TVA “face-à-face” debate this time, as they planned to charge the leaders $75,000 each to “offset costs,” and the Liberals balked, so it won’t go ahead. The other campaigns are trying to say Carney was too afraid of a second French debate, but charging the parties to hold it was a very, very bad precedent, and it’s probably for the best that it wasn’t’ allowed to take hold.

Leaders' debates are planned for April 16th and 17th, with one moderator apiece, and it's not going to be Shachi Kurl (who handed the Bloc the win they were looking for). #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-03-24T15:08:02.031Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-03-24T13:08:03.483Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian missiles hit a densely-populated part of Sumy, wounding 88 people, while there were further air attacks on Kyiv, wounding one and damaging houses. A Russian cyberattack also hit Ukraine’s state railway service, adding to the chaos of the situation.

Continue reading →