Tag Archives: First Nations

Roundup: Being too clever about the MOU’s language

Posted on by
Reply

Today is the Conservatives’ big Supply Day, where they are bringing forward their motion that cherry-picks two phrases from the MOU with Alberta, and hopes to jam the Liberals with it. Pierre Poilievre may claim that the language is “lifted directly from the MOU,” so the Liberals should put up or shut up, but of course, he’s being too cute by half. It’s not language directly lifted from the MOU. The MOU states a “private sector constructed and financed pipelines, with Indigenous Peoples co-ownership and economic benefit, with at least one million barrels a day of low emission Alberta bitumen with a route that increases export access to Asian markets as a priority” whereas the motion simply says “pipelines enabling the export of at least one million barrels a day of low-emission Alberta bitumen from a strategic deepwater port on the British Columbia coast to reach Asian markets,” and adds “respecting the duty to consult Indigenous people.” One of these things is not like the other.

— Kady O'Malley (@kadyo.bsky.social) 2025-12-08T22:44:00.568Z

"low emissions Albertan bitumen"Charlatans always always think other people are stupid.

— Emmett Macfarlane 🇨🇦 (@emmettmacfarlane.com) 2025-12-09T00:21:28.775Z

Liberal MP Corey Hogan, the party’s sole Calgary MP, called out these shenanigans, both in a media scrum and on his Twitter, where he points out entirely why the Conservatives haver phrased it this way—to either make the Liberals look like they’re ignoring Indigenous consultation and consent, or to make it look like they’re not serious about building it, and in either case, it sends a signal to someone that will cause doubt and will inevitably delay any decisions. And the government indicated last night that they’re going to vote against it, citing that the Conservatives are not using the full language from the MOU. This in turn will set up weeks of Conservatives screaming that they knew the Liberals were lying the whole time and never had any intention of building a pipeline.

The thing we need to remember in all of this is not the shenanigans, or the Conservatives thinking they’re too clever, or any of that—rather, it’s that they think they can ram through these projects without Indigenous consent. Sure, they’ll talk about “meaningful consultation,” but consultation is not consent, and in their press releases, consent is never mentioned, nor is even consultations. That’s not realistic, nor even legal in the current framework. Of course, they also think a new pipeline will “unblock the trillions of dollars of privatesector energy investment to produce more oil and gas, build profitable pipelines and ship a million barrels of oil to Asia a day at world prices.” My dudes—this is a post-2014 world. It’s not going to be trillions of dollars, and world oil prices are tanking because of a supply glut. All of this is fantasyland.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-08T14:08:03.419Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians have attacked Sumy for the second night in a row, cutting off power in the region. Here is a look at those remaining in Kostiantynivka, as Russians approach.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sandboxing powers?

Posted on by
Reply

Over the weekend, Althia Raj published a column that points to a power the government is trying to give itself in the budget that lets ministers exempt certain people and companies from non-criminal laws, and the fact that this felt like it was being snuck into the budget implementation bill when it wasn’t in the main budget document. Jennifer Robson, inspired by Raj’s column, delves into the Budget Implementation Act to see the sections in question for herself, and makes some pretty trenchant observations about the fact that the powers in here are giving ministers a pretty hefty amount of leeway without necessarily a lot of transparency, because they have the option of simply not publishing or reporting which laws they’re suspending for whom, and that we need to worry about the injuries to democratic norms.

So, what is up with these particular powers? Well, it turns out that this is very likely some long-promised action on creating “regulatory sandboxes,” and the means to implement them.

The 2024 budget talked about working up a plan for "regulatory sandboxes"—temporary exemptions from restrictions to allow experiments with new things, especially products, that existing regulations didn't anticipate. It's in a few places, like this:

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T13:55:47.297Z

They'd consulted publicly on it before. This is generally a pretty dull type of government consultation, but it was done. www.canada.ca/en/governmen…

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T13:58:04.805Z

Having announced plans to legislate on it in 2024, the Trudeau government did not follow through, in either of the two "budget bills" that stemmed from the budget.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T13:59:51.381Z

But the regulatory-sandbox idea returned in the 2025 budget. Not at length, but it's in the roundup of legislative changes that implementing the 2025 budget requires. (Some people start with the deficit numbers when first picking a new budget up; I start with the legislative changes.)

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T14:03:09.547Z

My point is that you have to be careful with premises like, "I didn't know about it, so they've been hiding it and being sneaky."Tech businesses have been calling for regulatory sandboxes for *years,* there've been public consultations, and it was promised in two successive budgets.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T14:06:02.132Z

The idea's history goes back much farther than 2024, to be clear. Here's a Logic story from 2018, the first year we existed, noting a promise on regulatory sandboxes in the 2018 fall economic statement: thelogic.co/news/special…

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T14:10:57.100Z

So, this could very well be what that is referring to. This being said, I do see the concerns of Robson when it comes to some of the transparency around these measures, because these powers give ministers all kinds of leeway not to report on their suspension of laws for this “sandboxing,” and you have to remember that Carney already gave himself broad Henry VIII powers under his Build Canada Act legislation, which is ripe for abuse, particularly in a parliament that has largely lost its ability to do necessary oversight. I think the government needs to be extremely careful here, because this could easily blow up in their faces.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-06T15:08:02.695Z

Ukraine Dispatch

At least seven people have been injured in a drone strike in Sumy region. Russia claims to have taken two more villages in the Kharkiv and Donetsk regions. Here is a look at Ukraine’s naval drone operations, and the growing number of women in combat roles.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to jam the Liberals on the MOU

Posted on by
Reply

Because Pierre Poilievre thinks he’s a tactical genius, he has announced that next week’s Conservative Supply Day motion will be about the MOU with Alberta, and forcing a vote on the language about a pipeline to the Pacific, in defiance of the tanker ban.

It’s a transparent attempt to try and jam the Liberals, at least rhetorically, into supporting the motion in order to show support for the MOU, after which Poilievre can keep saying “You supported it!” and “Give me the date when construction starts,” as though there’s a proponent, a project and a route already lined up (to say nothing about the long-term contracts about who is going to buy the product once it’s built, because yes, that does matter). The thing is, these kinds of motions are non-binding, and really means nothing in the end. So if a number of Liberals vote against it, it doesn’t actually mean anything, other than the rhetorical notion that lo, they are not fully in lock-step on something, which actually sets them apart from pretty much every other party where uniformity and loyalty to the leader and all of his positions are constantly being enforced in one way or another. Maybe he will tolerate differences of opinion—or maybe he’ll crack the whip. We’ll see when Tuesday gets here.

Ukraine Dispatch

The International Atomic Agency says the protective shield around Chornobyl has been damaged by Russian strikes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another weaponized committee appearance

Posted on by
Reply

There was drama at the immigration committee yesterday as Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner decided to go after minister Lina Diab for the sake of putting on a show for the cameras, so that she can harvest as many clips from it as she can for social media. Now, I will be the first to say that Diab is not a great minister, and she is unable to answer basic questions on her file during Question Period, and yesterday as no exception. That being said, Rempel Garner was harassing her over things that are outside of Diab’s purview as minister.

In particular, Rempel Garner was going after Diab on foreign nationals who have committed crimes, but who have received lenient sentences so as to avoid removal. Part of this is no doubt part of a campaign of scapegoating of immigrants, along with blaming them for housing shortages, the collapse of the healthcare system, and youth unemployment, which is gross and unbecoming, but we are now in a political era where parties have let the anti-immigration sentiments fester while trying to blame it on the Liberals (and for which Carney has gone along with that scapegoating and alarmingly has adopted Nigel Farage’s language to blame it on Trudeau). But Diab has nothing to do with court sentences, and saying that she was “pro-raper” for pointing out that sentencing decisions are made by courts independent of government crosses a line, and its’ incredibly disappointing in particular because Rempel Garner used to be one of the most progressive members of the Conservative caucus, but has apparently decided to turn herself into one of its most vociferous attack dogs for the sake of ingratiating herself with the leadership after she was initially kept on the outs for her support of Erin O’Toole.

It was also noted by the committee chair that previous witnesses at the committee, who were all civil servants, were subject to harassment after their previous committee appearances because they were used for social media clips, because that’s what committees have devolved to. It’s a denigration of Parliament and it’s making it so that nobody will want to appear at a committee again, which diminishes the role of Parliament, to say nothing of the fact that it is turning MPs into a bunch of performing monkeys for the party’s social media team. MPs need to stop this behaviour before we find ourselves at a point of no return.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-04T15:03:21.264Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians attacked power and heating systems for Kherson and Odesa in the south. Drone footage shows the devastated city of Myrnohrad nearly surrounded by Russian forces, even though Putin claims they already control it. Ukraine has attacked and damaged the Asov Sea port of Temryuk, as well as a large chemical plant in Stavropol. Five drones were spotted in the flight path of president Zelenskyy’s aircraft on his approach to Ireland, but his early arrival avoided them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rustad’s reluctant ouster

Posted on by
Reply

It’s some chaos in the BC Conservative Party after the majority of the caucus let the party’s board of directors that they have no confidence in John Rustad’s leadership (though this may not have been an actual caucus vote—it may have been something like a letter signed with enough signatures). The board said that a caucus vote confirmed Trevor Halford as interim leader, and they declared Rustad “professionally incapacitated,” given that incapacitation is one of the only ways to replace a leader per the party’s constitution. And then John Rustad said he’s not going anywhere.

This is, of course, insane. No leader can survive a vote of non-confidence from the majority of his or her caucus. The confidence convention is one of the most fundamental aspects of our parliamentary order as part of the conventions that govern our unwritten constitution. And if Rustad continues to insist that he’s the leader and refuse to leave with any shred of his dignity left intact (but good luck with that at this point, because yikes), the next step is likely for the majority of his caucus to simply remove themselves and form official opposition as a splinter party (though the legislature ended the fall sitting yesterday, so that may not actually happen). There is some precedent for this—when the then-Alliance Party got fed up with Stockwell Day’s leadership, a number of its MPs broke away and sat as a separate caucus until Day stepped down, and the when the Bloc were reduced to a rump caucus in the Commons and had a leader without a seat who also became a problem, most of them removed themselves from caucus until she stepped down.

This whole sorry exercise should be a reminder that the current system of membership election and removal of leaders is antithetical to our system, and creates problems with leaders who refuse to take a hint. That’s why a confidence vote is the ultimate tool, and if he refuses to abide by it, like a mad king, he just isolates himself ever further into irrelevance. In any case, Rustad is finished, even if he is going to throw a tantrum about it for the next day or two.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-03T14:25:05.918Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine hit the Druzhba oil pipeline in Russia with remote-controlled explosives, which supplies Russian oil to Hungary and Slovakia.

Continue reading →

QP: Debating whether the minister read the contract

Posted on by
Reply

The prime minister was indeed present for the penultimate Wednesday QP of the year, as were the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he once again led off with swipes at Marc Miller before taking his “fed up” line and applying it to the cost of food, and wondered how many people the prime minister would send to food banks. Mark Carney said that inflation is lower—at 2.2%—and salaries are on the rise, while joblessness is down and the economy is good. Poilievre took this and said that Carney is “happy” with grocery prices, and noted how much grocery prices rose up, blaming government spending. Carney said that Poilevre was ignoring that this was a “new” government that created the strongest economy the G7. (Erm… Really?) Poilievre switched to English to return to the Food Price report and the doubling of it over the past decade, blaming “inflationary deficits” and hidden taxes, and demanded to know how much groceries would increase next year. Carney wanted to the the “numbers straight” and praised economic growth, wages growing faster than inflation. Poilievre gave the usual mocking about a Canadians not having so good, and asked about the food price report. Carney praised the tax cuts that the conservatives voted against, and patted himself on the back for the budget. Poilievre then raised the Algoma steel layoffs and the fact that the loans didn’t come out with job guarantees. Carney intoned that these are difficult times, and quoted the CEO saying that things would have been worse without government support, and that they were able to save two-thirds of their jobs. Poilievre mocked about keeping the CEO happy, and said that he got paid to ship jobs south. Carney quoted Doug Ford about how much worse it would have been without supports.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he worried about Steven Guilbeault’s departure, and wondered who would speak for Quebec’s language and culture. Carney pointed to their 44 Liberal MPs from the province, and promised to protect Quebec’s language and culture. Blanchet took swipes at Carney not living up to his promises on the environment, and Carney insisted he was living up to their climate goals, and that they were getting investment in clean energy, nuclear, and carbon capture. Blanchet mocked the notion that nuclear is clean energy, and demanded the government give up his oil agenda and return to the climate agenda to care about Quebec. Carney intoned that they were living up to the climate agenda that included $4 billion in the budget for Hydro Quebec.

Carney then took his leave, to more Conservative jeers.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unclear goals means poor accountability

Posted on by
2

The Parliamentary Budget Officer released his report on the plans for Build Canada Homes yesterday, and the headline conclusion is that the $13 billion fund will only produce some 26,000 new housing units, which is not a lot. He also tracks the declining funding in other existing housing programmes, that BCH doesn’t really make up for, though the government’s response that has been that his report merely assumes that funding agreements coming to an end won’t be renewed, and that they could be three or four years down the road when they do expire, so fair enough.

New PBO report out today, that finds that in the first 5 years of the Build Canada Homes program, it's will have $7.3 billion of spending on an accrual basis ($13 billion on a cash basis) and lead to fewer than 26,000 homes being built.Read here: www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/pu…

— Dr. Mike P. Moffatt (@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social) 2025-12-02T15:11:25.000Z

The fed reaction to PBO's housing report makes clear what I said at a conference last week: The gov't has no long-term plan, no targets, no KPIs, no accountability metrics. 5 years from now we won't know if BCH worked, because there's no benchmarks.www.cbc.ca/news/poli…

— Dr. Mike P. Moffatt (@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social) 2025-12-02T20:12:57.000Z

That said, Mike Moffatt makes the point that the report highlights the lack of long-term planning, and metrics by which BCH can be held to account. Sure, it’s supposed to “catalyse” investment from the private sector, and do things like make federal lands available for development, but it’s fair to point out that the lack of planning makes it hard to tell just what they’re planning to do, and how that funding will be applied. Gregor Robertson insists that this is just the initial investment, that more will come in future years, and so on, but again, you would think they would have a better grasp on the plan and what it’s supposed to entail. I know it’s been a few months, but clear goals would really help set the direction they are supposed to be headed in. This government has thus-far relied on a lot of hand-waving regarding their plans, and this is very much an example of what that looks like and why it’s not very helpful for evaluating what they’re supposed to be doing.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-02T22:22:02.159Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine continues to deny Russia’s claim that they control Pokrovsk. Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines don’t believe in the current “peace deal,” saying Russia will simply invade again in the future.

Russian propaganda in full force for the Witkoff visit: Putin is claiming to have captured Ukrainian cities that he doesn't control, and having himself photographed in military uniformkyivindependent.com/putin-claims…

— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum.bsky.social) 2025-12-02T12:18:09.879Z

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1995802755034734819

Continue reading →

QP: Swipes at Marc Miller

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was present today, as were the other leaders, and it remained to be seen what Carney would be grilled on. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, where he immediately took aim at Marc Miller being appointed to cabinet, blamed him for “ruining” the immigration system and increasing the cost of living (huh?) and then took aim at comments he’d made about being tired of the decline of the French language, while Poilievre claimed he wanted to defend it. (That would be news to much of Poilievre’s base). Mark Carney stood up to declare that the government has immigration “under control,” and that the number of asylum seekers have dropped by one third, and that they will defend the French language with the greatest investments in the cultural sector. Poilievre needled on Miller’s statement about being tired of the debate over the decline of French, and he wondered why Miller got appointed. Carney said that he was for his new minister and against Poilievre being against their investments in language and culture. Poilievre then switched to English to raise the lack of consultations with First Nations about the “promised” pipeline to the Pacific, and that the Assembly of First Nations condemned his plan, and demanded that Carney make it clear to them that they will build the pipeline and do the “consultations to make it happen” (without actually apparently getting their consent). Carney said that Hansard showed Poilievre wanted to ram a pipeline through while the government would consult to get free, prior and informed consent with First Nations, and work with the province of BC, because they know how to consult and respect. Poilievre took another swipe at Miller, and quoted Miller taking a few shots about the lack of consultations, and wondered why Carney didn’t start consultations eight months ago. Carney said that there needs to be a project and a proponent, and in order to do that, they needed to create the conditions to do so, which they have now done. Poilievre switched to the PBO’s report on housing, declaring it a “broken promise” go get housing built, and that it showed they would only get one percent of their promised houses built. Carney responded with a swipe that as a life-long MP, he’d never built anything, and then pointed out that Poilievre didn’t actually read the report, and listed the housing numbers contained therein. Poilievre hit back that Carney created the housing crisis in the UK after being governor of Bank of England (huh?), and insisted that he wouldn’t fulfil the promised housing, and pointed to the modular partial house that was used for a photo op and then dismantled. Carney pointed out that house was sent to Nunavut, and that it’s a place where people live and not just fly there for a photo op without meeting with the premier.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and worried about BC’s rights around the possible pipeline. Carney insisted that they will work with the province and that everything will be done in cooperation. Blanchet argued that provinces need to be respected, and decried this particular “contract.” Carney insisted that this wasn’t a contract, but a memorandum of understanding that lays out a pathway in conjunction with the province and First Nations. Blanchet insisted that it was a contract, and worried about the tanker ban, and that all parties should sign it with free, prior and informed consent. Carney again insisted that it was an MOU that obligates Alberta to make environmental investments.

Carney then got up and left, to much Conservative consternation and chanting, and the Speaker had to deliver another warning.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Miller back in Cabinet

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Carney had a small Cabinet shuffle yesterday afternoon, counter-programming the latter part of Question Period, where he appointed Marc Miller to Cabinet to replace Steven Guilbeault after his resignation last week in protest over the MOU with Alberta. Miller becomes the new minister of Canadian Heritage, now dubbed “Canadian identity and culture and official languages,” because it sounds a little more like it’s holding the line against the onslaught of Americanisms. But there were a couple of other adjustments made to Carney’s front bench—environment minister Julie Dabrusin took over the responsibilities for Parks Canada, which were under Heritage for some strange reason (much of which involves the fact that they are responsible for things like historical designations, but which created all kinds of problems around things like marine protected areas), while Joël Lightbound was named the new Quebec lieutenant, though I’m mystified why that required a swearing-in as opposed to it simply being a ceremonial title, like deputy prime minister (which Carney does not have). It also bears noting that no one was put in as new transport minister, and that Steve MacKinnon continues to do double-duty.

Miller is an interesting choice—he was a good minister, and I’m glad he’s back in Cabinet, because he was one of the best communicators, hands down, in the Trudeau government, and that kind of frankness and candour is desperately needed in the current front bench where the rule of “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all” means that most of what comes out of every minister’s mouth is back-patting, if they say anything at all. But it’s also a choice that is going to ruffle feathers in Quebec because he’s not Québécois (though he is a Montrealer and speaks French, Swedish and Mohawk). There is so much anxiety around Quebec language and culture in the province that the Canadian Heritage portfolio might as well be a Quebec-focused one, and certainly there have been jokes floating around Ottawa for years about how if you got a meeting with the minister of heritage, he or she would tell you to come back when you were French.

Nevertheless, Miller is going to be responsible for some big files coming up with new online harms legislation, as well as a potential mandate review/transformation of the CBC, which didn’t take off under the previous government following the release of a discussion paper on the subject, and then Carney having his own ideas about what to do with CBC during the leadership contest, none of which has actually happened in the six months he’s been in power. I do think Miller will be suited to the task—he’s handled big, tough files before, and going up against web giants is something I think he can be pretty good at.

Ukraine Dispatch

Four people were killed and more than 40 injured in a Russian missile attack on Dnipro. Putin has again claimed that Pokrovsk has been taken over by Russian forces, along with Vovchansk, but Ukraine has not confirmed.

Continue reading →

QP: Promises to steel workers

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was in town, but not in QP as he prepared for his Cabinet shuffle to replace Steven Guilbeault. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, where he raised a report on the increase in food insecurity in Quebec, and he blamed the government for forcing them to pay more in taxes and inflation (which is contradictory because most taxes are disinflationary). Anna Gainey praised the government’s investments in things like the school food programme, their income tax cut, and investments in affordable housing. Poilievre claimed they voted against measures that feed bureaucracy instead of families and children, and claimed tried to draw a connection between the increase in children at food banks since with the creation of the school food programme, and make the false connection between government spending and food price inflation. Steve MacKinnon raised the child care benefit and automatic tax filing to ensure more people get benefits as more help for those facing food insecurity, which the Conservatives voted against. Poilievre switched to English to raise that Algoma Steel in Sault Ste Marie was laying off a thousand workers, and said that the prime minister failed to live up to his promises to protect their jobs, and said it was made worse by the fact that the government was raising the industrial carbon price. Mélanie Joly said that their thoughts were with the workers, and that they were in contact with Algoma, and that they have every confidence in those workers and they would support them while they developed new products for new markets. Poilievre said that Liberal thoughts wouldn’t put food on their tables, then turned to the another report on food insecurity, this time in Ontario, but again tied food bank use to industrial carbon prices (which, again, is bullshit). Patty Hajdu decried that the Conservatives have been fighting supports for people, and noted that they voted against the expansion of EI for workers like those from Algoma. Poilievre again blamed the industrial carbon price on food inflation, and François-Philippe Champagne touted their tax cuts, and proclaimed that the government was there for workers and families while Conservatives voted against them. Poilievre then pivoted to the latest Missing Middle Initiative report on housing starts being down, but blamed it again on the industrial carbon price, while somehow trying to tie this to Brookfield tax havens in Bermuda. Gregor Robertson retorted that if they cared about affordable housing, they would have supported the measures in the budget. 

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and raised Steven Guilbeault’s remarks in the media on the weekend, and wanted the government to admit they were abandoning the fight against climate change. MacKinnon praised the “clear commitments” in the MOU with Alberta, which was something to see with a straight face. Normandin wondered, rhetorically, why more Liberals didn’t follow Guilbeault’s lead. MacKinnon again praised the MOU and said that BC was the big winner with major projects. Mario Simard gave his own condemnation, and Mélanie Joly defended the agreement as energy sovereignty. 

Continue reading →