Tag Archives: First Nations

Budget Day 2026

Posted on by
Reply

It was Budget Day, and of course, because it’s 1995 and will always be 1995, the headlines are always about the deficit. (Budget document here). It turns out that the deficit for the current fiscal year is about half of the earlier projection, thanks to increased revenues (in large part because of high oil prices), and it’s being kept steady for the next few years while the government once again took up the increased revenue to fund a bunch of things, most especially their Mega Deduction.

Budget 2026 in one graph

— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe.bsky.social) 2026-11-05T22:18:11.388246+00:00

Budget 2026 sees federal debt dropping to 19% of GDP by 2060; I get ~48%. #cdnecon #cdnpoliTwo key differences: net debt doesn’t subtract non-financial assets (capital), and I assume we meet the new NATO target. Long-term fiscal challenges may be bigger than budget implies.

— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe.bsky.social) 2026-11-06T00:55:34.329048+00:00

ok, here's what underlies the whole document. This is a HUGE windfall relative to the Spring Economic Update. Add up the extra and it is $186B. That's how they piled on so much extra spending AND lowered the deficit forecast.Easy to do with +$186B in your pocket!

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-11-06T00:56:50.939Z

Some highlights of the coverage:

  • $52 billion to double electrical capacity by 2050—and considering this a climate plan
  • Plans to extend the open banking framework to other sectors, while still delaying the actual open banking implementation.
  • More tax breaks for tech CEOs, because “innovation.” Also, EDC and BDC are merging.
  • $400 million more for military drones, plus more funding for space launch capacity.
  • A few more details on the “Canada Strong” sovereign wealth fund.
  • New laws to “streamline” expropriations for the Alto high speed rail project.
  • The hope is for the tax breaks and incentives to create an “investment super-cycle”
  • There is $5 billion for culture, including CBC and journalism.
  • There is a promise of $6 billion for CSIS, possibly the largest increase in funding ever.
  • The budget aims to work with provinces to end homelessness in ten years. 
  • There is also $50 billion over ten years for Indigenous programmes and services.
  • The budget doesn’t give any clues as to the future of health transfers.
  • Immigration levels are to be kept largely the same, with plans to convert 200,000 temporary residents to permanent residents. 
  • There remain unanswered questions about the path to meeting NATO targets.

Reaction from the opposition has been pretty much as expected—Pierre Poilievre is howling that the deficits will fuel inflation (which is not what is happening with inflation), while Avi Lewis demands a wealth tax (that won’t generate the revenue he claims) and for it to be spent on “lowering the cost of groceries” (no, subsidizing a “public option” is not actually lowering the cost) and building more housing (for unrealistic amounts of money). 

https://twitter.com/coreyhoganyyc/status/2118466518858277166

Budget commentary includes:

  • Justin Ling delves into the promises for drone production.
  • Kevin Carmichael points to the signals the budget sends to the bond markets.
  • Susan Delacourt sees the government taking the cue about affordability.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-11-05T20:08:02.591Z

My Latest:

My column looks at all of Mark Carney’s talk about “values” in foreign policy and wonders when we might actually see some—other than “making money.”

Continue reading →

QP: Book-cooking and Telesat accusations

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was finally present, for a few minutes anyway, in advance of the budget release. The other leaders were also present, and Pierre Poilievre led off in both French and English to once again demand the all fuel taxes be scrapped in the budget. Mark Carney reminded him that the budget would be tabled in a couple of hours. Poilievre stayed in English to accuse the government of “cooking the books” on immigration, and Carney pointed out how far down the numbers were, including the slowest population growth in decades. Poilievre continued a hysterical rant about immigration levels, and Carney insisted that they had “taken back control.” Poilievre then accused Carney of “cooking the books” on government debt, and Carney patted himself on the back for cutting “operational spending,” and quipped that Poilievre only knows how to tear down and not build up. Poilievre gave a smug smile and said that he doesn’t know how to build up billions of dollars in debt, and then moved to the questions on Telesat. Carney pointed out that the process began in 2007 and that he hasn’t made any decisions around it. Poilievre insisted that the contract was awarded this August, and again demanded to know who he discussed it with. Carney again said he wasn’t involved in any decisions around it, and suggested Poilievre read the National Security Strategy and said that they would Build Canada Strong™ in space.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he read out the Liberal Women’s Commission’s denouncement of Bill C-39. Carney said that Quebeckers and Canadians want to build and build faster and deployed his slogan about one project, one review, in one year. Blanchet then quoted a Quebec union leader’s concerns about the bill, whom Carney has consulted with, and Carney gave some boilerplate about respecting her and the right to strike. Blanchet then raised the AFN national chief’s concerns about the bill, and Carney patted himself on the back for the meeting between Indigenous leaders and premiers, and that she was aware of the need for the bill.

Continue reading →

QP: Conspiracies and conflicts of interest in the MPO

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was in town but absent, possibly napping after arriving back home at 3 AM. Pierre Poilievre was present, and he led off in French, demanding that the prime minister cut all diesel taxes in the budget tomorrow. Steven MacKinnon reminded him that the price increases were because of the conflicts in the Middle East, while the Conservatives voted against help for Canadians. Poilievre then listed the perceived conflicts of interest around Telesat, and demanded an accounting for them. Mélanie Joly defended Telesat as a great Canadian company that needs support. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his performance about demanding the prime minister cut all diesel taxes in the budget tomorrow. MacKinnon got back up to point out that the Conservatives have systematically opposed measures to help Canadians. Poilievre went on a rant about American companies pushing biodiesel as part of his demand for an end to diesel taxes, as he continues to claim that clean fuel standards are “taxes.” Julie Dabrusin delivered the usual lines about helping Canadians, and noting that there is a biodiesel facility just outside of his riding that benefits the farmers in his riding. Poilievre returned to his line about there being two economies, and then repeated the accusations around Telesat. Joly got back up to praise Canadian companies like Telesat being key to our sovereignty. Poilievre claimed that they raise theatrical distractions if they get “caught with their hands in the cookie jar,” and repeated his accusations. Joly noted the long-standing poilcy around supporting firms like Telesat and wondered if Poilievre was in it for American firms.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, listed items that the government has capitulated on the Americans on, and wondered about if they are the “masters of our destiny.” Joël Lightbound listed projects like Churchill falls that the Bloc should support. Normandin listed further environmental capitulations and that “masters of our destiny” was supporting their own priorities. Lightbound listed benefit programmes that the Bloc have not supported. Jean-Denis Garon demanded compensation for Quebec for asylum seekers and to not re-index certain benefits, and Lightbound listed further supports for Quebec firms by the government. 

Continue reading →

QP: Prisoners of Pessimism

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was away at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Antigua and Barbuda, but all other leaders were present. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, noted the midterms in the U.S., and claimed that the PM was just “losing” against the Americans, and demanded a deadline for a new U.S. deal. Dominic LeBlanc insisted that they were negotiating to come to an agreement that was in Canada’s interests, which Poilievre would not recognise. Poilievre repeated the same in English, and LeBlanc was more pointed in saying that Poilievre would be the leading expert in the House of Commons on theatrics, and said that they did agree there was economic harm, which is why they were supporting Canadians rather than accepting a bad deal. Poilievre insisted that the government should be at the table right now, and again insisted the government was only offering theatrics, and LeBlanc repeated his same points. Poilievre raised a food bank report from Toronto and demanded to know when we would get a “good deal,” and LeBlanc again said that unlike the opposition, they were not neglecting Canadians who are affected. Poilievre then insisted that there are two economies—one who for people who follow the rules, and one who make them, and raised the issue of corporate-paid employees seconded to the Major Projects Office. Leblanc cautioned him not to invent conflicts of interest where none exist, and that those people are stepping up to serve the country. Poilievre railed about “corporate power brokers,” apparently confusing himself with the leader of the NDP, and lamented people skipping meals before he demanded help for them in the budget. Tim Hodgson listed the jobs that approved projects are supposed to create.

Marilyn Gladu is sitting in Carney’s seat, and I still can’t get my head around it. #QP

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-11-03T19:22:47.161Z

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he said that Carney has sold out to the Americans, whether it was selling out on the digital services tax or on the environment in service of American corporate giants. Joël Lightbound praised their cultural spending in the budget, and told him to wait for Thursday’s “excellent” budget. Blanchet demanded the GST credit be doubled again, or to lift the GST on second-hand goods, and Lightbound recited the tax breaks and benefits already delivered that the Bloc didn’t support. Blanchet demanded action on their list of budget demands (which is funny because the document is already printed), and Lightbound praised their cultural spending “historical” infrastructure agreement with Quebec.

Continue reading →

QP: Returning to bad-math gas tax demands

Posted on by
2

The PM was absent, preparing to depart for the Commonwealth meeting in Antigua and Barbuda. Pierre Poilievre was present, and he led off in French demanding that the government eliminate all gas taxes in the budget. Julie Dabrusin noted that the heat pump programme will help people save money from coast-to-coast-to-coast, and that bio diesel will help farmers in Poilievre’s riding. Poilievre suggested that heat pumps help Brookfield and biodiesel subsidies aid American companies, and repeated his demand. Dabrusin wonders why Poilievre can’t help farmers in his riding provide canola for biodiesel. Poilievre switched to English to make the same demand again, and Dabrusin repeated her same points about canola and biodiesel, which is supported by the clean fuel standard. Poilievre called her out of touch, and wailed about the cost of diesel for farmers, and this time Wayne Long stood up to recite some good news talking points about Thursday’s budget release. Poilievre mocked the government’s record, with particular attention to food banks and housing, and Long repeated his same praise for the upcoming budget. Poilievre repeated his same faulty math about gas taxes, and this time, Tim Hodgson listed government support programmes that Poilievre voted against.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she listed agenda items on the Canada-EU talks that were in areas of Quebec’s jurisdiction and demanded a seat at the table. Steven MacKinnon praised how good this agreement is for Quebec and Canada. Normandin demanded some transparency about these items rather than just leave everything in the PMO, and MacKinnon said that transparency was having a meeting in Montreal attended by six former Quebec premiers, which…missed the point. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe demanded the doctrine that claims to allow Quebec a seat at the table, and MacKinnon insisted that they are engaging all provinces with discussions in areas of their jurisdiction. 

Continue reading →

QP: Bringing up PSPP’s bellyaching

Posted on by

The PM was in the building after a signing ceremony for another “strategic partnership,” this time with the Crown Price of Abu Dhabi, but once again not in the House for Question Period. Pierre Poilievre led off by declaring we already have a trade deal with Europe and a defensive alliance with NATO, but worried that we would be ceding sovereignty to the EU and its “costly policies” of taxes, immigration, and regulation, and that it would infringe on provincial jurisdiction, and turned this into the bellyache from the premier of Quebec that he’s not being allowed to speak at the Canada-EU summit in Montreal later this week. Joël Lightbound noted that the EU is 450 million consumers and 18 percent of the world’s GDP, and that Canada is negotiating an agreement that is interests of Canada and Quebec, and thanked the Quebec delegation’s work in Brussels. Poilievre noted that CETA still is not fully ratified, before he pivoted to inflation “skyrocketing” (Note: it absolutely is not) and railed about the federal debt. Lightbound noted the increase in exports out of the US, and then noted that when he speaks about “inflationary programmes,” does he mean the children who benefit from the Canada Child Benefit? Poilievre switched to English to continue his nonsense point about inflation, and the size of the federal debt. Wayne Long trotted out his talking point about the fact that Poilievre has not accomplished anything in twenty years while the PM has A Plan. Poilievre insisted the PM should be standing up to talk about his record, and he repeated the claim that interest on the federal debt costs each family $6000 per year. Long said that real leaders have a plan, like theirs does, unlike the Conservatives. Poilievre switched topics to housing, and the response to an Order Paper question staying that starts will go down, and that the government is blaming immigration. Gregor Robertson got up to say that he would “reprimand” the leader of the opposition—got drowned out—and eventually said that everyone comes from immigrant stock, so nobody should blame immigration for housing shortages. Poilievre waved the Order Paper question response in the air to say that the government themselves blamed immigration, and Robertson started saying something to the effect of the difference between immigrants and immigration, before he again got drowned out, before he got out the fact that the leader of the opposition demonises immigrants before he again got drowned out.

Yves-François Blanchet then led for the Bloc, and he too whinged that the prime minister isn’t letting the new Quebec premier speak at the Canada-EU summit. Lightbound reminded him of how many Quebec Liberals got elected and patted himself on the back for the increased trade with Europe, in collaboration with the provinces. Blanchet continued to bellyache on PSPP’s behalf, and Lightbound insisted that Quebeckers want the government to carry on with their trade plans. Blanchet got increasingly pissy about the supposed snub, and Lightbound said an invitation was extended for him to greet dignitaries and to be at the dinner, and he hoped the premier would be there.

https://twitter.com/hassinhadi/status/2115122619578290472

Continue reading →

Life came at David Eby fast

Posted on by

So, the BC election was quite something. On one level, David Eby will replace David Peterson as the cautionary tale for calling an election too early and being punished at the ballot box for it. And it looks a lot like the this was not so much the strength of the BC Conservatives’ vote, but rather that the NDP stayed home because they were mad or discouraged with Eby, so this was their way of punishing him. Also? There has been a lot of media nonsense abotu how this was the first BC Conservative win in over a century. No. It may have been the first time the brand has one in a century, but the anti-NDP forces in the province keep changing their name and their voter coalition fragments and coalesces, but these are for the most part the same people who governed as the BC Liberals just a few years ago. Let’s be real about this.

https://bsky.app/profile/jmcelroy.bsky.social/post/3myqd4zmaws2u

In British Columbia there is the NDP and the anti-NDP. The latter change their name every few decades. These guys haven't been out of power a decade.

— Alex Usher (@alexusherhesa.bsky.social) 2026-10-25T07:36:16.825Z

Meanwhile, the BC Conservatives’ future is going to be interesting, considering how much of a Frankenstein’s monster the party is. I am not confident that the caucus is built to last, because as I have said in many places before, this is not a party that has a coherent ideology or policy book other than “We’re not the NDP,” and that causes problems. And sometimes, power can be disciplining—it worked for Stephen Harper for many years, until it didn’t. But sometimes power also means that people in the party want to lead, and will do anything to get that leaders. (See: Alberta’s PC Party post-Ralph Klein). We’ll see what wins out, and whether a moderate like Lorne Doerkson can have enough force of personality to hold the party together. On a side note, maybe the fact that Doerkson was a caucus-selected leader who didn’t implode the party and won an election is a sign that maybe, just maybe, we might see the light and return to caucus-selected leaders in this country? (Yeah, I know, I’m dreaming. But still).

As for what is coming, there are some warning signs ahead, particularly when it comes to First Nations in BC, because so much of what the BC Conservatives ran on was the repeal of what they call DRIPA (being the legislation to enact UNDRIP) becuase of a moral panic from a bad misreading of the Cowichan decision and the false belief that it spells the end of property rights in the province. It doesn’t, that’s not what the decision said, and this has been a racist attempt to undo the work of reconciliation in the province. There are some other concerns about queer and trans rights, given that there is a contingent of the Conservatives that were about repealing “SOGI” in schools (sexual orientation/gender identity), even though they weren’t quite as extreme about it as the far-right OneBC party was. Plus, the party had to dump one candidate for Hitler statements, so I’m not all that confident about their candidate vetting. Lots is still up in the air, but we’ll see how things start to shake out.

David Eby Is Just Wondering Why British Columbia Is Mad At Him youtu.be/WeSd4Vvrqx8

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2026-10-25T22:10:20.754Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-10-26T19:08:05.260Z

My Latest:

My weekend column points to how the Conservatives are trying to be “clever” in how they are framing their anti-immigration stances, and trying to blame it on the Liberals.

Continue reading →

QP: One national credit card or three?

Posted on by

The PM was in town meeting with premiers and First Nations leaders, but not in the House of Commons. Pierre Poilievre was present and led off in French, worrying about a Quebec headline about rising food bank use, and blamed it on government spending and inflation. (Note: While headline inflation is elevated on oil prices, core inflation is on target). François-Philippe Champagne noted how many Canadians and Quebeckers benefitted from their programmes and that the Conservatives voted against it. Poilievre railed about national debt and inflation and that taxpayers were servicing the debt instead of paying for hot meals, to which Champagne again pointed to the benefits delivered to Canadians and wondered if Poilievre would cut them. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the nonsense that the debt was “out of control,” that this would fuel inflation, and that it was all on the “natonal credit card.” Champagne cited that we have the most educated workforce in the world, we have the ability to build everything, and they are doing everything to build the country. Poilievre accused the government of “cooking the books” and spouted some utter nonsense about the spending being split between “three credit cards,” referencing operational spending, investment, and Crown corporatios, which doesn’t actually make any sense whatsoever. Champagne accused him of talking the economy down and repeated some Build Canada Strong™ talking points. Poilievre decried how much was being spent on interest on said debt, to which Tim Hodgson listed the jobs created by major projects. Poilievre continued to rail about debt interest, and claimed to break it down to how much in taxes a family has to pay for that interest. Champagne suggested he read the Fiscal Monitor to see how our public debt charges are still near historic lows.

Marilène Gill led for the Bloc, and she turned to the party’s usual denunciations of C-39. Dominic LeBlanc accused her of characterising decisions in an inaccurate way, and insisted that moving faster doesn’t mean that standards or consultations aren’t being respected. Gill raised the lawsuit by “youth” about the environment and suggested the government not fight them but move in the right direction. Steven MacKinnon said that young people in Quebec dream about jobs, that they will build with projects like Churchill Falls. Andréanne Larouche then raised the labour provisions of C-39, and MacKinnon dismissed these concerns.

Continue reading →

Surrendering the field to the separatists, once again

Posted on by

As the Alberta referendum is now in advanced voting, I am finding my patience being severely tested as the “Lead Not Leave” crowd continues to rely on the same lies and manufactured grievances that the separatists employ to try and insist that while their grievances are real (they’re not), there is a better solution than separation, such as a federal government that capitulates to their demands. But Justin Trudeau did not cause the oil price crash in 2014, Stephen Guilbeault wasn’t even elected until 2019 and wasn’t environment minister until 2021, none of them did anything to cause capital to flee the country (that was the oil price crash), and the oil companies themselves went along with the plans to reduce emissions, claiming they were committed to the goal (only to relevel that—surprise!—they were lying as soon as they had a federal government that was more willing to capitulate than hold them to their promises).

Honestly, fuck off with this revisionist history. Trudeau and Guilbeault didn't cause the world price of oil to crash in 2014. They did nothing to "shut in" Alberta's resources. Trudeau offered help to Alberta in 2015 when Harper didn't. www.readtheline.ca/p/jim-dinnin…

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-10-15T02:44:22.717Z

The fact that the "remain" camp keeps telling everyone the lies about these fabricated grievances means that they are just accepting the separatists' arguments, and that just seems incredibly stupid because it's validating their false narratives. Can nobody have an honest conversation about 2014?

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-10-15T02:44:22.718Z

I cannot stress enough that if you agree with the separatists’ lies, then you have already surrendered the field to them. You are saying that they’re right about the issues, but only wrong in the solutions, which is ridiculous. The “Lead Not Leave” crew also engages in the other false narratives about Albertans, that they are somehow unique examples of people who work harder and are more ingenious than the rest of the country, which isn’t true either. Alberta, when it was carved out of the Northwest Territories, happened to be rich in resources that the First Nations signed treaties to share. Albertans are not harder workers than anyone else. Their ability to extract resources was not thanks to something special about them—they got a shit tonne of federal dollars and special tax treatment.

Speaking as an Albertan, I cannot roll my eyes hard enough every time someone insists that Albertans are a separate people because of their "work ethic" and "entrepreneurial spirit," as though it was their hard work and ingenuity that put the oil in the ground in the first place.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-10-15T02:50:18.115Z

"Oh, but it was our ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit that developed the oil sands!"No, it was a fuckload of money and tax breaks courtesy of Jean Chrétien, both when he was Pierre Trudeau's finance minister and later prime minister. Not that you'll ever hear an Albertan admit that fact.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-10-15T03:10:23.265Z

Their good fortune is virtue! Cree first identified the oil sands. Europeans needed a Treaty to exploit it. And now Alberta (a non party) want to end said treaty through individual votes-which contravenes international law, Canadian law Cree law (per Sylvestre). open.alberta.ca/dataset/d5a7…

— Orlagh O’Kelly (@orlaghokelly.bsky.social) 2026-10-15T03:57:27.341Z

Groups like “Lead not leave” and the federal Conservatives who claim to be fighting for the remain side in this referendum rely on these lies and falsehoods to make their point, which is just conceding that the separatists have a point. Until any of them can have anything approaching an honest conversation about what happened in 2014 (and 1981 for that matter), we’re just perpetuating this same cycle of manufactured grievance and this referendum will solve nothing.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-10-14T13:08:03.510Z

My Latest:

For National Magazine, I dig into the issue of “digital trade alignment” that the Americans were pursuing, and why that is a backdoor to attacking sovereignty.

Continue reading →

No tariff relief in sight with two parties in favour

Posted on by

The heads of the two main automotive lobbies were on the Hill yesterday to call for a resumption of negotiations so that tariff-free access can be returned to the auto sector, which is integrated across the border. The problem is that it’s not Canada that’s the problem here, it’s the US, and not just Trump. To wit, even Democrats are saying they would keep tariffs in place, particularly ones the UAW are calling for.

The trouble, you see, is that the U.S. now has two pro-tariff parties.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2026-10-09T00:25:07.710Z

The UAW want to keep the section 232 tariffs in place to protect the US auto industry, Canada be damned. So much for so-so-solidarity with their Canadian brethren and sistren! I think that the auto industry in this country needs to seriously start thinking about a different future because we’re not going to get back to the old status quo. There is simply too much pressure in the US to maintain protectionism, and that ends badly for us, and the longer we keep waiting for something to change in the hopes that the old normal will return, the more our industry is going to suffer.

Disinfo cowardice

Canada has withdrawn its sponsorship of a European disinformation conference because of American pressure. Some of the panels at this conference included discussions of Americans as sources of disinformation, and so they leaned on us, and Lithuania, among others, to pull out, and Canada backed out. They made a bunch of excuses about how there were changes to the “framing” of several panels, which organizers disputed and had receipts, and the CBC even used the Wayback Machine to confirm that Global Affairs was lying to them. This is a very bad sign for the future, and where we can assert our own sovereignty, especially in the face of American pressure and yes, disinformation. Once again, Carney is showing cowardice while making a big roar.

4 What does the Carney government‘s inability to withstand pressure over a few panels at a conference tell us about its willingness to actually regulate US tech companies, or to pursue “digital sovereignty”? Does Mark Carney’s digital sovereignty include predatory and monopolistic US corporations?

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-10-08T10:46:22.753Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-10-08T19:08:02.783Z

Continue reading →