Tag Archives: First Nations

QP: Like ABBA Gold, but worse

Posted on by

For what promised to be the final QP of 2025 (for real this time!), the PM was once again absent in spite of being in town. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and after claiming that his was the party of “hope,” he denounced the “hidden taxes” increasing the cost of food and demanded they be repealed. Steve MacKinnon replied that nobody calls the Conservatives the party of hope, but we wishes them a Merry Christmas all the same, and then reminded him that these taxes don’t exist. Poilievre took a swipe at Mark Carney’s absence, got his question taken away by the Speaker, and then he claimed the Liberals were blocking the attempts to pass crime bills. MacKinnon pointed out that the Conservatives have been the ones blocking except for the final day when they suddenly decided to want to move them ahead. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question on imaginary taxes, and Patty Hajdu stood up to remind him those taxes don’t exist, and then praised that the Canada Child Benefit cheques were going out early. Poilievre read about the Clean Fuel Regulations, and called them a tax, and Julie Dabrusin suggested he read the entire report, and pointed out that those regulations are good for canola farmers who can feed into the biofuel sector. Poilievre then returned to his horseshit assertions about the Liberals “blocking” their bail bill. MacKinnon accused Poilievre of living in a parallel universe and listed the crimes the Conservatives have been blocking the Liberals from fighting.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she said that under Carney, Canada has become a business which no longer cares about climate change, and took a swipe at Carney’s French. Dabrusin insisted that they have committed to strengthening the price on carbon and methane regulations, as clean electricity. Normandin went further on her analogy, calling Carney the CEO of Canada Inc., who needs to be reminded he is in a democratic Parliament. Joël Lightbound praised all of the measures the government is taking, and the things the Bloc voted against. Patrick Bonin took over to again lament the abandonment of climate, and this time Nathalie Provost said that they will meet the goal but needed to change their strategy because of changing circumstances.

Continue reading →

Roundup: MOU motion down in flames

Posted on by

As expected, the Conservatives’ Supply Day motion to try and force a vote on some of the language from the Alberta MOU went down in flames as the Liberals were wise to their bullshit, and didn’t play ball. They made it clear that the language was deliberately provocative in what it excluded, so Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives scrambled to try and amend their own motion, so that it included a bunch of other things, except one thing—any mention of the carbon price (without which, the Pathways carbon capture project can’t operate because it’s not fiscally viable). And so that’s what the Liberals hung their arguments on—that this wasn’t the full MOU, and it didn’t include the carbon price, or methane regulations, or anything else, so they weren’t going to vote for it. And nobody did.

The Conservatives could have probably done more damage to the Liberals if they tried to force a vote on the entire MOU, to really suss out the divisions in the caucus about it, but they couldn’t actually do that, because the MOU has the carbon price as part of it, and if the Conservatives voted to support the full MOU including the carbon price, they would be hypocrites because every day in Question Period, they falsely blame said carbon price for food price inflation (when in reality, the industrial carbon price’s impact on food is statistically zero). Their attempt at being clever blew up in their faces, because they’re not clever. They’re not the slightest bit intelligent. Of course, that isn’t going to stop them from shouting for the next eight weeks that “The Liberals voted against their own MOU! They don’t want to build a pipeline!” Of course, it’s not true because the Conservatives ensured that they weren’t voting on the actual contents of the MOU, but it’s not going to matter. They’re going to record videos of them claiming the Liberals voted against their own plans, and spread them across social media, but well, it’s not like we can expect the Conservatives—and Poilievre and Andrew Scheer in particular—to actually be honest for once.

Speaking of honesty, Tim Hodgson took to the microphone in the Foyer during the day to denounce the Conservatives’ stunt, but in the process declared that “caucus is united” behind the full MOU, when he knows full well that they are not. If the point of the day was to make the Conservatives look like the clowns, well, Hodgson didn’t exactly do his part. Then again, Hodgson is one of the worst performers on the front bench and he has absolutely zero political skills, so I’m not sure why anyone would be surprised here.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-09T22:22:02.273Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia’s top general says they are advancing their “entire front line” and moving into the town of Myrnohrad, which Ukraine denies, and says that Russia is paying a heavy cost for modest advances. Likewise, Ukraine still holds out in parts of Pokrovsk, and it has not fallen. President Zelensky has been rallying European allies as he says that any “peace” deal will not include ceding land to Russia. Ukraine is rolling out more restrictions on power usage as they repair their infrastructure from Russian attacks.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1998317649025966396

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Hajdu highlights the problems with provincial data

Posted on by

Ministerial Question Period in the Senate was actually being held a time that wasn’t counter-programming with QP in the Other Place, and so I was able to make it for a change. Today’s minister being grilled was Patty Hajdu, minister of jobs and families and minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario. As is usual for ministerial QP in the Senate, there is a longer clock for questions and answers, and the whole exercise is about 65 minutes and not 45, so it’s quite a different exercise than in the Commons.

At the Senate to watch Patty Hajdu for #SenQP.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-09T21:01:30.634Z

Senator Housakos led off, and he read a script about food insecurity and grocery costs, housing, and cost of living. Hajdu thanked the Senate for the invitation, before rattling off the government’s support programmes, and those benefits that are indexed to inflation, with some added back-patting for the school food programme. Housakos demanded the government change their methodology to get a different results, and Hajdu raised that report after report points to climate change affecting the price of food, they can control the supports for families who need it, which again got some back-patting for their programmes.

Continue reading →

QP: Supporting the MOU includes a carbon price

Posted on by

On a day when the Conservatives were preoccupied with their Supply Day motion shenanigans, the PM was present, where he was doubtlessly going to be grilled on the topic. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and declared that Canada needs a pipeline to the Pacific, to strengthen our economy, strengthen the dollar and restore purchasing power, then declared that Carney’s caucus rebelled, so Poilievre took the words from the MOU, and asked if he would vote for them, or if they couldn’t believe his words. Carney replied that the MOU isn’t something you can pick and choose from, and that they chose only a few words and left out the industrial carbon price, the methane regulations, the Net-Zero 2050 goals, and that they need to eat the whole meal and not just the appetizer. Poilievre took this as an invitation to falsely claim that the industrial carbon price was causing food inflation, and demanded it be abolished, to which Carney reminded him there is no carbon taxes on Canadian farms, and that the impact of that price, according to the Canadian Climate Institute, is effectively zero. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the claim that we need a pipeline to the Pacific, at the supposed rebellion, and that he took the wording for his motion came right from the MOU. Carney quoted the Canadian cricket team about needing to play the whole T20 and not just a couple of overs (a not-so-subtle reference to the fact that the national cricket team was in the Gallery) and that the MOU wasn’t just about the pipeline, it’s also Pathways, methane reductions and Net-Zero 2050. Poilievre insisted that if the government votes against the motion, they vote against things like consultation with First Nations. Carney responded that this was the first time that Poilievre acknowledged the constitutional duty to consult, but he hasn’t acknowledged working with provinces or industrial carbon pricing. Poilievre claimed that they believe in it and put it in their motion (but said nothing of consent), and claimed Carney was quietly telling his caucus the pipeline was never going to happen. Carney insisted that the MOU was about pipeline, carbon capture, inter-ties for electricity, digital asbestos data centres, industrial carbon pricing, and methane reductions. Poilievre then said the quiet part out loud and that the only thing the motion doesn’t include a carbon price, and demanded a pipeline without a carbon price. Carney responded by suggesting they instead vote for the whole MOU.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, raised Steven Guilbeault’s op-ed, and wondered if the government was choosing his caucus or the shareholders in the oil sector. Carney said he was choosing the Canadian economy which includes clean and conventional energy. Blanchet moved to the religious exemption for hate speech, and wanted Carney’s personal views. Carney said that Bill C-9 is about protecting religions, such as temples, synagogues and mosques, and the committee was considering this matter. Blanchet then raised someone who has preached “anti-Zionism” under religious freedom, before moving topics again to the issue of “discount drivers” on roads. Carney said that unacceptable word are always unacceptable, and that they are working to protect truckers, which is why they were tightening the rules.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Being too clever about the MOU’s language

Posted on by

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

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3m7jbmdjkfk2i

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.

https://twitter.com/coreyhoganyyc/status/1998142565791477875

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

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

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

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.

https://twitter.com/Denys_Shmyhal/status/1996524076379103739

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rustad’s reluctant ouster

Posted on by

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

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 →