Tag Archives: Greenland

Roundup: Our useless minister of digital asbestos

Posted on by
Reply

In the wake of the Tumbler Ridge shooting, we have learned that OpenAI had suspended the shooter’s account but decided not to alert the RCMP about the fact that they had breached the guidelines meant to prevent violence, and didn’t reach out until days after the shooting occurred.

Enter Evan Solomon, our minister of digital asbestos, who released a statement late afternoon Saturday, that demonstrated his utter uselessness.

Evan Solomon’s useless statement on OpenAI not alerting police about the Tumbler Ridge shooter. What an absolute waste of space at the Cabinet table.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-21T21:51:49.274Z

“All options are on the table”? Bullshit. Solomon has stated time and again that he decided to move away from a safety-first regulatory approach to digital asbestos, to a “light touch” because the tech bros convinced him and Mark Carney that any regulation is going to “stifle innovation,” and they certainly wouldn’t want to do that. Meanwhile, the number of people spiralling into psychosis using these chatbots are increasing dramatically, we had indications that a mass shooter triggered the protocols on this particular chatbot but the company didn’t do anything about it, and we really believe that Solomon is going to what? Block them from operating in Canada? Fine them a paltry sum? What? The truth is he won’t, and we know why. He’s guzzled the hype, as has his boss, and neither of them can be told anything different, even in the face of fact after fact showing that the creators of this technology are the dumbest manbabies alive, that the technology is corrosive to the environment and to the cognitive abilities of the next generation, but hey, we wouldn’t want to “stifle innovation.” Come on. Do your job and ensure that Canadians are actually being protected from this rather than just being complicit.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia inflicted a missile and drone attack on a Kyiv suburb over the weekend, as well as on energy infrastructure around Odesa. As well, several bombs exploded in Lviv on Sunday, which are also being blamed on Russia. The Star follows one family who has been shattered by the war over the past four years.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The annual Standing Orders debate

Posted on by

Either out or morbid curiosity or as a cry for help, I watched yesterday’s House of Commons’ debate on proposing changes to the Standing Orders, and…I didn’t hate it? There were actually some good ideas in there, and there were calls to undo a couple of changes that were made during the height of the pandemic to accommodate “hybrid parliament,” which I hadn’t realised had been changed. While this was kicked off by Liberal MP Corey Hogan’s suggestions for reforming Question Period, which I wrote about in my weekend column, there were a number of other reasonable suggestions. One common theme by several MPs across party lines was to end the vestiges of hybrid sittings, which I wholeheartedly agree with, and some of that included the remote voting app (which again, is an affront to Parliamentary democracy and should be abolished), but that will be a tougher sell. A number of MPs also had gripes about the ability of the Senate to stall or kill private members’ bills through delay, but that has nothing to do with the Standing Orders, as the House does not write the rules of the Senate.

  • Michael Chong wants to restore the Speaker’s right of recognition and do away with speaking lists, and adopt the UK practice of allocating time among the number of MPs who want to speak to a specific bill or motion. (Agreed!) He also wants to ensure that the Speaker and a committee of MPs appoint the Clerks and Sergeant-at-Arms, and wants committee spots and chairs determined by secret preferential ballots, and for the Board of Internal Economy to only be comprised of backbenchers. All of these are reasonable.
  • Yves Perron wants the prayer replaced with a moment of reflection, and to have a designated time on Fridays for a more free-flowing question-and-answer session with ministers akin to the special committee of the whole sessions during COVID. He also wants limits on the size of panels at committees to ensure that they are more manageable He also wants unanimous consent motions to be held on Wednesdays and to be tabled in advance (which I’m very dubious about).
  • Jenny Kwan and Pat Kelly both want the return of voice votes/standing five to trigger recorded votes, which was one of those hybrid rule changes that needs to be undone. Kwan wants new rules on dissenting committee reports being presented, and no Supply Days on Wednesdays of Fridays (but they are already limited as to the number they can have, and that would take up all Tuesdays and Thursdays).
  • Kelly wants to invert the times for speeches and questions and answers, so you have shorter speeches and longer question/comment segments (which I’m not opposed to).
  • John-Paul Danko is concerned about parliamentary privilege being weaponized to allow slander to be clipped and shared over socials.
  • Scott Reid had some very specific concerns about ethics complaints being weaponized (but I’m not sure that’s in the Standing Orders).
  • Kevin Lamoureux wants concurrence debates to be held after government orders, as they are used as dilatory motions. He also wants a segment where MPs can speak to any bill of their choosing for five or ten minutes on a Friday.
  • Garnett Genuis wants guardrails on unanimous consent motions used to pass bills at all stages, and wants to do away with the parties asking suck-up questions during question/comment segments after speeches.

In all, there are actually a few good ideas in there, but we’ll see how much the Procedure and House Affairs committee takes up any of them (and I am not hopeful on most). Nevertheless, it was nice to see a reasonable debate on some (mostly) reasonable ideas on how to make the House of Commons work better.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-02-06T23:56:01.289Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Canada is sending AIM missiles for Ukraine’s air defence. President Zelenskyy is calling for faster action on air defence and repairing the power grids.

https://twitter.com/FedorovMykhailo/status/2019728147579871319

Continue reading →

Roundup: No federal backstop for Smith’s threats

Posted on by

Alberta premier Danielle Smith’s threats around withholding funding for her province’s justice system if she doesn’t get her own way on judicial appointments is attracting broader attention, and there was a particular exchange at a Senate committee the other day that bears pointing out. When asked about this thread, federal justice minister Sean Fraser essentially said that if Smith does this, it’ll be a choice, but also that the federal government is not going to swoop in and backstop this funding lapse with federal dollars.

https://bsky.app/profile/senatorpaulasimons.bsky.social/post/3me4zvsm23k27

This is a good thing. Frankly, if the federal government did this, it would set a terrible precent because all provinces are underfunding their justice systems, and if they backstop Alberta because Danielle Smith is acting like an entitled baby throwing a tantrum, then every other province will cut their own funding and hope for a federal backstop, and once again, things will get worse in our system because provinces aren’t living up to their obligations. They’re not right now, but this would make things infinitely worse. Of course, if this does happen, the federal government will actually have to get off their asses and loudly point this out repeatedly that this is the provincial government’s fault. They should be doing it right now, with the whole nonsense going on around bail reform, but this would be infinitely worse. Court delays for simple matters? Thank Smith. Criminals going free because they can’t get trial dates? Thank Smith. Did that accused murderer get released because they couldn’t actually hold a trial with no functioning court house, no prosecutors and no court staff? Thank Smith. That’s the kind of thing that they need to be doing as is, but they lack the gonads to do so, but they would need to step it up even more if Smith did pull that trigger.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Bar Association is speaking out about Smith’s unconstitutional demands, and other law organizations are joining them, while also explaining how the judicial appointment process works, and why Smith is wrong to characterize them as “activists” who act on the federal government’s behalf. It also bears reminding that the UCP purged the provincial judicial nomination committees in favour of partisan appointees, and that two sitting judges are under investigation for donating to the party, so maybe Smith’s concerns about supposedly political choices are just her projecting and admitting she wants to fix the process for her own political ends.

Ukraine Dispatch

Two people were injured in the overnight attack on Kyiv early Thursday. Ukrainian forces made a successful strike against one of Russia’s missile launch sites. The “peace talks” have seen another agreement on exchanges of prisoners of war.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Inventing a new grievance to get mad about

Posted on by

Alberta premier Danielle Smith is at it again, by inventing a grievance regarding the appointment of judges, and is threatening the federal government to withhold funding for the justice system in the province if she doesn’t get her own way when it comes to having a say in who gets appointed, both with Superior Court and Court of Appeal appointments, but also with the upcoming appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada, as the vacancy opening up is a “western” seat on the bench. This is insane, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s possibly the dumbest thing to threaten. Her claim that she needs input because of the “distinct legal traditions” of Alberta is a load of absolute horseshit—Alberta has no distinct legal traditions. Quebec has a civil code which is separate from the common law that the rest of Canada employs, so yes, they have a distinct legal tradition. Alberta does not. It’s beyond risible that she is threatening to implode the province’s justice system over something that does not exist.

1) This is blatantly unconstitutional2) Withholding funding from which judicial appointments? Provincial? Because federally-appointed judges get paid from the federal budget. That's why new judicial spots end up in federal budget bills3) Withholding any funding will make the justice system worse

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-03T21:57:28.042Z

Provinces are already underfunding their judicial systems (provincial judges, court houses, clerks, bailiffs, Crown attorneys, remand facilities, etc). If she wants to withhold more funding, and then claim the federal Liberals caused crime, well, that'll be a real choice on her part.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-03T21:57:28.043Z

Also, this is just an other invented grievance, which conservatives in Alberta love to do, and then claim that they are being oppressed because they're not getting something that nobody gets in the first place. Call it out, as just that.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-03T22:04:53.329Z

It’s almost certain that this is supposed to be some kind of a stunt to demand judges that are tougher on crime, and that she can somehow “direct” as she has been quoted as wanting to do, which is an affront to judicial independence and the very nature of the rule of law. And frankly, we don’t have a judicial culture in this country of ultra-conservative judges who throw the book at everyone like they do in the US, because those judges tend to be elected, so they go extra hard to win votes. That’s not how this works here. And frankly, the appointment of judges is for lawyers to self-nominate to a judicial advisory committee, who then vets them and then either recommends them to the minister or not. Smith trying to insert herself into this process is simply asking to undermine the process and to personally reduce confidence in the justice system. Just absolute lunacy.

She is her inventing a grievance to be mad about. There are no distinct legal traditions in the province. They are a common law jurisdiction like eight other provinces in the country. Quebec has a civil code, which is a distinct legal tradition, and Alberta does not.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-03T22:06:57.965Z

Let’s call this out for what it is—Smith is quite literally inventing things to get mad about, and then throwing a tantrum about an imaginary problem that doesn’t exist, so that she can be performative in her “Western alienation” pantomime. None of this is real, but she has determined that constantly having everyone mad at Ottawa is her ticket to staying in power perpetually, but it’s a really stupid plan. That kind of anger is exhausting, and will lead to unintended consequences, but most of all, this is just more fodder for the separatists that she claims not to represent (even though we all know that she doth protest too much over that one). Now the question becomes whether anyone in the federal government will call this out, and point-blank say that this is just an invented grievance, or will they back down, and try and placate her in some manner? Because if it’s the latter, that’s a very big mistake.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-02-03T15:08:06.097Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The attack on Zaporizhzhia on Tuesday killed two people and injured at least nine others, while a power plant in Kyiv was badly damaged. President Zelenskyy says that Russia used the US-backed “energy ceasefire” to simply stockpile more ammunition and drones, and launch another attack.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Badly rebranding the GST rebate

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney opened the day at an Ottawa-area grocery store, announcing that as an affordability measure, the government is going to increase the GST rebate by 25 percent for the next five years, and rebrand it as the “Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit,” which is a mystifying name, and like they didn’t learn a gods damned thing from the “Climate Action Incentive” fiasco. (Honest to Zeus, you guys!) But yes, giving low-income people money is a good way to go about it, and the Conservatives say they’ll support it, for what it’s worth, even though they continue to insist that the real culprit are those imaginary “hidden taxes” that aren’t taxes, and which have a negligible impact on the price of food.

This rebranding shows they didn't learn a fucking thing after the "Climate Action Incentive" fiasco.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-01-27T04:57:18.254Z

More money and top ups to GST credit is good as myself, @gillianpetit.bsky.social and @jrobson.bsky.social wrote about before policyoptions.irpp.org/2022/09/gst-….Renaming it is unnecessary and has unnecessary risks. I don’t understand

— Dr Lindsay Tedds (@lindsaytedds.bsky.social) 2026-01-26T16:49:53.171Z

Conservatives still pushing the bullshit line that it's "hidden taxes" driving up food prices and not climate change.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-01-26T18:01:22.926Z

Carney also promised to tackle the “root causes” of food price inflation, but he remains fairly vague about what they are. “Global supply chain shocks caused by tariffs, weather events from a changing climate, and geopolitical disruptions have caused food prices to rise faster than overall inflation.” This is fine enough in the abstract, but when you’re being assailed daily over certain prices, I would prefer some better explanation. He went on to say “Orange juice is up 12% year-over-year, ground beef is up 19%, and coffee and tea are up by 24%,” but could have added that orange juice is up because the crops were devastated by hurricanes, that ground beef is up because drought on the prairies means herds needed to be culled, and coffee and tea are up because of growing conditions in the countries where they are produced. And while it’s all well and good to signal that he plans to help support the construction of new greenhouses and to fix supply chains in this country, that doesn’t actually solve the broader climate issues that he needs to be honest about and explicit about for it to sink in.

From there, Carney jetted off to Toronto to have a pizza lunch with Doug Ford, in order to soothe Ford’s hurt feelings over the whole Chinese EV thing, and they denied that there was ever any tension. Ford later sang the praises of the federal auto strategy, which seems to indicate that maybe he should have waited for a phone call before throwing a tantrum in public, but hey, what would Ford be if he wasn’t constantly infantilising himself with these kinds of antics while insisting he’s the “fun uncle” who doesn’t have to handle adult responsibilities.

The pool readout from Carney's pizza lunch with Ford.Zeus wept.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-01-26T22:09:06.947Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia has once again attacked Kharkiv, leaving 80 percent of the city and surrounding area without power.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Conspicuous silence from Poilievre

Posted on by

In the wake of prime minister Mark Carney’s big Davos speech, it has been noticed that there is a conspicuous silence coming from Pierre Poilievre, aside from the fact that he was tweeting misleading things about grocery prices, because his strategy is to keep hammering away at cost-of-living issues while the world is on fire. Apparently, his office was circulating a statement before the speech about how a trip to Davos was an “unneeded indulgence” that wasn’t going to resolve any tariffs, because of course, he doesn’t travel. That hasn’t stopped his various proxies from floating their own attack lines, either insisting that it’s nothing but an empty speech (not entirely untrue), or being utterly dismissive and saying that he needs to be back at the table with the Americans to resolve the tariff issues, as though there is a deal to be had with Trump and his mercurial whims where agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. It’s clear there isn’t, and that is becoming an ever-more irrelevant attack line with each passing day.

Meanwhile, here is a look at some of the global reaction to the speech, but one of the comments that stands out is from Michael Kovrig, who has a warning about how some of Carney’s language is being used, particularly in the way he invokes Havel, and how it sets up a false equivalency between the American-dominated rules-based order with totalitarian communism, and why that could have repercussions.

In pundit reaction, Kevin Carmichael is impressed with Carney’s Davos speech, and finds the biggest lesson in it to be the reminder from Havel that we are not powerless. Seva Gunitsky parses the references to Thucydides and Havel in the speech, and how they apply to the American empire. Althia Raj weighs some of the positives and negatives of Carney’s Davos speech. Philippe Lagassé has questions about the government’s defence and intelligence priorities in the wake of Carney’s speech, because they are greatly affected. And Paul Wells strips the speech of its applause lines and contemplates the core of it, and what some of the inevitable critiques will be.

Ukraine Dispatch

Nearly 60 percent of Kyiv remains without power after attacks on its energy grid, making it their hardest winter yet. An executive of the state grid operator died while supervising repairs at a power facility, but they won’t say how. Ukraine’s new defence minister is planning a sweeping, data-drive overhaul of the military.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mixed messages in Carney’s Davos speech

Posted on by

There has been much praise for prime minister Mark Carney’s speech in Davos yesterday, but I have some fairly mixed feelings about it. For one, much of the speech was a collection of the lines he’s used in previous speeches, and put them all into one place, so rhetorically, there wasn’t much new, even if he invoked Thucydides or Havel. And he’s not wrong that the truth of the rules-based international order was that the “great powers”—meaning the US—exempted itself whenever they wanted, but they also guaranteed its operation, so it was double-edged. And he was also correct in calling out that the instinct to go along to get along won’t save anyone. And he did pledge support for Greenland, NATO and Article V, so that was all good.

Some thoughts from me on Mark Carney’s important speech in Davos. youtu.be/Xj1VHwVgsAY?…

— Roland Paris (@rolandparis.bsky.social) 2026-01-20T18:26:05.275Z

However. The fact that he very carefully avoided naming Trump and the US means that this was not nearly as brave as some people would like. And it exposed some of the hypocrisy of his own positions—for example, saying that appeasing won’t save you is all well and good, but for months now, he has been constantly appeasing the Americans to “keep talks going,” such as how he killed the Digital Services Tax. I also have grave reservations about simply declaring the rules-based order dead and saying that “nostalgia is not a strategy” (while back home, he keeps invoking a false nostalgia about being a country that built things) because the middle powers need that structure, even if America isn’t playing ball. That means leaning into those rules collectively, and appealing to Europe to be the vanguards of that. There was an inherent hypocrisy in talking about his “values-based realism” because there are no values to be displayed when you deal with people who engage in slave labour and whom your government declared was perpetrating a genocide. He wants us to leverage a network of relations with other countries and trade blocs, but he’s cutting Global Affairs and the diplomats who would do this work. There is just so much inconsistency in what he’s saying and what he’s actually doing.

From Carney's Davos speech. This is one of the things I referred to in this morning's column—I fail to see the "respect for human rights" in all of the so-called "strategic partnerships" he's been signing, and shrugging that off as "pragmatic" just winds up reeking of hypocrisy instead.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-01-20T16:33:28.210Z

Carney has spent the past year subtweeting Trump.At a certain point, these words mean nothing if he won't actually come out and say what he's criticizing.

— Justin Ling (@justinling.ca) 2026-01-20T16:15:56.156Z

This is the right understanding of our geopolitical reality, but Carney's actions aren't in line with these statements. We need investment in our diplomatic corps and a clear foreign policy to mobilize Canada to meet the moment. www.cbc.ca/news/politic…

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2026-01-20T16:13:17.066Z

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3mcum6ygq3c2h

And getting into bed with other illiberal regimes to counter the one south of us risks tainting us as well.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-01-20T16:54:40.840Z

There was a contrast with Justin Trudeau, who was also at Davos, with Katy Perry in tow, and of course all of the focus was on her, and not the speech Trudeau gave. Where people did know about it, most of the comments were dismissive, but I think he actually has a relevant point in contrast to Carney. While both pointed out that the era of the rules-based international order that protected rights and freer trade is over, Trudeau made a point of talking about respect for international law and respect for allies as the way through the crisis, and that Canada has built up enough credibility globally that people know that if we are in a conflict zone, it’s not to steal oil or sell them Coca-Cola while we replace their system of government. I think that is something that Carney was missing, and it goes the point I was making in my latest column that we have soft power leverage we can use, if Carney wasn’t so intent on just squandering it.

Ukraine Dispatch

The attacks on power infrastructure in Ukraine risks nuclear meltdowns because of the to run cooling systems, which is part of Russia’s strategy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More “strategic investments” from a brutal dictator

Posted on by

Mark Carney was in Doha, Qatar, over the weekend, to meet with the Emir and get a commitment on “strategic investment” in Canadian infrastructure projects, while the Qatar Philharmonic Orchestra serenaded them with old CanCon hits. Carney also invited the Emir to visit Ottawa later in the year. The problem? Qatar is a pretty brutal dictatorship that employs slave labour, has no women’s or LGBTQ+ rights, and they play a role in being middlemen for a number of listed terror groups in the name of mediation and facilitation of conflict resolution. But hey, they have money and access in the Middle East, and they might want to partner with Canada for humanitarian and development work, which is darkly ironic considering the cost of that money.

When are we gonna forge "a new strategic partnership" with a country that actually respects democratic values and the rule of law instead of rule by law?

— Emmett Macfarlane 🇨🇦 (@emmettmacfarlane.com) 2026-01-18T19:08:26.335Z

Meanwhile, Carney has brushed off Doug Ford’s concerns about the EV deal with China, and there seems to be this expectation that they can get investment to build these cheap EVs in Canada, but I have doubts about this considering that the reason they’re cheap is because they are being subsidized to overproduce for foreign market consumption so that they can get a foothold in those markets, and undermine them in order to create a tech monoculture. Carney also said that he’s “concerned” about Trump’s threats over Greenland, and it sounds like we may send some additional troops there, even though we already have an existing presence.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-01-18T21:02:07.506Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drone strikes in Zaporizhzhia on Saturday have left 200,000 Ukrainians without power.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A “strategic partnership” with China

Posted on by

During prime minister Mark Carney’s meeting with Chinese president Xi Jinping yesterday, a “strategic partnership” was signed that will see access for a limited number of Chinese EVs into the Canadian market in exchange for the promise to remove some tariffs on canola, along with the tariffs on Canadian pork and seafood, but only for the remainder of this year, maybe. In addition, there’s talk about cooperating on combatting drug trafficking (given the fentanyl issue), but some other vague language that is likely to be used by China to demand people to be extradited for trial. None of this is terribly great, but this is the result of months of behind-the-scenes diplomacy. If you listen to Michael Kovrig, he is pointing out the language in the agreement and that China is using, and that it’s really a test that aims to employ diplomatic gatekeeping instead of reconciliation.

Two immediate thoughts1. We have conceded a lot for promises of relief – not actual relief. Thanks, I hate it.2. This is a clear sign Carney is expecting very little to come of US trade talks this year. www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/artic…

— Stephanie Carvin (@stephaniecarvin.bsky.social) 2026-01-16T13:22:38.846Z

Trump basically shrugged off the news of this deal—or at least he did today, and that may change again. Scott Moe and Danielle Smith are happy with the deal, while Doug Ford is spitting mad. Pierre Poilievre is clutching his pearls, but is also asking the very relevant question of how Carney went from saying China is the country’s greatest threat to signing a “strategic partnership” with them in the space of less than a year. And frankly, Carney and his minister have been completely evasive on the issue, and the issue of human rights in China (remember how just last year Parliament voted on a motion that said that China was executing a genocide of the Uyghurs?). Because apparently “pragmatism” means we can’t have values anymore.

This all having been said, frankly, it was incompetence on the part of Carney and his ministers to let a group of frankly bad actors frame this issue of EVs versus canola into some kind of west-east dispute around how the federal government was protecting the auto sector at the expense of the west—a bullshit assertion given that western canola producers were warned not to let China take as much market share as they did, but they were both greedy and lazy, and China exploited that. Do I think that’ll change now with this deal? Nope. They’ll continue to rely on this to keep their Chinese market share overly large so that the next time China is mad about something, they’ll come up with another excuse to ban or tariff canola, and the sector will be right back in this same situation, because they’re greedy and lazy. And with regards to the auto sector, frankly it bears a share of the blame as well for dragging their feet on producing more and cheaper EVs, or charging infrastructure, or anything else, knowing that the market was shifting—while they demanded that the federal government do everything from funding the transition to demanding they set up the charging infrastructure. (Did the federal set up gas stations across the country back at the turn of the last century? No. Why should they now?)

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims to have taken two villages—one in Donetsk, one in Zaporizhzhia. In the wake of all of the attacks on energy infrastructure, Ukraine is currently only able to meet sixty percent of its electricity needs.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Eight non-binding agreements signed

Posted on by

Yesterday was prime minister Mark Carney’s big day in Beijing, where he met with premier Li Qiang, as well as the chairman of the standing committee of the National People’s Congress, Zhao Leji. Carney billed this as building a “strategic partnership” with China, and that he hoped this to be an “example to the world of co-operation amidst a time globally of division and disorder.”  There were high-level meetings away from journalists, and in the end, they had a big show about signing six non-binding agreements as well as two declarations to facilitate more trade, because hey, all of those ministers on the trip needed their photo-op moments. One of those agreements included the BC government and had to do with use of Canadian timber and increasing use of wood-frame construction in China, in order to expand the market beyond just pulp for paper. Another was an MOU on oil and gas—but doesn’t actually commit them to buying any more of our product.

This being said, there has been no progress on the tariff issues, though any announcement might be after the meeting with Xi Jinping today. Carney said that he is “heartened” by Xi’s leadership, which…is a bit problematic considering how much more Xi has cracked down on the country and has consolidated his own power within the Party. (Photo gallery here).

Of course, during the big meeting, Carney said that this “partnership” sets them up for the “new world order,” and hoo boy did every extremely online conservative and conspiracy theorist pick up on that one. Clearly, he meant that the shift away from American dominance was reshaping the global economy, but boy the choice of phrase “New World Order” was catnip to the absolute worst people online, and is once again an own-goal by Carney.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian attacks have destroyed a major energy facility in Kharkiv, as the country faces blackouts in the middle of winter. President Zelenskyy insists that Ukraine is interested in peace after Trump and Putin have lied that Ukraine is the holdout. Emmanuel Macron says that France is now providing two thirds of Ukraine’s intelligence, taking over from the Americans.

Continue reading →