Tag Archives: Keystone XL

A trade deal or future vassalage?

Posted on by

The back-patting and self-congratulation has already started as word is that there is some kind of deal with the Americans, on certain tariffs, but not actual free trade, and not on any kind of renewal of the New NAFTA. Trump insisted that this means no more trade barriers into Canada for alcohol and for farmers, while Dominic LeBlanc insists that Supply Management remains intact. (Fixing the import quota allocations would actually be a good thing, because the way it’s currently structured is fuckery, and Canada keeps losing at trade tribunals because of it). Premiers did confirm that Carney has asked them to end their booze bans—not that it will stop people from boycotting it on their own accord. But there are other questions that remain, such as Jamieson Greer talking about “digital trade alignment,” and there’s still no word about forestry, or what auto tariffs are going to be. What we’ve heard is that the s.232 tariffs on steel and aluminium are being lowered from 50 percent to 25, but is that really worth it?

We still have no real idea what's in this Canada-U.S deal from last night. There's been a few vague leaks from PM Carney's briefing of the premiers, but now Quebec's premier says a deal is "far from being concluded" and isn't sure she can get behind it.

— Justin Ling (@justinling.ca) 2026-08-20T02:13:16.970Z

There is this weird dichotomy happening between Carney and company talking about diversifying our trade while at the same time pursuing “deeper integration” with the US, as typified by the Keystone XL talk, which just sends even more oil to our captive market. And it remains to be seen just how much Carney is giving up for this temporary relief—and make no mistake, it will be temporary because there is no dealing with Trump, and even if he says he’s got a signed deal, that can implode overnight (and we have seen countless examples of this). I worry most about the likelihood that this gives Trump a win that will let him and his cadre believe that they have figured out the formula for Canadian capitulation, and that this becomes just one more step in pressure that leads to eventual vassalage. There cannot be “deeper integration” that just makes us a resource colony. And all of the Carney apologists are going to be absolutely apoplectic about this notion, but he’s not just giving Canadian businesses time to transition, because most of them have no interest in doing so. Most of them keep hoping that things will go back to the way they were before so that they can continue to be rent-seekers, and Carney has done absolutely nothing to disabuse them of that notion, and that’s a problem, and it’ll be an even bigger problem once we’re a vassal state.

As Goodale' comments here reaffairm, Carney's strategy has always been deeper US integration plus a slight hedge against future bad US economic policy. The belief that Carney's trade diversification and infrastructure projects can balance against closer ties is, and always has been, a fantasy….

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-08-19T22:38:48.514Z

… b/c in the new normal, stable, mutually beneficial long-term agreements are literally impossible.So long as Carney, Goodale et al hold onto the fantasy that a normal trade agreement is possible & that certainty can be returned to the relationship, Canada will become increasingly a vassal state.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-08-19T22:38:48.515Z

What Carney and Goodale and others stubbornly refuse to understand (or don't care) is that trade agreements with the United States today are no longer about negotiating potentially mutually beneficial economic advantages They're tools of domination designed to guarantee subservience.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-08-19T22:38:48.516Z

My Latest:

Continue reading →

A brief reprieve from threatened tariffs

Posted on by

There has been a slight reprieve on the expected imposition of new tariffs, which Trump says has to do with the revival of Keystone XL (which isn’t actually called that anymore). I’m not sure that that accomplishes overall, because it will likely mostly just wind up being trans-shipment for export on the Gulf Coast, and I doubt we have production capacity to fill both that pipeline as well as a second west coast pipeline, and if that means this is an invitation to ramp up even more production in the oilsands, well, that’s yet another climate betrayal by Carney.

Trump says he's pausing the new Canada tariffs for three days because there's a tentative deal which may include reviving the Keystone XL pipeline

— Thomas Seal (@twseal.bsky.social) 2026-08-19T02:20:17.599Z

From PMO:

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-19T03:14:59.266Z

Earlier in the day, the rumour being leaked was that the Americans were trying to put forward a deal on auto tariffs to lower them to 15 percent, but with a possible base level of 7.5 percent if the American content was increased. The problem, however, is that according to the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association’s Flavio Volpe, margins in auto assembly run around six percent, so they’d still be losing money, so it’s a non-starter. All of this to say that this is dragging out further, and I’m still not discounting yet more capitulation by Carney to get some kind of a “deal,” even though there is no actual deal to be had.

Proxy voting

Mike Moffatt published an op-ed in the Globe and Mail yesterday that expanded on his previous thoughts about proxy voting for parents with children, which is his way of getting around the notion that not giving everyone a vote undermines the one-person-one-vote ethos. I’m not a fan of this particular logic, and I think that his enthusiasm for how mothers would vote better in the interest of their children (as most mothers would be given the proxy vote using CCB rules in his vision) is wildly optimistic or utopian, I do worry that this would essentially be rewarding people with additional political power for having children, even for the sixteen or eighteen years that they have the proxy, which I find a bit distasteful.

More to the point, I worry about unintended consequences. Like how voting rates plummeted after we lowered the voting age to 18, and how people have been wringing their hands about it ever since. One of my particular concerns is that this becomes yet another de facto gerrymander to increase the weights of rural ridings over urban ones, as rural families tend to have more children than urban ones, and this just perpetuates the already egregious problem of rural ridings being artificially weighted heavier than urban ridings, which in turn favours conservative parties in those areas, and that is often a deliberate strategy (looking especially at you, Alberta). Maybe I’m just being cynical, but as much as I can respect Moffatt’s reasoning, I don’t think it survives the test of reality.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A stolen voter list

Posted on by

There is a wild story happening in Alberta right now, where a separatist group got their hands on a copy of a voters list and made it public and searchable, which is a) illegal; and b) dangerous, particularly to people who are being threatened, stalked, or in hiding from abusive ex-partners, or so on. A judge ordered it taken down, Elections Alberta and the police are involved, but this is so, so messy. It appears that the list came from the already dubious “Republican Party of Alberta,” which was stood up in the interests of getting certain separatist personalities elected into the legislature, and the thing about voter lists is that they are salted with fake names in order to be traceable.

And then comes this twist—a month ago, journalist Jen Gerson warned Elections Alberta about this after receiving a tip from a source, and Elections Alberta said it was credible, but then did nothing because the list could have come from public sources, even though it would have been easy enough to check for the salted names. But they didn’t. And then a month later, this injunction comes down with the investigation, after all of this personal information has been on the internet and accessed by who knows how many people, putting some lives in real jeopardy as a result.

The thing is, we’ve been dealing with issues related to voters lists and privacy legislation federally, when the government tacked on these provisions to Bill C-4 (ostensibly about the GST cut on new homes and ending the consumer carbon levy), and it was basically a move to bigfoot provincial privacy commissioners over how parties protect this data, and simply insist that parties have a policy—nothing about minimum safeguards or any of that. Just a policy. These provisions got zero study in the Commons, because of course they didn’t, and it took a group of senators to try and force changes, and the only amendment they could pass was a sunset clause to push parties to get actual privacy protections in place, and then MPs rejected that amendment (and senators did not insist on it). Now, the government is revisiting these provisions somewhat in Bill C-25, but this whole debacle just underscores how important it is for parties to have proper safeguards, and to have serious teeth when it comes to enforcing them, because as stated above, lives are at stake when this information gets into the wrong hands.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones attacked Odesa again early Thursday, wounding at least 18 people. Ukrainian drones struck Russian oil infrastructure in Tuapse (again), Perm, and Orenburg.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Conflating failed with fraudulent

Posted on by

The Conservatives went ahead with their Supply Day motion of scapegoating asylum claimants for the strain on the healthcare system, and so many of their claims are based on falsehoods. The claim that a failed claimant is “bogus” of “fraudulent” is not true, and plenty of claimants rejected by the IRB win their appeal in Federal Court. The numbers of actually fraudulent claims are very small, and even rejected claimants may be rejected on technical grounds. Trying to conflate everyone as “bogus” or “fraudulent” is more of the MAGA mindset that they’re trying to tap into, because this is who the party has become. It’s too bad the government is too invested in their own attempts to scapegoat newcomers for problems that the premiers mostly created and refuse to fix, because they should be absolutely savaging the Conservatives on this, and they can’t—and won’t.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-02-24T22:22:02.270Z

Ukraine Anniversary

Yesterday was the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which was supposed to be a “three-day war.” There were a number of speeches and a moment of silence in the House of Commons to mark the occasion, so it didn’t go unnoticed. Prime minister Mark Carney announced that Canada will extend Operation Unifier to keep training Ukrainian troops for another three years, as well as donating another 400 armoured vehicles, and extending more sanctions. (Not announced were any resources or a competent federal policing agency to enforce those sanctions).

Four years have passed since Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine. Russia was supposed to win in three days. Instead, Ukraine reinvented modern warfare, built a drone industry, and can destroy a thousand Russian soldiers in a day. Ukraine can win.

— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum.bsky.social) 2026-02-24T09:58:52.954Z

Prime minister Carney's statement on the 4th anniversary of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-24T15:30:17.057Z

Conservative statement on the 4th anniversary of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-24T15:26:12.386Z

NDP statement on the 4th anniversary of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-24T15:26:12.387Z

https://twitter.com/SenGagne/status/2026324346189283440

Ukraine Dispatch

European leaders were in Kyiv to show support on the anniversary of the start of the war. Here is a look at how the attacks on energy infrastructure is dragging down Ukraine’s economy, and here is a look at how drone warfare has changed the nature of the conflict over the past four years.

https://twitter.com/FedorovMykhailo/status/2026404778884932075

Continue reading →

Roundup: Carney won’t retaliate

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney has dismissed calls by Doug Ford and others to retaliate against increasing American trade actions, insisting that this is not the time, and that this is the time to keep negotiating. But to what end? There is no deal to be had, and any deal they come up with isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. The talks keep “stalling,” and every time, the Americans make another demand to restart them, and Carney capitulates, and then the talks resume for a few days, and then they “stall” again. Because there isn’t a deal to be had. Sure, we currently have the “best deal” of everyone, which doesn’t amount to much given the constant tariffs under bullshit “national security” reasons, but their demands are increasingly encroaching on our sovereignty and ability to make our own policy decisions, again, for nothing. When do we start saying no more? Hopefully before we’re a vassal state.

Carney also said that he got “reassurances” from Stellantis about the Brampton plant that they decided to move production away from, but again, what good is that if they decide to keep shifting production south to avoid the tariffs, as Trump wants? Carney also isn’t saying if he’d drop Chinese EV tariffs for the sake of saving the canola trade, but again, that would be foolish because the next time China wants to make a point, they would tariff canola again, or come up with some kind of falsehood about “concerns” about the product, like they constantly do. It would be great if Carney could actually articulate that concern, rather than give false hope that this would be some kind of lasting solution to the canola issue.

Meanwhile, Carney announced his bail and sentencing reform plans, most of which are pretty much the opposite of what the legal community has warned against, and which does nothing about the fact that the real problem with bail is provinces under-resourcing their court systems, or that their jails are overcrowded, and that they’re not funding community supervision programmes, or that their underfunding social programmes means more people are going to find their way into crime. Tinkering with the Criminal Code and endangering people’s Charter rights will do nothing about this. And it’s so infuriating that Carney just capitulated to a bunch of complete falsehoods by the Conservatives, and this will change nothing (other than crowding those provincial jails even worse), and they’ll still get blamed when another case slips through the cracks.

They say they're going to work with the provinces, but rest assured that those provinces won't do what they need to do (resource their court systems), and that the situation is going to get even worse, and the federal government will again take the blame, and tinker with the Criminal Code even more.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-10-16T15:39:15.421Z

Also, as Dale notes, provinces have no room to incarcerate more people. Judges are reducing custodial sentences because jail conditions are so bad. bsky.app/profile/jour…

— Anna Mehler Paperny (@mehlerpaperny.bsky.social) 2025-10-16T18:03:49.009Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian attacks on Ukrainian gas facilities will force them to import more gas this winter. A large Russian assault near Dobropillia was repelled by Ukrainian forces. Reuters takes a deeper dive into Russia’s attacks on Russia’s energy industry. AP has a photo gallery of displaced Ukrainians at a hostel in Dnipro.

Good reads:

  • Lina Diab says that there will be some adjustments coming to the provincial nominee programme numbers.
  • Tim Hodgson says the Americans are interested in “energy security” as part of conversations about reviving the Keystone XL pipeline.
  • Both Alberta and Saskatchewan’s health ministers say that Marjorie Michel hasn’t approached them about joining the federal pharmacare programme.
  • DND and the Canadian Forces are suing NSIRA to block the release of a report on their intelligence activities, claiming the redactions aren’t sufficient.
  • FINTRAC has levied a $600,000 fine on the First Nations Bank for lack of proper controls over money laundering, which they acknowledge.
  • Former PBO Kevin Page and the head of the IMF both say that Canada’s finances are sustainable and could increase spending without issue.
  • As Mélanie Joly tries to press Lockheed Martin for more industrial benefits for F-35s, the company points to 30 companies in Canada providing components.
  • A study shows that Canadian passport holders outpace Americans for visa-free access to other countries.
  • Here is a look at the process to create the Supreme Court of Canada’s new ceremonial robes.
  • In more Dollarama Trumpism, Poilievre is calling for the RCMP to investigate and jail Trudeau for past ethics scandals, saying the senior ranks are “despicable.”
  • The premier of PEI is calling for a federal investigation into allegations of Chinese foreign interference and money-laundering in the province.
  • Wab Kinew is lobbing broadsides at other premiers over their use of the Notwithstanding Clause as he moves a bill to refer future all uses to the courts.
  • Rob Shaw chronicles BC Conservative leader John Rustad’s plummeting fortunes.
  • John Michael McGrath makes the depressing point that Canada has very little leverage when it comes to trying to preserve our auto industry.
  • My Xtra column points out that Carney’s hate crime bill is mostly empty symbolism because the real problem is a lack of police enforcing existing laws.
  • My (delayed) column makes the case that youth may be avoiding politics because they no longer have an entry point with grassroots party organisations.

Odds and ends:

https://twitter.com/RichardAlbert/status/1978906504154489171

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

QP: Trillion dollar fallacies, redux

Posted on by

With so many developing stories happening, it was probably a good thing that the PM was in attendance for a second day in a row, though it remained to be seen just how many of these issues would merit attention. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and immediately jumped into the complete falsehood about what the $1 trillion figure around investment in the American market, and said that if it’s supposed to be private money, if the government would “force” them to invest in the US or to just invest in Canada—which makes no sense whatsoever. Mark Carney responded in English that it was a momentous day and that they should recognise the Middle East peace plan, which he offered his support of. Poilievre, still in French, said that while they congratulate Trump on negotiating peace, but he asked a question in French about jobs and that the prime minister owed respect to answer the question, again about the falsehoods about the trillion dollar figure. Carney responded with his canned bullet points about having the best trade deal, and that they are still negotiating a better deal, and finally that as a result of the agreement, there would be more investment in Canada. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the same bad faith question on “forcing” investment in the U.S. Carney reminded him that he was there, before repeating his same bullet points that did not correct the disinformation or the bad faith reading. Poilievre insisted that we have he fastest-shrinking economy in the G7 (untrue), and again tried to insist that Carney was somehow going to force Canadian private money to invest money in the U.S., or just send them fleeing with high taxes. Carney reminded him that they cut income taxes, the capital gains tax, and the carbon levy, and then touted the forthcoming “generational investment budget.” Poilievre read Carney’s words on the trillion dollar investment, and framed it misleadingly, and wondered if there was an agreement that Trump would send the same north. Carney reminded him that there are no tariffs on auto parts or finished goods, and that they are working toward an agreement that will increase investment in Canada—which again, did not actually answer the question. Poilievre switched topics to energy, and the support for the a Keystone XL pipeline which can’t be filled so long as the emissions cap is in place (which is patently false). Carney said that the motion he voted against was about something that does not exist—being the supposed taxes on groceries. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and worried about the ongoing softwood lumber tariffs. Carney said that Canada currently has the best deal with the U.S. in the world, and that they are working to bring the steel and aluminium tariffs, and that the tariffs an autos and trucks are the lowest in the world. Blanchet then concern trolled that a new pipeline to the U.S. was not diversifying out economy. Carney patted himself on the back for the recent agreement with Indonesia and that more deals are coming for South America. Blanchet then pointed out that money for support programmes for steel and aluminium have not flowed yet, and Carney responded that they will have an opportunity to vote for that support in the budget.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pipeline necromancy in the discussions

Posted on by

With the prime minister back in Canada, a couple of additional things were made known about the meeting with Trump, and one of them was the fact that the “energy” portion of their conversation involved Mark Carney floating the possibility of reviving the Keystone XL pipeline. For those of you unaware, this is entirely an American decision—all of the infrastructure on the Canadian side of the border is pretty much in place, and this project was never in contention. The Trudeau government supported it, but the resistance was on the American side of the border, not only from environmental concerns, but also because there were conspiracy theories developing in places like Nebraska that this was a secret ploy to drain their aquifers. No, seriously. Nevertheless, this is something that the proponent abandoned after Biden rescinded the permits (even though part of the network was built and renamed), so it would need someone to pick it up again.

Meanwhile, US commerce secretary Howard Lutnick spoke virtually at a Eurasia Group event in Toronto, and said that there will be no tariff-free auto deal with Canada, that the most we can hope for is a relationship around auto parts, and that Canada needs to get used to coming in second place to the US. Lutnick also expressed a desire to replace the New NAFTA with bilateral deals rather than a trilateral agreement with Mexico. When Carney later addressed the same event virtually, he said that the government will come to some bilateral agreements with the US, and spoke of “granular discussions” around steel and aluminium tariffs, but didn’t address these comments, just as he didn’t address the reports of Lutnick’s remarks during QP.

It’s hard to know what to make of any of this. After insisting that there was a “rupture” in our trade relationship, this is yet one more proposal to deepen integration and reliance on the American market…but it’s also probably the most viable pipeline for Alberta (though there are proposals to optimise the capacity of the Trans Mountain Expansion that would increase its maximum capacity for west coast exports—not that it’s anywhere near capacity at the moment). On the other hand, if they want to pay for our oil, and also pay their own tariffs to do so, then why not take their money? None of this is going to stop Danielle Smith or the Conservatives from demanding that Carney rip up all of the government’s environmental legislation so that they can crank up production with no consequences (even though there are absolutely environmental consequences that are getting more and more expensive each year), and this isn’t going to create that many jobs in the sector, even if production is increased, given that they are increasingly relying on automation and have been since the last price crash in 2014. But everything is stupid all the time, so this is no exception.

effinbirds.com/post/7804636…

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-10-08T13:25:07.008Z

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy says that Ukrainian forces are inflicting heavy losses on the Russians in a counter-offensive in the Donetsk region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A mixed bag from the English debate

Posted on by

The Liberals’ English-language debate was held last night, and it was a much more lively affair, given that they weren’t speaking in very slow and deliberate French to get their points across. The first few minutes were a complete English-dub replay of Monday’s debate, with the exact same opening statements and first responses to the same question, so it took them a while to actually get to something new, but the longer it went on, the more annoyed I started to get at some of the absolute inanities that were on display. (Here are liveblogs from the Star and The Canadian Press, while I was live-tweeting Bluesky here).

One of the early topics was Canada’s place in the world, and after the initial chest-thumping about Trump, they got into things like NATO targets. Chrystia Freeland was probably the most clear-eyed here, talking about building a new democratic world order with allies that included the UK and France because they have nuclear capabilities (which was a sign of how serious this is), because America is no longer the “leader of the free world.” But when discussing spending to hit NATO targets, everyone was quick to say that they didn’t want those dollars going to American companies, but nobody seemed to have much of an idea of just what the Canadian defence industry was capable of producing for our needs, or the fact that we need to look to other allies because our defence industry is not large and can’t produce a lot of things we need quickly (lest we start buying into vapourware that companies like Bombardier will promise but have no guaranteed ability to deliver on). Oh, and Karina Gould deserves a time-out for pitching a “procurement czar.” No! Stop with this American bullshit!

Freeland has a very clear-eyed statement about building a new democratic world order now that the US is no longer the "leader of the free world." Baylis wants to get allies to bankruptcy Boeing as an example. (Good luck with what that's going to do to our military procurement).

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T01:29:48.917Z

Boy, there is a lot of wishful thinking about the state of the Canadian defence industry, and what capabilities that Canadian industry can produce. (We may have to look to other allies' industries, guys. Be frank and forthright about it.)

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T01:34:57.570Z

And now we're into another round of AI platitudes. And Baylis wants to recreate a research and development programme that already exists and has had challenges turning R&D into procurement. Like, it already exists. That's not the problem.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T01:40:12.215Z

The cost-of-living segment was…unenlightening, and had some of the worst pitches. Chrystia Freeland wants to cut red tape (how? You’ve had nine years!), and Karina Gould wants to modernise social services (provincial jurisdiction) and bring in a basic income (not going to work—there is research to prove it). There was a question on how to improve productivity that nobody could give an actual answer to except to wave their hands and say “AI,” as though it’s a magic incantation.

Moving onto the cost of living theme.You'll never guess, but Carney wants to "build our economy."

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T01:45:12.030Z

Baylis repeats his utter nonsense about fiscal discipline raising the value of the dollar (WHICH DOESN'T MAKE ANY GODS DAMNED SENSE!)And did he mention that he was a businessman? Because he's a businessman.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T01:47:14.001Z

Ireland, where a significant fraction of the paper economy is just US tech companies moving money in and out as a tax dodge? That Ireland?

— Nick P (@npilon.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T02:14:58.888Z

The topic that broke my brain completely was asking them how they could work with provinces to increase the number of doctors. Only Gould gave something resembling a coherent answer here. And again, when the topic changed to the carbon levy, everyone on the stage but Gould was utterly incoherent about how they would replace it (Gould would keep the levy but freeze it).

We've been convening the medical colleges for decades. How do you change that?!Baylis wants to redesign the system for chronic care (again, how is this federal?!) Freeland has an anecdote about a nurse practitioner! But doesn't say anything the *federal* government can do.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T02:25:28.637Z

Gould, correctly, says provinces don't have enough accountability for federal transfers, and points to how childcare agreements have specific guideposts. (The last round of federal transfers to have more strings and required action plans by provinces).

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T02:28:35.715Z

These answers on the carbon levy are *completely* incoherent (except for Gould, who is keeping but freezing it). Gould does admit that they didn't do a good job of talking about it, which no one else could muster the self-awareness to do.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T02:37:41.651Z

Baylis keeps saying "we'll build two pipelines."Who will? The federal government? Or do you think some proponent will swoop in with little economic case for it?

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T02:43:50.642Z

The final question was asking how they would differentiate themselves from Trudeau, and at first Freeland ignored the question, Gould talked around it before bringing up the fact that the party needs to get back to the grassroots, Baylis said he was going to be “focused on the economy” while Carney said he would be “laser-focused on the economy,” before adding that he’s very hands-on, and has heard from the supporters in caucus that Trudeau didn’t build many relationships with MPs, which he would do. The moderator circled back to Freeland, who talked about the campaign being a “personal liberation,” and that her style of leadership isn’t to be a “one-man band,” which is a pretty big repudiation of Trudeau’s leadership style (though I would say it’s more like a two-man band, because it’s more of a joint Trudeau-Katie Telford effort).

Overall, it was a mixed bag, and I couldn’t really determine someone I felt was a winner. Chrystia Freeland had some of the strongest responses, but some of the weakest delivery and framing of responses, and was very invested in playing nice in order to get second-place votes (because this is a ranked ballot). Gould was strong on many responses, but completely out to lunch on others, which tainted her credibility. Mark Carney kept repeating that he wants to “build the economy.” Over and over and again. Constantly. He still resorted largely to platitudes, and didn’t seem to have a good grasp of a lot of files because they have been out of his bailiwick, and his attempt at attacking Poilievre got cringey in place (Poilievre worships Trump? Really?) And then there was Frank Baylis, who kept reminding us that he’s a businessman. Over and over again, but his constant bizarre refrains about strengthening the dollar (at the expense of our exports?) and the whole thing about Ireland were just completely out to lunch, to say nothing about the fantasy economics of his pipeline plans.

Maybe I’m being too harsh of a critic, but nobody came out ahead.

Ukraine Dispatch

Another overnight attack on the Kyiv region has killed one person, injured four, and set several houses on fire. There also appears to be some progress on a critical minerals deal between the US and Ukraine, but we’ll see if it actually happens.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1894322734047310319

Continue reading →

QP: What is your inflation position today?

Posted on by

Even though the prime minister was in town, he was not in Question Period, but his deputy was, so that was something. Erin O’Toole led off, script on his mini-lectern, and he worried about the news that the coming fiscal update would only have “limited information,” and worrying about them covering up spending. Chrystia Freeland stood up and recited O’Toole’s floundering position on whether inflation is a global problem or not. O’Toole retorted that she was the only politician to have been flagged on Twitter for misleading information, and demanded that she tell the Bank of Canada to get inflation under control. Freeland chided O’Toole for not realising that monetary policy is the role of the Bank, which is arm’s length from government. O’Toole started sputtering about small businesses suffering from inflation, and Freeland reminded him that their campaign documents promised even more government spending in the current fiscal year, and wondered what their position was today. O’Toole demanded to know then a budget would be balanced, and Freeland recited the Economist’s top-ten list of most expensive cities to live in, and noted that none were in Canada. O’Toole then switched to French to say that Quebeckers were tired of living paycheque to paycheque. Freeland repeated the same Economist list in response.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he worried that the prime minister didn’t raise softwood tariff while in Washington, and Freeland stated that while she could not match Therrien’s ability to play on words, but the file was important and they were continuing to defend the sector’s interest like they did for aluminium. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay demanded that the government insist on separate treatment for Quebec because their forestry rules are different, while Freeland assured him that they were defending sector.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he worried that the COVID rules were too confusing for travellers. Freeland said that they agreed that the fight against COVID was the most important issue for the country and vaccination was the way out, but noted that the current rules are a circuit-breaker to buy them time. Singh repeated the question in French, and repeated her response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford turns to the Notwithstanding Clause – again

Posted on by

The sudden comfort with which premiers are deciding to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause is getting a bit uncomfortable, as Doug Ford decided he needed to invoke it after a court struck down his attempts to limit third-party spending in provincial elections in a somewhat arbitrary fashion (given that unions get together to form American-esque political action committees in this province). While you can find a great explainer on Ford and his particular legal challenge in this thread, the more alarming part is the apparent need to reach for the “emergency valve” of the Clause before even appealing the decision to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada.

There is a perfectly legitimate reason why the Notwithstanding Clause exists, which as to do with keeping a certain amount of parliamentary supremacy in lawmaking, and it gives governments an avenue of recourse if there is a fundamental disagreement with a court’s interpretation of legislation. But lately, it’s being invoked by premiers who know they are trying to push through objectionable legislation – François Legault did it with Bill 21, which the courts have essentially said blocks their ability to strike down any portion of the law, and he’s doing it again with his Bill 96 on trying to obliterate any bilingualism in the province (the same bill that seeks to unilaterally amend the federal constitution). Ford had threatened to invoke it to ram through his unilateral changes to Toronto City Council while they were in the middle of an election, but ultimately didn’t because of a court injunction, and his decision this time is similarly dubious. This willingness to invoke the Clause at the first sign of court challenge or on the first defeat is a very big problem for our democracy, and we should be very wary about this abuse of power, and punish these governments appropriately at the ballot box during the next elections for these decisions.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1402715067083280387

In the meantime, here’s Emmett Macfarlane with more thoughts on the court decision that led to this turn of events.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1402711628978720772

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1402712563960455173

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1402713058913525761

Continue reading →