Tag Archives: Labour

Senate QP: Hajdu highlights the problems with provincial data

Posted on by
Reply

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 →

Roundup: A new pipeline study—to what end?

Posted on by

Ontario premier Doug Ford announced that his government would be launching a study about a potential new west-east pipeline, that could either head to existing refineries in Sarnia, or ports along the Great Lakes, Hudson Bay or James Bay. This sounds a lot like it’s going to be a waste of time and money because contrary to what Danielle Smith likes to think, the oil and gas industry has been irrevocably altered since 2014-15, and there is very little demand for these options. Enbridge isn’t going to want to strand its existing pipeline network running through the US, in spite of the arguments about energy security to build a (longer, more expensive) line on Canadian soil, and using northern ports makes no sense as they are only good for a few months of the year when demand its lower.

Energy economist Andrew Leach released a new paper yesterday that takes a look at the case for whether we need another pipeline, and it puts a lot of this in perspective. The oil market has changed since the major price drop in 2014, and American demand has fallen down a lot. While there might be a case for another pipeline to the Pacific, the timelines involved mean running the risk of stranding assets as global demand falls off. Keystone XL, if revived, is likely simply to be used for re-export at the Gulf Coast, while the eastern Canadian market is already well served, and would likely mean more transportation costs, and Alberta would see bigger discounts as compared to world prices. Danielle Smith says that the industry can double production, but that’s not what industry is saying, and more pipelines run the risk of eroding the value of oil, particularly as the rise of electric vehicles and heat pumps push down demand.

One of the other points that the paper makes is that for as much handwringing as there is about how long it takes projects, most of the delays that people point to were regulatory shortfalls and not structural delays. When proponents try to cut corners, or not do proper Indigenous consultations, that is what leads to court challenges and delays, not the actual regulatory system itself, but that’s an inconvenient narrative for certain players. These are things we need to be more cognisant of, and call bullshit on, as the drumbeat for “just one more pipeline” or even “a pipeline in every direction” get more intense.

effinbirds.com/post/7808260…

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-10-30T14:05:46.292Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched sustained drone and missile attacks on Ukraine’s power infrastructure early Thursday, and killed at least three people. Two others were killed in a bomb strike on a thermal power plant in Sloviansk. Ukrainian forces are bolstering their defences in Pokrovsk as Russian forces have entered the city.

Continue reading →

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: Empty-handed at the White House

Posted on by

After all of the build-up, the managed expectations, and all of the blustery accusations in Ottawa that prime minister Mark Carney is an inept negotiator, he came away from his “working lunch” at the White House with pretty much nothing. Carney gave Trump his usual quasi-flattering/quasi-shady “transformational president” line (because once Carney has a line he likes, he sticks with it), and he laughed off another annexation “joke” from Trump, and Trump rambled some nonsense about competing in the same ecosystem for cars, but that was about it.

Carney later on had dinner with couch-fucker vice president JD Vance, while Dominic LeBlanc was sent out to deal with the press, and said pretty much nothing other than the fact that they’re going to negotiate further and hoping for some “quick deals” on a few specific issues, which we’ve heard so many times now, and capitulated on so many particular issues that it just feels all the more meaningless. And it is meaningless, because everyone knows that there is no deal to be had because Trump will not live up to any “agreement” he signs. So naturally, the auto sector is concerned that they’re going to be thrown under the bus because Trump refuses to give up the notion that Canada stole auto production from the US, in spite of facts and evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, we’re in for another round of QP where the Conservatives denounce Carney as the incompetent negotiator when Trump is not a rational actor who can be negotiated with, because why unite against a common enemy when you could be scoring Internet points?

There wasn’t much in the way of pundit reaction so far, but Shannon Proudfoot points out that Keir Starmer figured out the key to flattering Trump before everyone else did, and how it reflected in Carney’s meeting. Althia Raj correctly calls this a cringe-worthy performance on both sides, which accomplished nothing.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-10-07T14:08:04.476Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Putin claims that Russia has seized 5000 square kilometres of Ukrainian territory this year, and that they retain the strategic initiative; Ukraine says they have failed to seize any major settlements and that their initiative is stalled.

Continue reading →

QP: Gun buyback questions, rinse and repeat

Posted on by

The PM was still in New York at the UN, with a long schedule of meetings, while back home, the Bloc had their Supply Day motion about the federal government’s factum at the Supreme Court of Canada on the Law 21 case under debate. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he offered theatrical disbelief that the government was moving ahead with the gun buyback in spite of the minister’s private comments on tape, and demanded the government sack the minister. Gary Anandasangaree praised the pilot project moving ahead in Cape Breton in English. Poilievre, still in French, was incredulous that they were still moving ahead and listed a litany of sins from the minister, real or imagined, and Anandasangaree said that public safety is not a binary, that people can turn over their guns while the governor moves ahead with “smart” criminal justice reform. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question, and Anandasangaree was incredulous in turn that “Grandpa Joe” is using an AR-15 for hunting. Poilievre ratcheted up his histrionics about the government going after the wrong guns. Sean Fraser took this one and pointed up out that when Poilievre was in government, they cut CBSA and made it easier for guns to cross the border. Poilievre took some swipes at Fraser and said the government was doing nothing about hiring more RCMP and CBSA, and Fraser pointed out that it was an election promise that people voted on. Poilievre held up a document saying the department was “breaking their own promise” on the hiring—and got chided for using a prop—and Anandasangaree said that he didn’t understand the hiring process, before saying that Poilievre should get his security clearance. 

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and decried that federal factum at the SCC, and made a bunch of ludicrous claims about it. Fraser said they have had the same stance for decades, that the government weighs in when an issue is at the SCC. Normandin kept up with her denunciation of this factum, and Steven Guilbeault responded that she was the one laying it on thick, as courts cannot change the constitution. Mario Simard took over, and invited the government to reopen the constitution, to which Fraser said they are not looking to change the constitution, merely for the Court to clarify it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Freeland out—for good this time

Posted on by

It was nine months to the day since Chrystia Freeland first resigned from Cabinet, previously under Justin Trudeau, when he told her that he planned to replace her as finance minister with Mark Carney, but would she mind first delivering the fall economic update that had a bigger-than-promised deficit number in it? Carney had not said yes to the position at the time, and things went downhill from there. This time, Freeland says she’s leaving to take up new opportunities—in this case, a position of special envoy related to the reconstruction of Ukraine. Her roles got split up, as the transport portfolio was given to Steve MacKinnon, and the internal trade to Dominic LeBlanc.

https://twitter.com/cafreeland/status/1967994021227401685

I do think that this move solidifies a few narratives that have been floating around, one of which is that Carney is consolidating loyalists. Freeland supporters were pretty much entirely frozen out of Cabinet and other senior roles, and Freeland herself was made a minister as a gesture of unity in the party, but six months later, she’s out. That’s fairly problematic on its face. As well, it’s one more woman out of a senior role, and one who had influence behind the scenes, which again consolidates the bro atmosphere in the PMO, which is not good, and will cause plenty of problems going forward as the blind spots start to grow. For the moment, Freeland is keeping her seat, but will eventually resign it once she has consulted with her riding association and so on. With rumours that Carney plans to offer diplomatic posts to at least two other former ministers, he could be looking to free up a handful of fairly safe seats that he can put more friends or loyalists into (like he did with Evan Solomon).

Alberta carbon price

Danielle Smith is making changes to her province’s industrial carbon price, exempting companies from paying it if they invest in their own emissions reduction projects. You know, which the carbon price incentivised them to do so that they didn’t have to pay as much, because that’s the whole gods damned point of carbon pricing. Absolutely unbelievable stupidity on display here.

About that ovation

There has been a lot of talk about how the House of Commons gave a standing ovation about Charlie Kirk on Monday. That’s not exactly true, and has been torqued by people who may or may not be acting in good faith. The ovation had more to do with standing against political violence rather than Kirk himself. That said, of course it was Rachael Thomas who got up to praise a fascist like Kirk, because this is who Thomas is. She has been marinating in the fever swamps of the American far-right discourse for years, and imports it into Canadian politics all the time, including the very careful creation of an alternate dystopian reality where Justin Trudeau is a “dictator,” and the Liberals are busy censoring tweets on the Internet and are generally being authoritarians, in all defiance of the logic and reality. Thomas absolutely deserves to be called out for venerating a fascist, but I think everyone needs to calm down about the applause that happened afterward because it’s pretty clear the context was about the broader message.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-09-16T21:22:02.480Z

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy is calling for a combined European air defence system given that Russia’s attacks are now extending beyond just Ukraine. Here is a look at the struggle for Ukrainian authorities to identify their war dead.

Continue reading →

QP: Day two, and the front bench is useless

Posted on by

An hour before things got underway, it was announced that Chrystia Freeland was leaving Cabinet (but not her seat) to take on a special envoy role for Ukrainian reconstruction, meaning the front bench got shifted one day into the new sitting, and the gender balance skewed just a little more male. The PM was not present, as he was off to meet with Scott Moe, but other leaders did show up.

Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and decried that a budget had not been delivered yet, and claimed that the deficit had been doubled—higher than Trudeau’s. He claimed that inflation was fifty percent higher than the target (it’s not), and worried about people relying on food banks; if people were to judge Carney based on food prices, then what was the verdict? François-Philippe Champagne said that Canadians chose a government that would focus on change, and that they were going to be rigorous in spending and ambitious in investment. Poilievre worried that empty promises led to empty stomachs, to which Champagne again praised their tax cut, which was going to help the Middle Class™. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his faux concern that deficits cause food price inflation, and the empty promises/empty stomachs line. Champagne recited the “spend less to invest more” line, before praising their tax cut and the elimination of the carbon levy. Poilievre said this government’s failure led to human suffering, and this time, Tim Hodgson stood up to praise their pledge to expand the LNG terminal in BC. Poilievre said it was insulting that nobody would answer a question on the price of food, and Gregor Robertson said that while they were concerned about the cost of food, they were taking action on housing. Poilievre again pounced on the fact that the question was about food, and this time Adam van Koeverden got up to chide Poilievre for voting against school food programmes, and that Poilievre voted against the other measures in the Food Banks Canada report, like strengthening the social safety net.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and he worried about the state of talks with the U.S. Dominic LeBlanc assured him that the talks continue, and that they are preparing for the review of the New NAFTA. Blanchet said that he heard in Washington that there is disappointment that Carney is not in Washington more often, and LeBlanc agreed that the U.S. is an essential economic partner, and that with the trade relationship changing they need to work to get the best deal. Blanchet wondered if Carney would speak to Trump on the summit circuit, or go to Washington, and LeBlanc again reiterated that we treat the American relationship with great respect, but we are also diversifying out trade relationships.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No First Ladies in Canada, so stop asking

Posted on by

Because this is sometimes a media criticism blog, I’m going to sigh and rub the bridge of my nose, and maybe massage my temples a few times of this particular doozy of a piece in The Walrus about Mark Carney’s wife, Diana Fox Carney. The subhed refers to her as the “unofficial First Lady,” but in the story itself, it just refers to her as a “First Lady” along with other spouses of heads of state or heads of government interchangeably, and I just can’t you guys.

Guys. Stop it.Canada's "First Lady" is Queen Camilla. Stop trying to import Americanisms, even if you try and couch them in "unofficial" status.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-15T11:44:05.416Z

First of all, it matters that we’re a constitutional monarchy and not a presidential republic. That means that our “First Lady,” if we were to have one, would be Queen Camilla. If you were discounting the Canadian monarch, the next candidate would be the spouse of the Governor General (who once upon a time was called the “Chatelaine/Chatelain of Rideau Hall” as an unofficial title). Yes, this matters, in particular because the difference between a head of state and a head of government matters a great deal, particularly when it comes to the kind of role they play within government, and just because the American system fuses the two together, that’s pretty much unique in the world, and is a far cry from how our Westminster system operates. And right at nearly the very bottom of the piece, she writes:

In this way, being a first lady in Canada is fundamentally different from being one in the US, where the position, while unofficial, comes with an office and staff. In Canada, the prime minister’s spouse has no formal role or institutional support, and technically isn’t even the partner of a head of state. As a result, the title “first lady” doesn’t really apply in the same way.

No kidding! In fact, it undermines the whole gods damned point of your story. You just tried to compare apples and hedgehogs, tried to mash two fundamentally different concepts together, and then was like “Oh well, maybe she’ll get more active at some point!” No! We don’t elect spouses, and they don’t have a role for a reason. If she wants to have a role, she should seek a seat. (This especially goes for Poilievre’s wife, by the way). But trying to jam the spouse of a prime minister into the “First Lady” box is both fundamentally wrong, and a sign of really lazy conceptualizing of how our system of government works. The Walrus should absolutely know better.

Speaking of terrible reporting, the Globe and Mail put out a story yesterday that had the headline that “Liberal staffers strategized over $1-billion loan for Chinese ferries while Freeland dismissed federal connection,” which sounds like they were maybe somehow involved in the loan or procurement while claiming otherwise. But no. The story was about how comms staffers in ministers’ offices were trying to spin the story. That’s it. I saw lots of reactions on social media from people who read the headline and assumed that something hinky was going on that should be looked into by parliamentarians, but no. It’s about comms staffers spinning. Can we just not? This was not a story, and it especially was not a story about some kind of cover-up.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-09-14T20:02:07.093Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched a massive attack against Zaporizhzhia, killing at least one and injuring at least seven so far. International monitors say that cluster munitions have resulted in over 1200 civilian casualties since the Russian invasion began in 2022.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The same counterproductive demands, once again

Posted on by

The “changed” and “humbled” Pierre Poilievre was back on his old bullshit yesterday, calling a press conference in Surrey, BC, to decry crime rates, blame the government, give some misleading bullshit about past legislation, and then take friendly questions from hand-picked outlets. Sounds familiar?

But seriously, we’ve been through all of this before. Calling for a terrorism designation for the Bishnoi gang is not helpful, and risks watering down terrorism designations in general (which is why it was a problem to do it for Mexican cartels at the behest of the Trump administration, not to mention designations shouldn’t be made for political expediency). Tougher penalties for extortion? Extortion with a firearm already has a maximum sentence of life in jail, so why they want a four-year minimum is not exactly doing anything more than current sentencing already does. Repealing the former Bill C-75 on bail? As we have said time and time again, this merely codified Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on the law of bail and made it tougher for those accused of domestic violence to get bail, so repealing it will do nothing. What is it going to take to drive home that these are not solutions, and will do nothing about the current uptick in police-reported crime (and again, these are small upticks that are well below historic norms)?

Meanwhile, Poilievre, Andrew Scheer, and others, spent their day engaging in supportive posts for transphobes, during Ottawa Pride Week no less. So yeah, up to their same old bullshit because they want to rile up the grievance mongers so that they can begin a new round of grifty fundraising. Poilievre has learned absolutely nothing from losing his seat and the election.

Conservatives are going all-in on transphobia today, as Pride Week in Ottawa is underway. #canqueer

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-08-20T21:13:56.179Z

Ukraine Dispatch

At least fourteen people were wounded in a Russian attack on the Sumy region, three people were killed in an artillery attack on the eastern city of Kostiantynivka, and a gas distribution station was hit in Odesa. Russians claim to have advanced in the Dnipropetrovsk region, while Ukrainians knocked out power in parts of Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Undue back-patting for Poilievre

Posted on by

It really should not have been a surprise to anyone that Pierre Poilievre won the by-election in Battle River—Crowfoot by around 80 percent, which is why he chose that riding after all. But that won’t but an end to the back-patting about the “hard work” he put in, and so on. What I find particularly odd is this narrative that has emerged, from Jason Kenney and others, about how this somehow proved that Poilievre stuck it to the so-called “separatist” movement in the province, and exposed them for the empty shell that they are. Because I don’t see him having done that at all.

https://twitter.com/jkenney/status/1957815691299713180

This was a federal by-election and there was no real “separatist” presence, particularly when the ballot question in the riding was whether Poilievre deserved a second chance after he was defeated in his own riding. There was no actual separatist narrative being advanced, and even if there was, Poilievre basically said that they have “legitimate grievances,” which is not exactly a rousing condemnation. More to the point, those separatists are focused on the provincial level, because they know that they can wedge Danielle Smith internally within the UCP, because these are the same face-eating leopards that Jason Kenney invited into the party while he kicked out the centrist normies (and those leopards subsequently ate his face). Smith is the one giving these losers oxygen, especially as she has tried to do everything she can to ensure that they get the referendum that they’re looking for, so that she can play it to her advantage in trying to leverage concessions from the federal government. It’s going to blow up in her face eventually, but this has nothing to do with Poilievre and everything to do with Smith, so giving Poilievre any credit here is grasping.

As for Poilievre’s return to Ottawa, could legacy media be less credulous about his supposed change in tone, or his bullshit about how he’ll work with the government on “non-partisan solutions,” which in his mind is the obliteration of environmental legislation, and the other bullshit in his so-called “Canadian Sovereignty Act.” He has explicitly stated this outright. Stop pretending he’s going to act “prime ministerial” or “statesmanlike,” because he is completely incapable, nor is he willing because that doesn’t get him clicks on social media/funds in the party’s coffers.

Ukraine Dispatch

Within hours of the “peace” talks in Washington, Russia launched their biggest overnight attack of the month, with 270 drones and ten missiles, striking energy facilities in Kremenchuk and Chernihiv. But hey, they’re going to draw up options for “security guarantees” that Russia won’t agree to, because their goal is the elimination of Ukraine. (Why are we pretending otherwise?)

Continue reading →