Tag Archives: Major Projects Office

Surrendering the field to the separatists, once again

Posted on by
1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Latest:

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

Continue reading →

QP: Diesel for Thanksgiving

Posted on by

The PM was present for a second time this week, and on a Wednesday no less, which might actually be a first for this prime minister. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he wanted to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving, but for many families it won’t be happy for many families because the costs of a Thanksgiving dinner has gone up by ten percent, per Dalhousie University, and he wondered when Canadians would be able to have an “affordable Thanksgiving dinner.” Mark Carney echoed the well-wishes for Thanksgiving, and also made note of the previous members’ statement about the anniversary of October 7th, and closed by insisting that they have made life more affordable for families. Poilievre says the prime minister is disconnected from reality, not only with the cost of food but also housing, and cited a Habitat for Humanity study about Canadians being twice as likely as the average in 22 countries about giving up on the dream of buying a house. Carney pointed out that 12 million families received the enhanced GST benefit cheques, and that they are building affordable housing. Poilievre switched to English to again wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving, and repeated the same Dalhousie statistic. Carney repeated the well-wishes and that 12 million received the benefit, and that 22 million had their taxes cut, in addition to other government programmes. Poilievre insisted that Carney is out of touch  and “you are out of money,” sounding like he was directing that to the Speaker, before he repeated the Habitat for Humanity statistic. Carney tried to insist that he “just got here,” and after the uproar, corrected to say he’s only been here eighteen months compared to Poilievre’s 240 months, and patted himself on the back for announcements made. Poilievre derided this and insisted the government has done nothing, and Carney touted rent reductions and share of income spent on housing falling every single month. Poilievre insisted that nothing is actually getting built, to which Carney made another joke about just having got here, before he touted some economic good news statistics.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he decried that the only priority of the government is the west coast pipeline as a sop to Alberta separatists, which might only fire up Quebec sovereigntists. Carney patted himself on the back for the Churchill Falls agreement, and insisted the pipeline was for Canada’s sovereignty and independence. Blanchet needled that the biggest project in Quebec is actually Newfoundland, and that the beneficiaries of the pipeline are American owners. Carney started that Churchill Falls contains $200 billion in investments for Quebec. Blanchet then pointed out that the government is starving the arts and not helping forestry or aluminium, but they have all kinds of money for this pipeline. Carney again insisted that they are investing in Quebec, and listed some additional projects including high speed rail.

Continue reading →

Danielle Smith gets her shiny PONI

Posted on by

Prime Minister Mark Carney was in Fort McMurray yesterday to announce what we all knew was coming—that the proposed new west coast pipeline, now named “Pacific Link,” will formally be designated as the country’s first PONI (Project of National Interest). But let’s remember what got us here—the MOU with Alberta was supposed to have a number of conditions checked off before this could go ahead, most of which they either fudged. There is no private sector proponent. There is no Indigenous buy-in. The Pathways Project was supposed to be a mandatory component, but they then downgraded its obligations so that what it will capture will be a miniscule fraction of the emissions generated to fill the pipeline. There are no commitments to fill the pipeline or buyers for the product, and by the time it gets built, countries will be further along the decarbonization route as they accelerate their plans following the conflict in Iran, and we’ll just be pumping more product into an overall global supply glut which will further depress prices, making production less attractive.

The Indigenous component is a big question mark here, because the Major Projects Office did “consultations” with 110 First Nations communities over two months, and from the sounds of it, it was mostly junior staffers. This is clearly insufficient, and shows that they haven’t learned from past mistakes. When Trans Mountain was going through, one of the things that they needed to do was have the minister do face-to-face meetings, and that was the only thing that would satisfy many of these communities, which did not happen here. “We want to build faster,” and mouthing all of the right things about working with Indigenous communities, but you can’t even learn how to avoid the same problems that plagued the previous project? What exactly do they think they’re doing?

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3mwu2c3n3ic2y

Meanwhile, Carney continues to fraudulently claim that this oil will be “low carbon,” which it absolutely won’t be. And for everything he has capitulated to Danielle Smith to make this happen, it will win him exactly nothing with Alberta. Remember how much goodwill Justin Trudeau got when he gave supports to the province during their oil recession that Harper refused to, or when he created special orphan wells projects during the pandemic, or when he burned all of his political capital and environmental goodwill to ensure that Trans Mountain got built? Oh, right—it was none, and they continued to blame him for the oil price crash of 2014, before he was even in office. Yeah, Carney will get nothing from this, and Smith will just take this as a sign that threatening separation gets her what she wants, so she’ll just continue to find new ways to level threats. Carney has played himself, once again.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-10-01T13:08:05.385Z

Continue reading →

Walking away from a bad deal at the last minute

Posted on by

The Canadian delegation walked away from the negotiation table late Friday after rumours came down that Howard Lutnick inserted himself into the talks because he felt that Canada was getting too good of a deal, and lo, talks have ended. New tariffs were applied to Canada, and we will counter with tariffs of our own after Labour Day. Never mind the fact that there could never actually be a deal—there is no negotiating with a party that will not and will never honour any deal it makes, so it never made sense for Carney to go through the pretence, and from the sounds of it, was willing to make some very serious concessions, including our digital sovereignty, to get pretty much nothing in return (and no, accepting lower permanent tariffs on things that used to be traded freely is not something).

The Robot Chicken version:

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-22T16:00:16.149Z

On Saturday, Carney noted in his speech that at the last minute, the US tried to attack French and other elements of our sovereignty, including limiting our other trading relationships, which cannot stand. Even worse was the text circulating that would prohibit us from any retaliatory measures anytime they decided to his us with new tariffs for any reason, which is just vassal state bullshit. But again, it raises the question of how Carney thought he was ever negotiating in good faith with an explicitly bad faith administration? And how can he not see that we are not in a trade war, but we are fighting against gangsterism, and that is very different.

https://bsky.app/profile/stephaniecarvin.bsky.social/post/3mtomikpack27

How the trade negotiations between Canada and the USA went sour. Note the last paragraph on slide 2, specifically. The Americans were never working for a trade deal. They were demanding the right to abuse Canada whenever Trump is in a mood. #cdnpoli

— Kikki Planet (@kikkiplanet.bsky.social) 2026-08-22T14:06:54.528Z

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3mtovnjbzhc2v

….and to be clear, the attack on Canada is not simply a "trade war". The US ripped up the Gordie Howe Bridge deal and expropriated the revenue stream.That's not a trade war; that's simply gangsterism. And that repeats on many other non-trade fronts.So, stop analyzing this as a "trade war".

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-08-22T16:27:21.608Z

In reaction, Jennifer Robson makes the observation that many of the American demands were aimed at positioning us vis-à-vis China, and looks for hints about the latest round of demands based on past grievance reports. Kevin Carmichael ponders Carney’s history as a risk manager and how he might be applying that to the current situation. Justin Ling is confident we’ll win this war with the Americans, like we’ve won against their repeated attempts to invade us. Matt Gurney calls on the government to release details and names for why the deal failed, as this is also an info war, and we need to get more allies on-side. Stephanie Carnvin points out that even if Trump loses the next election, there is no “normal” to go back to, which is why Canadian business leaders need to stop pining and get with the times.

The Canadian Government Is Dumping Donald Trumpyoutu.be/2wj7DI2NMPk

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2026-08-22T17:32:23.386Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-08-23T23:08:01.038Z

My Latest:

  • My column wonders if Danielle Smith isn’t trying to set up a showdown in advance of her referendums on her dual practice healthcare legislation.
  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take notes that our national security laws are overdue for legislative review, and that this should be something committees take up right away.
  • My weekend column looks at the recent study on the rise in instances of Canadian conservatives claiming elections were fraudulent when they lose.

Continue reading →

The (garbage) Reform Act won’t stop an autocrat

Posted on by

Over the weekend, the Globe and Mail ran a lengthy opinion piece called “It Can Happen Here,” about how we are supposedly more vulnerable to an autocrat taking power in this country, under our rules, than the Americans were with theirs. I am dubious. While I very much respect the professor who wrote the piece, I worry that there were a few fundamental misunderstandings in some of the points he was trying to make. For example, there is a section about how we don’t have an impeachment mechanism in our constitution, and of course we don’t. Our system operates on confidence as opposed to a fixed clock, so we don’t need impeachment. If the government goes pear-shaped, Parliament can withdraw confidence and the government is out. If a caucus loses confidence in their leader, they can vote non-confidence in him or her at any point, and no, they don’t need the (garbage) Reform Act rules to do so.

Our rules can be pretty effective. For example, when Charles Tupper tried to hold onto power after losing an election, the Governor General refused to make any of the appointments that Tupper wanted him to, so he was forced to vacate the office. Oh, but what if the autocratic PM appoints a lapdog GG? People in serious positions tend to take up the seriousness of those positions even when everyone thinks they won’t. Not saying it’s an impossibility, but so far that’s been the case. And yes, some of our rules are “unwritten,” for which he suggests we need a Cabinet Manual to codify them, but I am dubious there too. Codifying those rules in such a manner invites people to look for legalistic loopholes rather than a principles-based system that makes it easier to point out when someone is trying to do through the backdoor what they cannot do through the front. I also find that the piece very much misread and oversimplified what happened with the whole SNC-Lavalin affair as one of the examples of how power can be abused, because in the end, it was Bill Morneau’s office that was lousy with SNC-Lavalin lobbyists and not PMO, and a more pliant Attorney General was not appointed and didn’t result in the deferred prosecution agreement. (In fact, when SNC-Lavalin eventually pleaded guilty, they got a lesser penalty than the DPA would have stipulated).

My biggest problem with the piece, however, is that it treats the (garbage) Reform Act as a kind of panacea that needs to be more widely adopted. It absolutely does not. What it actually does is put up a bunch of unnecessary rules and barriers to what is a simple vote of non-confidence, and more to the point, it tries to convince MPs that they have lost power over time, or that this will “empower” them when in fact it actually disempowers them because of its formalistic barriers. Yes, we do need to beware leaders who can become autocrats, but the Reform Act will not help avoid that in any way, shape or form.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-08-10T19:08:01.763Z

My Latest:

  • For National Magazine, I delve into the Alberta case that the Supreme Court of Canada has recently granted leave to appeal about lawyers’ oaths to the Crown.
  • My column points to the things that the sanitized tales of Conservative “infighting” over generational change are ignoring or glossing over.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Stupid games with the Snowbirds

Posted on by

This story about the Snowbirds has ground down my patience with this government. A couple of weeks ago, Conservative MPs and Senators were in the middle of a meltdown over the fate of the aerial demonstration squadron, and we kept being assured that this was nothing, they were going to keep flying, that the Conservatives were misinterpreting the schedule because it only went up to fall, and future dates were typically released later, and there would be more to announce on the 19th, but their future was assured. And media outlets wrote whole stories based on these Conservative meltdowns which had no basis in fact.

And then the 19th comes around, and the defence minister announces that the squadron is being grounded at the end of the summer until the early 2030s until replacements can be acquired, which they are still negotiating (though some of the stories say the replacements are already on order, but they’re still negotiating, so I’m not sure how that works). So, the minister was not exactly being honest when he said that everything was fine, because once the squadron is grounded, it will have to be completely rebuilt once the new planes do arrive, and that could be in five years or it could be in ten (given the way procurements go in this country). When asked, Prime Minister Mark Carney shrugged and said it was a problem he inherited so not his fault, but guys—this is not what you were messaging two weeks ago. You need to own that.

As for the specifics, it seems that in spite of the Trudeau government’s attempt to prolong their lifespan until 2030, the airframes were showing too much wear for them to be safely extended, so they didn’t make it that far. But certain Conservative MPs going on political shows yesterday seem to think that because this money was spent, that the existing jets should keep flying regardless. (That’s not how airframes work!) But yes, Conservatives are correct in pointing out that the replacement process should have started much earlier under the Trudeau government, but no, signing a petition on the Conservative website is not going to change anything (other than, of course, to mine your data). Frankly, everyone has behaved absolutely abominably throughout this whole affair, and it’s one more reason why we can’t have nice things in this country.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-05-19T19:08:20.600Z

In case you missed it:

  • My story for National Magazine about Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision that creates a tort of intimate partner violence moving forward.
  • My long weekend column on the fact that this government is inept at internet policy, whether it’s lawful access of the massive surveillance needed to age-gate sites.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian missiles struck Chernihiv and Sumy regions, killing four, after previously striking Odesa and Dnipro, as well as Ukraine’s Danube port in Izmail. Ukraine, meanwhile, has struck a major oil refinery in Moscow, and their medium-range strikes are taking out logistics hubs supporting the front lines.

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: More bespoke agreements that undermine certainty

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney is set to sign an agreement with Doug Ford about “reducing the regulatory burden” for major projects in the province, again with the “one project, one review” line (which I have reservations about as I mentioned yesterday). Ford is keen to use this to develop the “Ring of Fire” region, in spite of the fact that a) there are much more accessible critical mineral projects that could be more easily developed, and b) they have yet to get most of the First Nations in the region to agree, mostly because they are looking for revenue-sharing agreements because they have been burned by proponents who promised them all kinds of things for previous developments and didn’t live up to their agreements. Funny that.

As Andrew Leach points out, this pattern of bespoke deals with provinces is going to wind up being a bigger problem than it winds up solving because there won’t be consistent rules across the country, and inconsistent rules and malleable agreements mean regulatory uncertainty, particularly because they are likely to change further as governments change on either level of government. Letting Alberta undermine federal standards as part of the MOU was a prime example of just that (not that Alberta plans to live up to their end of the agreement).

Meanwhile, here’s a callout about the things the oil and gas industry likes to promise before reneging because it will cost them too much money, such as with the methane regulations that were announced yesterday. Funny that.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-17T14:25:03.817Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia has attacked Zaporizhzhia, injuring at least 26 people. Ukraine reports that they control over 90 percent of Kupiansk, which Russia claimed to have conquered weeks ago. President Zelenskyy says that any territorial concessions would need to be put to a referendum (which would fail).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ignoring the true meaning of the Statute of Westminster

Posted on by

Yesterday was the Anniversary of the Statute of Westminster (1931), which is one of the most pivotal moments in our evolution as a sovereign country, but it rarely gets much mention. When I was in junior high, I remember them talking about how this ensured that Canada could control its own foreign policy, but they never said why. And it turns out that no official account or even the Government of Canada’s web page gave the reason either. The reason is that this was the creation of the Canadian Crown as a separate and distinct legal entity from the Crown of the UK, which mean that we could control our own foreign policy, and were seen as an equal to the UK and not a subordinate. But absolutely nobody mentions the Crown of Canada as the reason. Nobody.

The government's page undersells the importance of this date, because today is the anniversary of the creation of the Crown of Canada as a separate and distinct entity from the UK crown. That's why we gained control over our foreign affairs and "our own voice" on the world stage.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-11T14:17:20.569Z

The Governor General did not put out a release about the day or its importance to the Canadian Crown. Mark Carney did not put out a release about the day at all. Pierre Poilievre did, but not only did he not mention the Canadian Crown, but he talked up conservative figures from the era of history to try and distract from the fact that Mackenzie King was prime minister at the time, which was frankly sad and a little bit pathetic. Nobody else put out a release, and absolutely nobody mentioned the anniversary of the Canadian Crown.

Nothing about the Crown of Canada.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-11T21:53:33.606Z

The creation of the Canadian Crown is one of the most pivotal moments in our history, and it goes completely unremarked because the department of Canadian Heritage is full of republicans, and too many members of civil society are quietly embarrassed by our status as a constitutional monarchy, as though it’s still colonial or “not grown up” when it’s not that at all. The separate Canadian Crown means we are grown up, that we control our own Crown and destiny. And if you don’t want to time-share the monarch with the UK and the other Realms, well, we can change that at any point as well (with the unanimous consent of Parliament and the provinces), and I for one would not be averse to making Princess Anne the full-time Queen of Canada, as she is not only the best royal, but her grandchildren are already Canadian, so that helps with the succession issues. Suffice to say, we have to stop effacing the fact that the Canadian Crown is the central reason why we gained full independence then.

https://twitter.com/CrimCartier/status/1999180446534672527

Another floor-crossing

After both Houses of Parliament rose for the winter break, and just before the Liberals had their Christmas party, Conservative MP Michael Ma crossed the floor to join the Liberal ranks. He’s from Markham—Unionville, which is John McCallum’s old riding, so it’s flipped back-and-forth between the Liberals and Conservatives, and Ma has been almost anonymous in the House of Commons, pretty much never put up in QP to read a script for the sake of clips, so he has no profile in the party. His statement talked about “unity and decisive action” for Canadians, which could translate to the fact that he (and possibly his constituents) is tired of the petty little games that Poilievre and his caucus spend all of their time doing.

It also puts the Liberals one seat away from a workable majority, and the House Leader, Steve MacKinnon, hinted that there are more conversations ongoing with Conservatives, and according to the journalists and pundits on the political talk shows, Ma’s name has never been bandied about as a possibility, so this was a complete surprise. But it will also serve to shut Don Davies up if they do get that one more MP, because Davies will have no leverage to try and blackmail Carney with. So, I guess we’ll see what happens by the time Parliament returns.

Well. That happened.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-11T23:22:51.428Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian commanders claim to have taken Siversk in the east, but Ukraine denies this. Here is an analysis of how the potential fall of Pokrovsk won’t collapse Ukraine’s front lines. In the back-and-forth on “peace” plans, the US wants to turn ceded lands in the Donbas into a “free economic zone,” and no, I don’t get it either.

Continue reading →

QP: Supporting the MOU includes a carbon price

Posted on by

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

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

Continue reading →