Tag Archives: Mark Carney

Super deduction vs mega deduction

Posted on by
Reply

The big investment summit has come and gone, and the government has been busy patting itself on the back for the announcements they’ve generated. The Logic has a look at the deal book, and a list of some of the deals that were announced, including plans to invest in a sovereign internet network. It was not entirely without controversy. One of the announcements was around a plan to invite “more private investment” in the four largest airports in the country (which the government would still own the land and assets of), but no one has yet explained how this private investment can both get a rate of return and money to re-invest in smaller airports (as is the stated aim), without massively increasing fees or reducing services.

The other big thing announced was a “Productivity Mega Deduction,” which builds on the “productivity super deduction” from the last budget. This was mostly praised by economists, who are saying it’ll cover something like 65 percent of capital investment (the “super deduction” was fifteen percent), and puts us at the lowest effective tax rate among the G7. For what it’s worth.

This is really smart. The federal government is now allowing full capital expensing on 2/3rds of capital investments by businesses to incentivize investing back into companies, rather than sitting on dead money.www.canada.ca/en/dep…

— Dr. Mike P. Moffatt (@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social) 2026-09-15T14:23:15.000Z

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3mvlkxuvbms2y

Productivity Mega Deduction vs Productivity Super Deduction is my all-time favourite kaiju film.

— Dr. Mike P. Moffatt (@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social) 2026-09-15T14:25:51.259Z

And then there was Stephen Harper’s closing speech. Much of it was pretty benign, and oh look, a former Conservative prime minister is teaming up with a current Liberal prime minister (but you should probably add air quotes around “Liberal” because Carney is the second coming of the Progressive Conservatives), and isn’t that just so amazing? And he also talked about how as the chair of AIMCo, which is Alberta’s public pension fund, he knows Canada’s good investment. But in the middle, he went on a bit of a dig about how in 2015, the country was on the “verge” of being an energy superpower, but thanks to “deliberate policy choices” over the next decade we didn’t become it—but now we could again! He didn’t name Justin Trudeau in there (or Rachel Notley, or Steven Guilbeault), but the implication was there, and it’s just such utter bullshit. Once again, Harper has absolutely ignored that there was a global oil price crash in 2014—when he was still in power—and it permanently altered the market. Trudeau actually approved more oil sands permits, but they didn’t get built because it wasn’t economical anymore given the price of oil. But that hasn’t stopped every conservative under the sun from blaming Trudeau, because it’s convenient to do so. The truth is harder to swallow, so they pretend it doesn’t exist, just like Harper did again yesterday. It’s just absolutely boggling how so many supposed adults can be so afraid of a hard truth.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-15T19:08:01.525Z

Continue reading →

Was it really always “Plan A”?

Posted on by
Reply

Over the long weekend, prime minister Mark Carney released another one of this “Forward Guidance” videos, to talk about the current moment we find ourselves in with the trade war. Some of this was a good bit of history in that one of the reasons for confederation was to guard against American predation, though he didn’t fully spell out that Sir John A Macdonald was very concerned that a newly militarized US post-Civil War would turn their attention northward. And yes, American tariffs did force the newly-united Canadians to better develop their own internal markets because yes, we did a lot of north-south trade at the time as well. He brought up the “iron spine” of the trans-Canada railway with some lip-service as to the human cost of it (more than he has in the past), but from there his metaphors started to drift again. The thing is, that “iron spine” has weakened considerably since free trade, and it’s been a whole lot of north-south trade once again, and his trying to say that the new north-south iron spine would be around energy, both electricity and crude oil, didn’t really make a lot of sense.

More than that, however, Carney was engaging in some revisionist history of his own, insisting that building up our industry domestically and to export to more markets was “always Plan A” didn’t really mesh with his stated desire during negotiations to have a stronger security and defence relationship with the US. He lamented in the video that the Americans were trying to force dependency, but Carney’s own goals included a stronger comprehensive relationship, so it feels a lot like he’s trying to play both sides here. He also said that there’s no going back to “normal” with the US, but again, this has been his whole strategy up until two weeks ago. It feels like he’s only just started saying things he was supposed to be saying all along two weeks ago, and is now pretending like it’s what he was always saying.

And then, of course, he brought up digital asbestos, because it’s “important,” and insisted that Canada would be maintaining its values and sovereignty with it. Erm, really? How? This is just lip service while he continues to swallow the CEO hype around it rather than waking up to the fact that this is garbage tech that is burning cash and the environment, and like he’s trying to be the last guy in before the bubble bursts. It’s getting cringey how much Carney and Evan Solomon are still enthralled by the false promises, like their lives depended on it.

My Latest:

  • For National Magazine, I got some reaction to the news that the Ontario Courts’ case management system suffered a hack.
  • My weekend column wonders if it’s time that we get serious about domestically-built EVs, as the age of the integrated North American auto industry appears to be over.
  • My column on the Conservatives on the Remain side of the Alberta referendum trying to have it both ways by blaming Liberals, playing into Separatist hands.

Continue reading →

Ignore the toddler meltdown in the cereal aisle

Posted on by

The Trump administration players continue to try and spin their own versions of how the talks collapsed, with Trump insisting that we’re “nasty” and the “worst” (because we won’t just submit), we also saw Howard Lutnick claim that Carney has manufactured all of this because of the Quebec election and the Alberta referendum, and that once those over, Canadian officials will come flooding back to Washington to resume talks. Sure, Jan. Meanwhile, Dominic LeBlanc has taken notes of their denials over certain files, and is taking those as assurances that the “trade irritants” they keep identifying won’t be brought up any longer and publicly saying so. Clever.

Lutnick accuses Mark Carney of "manufacturing" a controversy over trade so Alberta doesn't secede from Canada

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-08-27T18:18:00.166Z

Meanwhile, Trump’s continued tantrum saw him sign an executive order to demand that the US Department of Interior change the name of Lake Ontario to Lake America, which is going to be another loyalty test for MAGA adherents going forward. And of course, we had a bunch of Canadian media outlets falling all over themselves to try and get reactions to this (and a certain CBC guest host was extremely cringey about it), when we don’t need to respond to this. We can just ignore it, guys. Take Shannon Proudfoot’s advice here, and treat this like a toddler having a meltdown in the cereal aisle. He’s trying to get attention, and if you don’t give it to him, he’ll move on to something else, and you won’t have to make an ass of yourself trying to “get reactions” to this bit of nonsense. Nobody wins by taking this seriously, so just stop.

The last time the Americans tried to claim Lake Ontario in 1813, we intentionally lured them into Fort York and then blew up our entire gunpowder magazine to kill as many Americans as possible.A foundation part of Toronto history is "blowing our own fort to smithereens rather than being American"

— ℳatt (@matttomic.bsky.social) 2026-08-27T18:15:24.761Z

I mean this very, very seriously: It is absolutely an option for us to ignore his idiotic Lake America stunt. We can do that. We can just tune it out like you would block out a child howling at you in the cereal aisle, recognizing that to do anything else would be to give the whiner what they want.

— Shannon Proudfoot (@sproudfoot.bsky.social) 2026-08-27T17:54:13.273Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-08-27T19:08:03.250Z

My Latest:

  • My column takes note of where we’re at with the trade war, and the fact that Carney spent a year-and-a-half making concessions for a deal that was never real.
  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take points to the difficulties about sacrificing the Online News Act for a deal that didn’t come to pass, which would be a Pandora’s Box.

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 →

Poilievre’s plan to fuel inflation

Posted on by

The July inflation data was released yesterday, which means that Pierre Poilievre had something to say about it, and it was…mind-numbingly wrong and stupid. The data were not terrible—yes, it ticked up to 3.0% because of gasoline prices thanks to Trump’s misadventures in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz (and there was also an effect from World Cup tourism prices in there as well), but core measures (which strip out the volatile categories) are all hovering at two percent, and that’s a pretty good thing. This is what we want. Poilievre, however, wants to say dumb things.

In which Poilievre selectively reads this morning's inflation data in order to support his pre-determined but purely bullshit narrative.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-17T14:43:12.309Z

For starters, grocery prices. They are actually at their lowest rate of inflation in months, but when you look at the things driving it (fresh fruit, coffee, beef), all of it has fuck all to do with federal deficits. But that’s what Poilievre keeps his focus on. Federal deficits, and taxes. But the thing is, taxes are disinflationary, because they take available spending money out of the system. So, advocating for a continued or larger “gas tax” cut (and to be clear, they’re not all taxes, and won’t equal 25 cents per litre, which is another lie he keeps telling) is actually an inflationary policy. He is literally advocating for what he doesn’t want. Because of course he is.

Poilievre keeps fancying himself an economic genius because he watches crypto bros on YouTube, but he absolutely does not understand anything he’s talking about, and the tax cut/deregulate ideology he espouses got us into the mess we’re in as a society, where the young people he claims to advocate for can’t get ahead. Doubling down on those measures won’t help young people, but he refuses to change his mind, and when your only plan is to betray the audience you claim to be fighting for, well, I’m not sure what to tell you.

My Latest:

My weekend column takes issue with the gross mismatch in funds the government is spending on pipelines rather than climate mitigation and adaptation measures.

New episodes released early for C$7+ subscribers. This week I discuss the various legal challenges to the different oaths to the King. #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-17T00:14:10.972Z

Continue reading →

The CBC fails basic civics, yet again

Posted on by

The CBC has once again officially outraged me. In a short vertical clip for social media, one of their reporters referred to the story about the constitutional challenge in Quebec about the oath to the King, for which she refers to it as the “King of England.”

CBC using "King of England" in the Canadian context. Not King of Canada.There hasn't been a King of England since 1702.FFS, CBC. This is basic civics and you can't even get that right. www.youtube.com/shorts/R5B-N…

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-14T01:11:30.309Z

For. Fuck. Sakes.

This is basic, grade-school civics. In Canada, Charles III is the King of Canada. Canada has had its own separate and distinct Crown since the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Even more to the fact, England has not had a separate Crown since 1707, when it was merged with the Crown of Scotland to become the Crown of the United Kingdom. In fact, there hasn’t been a King of England since 1702. And yet, here’s the gods damned CBC, using the phrase in reference to the King of Canada, like it’s no big deal.

Even worse was the fact that the clip just uncritically aired the Parti Québécois leader’s completely false claims about swearing the oath to the “King of England” (who doesn’t exist) and that it’s to a “foreign monarch,” which again, hasn’t been true since 1931. Sure, we may time-share the physical person of Charles III, but the King of Canada is not a foreign imposition. These should be basic facts that the national public broadcaster should be able to correct, but chose not to, and presented the PQ’s framing as fact, which it absolutely is not. This is complete malpractice on the part of the journalist in question, her editors and producers, and the CBC writ-large. If they can’t put out accurate information about the basic civics of this country, then what are they even doing?

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-08-13T19:08:01.541Z

My Latest:

My Xtra column wonders which rights Carney will capitulate on next, once he’s finished capitulating on trade.

Continue reading →

Hybrid rules are still bad (in case you were wondering)

Posted on by

Because it’s the summer doldrums, The Canadian Press has decided to check in on the “hybrid” Parliament rules, which are inexplicably still in place, long after the height of the pandemic ended. Well, it should be inexplicable, but for those of us with longer memories, we know that the Liberals were trying to institute these rule changes long before COVID happened, and were never able to get them over the finish line (for good reason!) until COVID, and well, they didn’t let a good crisis go to waste. A lot of them were very committed to the idea that these rule-changes are necessary because of parental responsibilities, and so on. Of course, we now have a handful of MPs who simply don’t show up in Ottawa (one of them was NDP MP Niki Ashton, before she got voted out, but there are others), while we are devaluing the in-person aspects of the job, which cannot be ignored.

I have consistently said this, and I will keep saying it—much of the value of what happens in Parliament are the conversations that happen in corridors, in lobbies, at the sides of committee rooms, that you cannot have online. People underestimate how huge that is. Keeping MPs online also keeps them in party silos, where they don’t see other MPs as human beings, but opponents. In-person meetings and the ability to connect on a human level increases collegiality and decorum. (See: Ending evening sittings in the 1990s and the demise of collegiality). But more than that, there is now a culture of presenteeism where they feel they need to be online all the time, when they should be taking leave for family issues, or medical care, or so on. You can pair votes for absences. You can have someone cover for you at committee. This happened for 150 years, and Parliament functioned just fine. The excuses for why they feel they need this are poor, and it creates more problems than it solves. MPs need to wind down these “hybrid” rules, and end remote voting (because that’s particularly offensive to parliamentary democracy), and engage with one another in person like they’re supposed to.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-08-04T19:08:02.941Z

My Latest:

  • My weekend column wonders how it was that Mark Carney had become an even worse communicator than Justin Trudeau was.
  • My column makes note of the premiers’ attempt to get back to a 50-50 healthcare funding formula, ignoring that they got revenue tools they now refuse to use.
  • For National Magazine, I delve into the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to strike down the law that bars the Ethics Commissioner’s reports from judicial review.
  • My long weekend column looks at the falling crime rates before Carney’s performative tough-on-crime legislation, and points to how credulous he really is.

Continue reading →

Pretences for new tariffs

Posted on by

The tariff news keeps coming, because of course it does. Trump is launching a new round of tariffs to replace the “temporary” ones that he put in place after the US Supreme Court struck down his previous “Liberation Day” tariffs, under the pretence that these tariffs are about combatting the use of “forced labour” in the supply chains of trading partners, like Canada. (Just don’t ask Americans about their own forced labour practices in their prison-industrial complex). These tariffs seem to be exempt if they’re New NAFTA compliant, so they may not affect Canada that much, but our government is going to keep insisting that we’re doing a great job of keeping forced labour from our supply chains, but they eliminated the ombudsman who investigated these supply chains, and their new legislation on tougher compliance is not in effect. (Also, we’re going to pointedly ignore all that investment from Qatar, which also engaged in forced labour).

Meanwhile, when it comes to the threats of the Section 338 tariffs, prime minister Mark Carney met with the premiers yesterday, and said that they are considering retaliation (just not retaliating in advance), and that “all options are on the table,” never mind that two of those premiers will not put all options on the table. So, yeah, I’m not exactly sure what to make of this other than to say that the history so far is a lot of huffing and puffing, and then quickly capitulating in order to “keep negotiations going,” which nets us absolutely nothing more than more threats, more bullying, and more attempts to turn us into a vassal state.

Programming Note: I’m taking the next week-and-a-half off for my summer break. Loonie Politics columns will still appear on schedule, but blog posts and video content are taking a break for the duration.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-07-22T19:08:05.890Z

My Latest:

My column points to how Avi Lewis seems determined to repeat Jagmeet Singh’s strategy for getting a seat, and how he’ll render himself just as irrelevant that way.

Continue reading →

Disparity in premiers’ reactions to new tariffs

Posted on by

There was more reaction to the threatened Section 338 tariffs yesterday, particular from the premiers, who were meeting in Charlottetown, though those reactions were mixed. Doug Ford was full of bluster and saying that if we cut off oil and potash, we could “dismantle” the US, while Danielle Smith and Scott Moe, true to form, insisted that no, we mustn’t use those products for retaliation. Prime minister Mark Carney had a curb-side press conference to say that he spoke with Trump this morning and that they will “intensify negotiations,” whatever that is supposed to mean, because apparently the thinking is that we can still come to some kind of trade agreement with the US? Even though there is no agreement to be had, and never will be? I also note that if you look at how provinces are affected by these threatened tariffs that Alberta and Saskatchewan are barely threatened at all—it’s quite clear that a lot of these were chosen to exacerbate divisions.

There's a lot of variation across #cdnecon in exposure to the new 50% U.S. tariffs (on August 19). Here's a preliminary estimate of the share of exports affected (based on HS6, so a slight over-estimate). BC/ON/QC most exposed. Others far less so.

— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe.bsky.social) 2026-07-21T19:53:38.355840Z

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3mr6jtyqv522e

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3mr6jxnjdk22e

News In Photo:

— The Beaverton (@thebeaverton.com) 2026-07-21T18:13:17.448Z

Meanwhile, senior officials have confirmed that what Carney said about the bridge agreement was wrong, and that the revenue-sharing is tolls minus operations (like snow clearing) and not post-debt repayment, meaning that it’s likely he was being misleading in the media. But in light of the latest threats, the Canadian government has decided not to attend any kind of ribbon-cutting when it opens next week, because why should they?

My Latest:

For National Magazine, I delve into why the government’s Digital Safety Act is very likely unconstitutional, and completely unworkable.

Continue reading →

Elder pundit nonsense about the Senate

Posted on by

I should have left well enough alone and not clicked, but I got curious. That was a mistake. John Ibbitson published some absolute tripe in the Globe and Mail yesterday morning that was ignorant to say the very least. In making reference to Carney’s Senate appointments, Ibbitson says the real problem is the west’s “under-representation” in the Chamber, which would require constitutional change. He then goes on to half-assedly explain why PEI got four seats when they joined Confederation, but missed the entire thinking behind the regional breakdown of the Chamber (24 seats for the Maritimes, 24 seats for Quebec, 24 seats for Ontario, and 24 seats for the west; the territories each get one, and Newfoundland and Labrador, as latecomers, got six). The whole point of the regional breakdown is because it’s not a rep-by-pop chamber, and the Maritimes as a region got the same number as Ontario and Quebec in order to provide a counterbalance to the rep-by-pop House of Commons. But apparently when you’re an elder pundit, you don’t need to care about facts.

How could someone who spent as many years in the Ottawa bureau as Ibbitson did and not a) learn the logic behind Senate regional seat distribution, and b) that telling the premiers to fight amongst themselves about constitutional change will only exacerbate "regional grievances"? For. Fuck. Sakes.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-07-16T14:04:58.949Z

From there, Ibbitson basically says to let the provinces hash out a new distribution in the Senate as a way of “tamping down” regional grievances, which is absolutely ridiculous. 1) That particular grievance is imaginary, and Alberta in particular has long flirted with other forms of Senate reform to Americanise the institution, when their real beef is that other parts of the country don’t vote conservative enough for their liking, and no change to the Senate will fix that; and 2) Getting the provinces to fight over constitutional amendments is not only opening up Pandora’s Box, it’s inviting nothing more than the wholesale destruction of the country as each tries to one-up the other, take even more power from the federal government that they will then not use, and demand federal transfers instead. Federalism is not working well in this country right now, but it’s not because of the Senate’s composition, or our de-centralised federation, but rather because provinces can operate with impunity and no responsibility. The fact that Ibbitson remains blind to these very basic facts of Canadian politics makes me despair for the state or our nation’s punditry, because great Cyllenian Hermes, that’s we are not served well by aging white guys who can’t be bothered to actually learn something.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-07-16T19:08:01.544Z

Scott Gilmore

Someone asked the other day if I had any thoughts on Scott Gilmore becoming Mark Carney’s new principal secretary, and I don’t have too much to say except this one thing—back in 2017, Gilmore declared himself a “self-loathing Tory” and tried to go around hosting meetings to see about drumming up support for a new conservative party that wasn’t socially conservative, and believed in things like climate change and gay rights. Establishment Conservatives all got hot and bothered about it, and it never went anywhere (ditto Dominic Cardy’s attempt at creating a new centrist party), but the fact that this same Scott Gilmore is now at the heart of Carney’s PMO sounds to me like conclusive proof that thanks to Carney, the Liberals have become the second coming of the Progressive Conservatives.

Continue reading →