Tag Archives: Mark Carney

Roundup: The G6-plus-one, day two

Posted on by

The remainder of the G7 Summit was odd with Trump’s early departure, in part because of how much space he took up at the event, and his subsequent absence case a long shadow. A number of leaders had come specifically to meet with him on the second day, including Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and with Trump gone, it made the trip seem less worthwhile for their broader goals. There was talk that a statement about support for Ukraine was scrapped because the Americans wanted the language to be watered down to useless—but Mark Carney’s office later retracted that claim, so it’s hard to say what actually happened there. Carney did, however, pledge another $4.3 billion for Ukraine and to help bring about more sanctions on Russia and their “shadow fleet,” so that’s not nothing. As for Trump, while on his way home, he was back to threats, insisting Canada will be paying tariffs unless we become a US state, and he increased the price for participation in the “golden dome,” with a number he pulled directly out of his ass.

As for the outcomes of the summit, there was an agreement on an increased use of AI (really?!) plus a “common vision” for quantum technologies. The Rapid Response Mechanism on disinformation and threats to democracy will update its reports to include transnational repression; there was also a pledge to do more to tackle migrant smuggling. There was agreement to coordinate efforts to manage the impacts of wildfires—but nothing about tackling climate change that is causing those fires. There was also talk about “economic corridors” for critical minerals, and enforcing standardised markets in order to combat Chinese dominance in that tech space.

Regarding the other meetings on the sidelines, Carney had his meeting with Narendra Modi and did raise transnational repression during his remarks, for all the good it did. The pair agreed to re-establish proper diplomatic relations and to re-appoint new high commissioners for each country, but we’ll see if India’s next representative is also tied to repression. Carney also had a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who was supportive of the plans to reach the NATO two-percent spending target this year (right before the summit where the plan is to increase it again). As for designated protest sites, they were largely quiet on the second day. (More highlights from the day here).

https://twitter.com/supriyadwivedi/status/1935050251351495064

Ukraine Dispatch

The attack on Kyiv early Tuesday morning was even deadlier than first anticipated, with 440 drones and 32 missiles fired, killing at least 18 people and wounding 151 others; Odesa was also hit. (Photos).

Continue reading →

Roundup: The G7 summit begins

Posted on by

It’s the big G7 leaders’ summit today and tomorrow, so expect wall-to-wall coverage on that for the next 48 to 72 hours or so, depending if we have any eruptions (which could very well happen). Here’s a piece setting the stage for the event, where the side conversations with the additional leaders invited are also going to play a key part in the event. The ongoing Israel-Iran conflict is likely going to also feature in the discussions. Here is a look at some of the agenda items that Carney had laid out, including quantum technologies. Here’s a look at the security in the region, which is helped by the fact that it’s an isolated location with no local services.

Things got off to an early start with Keir Starmer arriving on Saturday evening for dinner with Mark Carney, before the pair went to a local pub to take in the hockey game together (which was apparently on mute in the local Royal Oak, because of course it was a Royal Oak). They had a formal meeting in West Block on Sunday morning, and talked about more trade and bilateral cooperation on a number of files. Carney will have a sit-down with Trump this morning before the summit begins formally.

The rest of the leaders began arriving in Calgary Sunday afternoon. So far we’ve had one civilian aircraft enter the restricted airspace and needing to be chased down by CF-18s. And on his way to the G7, French president Emmanuel Macron had a stopover in Greenland to offer support against American aggression.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians struck the Kremenchuk oil refinery in the Poltava region, which provides fuel to Ukrainian forces. A recent attack also damaged the Boeing office in Kyiv. Russia handed over another 1200 Ukrainian war dead on Sunday.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Carney making his choice with Modi

Posted on by

Spokespersons for the Sikh Federation Canada and the World Sikh Organisation of Canada were on the Hill yesterday to call on prime minister Mark Carney to rescind his invitation to Narendra Modi to attend the G7 summit, and are not ruling out actions such as barring Liberal MPs from visiting Sikh temples as a protest. They warned that more than a dozen Canadian Sikhs are under active threat from India,  and we also learned in the media yesterday that a suspected Indian government agent had Jagmeet Singh under surveillance, which prompted close RCMP protection eighteen months ago.

Oh, but Carney says, we got assurances about cooperating on a law enforcement dialogue, and yes, RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme does say that Indian officials are now being cooperative on the investigation into the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar where they weren’t before, but again, how much longer is this going to continue until it’s no longer convenient and they start making up a bunch of bullshit for their newspapers again like they did with the supposed cocaine found on Trudeau’s plane (which right-wing newspapers in this Canada breathlessly repeated while the journalists who were actually on the plane repeatedly said that this never happened and that this was a bullshit information operation).

Yes, India is an important economy at a time when we can no longer rely on the Americans, but can we rely on India either given Modi’s increasing authoritarian tendencies, and his violation of human rights for minorities? Those Sikh spokespersons made the salient point about how Carney is sending the message that some lives are worth more than others, and that if there’s economic benefit, then we can turn a blind eye to human rights abuses and the fact that they almost certainly contracted an extrajudicial killing on Canadian soil. That should matter, and we should send a message that it does matter. But we’re not getting that from Carney, and even more to the point, the Liberals have had some very effective Sikh organisers in the party (which is why certain MPs were in Trudeau’s Cabinet when they were poor performers) and it would seem odd to waste that goodwill when you want to try and win a majority in the next election. I’m just not seeing a lot of principle or smart politics here.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian forces are slowly pushing back the Russian incursion in Sumy region. Ukrainian military officials say that the number of Russian soldiers killed or wounded in the conflict is now over one million, as the war is now in its third year. There was another exchange of sick and wounded prisoners yesterday. President Zelenskyy will be attending the G7 in Kananaskis next week.

https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1933028255767941303

Continue reading →

Roundup: The price of going around consultations

Posted on by

As prime minister Mark Carney gets set to ram his major project legislation through Parliament—Henry VIII clause and all—a couple of philosophical questions are popping up about the nature of what it is they’re doing to speed through these approvals. Doug Ford is trying to do it by essentially creating lawless zones, whereas Carney is giving himself the power to override other laws through regulation alone, which is ripe for abuse and which the Liberals would be screaming bloody murder about if they were in opposition. (The Conservatives, incidentally, are not up in arms about this use of a Henry VIII clause). The thing is, though, these laws and regulations exist for a reason—they’re not there just to thwart investment or development (in spite of what the Conservatives might tell themselves), and you’re asking for trouble if you go around it.

Part of that trouble is Indigenous consultation, and what they seem to believe it entails. It’s not just a meeting where you sit down and go “Here’s what we want to do on your lands.” It’s way more complicated, especially as you have some particular First Nations that have been burned in the past by other developers who promised them all kinds of benefits for that development and then reneged on their agreements (often leaving an environmental catastrophe in their wakes that they won’t pay for, leaving these First Nations off even worse). And they are already talking about litigation if their rights are violated, and those rights include free, prior and informed consent. This is a big deal, and we’re not sure that either Carney or Ford have actually thought this through. Things take time—especially within First Nations. Carney may be in for an unpleasant surprise about his timelines.

[Mallory Archer voice]: Do you want litigation? Because that's how you get litigation.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-06-10T04:18:21.071Z

Meanwhile, oil prices have crashed to rock-bottom prices, meaning it will be even more unlikely that we’ll see companies willing to invest in new pipeline infrastructure, even if the Carney government thinks they can ram projects through in a two-year window (which, again, I remain dubious about). Danielle Smith is trying to entice a proponent for some sort of pipeline, but again, money talks. Those rock-bottom prices are also going to hit Alberta’s government hard, because they budgeted for much higher royalties, and that in turn will make Smith panicky and try to pick even more fights, all because she refuses to implement a sales tax that would avoid being dependent on oil revenues above a certain level to balance the books.

Ukraine Dispatch

It was another night of heavy drone attacks, with the hardest-hit area being Kharkiv, killing three people and a total of 64 wounded across the country. Ukraine says that they struck a large gunpower factory in Russia. Another prisoner swap was held yesterday, but it was less prisoners than 1212 bodies.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A big defence commitment?

Posted on by

Yesterday, at Fort York in Toronto, prime minister Mark Carney announced that Canada would meet its NATO commitment of two percent of GDP by the end of next fiscal year instead of by 2030, in part through use of greater pay, more funds for sustainment, support for the defence industry, and some good ol’ creative accounting. Carney prefaced this by making a very real point about the changing nature of America’s place in the world: “The United States is beginning to monetize its hegemony, charging for access to its markets and reducing its relative contribution to our collective security.”

One of the big question marks has to do with the status of the Coast Guard, and how it gets folded into the calculation around defence spending—there were mixed messages on whether it stays under Department of Fisheries and Oceans, of if it will be moved into Department of National Defence (though there is also an argument for it to go to Public Safety), and the question of whether or not to arm those ships is a fraught one because of the training requirements for armaments. It sounds like there will be things like CSE’s cyber-capability being counted as part of this calculation as well, which again, seems to be more fudging numbers that we typically accused other nations of doing while we were more “pure” in terms of what we counted toward our spending commitments, and that seems to be going away.

I would add that while we get a bunch of competing narratives around the target, whether it’s the Conservatives’ memory-holing the fact that they cut defence spending to below one percent of GDP (in order to achieve a false balance on the books in time for the 2015 election), or the notion that we are nothing more than freeloaders in NATO, we should keep reminding people that even with lower per-capita defence spending, we have been punching above our weight taking on the tough missions in NATO (Kandahar, leading a multi-country brigade in Latvia) where as other allies who have met their two percent targets don’t contribute (looking at you, Greece). A poor metric of spending is not a good indicator of contribution, but it has created a whole false narrative that we should be correcting, but that’s too much work for the pundit class, who are more interested in hand-wringing and calling Justin Trudeau names than they are in looking at our actual contributions. (Here’s a timeline of the spending target melodrama).

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia made another massive overnight attack against Ukraine, launching 479 drones and twenty missiles of various types, targeting the western and central parts of the county. Another prisoner swap did go ahead yesterday.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1932086386145841186

Continue reading →

Roundup: Historical revisionism of federalism in the past decade

Posted on by

Last week had largely been spent trying to determine what the love-in with the premiers all means, so much so that Danielle Smith is losing her grip on reality as she insists that she’ll convince BC premier David Eby to let another pipeline cross his province (in spite of there being no actual proposals for one), while also claiming that Albertans have the “lowest living standards in the world,” and I just can’t even.

Meanwhile, I’m seeing comments from the pundit class that I’m just finding hard to square with reality. This one quote from the weekend dispatch of The Line is a good example of these pundit narratives that are completely ahistorical.

The Liberals under Justin Trudeau were so fantastically uninterested in working with the provinces, and so relentlessly hostile to basic economic growth, that having a prime minister simply acknowledge (as Carney has) that we are in an economic emergency seems like a massive step forward.

Trudeau did work with the provinces a lot in his first parliament—he had the first face-to-face meeting with them as a group in years after Harper refused to, and they got big things done—the agreement on carbon pricing, enhancing CPP, a suite of health measures that Jane Philpott negotiated with the provinces. None of this was inconsequential, but there was a very different group of premiers in 2015 than there was in 2024. And let’s also be frank—the premiers didn’t want to work together with the federal government anymore. They wanted to gang up on him for more money with no conditions (those health transfers that Philpott negotiated didn’t go toward fixing anything), while the pleading that everyone was making around finding exceptions to the carbon levy was very unproductive (not that Trudeau did any favours in his “pause” on the price for heating oil rather than a better system of rebates in areas where energy poverty was a problem). But seriously, the premiers get away with blaming Trudeau for all of the things that they refused to do that were their responsibility, and somehow he was the problem?

As well, the notion that Trudeau was hostile to basic economic growth is, frankly, unhinged. How many trade deals did he sign or push over the finish line? What was the whole attempt to stand-up a North American EV supply chain? What were the billions spent to keep the entire economy afloat during COVID? If you’re going to cite the capital gains changes as being “hostile,” then congratulations—you’re a gullible numpty who bought the lines of people who engage in tax arbitrage and want that sweet roll to continue. If you think environmental regulation was killing economic growth, just wait until you see what climate change is already doing to the economy and is going to get exponentially worse. Just because Trudeau didn’t bow to the tax-cut-and-deregulate crowd, it doesn’t mean he was hostile to economic growth. Yes, he and his government had problems. A lot of them. But let’s not make up things that are blatantly ahistorical or outright fictional just to help put a shine on Carney.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-06-07T21:10:14.180Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drone and missile attacks killed four people in Kharkiv on Saturday. Russian forces claim to have crossed into the Dnipropetrovsk region, while a row is now brewing over an agreement to exchange bodies of dead soldiers, which Ukraine says they are not delaying. Meanwhile, a drone attack on a Russian electronics factory has forced them to suspend production.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1931395337958084711

Continue reading →

Roundup: What transnational repression?

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney had a big day planned with the tabling of his big “One Canada Economy” bill, and he managed to stomp all over his own message with news that he had a call with Indian prime minister Narendra Modi and invited him to attend the G7 summit in Kananaskis in a couple of weeks. There was a bit of a collective WTF from around the country considering that we still have not resolved the issue with the Modi government being credibly accused of ordering the murder of Canadian citizens on Canadian soil, along with other extortion rackets. Not only was this upsetting to Sikhs in Canada, but it also came on the anniversary of the attack on the Golden Temple in India, showing once again that Carney has inadequate political sense and is being poorly advised by those who allegedly have more political experience than he does.

chat is it normal to invite the head of a govt alleged to have been involved in the extrajudicial killing a canadian citizen on canadian soil to canada asking for a diaspora

— Supriya Dwivedi (@supriya.bsky.social) 2025-06-06T14:11:12.637Z

honestly hard to see this as anything other than the Carney govt thinking some canadian lives matter more than others it will also be incredibly difficult to take anything this govt says on transnational repression and foreign interference seriously given this pivot

— Supriya Dwivedi (@supriya.bsky.social) 2025-06-06T14:12:22.745Z

Carney defended the move by insisting this was about economic ties, and that he had reassurances that the law-enforcement process was ongoing (which India has refused cooperation around, and instead chose to make up a bunch of absolute horseshit about drugs supposedly being found on Trudeau’s plane). Others insisted that this was a diplomatic necessity, because diplomacy is not a reward for good behaviour (true!) and also stated that the other six members of the G7 have no problem with India and that Canada is an outlier. I would caveat that, however—the US has had their problems with India around this very problem, because some of it was also happening on US soil, and many other G7 countries don’t have the same Indian diaspora as Canada, which doesn’t mean that they would be safe from these kinds of activities. I would also say that there is an added implicit message with this invitation that you can essentially get away with murder if you’re economically important enough, and that’s a really, really bad message to send in this era of increasing authoritarianism and the democratic backsliding happening in Western countries.

On that note, Carney also had a call with Chinese premier Li Qiang, at his behest, about regularising communications channels. No doubt Carney has motivations of trying to get China to lift their tariffs on our agricultural and seafood products, which were in retaliation for our EV tariffs (because China is trying to behave in a predatory manner by trying to build a tech monoculture to suffocate our own EV industry). Not to mention, China continues to be a bad actor with its own foreign interference and transnational repression, so again, it is looking a lot like Carney is behaving like it’s 1995 and just one more trade deal with China will make them more democratic and respect human rights. Really! We mean it this time!

The last word goes to The Beaverton, who got it just right.

Carney limits G7 guests to one assassination each

— The Beaverton (@thebeaverton.com) 2025-06-06T21:09:26.706Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched another missile and drone attack on Ukraine in the early hours of Friday, killing at least six people. They claim this these are “military targets” in retaliation for Ukrainian “terrorist acts” against Russia, when of course we know this is nothing but bullshit. Ukrainian drones hit an industrial enterprise in Russia’s southern city of Engels.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The confidence vote that wasn’t

Posted on by

Debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech From the Throne was due to wrap up, meaning a final vote. Media outlets insisted that this would be the first major confidence vote of the new Parliament, and that if the Liberals lost it, we could go back to an election, and there was all this building drama because of how they lost the vote on the Conservatives’ amendment (to “urge” the government to table a spring budget). And my headache started.

The vote on the Address in Reply is not automatically a confidence vote. It is if the opposition amendments explicitly state that they have no confidence in the government, and sometimes that happens because this is the first opportunity to test the confidence of the Chamber, especially in a minority parliament or legislature, but again, that was not the case here. But along the way, the NDP decided that they were going to play tough and declare that they would vote against it for specious reasons (and because Don Davies is an idiot, and has a long track record of being an idiot and a blowhard), while the Government House Leader, Steve MacKinnon, told reporters that this would be a confidence vote. So, if the government says it’s a confidence vote, it’s a confidence vote, and it was likely intended to be something of a bit a put-up-or-shut-up dare, which can be risky in a minority parliament, but sometimes you also need to play hardball with the opposition. This was likely going to mean that the Bloc would either vote in support or abstain (because they did say they would give the government a year before they started to seriously oppose anything, given the Trump situation), but the government was never in any serious danger of falling. If, by some fluke, they did lose a vote they declared to be confidence, they could simply hold another vote and basically say “Did you mean it?” and chances are they would win that vote, and all would go back to normal.

And in the end, there wasn’t even a vote. News of Marc Garneau’s death reached the Chamber just before the vote was to be taken, and it seems like the appetite for drama was gone, and it passed on division, meaning that they agreed to disagree, that they were going to let it pass, but not bother with a recorded vote. And thus, the least exciting outcome happened.

I must advise the beings of Bluesky that, in a truly only-in-this-particular-Canadian-parliament twist, the much-anticipated will-they-or-won't-they-trigger-an-election over it motion on the Throne speech as amended — has been adopted on division.

— Kady O'Malley (@kadyo.bsky.social) 2025-06-04T22:25:39.121Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-06-04T22:02:26.904Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones struck an apartment building in Kharkiv, injuring at least seventeen. Russian forces have also pushed further into Sumy region. Here’s a look at how Operation Spiderweb was carried out.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More provincial buck-passing, FCM edition

Posted on by

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities had their big conference in Ottawa over the past couple of days, and there were a host of mayors and councillors on the Hill to meet with MPs. Yesterday afternoon, Mark Carney addressed their conference to basically give the same speech he’s been giving for the past couple of weeks about things like “moving to delay to delivery,” and so on. But I did find it interesting that as part of this address to the FCM, he essentially told them that he’ll be too busy with nation-building projects to reform municipal funding structures.

It’s kind of funny, but at the same time, I have to ask how that’s actually his job, or the job of the federal government at all. Cities are creatures of provincial legislation. If you want to reform their funding structures, the provinces need to sit down and hammer that out, unless you want to start amending the constitution, and I’m pretty sure that nobody wants to open that particular Pandora’s Box (which, incidentally, was not a box but a jar). We could let cities collect their own income or sales taxes, or other forms of financing that would be better than simply property taxes, but provinces refuse, and in some cases, have specifically legislated against it. And we’ve known for decades now that cities have funding challenges that they need something to be done about, but have provinces responded? Of course not. They simply demand the federal government send them more money.

With this in mind, Toronto mayor Olivia Chow was also here for the FCM meeting, and she says she is encouraged by Carney’s sense of urgency on tackling the housing crisis, but again, she too is here calling for the federal government to directly intervene with money. One thing she has proposed is for necessary infrastructure to build more housing, for the federal government to basically pay the municipality’s one-third share (so they essentially pay two-thirds and the province pay the other third), and it’s just so infuriating. The federal government is not the purse for every other jurisdiction. Provinces have the very same revenue-generating tools as the federal government does, but they refuse to use them because they would rather beg for money and let the federal government be the bad guy with their taxes than the province. This kind of absolute immaturity is just exhausting, and it’s one of the reasons why things just aren’t getting done in this country.

Or ever, if we're being honest.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-05-30T13:30:00.766Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia’s massive drone attack overnight Thursday injured two people in Kharkiv, and hit a town that sits on the border with Romania, which is a NATO member.

Continue reading →

QP: New faces, same dynamics

Posted on by

A new Parliament, a new and untested Speaker, a new and untested prime minister, and an old familiar smirking face filling in for the leader of the opposition, at least until the party leader can win a new seat. Will anything actually change with all of these new faces, or have the dynamics entrenched themselves? We are about to find out.

Andrew Scheer led off in English, welcoming Mark Carney to his first Question Period, and complained that the government “secretly” dropped counter tariffs (it wasn’t secret), and wondered how he would make up the fiscal shortfall. Carney first thanked his constituents and the Speaker, and gave the line that the tariffs have maximum effect on the U.S. while minimal effect on Canadians. Scheer chirped that he didn’t take long to not answer questions, before demanding a budget before summer vacation. Carney suggested that Poilievre’s plan did not include a budget, and said that new legislation would be on the way to build the economy. Scheer recited a bunch of bullshit about the Liberals damaging the economy, and demanded the government repeal the old Bill C-69. Carney recited some lines about building the economy and a major project office. Pierre Paul-Hus took over in French to demand a budget, and Carney insisted in French that he has a daring and ambitious plan to bring together the Canadian economy into one economy and not thirteen. Paul-Hus repeated the demand, and Carney insisted that they would act immediately to cut taxes on the Middle Class™ and reduce or remove GST on new housing. Paul-Hus then turned to the false claim that that the counter-tariffs were removed in secret, and Carney responded that he must be referring to the Conservative platform with its $20 billion deficit.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and he called the King a “foreign monarch” before wondering why there was no mention of trade in the Speech from the Throne. Carney said that if he had been there, he would have heard about the global trade system. Blanchet called the Speech “centralising” and railed against the “one economy” talking points, likening provinces to branches of a bank headquartered in Toronto. Carney said this is a crisis and a time for unity, which is why the premiers are meeting this weekend in Saskatoon. Blanchet pivoted to the climate crisis, and noted that there was “nothing” about it in the Speech. Carney said that the climate crisis does exist, which is why we need to become an energy “superpower” in clean and conventional energy, and it would come up at the G7 meeting.

Continue reading →