Tag Archives: Mark Carney

QP: Admitting a poor choice of words

Posted on by

After a week away, they PM was back in the Chamber for QP, and so were most of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, declaring that Mark Carney hasn’t been able to reduce a single tariff in his 28 trips abroad, but he did manage to find gains for Brookfield, including a deal that was signed days after his meeting with Trump, and he also noted that the European Space Agency is on a Brookfield-owned campus, and wondered why every time he goes abroad, Canadians get poorer and Brookfield gets richer. Carney dismissed this, saying that Poilievre should check his figures as Indonesia reduced their tariffs on Canadian goods, and that they got a $70 billion commitment of investment from the UAE. Poilievre then switched to English to declare how much he cares for workers after Carney made his “Who cares?” aside at the G20. Carney noted that since he became PM, Canada has secured the lowest tariff rate in the world, and that there are sectors for whom they are under pressure, and the he does care and they are enacting further supports. Poilievre gave another “who cares?” exhortation, and Carney took a swipe at Poilievre not getting elected before admitting that he made a poor choice of words on a serious issue, and rounded off with some back-patting about his trade deals. Poilievre insisted that Carney has made nothing but mistakes on trade, and raised that Stephen Harper got a softwood deal when he came into office, before going on another paean about how much the cares. Carney insisted that they care about Canadians, which is why they have a budget to “catalyze” investments, while the Conservatives voted against Canada’s future. Poilievre returned his first question on Carney not getting any wins on tariffs and the supposed gains for Brookfield. Carney repeated out that Indonesia is reducing its tariffs by 95 percent, that we have the best deal with the Americans, and the UAE wants to invest $70 billion in Canada. Poilievre again insisted this was about Brookfield, before pivoting to the MOU with Alberta and demanded to know what date construction would begin on a new pipeline. Carney said that this was about necessary conditions, not sufficient conditions, and that the government of BC and the First Nations need to agree.

Christine Normandin rose for the Bloc and immediately accused the Liberals of cheating, and said that Chrétien sped up citizenships to help sway the Quebec in 1995, and wondered if they would cheat again in a new referendum. Carney pointed out that they have more Liberals in their caucus than the Bloc, and they respect Quebeckers. Normandin repeated her accusations, and again demanded a fair fight in a future referendum. Carney said the Bloc dwell in the past while he is turned to the future. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe took over to make the same accusations, and Carney gave the same bland assurances around building for the future.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Political support for a new pipeline?

Posted on by

More details are emerging about the Memorandum of Understanding that prime minister Mark Carney looks set to sign with Alberta premier Danielle Smith on Thursday, which would set the stage for political support for a pipeline to the northwest coast of BC if certain conditions are met. Those conditions include a stricter industrial carbon price in the province, and a “multibillion-dollar investment in carbon capture from the Pathways Alliance,” and there is apparently some language about Indigenous ownership and equity. In return, it looks like Alberta also gets a bunch of exemptions from other environmental legislation, which it would seem to me is just setting up fights with every other province who will want their own special deals and carve-outs.

BC premier David Eby is rightfully upset about being left out of the process (as Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe initially claimed he was part of the talks, which turned out to be mere self-aggrandisement). And while it’s true that the province can’t veto a project that falls under federal jurisdiction (and we have Supreme Court jurisprudence on this), it definitely feels impolitic to freeze him out, considering that making an agreement with Smith to overrule Eby’s stated wishes—and the wishes of the coastal First Nations—certainly has the feel of the US and Russia coming up with a “peace plan” for Ukraine. Eby also, correctly, points out that they would never do this with Quebec, which is a good point.

This being said, this remains about a hypothetical pipeline that may never come to fruition because they are unlikely to get a private sector proponent, because the oil market changed in 2014 and Alberta refuses to accept that fact. What I am more concerned about is just how many billions of public dollars are going to be consume by Pathways in order to try and make it viable, and it just won’t be, and we’ll have wasted years, billions of dollars, both of which could have been better spent coming up with a more reasonable transition to a greener future, because again, it’s not 2014 anymore.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-24T23:08:02.124Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones and missiles have hit residential buildings in Kyiv, starting fires and killing at least one person. Ukrainian officials are apparently working with the Americans on the so-called “28-point peace plan” to make it more palatable.

Continue reading →

QP: Fumbling around “Who cares?”

Posted on by

The PM had just returned home from his trip to the G20, but was not present as a result. Pierre Poilievre, however, was, and he led off in French, and he raised that when Carney was elected, it was on the notion that tariffs were an “existential threat,” but when asked over the weekend about the state of talks with Trump, Carney said “Who cares?” and Poilievre railed that he doesn’t care about forestry or auto workers. Steve MacKinnon ignored the question, and raised that last week, Conservative MP Bob Zimmer took up MAGA talking points that immigrants drag down the Canadian economy, and wondered if Poilievre approved of those comments. Poilievre said that his question was for the PM, who was in Ottawa (but he couldn’t directly say that he wasn’t preset in the Chamber), and repeated his incredulity about the “Who cares?” and how the prime minister couldn’t care about the people losing their jobs due to his “incompetence.” MacKinnon responded in English by again asking about Zimmer’s comments, and asked again if Poilievre endorses such claims. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his incredulity about the “who cares?”, but MacKinnon again raised comments made by Zimmer and Stephanie Kusie, and wondered if there would be apologies. Poilievre raised an $80 billion contract Brookfield got from the White House, and accused Carney of being more concerned about that. MacKinnon insisted that this was another attack questioning the prime minister’s loyalty to Canada. Poilievre listed industries affected by tariffs and declared that he about them, and this time Dominic LeBlanc got up to say that the government was elected to defend Canadian workers, which the budget does, and the Conservatives voted against it. Poilievre repeated the claim about a Brookfield deal, and François-Philippe Champagne got up to praise the good news in the budget.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and he relayed that he was shocked that the government has given up on its feminist foreign policy, and he demanded to know if gender equating was still a Canadian value. Mona Fortier got up to read a script about how Canada continues to support gender equality and is still committed to eliminating gender-based violence, but that the foreign policy will be guided by three values, the third of which includes feminism. Blanchet needled that there was discomfort on the other side over this “gaffe” by the PM, and wondered if this was about pleasing the sexist regime in the U.S. Fortier repeated that they still hold feminism and a value. Blanchet called this speaking out of both sides of his mouth, pointed out that Carney said this as he was trying to get billions out of the UAE. Fortier read the same statement about values.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Confusion over who authored the “peace plan”

Posted on by

It has been a crazy weekend when it comes to making heads of tails of what is happening with the so-called “28-point peace plan” between Russia and Ukraine. A bunch of US legislators at the Halifax Security Conference were insisting that they were told that the plan was the starting point of negotiations, that the deadline of Thursday was to start talks, and that this was all a big misunderstanding. You had other reports saying that people were saying that this was the Russian plan that was just for discussion purposes. Then you had reports saying that no, the White House said that this is the plan, leaving everyone in the dark as to just what the hell was going on.

What the actual fuck is going on.America put forward a nearly carbon copy version of the Russian plan for Ukrainian conquest, admitted it and backtracked, then doubles down.

— Justin Ling (@justinling.ca) 2025-11-23T02:54:54.829Z

As this was happening, world leaders, including Canada, were treating this as if it’s a starting off point that “needs work” as opposed to being a betrayal of Ukraine and that it should be killed with fire, because nobody wants to make Trump too angry, because they rely too much on the Americans for too many things still (though Ukrainians have pointed out that it’s no longer 2023, and they are much more self-reliant). European leaders did come out with their own suggested 28 pointswhich are far more fair to Ukraine, but seem to be willing to let Russia continue to occupy territory it has gained by force (unless I’m misreading it), and still doesn’t call for much in the way of penalties other than to pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine.

PMO readout of Carney's call with Zelenskyy. Maintaining the façade that the "peace plan" is a good start (when it is in fact a betrayal).

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-23T20:07:37.708Z

Meanwhile, Anne Applebaum savages the plan as not being anything more than a starting off point for a larger future war, while the only beneficiaries are some unnamed Russian and American investors, because this is what Trump is really all about. Paul Wells laments the “don’t wake Trump” tactic that those world leaders are using, because it rewards how much of a betrayal it is, and soft-pedals the fact that it invites future wars of aggression.

G20 Outcomes

There were a number of things coming out of the G20 summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, and it leave a whole lot of questions about prime minister Mark Carney and his values and priorities. Carney had plenty of praise for his hosts, and talking about the G20 being a bridge following the rupture of the US withdrawing from its role with global institutions, and that he has no “burning issue” to talk with Trump at the moment, and they’ll talk when they’re ready to. This being said, Carney also declared that the government’s “feminist foreign policy” was effectively dead, in spite of it being about the best way to achieve outcomes and at a time when the US is doing things like calling reproductive rights and gender equity “human rights violations” (no, seriously). Carney announced a joint technology partnership with India and Australia, and that talks were being revied about a comprehensive trade agreement with India, in spite of their foreign interference in Canada and trans-national repression (that their High Commissioner insists is all a delusion).

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3m6dt3iyjjc2i

So, nothing on trans-national repression or India's foreign interference.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-23T22:26:23.696Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Four people were killed in a drone attack on Kharkiv on Sunday. The death toll from last week’s missile strike on Ternopil is now up to 34. Ukraine has struck power and heat stations in the Moscow region.

Continue reading →

QP: Grousing about the PM’s travels

Posted on by

With the PM still in Abu Dhabi, other leaders opted not to show up as well, nor did Pierre Poilievre did show, so it was up to Andrew Scheer to lead off in English, where he breathily recited the script about things get worse every time Mark Carney travels. Maninder Sidhu read a response about Carney signing a Foreign Investment and Promotion Agreement with the UAE. Scheer then pivoted to the tanker ban on BC’s northwest coast, and wondered if American tankers were included. Tim Hodgson read a non-response about working with stakeholders about a potential pipeline. Scheer then answered his own question and railed that American can still travel those waters, and said the government was hampering its own industry. Hodgson dismissed this as empty anger. Pierre Paul-Hus took over in French to repeat the same snide remarks about Carney’s travels, to which Dominic LeBlanc said that his colleague across the way might be confused, and praised the agreement signed in the UAE. Paul-Hus claimed that the government was elected on false pretences, before pivoting to the CRA and the problems with the call centres. Joël Lightbound assures him that they are well on the way with their 100-day plan, and things were getting better. Paul-Hus noted the cuts that were made by the previous minister, and demanded that the government treat this like an emergency. Lightbound insisted that it was what they were doing, and the online portals were now working.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc lambasted Carney for choosing travel to a petro-monarchy instead of the COP30 conference in Brazil. Stephen MacKinnon said that he chose to be in Ottawa to vote for the budget. Normandin accused the government of setting the country back ten years on climate, and MacKinnon assured her that the UAE is one of top ten investors in renewable energy. Patrick Bonin repeated the same accusations, to which Julie Dabrusin assured him that she was at the conference and that they were Building Canada Strong™.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions about the “energy accord” with Alberta

Posted on by

The news broke early yesterday that Alberta and the federal government are getting close to striking an “energy accord” of some variety with a memorandum of understanding that could allow for a bitumen pipeline to the northwest coast of BC with “limited exemptions” to the tanker ban so long as conditions are met, including changes to industrial carbon pricing, carbon capture, and lowering or eliminating the emissions cap. There were also Sources™ who said that it would require a private sector proponent, buy-in from coastal First Nations, and environmental approvals, which could mean it won’t happen at all.

As the day went on and other outlets started to get their own sources to confirm the story, differing details emerged. While Tim Hodgson said in Question Period that the BC government would need to be on-side, his office later said that no, they’re not getting a veto as part of the MOU. And then there are the Liberals themselves, many of whom are deeply opposed and will point out that ending the tanker ban will risk billions in ongoing projects from First Nations in the region. And those First Nations are not going to give consent, which would seem to make this whole thing moot anyway, unless the plan is ultimately to run roughshod over their rights yet again.

So, while we await the details, where the devil will lie, I am once again going to point out that we shouldn’t count on any kind of “grand bargain” with the oil companies or Alberta as a condition because they won’t live up to it. They have proven time and again that they won’t, or that they will lie to claim that they will do all kinds of things to reduce their emissions and to decarbonise when they actually have no intention of doing so. Meanwhile, the market may ultimately prove to be the veto here, because it’s no longer the world from before 2014, and nothing the federal or provincial government will do is going to change that fact.

Ukraine Dispatch

The death toll from the attack on Ternopil early Wednesday has risen to 25, with more than 73 injured. The latest US “peace plan” proposal is just more of the same rehashed Russian propaganda. Ukraine also plans to seek $44 billion in damages from Russia for their carbon emissions as a result of the war.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Playing chicken with the budget vote

Posted on by

The vote on the Ways and Means motion around the federal budget will be held early this evening, at the collapse of debate, and as of yet, nobody is willing to say just how it’s going to pass. And rest assured, it will pass, because nobody wants an election, and the NDP in particular have no way of affording going to an election (with an interim leader, no less), but absolutely nobody wants to actually look like they’re going to back down when they can swing their dicks around instead.

And so, we’re now in a game of chicken. The Government Whip says they’re ready to go to an election on this budget if they have to, but it’s an empty threat because nobody actually wants to go to an election. The real problem is there being a potential accident where someone isn’t supposed to vote (for the sake of the numbers) does, because everyone can vote on their phones now (which, I remind you, is a parliamentary abomination and should be stopped), and it goes over the edge. But I’m pretty sure that’s not going to happen, because again, nobody wants to go to an election, especially the Conservatives and the NDP. So, I suspect the Conservative whip is going to ensure that someone has unforeseen circumstances that they “just can’t vote,” and oh, well, the budget passed by the narrowest of margins. Oh darn.

Because we’re not going to have an election over this.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile struck the city of Balakliia in Kharkiv region, killing three and wounding at least ten. Russia claims it has taken two more settlements in the Zaporizhzhia region in the south. President Zelenskyy says he is working on another prisoner exchange with Russia.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ahistorical expectations about project timelines

Posted on by

A couple of quick notes for the weekend. First is that for all of the projects referred to the Major Projects Office, none have actually officially been designated a PONI (Project of National Importance), so my calling the referred projects as such is admittedly premature. But that also means that none of them have the special rules that trigger the Henry VIII Clause from the legislation, which again, leads to the same question that Althia Raj asked in her most recent column about why the rush to ram that bill through Parliament with almost no debate and little stakeholder input if they haven’t bothered to use it, nearly six months later.

The other note is that the talk about timelines remain ahistorical and nothing but wishful thinking. “We used to build big things. We built a railway in four years.” Erm, not really. This is likely a reason why most of the projects that have been referred to the MPO so far have been in the works for years is for the very reason that they’re much further along. This is likely going to be one of the death knells of Danielle Smith’s pipeline plan, which is that it’s starting from zero, and there is no way, even with the magic wand of the Henry VIII clause, that they can make it go from concept to shovels in two years.

They didn't go from "Shall we build a railway?" to a railway in four years.The CPR was a Confederation promise before 1867. Construction began in 1881.Or, actually, in 1875, when they started a section in Manitoba and northern Ontario. Which hooked up to other rails built on their own earlier.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:17:30.293Z

There were planning, scandal, false starts, re-awarding of the contract. And not a lot of attention to, you know, Indigenous people's rights.Or working conditions, which were eventually the subject of Heritage Minute you might recall. www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE3I…

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:20:55.646Z

What's the right length of time to plan and build a new high-speed rail line in 2025? I don't know.But they didn't do the entire CPR from concept to completion in four years, and I don't think we want a dead temporary foreign worker for every mile of track.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:23:15.475Z

And then there’s Poilievre’s completely nonsense demanding that government “get out of the way,” or Ontario’s Stephen Lecce talking about the problems with federal regulations killing projects when that also relies on a very selective reading of history and what happened. Northern Gateway started planning before Harper took over, and over his nine years in power, Mr. “Get government out of the way” couldn’t get it past the finish line either (in part because they couldn’t even be arsed to live up to their own consultation process with First Nations). Nothing Poilievre is saying is true, so We The Media need to stop treating it like it’s credible.

Ukraine Dispatch

The attack on Kyiv early Friday killed six and injured dozens, along with more strikes on energy facilities. Ukraine hit the oil port at Novorossiyk the same day, suspending oil exports. Ukraine is now mass-producing interceptor drones to bolster their air defences.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Remembrance Day 2025

Posted on by

For Remembrance Day, here is a look at the national ceremony in Ottawa, which was cold and snowy this year, and facing a dwindling number of veterans from the Second World War and Korea. As well, here are reports from ceremonies in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, and across BC.

Here is a look at the problem of digital asbestos fakes that are tainting remembrance across the internet, and glorifying Nazis in the process. Here is a look at the phenomenon of Unknown Soldiers in the era of DNA testing. Former MP and current MPP Karen McCrimmon, the first female air navigator in the Canadian Forces, talks about the importance of Remembrance Day.

As well, here is the tale of Wiliam Baldwin, who served, and whose calligraphy wrote down the names of the dead in the Book of Remembrance for the First World War. He enlisted in the Second World War, and signed up for a second tour when he was killed in action, and his name is in the Book of Remembrance for that war.

Ukraine Dispatch

There was a drone attack on Odesa’s energy and transport infrastructure. Russians are entering into Pokrovsk and Kupiansk “Mad Max-style,” while the situation in Zaporizhzhia is worsening. President Zelenskyy paid a visit to the front-line city of Kherson, while seven people have been charged in the energy kickback scheme.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not being a trained seal

Posted on by

Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith put out a video on his YouTube channel where he gives an honest assessment of the budget, including places where it fails to live up to the hype. As a backbench MP, this is not only his right, but his obligation, but boy howdy, a bunch of partisans from all stripes are losing their gods damned minds over this. A backbencher who doesn’t just lobotomise himself to read the scripts handed to him by his leader’s office? The nerve!

It's possible that Erskine-Smith has normalized dissent sufficiently — at least from him — that he can do stuff like this without it becoming a huge deal.www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jtC…

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-11-10T23:00:21.434Z

I was particularly struck by the partisan talking heads on Power & Politics last night who kept going on and on about how politics is a “team sport,” and that as a “member of the government,” he needs to be on-side. Erm, except he’s not a member of the government. Government=Cabinet, and while he is on the government side of the aisle, he is not a member. This is not be just being pedantic—it’s the very nature of how our parliamentary system works. Every member of Parliament, no matter which side of the aisle you’re on, are supposed to hold the government to account, and to keep them in check. Yes, that means government-side backbenchers too. That’s the whole raison d’être of Parliament, but everyone has become so used to the us-versus-them aspect that they have lost sight of that, and it really doesn’t help that Canada has largely lost the culture of backbenchers holding their own side to account because they are so desperate to get into Cabinet, or at least become a parliamentary secretary, that they are generally one ministerial screw-up away from a promotion, so they keep their mouths shut and stand up and clap and read their scripts like a good boy or girl, and that’s something that is fundamentally wrong with how the Canadian parliament operates.

Brad Lavigne and Kate Harrison telling Nate Erskine-Smith that he needs to be a trained seal is some bullshit.Backbenchers have an obligation to hold government to account as much as opposition MPs do. Learn how a Westminster system works, FFS. #PnPCBC

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-10T23:05:20.204Z

The UK, where you have a Chamber of 650 MPs, and a smaller Cabinet (though generally a larger number of junior ministers), generally means you have a lot of backbenchers who know they’ll never get into Cabinet, so they feel empowered to stand up to their own side. Some of them are former ministers who are still serving their constituents, and will let the current government know where they are going wrong. (There are some fantastic videos of Theresa May doing just this, and some videos of her absolutely savaging her successor, Boris Johnson, in PMQs). This is a culture we need to develop here. Of course, adding another hundred or so MPs to our chamber would help (and would really help us have enough bodies for committees without having parliamentary secretaries on them).

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-10T23:08:02.225Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Fighting continues in Pokrovosk, Dobropillia, and towns surrounding. Here is a look at life in Kherson, where Russians hunt civilians with drones on a daily basis. The anti-corruption bureau says it has found a $100 million kickback scheme in the state nuclear power company.

Continue reading →