Tag Archives: Mark Carney

Some admissions in the latest “Forward Guidance”

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney released another of his “Forward Guidance” videos yesterday, and it was…revealing. The historical figure that Carney used as his hook was the founder of Ontario Hydro, and it was all about the energy crises that we find ourselves living through. The problem? That so much of what Carney used as his frames of reference were based on 1) old myths that were not true; 2) revisionist history of the Trudeau government; and 3) wishful thinking. To break it down, Carney gave a line about how when he grew up in Edmonton, the National Energy Project made Albertans feel like “our resources weren’t our own,” which goes to the falsehoods around the NEP, and the generations of grievance politics that emerged from it. The NEP was never the problem—the collapse in global oil prices were. Alberta blamed the NEP, but to this day wishes they had the benefits, like west-east pipelines and a country-wide energy market instead of going north-south. Imagine that. Carney also says that more recently, “we were made to feel that our energy contributions were running against the tides of history.” Really? Trudeau, who bent over backwards for Alberta, built them a pipeline at the cost of his own political capital, and who kept giving money to the industry (who then squandered it)? And under whose leadership production rose to its highest levels ever, which Carney also admitted? Yeah, he was really making them feel bad about their energy contributions—except of course that they blamed him for the oil crash of 2014, that happened before he was in office. Huh. Carney didn’t mention that. Oh, and when Carney talks about how Alberta developed the oil sands, he omits that said development came with federal money and favourable tax treatment (thanks to Jean Chrétien). When your federalist leader keeps conceding the points of the separatists (which are falsehoods), it’s hard to see how he’s defending the country as a whole.

I have zero confidence that Carney will insist on the conditions of having a private sector proponent, or that Pathways happens (and I can pretty much guarantee that he'll shrug and say "Well, it was only going to capture 12 percent of emissions anyway").

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T15:11:12.884Z

From there, Carney kept going on about building our energy sector, and made some nonsense points about home-grown electrification, which…is already home-grown. We’re not importing electricity in any significant way. We export more. He talks about needing this new pipeline to have “new options,” but once the Strait of Hormuz opens up (which it will eventually), it’ll just be feeding a supply glut, which is going to further depress prices. And then he goes on about building trust internationally, before admitting that we’re not going to meet our climate targets (so, betraying the trust that we were building by saying we were going to meet our targets?) He kept insisting that the commitment to fighting the climate crisis is “absolute,” but he wants to do that by doubling down on oil and gas while also increasing electrification (omitting that said electrification will also mean more natural gas, particularly in Alberta). He also claimed that Trudeau’s climate plan, while it would meet our targets, was “unsustainable” and “too expensive.” Erm, you know how much more expensive climate change is, right? We’re talking orders of magnitude here. Oh, and it was “too divisive,” but only if you’re listening to liars and grifters, which apparently Carney is.

If I were Julie Dabrusin, I’d be pissed. Carney had sent her around to every media outlet to insist that they were “committed” to meeting those climate targets, and essentially demanding that she lie about it, only to pull a bait and switch and say that yeah, you guys were right, we’re not going to meet our targets after all, after spending months insisting that everyone else was wrong. So why should we believe anything this government says? Serious question.

Oh, and if you were playing the “Building Canada Strong™” drinking game, you’d be puking right now.

Continue reading →

A grab-bag of Carney answers

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney held a press conference yesterday to pat himself on the back for his government’s accomplishments over the spring sitting, but as with most of these exercises, the real interest was in his responses to questions, which he doesn’t do very often. So, what did we learn?

  • That big call with Trump this week with the extremely vague readout was mostly about Iran and NATO, and not about trade.
  • We’re still a long way away from any kind of trade deal with Trump.
  • The six upcoming by-elections will likely be spaced out.
  • We finally got more details on that condo purchase in Vancouver, which is 90 percent provincial funding/10 percent federal, and is intended as rent-to-own.
  • He will be going to Stampede, and plans to defend national unity, and is using Brexit as a cautionary tale (as well he should be).
  • We are sending aid to Venezuela after the earthquakes, and while it might be useful to have some kind of consular services there or in Iran, we’ll go through partners.

Shortly afterward, Pierre Poilievre gave his own press conference to decry the state of the Canadian economy and blame Carney for it, as though Trump wasn’t a factor, or that climate change isn’t affecting things like food prices. In fact, he pretty much admitted he’d accept a bad deal with Trump for the sake of getting a deal. So there’s that.

"It's all an illusion."

— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson.bsky.social) 2026-06-25T19:54:15.597Z

My Latest:

For National Magazine, I delve into the Supreme Court of Canada’s increasing caseload, and why the Chief Justice’s explanation of cleared backlogs doesn’t hold.

Continue reading →

Cherry-picking the incel manifesto

Posted on by

There were more details released yesterday about the shooting in Montreal—the name of the officer and the civilian who were killed, and a few details are emerging about the shooter, who is believed to have been a university student from Lethbridge, Alberta. His purported manifesto, however, is what is burning up the social media channels, with everyone searching for what they want to read in it—“anti-police/anti-government,” antisemitic/anti-Zionist, “communist,” among others, but at its heart it was an incel manifesto.

The Post's white nationalist apologist has cherry-picked the purported manifesto to discover it says what she hopes it will say. Imagine that!

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-24T02:42:49.682Z

Here is Carleton University professor Stephanie Carvin, whose latest book was on the far-right in Canada, and she has read the purported manifesto, and has some interview clips here to put it into context. (For some unknown reason, CBC didn’t post either this interview or the one she did with Power & Politics to YouTube, so this will have to do for the moment.

Stephanie Carvin on Montreal shooter's manifesto: There is the incel philosophy here as well as a lot of anti-government extremism … the shooter is basically holding police responsible for upholding a system that is seen as inherently corrupt and degrading certain classes of men in society.

— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson.bsky.social) 2026-06-23T13:37:16.747Z

Stephanie Carvin on RCMP issuing warning to police agencies across the country: There's an explicit call for what the shooter calls "revolutionary acts of terrorism" in this manifesto.

— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson.bsky.social) 2026-06-23T13:39:50.999Z

Carvin: The radicalization story here is going to be very important for understanding what happened, why this person seems to — it's been reported that he drove from Alberta to Montreal. Why did he choose Montreal? There's a lot we can speculate on there.

— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson.bsky.social) 2026-06-23T13:43:11.177Z

Carvin: If this is the manifesto, it is what I would describe as an incel critique of capitalism. And he's really coming at a variety of different topics in here. You do have ideas, I would say, from the extreme left and the extreme right. But the continuing thread throughout is a hatred of women.

— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson.bsky.social) 2026-06-23T13:43:25.847Z

I do have to wonder about what more the federal government should be doing, and in particular, the Conservatives who keep insisting that they are trying to do something for disaffected young (white) men. That’s what Jamil Jivani’s big campus tour is all about, insisting that these young men need special dispensation in life because they’re just soooo disaffected. Poilievre’s solution to everything is to just cut taxes and hope that doubling down on trickle-down economics will do the trick, but somehow, I doubt that’s going to do much in this situation—particularly given that he’s tried to engage the “manosphere” to try and attract those voters to his cause. None of this is good, and I worry about where this goes the more that they try to appeal to a toxic internet culture and keep ignoring people in the real world.

Continue reading →

Ginning up an faux inflation narrative

Posted on by

The inflation data for May was released yesterday, and unsurprisingly, the headline number ran high because of gasoline prices, entirely because of the situation that Trump created with Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. Looking into the data, it’s quite clear that core measures—which strip out volatile food and fuel prices—is right on the Bank of Canada’s target at 2.1 and 2.0 percent (there are two different core measures the Bank of Canada tracks). And yes, food price inflation continues to run hot, and the data shows pretty clearly that it’s supply disruptions—things like tomatoes coming from Mexico, where they planted fewer crops because of US tariffs, and then that smaller crop was affected by weather conditions (read: climate change). Constrained supply means higher prices. This is basic supply-and-demand.

Before Poilievre lights his hair on fire about inflation hitting 3.2% last month, this is pretty much entirely on gasoline prices because of Iran. Core measures remain at 2.1% and 2.0%. And he's going to decry the price of food and blame "Liberal inflation" as opposed to the truth:

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-22T13:30:56.569Z

Predictably, Pierre Poilievre came out and blamed “Liberal high taxes, waste, and deficits.” None of those have anything to do with inflation. Taxes (which the Liberals have cut consistently) are disinflationary. The size of the deficit has nothing to do with Trump’s foreign misadventures, or climate change affecting food-producing regions, and yet, Poilievre has a convenient target for everything. Who needs facts when you have a narrative, and a government who refuses to actually push back on any of this, and merely pats themselves on the back for OECD projections.

Just completely ignoring the relevant facts, because he has a narrative.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-22T18:21:00.215Z

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2069126743831830583

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2069136495693418894

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-06-22T13:08:01.946Z

My Latest:

  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take takes issue with the Conservative private member’s bill to take the GST off of used cars, which is both bad policy and bad economics.
  • For National Magazine, I delve into Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision that allows a failed candidate the opportunity to sue the province’s chief electoral officer.
  • My (belated) weekend column on the government unnecessarily jamming complex bills through the Senate for no good reason at all.
  • For National Magazine, I contributed to this look at the next Supreme Court of Canada justice, Glenn Joyal.

Continue reading →

Cowardly responses on MAiD expansion

Posted on by

It was not a surprise that the majority of the special joint committee on MAiD recommended that the government “pause indefinitely” on expanding access to those whose sole condition is a grievous or irremediable mental illness. The fix was in on this committee from the start—the chairs were both anti-MAiD advocates, and the Conservative position going in was to be against, while many Liberals have become squeamish. It was also no surprise to see that there were five supplemental or dissenting reports to the main report, most of them from senators on the joint committee, four of whom were keen to call bullshit on the process that was torqued, ignored certain expert witnesses, and where the biased chairs put their thumbs on the scale all the way through.

To be frank, there was a lot of cowardice on display. Those senators and the Bloc members all wanted the matter referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, because once again, MPs don’t want to have to make an important decision without being dragged, kicking and screaming, by the Court to do the right thing. There is a well-established pattern in this country, and it should surprise absolutely no one that they want to continue it. In addition, the position that people with a grievous and irremediable mental illness cannot access the same remedy as someone who has the same condition plus a comorbidity is untenable, and is going to be found to be unconstitutional when this is dragged through the courts, which it inevitably will be because the government is cowardly.

Finally, the notion that the federal government shouldn’t legislate in their area of competence—the Criminal Code—because provinces refuse to provide the necessary healthcare and social services makes this whole debate infuriating. Just about as infuriating as the federal government tinkering with the law of bail in the Criminal Code because provinces refuse to properly resource their court systems, which is where the real problem lies. So once again, people suffer while the provinces get off scot-free for abdicating their responsibilities, while the Liberals continue to backtrack on their being the “Party of the Charter.” What a sorry state we’re in.

My Latest:

My column tracks the state of play in Question Period, and Mark Carney’s infrequent appearances and disappointing performance, even it’s his job to answer to MPs.

Continue reading →

Ham-fisted programming motions on bad bills

Posted on by

As the spring sitting of Parliament winds down, the government has decided to be maximally ham-fisted in order to ram through several bills for no good reason at all. In the Commons, they put through a programming motion to speed through the lawful access bill (which, to be clear, is a very bad bill that is going to get struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada), but this motion was full of procedural fuckery, including retroactive deadlines on amendments, and no time to debate the amendments that they did have prepared, so they were going to be straight up-down votes, because they insist that this pass the Commons before they rise, even though the Senate is not going to look at it until the fall. Why the rush? Because they are reaching the kinds of arrogance that is the usual Achilles heel of the Liberals, and it’s going to cost them.

This is exactly the Liberal arrogance that always, without fail, comes to bite them in the ass.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-17T01:19:27.773Z

Over on the Senate side, they have also put through a programming motion on three bills that the government insists they need passed before the summer, but this motion essentially gives these complex pieces of legislation a single day of study at committee at which point they are deemed to have passed, no matter if they vote or not. That’s absolutely insane, and quite frankly abusive, and is contemptuous of the job the Senate is supposed to be doing. But this is how Carney and his crew have decided they want to treat Parliament. I would say it’s unbelievable, but no, we’ve come to expect this kind of behaviour, and it needs to be callsed out.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-06-16T19:08:17.950Z

Continue reading →

A privacy bill that takes away from the Privacy Commissioner

Posted on by

The federal government tabled long-overdue privacy reform legislation yesterday, which is intended to work in concert with their Digital Asbestos For All Strategy, and while there are some needed updates within it, there are also some concerning aspects. For example, there will be more powers to demand deletions from online searches (“right to be forgotten” powers), and while they are going to give the federal Privacy Commissioner more powers like he’s been begging for, they are going to restrict him to only public sector complaints and hive off private sector complaints to this new Digital Safety Commissioner. They’ve also decided to jump on the “surveillance pricing” hysteria, which both lets Avi Lewis claim a victory, but they have no details on how this will work, to say nothing of the fact that consumer protection is a provincial responsibility!

I have regularly butted heads with the Privacy Commissioners we've had over the past 20+ years, but sidelining an organization with decades of experience to empower an as yet unconstituted body is frankly shocking. #BillC34

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-06-15T21:41:45.003Z

It's worth noting that there's nothing new in #BillC36 that has anything to do with "surveillance pricing". The provision that the Minister pointed to in his presser has been in PIPEDA since 2001.

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-06-15T22:42:03.453Z

The fact that they are taking the new Digital Safety Commissioner that is being created as part of the Online Harms legislation, and loading him or her up with these enormous new powers is concerning, as is the fact that this commissioner will report to government and not to Parliament. I worry about creating a new regulator with so much scope of authority that it will need to build an enormous bureaucracy off the start, meaning it will be slow to start up, slow to react, and eventually start empire-building, particularly given how much online regulation it is being asked to do in addition to privacy work. We will have to see if the government bothers to offer a justification for this model (which they may not!) but I suspect we’ve got a long summer ahead of Evan Solomon exhorting the opposition to pass this while pretending it’s the solution to all of our problems.

A modernized privacy law should be something that gets broad support, but I think the creation of this new super-regulator that reports to the government and not parliament may be this bill's undoing. #BillC36

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-06-15T23:09:34.362Z

https://bsky.app/profile/joshtabish.bsky.social/post/3moeciabcks2u

My Latest:

  • For National Magazine, I delve into Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision on why all future Lieutenant Governors of New Brunswick needs to be bilingual.
  • My weekend column on how the Liberals have shamelessly reversed their policies so many times under Carney that they are virtually just Conservatives now.

Continue reading →

A long-term food strategy

Posted on by

Yesterday, before jetting off to the G7 in France, prime minister Mark Carney was in Toronto to unveil the details of his national food security strategy. The initial announcement was a couple of months ago, when he announced the rebranding and expansion of the existing GST credit, and the details for this new strategy could bear fruit (groan!) in the long-term, but I worry that he is raising expectations that these measures will lower food prices immediately. They won’t. Building up new food production infrastructure via greenhouses and vertical farms will take time and a lot of dollars to get off the ground, as will creating new domestic processing capabilities, which we may not even have the necessary labour for. Same thing with bolstering the rules around competition in order to attract new entrants into a marketplace dominated by oligopolies—you can’t unwind that in a day, and certainly not without just inviting in more American companies, which would go against the notion of trying to ensure food sovereignty.

Again—these kinds of investments and commitments to increasing domestic production and processing are good, and overdue. But in the vein of you can lead a horse to water, corporate Canada is not all that keen on investing in things, including productivity measures, because they are too accustomed to relying on trade with the US (which they keep pinning all of their hopes on normalising once more, as though there will be no lasting damage from the country descending into outright fascism), and their whole modus operandi is about getting monopolistic power and becoming a rent-seeker rather than investing in productivity or innovation. And yes, Canadian food prices are very high, and only part of that has to do with the fact that we’re a cold-weather country that needs to import a lot of what we eat. This is a strategy built for the long-term, and that’s great, but I know that by September, Pierre Poilievre will stand up in Question Period every day and declare that this new strategy hasn’t reduced food prices, so therefore we must burn everything down for the sake of tax cuts and going harder on trickle-down economics (and the government will respond by patting themselves on the back). They’re going to have to do the hard work of pushing this and then actually defending, and I have doubts that they are capable of doing just that.

Jennifer Robson has additional thoughts on the announcement.

My Latest:

My Xtra column points out how much Mark Carney patted himself on the back for doing the absolute bare minimum at this year’s Pride flag raising.

Continue reading →

Expecting an online harms disaster

Posted on by

The federal government will be tabling their online harms legislation today, and it looks like it’s going to include some form of ban on social media for youth under the age of sixteen, which is going to be little more than an invitation to create mass online surveillance, because everyone will need to verify their ages and identities in order to access social media or adjacent sites. Meanwhile, that will do very little to actually deal with the harms, and it’s likely going to be unconstitutional in the first place.

here’s me from earlier on power & politics talking digital safety act (tldr: age appropriate design codes + duty to act responsibly > age bans)

— Supriya Dwivedi (@supriya.bsky.social) 2026-06-10T00:48:36.353Z

As we anticipate a social media ban to be proposed by the Canadian government tomorrow, it's worth noting in the Charter of Rights: "everyone" includes young people and "media of communication" includes social media.

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-06-09T21:59:05.964Z

This being said, the Liberals are already going past Helen Lovejoy and going directly to “children are dying,” which makes me suspect that they are going to try and use their majority to ram this through, in spite of what are likely to be massive problems with it, and the fact that the problems that they are having with their lawful access bill are likely to be magnified. Any kind of online age verification is bad news no matter how it’s dressed up, and this is going to be no different in the end. I do not have confidence that they will be able to pull this off without a lot of hand-waving and “just trust me,” and “surely these companies can figure out a way to do it” when that way is more mass surveillance and siphoning even more data.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-06-09T19:08:01.734Z

My Latest:

For National Magazine, I recap what Chief Justice Richard Wagner had to say during his annual press conference, particularly on defending judicial independence.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Capitulating to the streaming giants

Posted on by

Just days after the CRTC outlined the obligations under the Online Streaming Act that web giant streaming services would need to abide by when it comes to a portion of their Canadian revenues to be sent to Canadian content funds (which, to be clear, they could then draw from in order to develop shows and put on their platforms), and a day after Dominic LeBlanc was in Washington for more trade talks, the government decided to try and walk back these CRTC obligations. Minister Marc Miller ordered the CRTC to review the decision (as he can’t outright ignore it, as the CRTC is a quasi-judicial body) but with a “focus on affordability” as the claim is that these streaming services will simply raise their prices and Canadian households are already hit hard. Oh, but they’ll devote $600 million to Canadian media in lieu of these funds.

They insist it’s not a capitulation, but that’s exactly what it feels like, particularly since Trump mouthpieces were grousing that this levy was “discriminatory” (it’s not—it levelled the playing field with Canadian broadcasters and streaming services), and that it was yet another “trade irritant” as though they are allowed to throw up whatever tariffs they want (this week: New ten percent tariffs because of forced labour, but don’t look at their own deals with China, or the forced labour that comes from American prisons). Miller also insists that because the funds collected to date were frozen due to court challenges also seems to be beside the point. The point was that these web giants are taking Canadian money and giving nothing back (and no, treating our production studios as a resource colony is not exactly giving back), so having them contribute the same way a Canadian broadcaster contributes was both fair, and, I stress again, gave them the option to use these same funds that they contributed in order to create their own Canadian content that they could put up on their platforms.

I’m not going to engage in any kind of elbow discourse, but when you consider just how much these web giants and the tech bros that own them are integrated into Trump’s fascist regime, capitulating to them yet again is not exactly giving the impression that we’re protecting Canada’s cultural sovereignty, or that all the talk about Heated Rivalry and how much of a success it’s been is hollow if we keep letting the web giants dictate our own cultural policy. Where is the self-respect that should be a bare minimum in this conversation?

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-06-03T13:08:04.315Z

My Latest:

My column on legacy columnists opining about the “condescension” of central Canadians when it comes to Alberta separatists and their crybaby tendencies.

Continue reading →