Tag Archives: Métis

Roundup: Unclear goals means poor accountability

Posted on by
2

The Parliamentary Budget Officer released his report on the plans for Build Canada Homes yesterday, and the headline conclusion is that the $13 billion fund will only produce some 26,000 new housing units, which is not a lot. He also tracks the declining funding in other existing housing programmes, that BCH doesn’t really make up for, though the government’s response that has been that his report merely assumes that funding agreements coming to an end won’t be renewed, and that they could be three or four years down the road when they do expire, so fair enough.

New PBO report out today, that finds that in the first 5 years of the Build Canada Homes program, it's will have $7.3 billion of spending on an accrual basis ($13 billion on a cash basis) and lead to fewer than 26,000 homes being built.Read here: www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/pu…

— Dr. Mike P. Moffatt (@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social) 2025-12-02T15:11:25.000Z

The fed reaction to PBO's housing report makes clear what I said at a conference last week: The gov't has no long-term plan, no targets, no KPIs, no accountability metrics. 5 years from now we won't know if BCH worked, because there's no benchmarks.www.cbc.ca/news/poli…

— Dr. Mike P. Moffatt (@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social) 2025-12-02T20:12:57.000Z

That said, Mike Moffatt makes the point that the report highlights the lack of long-term planning, and metrics by which BCH can be held to account. Sure, it’s supposed to “catalyse” investment from the private sector, and do things like make federal lands available for development, but it’s fair to point out that the lack of planning makes it hard to tell just what they’re planning to do, and how that funding will be applied. Gregor Robertson insists that this is just the initial investment, that more will come in future years, and so on, but again, you would think they would have a better grasp on the plan and what it’s supposed to entail. I know it’s been a few months, but clear goals would really help set the direction they are supposed to be headed in. This government has thus-far relied on a lot of hand-waving regarding their plans, and this is very much an example of what that looks like and why it’s not very helpful for evaluating what they’re supposed to be doing.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-02T22:22:02.159Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine continues to deny Russia’s claim that they control Pokrovsk. Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines don’t believe in the current “peace deal,” saying Russia will simply invade again in the future.

Russian propaganda in full force for the Witkoff visit: Putin is claiming to have captured Ukrainian cities that he doesn't control, and having himself photographed in military uniformkyivindependent.com/putin-claims…

— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum.bsky.social) 2025-12-02T12:18:09.879Z

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1995802755034734819

Continue reading →

Roundup: Tariffs are likely biting worse than claimed

Posted on by

You may have heard time and again that some 85 percent of goods traded with the US are covered under the New NAFTA and are not exposed to the new 35 percent tariffs, but that number could actually be misleading (and variable depending on who’s talking). In actual fact, that 85 percent figure is trade that is eligible to be compliant with New NAFTA rules, but a lot of it actually isn’t, because a great deal of that trade was simply done without the compliance with the New NAFTA rules because it was easier for many businesses just to pay the old tariff rates because there are significant costs to be compliant with the New NAFTA rules. That calculation has changed now with the Trump tariffs, and a lot of businesses are scrambling to get their compliance certification, but for many small businesses, it’s incredibly hard to do because they don’t have the staff or resources to do so. This means that the tariffs could be biting harder than some people are saying.

Meanwhile, media outlets like the CBC have been trying to get an answer from prime minister Mark Carney or his office about where he stands on the 2030 climate targets, and lo, they cannot get one. Which is not great considering how much Carney professed to be trying to get Canada and the world taking climate change seriously. And in the time since, he’s eliminated the consumer carbon levy (which was working to reduce emissions), and has given himself permission to violate all kinds of other environmental laws through the giant Henry VIII clause in Bill C-5, so it’s not exactly sending a signal that he’s too interested in that 2030 target, even though it was already going to more effort to achieve it than the Trudeau government was making. It’s not great, considering that we’re still living in a climate emergency, regardless of the tariff situation.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian bomb strikes in Zaporizhzhia have injured at least twelve. Three people swimming in a restricted area off the coast of Odesa were killed by an explosive object, likely an unexploded mine (which is why the area is off-limits). Unsurprisingly, president Zelenskyy has rejected any kind of “land swap” deal made without the involvement or consent of Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Creating a duplicative federal body?

Posted on by

The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs want the federal government to take action on creating a national forest-fire coordination agency, and look at American bodies like FEMA (well, as it used to exist rather than the hollow shell it is now). The problem? That disaster management, which includes wildfires, is squarely within provincial jurisdiction in this country, and if such a body were to be created (and it’s a big if), then provinces would have to agree to sign onto it, and good luck with that—unless maybe you’re willing to shell out a whole lot of money to “compensate” them for it.

The other problem? We already have such a body, called the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre, which is a not-for-profit owned and operated by existing firefighting bodies at all levels, which does the very work that these fire chiefs want it to do—coordinating to share resources, mutual aid, information sharing, and so on. If they don’t think this agency is doing enough, then they should say so. But if this is really just a backdoor way of saying the federal government should pay for everything, well, maybe they need to be honest about that.

We have a big problem in this country where provinces have learned that they can get away with short-changing their emergency management systems because they can call on the federal government to deploy the Canadian Armed Forces to do all kinds of said management, and even though the federal government has the option of cost-recovery from those provinces, they don’t, because it would be bad optics to be “nickel-and-diming” the provinces whom they give assistance to. Except of course, the provinces know that’s the case, so they cut their spending further, and the cycle continues because no federal government will stand up and say “We know you cut your funding to get free federal assistance, so we’re going to charge you for the services.” This is why I’m deeply suspicious of any move to create a federal civilian disaster emergency response agency, whether for wildfires, or other natural disasters, because it will give the provinces licence to cut further, and then beg for more federal assistance once they do.

Ukraine Dispatch

That gas interconnector that the Russians attacked in southern Ukraine appears to still be operating. Investigations have found that in spite of sanctions, Russians have been using Siemens technology in their factories, obtained by middlemen in China.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Preparing for another tariff climbdown

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney held a (virtual) Cabinet meeting yesterday, followed by a virtual meeting with the premiers, and so far, the signs aren’t terribly encouraging. It was ostensibly about an update on trade talks with the US, given that the deadline passed and we’re not only no closer to any kind of resolution, but Trump raised the tariffs they are charging on non-New NAFTA items (which does nevertheless effectively mean we’re still one of the lowest tariff-rate countries overall), if you ignore all of the other sectoral tariffs that are having the biggest impact. And the premiers have also started to drift in their positions, whether it’s Doug Ford demanding more retaliation (even though he immediately backed down on his electricity export retaliation), or Danielle Smith and Scott Moe preferring to lick fascist boots instead.

Nevertheless, the tone coming out of Carney and the Cabinet is increasingly one where they are openly laying the groundwork for reducing or removing retaliatory tariffs or other measures, because really, appeasing Trump is clearly the way to go. Look at what pulling back on the Digital Services Tax got us. The question then becomes what happens to the increasingly large fiscal hole that eliminating these counter-tariffs will do to the balance sheet, because they booked a bunch of revenues from them, while they’re already promising deep cuts to government spending.

Just keep making concessions. That'll clearly get us a favourable deal.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-08-06T21:26:09.762Z

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have decided to go full-bore on the notion that Carney has broken his signature campaign promise because he has not only failed to reach a deal with Trump, but that tariffs have increased since then. Of course, this is premised on the completely false notion that Trump is a rational actor, but pretty much the entire Conservative caucus was tweeting variations of this very thing all day, because absolutely everything they do has to be about social media posts. Even more eye-rolling was Roman Baber lying about what the president of Mexico said about Anand and Champagne’s visit (her comments were that we don’t need a bilateral trade deal because the New NAFTA is still in effect, and even if it wasn’t, we’re both signatories to the CPTPP), because this is the state of the Conservative Party today.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian strikes killed two people and wounded at least ten in Zaporizhzhia, while shelling killed three and injured at least four in Nikopol. Russians also hit a key gas interconnector, which Ukraine says was about trying to undermine their preparations for winter (when Russia always attacks power supplies).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reviving an abandoned capital gains plan

Posted on by

Day eight of the campaign, and in spite of there being policy announcement, it was another fairly low-key day, or maybe it just felt like that without the usual wall-to-wall coverage. Mark Carney continued to hold private events in his riding, and took to media questions. There was no announcement of where Carney will be today.

Pierre Poilievre was in the GTA, and announced a plan to waive capital gains taxes if they are re-invested in Canadian companies. If this sounds familiar, it was because the Conservatives floated this in 2006, only to abandon it because it was impractical. Poilievre insists that this could be “economic rocket fuel,” but there is no lack of irony with the fact that it comes with an absolute mountain of red tape in the form of compliance paperwork. Poilievre heads to Fredericton, New Brunswick, later today.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1906432179493883989

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1906433266069963227

Ok here is the capital gains tax deferral idea (story from @stevenchase.bsky.social 17 years ago). Looks like the exact same promise from Mr. Poilievre today as from Mr. Harper in 2006. I wonder if anything has changed to now make this feasible?www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-bu…

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2025-03-30T16:31:49.860Z

"The problem, Mr. Flaherty has acknowledged recently, is it's proven "difficult and complicated" to enact the capital gains pledge.That's a euphemistic way of admitting what experts have long warned: that the pledge is too vague, open-ended and costly to translate into law."

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2025-03-30T16:33:04.102Z

https://twitter.com/JohnPasalis/status/1906408130826674682

I notice the CPC, despite spending two years calling for an election, have no backgrounders for their election proposals. So here is my comment on their latest cap gains proposal: it is really stupid. Want more details? Release a backgrounder

— Dr Lindsay Tedds (@lindsaytedds.bsky.social) 2025-03-30T17:39:44.686Z

Jagmeet Singh was in Port Moody, BC, and promised to have CMHC offer low-cost loans to first-time home buyers, yet another demand-side solution to a supply-side problem. Singh is campaigning in Victoria today, before heading to Edmonton.

Meanwhile, the Paul Chiang controversy continues to simmer as the Liberals refuse to turf him, in spite of the fact that there can be no justification for the kind of behaviour he exhibited in instructing people to turn over his would-be Conservative rival to Chinese authorities for a bounty. (That would-be rival is now the Conservative candidate in nearby Don Valley North). That Chiang himself has not resigned is as much of a problem. The cut-off for nominations has not been reached yet, and they could still find a replacement in time (though not much time) rather than continue to let this complete lapse in political judgment continue to haunt them throughout the campaign. Carney is not Teflon, and the Liberals shouldn’t treat him as such.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones attacked Kharkiv for a second night in a row, injuring two and damaging a kindergarten and private houses.

Continue reading →

Roundup: First day retaliation

Posted on by

[Clone Wars newsreel voice] Trade war! The American president has unleashed 25 percent tariffs across the board against allies Canada and Mexico, in violation of existing trade agreements. Retaliatory tariffs have been levied in response, and Canadian leaders are expressing their shock and dismay at what is clearly a plan to weaken our economy for annexation. But the retaliation is also coming with threats of further escalation…

It was indeed unprecedented in our lifetimes for a Canadian prime minister to stand up and blatantly call out an American president for the outright threat of annexation, and for his cozying up to Putin. Trudeau busted the notion that this was ever about the border or fentanyl, and promised further non-tariff measures to come.

On counter-tariffs. Yes they hurt one's own country more than the other country.But that's not the right way to think about it. The point is to inflict pain on the other country to make them stop their tariffs, even if self-painful.I don't like broad counter-tariffs, but use 'em where painful.

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2025-03-04T16:41:41.923Z

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3ljkwaokc3c2w

Provincial premiers each lined up to offer their own retaliation, much of which came in the form of removing American booze from liquor store shelves, but Doug Ford threatened export taxes on energy, and Danielle Smith (who is in a state of shock for being “betrayed” by Trump) said she wouldn’t do that…but they don’t have the power to levy them or not, because that power is federal. I’m sure they think that these performances make them look serious and tough, but would it kill a single premier to learn what their actual constitutional powers actually are before they start talking in front of the cameras? (And for everyone who is once again a newfound fan of Ford because of said performance, give your heads a shake).

Federally, Jagmeet Singh called for Parliament to be summoned for an emergency session, but offered no guarantees about how long he would let it last before he decided to vote non-confidence, and the real kicker there is that implementation for any measures they want voted on takes time, which is a concept the NDP have never been able to actually grasp. As for Pierre Poilievre, his own speech largely consisted of him insisting that he’s not MAGA, blaming the Liberals for getting us to this point, and repeating his same slogans and policy demands that he’s always made, and insisted that any funds from counter-tariffs go to tax cuts, which is Trump’s whole plan for tariffs. It’s the exact same plan, but he’s totally “not MAGA,” and is proving it in a very weird way. Oh, and no, building more pipelines and refineries isn’t going to solve any problems, guys.

Consider this a reminder especially for the NDP, who seem to think that once a bill is passed, implementation happens instantly.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-03-04T19:09:05.571Z

There is little distance given that he expressly said he intends to use tariff revenue to fuel tax cuts in Canada. He is nothing more than mini-Trump.

— Dr Lindsay Tedds (@lindsaytedds.bsky.social) 2025-03-04T18:57:36.457Z

Tax cuts do little to aid those who are already and will lose their jobs. Tax cuts were what PP offered as a solution to the pandemic. Look back to March 2020 when he offered that as the solution to the pandemic. Like it or not, we don't need tax cuts, we need employment support programs.

— Dr Lindsay Tedds (@lindsaytedds.bsky.social) 2025-03-04T19:01:41.462Z

And then, toward the end of the day, Trump’s commerce secretary says that they might come to some kind of compromiseon the tariffs later today. Maybe, and it “won’t be a pause.” Because they all think they’re playing 3D chess here.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian drones hit an industrial target in the Russian city of Syrzan. Reuters has a look at the effect of the halt on US’ military aid for Ukraine, and the aid that other allies have provided (to date).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Implicating the King, and trying to cause a crisis

Posted on by

Following the sickening ambush at the White House on Friday, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy flew to London for a conference on security in Europe now that it’s clear that the United States is no longer an ally, and prime minister Justin Trudeau also flew to London to attend. In advance of the conference, Zelenskyy met with King Charles at his Sandringham residence (which touched off some grousing online in Canada—more on that in a minute). At the conference,  UK prime minister Keir Starmer seemed to try to play up that the US was still a “reliable ally,” but I’m not sure anyone else in Europe (except maybe Hungary) actually believes that, nor should they. Following the conference, Trudeau was adamant about supporting Zelenskyy, and also had a one-on-one with Starmer, where no doubt the topic of Starmer throwing Canada under the bus came up for discussion, even though the readout of the conversation was very, very diplomatic in the choice of words.

President Zelenskyy has begun his meeting with King Charles III. The meeting is taking place at Sandringham Estate in Norfolk, following the London summit. The topics of their discussion have not been publicly disclosed.

— WarTranslated (Dmitri) (@wartranslated.bsky.social) 2025-03-02T18:06:16.102Z

Some pretty diplomatic language in this readout of Trudeau's meeting with Starmer.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-03-02T22:56:46.924Z

Meanwhile, back in Canada, CTV seemed to be doing their absolute utmost to create a constitutional crisis because they contacted Buckingham Palace to see if the King would say something about the “51st State” threats, and surprising nobody who has a clue about constitutional monarchy, they would not comment. BECAUSE OF COURSE THEY CAN’T WITHOUT THE ADVICE OF THE GOVERNMENT. But that didn’t stop absolutely everyone from deciding that they were suddenly an expert on constitutional monarchy and what is and is not permissible for a monarch to say without the advice of the government, and the absolute worst part was that CTV took the opportunity to start both-sidesing those reactions, because who needs fact-based journalism when you’re trying to stir up controversy in order to get clicks for the attention economy?

Could a single Canadian journalist learn how constitutional monarchy fucking works?

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-03-01T21:35:05.483Z

By "those days are over," do you mean having an apolitical head of state, or do you mean a monarchy that accedes to the will of Parliament as they have since 1688?

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-03-02T04:05:14.317Z

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3ljekymxfv22f

Before he became King, everyone was worried that Charles would be spouting opinions all the time. There was no shortage of plays, novels and TV series whose plots revolved around him acceding to the throne and needing to abdicate for being too opinionated.Honest to Zeus, people…

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-03-02T04:25:39.959Z

This should be basic civics—something people learn about in grade five, and then again in grade seven or eight, and again in high school. But nobody has a clue how this is supposed to work, most especially the people who should know, including former ministers of the Crown. This in turns leads to a whole lot of people insisting that an apolitical monarchy isn’t good for anything, and people who were already small-r republicans are using this as an excuse to agitate for an end to the monarchy, and good fucking luck to them, considering it would require a) a coherent plan to replace it, and b) the unanimous consent of the Commons, the Senate, and all ten provinces in order to rewrite the entire constitution, because that’s not something you can just search-and-replace.

Trudeau is having a meeting with the King this morning before he leaves London, and it’s possible that he will advise the King to make some kind of statement, particularly now that sentiment has been stirred up because people who should now better have implicated the King when it was Starmer who threw us under the bus in his own moral cowardice, but it never should have come to this.

Ukraine Dispatch

Late Sunday, a Russian drone hit an apartment building in Kharkiv, injuring at least eight. Meanwhile, Zelenskyy says he can salvage his relationship with Trump, though I’m not sure Trump actually wants that because he’s not a good-faith actor in this, and he is looking for any excuse to abandon Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1896321455606173969

Continue reading →

Roundup: An ambush in the White House

Posted on by

It was an ambush. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s visit to the White House, ostensibly to sign some kind of agreement around access to critical minerals in exchange for some kind of military support or security guarantees was a set-up for Trump and JD Vance to try and humiliate Zelenskyy in front of the cameras, with one of the reporters from Russian state outlet TASS in the room (who was removed at one point by the Secret Service, but it was obvious that someone in the White House arranged for him to be there). The whole video is sickening to watch.

Vance blew up that meeting on purpose

— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum.bsky.social) 2025-02-28T20:00:00.112Z

I've just looked again at the Starmer meeting – Vance tried to blow that up too. But Trump didn't take the bait.

— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum.bsky.social) 2025-02-28T20:38:07.909Z

While Trump and Vance started broadcasting this for their followers as a supposed sign of strength, and their lackeys and apologists broadcast Russian propaganda to justify it, word also started leaking out that Trump is planning on cutting off military aid to Ukraine for Zelenskyy’s supposed intransigence and lack of desire for peace, which is of course mendacious and part of the set-up.

This was the plan all along

— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum.bsky.social) 2025-03-01T04:52:42.168Z

In the wake of this, world leaders started tweeting their support for Zelenskyy and Ukraine, and this was probably the death knell of NATO as we know it. The one leader who has been silent is Keir Starmer, but he is also hosting a summit in London today about Ukraine and European security, which Justin Trudeau will also be attending.

I have to wonder what words are going to be had between Trudeau and Starmer…

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-28T23:49:23.352Z

I wonder if this was planned at the Munich Security Conference?

— Stephanie Carvin (@stephaniecarvin.bsky.social) 2025-02-28T23:57:08.362Z

Here are some hot takes from Tom Nichols and David Frum, while Philippe Lagassé has some additional thoughts on the situation.

Closer to home, in an interview with the Spectator, Trump took credit for Chrystia Freeland’s supposed “firing” (she was not fired), and said that Poilievre’s problem is that “he’s not a MAGA guy.” Which is true—Poilievre doesn’t have much of a coherent ideology, but he’s not MAGA. What he is, however, is someone who will say anything that he feels he needs to in order to attract the MAGA crowd to his banner, no matter how ridiculous it is, and he has no morals, ethics, or scruples about it. Poilievre jumped on this to declare that he’s “Canada First,” and later did tweet support for Zelenskyy and Ukraine, and immediately got roasted in the comments by his MAGA supporters for it. Funny what happens when you play with fire.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1895631503469449464

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones struck a medical facility, among other targets, in Kharkiv. The framework for a mineral agreement that Ukraine was supposed to sign with the Americans, before the ambush, contained a number of gaps around security or dispute resolution, before it turned out to be a sham.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sympathy work for the far-right

Posted on by

There are times when it becomes glaringly obvious that legacy media still has no idea how to cover the far-right, whether in the US or here in Canada, and once again, we have been let down precipitously. Yesterday, the CBC published a long sympathy piece about the two main ringleaders of the so-called “Freedom Convoy,” full of lots of photos, and it just once again goes back to how this continues to normalize these narratives. (And no, I’m not going to link to the piece for the sake of giving it hate clicks).

Big feature story by CBC doing sympathy work for those Convoy fucks, normalizing the far-right. Fuuuuuuck that.

— Emmett Macfarlane (@emmettmacfarlane.com) 2024-12-09T12:36:10.705Z

A lot of this falls back to the constant need by legacy media to both-sides everything, providing equal time and weight to narratives and concepts that don’t deserve or require equal weight, because it’s false or misleading, and doesn’t call anything out that can’t be couched in “opponents say” rather than just declaring that something is false, misleading, or batshit crazy. And this kind of sympathy work of showing that people who do very bad things are just misunderstood or are suffering because of the consequences of their actions just goes to make what they did more acceptable. It was the same with reporter who tracked down people who attacked them on January 6th and spent time with them, and did similar sympathy work, which just muddies the waters of the unacceptability of their actions, particularly if they feel a level of justification for their actions—in the case of these convoy organizers, they’re showing the boxes of thank-you cards they got from their adherents. Again, this is not only normalizing the far-right, but it is showing it in a sympathetic light. This is dangerous for legacy media to be doing, and there seems to be absolutely no critical thinking (or ethical considering) in what they think they’re doing, and what they inevitably end up doing is contributing to the erosion of democracy.

Meanwhile, the Star has a very good look at how far-right influencers have weaponized Canada as their cautionary tale, and how that has also in turn been changing perceptions in this country about ourselves, and most especially about the current government and the state of things. (I have a column on this later today). This was far better coverage of the far-right, but is still a bit tepid in the dangers of what these narratives can represent, particularly when it starts to normalize and excuse racism, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia and transphobia, and how that is very much playing out in several provinces right now. This stuff needs to be explicitly called out, and nobody can do it effectively.

With a quick comment from me near the bottom. Canada has always been of a weird funhouse mirror for US politics. When Americans talk about Canada, they are almost always really talking about themselves. And some Canadian far-right influencers use that for their grift.

— Stephanie Carvin (@stephaniecarvin.bsky.social) 2024-12-10T01:55:07.552Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2024-12-09T14:08:01.821Z

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy says that he has approved increased funding for drone production for the war effort. Zelenskyy also says that Ukraine is open to having Western troops provide security once the fighting has stopped, provided that Ukraine is accepted into the European Union and NATO.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Parsing the dinner at Mar-a-Lago

Posted on by

So much of the weekend was spent parsing what happened at Mar-a-Lago on Friday, particularly given that Justin Trudeau didn’t put out an official readout of the meeting (probably because Trump is not officially in government yet), while Trump posted about it on his social media where he called it “productive.” The takeaways appear to be that the tariffs threats cannot be avoided immediately, because Trump believes in them and wants to use them to balance the budget (good luck with that), but that we may be able to carve out exceptions. There was also talk about the border and fentanyl, according to Dominic LeBlanc, and talk about more drones and helicopters to patrol the border (but who knows where the helicopters and personnel will come from—we are not flush with excess capacity).

None of this was good enough for Pierre Poilievre, who took to the microphones on Sunday to claim that Trudeau went in a “position of weakness” (because that’s Poilievre’s go-to line these days), and lamented that Trudeau came home “empty-handed,” as though these things are done in a day, particularly with a mercurial chaos agent like Trump. Poilievre also says he wants a cap on asylum seekers, because he claims there are too many bad actors, and said he would allow a reprieve in the ongoing filibuster if there is a border plan that meets his approval on the table. But when asked what he would do different, Poilievre says he’s not the prime minister, and walked away. So…that happened.

In a fight between Canada and the US, with the incoming US President engaged in disinformation about the Canadian border, Pierre Poilievre sides with the US.

— Emmett Macfarlane (@emmettmacfarlane.com) 2024-12-01T19:19:43.012Z

Meanwhile, Doug Ford insists that the premiers are “unanimous” that they want us to accelerate defence spending to reach our NATO target sooner than later. No word yet on what fiscal demands they will give up from the federal government to reach that spending target faster (because the money has to come from somewhere).

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian drone hit a residential building in Ternopil overnight, killing one and injuring several others. Drones also targeted Kyiv the night previous, and killed three in a strike on Kherson. Russians claim to have overtaken the settlements of Illinka and Petrivka in Donetsk region. Ukraine says it will increase the use of unmanned ground vehicles over the coming year.

Continue reading →