Tag Archives: Pierre Poilievre

A future alliance whose shape requires negotiation

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Carney delivered his speech to the European parliament in Strasbourg, and got heckled by a far-right MEP, because of course he did. Most of the speech was pretty standard Carney fare, with a historical anecdote, talk about upheavals and ruptures, sovereignty and digital asbestos, praising what Canada has to offer. He then moved toward welcoming the “ambition” of what Ursula von der Leyen spoke about with “associate membership” without actually saying that it’s what he wants, and spoke about things like the Erasmus+ programme, and other opportunities for cooperation.

Of course, everything remains up for negotiation, and what shape this kind of new agreement will look like is yet to be discussed, but Carney promises a vote in Parliament on whatever the final package is, which is not unexpected. Any treaty accession requires parliamentary approval regardless, but expect much caterwauling about this from certain suspects. There will no doubt be more threats from Trump and certain segments of this country who will insist that we’re just trying to provoke Trump, or that we’re somehow abandoning the US (we’re not) or that this is has something to do with Beijing (it doesn’t), but that’s also a reflection of the state of discourse.

Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre is trying to insist that this alliance of the future, which hasn’t even begun negotiation, is a done deal and that Carney has been lying about it all the time, while he rails about “EU taxes, EU bureaucracy, and EU migrant crisis,” even though this has nothing to do with this kind of alliance because we’re not becoming members of the EU, and more to the point, we’re not sitting next to Syria or North Africa, so we don’t have boats of migrants coming over. Of course, Poilievre and his caucus will raise these things because they have a voter base whose brains have been rotted on Fox News and the like, and have been conditioned to rail about how Europe is being overrun by Muslim migrants who are “killing its culture,” and yes, Poilievre and his MPs are playing directly to these racist tropes. (Poilievre then slipped out the back from his caucus retreat rather than take reporters’ questions, so there’s also that).

Gods bless David Cochrane for trying to push back against the dumbest of Conservative talking points on this EU stuff, while new critic Eric Duncan is just mindlessly repeating the three talking points his leader gave him. #PnPCBC

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-09-17T21:30:27.904Z

Noted media critic Andrew Scheer is currently having a toddler meltdown.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-09-17T19:47:28.443Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-17T19:08:02.736Z

Continue reading →

Poilievre takes credit for pushing on an open door

Posted on by

Not unexpectedly, the federal government extended their federal gas excise tax “holiday” for several more months as an “affordability measure,” and then sent out MPs and parliamentary secretaries to pat themselves on the back for it. And the rhetoric is just so braindead. “Image waking up on Tuesday and having to pay ten cents more per litre,” Ryan Turnbull said on Power & Politics by way of justification, and well, yes, that’s what happens when a tax holiday expires. Prices go back up. So unless you plan to keep extending said “holiday” to the point where it’s no longer a holiday but merely a removed excise tax in all but name, then the price will have to go up eventually, and of course you’re going to have to swallow the hit when it happens. And there has also been no mention about the lost revenues from this excise tax and how the particular envelopes of funding that it goes toward will not suffer, while the federal deficit continues to climb. Is Carney laying off civil servants and cutting programmes solely for people to get cheaper gasoline? If so, he should just say so.

Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre took to social media to take credit for this holiday extension, but of course, it’s not good enough because he is still calling for the destruction of the industrial carbon price (which is not relevant here), and for the clean fuel standard (which is not a tax, and any dollar figures associated with it were mere projections of what it might cost refineries to meet this standard). On the one hand, he’s trying to claim victory for pushing on an open door, which is sad in and of itself. On the other hand, he’s being an obsequious pick-me after his party’s abysmal performance in Monday’s by-elections, so much so that they only came in second in one of those ridings. Nevertheless, we can expect more of this “Conservatives won this round!” back-patting for the weeks to come, while he continues to make more demands to simply destroy all environmental legislation under the most ridiculous pretences possible.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-02T19:08:01.648Z

My Latest:

My column points to data showing average income declines in Alberta, and whether the Remain campaign can actually be honest about them or just play into separatist hands.

Continue reading →

A very selective celebration of Alberta’s “birthday”

Posted on by

Yesterday, Alberta and Saskatchewan had their “birthdays” as provinces, when they were carved out of the Northwest Territories in 1905, and wouldn’t you just know it, the statement put out by the Alberta government first mentioned the First Nations people whose land the province is on, then removed the reference in an updated version, before needing to backtrack and insist that the first version was the correct one. It has also not gone unnoticed that Alberta has not marked the 150th anniversary of Treaty 6 with those First Nations, while Saskatchewan held ceremonies to mark the occasion. It also doesn’t go unnoticed that Danielle Smith has pushed ahead with this quasi-separation referendum in spite of the fact that owing to the treaties, the province can’t actually separate from Canada because it’s not their land. Smith has also said that if the referendum passes, she would hold a “binding referendum on separation” (which is not a Thing because it’s blatantly against the constitution) early in the spring, which should give her plenty of time to “consult” with First Nations. Erm, no. They’ve already stated that your position is contrary to the treaties they signed with the Crown.

Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre entered the chat and put out separate statements on the Alberta and Saskatchewan “birthdays,” and those statements were very, very different from one another. The Saskatchewan statement talked about the local First Nations and Métis, and the white immigrants who settled in the area, and it was noticeable that he pointed to white immigrants only. The Alberta statement, however, made no mention of First Nations or immigrants of any kind, and instead was all about farmers, ranchers, energy workers, and “freedom!” It was a very, very blatant sop to the separatist sentiments in a minority of the province (remember that Alberta separatism is a white/Christian nationalist project) because he’s too afraid to tell these people that he doesn’t want their votes in his party as a matter of principle. It’s an absolutely craven attempt to play both sides, and it’s going to bite him in the end, and only allows this situation to fester the longer they coddle these loathsome separatists for the sake a few votes.

https://bsky.app/profile/journodale.bsky.social/post/3mui3drbfis2h

As Dale points out, these notably exclude immigrants of colour.My grandparents ran a store in Lake Alma, SK, then moved to Regina, where my grandfather worked at the Model Cafe. They lived above Glasgow Confectionery, then later founded the B. Y. W. Grocery in 1962.Guess we don't count.

— Tim Ford (@timfordwrites.bsky.social) 2026-09-01T19:03:58.660Z

Continue reading →

Unveiling the counter-tariffs

Posted on by

The government announced the details of their dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs yesterday, and it was a fairly broad list, but largely focused on protecting domestic markets than extracting a price from the Americans—there is a whole explanation of defensive versus offensive tariffs here. In many cases, these are things where there are domestic alternatives available, which means that it creates a price incentive to buy the Canadian alternative, which is laudable. And there does seem to be some distribution where the effect of those retaliatory tariffs does seem to disproportionately impact swing states, which is also not a bad thing. Of course, that’s not to say that there isn’t a discussion to be had about whether we shouldn’t be trying to maximize the political price for the Americans, particularly as the midterms approach, whether that is export taxes or otherwise on things like potash or energy, which is particularly fraught, because it could invite even harsher retaliation from the Americans. However, if this is indeed an economic war and we are fighting for our sovereignty, that could mean using bigger economic guns, and ensuring that the burden faced by Canadians is more evenly shared than it is right now (especially by Alberta and Saskatchewan).

Where do Canadian retaliatory tariffs land? Based on all affected products on Sept 8 (including pre-existing tariffs), here's the value of exports times tariff rates as a share of each state's GDP. #cdnecon #cdnpoli

— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe.bsky.social) 2026-08-25T18:50:14.657082Z

Also announced were some of the tweaks to EI to support workers, but it’s not a lot of tweaks as they do nothing about the hours worked requirements. I will also note that this government promised EI reform years ago, and did a lot of work on it (and I can personally say that a friend of mine worked on the file and did a tonne of work that has apparently never seen the light of day), and nothing came of it, whether it was because it was too politically unsaleable, or some other reason we don’t know.

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3mtwaluxa2k2g

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3mtwalvxp4k2g

Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre continues to demand that the “text” of the trade deal be released, when there may not have been a finalized text, and it’s a Cabinet confidence in any case, and shouldn’t be released because it can point to particular pain points in future negotiations. Poilievre is also calling for his economic “plan” to be adopted, with its tax cuts, environmental law repeal and his bizarre notion about zero tax on capital gains being reinvested in Canada, which I will remind you Jim Flaherty tried to implement in the Harper era and gave up because it was way too complex to manage. But Poilievre has one set of ideas (doubling-down on trickle-down), and he’s going to keep swinging that hammer for every problem under the sun, no matter how inappropriate it may be. And then there’s Danielle Smith who wants negotiations to resume right away, even though there is no trade deal to be had because the Americans are not interested in trade, only in subjugation. Unbelievable, but also unsurprising, that she is so keen to be a Vichy premier.

Pierre Poilievre demands that the PM adopt his economic plans, no matter how nonsensical they actually are. Because he has one set of solutions for all of Canada’s problems, and he will not be dissuaded.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-25T17:06:31.112Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-08-25T19:08:02.395Z

Continue reading →

More threats and childish name-calling

Posted on by

In the wake of the collapse of trade talks, the Trump was administration trying desperately to put the blame on Canadian negotiators rather than the fact that Howard Lutnick came stomping in at the end and undid the work that Jamieson Greer was doing (not that there was any deal to be had, let me be clear—this was only about extracting concessions from us so that they could demand more). Trump himself decided to start throwing more threats around, starting with threats of fifty percent tariffs on autos (including parts) and steel come January, possibly in the hopes that it would send Carney and his team back to the table so that they could offer fresh capitulations to head off said tariffs. Of course, it’s also pretty ridiculous at this point—the margin on auto assembly in this country runs around six percent, so whether tariffs are at twenty-five or fifty percent it hardly seems to matter, but it really seems incumbent upon the auto industry in the US to push back against this.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-24T14:54:38.444Z

And measured in US terms (because they measure unemployment different than we do), I believe ours is about 5.3% on an apples-to-apples basis, if memory serves.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-24T18:28:16.720Z

And then, because it can always get worse, it devolved into a bunch of name-calling between Doug Ford and Trump, with Ford at one point inviting Trump to kiss his ass, while Trump saying that Ford was a “flunky” and a pale imitation of his older brother, the late Rob Ford. And it’s so stupid. What gets me, however, is the fact that once again, Ford is uncritically being praised for his standing up to Trump, even though it’s just bluster, and we’re back to people saying “I don’t normally support Ford, but…” and guys, guess what? This is what he wants. This is how he hopes to turn his tanking poll numbers around, just like he did before the last provincial election. It’s incredible how much people keep falling for this.

Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre is demanding that the government recall Parliament so that they can “get answers” about what happened, but there is nothing to be legislated here, and the government is not going to release everything in public because trade negotiations are Cabinet confidences for a reason, not the least of which is because it can expose pain points for others to exploit. This being said, yes, we do need them to give more about how the Americans scuppered their own deal, but there are ways of doing that that don’t give away everything. If the opposition wants to call Dominic LeBlanc and Janice Charette to the trade committee and ask questions, they can do that without recalling Parliament a month early, but this looks to me like a desperate bid by Poilievre to try and start harvesting clips for his social media channels.

What, exactly, needs to be legislated at this moment? If you want to haul LeBlanc and Charette before a committee, you don't need to recall Parliament to do that. Otherwise, this looks like a desperate need to start farming clips for social media.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-24T13:04:55.035Z

Also, I am bemused that yet again, Poilievre's solution to everything is to destroy environmental laws. Because apparently we'll save the economy through years of endless litigation?

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-24T13:04:55.036Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-08-24T19:08:01.739Z

Continue reading →

Poilievre’s plan to fuel inflation

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

My Latest:

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

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

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

Continue reading →

The (garbage) Reform Act won’t stop an autocrat

Posted on by

Over the weekend, the Globe and Mail ran a lengthy opinion piece called “It Can Happen Here,” about how we are supposedly more vulnerable to an autocrat taking power in this country, under our rules, than the Americans were with theirs. I am dubious. While I very much respect the professor who wrote the piece, I worry that there were a few fundamental misunderstandings in some of the points he was trying to make. For example, there is a section about how we don’t have an impeachment mechanism in our constitution, and of course we don’t. Our system operates on confidence as opposed to a fixed clock, so we don’t need impeachment. If the government goes pear-shaped, Parliament can withdraw confidence and the government is out. If a caucus loses confidence in their leader, they can vote non-confidence in him or her at any point, and no, they don’t need the (garbage) Reform Act rules to do so.

Our rules can be pretty effective. For example, when Charles Tupper tried to hold onto power after losing an election, the Governor General refused to make any of the appointments that Tupper wanted him to, so he was forced to vacate the office. Oh, but what if the autocratic PM appoints a lapdog GG? People in serious positions tend to take up the seriousness of those positions even when everyone thinks they won’t. Not saying it’s an impossibility, but so far that’s been the case. And yes, some of our rules are “unwritten,” for which he suggests we need a Cabinet Manual to codify them, but I am dubious there too. Codifying those rules in such a manner invites people to look for legalistic loopholes rather than a principles-based system that makes it easier to point out when someone is trying to do through the backdoor what they cannot do through the front. I also find that the piece very much misread and oversimplified what happened with the whole SNC-Lavalin affair as one of the examples of how power can be abused, because in the end, it was Bill Morneau’s office that was lousy with SNC-Lavalin lobbyists and not PMO, and a more pliant Attorney General was not appointed and didn’t result in the deferred prosecution agreement. (In fact, when SNC-Lavalin eventually pleaded guilty, they got a lesser penalty than the DPA would have stipulated).

My biggest problem with the piece, however, is that it treats the (garbage) Reform Act as a kind of panacea that needs to be more widely adopted. It absolutely does not. What it actually does is put up a bunch of unnecessary rules and barriers to what is a simple vote of non-confidence, and more to the point, it tries to convince MPs that they have lost power over time, or that this will “empower” them when in fact it actually disempowers them because of its formalistic barriers. Yes, we do need to beware leaders who can become autocrats, but the Reform Act will not help avoid that in any way, shape or form.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-08-10T19:08:01.763Z

My Latest:

  • For National Magazine, I delve into the Alberta case that the Supreme Court of Canada has recently granted leave to appeal about lawyers’ oaths to the Crown.
  • My column points to the things that the sanitized tales of Conservative “infighting” over generational change are ignoring or glossing over.

Continue reading →

Elder pundit nonsense about the Senate

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

Scott Gilmore

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

Continue reading →

The most cynical Senate appointments

Posted on by

Yesterday, prime minister Mark Carney made his first four Senate appointments, and they were…a choice. After months of rumours, he appointed his principal secretary, Tom Pittfield, to the Senate—but not as a partisan Liberal to be in a revived Liberal Senate caucus, which is not happening, but as an “independent.” (Pittfield was also a childhood friend of Justin Trudeau as his father was once Clerk of the Privy Council to Pierre Trudeau, and was later appointed to the Senate; his wife is Liberal MP Anna Gainey). He also appointed Conservative MP Richard Martel, also to sit as an “independent” and not as a Conservative senator, plus cancer researcher Dr. Rodney Ouelette and CPA Geeta Tucker.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-07-07T13:50:42.850Z

Performatively distancing himself from Trudeau.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-07-07T14:01:38.222Z

I will have a lot more to write about this and the changes he’s making to the appointment process in the coming days, but for the moment, let me say how cynical this move was. There are those trying to spin Pittfield as somehow being needed to “quarterback” legislation in the Senate, but he’s not being made Government Leader, so that makes no sense. And legislation is not being delayed. Sometimes it takes a bit of time to actually study bills, but they’re not a rubber stamp. (There is also a weird little subplot about the pissing match that Pittfield and David Lametti had in PMO over being Carney’s principal secretary, Pittfield won and Lametti was sent packing to the UN, and months later, Pittfield is now getting a Senate seat). The appointment of Martel is to open up a winnable seat in the Commons, and it’s crassly obvious that was the reason. Poilievre got jammed by the move, and he’s instructed his caucus not to shit-talk the appointment (unlike what they did with Alain Reyes’ leaving caucus, for example, or any of the floor-crossers). Carney doesn’t seem to be coming from any place of principle here, and per his previous foreign policy moves, his “principled pragmatism” is that he can slough off his principles at the drop of a hat, and that seems to be exactly what is happening here.

He's totally not mad, guys.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-07-07T22:28:54.018Z

“Warrior not woke”

At his Stampede Conservative barbecue speech, Pierre Poilievre gave one of his tired lines about returning the Canadian military to “warrior culture, not woke culture” (which means what? That we should go back to the era of a toxic, sexualized culture marked by abuse of power?), but the fact that he was dressed in a white satin shirt with white embroidery and an ill-fitting white cowboy hat with a Conservative logo on the front drew many laughs. I find it amazing that Conservatives seem to have a hard time finding appropriate Stampede-wear (see: Stephen Harper’s two-sizes-too-small leatherette vest), while “woke, effete” Justin Trudeau never had a problem.

— Pablo Hidalgo (@infinata.bsky.social) 2026-07-07T13:49:58.898Z

Pierre Poilievre’s Personal Assistant Explains His Calgary Stampede Outfityoutu.be/r-1lhkq3c3w

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2026-07-07T19:53:01.400Z

My Latest:

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 →