Tag Archives: Pierre Poilievre

Roundup: Overplaying the ethics committee report

Posted on by

The Commons committee on access to information, privacy and ethics released their latest report yesterday, reviewing the Conflict of Interest Act, and it was, well, a doozy. This is one of those kinds of reports that was always going to be a problem because it’s so highly partisan, and the fact that the committee reflects a minority parliament made this even more so. Reading through it, it was quickly obvious that this was mostly an exercise in the Conservatives (and Bloc) looking to score points based on Mark Carney’s past, and trying to suggest a whole bunch of new rules that would essentially target him personally, which goes against pretty much every principle of good governance. Remember that bad facts make bad case law, and well, this is terrible all around.

It was also quite striking just who the majority on the committee was listening to, which was mostly “Democracy Watch’s” Duff Conacher, whose only credibility is that he branded himself a one-man watchdog who answers media requests, so he gets phoned all the time and provides quotes on too many stories. He’s also lost pretty much every court battle he’s ever waged, and thinks that he should be the only arbiter of parliamentary ethics in this country. They also listed to disgraced “journalist” Sam Cooper (who is so credulous he once believed that a clip from a Hong Kong film was secretly obtained proof of a Canadian official being compromised by Chinese agents), who pretty much was only there to back up Conacher. Experts who warned the majority that they were creating more problems than they were trying to solve were largely ignored, because they didn’t fit the narrative. Unsurprisingly, the Liberals had a nine-page dissent at the end of the report that called these kinds of things out, for all the good it will do.

Why? Because looking at the reporting of the report’s contents and recommendations, it was framed in such a way that the committee agreed to these points when in fact it was only the Conservative and Bloc members of the committee and not the Liberals, which then distorts the report because it makes it sound like it was more unanimous than it was. Mention of the Liberal dissent was waaaaaaay down in the copy, and doesn’t really spell out that this was the Conservatives and Bloc trying to use the committee to attack Carney and the Liberals, which is pretty relevant information when you’ve got a report of this nature. And while I don’t want to give the reporter on this piece a hard time, you can’t really consider what the main body of the report says as what the committee believed—only what the opposition members believed.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-04-23T19:08:02.093Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The Russian strike on Dnipro early Thursday killed three people and injured another ten. Ukraine is boasting that their new interceptor drones can be controlled over thousands of kilometres.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding Carney debate him

Posted on by

The PM was present today, as were all of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he took issue with a statement that Carney made in March about affordability being the best it’s been in ages. Carney said that what he said was about costs and wages, and that wages are now rising at double the rate of inflation. Poilievre disputed this and listed things that he claims Carney was wrong about, to which Carney noted that they measure affordability using rates and wages, and wages are increasing Faster, while things like rents are decreasing. Poilievre switched to English to lament the high food price inflation, and returned to the comment about affordability being the best its been in years. Carney stated that the record is that since he’s been prime minister, wages have risen faster than inflation, before he plugged the enhanced GST credit. Poilievre again disputed that this was wrong, and Carney again noted that asking rents have been declining, and that wages are increasing. Poilievre again took issue with affordability and demanded Carney acknowledge that, and Carney defended the measures and wage levels. Poilievre continued to insist that Carney was wrong, and Carney again touted the entranced GST credit and their cuts to fuel and income taxes.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he took a swipe at the new Canada–U.S. trade advisory committee before lamenting the issue of tariffs. Carney praised the members of the committee, naming Quebec members. Blanchet demanded temporary measures for companies affected by the latest round of tariffs, and Carney pointed out that these tariffs were global and yes, they are considering temporary measures. Blanchet again worried about the affected sectors, and Carney gave more reassurances. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Carney’s Forward Guidance

Posted on by

On Sunday morning, prime minister Mark Carney released a ten-minute piece on his YouTube channel called “Forward Guidance,” because he’s still doing his central banker shtick, and it was a direct-to-camera (with three other cameras intercutting) discussion about the place we find ourselves in. Most of this was not new, repeating the same lines from past speeches including the one at Davos, while promising to never sugarcoat things—but he kind of did. I also have to question why this had to be over YouTube and not a speech in the House of Commons, which is why there is allotted time every day for ministers to make statements if they so choose. This could have been done there.

Carney pointed to a “statue” of Isaac Brock that Mike Myers gave him, but by statue he meant two-inch figurine, and that led him to launch into a whole War of 1812 narrative about the people who built this country, which, okay, sure, but you’re not doing much to show you’re not just the second coming of Stephen Harper. When he talked about the building of big things in the post-war period, this is again where things got a bit sugar-coated because there was still complexity to these old projects, and usually practices that would be unacceptable today for good reason. (I also noted that he mentioned universities being built in this period, without mention of the fact that provincial governments are in the process of dismantling our university systems). He also spoke about protecting social programmes (except for letting the funding of a bunch of groups who deliver services lapse), and he mentions pharmacare like it’s not limited to two types of drugs in a handful of provinces. And further sugar-coating was essentially by omission—the fact that so many Canadian businesses have become apathetic to growth or increasing productivity because they have taken the lesson that all they need to do is become rent-seekers.

Predictably, Pierre Poilievre decided he was going to have something to say about this, and that it was all just an illusion because nothing has actually been built yet (because you can build things overnight). He railed about Carney just enriching “well-connected elites,” but Poilievre’s whole scheme is to double down on trickle-down economics, which by definition enriches a small group of elites because the money does not, in fact, trickle down. Melissa Lantsman put out her own rebuttal that included the incredulous and false claim that the Liberals have cost the economy a trillion dollars in the past decade, which is completely fiscally illiterate, but that’s how the Conservatives roll.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-04-19T23:08:01.392Z

Ukraine Dispatch

There was a massive overnight attack Saturday on Chernihiv which killed a sixteen-year-old boy, and wounded others. Ukraine is continuing its own drone strikes on Russian oil facilities in Samara, occupied Crimea, and the Baltic Sea.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The 44th Charter anniversary

Posted on by

Yesterday was the 44th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it comes at a time when the Charter is increasingly under attack by provincial governments who have realised that the prohibition against using the Notwithstanding Clause has worn off, and that the public no longer cares about it—at least not enough to actually punish a government that does it, mostly because it’s right-wing governments using the Clause to punish minorities, and there isn’t enough political will to care about trans and gender diverse youth, or the rights of visible minorities in Quebec.

While everyone waits for the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the Law 21 case out of Quebec, there is some using about ways that the federal government could try and introduce some kinds of guardrails against its use federally, but that immediately had the Bloc Québécois howling, and the brand new Quebec premier striking a combative tone, until she got reassurances from Carney and a text message apology from the federal justice minister, which strikes me as far too much appeasement. And then you have people calling for the constitutional power of disallowance if a province invokes the Clause, but that’s extremely dangerous. Disallowance is a constitutional dead letter—it existed mostly as a way of ensuring provinces would stay within their constitutional lanes, and that function has been taken up by the Supreme Court of Canada’s reference function. Disallowance would essentially be a declaration of war, which is a very bad thing for any federal government.

So, what can we do about provinces who abuse the power? The same way you effect any political change—you organize, and you protest, and you get out the vote. But that’s hard, and people don’t want to do that, even though that’s the way politics works. There is no easy way to curb the abuse of these powers other than the public letting it be known that it’s unacceptable, and that’s hard work. But it’s the only way to ensure that you not only get change, but that said change is actually durable. Make premiers afraid of you. It’s the only way we’re going to fix what’s wrong with this country.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-04-17T13:13:12.555Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones hit the Danube port of Izmail once again, and at least one drone strayed into Romanian territory as a result. Ukrainian drones made hits at oil facilities in the Black Sea port of Tuapse and Krasnodar.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another lunchtime speech praising trickle-down economics

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre was back at the Canadian Club in Toronto for another lunchtime speech on how he is going to fix the economy to make life more affordable, and—stop me if you’ve heard this one before—it involves doubling down on trickle-down economics. In fact, while the speech made all of his greatest hits (destroy environmental legislation, cut taxes, cut bureaucracy in the most hand-wavey way possible), along with his latest genius plan of building a stockpile of oil and critical minerals that will supposedly give us “leverage” with future negotiations. Again, this is stupid because you’re not going to convince Trump, with his love of tariffs, to abandon that with a “strategic reserve.” Get real.

Actual quote from Poilievre's speech today:"If you asked a neutral and objective AI bot to go into all of the policies on the books of the government of Canada, what would you find has actually changed in the last year?"There is no such thing as a "neutral and objective" bot. Absolute clown show.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-04-16T20:24:29.511Z

And because this is Poilievre, he is continuing to double-down on his peevish insistence that he is somehow a better economist than Carney because he watched a bunch of crypto bros on YouTube. In fact, he dismissed Carney as having the “illusion of knowledge,” and claimed that all of Carney’s economic ideas have been wrong for years, which is a ridiculous thing to say. This while he keeps going on and on about “money-printing,” which nobody is engaging in, but again, this is one of the key things that crypto bros will say drives inflation (hence why Poilievre parroted their lines about Bitcoin being a way to opt out of inflation), and nobody will call this out. (Okay, David Cochrane has tried to call it out, and Poilievre and Andrew Scheer just obfuscate and prevaricate, but absolutely nobody else challenges this absolutely bullshit claim, including the government). It’s amazing how much we let him get away with saying that is completely untrue—and he knows it.

Meanwhile, Conservatives back in Ottawa were complaining to the press that François-Philippe Champagne won’t appear at the ethics committee to answer about his recusing himself on the Alto high-speed rail project because his spouse is a vice-president there, even though the Ethics Commissioner said that there is no actual conflict because Alto reports to a different line minister. This is just theatre, because the Conservatives want clips of themselves calling Champagne corrupt in committee, and surprise, surprise, the Liberals have no interest in exposing him to this. So, the Conservatives are now crying foul in advance of committees being rejigged to reflect the majority, and saying that this is proof the Liberals are going to avoid accountability. But witch-hunts and media stunts are not accountability, and this is just so stupid.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-04-16T19:08:03.789Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia spent all Thursday hammering Ukraine with 700 drones and dozens of missiles, which killed sixteen people and wounded more than a hundred others. One of those strikes was on the Black Sea port of Tuapse, which it an oil tanker.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The thing about windfall taxes

Posted on by

In the discussion over “pausing” the excise tax on gasoline and diesel, and the Conservatives’ demands that all other fuel charges be scrapped (including the clean fuel standard which is not a charge or a tax), versus the NDP’s call for a price cap and windfall tax, there hasn’t been a lot of discussion about what those will mean.

Enter economist Kevin Milligan, who has a good thread explaining the problem with windfall taxes, and why those advocating for them have a lot more explaining to do when it comes to just how they see them being implemented.

Adam asks a fair question here that has been bandied about. Let me offer two arguments against a windfall tax that I would wager FIN officials would make when advising cabinet on what to do. I'll also offer my own assessment of the two arguments.1/

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:15:37.601Z

Why would FIN argue against an oil/gas windfall tax?FIN Arg #1: Ideally we set taxes in advance and then let firms and people make their choices based on those taxes. Changing taxes <i>ex post</i> risks upsetting investors who would view this as a mark of an unstable unserious country.

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:17:39.157Z

My response: Yes, ideally we set taxes ex ante and let firms/people decide what to do. Changing that ex post is like reneging. All true. But I do think FIN overindexes on this argument. Every time we change taxes we literally 'renege' on the status quo./3

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:19:52.099Z

If you took the 'no tax changes ex post' argument completely as sacrosanct, it essentially argues for no tax changes ever. That's silly.I also note the "no ex post changes because we're not a banana republic" argument only gets hauled out when it's a tax *increase*. Why not symmetric? Hmmm…/4

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:21:48.449Z

Why would FIN argue against an oil/gas windfall tax?FIN Arg #2: How do you define a "windfall"? What is this year's profit? What is last year's profit? You realize these are accounting numbers, subject to lots of choice variables for shifting between tax years, right? /5

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:24:09.737Z

Fin Arg #2 cont'd: The concern is that you'd end up with a lot of accounting gaming and not as much revenue as you'd think. A lot of time/effort/dollars spent on creating the tax law to minimize gaming. A lot of time/effort/dollars spent by firms avoiding a windfall tax law./6

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:25:51.216Z

My take on accounting and windfall taxes:I recall reading historical precedents around WW2 (?) that outlined how much effort it was relative to the revenue. I recall that being persuasive. (Don't have the source at my fingertips….)But I take the windfall tax accounting issue seriously./7

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:28:08.463Z

So, my advice to those who advocate for a windfall tax? The thing you could do to overcome government resistance is to look seriously at the accounting issues involved.Chanting slogans is one thing. Overcoming implementation barriers is maybe less fun, but necessary to gettin stuff done./end

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:31:43.152Z

It only boils down to 'let the rich have their way' if you assume that windfall tax advocates aren't capable of getting their accounting shit together. Why be so defeatist?I outlined a path for advocates. If the response is 'gee that sounds hard' that's not my prob.bsky.app/profile/open…

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:40:14.904Z

I'm not here to blow sunshine and tell you that hard things are easy. Hard things are hard. If you're determined you can do them. But if you don't want to do the work then I'm not going to take the proposal seriously.

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:42:31.333Z

It’s clear that Avi Lewis hasn’t actually thought any of this through. He was on Power & Politics last night and kept trying to handwave away the questions about this plan, and it just kept boiling down to “oil companies bad.” I do think it’s a problem that we’re not seizing on this opportunity to make long-term investments to get off of our dependence on fossil fuels like the French did with their transition to nuclear in the seventies and eighties (because so much European power relied on Middle Eastern fossil fuels up until the oil embargo in the seventies), but nobody seems to want to have that conversation, and Carney has been pretty adamant that he thinks there is a future in the fossil fuel sector. It’s too bad we have no grown-ups who can have a serious conversation about this.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia fired missiles into Kyiv early this morning, killing thirteen so far including twelve-year-old child and wounding several others. This was after more missile and drone attacks were made through the day, which included hitting an apartment building in Odesa. Ukraine’s army has been introducing new drone infantry capabilities, which has resulted in retaking more territory from Russian occupation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Embracing dumb populist measures

Posted on by

Apparently, everyone is getting in on the dumb populist moves when it comes to gasoline prices—prime minister Mark Carney included. In the morning, Carney announced that he was going to suspend the excise tax on fuel (10¢/litre for gasoline, 4¢/litre for diesel) until Labour Day in order to help with the rising cost of gasoline thanks to the Iran conflict, and gearing it to the summer travel season. This is not quite what the Conservatives have been demanding, which is to remove the excise tax, the GST and the clean fuel standard (which they deliberately misconstrue as a tax when it’s not even a charge). In both cases, it’s crass populism that is bad economics. If prices are rising due to external factors, credible economists will tell you the best thing to do is increase transfers to lower-income households because they need it most. Just cutting fuel prices at the time when they’re rising because of a global shortage encourages people to buy more, which exacerbates the shortage. And yes, we produce most of the gas we consume in this country, but not all parts of the country do, and the east coast in particular will be more vulnerable to the global shortage, and this could be very bad. This is certainly not the technocratic government that we were promised under Carney.

Hmm. Around the world I see oil/gas price caps, subsidizing demand for things in short supply.We have seen this before. Doesn't end well!

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-14T16:52:07.899Z

Blake provides some solid technocratic economist advice.But in the age of slopulism there just doesn't seem to be any appetite for policy that delays gratification even minimally. bsky.app/profile/blak…

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-14T16:57:34.839Z

Yeah, that's bad. Dumb populism.Think about it this way: If you had a pot of cash to hand out, who would you send it to? I'm guessing you wouldn't say: “Folks who drive a lot are obviously the neediest; that's who deserves my cash.. Also, I would love to subsidize reliance on foreign oil.”

— Justin Wolfers (@justinwolfers.bsky.social) 2026-04-14T23:23:40.959Z

Pierre Poilievre, meanwhile, has decided that his latest line of attack is to claim that Carney has been “badly educated” in economics, which is…hilarious. Poilievre has no economics training, but because he watches crypto bros on YouTube, he thinks he’s got a better economics understanding that someone with degrees from Harvard and Oxford, and was the governor of the central bank for two G7 countries. And when called out on it, he and Andrew Scheer are doubling down on it. The Dunning-Kruger Effect here is just blinding.

Tonda MacCharles: Pierre Poilievre called you badly educated in economicsMark Carney: Did he? Wow.

— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson.bsky.social) 2026-04-14T14:44:59.393Z

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2044206811390325191

Not to be outdone, Avi Lewis has his own plan for gas prices, which is to cap them and then charge windfall taxes on oil companies. Capping prices during a shortage will have the same effect as discounting prices, because the supply problem is not changed, and windfall taxes are tricky beasts because those companies will demand all kinds of government support the moment there is any kind of downturn.

It's mindless populism all the way down.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-04-14T21:54:32.368Z

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2044145727388139992

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-04-14T13:08:04.657Z

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile strike on Dnipro killed at least five civilians. Ukraine has signed a deal with Norway for Norway to produce Ukrainian drones.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A by-election sweep

Posted on by

The Liberals managed to win all three by-elections last night—University–Rosedale and Scarborough Southwest were handy victories, but Terrebonne was more of a squeaker but the Liberals pulled out in the end. A number of TV outlets held by-election specials just so that they could declare a “majority government” for Mark Carney (even though that’s not a real thing—government is government, meaning Cabinet, and it doesn’t change based on the composition of parliament, so it would be a majority parliament). Things won’t change right away—it’ll be a few weeks before the results are certified and they can take their seats, but the writing is now on the wall, which I’ll write more about in a longer piece.

This is a time to come together so we can build a Canada strong for all.My statement on today's by-elections in University—Rosedale, Scarborough Southwest, and Terrebonne.

— Mark Carney (@mark-carney.bsky.social) 2026-04-14T04:29:06.436Z

Pierre Poilievre marked the occasion with a tantrum post, while his MPs are assuring journalists that no, they’re not planning on forcing him out, and they have all been making loud and obsequious declarations of loyalty over social media in the wake of those floor-crossings, just to drive home the point. He also has no intention of resigning, because that would require some introspection and he is clinically incapable of doing so.

He's totally not mad, you guys. So very not mad.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-04-14T03:42:21.056Z

Pierre Poilievre’s Personal Assistant Explains Why He’s Totally Not Mad About Carney’s Majorityyoutu.be/fkduTKAuLn8

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2026-04-14T01:49:05.787Z

Avi Lewis’ first day

On the first sitting day back since his leadership win, Avi Lewis was in Ottawa with a fresh demand for government in order to make it look like he’s springing into action—to force government to ban so-called surveillance pricing, even though it’s not really a thing in Canada, at least not in stores (online is a different story), but it was his demand. But in his first press conference, he got chippy with the journalists who wanted to ask about other issues of the day, and in particular to ask his foreign affairs critic, Heather McPherson, about the blockade in Iran, and he refused to let her answer. So that wasn’t good, and I’m amazed that there wasn’t an experienced comms person on hand to stop him from making such an ass of himself on his first time out. I also noted that Lewis said he would be in Ottawa “from time to time,” which is another mistake. Jagmeet Singh tried only showing up on Wednesdays for his first year, and it nearly buried him. So much for learning lessons from past failures.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-04-13T19:08:01.694Z

Ukraine Dispatch

One person was killed in the Donetsk region on Sunday in spite of the supposed “Easter ceasefire.” Russian drones attacked the port of Izmail overnight, damaging a Panama-flagged vessel.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No introspection for Poilievre

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre tried to change the channel yesterday in order to sound the alarm about property rights in BC, ginning up outrage about the Cowichan land title decision by the BC Supreme Court (which is a superior court), and the false claim this puts all property rights at risk in the province. It’s not true, of course, and the federal government is appealing that decision (which the Cowichan leadership have stated point-blank has nothing to do with private property), but well, the media had no interest in asking him about that. Instead, it was all about his own leadership in the wake of yet another defection by an MP.

Some of the own-goals are just amazing.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-04-09T15:24:00.893Z

Rest assured, Poilievre is not reflecting on his leadership, because he assures us he got such a high mark from his leadership review and such a great result in the last election. Surely that means that he’s blameless. Instead, he’s going to start insisting that floor-crossers run in byelections, which is a position he never used to hold, and to insist on recall petitions, both of which are antithetical to how a Westminster parliamentary system operates. People vote for the candidate, not the party, which means the MP gets to make their own decision. If you think that means that their votes somehow don’t count, then the technical term for that is “sore-loser.” (Also, people do not choose “majority” or “minority” parliament on their ballots).

Pierre Poilievre’s Personal Assistant Explains Why Everyone Is Leaving Himyoutu.be/PhpH36ZZX1I

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2026-04-09T20:42:58.342Z

Meanwhile, Mark Carney had to answer his own questions about Gladu’s views, and he insists that they talked about it and that she’ll vote with the party, which would have been nice to hear from the horse’s mouth yesterday. Carney also continues to insist that the Liberals are still the party of the Charter, which is getting harder to believe all the time. Gladu herself had to answer questions about her views at a media availability at the party’s convention, and she did nuance some of her positions, and fair enough, but this should have been part of the discussion yesterday and not a day-and-a-half later.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-04-09T19:08:02.208Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Putin has declared a 32-hour ceasefire for Orthodox Easter (but we’ll see if he actually honours it). Russia turned over1000 bodies it claims are from the Ukrainian military, while Ukraine turned over 41 dead Russians.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A mere reminder to respect international law

Posted on by

Well, that kind of felt like a close one, as Trump made genocidal threats against Iran, and then backed down at the very last minute for a two-week ceasefire (negotiated by Pakistan?!) that would seem to effectively hand over control of the Strait of Hormuz to Iran’s control in exchange for extortion payments? Maybe? There are a lot of competing narratives, nut none of them are any good, and the most that Mark Carney could muster himself to do was to say that “all parties” must respect International Law. Well then.

Meanwhile, you had Americans on social media imploring the rest of the world to Do Something about Trump, when he’s their president and they have all of the tools to remove him at their disposal if they were to so choose, and they could have spent the day protesting in the streets nation-wide, and made it really uncomfortable for their government, but nope. It’s not even learned helplessness—it’s an absolute refusal to both understand their own civics, and take responsibility for their actions.

Trump expects the rest of the world to clean up his mess in Iran, while American voters expect the rest of the world to clean up the mess they made in electing Trump.Just perfect. Chef's kiss.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-04-07T16:03:58.527Z

Back home, Mark Carney says he’s looking at ways to “cushion the blow” of high gas prices as a result of this conflict, while he keeps having to answer questions about why gasoline prices are so high when we produce our own at home. He never seems to want to explain why we are bound to the world price (i.e. so that we can export into the global market), and also never gets around to saying that the last time the federal government proposed price controls on oil and gas, well, Alberta has an absolute meltdown that they still harbour zombie resentment toward today (even though they blamed the NEP for the collapse in prices when it was, in fact, a global oil price shock, but it was more convenient to blame Pierre Trudeau and it stuck).

In case you missed it:

  • For National Magazine, I delve into whether there is any basis for the Chief Justice to recuse himself if the Supreme Court hears the Emergencies Act appeal.
  • My weekend column looks at a recent push by some senators to start using the tools at their disposal to break up omnibus budget bills.
  • My column notes that Poilievre treats “cutting wasteful spending” as the very same kind of magical money tree that the NDP does when it comes to wealth taxes.
  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take finds it a problem that Poilievre is evaluating the effectiveness of his shadow cabinet based on their social media presence.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians attacked two busses in Dnipropetrovsk, killing eight people and injuring more than two dozen others. Ukraine has regained more territory along the frontlines in the east and southeast parts of the country. There is a looming shortage of the miniature jet engines that Ukraine’s deep-strike drones require.

Continue reading →