Tag Archives: Pierre Poilievre

Roundup: The “$200 from insolvency” zombie myth

Posted on by

Have you heard that statistic that almost have of Canadians are less than $200 away from insolvency? It’s a zombie statistic that keeps coming up every few months, and well, Pierre Poilievre has revived it yet again as part of his economically illiterate campaign against the government (where his solution is more neoliberal cuts to government capacity and supports in the hopes that it’ll lead to trickle-down economics for real this time). Anyway, that number is not true, nor has it ever been true. But it keeps. Coming. Back.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have also been claiming that the latest job numbers showed 73,000 lost jobs. Which isn’t actually true, because there was a net positive, and more than that, the data showed that losses in part-time work were offset by more jobs in full-time work. But they think people are as economically illiterate as they are, so they will torque numbers to say things they didn’t really say to “prove” that the Liberals are terrible for the economy, as if we aren’t in the midst of a trade war that we have been more resilient then anticipated in. But who cares about facts, data, or context?

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy is declaring a state of emergency in the energy sector over the blackouts cause by Russian attacks. Ukraine’s new defence minister says that he plans to overhaul their organizational structure, and that they face a two million “draft dodgers” and 200,000 desertions. Here is a photo gallery of Ukrainians coping with the blackouts in the middle of winter.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Immediately approve what pipeline?

Posted on by

In the wake of the Venezuela happenings, Pierre Poilievre has decided to do what Pierre Poilievre does best, which is come up with a half-baked pronouncement and make it confidently—in this case, demand the immediate approval of a pipeline to the Pacific. Erm, you know, with absolutely no plan attached, or any of the necessary details about said pipeline. But sure, approve it. (Incidentally, Alberta launched a website for its attempt to get proponents for such a plan).

Poilievre and his followers are so insistent that if government just “got out of the way” that things would get built. Of course, the other thing that Poilievre has said outright is that even though he will “consult” with local First Nations, he will push through a pipeline without their consent, on their lands, where they hold treaty rights. I don’t think he understands what that actually means, and that’s going to be a problem that will merely ensure that all of his plans will land in protracted litigation, and eventually fail (and no, you can’t invoke the Notwithstanding Clause on treaty rights).

And because of course he is, David Eby is musing about refineries instead of export pipelines, which isn’t going to happen because they are extremely expensive to build and would require billions and billions in government subsidies for little return (and yes, the Alberta government tried that and is still paying for that particular error in judgment.

Ukraine Dispatch

The new Czech prime minister says they will continue to run the ammunition sourcing programme for Ukraine, but won’t contribute money to it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Appointing another friend to an important post

Posted on by

It’s now official—prime minster Mark Carney has announced his plan to name his friend Mark Wiseman to the role of Ambassador to the US as of February 15th. Wiseman has no prior diplomatic experience, but was a mergers & acquisitions lawyer before becoming an asset manager at Blackrock, and yes, he was a donor to Carney’s leadership campaign as well as his election campaign, donating the maximum for each.

There were immediate howls about this appointment from the Bloc and the Conservatives because of Wiseman’s involvement in the “Century Initiative,” which was a proposal to triple Canada’s population to 100 million by 2100, which we were on track to do regardless (before the current decision to halt immigration to the point where our population was in decline last quarter). The Bloc are treating this kind of thing like their own version of “Great Replacement Theory” because a) they are an ethnic nationalist party, and b) they see an expansion of the rest of the Canadian population as diminishing Quebec’s influence, because they heavily limit their own immigration (because again, ethnic nationalism) and their birth rate is very low. The Conservatives are treating it like Great Replacement Theory writ-large, and use it to scaremonger about Muslims and such, while also pretending to care about Quebec. There was also that stupid brouhaha about when Wiseman retweeted an Andrew Coyne column headline about said Initiative and people took it to be Wiseman insulting Quebec, so that’s great. Oh, and he apparently said he’s opposed to Supply Management, so of course Quebec and the majority of Conservatives are also opposed to his appointment.

This being said, I find myself increasingly uncomfortable by the fact that Carney keeps naming friends and former colleagues to top jobs, some elected (Tim Hodgson), some appointed (the head of the Defence Investment Agency), is a worrying trend because it’s starting to reek of cronyism. I also am reminded of the fate of Bill Morneau, who also did not grasp the ethical considerations in government of just calling up your friends and network to do things (in Morneau’s case, those friends were WE Charity), because that’s how you do them in the corporate world. Government is not the corporate world, and I know we’re all tired of hearing it, but no, you should not run government like a business or a corporation. Nothing good can come of this.

Programming Note: And that’s it for 2025. I’m taking a break from the blog until the first week of January, so enjoy your holidays everyone.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-22T23:08:01.593Z

Ukraine Dispatch

There was yet another strike on Odesa, the second within twenty-four hours. President Zelenskyy says those kidnapped villagers from Sumy region had long had dealings across the border without incident. Here is a look at Ukraine’s new low-cost interceptor drones, taking out attacking Russian drones for much cheaper. (Gallery here).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Naïve assumptions about the energy transition

Posted on by

There were a couple of longreads over the weekend that are worth your time when it comes to understanding where we are at with the current government. The first was a deep dive into Carney’s past climate “leadership,” from his time at central banks to the UN, and a pattern emerges throughout where much of this “leadership” was fairly surface-level. Scratch the surface, and you find a lot of on naïve assumptions around a market response to the clean energy transition, coupled with some arrogant beliefs that he was right and no one could tell him otherwise (as those companies he was touting were also heavily invested in fossil fuels). In the time since, we have all watched as Carney has systematically betrayed that former climate leadership, and continues to rely on a “just trust me” approach to that clean energy transition as he breaks his word with little regard.

The second longread was in the Globe & Mail about Tim Hodgson and his adjustment going from banker CEO to Cabinet minister, with his belief that government bureaucrats are essentially lazy and stupid, and needing to learn how to be politically sensitive to the realities that he has little patience for as he looks to secure deals as quickly as possible. Along the way, he is learning that things don’t work like that, and that there are plenty of other considerations that he continues to ignore, like obligations regarding First Nations. And how he continues to alienate the actual clean energy people in his own department, along with the part of the Liberal caucus that actually care about climate change, because hey, he needs to be Mr. Business. This is what “running government like a company” is bringing, and it comes with a hell of a lot of ideological blind spots, while they insist that they’re not being ideological.

As well, in year-enders, Carney has been criticising the Trudeau approach to climate change as “too much regulation, not enough action,” which goes back to his particular assumptions about the market and why the government wasn’t able to rely on carbon pricing alone to achieve its goals, Oh, and he’s still completely sold on the belief that carbon capture is the route to go, even though it only captures a fraction of the emissions from the production process (and none of the downstream uses), so the math doesn’t even work there. He also talks about “guardrails” in dealing with China, but considering there has been no hint of that with India, I’m not holding my breath.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-20T15:08:01.975Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Following more Russian airstrikes and bombings in the Odesa region, president Zelenskyy says that Russia is trying to cut off Ukraine’s Black Sea access. Russian forces have crossed the border in Sumy region and kidnapped 50 villagers. Ukraine has signed an agreement with Portugal go co-produce sea drones. Here is a look at a Ukrainian artist who is reflecting the war through his collection and work.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Getting played by your leakers

Posted on by

The Department of National Defence is investigating the leak of selective information by F-35 proponents that made that fighter look like a clear winner in the competition with the SAAB Gripen-E fighter, and the journalists who accepted the leak and wrote that story is getting a bit huffy about it. His story on the investigation quotes a Quebec journalists’ union about how important it is that journalists “do their work freely,” and that such a big purchase deserves scrutiny. This kind of self-righteousness is not unexpected.

That said, he also quoted security expert Wesley Wark who basically took him to the woodshed because the leak was quite obviously propaganda as it was selective, they didn’t provide information on the criteria that the scores were based on (just that it looked like the F-35s were the clear winner with no actual context), and this should have been completely obvious as part of the original story. It’s no secret that there is a cadre within the Canadian Forces that is heavily invested in acquiring as much American military tech as possible, in part because they operate so closely with American forces, but also because they are socialised into believing that it’s the very best and they want the very best, so they have been doing everything they can to manipulate the purchase of these fighters from the very beginning, starting with the Harper government who credulously just said “okay, we’ll sole-source it” on the military’s recommendation in the first instance, before it turned into something of a scandal because of the escalating price tag. (This is not how you do civilian control, guys). These same military folks seem to think that the Americans will never turn on us, and that Trump’s threats are not to be taken seriously.

I should be surprised—but really, I’m not—that the journalist in question allowed himself to be played like this, and clearly it did the job the leakers wanted because you had a bunch of pundits take the story to proclaim that the F-35 is the fighter for Canada, hands-down. That’s ultimately why I find the self-righteous response to a leak investigation to be…funny? Sad? Either way, I’m not a defence expert, but I do read and I do talk to people a lot, and I could see clearly that what got leaked was a frame-up job, and the journalist who wrote the original piece should have seen that as well, and done a better job of canvassing dissent to the leak rather than seeking out sources to confirm what the leakers were selling. But he didn’t, and so he got the head of a journalists’ union to get self-righteous on his behalf. It’s not great for the trust in the institution of journalism if we let ourselves get played like this.

Ukraine Dispatch

An underwater Ukrainian drone struck and disabled a Russian submarine docked at a Black Sea naval base (though Russia denies this). European leaders are meeting in The Hague to launch an International Claims Commission to compensate Ukraine for hundreds of billions of dollars in damages from Russia’s attacks and war crimes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Speaker hypothetical

Posted on by

It looks like NDP interim leader Don Davies may have been done dirty by CTV News over the weekend as their headline suggested that his “party ‘open’ to Speaker of the House role in exchange for resources.” While the text of the story presents this as a proposal that no one has actually discussed, the fact that this is the headline from an interview on CTV Question Period makes it sound like this was somehow being floated. It was not.

Instead, in the interview, he was asked about his scenario as a hypothetical for him to weigh in on, given that it could give the Liberals one more vote in order to be an effective majority, and he said he’d be open to it, as the discussion around official party status was now closed (which was not what he was telling the Star a week ago, but perhaps those illusions have since been shattered) but he’s still trying to get additional resources, never mind that it’s not like his party needs them for caucus management or committee research or anything like that.

This is an object lesson in why politicians don’t like to answer hypothetical questions—because they get blown up like this, and to be frank, it feels like that kind of question is borderline, if not outright, irresponsible. And sure, Davies could have simply said “I’m not going to answer hypotheticals like that,” and probably will going forward, but asking these kinds of hypotheticals also doesn’t get you very useful answers in journalism either, and so you’ve built an entire story around this this hypothetical scenario that is outright delusional. Nobody came out ahead here, especially the readers, so I fail to see the point.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-12T23:56:01.838Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Odesa suffered further attacks on Saturday, leading to a major blackout.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More defection talk swirling

Posted on by

A day later, the Ma floor-crossing is being dissected with more questions about what this means for Poilievre’s leadership of the Conservative party now that he’s lost two MPs to floor-crossings and one to a very suspicious resignation. We have learned that Tim Hodgson played a part in Ma’s decision, and that their wives are friends (and it is worth noting they are from neighbouring ridings). And now you have Conservatives telling the National Post of all places that they expect another couple of defections because Poilievre is so unable to read the room in his own caucus. Oh, and there’s also a whole side note about how Ma was apparently the “secret Santa” for Jamil Jivani and Jivani didn’t get his gift.

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3m7tbupdrrs2p

Government House Leader Steve MacKinnon proclaimed that he knows more disgruntled Conservatives and hinted that there yet may be another floor-crossing, and this has everyone wringing their hands about “backroom deals,” and saying dumb things like “Canadians didn’t elect a majority,” and that cobbling one together is somehow illegitimate. Poilievre himself is making this particular argument. But that’s not how elections work. We elect 338 individual MPs. Not parties. Canadians can’t select “majority” or “minority” on their ballots. In fact, parties have become political shorthand for how MPs sort themselves into configurations to achieve confidence in the Chamber, but at its core, we elect individual MPs, and they get to make their own decision including who they sit with, and on how to determine how a government is given confidence, and yes, that can include so-called “backroom deals” and floor-crossings, and if voters don’t like it, they can punish them in the next election. That’s how parliamentary democracy works.

If there is another defection or two, and it puts the Liberals into a majority, the most dramatic effect will not be just the fact that every confidence vote isn’t going to rely on Andrew Scheer and Scott Reid hiding behind the curtains to count abstentions, but rather that it will force the committees to be rebalanced, at which point the Conservatives and Bloc will no longer be able to team up to obstruct all business, as they have been doing. That will be a material change for the ability of this Parliament to get things done, and maybe finally break the dysfunction and deadlock that has plagued it since 2019.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-12T14:24:02.995Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia attacked two Ukrainian ports, damaging three Turkish vessels, one of them carrying food supplies. Russia also attacked energy facilities in Odesa region. Ukraine, meanwhile, hit two Russian oil rigs in the Caspian Sea, the Yaroslavl oil refinery, and two Russian vessels carrying military equipment. President Zelenskyy visited Kupiansk, as Ukrainian forces are encircling the Russians in the area, weeks after Russia claimed to have captured it.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1999435026300076425

Continue reading →

Roundup: MOU motion down in flames

Posted on by

As expected, the Conservatives’ Supply Day motion to try and force a vote on some of the language from the Alberta MOU went down in flames as the Liberals were wise to their bullshit, and didn’t play ball. They made it clear that the language was deliberately provocative in what it excluded, so Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives scrambled to try and amend their own motion, so that it included a bunch of other things, except one thing—any mention of the carbon price (without which, the Pathways carbon capture project can’t operate because it’s not fiscally viable). And so that’s what the Liberals hung their arguments on—that this wasn’t the full MOU, and it didn’t include the carbon price, or methane regulations, or anything else, so they weren’t going to vote for it. And nobody did.

The Conservatives could have probably done more damage to the Liberals if they tried to force a vote on the entire MOU, to really suss out the divisions in the caucus about it, but they couldn’t actually do that, because the MOU has the carbon price as part of it, and if the Conservatives voted to support the full MOU including the carbon price, they would be hypocrites because every day in Question Period, they falsely blame said carbon price for food price inflation (when in reality, the industrial carbon price’s impact on food is statistically zero). Their attempt at being clever blew up in their faces, because they’re not clever. They’re not the slightest bit intelligent. Of course, that isn’t going to stop them from shouting for the next eight weeks that “The Liberals voted against their own MOU! They don’t want to build a pipeline!” Of course, it’s not true because the Conservatives ensured that they weren’t voting on the actual contents of the MOU, but it’s not going to matter. They’re going to record videos of them claiming the Liberals voted against their own plans, and spread them across social media, but well, it’s not like we can expect the Conservatives—and Poilievre and Andrew Scheer in particular—to actually be honest for once.

Speaking of honesty, Tim Hodgson took to the microphone in the Foyer during the day to denounce the Conservatives’ stunt, but in the process declared that “caucus is united” behind the full MOU, when he knows full well that they are not. If the point of the day was to make the Conservatives look like the clowns, well, Hodgson didn’t exactly do his part. Then again, Hodgson is one of the worst performers on the front bench and he has absolutely zero political skills, so I’m not sure why anyone would be surprised here.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-09T22:22:02.273Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia’s top general says they are advancing their “entire front line” and moving into the town of Myrnohrad, which Ukraine denies, and says that Russia is paying a heavy cost for modest advances. Likewise, Ukraine still holds out in parts of Pokrovsk, and it has not fallen. President Zelensky has been rallying European allies as he says that any “peace” deal will not include ceding land to Russia. Ukraine is rolling out more restrictions on power usage as they repair their infrastructure from Russian attacks.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1998317649025966396

Continue reading →

Roundup: Being too clever about the MOU’s language

Posted on by

Today is the Conservatives’ big Supply Day, where they are bringing forward their motion that cherry-picks two phrases from the MOU with Alberta, and hopes to jam the Liberals with it. Pierre Poilievre may claim that the language is “lifted directly from the MOU,” so the Liberals should put up or shut up, but of course, he’s being too cute by half. It’s not language directly lifted from the MOU. The MOU states a “private sector constructed and financed pipelines, with Indigenous Peoples co-ownership and economic benefit, with at least one million barrels a day of low emission Alberta bitumen with a route that increases export access to Asian markets as a priority” whereas the motion simply says “pipelines enabling the export of at least one million barrels a day of low-emission Alberta bitumen from a strategic deepwater port on the British Columbia coast to reach Asian markets,” and adds “respecting the duty to consult Indigenous people.” One of these things is not like the other.

— Kady O'Malley (@kadyo.bsky.social) 2025-12-08T22:44:00.568Z

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3m7jbmdjkfk2i

Liberal MP Corey Hogan, the party’s sole Calgary MP, called out these shenanigans, both in a media scrum and on his Twitter, where he points out entirely why the Conservatives haver phrased it this way—to either make the Liberals look like they’re ignoring Indigenous consultation and consent, or to make it look like they’re not serious about building it, and in either case, it sends a signal to someone that will cause doubt and will inevitably delay any decisions. And the government indicated last night that they’re going to vote against it, citing that the Conservatives are not using the full language from the MOU. This in turn will set up weeks of Conservatives screaming that they knew the Liberals were lying the whole time and never had any intention of building a pipeline.

https://twitter.com/coreyhoganyyc/status/1998142565791477875

The thing we need to remember in all of this is not the shenanigans, or the Conservatives thinking they’re too clever, or any of that—rather, it’s that they think they can ram through these projects without Indigenous consent. Sure, they’ll talk about “meaningful consultation,” but consultation is not consent, and in their press releases, consent is never mentioned, nor is even consultations. That’s not realistic, nor even legal in the current framework. Of course, they also think a new pipeline will “unblock the trillions of dollars of privatesector energy investment to produce more oil and gas, build profitable pipelines and ship a million barrels of oil to Asia a day at world prices.” My dudes—this is a post-2014 world. It’s not going to be trillions of dollars, and world oil prices are tanking because of a supply glut. All of this is fantasyland.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-08T14:08:03.419Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians have attacked Sumy for the second night in a row, cutting off power in the region. Here is a look at those remaining in Kostiantynivka, as Russians approach.

Continue reading →

QP: Admitting a poor choice of words

Posted on by

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

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

Continue reading →