Tag Archives: Procurement

There’s no such thing as associate membership in the EU

Posted on by
Reply

Because everything is stupid, over the weekend, an American newspaper made reference to prime minister Mark Carney working toward “associate membership” with the European Union, which to be clear, is not actually a Thing. It’s not a real title, and means nothing. That didn’t stop the Conservatives from rising up en masse to declare this to be the worst thing ever. Remember that this crew has more than a few people in their ranks who believed that Brexit was a good thing, and lent their support to the cause. And so, Pierre Poilievre decried that we weren’t going to be the 51st state, or the 28th state in the EU, and then decried the whole thing, and demanded Parliament be recalled (it’s back next week regardless), and that he doesn’t have a mandate for this, so he would need an election. Other members of the caucus chimed in with their own bugaboos around “mass migration” and so on, because of course they did. But remember that at no time did anyone say anything about actually joining the EU.

I’m just getting so tired of this desperate search for relevance in the current moment. We’re not going to be EU members. “Associate membership” is not the same thing, and it’s especially nowhere near forced annexation by the US. Grow the fuck up, guys. We need a competent opposition party.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-09-13T20:22:37.264Z

Carney and his office had to engage in damage control to insist that Canada is not seeking EU membership (which we can’t join anyway, because it’s quite explicit in their constitution that it’s not open if you’re not in Europe), but that he is merely seeking an “unique alliance,” to which the EU will be opening an “antenna office” in Ottawa to help with coordination. None of this is EU membership. But that didn’t stop the Conservatives from going absolutely haywire over it, because they can’t resist the siren song of American culture war bullshit, where the far-right derides “decadent” Europe and claim that it’s dying economically and socially, while they act as catspaws for the tech bros who resent that Europe is trying to regulate the internet and force them to be responsible, which they don’t want to be, and for which they’ve coopted the US government to protecting them. More than anything, this is just a sign of how desperate and grasping the Conservatives have become for relevance in the current moment. It was a pathetic display that just demonstrates how adrift they are as a party.

My Latest:

  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take has a concrete suggestion for what the new Digital Transformation Canada should be doing, and it’s not pushing more digital asbestos.
  • For National Magazine, I delve into Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision on sentencing delays and why they’re fundamentally different from pre-trial delays.
  • My weekend column calls out Evan Solomon for complicity in manufacturing consent for worse digital asbestos outcomes, including deaths, rather than regulating it.

New episodes released early for C$7+ subscribers. This week I talk about the Alberta referendum and why it won't solve the imaginary grievances Albertans have been told to believe in. #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-09-14T02:20:29.215Z

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 →

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 →

A fantasy pipeline to Sarnia

Posted on by

Doug Ford and Danielle Smith held a joint press conference yesterday to announce a proposal for a northern pipeline route from Alberta to Sarnia, entirely through Canadian territory. Currently Alberta oil transits to Sarnia through the US because it’s a much shorter and flatter route, and that network is working just fine. Yes, a northern route might be more secure from American threats, but I will reiterate—a Canadian route is much longer, and over much rougher terrain, and is unlikely to find private sector proponents because they have no desire to strand the current pipeline network’s assets.

This sounds an awful lot to me like wishful thinking. There’s no timeline, there’s no price tag, there’s no agreement with Manitoba to go through that province—it’s a line on a map that rests on the wishful thinking that the oil market is going to keep growing in perpetuity. Ford keeps talking about how great it would be if the pipeline could go all the way to the Irving refinery in New Brunswick, but that’s never going to happen because Irving has no interest in paying a premium for Alberta oil when they can get imports for cheaper. (On a similar note, hopes to ship oil or LNG out of the Port of Churchill is also fantasy, because it’s only open for three months out of the year, and if they think that they need icebreakers the rest of the year, well, that’s one hell of a government subsidy).

Meanwhile, Smith going on about how the plan is to build this out now and decarbonise later is also ridiculous. There is a supply glut in the global oil market already (and prices will fall precipitously once the Strait of Hormuz issue is resolved, which it will be). Alberta increasing production to fill all of these pipelines is not going to bring plenty of more dollars, because adding supply to a supply glut further lowers the prices they get. That’s the reason why so much investment dried up after the price crash in 2014. It’s not coming back. This is just fantasy.

Danielle And Doug Ford Are Making A Beautiful Pipeline Togetheryoutu.be/BbOvIjvbMMw

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2026-07-06T19:40:58.929Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-07-06T13:08:02.411Z

My Latest:

  • My column on the justice committee hearings being largely a clown show because we don’t have serious bunch of MPs who asked questions of the new SCC justice.
  • My weekend column points out that the extreme weather on Canada Day in Ottawa should have been a wake-up call for Carney, but he refuses to listen.

Continue reading →

QP: Ministers not proving their ability to know their files

Posted on by

The PM was still at the G7 in France, while Pierre Poilievre was also absent, and for some reason, Branden Leslie led off with a shouted recitation of the “recession” script, and François-Philippe Champagne suggested that the Conservatives were not happy but he bought good news about the highest level of foreign direct investment and the second-fastest growth in the G7. Leslie cited people turning to GoFundMe pages to afford to live, and Champagne assured him that Canadians don’t want another clip, they want action, and he listed measures the government has taken. Gabriel Hardy took forward in French, read a weeks-ago talking point about the prime minister talking about the level of affordability before reading today’s clip-bait about GoFundMe pages. Champagne accused the Conservatives of hypocrisy for their voting against programmes to help people. Hardy suggested that people want the government to stop what’s not working, and that government spending was driving the country into recession. Lightbound suggested the number of people in Hardy’s riding getting that GST credit would disagree. Shannon Stubbs picked up the metaphorical baton to angrily read the day’s script, including the GoFundMe mention, and this time Tim Hodgson listed programmes that are getting underway. Stubbs railed about the prime minister’s in-flight catering and meandered into the “inflationary spending” talking point. Steven MacKinnon got up to wonder what the Conservatives are for if they vote against all measures to help people.

Yves Perron led for the Bloc, and complained about the programming motion on Bill C-22 and time allocation on Bill C-30. MacKinnon took a swipe at the Bloc for opposing the high-speed rail project and all of good things it would bring. Perron kept up his complaints about these “gag orders” that prevent MPs from doing their jobs, and to keep civil society from realising the abuse in those laws. MacKinnon said they would not apologise for working on the priorities of Canadians, like high-speed rail. (Erm, lawful access is not this, guys). Claude DeBellefeuille took her own crack at complaining about the motion on Bill C-22, and Lightbound said he wouldn’t apologise for taking action on things like transit…which again, is not lawful access.

Continue reading →

QP: Changing up tactics in service of a stunt

Posted on by

The PM was absent, in Toronto for an announcement before jetting off to Paris, while Pierre Poilievre was also absent. Melissa Lantsman led off, and she raised the death of a Toronto police officer earlier in the day, and asked for a government response. Gary Anandasangaree gave some words of condolence for his death. Lantsman asked which security agencies were engaged on this, as the officer was investigating the shooting of the US consulate in Toronto, and Anandasangaree listed some of the agencies, including the RCMP, involved and that this was a collaborative process. Jasraj Hallan took over, and he once again accused the prime minister of “stuffing his face” on in-flight catering and the costs associated with it, and Steven MacKinnon called for Hallan to up his game. Hallan accused the prime minister of not caring that Canadians are losing sleep because of food insecurity, and MacKinnon reminded him that we are in the midst of a trade war. Pierre Paul-Hus took over in French to again complain about the costs of the prime minister’s in-flight catering. MacKinnon dismissed this given how much trade and investment the prime minister brings home when he travels. Paul-Hus kept railing about the costs, and François-Philippe Champagne rose to add his voice go the condolences for the fallen officer, before repeating the assurances of the prime minister’s trade prowess.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she said that with Trump looking to give up the New NAFTA altogether, so they sacrificed Quebec culture for nothing. MacKinnon got up to take a swipe at the Bloc, ignoring the question. Normandin suggested that the strategy of weakness was not working, and this time Marc Miller rose, and touted how much the government is investing in culture, including their cultural export programme. Martin Champoux took over to ask the same again, and Miller pointed out that the filmmaker Champoux mentioned is funded by the National Film Board.

Continue reading →

Political blackmail under the guise of a unity speech

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre kicked off his supposed “unity campaign” in Calgary yesterday (as he skipped the installation of the Governor General to do so), and gave a speech which was little more than a remix of the same campaign speech he’s been giving for three years now. And not even a good remix, but a shitty extended dub mix that is mostly just a lot of electronic noise. In it was the usual litany of invented grievances that Albertans have been touting for years—pretending that the federal government is somehow interfering in their jurisdiction, or that Justin Trudeau’s environmental policies were somehow strangling the province’s resource sector and that the global oil price crash of 2014 didn’t happen (just like the oil price crash of 1981 didn’t happen, and all of their woes were the fault of Pierre Trudeau). It’s a tired mythology that is not true, but is so intrinsic to the core of the invented grievances that have dominated Alberta politics for more than four decades.

But what is particularly dangerous about this kind of tactic is that it hijacks a potential national unity crisis for partisan ends. It makes unity conditional on the conservatives, federally or provincially, getting their own way as though there aren’t political considerations in the rest of the country either. As Andrew Coyne puts it, this message posits that the rest of the country needs to “prove” that it’s worth saving, and if that means dismantling what little federalism we have in this country, then so be it. The notion that the only Canada worth having is their narrow vision of the country, which is exclusionary and frankly mean, is not a unity message. It’s little more than the same kind of blackmail that Danielle Smith and Jason Kenney before her were trying to use in leveraging separatist sentiment to hold a knife to their own throats to force concessions from the federal government because they think it worked for Quebec. (It did not, and Quebec’s economy has never actually recovered). It’s fundamentally undemocratic, and shows them to be little more than crybabies who can’t handle the fact that sometimes democracy means you lose at politics.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-06-08T19:08:01.492Z

My Latest:

  • My latest for National Magazine on Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision and the warning they gave to judges about how to do a credibility analysis.
  • My weekend column takes note of the way in which Poilievre’s rhetoric tends to catastrophize what is happening, along his tendency to rewrite history.
  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take on that Conservative MP trying to refuse his raise, and why that kind of populism is poisonous to democracy.

Continue reading →

QP: Still refusing to say “recession”

Posted on by

The PM was absent, despite having just been at the installation ceremony for the new Governor General, while Pierre Poilievre was also absent, giving a speech in Calgary, leaving it up to Gabriel Hardy to led off in French, where he used the usual tired script of framing the “recession” accusations around use of food banks. Steven MacKinnon patted himself on the back for the good job numbers that were released on Friday. Hardy then tried to equate something Carney said about a “technical recession” when he was governor of the Bank of England, which MacKinnon ignored and instead listed the supports in the enhanced GST credit that went out over the weekend. Tim Uppal took over to read the script about a “recession,” and this time, Wayne Long got up to first praise Jeremy Hansen’s attendance, before exhorting the Conservatives to get on board with their plan. Uppal recited more of the the “technical recession” talking points, and Long continued to pat himself on the back for the programmes they are rolling out for Canadians. Andrew Lawton then loudly recited the same script, to which Tim Hodgson disputed the talking point about investment leaving the country, and listed projects moving ahead. Lawton took a swipe at Hodgson and kept shouting his script, to which Hodgson listed jobs being created at approved projects.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, unusually for a Monday, and he lamented the prime minister’s directive to wipe out all levies on web giants for Canadian content, to which Marc Miller accused the Bloc of turning up their noses at the $600 million for culture. Blanchet noted the comparison to the EU, who are adding to these levies, and Miller said that Quebec’s cultural media sector praised their investments. Blanchet railed that they re undercutting the cultural emotion, and Miller took a swipe back at Blanchet in return.

Continue reading →

QP: A recession or a technical recession?

Posted on by

The PM was finally present today for the first time since the GDP numbers were released, as was Pierre Poilievre, itching for a confrontation. Poilievre led off in English for a change, and he worried that nineteen of the G20 nations Arena not in recession, and asked for only leader of a G20 nation in recession to stand up. the Speaker said this was not a question but a request, and moved onto the next question. Poilievre then worried about all of the people in food insecurity and asked if we are in a recession or technical recession. Mark Carney first wished Poilievre a happy birthday before launching into a script about how much we are building as a country. Poilievre thanked him for the wishes, and noted that he is 47 but that’s 50 with inflation, before he listed more things going wrong in the country, and again asked if it was a recession or technical recession. Carney suggested he asked the CD Howe Institute and noted the OECD growth projections. Poilievre switched to French to repeat his G20 framing before asking again if it was a recession or technical recession. Carney corrected what the promise he made in the election was, and repeated his talking points about building. Poilievre returned to English to complain about the PM’s in-flight catering and again demanded to know if it was a recession or a technical recession. Carney decided to instead praise the international investment he has been able to attract to the country. Poilievre dismissed this as being about private corporations getting rich regardless while people suffered, and again asked if it was a recession or a technical recession. Carney said that we are in an economy in the midst of transformation and praised the increase in investment and exports to non-U.S. markets. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and lambasted the government for attempting to back track on the streaming levies charged to web giants. Carney said that this was about affordability and patted himself on the back for spending $600 million more on culture. Blanchet tried to again, and this time Carney said that everyday people would pay for that levy through increased costs, so they have decided to focus on affordability while ensuring the cultural sector is supported. Blanchet said this was worse than capitulating, but validating the American notion that the French language and culture are a barrier, and it also capitulated to the Conservatives. Carney insisted that they were investing, and that they have “more than made whole” the cultural sector (which I am less convinced about).

Continue reading →

Ceding the recession narrative

Posted on by

The is-it-or-isn’t-it recession talk continued apace over the weekend and on Monday, as Pierre Poilievre demanded an emergency debate on it (which the Speaker denied), while more economists continued to line up on the side of “it’s not a recession.” Even the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada appeared at committee and warned them not to take a single point of data when the economic indicators as a whole remain mixed.

Ignore all of those other economists, including the Senior Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada. Andrew Scheer, who couldn't even complete his insurance certification, is going to school you on the recession.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-02T01:36:43.140Z

This being said, prime minister Mark Carney has been wholly silent on it since the data were released on Friday morning. He made two separate media appearances yesterday but took no questions at either one, and he has avoided Question Period yesterday and he’s avoiding it today, and it really starts to look like he’s ceding the ground to Poilievre, who keeps bellowing his ridiculous narratives while Carney, who is supposed to have the economic gravitas as a former central bank governor, remains absent. And there are important things we should probably be talking about with this data, such as the fact that in periods of slow growth, these indicators dipping below zero are less important than the overall picture, and that overreacting and panicking can lead to greater problems or damage in the longer term. But we’re not having this conversation because, again, Carney is ceding the field, and given that Poilievre seems to enjoy this unearned economic credibility, it’s frankly arrogant to think that his bogus narratives can’t gain traction because they absolutely can, and that will spell trouble overall.

My Latest:

  • For National Magazine, my dive into Friday’s pair of Supreme Court of Canada decisions on the exceptions for the Jordan timelines on trial lengths.
  • My weekend column points to things that Steven Guilbeault’s departure has highlighted as just how much this government is backsliding on its climate goals.

Continue reading →