Tag Archives: Public Service

Roundup: Being too clever about the MOU’s language

Posted on by
Reply

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

"low emissions Albertan bitumen"Charlatans always always think other people are stupid.

— Emmett Macfarlane 🇨🇦 (@emmettmacfarlane.com) 2025-12-09T00:21:28.775Z

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.

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 →

Roundup: Rustad’s reluctant ouster

Posted on by
Reply

It’s some chaos in the BC Conservative Party after the majority of the caucus let the party’s board of directors that they have no confidence in John Rustad’s leadership (though this may not have been an actual caucus vote—it may have been something like a letter signed with enough signatures). The board said that a caucus vote confirmed Trevor Halford as interim leader, and they declared Rustad “professionally incapacitated,” given that incapacitation is one of the only ways to replace a leader per the party’s constitution. And then John Rustad said he’s not going anywhere.

This is, of course, insane. No leader can survive a vote of non-confidence from the majority of his or her caucus. The confidence convention is one of the most fundamental aspects of our parliamentary order as part of the conventions that govern our unwritten constitution. And if Rustad continues to insist that he’s the leader and refuse to leave with any shred of his dignity left intact (but good luck with that at this point, because yikes), the next step is likely for the majority of his caucus to simply remove themselves and form official opposition as a splinter party (though the legislature ended the fall sitting yesterday, so that may not actually happen). There is some precedent for this—when the then-Alliance Party got fed up with Stockwell Day’s leadership, a number of its MPs broke away and sat as a separate caucus until Day stepped down, and the when the Bloc were reduced to a rump caucus in the Commons and had a leader without a seat who also became a problem, most of them removed themselves from caucus until she stepped down.

This whole sorry exercise should be a reminder that the current system of membership election and removal of leaders is antithetical to our system, and creates problems with leaders who refuse to take a hint. That’s why a confidence vote is the ultimate tool, and if he refuses to abide by it, like a mad king, he just isolates himself ever further into irrelevance. In any case, Rustad is finished, even if he is going to throw a tantrum about it for the next day or two.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-03T14:25:05.918Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine hit the Druzhba oil pipeline in Russia with remote-controlled explosives, which supplies Russian oil to Hungary and Slovakia.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Miller back in Cabinet

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Carney had a small Cabinet shuffle yesterday afternoon, counter-programming the latter part of Question Period, where he appointed Marc Miller to Cabinet to replace Steven Guilbeault after his resignation last week in protest over the MOU with Alberta. Miller becomes the new minister of Canadian Heritage, now dubbed “Canadian identity and culture and official languages,” because it sounds a little more like it’s holding the line against the onslaught of Americanisms. But there were a couple of other adjustments made to Carney’s front bench—environment minister Julie Dabrusin took over the responsibilities for Parks Canada, which were under Heritage for some strange reason (much of which involves the fact that they are responsible for things like historical designations, but which created all kinds of problems around things like marine protected areas), while Joël Lightbound was named the new Quebec lieutenant, though I’m mystified why that required a swearing-in as opposed to it simply being a ceremonial title, like deputy prime minister (which Carney does not have). It also bears noting that no one was put in as new transport minister, and that Steve MacKinnon continues to do double-duty.

Miller is an interesting choice—he was a good minister, and I’m glad he’s back in Cabinet, because he was one of the best communicators, hands down, in the Trudeau government, and that kind of frankness and candour is desperately needed in the current front bench where the rule of “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all” means that most of what comes out of every minister’s mouth is back-patting, if they say anything at all. But it’s also a choice that is going to ruffle feathers in Quebec because he’s not Québécois (though he is a Montrealer and speaks French, Swedish and Mohawk). There is so much anxiety around Quebec language and culture in the province that the Canadian Heritage portfolio might as well be a Quebec-focused one, and certainly there have been jokes floating around Ottawa for years about how if you got a meeting with the minister of heritage, he or she would tell you to come back when you were French.

Nevertheless, Miller is going to be responsible for some big files coming up with new online harms legislation, as well as a potential mandate review/transformation of the CBC, which didn’t take off under the previous government following the release of a discussion paper on the subject, and then Carney having his own ideas about what to do with CBC during the leadership contest, none of which has actually happened in the six months he’s been in power. I do think Miller will be suited to the task—he’s handled big, tough files before, and going up against web giants is something I think he can be pretty good at.

Ukraine Dispatch

Four people were killed and more than 40 injured in a Russian missile attack on Dnipro. Putin has again claimed that Pokrovsk has been taken over by Russian forces, along with Vovchansk, but Ukraine has not confirmed.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions about the “energy accord” with Alberta

Posted on by

The news broke early yesterday that Alberta and the federal government are getting close to striking an “energy accord” of some variety with a memorandum of understanding that could allow for a bitumen pipeline to the northwest coast of BC with “limited exemptions” to the tanker ban so long as conditions are met, including changes to industrial carbon pricing, carbon capture, and lowering or eliminating the emissions cap. There were also Sources™ who said that it would require a private sector proponent, buy-in from coastal First Nations, and environmental approvals, which could mean it won’t happen at all.

As the day went on and other outlets started to get their own sources to confirm the story, differing details emerged. While Tim Hodgson said in Question Period that the BC government would need to be on-side, his office later said that no, they’re not getting a veto as part of the MOU. And then there are the Liberals themselves, many of whom are deeply opposed and will point out that ending the tanker ban will risk billions in ongoing projects from First Nations in the region. And those First Nations are not going to give consent, which would seem to make this whole thing moot anyway, unless the plan is ultimately to run roughshod over their rights yet again.

So, while we await the details, where the devil will lie, I am once again going to point out that we shouldn’t count on any kind of “grand bargain” with the oil companies or Alberta as a condition because they won’t live up to it. They have proven time and again that they won’t, or that they will lie to claim that they will do all kinds of things to reduce their emissions and to decarbonise when they actually have no intention of doing so. Meanwhile, the market may ultimately prove to be the veto here, because it’s no longer the world from before 2014, and nothing the federal or provincial government will do is going to change that fact.

Ukraine Dispatch

The death toll from the attack on Ternopil early Wednesday has risen to 25, with more than 73 injured. The latest US “peace plan” proposal is just more of the same rehashed Russian propaganda. Ukraine also plans to seek $44 billion in damages from Russia for their carbon emissions as a result of the war.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Red flags around the “grand bargain”

Posted on by

The more I read about the budget’s “climate competitiveness,” the more I find myself questioning just what is on offer from Mark Carney. There is an attempt to build this so-called “grand bargain” that failed the last time it was tried, where approving the Trans-Mountain Expansion was supposed to help fund the green transition and provide the social licence for doing things like the tanker ban on the northwest coast of BC, and yet here we are, where the oil and gas sector and by extension, the provincial government of Alberta, have not lived up to their end of the bargain at all. The companies that insisted they were going to meet their 2025 Net-Zero targets suddenly started to complain that it was too hard, and when the greenwashing legislation kicked in, suddenly all of those Net-Zero pledges vanished, as though they were never real to begin with.

That’s why I’m particularly unimpressed that one of the promises in the budget is to water down the greenwashing legislation, which sounds an awful lot like Carney is looking for the industry to lie to him once more about all of the reductions that they’re totally going to make in the future—really! You just need to let them have a free hand with even fewer environmental regulations in the meantime. As well, the fact that Carney is pinning his hopes on so-called “decarbonized” oil production with the Pathways project is even looking like he’s going to lose a tonne of money trying to get it to scale up, because hey, he’s offering a bunch of tax credits for them to operate, which is a de facto subsidy for oil operations. But it’s extremely expensive, and all of those oil companies want even more taxpayer money to make it work, while they pocket their profits, naturally. Nevertheless, it looks an awful lot like Carney is going to capitulate to that sector and remove the emissions cap on a bunch of half-hearted greenwashed promises and pretend that he still cares about the environment.

Speaking of the tanker ban, BC premier David Eby and the coastal First Nations are organising a pushback against any move by the federal government to lift it in order to push a pipeline through the region, while Danielle Smith puts ever more pressure on the federal government to approve that project (even though there’s no proponent, or route, or even just a line on a map). Will it be enough to dissuade Carney? At the pace he’s going, I’m not taking any bets.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-05T14:25:06.884Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The fighting continues in the streets of Pokrovsk, which is the kind of fighting that can’t be done with the same kind of drone warfare that the rest of the front line has become accustomed to.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre’s second backtrack attempt

Posted on by

Still under fire for his comments about Justin Trudeau and the “despicable” leadership at the RCMP, Pierre Poilievre has been forced to backtrack a second time. The first was his tactic of issuing clarifications only to media outlets and not his social media or party channels, and that didn’t mollify people, so this time he held a media availability and insisted that he didn’t say what we all heard him say, and then sent his MPs out to do media to also overly parse what his language was, and to try and spin it to say something other than what we all heard him say, and to insist that what we all heard him say was out of context. (It was not). He is now claiming that he didn’t say Trudeau should be jailed—only that he “clearly” broke a law that would impose jailtime (even though it was not clear he broke said law), and that clearly isn’t the same thing. Kind of like how they’re not scapegoating immigrants, they’re just criticising Liberal immigration policy (wink).

Meanwhile, members of his caucus are getting restive, and while they all made a big show of publicly supporting him, several have been quietly talking to media outlets about their dissatisfaction. While some are saying they’re undecided if they want to vote for him continuing in the leadership review, I also suspect that there are very few Conservatives in the caucus who have the spine or the intestinal fortitude to actually vote against him, no matter how inappropriate the comment, because there are precious few MPs in any party who would dare stand against their leader and face the wrath of having their nomination papers go unsigned.

Carney Speech

Prime minister Mark Carney gave a speech last night that was intended as a kind of pre-budget positioning, but also a kind of victory lap to pat themselves on the back for all of the work they’ve been doing since the election. Carney promised that the budget was going to unleash all kinds of private sector investment, but I also feel like we’ve been hearing that refrain for the past two decades and not a lot of it has really materialized. He said he wants to double non-US exports over the next decade. He spoke about “betting big,” and getting back to a culture of doing big things, but the thing about that kind of talk is that it ignores the people who were impacted by that, most particularly Indigenous people who were displaced or exploited in the process. He said that this is going to take more than a few months and can’t happen overnight, but he also talked about “sacrifices,” particularly as he talks about cutting government spending.

My problem with this particular rhetoric is that he never quite makes it clear who will be making those sacrifices, and you can be damn sure it’s not CEOs or rich white dudes. In fact, you can pretty much set your watch by the fact that the “sacrifices” are going to be on the backs of women’s programmes, queer/trans people and other minority groups whose funding is going to be slashed to nothing, it’s going to be the poor who will find that programming designed to assist them will be gone (but hey, they’ll get their benefits thanks to automatic filing, whenever that actually happens). We’ve seen this happen time and again, and the cycle of time is coming around once again, and Carney is making no move to stop it and finding a new path.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-10-22T22:02:55.404Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The fairly massive attack early Wednesday targeted several cities and killed six, including two children, as a kindergarten was struck. Russia claims it took two more villages in Donetsk region. Sweden has signed a letter of intent about supplying 150 Gripen fighter jets to Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The weird fixation on east coast LNG

Posted on by

There was another report about Europeans looking for Canadian LNG, this time in The Logic in a conversation with the German ambassador. What it did not really mention was the actual business case—only that the “long timelines” involved was a reason why former prime minister Justin Trudeau said that there wasn’t a business case for it. The thrust of the piece is that demand maybe longer than just short-term because even rapid electrification will still require some gas, however there is a boatload of context about this that journalists who have this weird fetish for LNG never actually touch on.

First of all, this discussion is only about east coast LNG, not west coast, where the conditions are different, and where there a whole bunch of potential projects that are fully permitted, and have all of their approvals in place, but aren’t moving ahead because the market isn’t showing demand (and by demand, we mean signing long-term contracts to buy the product). While this was also the case on the east coast, it’s complicated by the lack of ready supply of natural gas to liquify. Neither Quebec nor New Brunswick are about to start fracking for the sake of domestic supply, and the costs to bring a pipeline from western Canada to New Brunswick for export purposes is a lot to consider when we think about what is “long term.” That means supply is likely to becoming from the US, and that in turn will drive up local prices because they’re competing with the theoretical export terminal. To add to that, the “long term” we need to keep in mind is that these kinds of plants need to be operating for a good forty years or so to get their money’s worth. Is anyone in Europe thinking about the infrastructure necessary on that kind of time scale? Unlikely, and unlikely at that time scale for the kinds of prices that Canada would be offering, which are higher than they could get elsewhere.

What do they mean by "long-term"? Because these kinds of projects need a 40-year lifespan or so to actually get their money's worth, by which time we'll be well past net-zero goals.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-25T13:37:04.762Z

This is why these stories never actually make sense, because those journalists never actually talk to an energy economist about it, or if they do, it goes right out the other ear while they maintain this weird fixation on LNG. I’m not quite sure what it’s in service of—have they simply absorbed the propaganda of the oil and gas industry, who say dumb and wrong things like how our fossil fuels are the “cleanest” (they absolutely are not), or worse, that it will displace coal (the final emissions profile is not that much lower than coal, and as David Cochrane is the only journalist to push back on this talking point, there is no guarantee that they wouldn’t just use Canadian LNG in addition to coal rather than displacing it)? Or is this some kind of sad attempt at playing gotcha with Trudeau and the business case line? Because certain journalists are relentless in badgering and hectoring European leaders about this, and it’s just weird, and just completely ignorant of the facts on the ground.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian attack on Chernihiv meant power cuts for 70,000 people. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte says that members can target Russian planes that enter their airspace as necessary. And president Zelenskyy says he is ready to leave office once the war is over.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A digital asbestos task force

Posted on by

Everyone’s favourite bullshit Cabinet minister, Evan Solomon, is putting together a task force to determine the next steps in the government’s digital asbestos strategy. While we wait to see just who is going to be on this task force, because that will say volumes, it’s almost inevitable at this point that this is mostly going to wind up being more hype, because Solomon has guzzled it all down, while prime minister Mark Carney has also bought into it as the cure for Canada’s flagging productivity and other problems (rather than the obvious fact that corporate Canada is lazy). We’ve all heard everything Solomon has said so far. I’m not optimistic at all.

It's gonna be so much more hype. We are so boned.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-24T15:21:05.227Z

I’m also extremely sceptical about Solomon insisting that they’re going to take the lessons from the Privacy Commissioner’s investigation into TikTok and its privacy violations in order to shape the new digital asbestos laws, because that would be too much intervention for what Solomon has been preaching about “light touches.” Part of the problem with the TikTok violations are that this is their business model, and while they insist that they are trying to keep children off the platform, they put more effort into hoovering up private data for marketing purposes than they did in using those very same tools they developed to keep kids off the platform, as it was hoovering up their data at an alarming rate. So much of what makes up digital asbestos is similar business models about siphoning that personal data, as well as using techniques to keep users engaged on that platform, hallucinations and all, and not caring about it sending them on delusional spirals that craters their mental health. They don’t care because it’s the business model, and that’s why I can’t trust Solomon to actually regulate—because he has bought into the hype around that model, and if he regulates, the tech bros will cry and whine that they can’t operate in those rules, and he’ll kill the industry, and gods forbid, we couldn’t have that.

Evan fucking Solomon says they'll take the lessons from the TikTok privacy report in order to shape new digital asbestos laws. www.thestar.com/politics/fed…

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-25T03:13:46.890Z

Meanwhile at the UN, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is warning about the destructive arms race happening right now with digital asbestos and drones, and is calling for international rules about limiting its spread. But of course, I can just hear someone like Solomon insisting that we don’t want too many rules, because that will “stifle innovation,” and so on. Absolutely nobody is taking any of this seriously (and no, we’re not talking about Skynet), and we’re heading for some serious problems in the very near future as a result.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine has attacked the petrochemical complex in Salavat for the second time in a week, further reducing Russia’s refining capacity.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Asking for declaratory powers, not limits

Posted on by

There is a bunch of confusion and/or bad faith arguing going on around just what the federal government said in their factum to the upcoming Supreme Court of Canada hearing on the challenge of Quebec’s Law 21, which they claim is “state secularism” but is really just wholesale discrimination and racism. The reporting hasn’t been great—in fact, the National Post’s is downright misleading—because they keep describing this like it’s a reference question to the Court, which it isn’t, but rather, the argument that they’re putting forward during the existing challenge, and something that they feel the Court should address (which is how factums tend to work).

What their argument consists of is that the Court should be able to declare when a law that is protected by the Notwithstanding Clause is actually unconstitutional. They can’t strike it down, but they can weigh in and say “Yeah, this contravenes Charter rights.” They also want the Courts to be able to do this when something has been ongoing in its use of the Clause (which only lasts for five years before it needs to be renewed in legislation), and to rule on whether it may result in the “irreparable impairment” of rights, because they argue that repeated use of the Clause amounts to “indirectly amending the Constitution.” This is also not coming out of nowhere—the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal just recently ruled that they have this right when it comes to the challenge around the province’s attack on trans youth, saying that invoking the Clause should not be the last word.

Why is this important? Because the point of the five-year time-limit on the Clause is that it allows that government to be voted out before it can be renewed. Having the courts weigh in and say “Yeah, this is discrimination,” even if they can’t strike down the law, is powerful information for voters to have. And it’s absolutely democratic. But you have conservative thinkers who are trying to say that this will cause a “constitutional crisis,” or a national unity crisis if it offends Quebec or Alberta, is frankly absurd. It’s trying to give cover for attacks on minority rights and abuse of the Clause, and they should be honest about those intentions rather than trying to sow confusion and undermining the Court.

Ukraine Dispatch

An overnight Russian attack on the Kirovohrad region has partially cut power and disrupted railway operations. A top Russian commander claims they are advancing on all fronts, in contravention to Ukrainian reports. Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies say they need more resources to crack down on the “shadow economy.”

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions about Carney’s lack of political judgment

Posted on by

It was announced early in the morning that the Christo-fascist that prime minister Mark Carney invited to address the Cabinet retreat couldn’t make it after all, but don’t worry—they fully planned to continue to engage with him. No, seriously. The mind absolutely boggles, and I can scarcely believe that there wasn’t a revolt in the room from members of Cabinet who absolutely should know better. And then there was François-Philippe Champagne, who insisted that it was important to hear from “different perspectives.” What Christo-fascist perspective is so important to hear about? Removing the rights of women, or LGBTQ+ people? Re-segregating the United States? The destruction of the separation of church and state? Which of these issues, pray tell, did Cabinet most need to hear all about from the guy who wrote the 900-page playbook that Trump’s acolytes are following? Honest to Zeus, does a single person in that Cabinet have any political judgment whatsoever?

The Christo-fascist couldn't attend the Cabinet retreat after all, but don't worry, Carney's office says they will continue to engage with him.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-04T13:12:41.573Z

And then there are Carney’s defenders online, who insisted over and over again that Carney needs to “know your enemy,” and that it was important to get a sense of their “motivations and goals.” As though the 900-page manifesto doesn’t spell any of that out? And to be perfectly frank, does nobody remember the homily about the Nazi bar? This should not be difficult, but apparently Carney is not only demonstrating a lack of political judgment, but a lack of judgment period, and his defenders will praise him up and down and insist that this is just very clever strategy. It’s not. Stop pretending that making nice with fascists is at all acceptable.

The Carney stans are having another normal one in my replies, justifying consorting with Christo-fascists, I see.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-04T15:25:19.693Z

EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS WHO THEY ARE.Stop pretending there is a valid reason to make nice with fascists.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-04T15:15:13.455Z

https://bsky.app/profile/alwayslate.bsky.social/post/3lxzwrjhyyc2c

Meanwhile, Carney and several ministers will be making a series of “sector-based” announcements this morning, which could include things like measures to help sectors affected by tariffs, or the EV mandates. At the retreat yesterday, Champagne was using the corporate euphemisms of “adjustments” to the civil service in service of their austerity plans, but what struck me was his language about how they were trying to “rebuild Canada.” Erm, rebuild from what? You were part of the government for the past ten years, and it’s not like there was a smoking crater left in Trudeau’s wake. Champagne believed in that spending, whether through COVID or in implementing new social programmes that were helping with the cost of living. So again, I ask—what exactly are we rebuilding from?

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile strike hit a de-mining operation near Chernihiv, killing two. Ukraine’s top military commander is looking for increased use of interceptor drones. Twenty-six countries have pledged to provide security guarantees if there is a cease-fire (which Putin is not interested in). Here is a look at some of the people who are evacuating ruined cities in the country’s east after holding out in the hopes that the war would end.

Continue reading →