Tag Archives: Supreme Court

The Alberta gerrymandering has begun

Posted on by
Reply

The Alberta boundaries report has been tabled in the legislature, and as pretty much everyone expected, it’s a fairly textbook example of gerrymandering in the UCP’s favour. As expected, they are resurrecting a number or rurban/“hybrid” ridings which take a slice of urban electorate and then swamp them with outlying rural voters, in order to dilute more progressive urban votes. And they have monkeyed with the weighting, so that rural ridings have fewer voters and thus more electoral weight than urban ridings, again all in service of privileging the rural, conservative voters over urban, progressive voters in order to guarantee that the UCP will have a structural advantage moving forward.

Oh hey Alberta's latest (and highly controversial) electoral boundary report is out: www.assembly.ab.ca/docs/default…And it's got a bunch of "hybrid" ridings that blend urban and rural areas into one.For example, here's the proposed new "Calgary-North West-Bearspaw" riding:

— Robson Fletcher (@robsonfletcher.com) 2026-11-02T22:25:08.983Z

And here's "Calgary-Bow-Springbank":

— Robson Fletcher (@robsonfletcher.com) 2026-11-02T22:26:44.348Z

And here's "Calgary-West-Springbank":

— Robson Fletcher (@robsonfletcher.com) 2026-11-02T22:27:53.278Z

And here's Lethbridge, which is currently two ridings (Lethbridge East and Lethbridge West).The city is now proposed to be split into four ridings, three of which spread into surrounding areas:"Lethbridge""Lethbridge-Little Bow""Lethbridge-Taber-Warner""Lethbridge-Cardston"

— Robson Fletcher (@robsonfletcher.com) 2026-11-02T22:36:14.844Z

https://bsky.app/profile/blakeshaffer.bsky.social/post/3mzeht5n2u22t

Elections Alberta had already asked the government to push back their “fixed” election date because of this redistribution effort, and the Cabinet gave a pissy “How very dare you,” because of course they did. And we’ll see if this gets challenged in the courts, because this kind of gerrymandering is blatantly unconstitutional, but Danielle Smith is going to try, because her only interest is in holding onto power. 

Mickey Amery has responded to Elections Alberta's Friday letter that said it wouldn't be possible to pull off an election with new boundaries in the time allotted…By basically saying "You'll do what we want and you'll like it".#abpoli #ableg #cdnpoli

— The Breakdown AB (@thebreakdownab.bsky.social) 2026-11-01T23:06:26.858Z

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3mzenovcq6k2w

Meanwhile, there was a whole other sub-drama happening at the end of the week, where Smith announced that she had kicked separatist leader Jeff Rath out of the party. Recall that at the last party convention, he fired up the audience more than Smith did, and demonstrated that he had a hold on the membership base. This also happened after Rath leaked texts from Danielle Smith about her colluding with them about the petitions for the referendum questions. It’s a little suspicious for Smith to dump the allies who got her to where she is now that they’re no longer convenient for her, but again, everything that is happening here is in service of Smith holding onto power for as long as she possibly can.

WOW!Jeff Rath posted text messages that he alleges are from Danielle Smith!These texts seem to show her coordinating with the separatists to launch their original question, though Rath claims he took them as her coordinating with @lukaszukab.bsky.social !What do you think?

— The Breakdown AB (@thebreakdownab.bsky.social) 2026-10-27T20:57:50.057Z

WOW!The Rath texts are real. Smith colluded with the separatists.Confirmed by Dani in the legislature today. And while she tried to spin them as just answering questions, she also makes it clear the texts weren't meant for Lukaszuk.#abpoli #ableg #cdnpoli

— The Breakdown AB (@thebreakdownab.bsky.social) 2026-10-28T20:04:18.326Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-11-02T14:08:34.159Z

My Latest:

For National Magazine, I delve into Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision on inattention and dangerous driving, and what signals the Court might be sending.

Continue reading →

The aftermath of the referendum starts now

Posted on by

While the votes for the referendum are being tallied at the time of this writing, the question is mostly how badly the separatists got stomped, but also what comes next. Even if they get roflstomped, as the kids say, this won’t go away quietly, because the separatists are now better organized, they have voter lists, and they are organizing to consolidate power in the UCP, which means Danielle Smith’s days are very likely numbered. But that also isn’t stopping people like Pierre Poilievre and his chosen Alberta referendum appointee, Dane Lloyd, from feeding more grievance porn to the separatists to keep feeding their movement.

This is exactly the problem with the "Lead Not Leave" crowd and the federal Conservatives in this referendum debate—they refuse to disavow any of the manufactured grievances, so they just keep feeding the separatists' machine. www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/opi…

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-10-18T02:16:11.388Z

But it’s not just the separatists, but also the other questions from Smith’s noxious nine questions, which has a lot of immigrants worried about their futures, and is creating a worse environment for everyone involved. Scapegoating immigrants is a Very Bad Thing, but don’t worry, Poilievre thinks he’s clever when he says “It’s not the immigrants, it’s Liberal immigration policy!” Yeah, that’s not what people hear, and frankly, it’s not the lesson that the white nationalists that make up the separatists are taking. The fact that Poilievre doesn’t get that isn’t surprising, but he’s also not nearly as clever as he thinks he is, and that’s a problem.

Meanwhile, the Carney government’s responses are not exactly encouraging either. It sure sounds like they are already capitulating on the immigration question, talking with the province about how they can do more to accommodate Alberta’s wishes (remember two years ago when Smith complained she needed MOAR IMMIGRANTS and that Justin Trudeau was hobbling their economic growth as a result?) This just rewards their bad behaviour and scapegoating. And now Carney himself is essentially opening the door to constitutional talks, but says he needs there to be consensus, but this just sounds to me like inviting trouble. Premiers can’t even get their shit together long enough to finally deal with interprovincial trade barriers, and now you want them to start finding ways to come up with constitutional amendments? How is this remotely responsible given the urgency of the crisis that Carney keeps insisting we’re in. Completely irresponsible behaviour, and I would say he should know better, but it’s not like he’s exactly paying too much attention to how federalism is working these days.

Danielle Smith Needs Albertan Separatists To Keep It Together Todayyoutu.be/eB_hFFSZboM?…

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2026-10-19T14:43:34.058Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-10-18T23:08:01.909Z

My Latest:

  • For National Magazine, I delve into Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision on how “rape-shield” laws don’t automatically extended to questions on past sex work.
  • My weekend column points to the choice that Danielle Smith now has with the UCP—kick out the separatists, or let them drag her and her party to defeat.

New episodes released early for C$7+ subscribers. This week I'm with @hscoffield.bsky.social to talk about the Canadian Tax Observatory's recent reports on the "Mega Deductions" and the Disability Tax Credit. #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-10-19T04:13:40.097Z

Continue reading →

Detroit Theatre

Posted on by

In a bit of bizarre theatre, Pierre Poilievre went to Detroit yesterday to talk to business leaders about the benefits of tariff-free trade. In other words, something every rational person already knows, but that Trump refuses to believe, and along the way, others have become convinced of the benefits of tariffs, including certain Democrats and the United Auto Workers. But first, he had to hold a press conference in Windsor to give his usual talking points about how the two governments need to get a deal, even though there is no deal to be had.

Poilievre is off to Detroit to engage in some more theatre.This is solely for the benefit of his online audience.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-10-12T18:39:06.830Z

But perhaps more bizarre was how his trade critic, Kyle Seeback, went on Power & Politics later in the day to articulate that apparently, the Carney government just hasn’t found the proper win-win with Trump yet. No, seriously, that’s the position of the Conservatives, because clearly, this is Carney’s fault and Trump must be a rational actor. He then had to choke out a bunch of bullshit when pressed about how there could possibly be a deal when Trump can’t live up to any agreement he makes (and then spiralled as he insisted that the government taking over TMX was bad, and that nationalizing Stelco would be bad, but having the government build Pacific Link would be good, because tHaT’s DiFfErEnT!) Seeback revealed himself to be terminally unserious, as much as his whole party is terminally unserious, particularly on this file. They keep insisting that Carney needs to get a deal when there is no deal to be had, while their idea of “helping’ is magical thinking. Just risible from top to bottom.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-10-13T19:08:01.544Z

My Latest:

  • My Xtra Magazine column contrasts two LGBTQ+ group’s demands on Parliament Hill, and why one is more likely to achieve something than the other.
  • For National Magazine, I delve into Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision to resolve the tension in sentencing when there is an Indigenous accused and victim.
  • My long weekend column praises Liberal backbencher Patrick Weiler for standing up for his constituents in the face of his party’s own bill as a backbencher should.
  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take explains the unusual committee process for Bill C-39.

Continue reading →

A PQ win with a minority legislature

Posted on by

It looks like the Parti Québécois have won government with a minority legislature, which is at least better than their winning a majority and using that to do a bunch of very bad things over the next few years. The governing CAQ were wiped off the map, while both the Quebec Liberals did better than anticipated, and the Quebec Conservatives have made gains, as did Quebec Solidaire. It was a change election, but unfortunately the options for change were not great.

Unfortunately, while you’re going to have a lot of profiles in the next few days about the rise of PSPP and the return of the PQ after they were nearly wiped out in the last election, much of the dialogue save a few outlets are going to be pretty mute about the fact that what underpinned the PQ campaign was outright racism, and that the foundations for this were laid by the CAQ running an ethnic nationalist regime for two successive legislatures while nobody could be bothered to call it out. And now PSPP is going to try and do stupid, unconstitutional things like try to “abolish the monarchy” in the province, and I’m sure there will be a wholly inadequate response to that as well.

Meanwhile, because a bunch of people are going to focus on the popular vote figures from this election result, we’re going to see the electoral reform nerds rise up again, and it’s going to be incredibly tiresome. A reminder: The popular vote is not a real thing. It’s a logical fallacy, because this is not one election, it’s 127 separate but simultaneous elections, and just aggregating the results in spite of the fact that you had different numbers of parties and people on the ballots in each riding means you’re making false comparisons across the board. We elect individuals, not parties, in spite of what people think, and that matters. But everyone is going to distort how the system works over the next few weeks amidst all of the hand-wringing, so I fully expect this to work my last nerve.

I am going to have to spend the next number of weeks reminding everyone that the popular vote is not a real number. It's a logical fallacy because this was not one election, it was 127 separate elections that happened at the same time. Adding them up is not a meaningful number.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-10-06T03:58:39.965Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-10-05T19:08:01.723Z

My Latest:

My weekend column recounts what was said and not said at the Independent Senators Group’s tenth anniversary discussion, and what it says about the “independent” Senate.

For National Magazine, I recount the speeches during the Supreme Court of Canada’s ceremonial opening of the judicial year.

Continue reading →

An omnibus bill to burn down their goodwill

Posted on by

The Carney government opened the fall sitting by tabling a massive 243-page omnibus bill, titled the—wait for it—Building Canada Strong Act. Dear reader, I am beyond tired of every iteration of “Build Canada Strong” that the prime minister utters and names things with. Get some new adjectives. Please. I implore you. This aside, the bill covers three major areas—a promise to reform environmental assessments so that they only take a year; amending the Canada Labour Code so that they can try to head off labour disputes in federally-regulated sectors; and putting in place a trade corridors strategy that includes a council to monitor the situation with said corridors.

First of all: Steven MacKinnon claiming this isn’t an omnibus bill because it’s all related to the economic situation is pure bullshit, and he should be absolutely shame-faced that he tried to get away with saying with a straight face on live television. We’re not idiots, and it’s not great when the government tries to treat us like we are. Secondly, trying to fast-track environmental assessments is likely to just wind up in more lawsuits. Stephen Harper tried this tactic and it failed. And trying to rush resource-strapped First Nations through consultations on an expedited basis without providing them with more resources to do the work is going to result in more delays and more litigation. And I really, really dislike the notion that proponents can both just pay a fee when they disrupt fish habitats, because that just means it’s the cost of doing business and doing nothing for actual environmental protection. Or that they can start construction before project approvals, because then that just turns into “Well, now you have to approve it, because of sunk costs.”

Between this environmental betrayal and the government’s dubious actions when it comes to labour rights, they are trying really hard to burn all of their progressive credentials while claiming it’s because we’re in some kind of crisis, and because the country is still in love with Finance Daddy that they’re going to get away with it for a while, but that will eventually come to bite them in the ass, and right now, I don’t think any of them are thinking that far ahead. Burning the public’s trust is a dangerous game, and a Teflon leader only lasts so long before it starts to peel and flake, and turn toxic.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-21T19:08:01.518Z

Potash

Also yesterday, Trump tried to troll Canada by saying he was going to get potash from Belarus for cheaper than he could get it from Canada, and that set off a whole bunch of people, clearly unaware that earlier in the day, noted ABBA superfan Alexander Lukashenko said that they don’t have any spare potash to send to the US even if they wanted to (to say nothing about the logistics of transporting it, since they are landlocked and it couldn’t go through the EU). But boy, did a bunch of people fall for it. Especially the “Blame Canada” crowd.

https://bsky.app/profile/blakeshaffer.bsky.social/post/3mw2fezlrts2y

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2102118094487630058

My Latest:

  • For National Magazine, I delve into Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision about that election nullification in Terrebonne, and the interesting 6-3 split.
  • My weekend column worries about the chaotic state of the Alberta referendum.
  • For National Magazine, I preview the fall sitting of Parliament and what’s on the Order Paper now that they’re back.

New episodes released early for C$7+ subscribers. This week I'm talking to @patricklennox.bsky.social about his new book, "On Treason: Alberta Separatism, Foreign Interference, and Canada's Survival in a Revolutionary Age" #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-09-22T00:26:01.392Z

Continue reading →

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

Posted on by

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 →

Hybrid rules are still bad (in case you were wondering)

Posted on by

Because it’s the summer doldrums, The Canadian Press has decided to check in on the “hybrid” Parliament rules, which are inexplicably still in place, long after the height of the pandemic ended. Well, it should be inexplicable, but for those of us with longer memories, we know that the Liberals were trying to institute these rule changes long before COVID happened, and were never able to get them over the finish line (for good reason!) until COVID, and well, they didn’t let a good crisis go to waste. A lot of them were very committed to the idea that these rule-changes are necessary because of parental responsibilities, and so on. Of course, we now have a handful of MPs who simply don’t show up in Ottawa (one of them was NDP MP Niki Ashton, before she got voted out, but there are others), while we are devaluing the in-person aspects of the job, which cannot be ignored.

I have consistently said this, and I will keep saying it—much of the value of what happens in Parliament are the conversations that happen in corridors, in lobbies, at the sides of committee rooms, that you cannot have online. People underestimate how huge that is. Keeping MPs online also keeps them in party silos, where they don’t see other MPs as human beings, but opponents. In-person meetings and the ability to connect on a human level increases collegiality and decorum. (See: Ending evening sittings in the 1990s and the demise of collegiality). But more than that, there is now a culture of presenteeism where they feel they need to be online all the time, when they should be taking leave for family issues, or medical care, or so on. You can pair votes for absences. You can have someone cover for you at committee. This happened for 150 years, and Parliament functioned just fine. The excuses for why they feel they need this are poor, and it creates more problems than it solves. MPs need to wind down these “hybrid” rules, and end remote voting (because that’s particularly offensive to parliamentary democracy), and engage with one another in person like they’re supposed to.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-08-04T19:08:02.941Z

My Latest:

  • My weekend column wonders how it was that Mark Carney had become an even worse communicator than Justin Trudeau was.
  • My column makes note of the premiers’ attempt to get back to a 50-50 healthcare funding formula, ignoring that they got revenue tools they now refuse to use.
  • For National Magazine, I delve into the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to strike down the law that bars the Ethics Commissioner’s reports from judicial review.
  • My long weekend column looks at the falling crime rates before Carney’s performative tough-on-crime legislation, and points to how credulous he really is.

Continue reading →

More hints about future Senate appointments

Posted on by

There were a couple of bits of Senate news yesterday, one of which was that prime minister Mark Carney has made new appointments to the senate appointment committee, filling vacant spots for a number of provinces. One of those appointments is former Senate Liberal leader James Cowan, and as this blog is a big Jim Cowan fan, I say this is a good person to help vet candidates, but it will do nothing to quell the constant chattering about partisan appointments. We also learned from the Canadian Press reporting that Carney himself chose Tom Pittfield and Richard Martel for appointments, while the other two came from the former committee recommendations that had apparently been sitting for months, which makes a tonne of sense.

This was followed up by Carney’s Senate Leader, Senator Pierre Moreau, who said that while they’re not going to revive a Senate Liberal caucus, Carney might appoint more Conservative senators because they’re dangerously low and he believes in the role for the official opposition in the Senate as a “mirror” of the House of Commons (erm, no, that’s not how this work), which is again, incoherent. Don’t get me wrong—I am not opposed to partisan appointments on either side of the aisle, so long as it’s done properly. The House of Lords has managed a very good system where their appointments board can recommend both partisan Lords and non-partisan cross-benchers, and they keep the numbers fairly in balance so that no one swamps the Chamber, and that is something we should be striving toward. Of course, Carney has not articulated any of this, and we’re instead left with the ongoing incoherence of his position, because nobody knows what the hell they’re talking about (most especially some of the Trudeau-appointed independent senators).

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-07-15T13:08:04.280Z

My Latest:

  • My (belated) Loonie Politics Quick Take points to some of the signs of resilience in the Canadian economy over the past year, amidst so much turmoil.
  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take calls out Carney’s trip to kiss the ring of Prince Bonesaw, and why it’s a really bad look for Canada.

Continue reading →