Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Roundup: Ahistorical expectations about project timelines

Posted on by

A couple of quick notes for the weekend. First is that for all of the projects referred to the Major Projects Office, none have actually officially been designated a PONI (Project of National Importance), so my calling the referred projects as such is admittedly premature. But that also means that none of them have the special rules that trigger the Henry VIII Clause from the legislation, which again, leads to the same question that Althia Raj asked in her most recent column about why the rush to ram that bill through Parliament with almost no debate and little stakeholder input if they haven’t bothered to use it, nearly six months later.

The other note is that the talk about timelines remain ahistorical and nothing but wishful thinking. “We used to build big things. We built a railway in four years.” Erm, not really. This is likely a reason why most of the projects that have been referred to the MPO so far have been in the works for years is for the very reason that they’re much further along. This is likely going to be one of the death knells of Danielle Smith’s pipeline plan, which is that it’s starting from zero, and there is no way, even with the magic wand of the Henry VIII clause, that they can make it go from concept to shovels in two years.

They didn't go from "Shall we build a railway?" to a railway in four years.The CPR was a Confederation promise before 1867. Construction began in 1881.Or, actually, in 1875, when they started a section in Manitoba and northern Ontario. Which hooked up to other rails built on their own earlier.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:17:30.293Z

There were planning, scandal, false starts, re-awarding of the contract. And not a lot of attention to, you know, Indigenous people's rights.Or working conditions, which were eventually the subject of Heritage Minute you might recall. www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE3I…

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:20:55.646Z

What's the right length of time to plan and build a new high-speed rail line in 2025? I don't know.But they didn't do the entire CPR from concept to completion in four years, and I don't think we want a dead temporary foreign worker for every mile of track.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:23:15.475Z

And then there’s Poilievre’s completely nonsense demanding that government “get out of the way,” or Ontario’s Stephen Lecce talking about the problems with federal regulations killing projects when that also relies on a very selective reading of history and what happened. Northern Gateway started planning before Harper took over, and over his nine years in power, Mr. “Get government out of the way” couldn’t get it past the finish line either (in part because they couldn’t even be arsed to live up to their own consultation process with First Nations). Nothing Poilievre is saying is true, so We The Media need to stop treating it like it’s credible.

Ukraine Dispatch

The attack on Kyiv early Friday killed six and injured dozens, along with more strikes on energy facilities. Ukraine hit the oil port at Novorossiyk the same day, suspending oil exports. Ukraine is now mass-producing interceptor drones to bolster their air defences.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The second tranche of PONIs

Posted on by

Yesterday was the day that Mark Carney announced the second tranche of PONIs to be referred to the Major Projects Office, which consisted of six existing projects and one “concept,” which I’m pretty unsure how it was supposed to work. Three of those projects are mines—Sisson Mine for tungsten in New Brunswick, Crawford Nickel project in Ontario, and the Nouveau Monde Graphite phase 2 project in Quebec. Those very much align with the desire to make Canada a more trustworthy supplier of critical minerals than China (though pat of the problem is that they have a near-monopoly on refining and processing). A hydro project for Iqaluit was on the list, as was a transmission line between northwestern BC and the Yukon, and an LNG Project on the BC coast that has some Indigenous partnerships (but  not every First Nation in the area is in favour, and there are concerns about its ownership structure). As for that “concept,” it is referred to as the Northwest Critical Conservation Corridor, also between northwest B.C. and Yukon., and it could include critical minerals and clean power transmission developments in the area. Again, I’m not sure how that works with no actual project or proponent.

In some of these cases, as in the first tranche of projects, some of them are fairly well developed and along the process, while in others, they’ve been discussed forever and have some Indigenous buy-in, but shovels have never been in the ground (like the Sisson Mine). It again raises questions about what the MPO is supposed to do here, but its head, Dawn Farrell, was talking about ensuring that these processes happen in parallel and not sequentially, and would also do things like security financing, guaranteeing pricing, and ensuring a supply of skilled labour, which seems like an awful lot of things for them to try and control for.

And then there’s Alberta and its imaginary pipeline, which Danielle Smith insists she’s still working on, so she’s supportive of these projects, because she is still “negotiating” for that pipeline to the northwest BC coast that neither the province nor the affected First Nations want, while there is a growing supply glut in the market. I’m pretty sure another pipeline won’t save her province’s finances, but she’s going to keep trying.

Ukraine Dispatch

Kyiv was under another “massive” attack early this morning, and at least eleven people have been wounded. President Zelenskyy visited troops near the front lines in Zaporizhzhia.

https://twitter.com/KI_Insight/status/1988670405981118746

Continue reading →

Roundup: Running the party like a frat house

Posted on by

With the House of Commons not sitting this week, one can expect the drama of the Conservative ranks to continue to reverberate this week, seeing as the government’s big budget roll-out has been ringing a little bit flat, in part because they already announced everything ahead of time, but also the fact that it’s missing the mark in some key places. Regardless, MP Chris d’Entremont is now speaking to media a bit more now that he’s crossed the floor, and it’s revealing.

d’Entremont told the CBC over the weekend that he hadn’t been 100 percent on board with crossing the floor until his remarks were published in Politico, and Andrew Scheer and Chris Warkentin barged into his office to yell at him and call him a snake, which was the point he knew it was time to go. And frankly, that’s not a surprise, but my dudes, this did not work for Erin O’Toole when he was in the dying days of his leadership, so why do you think that bullying your caucus is going to work for you? And for Poilievre’s office to respond by saying that d’Entremont is a “liar” for “wilfully deceiving his voters, friends and colleagues” is rich coming from known liars like Poilievre and Scheer. And d’Entremont also said that it wasn’t just Poilievre, but his entire leadership team who are running the party like a frat house, which sounds about right because there are no adults in the room.

I will add that something that has come up a couple of times online but not in the media was the fact that d’Entremont has been a pro-life voter throughout his political career and time in Parliament, which was something that would have mattered in the Trudeau years, but looks like Carney has dumped (possibly because he is more devoutly Catholic than Trudeau was). That wasn’t to say that certain pro-life Liberals weren’t still in Trudeau’s caucus, likely under some kind of promise extracted from them not to vote in certain ways on those issues, but there has been no discussion as to whether any similar promise was extracted from d’Entremont, or if being resolutely pro-choice is no longer a requirement for the Liberal caucus.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-09T15:08:04.404Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Over the weekend, Russia targeted the power sub-stations to two nuclear power plants, killing seven, along with other strikes on cities like Dnipro. Ukrainian strikes have apparently disrupted power and heat in two Russian cities near the border.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Heavy-handed caucus management

Posted on by

The Ways and Means motion on the budget survived its second confidence vote, on the Bloc’s amendment, as no other party supported it (unsurprisingly). But outside of that, the drama inside the Conservative caucus room continues to spill out into the open as the party tries to deflect scrutiny. Leaks are talking about ten to fifteen very unhappy members, though nothing to indicate they’re going to cross the floor or leave caucus. At least not in the immediate future. Nevertheless, it is probably not lost on anyone that Andrew Scheer and Chris Warkentin storming into Chris d’Entremont’s office to yell at him when he let it be known he was contemplating crossing the floor is probably not great caucus management.

To that end, Scheer huffed and puffed his way out to the Foyer after Question Period yesterday to claim that it’s the Liberals who are harassing Conservatives, and it was that “harassment” that drove Matt Jeneroux to tender his resignation when there are accounts about how he was meeting with senior Liberals and was allegedly “eighty percent there” in terms of being convinced to cross over before this all blew up. Of course, nothing Scheer says is remotely believable, and his trying to claim that the Liberals are manufacturing this to “distract” from their budget is beyond risible considering just how complete and total their sales job on said budget is. The fact that Scheer is resorting to that kind of a dismissal is a sign of just how completely out of his depth he is here.

Scheer says Liberals are trying to “undemocratically” get a majority through backroom deals and accuse Liberals of harassing Conservatives to cross the floor. (Sure, Jan)

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-07T17:16:03.099Z

Scheer claims Jeneroux was pressured into resigning because Liberals were harassing him. He’s actually claiming that.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-07T17:18:59.423Z

What gets me is that no one in that caucus seems to have learned a single gods damned lesson after Erin O’Toole’s final days. For those of you who memory-holed the whole incident in trying to rehabilitate O’Toole’s image while trying to turn him into a statesman, in the dying days of his leadership, he weaponized the (garbage) Reform Act to kick out any member of caucus who dared to question him, and that member of caucus was Senator Batters, which was a big mistake because she has some pretty deep networks. Within days, the vote in caucus on O’Toole’s leadership was organised and he lost decisively. And despite this object lesson, Poilievre and Scheer are trying to use a heavy-hand and threats to enforce loyalty? Seriously? The other thing that seems to be emerging is a rift between the eastern and western flanks of the party, as eastern Tories are much more progressive and even-tempered than the Reform-rooted Conservatives, who are increasingly turning MAGA, and Poilievre needs to get a handle on this and start mending some fences before this blows up in his face.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-07T14:24:04.975Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The fighting continues in Pokrovsk, while Ukrainian forces are stepping up their assault on Russian forces in Dobropillia to ease the pressure on Pokrovsk. Ukrainian soldiers fighting with drones are being rewarded with points for confirmed hits and kills, leading to ethical concerns about the gamification of war. Ukraine says that 1400 Africans from dozens of countries have signed up to fight for Russia as mercenaries, but mostly are just used in “meat assaults.”

Continue reading →

Roundup: Jeneroux heads for the exit

Posted on by

It’s been a strange couple of days in the House of Commons. First of all, Pierre Poilievre made his speech on the budget (technically on the Ways and Means motion for the budget), and traditionally, the official opposition moves an amendment, followed by the next-largest party, in this case the Bloc. And these amendments are usually things like “the budget not pass because x, y, z.” But for some reason, Poilievre didn’t move the amendment in his speech like he normally would, so the Bloc took up the opportunity do so, meaning they got the amendment, and the Conservatives had to suffice with a sub-amendment, which doesn’t matter other than it being kind of embarrassing because they obviously don’t have their shit together.

And this got compounded by the votes. Unless I’m mistaken, normally these amendments/sub-amendments happen at the same time as the main vote on the Ways and Means motion, so it’s done in one fell swoop. Not this time. The Government House Leader declared that the vote on the Conservative sub-amendment would happen yesterday evening, and the Bloc amendment tomorrow afternoon, and that these would be considered confidence votes (which they aren’t normally—only the main vote). And let me stress—it is very, very, very unusual for any vote to happen on a Friday, let alone a confidence vote, and that’s only because they can now vote on their phones (which is a parliamentary abomination). This is not how this normally goes, and it’s a bunch of really childish gamesmanship. But suffice to say, the government passed the first vote as neither the Bloc nor the NDP would support the Conservative sub-amendment, and the NDP have already indicated they won’t vote for the Bloc’s amendment either—but they’re still not decided if they’re voting on the actual motion, sometime in the week after next (because next week is a constituency week).

It’s very, very unusual that they would hold any vote on a Friday, let alone a vote they have deemed to be a confidence vote.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-06T20:21:34.500Z

And then, as this was all going on, Conservative MP Matt Jeneroux announced he was going to resign his seat, and the language in his letter sounded like it was going to be pretty soon, saying he hoped he could speak in the House one more time. But then Pierre Poilievre tweets that he’s not going to retire until spring, which is weird. Paul Wells likened this to negotiating in public, and having a silent “or else.” And this is while rumours have been swirling that the Liberals have been having conversations with Jeneroux about crossing the floor, and other rumours swirling that Conservative MPs are being threatened if they follow d’Entremont across the floor. And then to compound the weirdness, Jeneroux posts on Facebook that he totally wasn’t coerced and that he’s still determining his resignation date, but it will “probably” be in the spring. This is not normal. And if you needed reassurance that things totally aren’t falling apart inside caucus, Gérard Deltell told the media that d’Entremont’s defection was an isolated case. Guys. You’re in five-alarm clown show territory now.

Per Paul Wells: I take Pierre here to be bargaining in public. The “next spring” directly contradicts Jeneroux and, the way it's placed, all clever at the end, amounts to an “if you know what's good for you.”

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-07T02:00:51.437Z

I totally wasn't coerced, he says.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-07T02:52:25.993Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims they are advancing in the ruins of Pokrovsk, as fighting continues. Ukraine has hit the major Volgograd oil refinery in a drone strike, and shut down its operations. And here’s what Angelina Jolie was doing in Kherson.

Continue reading →

QP: Trading “Food Professor” quotes back-and-forth

Posted on by

The PM was present for a second day in a row, and you would have expected all the other leaders would be as well, but Pierre Poilievre was absent. That left Melissa Lantsman to lead off instead, and she dutifully read the script about the size of the deficit that accomplishes so little. Mark Carney thundered that the budget is about building the country and that they will put $3000 in the pockets of very Canadian by the end of the decade. Lantsman worried about debt servicing charges and that it goes to “bankers” (as opposed to, say, pension funds), and Carney said that the health transfers were preserved and that the interest charges are less than they were under Harper. Luc Berthold took over in French to read the lines in French about fuelling inflation and children lining up at food banks, to which Carney responded with his lines about 75 percent of the budget is about protecting sovereignty, and that repeated the $3000 claim. Berthold insisted that Carney would go down in history as the most expensive, before repeating his canard about inflation. Carney countered that it was not the most costly budget, but the most ambitious. Jasraj Hallan took over to rush though some swipes at Carney possibly holding money in offshore tax havens. Carney responded that the budget fights for tax fairness and cuts taxes for 22 million people. Hallan repeated the same accusation, and Carney said that he was proud of his time in the private sector but now he is helping to grow the country.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and he complained about the so-called “discrimination” in Old-Age Security, and Carney noted the social transfers in the budget, and that it was indeed just that older seniors can get more. Blanchet then raised their plan for credits to help young people buy a first home, and Carney said that there is already an advantage for young people, which was on top of their investment in housing. Blanchet then demanded higher health transfers with no conditions attached, and Carney said that Quebec is getting $12 billion for healthcare and $5 billion for infrastructure, along with a few other big numbers.

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 →

QP: Continually invoking the so-called “Food Professor”

Posted on by

Post-budget, the PM was finally present for the first time in two weeks, as were all of the other leaders, ready to put on a show. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he declared that never has any budget forced Canadians to pay more for so little, decried the size of the deficit. Mark Carney insisted that Canada still has the best position in the G7, and that this was about building for the future. Poilievre decried that the cost to service the debt meant less money for doctors, and Carney retorted that debt servicing charges were less than they were under Harper. Poilievre repeated his first question in English, and threw in a couple of added slogans. Carney declared that 75 percent of the measures in the budget are to protect are sovereignty while the rest are for help for the cost of living, such as their tax cut. Poilievre insisted that the industrial carbon price was threatening “food sovereignty,” and quoted the so-called “Food Professor” to make his point. Carney patted himself on the back for killing the consumer carbon levy, that farms all fell below the industrial carbon price cut-off, and that the Climate Institute calculated that the impact of the industrial carbon price on inflation is zero. Poilievre tried to tie this to steel production and food prices, and Carney repeated that the effect of the industrial carbon price on food inflation is zero. Poilievre then switched to Friday’s Supreme Court decision, falsely characterised it, and demanded the government invoke the Notwithstanding Clause. Carney said that they would come up with new legislative measures in response. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, to lament that their priorities were not in the budget, and Carney responded that clean electricity tax credits was a good measure. Blanchet insisted that a tax credit was just creative accounting, and Carney insisted that Hydro-Quebec would be the biggest beneficiary, and that carbon capture was needed for the oil Quebec uses. Blanchet decried that the budget was just austerity, and Carney insisted this was about investing and that this was a growth budget.

Continue reading →

QP: Trading budget slogans back-and-forth

Posted on by

In advance of the budget release, the PM was around but not at QP yet again (and it is just shy of two weeks since he last has been). Pierre Poilievre was absent, likely getting his budget briefing so that he can comment to the media once it’s released, so it was up to Andrew Scheer to lead off, and he recited the tired lines about every dollar the government spending coming from the pockets of Canadians whether in taxes or inflation, and they were about to find out how much money the budget would take from Canadians’ pockets, and declared that they wanted an “affordable budget.” Steve MacKinnon thundering that this was a good day for the opposition because they would see that this is an affordable and historic budget that would build the country. Scheer then went onto the imaginary taxes and demanded the industrial carbon price he killed. MacKinnon said it was great news that those imaginary taxes weren’t in the budget. Scheer went on about the clean fuel standard, claiming that CRA collects it (utter nonsense), and Julie Dabrusin scoffed at this notion. Gérard Deltell took over in French to demand an affordable budget, and MacKinnon gave his “good news” talking point in French. Deltell quoted the “Food Professor,” meaning there was no credibility to be had, and Anna Gainey praised the good things that would be in the budget. Deltell then raised the industrial carbon price, still quoting the “Food Professor,” and Dabrusin again scoffed at imaginary taxes before praising the upcoming budget. 

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she lambasted the planned cancellation of the two billion tree programme and the that the implementation was always going to be their issue. Tim Hodgson recited a bland statement about the budget. Normandin called out the government for abandoning even the meagre measures from Trudeau, and MacKinnon insisted that they would have climate measures as they invest in the future. Patrick Bonin gave his own condemnation of the cancellation and the climate capitulation plan, and Dabrusin insisted that they would continue to fight against climate change as they build Canada.

Continue reading →

QP: Vile accusations amidst imaginary tax nonsense

Posted on by

The PM was back in town after his Asia trip, but opted not to come to QP for whatever reason. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he immediately worried that tomorrow would be another “costly” budget that would “skyrocket” the cost of living, and said that they would vote for it only if it lowers the cost of living, and demanded an “affordable” budget. Steve MacKinnon took this as good news, and that Poilievre would order his MPs to vote for it because it will be an affordable budget. Poilievre then took swipes at the finance minister and blamed the government for the cost of housing, and again demanded an “affordable budget.” MacKinnon again repeated that it would be an affordable budget and would “open the door” to opportunities. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question and the claim he would vote for an affordable budget. (Spoiler: He won’t). MacKinnon repeats that he took this as good news that Poilievre would order his troops to vote for their “affordable” budget and listed the tax cuts they were promising. Poilievre then called on the government to scrap the industrial carbon price under dubious pretexts, and MacKinnon noted that farmers are largely exempt from any of those prices, and again insisted not to call an election. Poilievre again listed things the price applies to and tried to tie it to food prices, and this time Wayne Long got up to deliver the “generational budget” lines. Poilievre mocked along calling the government “new,” and made another appeal of falsehoods about the industrial carbon price. Long tried to mock Poilievre’s tenure in return, and said that in 20 years, Poilievre has only voted against any help for Canadians.

Christine Normandin rose for the Bloc, and said it was curious that 24 hours before the budget, that the government isn’t negotiating and just threatening an election instead. MacKinnon first congratulated the municipal election winners in Quebec, and then raised their discussions so far. Normandin tried again, and MacKinnon praised what is in the budget and the investments that would benefit Quebec. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay took over and wondered why the priority in the budget wasn’t help for Quebeckers, and listed their demands. Mélanie Joly said that they are still in negotiations with the U.S., and that they have support for sectors in the meantime. 

Continue reading →