Tag Archives: Trade

Roundup: Missing the point about the Senate

Posted on by
2

Because everything is so stupid all of the time, a new conservative think tank popped up in Calgary that is issuing stupid polls, some of the questions of which fundamentally do not understand how Parliament works. They call themselves the “Aristotle Foundation,” and it’s a collection of the usual right-wing (and in some cases, far-right) suspects, and when they claim to be championing “reason, democracy and civilization,” well, you can start picking up where the dog-whistles are sounding.

In any case, they published this stupid poll (and of course, the National Post picked it up, because a bunch of their columnists are members of this think tank), and the very premise of their questions are absurd. “55 percent of non-Western respondents would be open to negotiating with Alberta or other Western provinces amid the threat of separation.” As well, there was a question on whether they “favoured reform of the House of Commons and Senate in the case of threats from Western separatism and Quebec separatism.” Why anyone would want to negotiate with a group of crybabies who make up a marginal fraction of the population is beyond me, but it’s not my poll. Nevertheless—negotiating about what, you ask? Supposed under-representation in the House of Commons and the Senate. They even have a handy chart about population per senator to make their case. I swear to Zeus, I am going to lose my mind.

If you're complaining about "per capita representation" in the Senate, might I suggest you read a fucking book for once in your life? nationalpost.com/news/canadia…

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-19T04:29:03.776Z

The Senate is not and has never been a rep-by-pop chamber. It is, in fact, designed not to be. That’s the whole fucking point of why it was constructed the way it was in 1867. It’s explicitly designed along regional lines in order to counter the rep-by-pop of the House of Commons, because having two rep-by-pop chambers would be stupid and counter-productive. Yes, the Atlantic provinces have outsized representation explicitly to counterbalance their small populations in the Commons. That’s why the breakdown is regional: 24 seats for Quebec, 24 for Ontario, 24 for the Maritimes, and 24 for the west (and then the three for the territories and six for Newfoundland and Labrador were later additions). If you don’t understand this basic bit of Canadian civics, what exactly are you doing? Other than shit-disturbing? This is beyond idiotic, and I cannot believe that they want to be taken seriously.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-18T22:01:56.308Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones struck several apartment buildings in Odesa. Ukraine struck two Russian plants building and maintaining military and cargo planes. Here is a look at the interceptor drones that Ukraine is sharing with several Gulf states.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Myth-busting the carbon price on diesel

Posted on by
1

For months, we’ve been hearing the Conservatives blame the industrial carbon price and the clean fuel standard for rising food prices, often citing the so-called “Food Professor” as the source of these claims. They’re hilariously wrong, but just how wrong? Energy economist Andrew Leach does the math, and demonstrates where the “Food Professor” went so wrong. (Some of these are threads, so be sure to click through because they were too long to replicate in this post).

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2033225831443816578

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2033324064933347805

And the longest explainer thread is here:

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2033309960902426664

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched 430 drones and 68 missiles at Ukraine on Saturday, and six people were killed, five of them in Kyiv. President Zelenskyy says that Ukraine wants money and technology in return for the anti-drone assistance they are providing to countries in the Gulf region.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding a strategic oil reserve

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was on his way to Yellowknife, and Pierre Poilievre was elsewhere, in advance of his own trip to the US, leaving it up to Melissa Lantsman to lead off. She complained that there is no strategic oil reserve, and demanded the government adopt their plan to create one, to which Tim Hodgson explained how the IEA works, which is that net importers have reserves while net exporters don’t. Lantsman shot back that just because you don’t need one it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t, before she demanded the government scrap environmental laws to pump more oil. Hodgson responded that the Conservatives apparently can’t take a lesson from the Alberta government in working together to build. Gérard took over in French to demand the same oil reserve, to which Steven MacKinnon repeated Hodgson’s first response in French. Deltell accused the government of having “contempt” for Canadian energy, before he pivoted to food price inflation, and this time MacKinnon reminded him that he voted against all help for Canadians who needed it. Chris Warkentin took over, and in English, he too read the script on food price inflation with the falsehoods about “hidden taxes.” Wayne Long took a swipe about Poilievre going to Europe for no reason while Carney was in the Asia Pacific to sign trade deals including uranium. Warkentin tried again and Julie Dabrusin reminded him that the industrial carbon price has zero effect on food prices.

"A ten-year record of shutting down our oil and gas sector"

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2026-03-12T18:23:43.134Z

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she worried about the government not informing the public about Canadian personnel at a military base in Kuwait being targeted by Iran. Anita Anand said that Canada is not participating in the conflict, but could not say more for security reasons. Normandin tried again, and Anand again stated that all Canadian Armed Forces personnel in the region are safe and sound, and then made a pitch for international law. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay tried this yet again, and Anand repeated her same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Credulous takes on private members’ bills

Posted on by
Reply

There have been a few stories over the past few days that have raised my ire, so I’m going to take a few minutes to point a few things out. One of them is this CBC story yesterday about Jenny Kwan’s private member’s bill, and that as many as sixteen Liberals are considering supporting it. My beef: the sub-hed on the story reading “Vote would mark first time some in caucus split from government line under Carney.” Split from the government line? It’s a private member’s bill. Those are free votes by default. That’s the whole point of them. CBC should know better, and frankly, I really don’t like it when the media tries to play party whip while at the same time wishing that MPs were more independent.

The other story yesterday was about Conservative MP Dan Albas’ private member’s bill, which purports to empower Canada Post to deliver alcohol across provincial lines. Most of the stories in various outlets talked about how Dominic LeBlanc appeared to support the bill in Question Period, which he actually did not. What LeBlanc said was that this is an area of provincial regulation (which only the Star’s story mentions), but that he would bring it up when he meets with his provincial counterparts in a few weeks because he thinks it’s a good idea. And more to the point, this bill is a gimmick, which Albas and Pierre Poilievre insist overrides provincial regulation, but it actually doesn’t because, and just puts Canada Post in a bind. It would be great if any story could point that fact out, or talked to a lawyer, but nope, they focused on LeBlanc’s answer in QP, and even then couldn’t get the nuance right.

The third is a story from CBC on Monday, which was very concerned that a lot of bills are passing “on division,” meaning without a vote. The problem was the initial sub-hed on the story which stated “Half the bills passed in the House this session have cleared 3rd reading without a head count or consensus,” which is wrong, because “on division” is consensus you don’t need a vote—the “or consensus” was later dropped from the sub-hed. Of course, the real reason is that the Conservatives don’t want to go to an election, so they’re not going to force a vote and have Andrew Scheer and Scott Reid hide behind the curtains again to ensure that the math is right and that they won’t accidentally do something stupid with the vote counts given how everything is so close, but the person you reached as your source for your explainer is Peter Van Loan? Possibly the worst Government House Leader in decades (which is saying a lot)? It came across as amateurish, and like CBC’s parliamentary bureau has a hard time understanding how parliament works, which is not a good look.

When your parliamentary bureau doesn't understand parliament, dumb things happen.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-09T13:50:45.982Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-10T21:22:01.632Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia dropped three guided bombs on Sloviansk in the east, and hit Kharkiv and Dnipro with drones, injuring another twenty people. Ukrainian forces have pushed Russian invaders out of Dnipropetrovsk region, while Russia claims to be making gains in Donbas. Ukraine hit a missile plant in Bryansk region in Russia.

Continue reading →

QP: The phantom menaces of supposed terrorists and hidden taxes

Posted on by
Reply

While he had initially not planned to attend, things apparently changed and the PM did opt to show up today, as did Pierre Poilievre. He led off in French, and he immediately launched into his bullshit claims that the Trudeau government allowed Iranian terrorists into the country and that ten government needs to deport them. Mark Carney stated that the government deplores the shooting at synagogues and the U.S. consulate in Toronto, and they are offering police support, while the IRGC is already a listed terrorist entity. Poilievre meandered into food price inflation, and claimed it was because of the government’s “inflationary” taxes and policies. (Taxes are deflationary). Carney stayed on the claim about Iranian terrorists and said they are conducting removals, before switching to the food prices, and noted that they have provided additional support. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first bullshit claims, and this time Carney exhorted him to support Bill C-14 and gun control, and noted that the government is investigating potential IRGC members in the country and that they have committed to another thousand RCMP. Poilievre claimed that the government was more concerned with protecting turkeys from farmers than people from criminals, and again repeated his same bullshit claim about Iranian terrorists. This time Carney exhorted the Conservatives to support Bill C-9 to protect synagogues. Poilievre dismissed this as the government trying to protect the Jewish community by banning sections of the Torah, and again blamed the government for Iranian terrorists. Carney said that the Charter protects the Torah and the Bible and any other religious text. Poilievre then returned to his false claims about food prices and demanded the government cut those hidden taxes. Carney reminded him that he impact of the industrial carbon price is close to zero, but the impact of their trade agreements for the farmers in his riding is enormous. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he demanded clarity from the prime minister on his position on the Iran conflict and the strategic vision for the Middle East. Carney said that Canada supports the necessity of preventing Iran’s nuclear programme, but is not participating in the offensive operations and will not. Blanchet wondered what our European allies have come to in terms of position, and Carney listed the leaders of the G7 he has spoken to as they come up with a policy on de-escalation. Blanchet wondered if there were any short-term measures for those suffering from the affects of the conflict, such as higher inflation. Carney said the best option is de-escalation, which is why he is having conversations with other leaders in the G7 and in the Middle East.

Continue reading →

QP: Terrorists on our streets

Posted on by
Reply

After more than a week away, the PM was not present, despite being in the building, while Pierre Poilievre was also in the building but absent from QP. Andrew Scheer led off, and he railed about the industrial carbon price and the clean fuel standard, and demanded the government scrap them. Tim Hodgson pointed out to him that our energy production reached a record high, and that the government is fast-tracking projects to “solve the world’s affordability problem.” Scheer tried again, and this time François-Philippe Champagne reminded him that they already cut taxes and we are projected to have the second fastest growth in the G7. John Brassard took over, and he recited the same talking points with added sanctimony. Patty Hajdu hoped that he was not referring to things like the Canada Child Benefit or school food when he talked about “ideological programmes.” Brassard considered the government’s supposed anti-development laws are “hate-driven,” and Champagne again reminded him of the growth potential. Eric Lefebvre tried again in French, and Champagne praised the enhanced GST credit. Lefebvre railed about the things the government was doing to make things expensive, to which Mélanie Joly suggested he was basically reading the government’s game plan, except to toward the end, and invited him to cross the floor.

*hate-driven. Stupid auto-correct.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-09T18:58:38.122Z

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and yet again, decried the pension software system, and Patty Hajdu reminded her that twenty countries use this system, and that they are working through the backlog of cases. Normandin claimed the government didn’t listen to any of the concerns before it went live, and Hajdu reminded her that 7.7 million seniors are already getting benefits with no problem, and wondered if Normandin wanted them to stay on a sixty-year-old system in danger of failure. Sébastien Lemaire gave the same again, and Joël Lightbound repeated Hajdu’s same points en français. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Making Canada work…by inventing grievances

Posted on by
Reply

Paul Wells had a lengthy interview with Danielle Smith yesterday, and let me tell you, it is just exhausting to wade through the volume of bullshit that she is flooding it with. Lots of numbers that she has pulled out of her ass, tonnes of scapegoating, revisionist history, and so, so many strawmen that she keeps fighting in order to make Alberta look like the victim. Much of what Wells had to ask her about was her plans with those nine referendums, and the possibility of at least a couple of more questions in addition, but he never really challenged her on the fundamental basis of what she was doing.

Re: Danielle Smith

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-06T05:26:00.334Z

Referendums are a way for governments to bypass parliament or the legislature, and to manufacture consent for whatever issue they’re putting forward. They control the questions and the interpretation of the answers, so they manipulate the process from start to finish. Most of the time that works out for them, because they can successfully manipulate it to suit their purposes, but sometimes it gets away from them, such as Brexit, and a giant clusterfuck was created because David Cameron was too chickenshit to stand up to the xenophobes in his own party. In this particular case, Danielle Smith is looking to manufacture consent to both engage in further scapegoating of immigrants and asylum seekers (and believe me, there is a portion of the Alberta population who will take the permission that she has granted to them and target those newcomers), but to also manufacture consent for her to continue to engage in grievance-mongering to the detriment of everyone, in Alberta or in Canada.

Smith keeps insisting that she’s trying to make people confident that Canada can work, but it’s really hard to believe her when she keeps inventing new grievances to be mad about, and then engages in an effort to make everyone else mad about them (such as through these referendum questions) even though there is no actual basis for these grievances. And being a crybaby because your preferred party didn’t win the federal election is not a legitimate grievance, and should not be ginned up as one. That said, Alberta has largely been a one-party state for more than 40 years, so it’s hard for them to understand what it’s like to actually lose an election and not consider it illegitimate. And what is most frustrating is that precious few people actually call Smith (or her predecessors) out for inventing these grievances. It’s bullshit, and it needs to be called out as such, particularly from Albertans because being force-fed these fake grievances has done a number on their psyche, and it hurts all of us as a result.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-06T23:56:01.450Z

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy visited the eastern front lines, as the second day or prisoner exchanges concluded with a total of 500 swapped over both days.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Oil sands histrionics, Jackpine edition

Posted on by
Reply

Oil and gas company Canadian Natural Resources Limited is deferring an expansion to one of their oilsands mines, citing uncertainty until the federal government finalises their environmental policies, which naturally led the Conservatives to theatrically start going into histrionics. The problem, of course, is that the facts don’t exactly line up with this kind of outsized reaction. These mines have not really been subjected to carbon pricing and have, in fact, generated carbon credits for the company that they can sell at a profit (thanks to Alberta’s absurdly generous carbon credit system that undermines the effect of more stringent carbon pricing). And their talk about sequestering emissions misses the point.

As always, Andrew Leach is here to explain.

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2029702579563925736

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2029705629942857807

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2029759527567114438

I noticed that in some of the replies, it was stated that CNRL’s owner is trying to leverage this for more corporate welfare, which would not surprise me in the least.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-05T22:27:01.603Z

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian drone damaged a civilian ship carrying corn from the port of Odesa. Repair crews have restored power to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, necessary for its cooling operations. Russia and Ukraine have swapped 200 prisoners of war, out of a planned 500 each. Ukraine’s new F-16 fighter jets have been starved of American-made missiles for more than three weeks, limiting their ability to shoot down missiles and drones.

Continue reading →

Roundup: We are one (murderous) family

Posted on by

From New Delhi, Mark Carney had his big meeting with Narendra Modi, and they announced their plans on a comprehensive trade agreement by the end of the year, along with a number of other trade plans, including a uranium agreement. Carney even said that “We are one family” with Modi, erm, except Modi’s government has very likely murdered Canadians on Canadian soil, which is a pretty strange definition of “family.” But then Carney refused to take media questions, cancelled a planned press conference, citing the need to get into the air to avoid the flight crew’s scheduling regulations, and apparently decided that he couldn’t scrum on the plane either, meaning that all of those media outlets who shelled out thousands of dollars to be there are being given nothing for the time and trouble. This is turning into a habit for Carney, as is the fact that at least one of his meetings was found out by social media and wasn’t on his itinerary.

Pretty much.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-02T15:19:39.900Z

Meanwhile, Anita Anand had to pick up the media slack, but even then, she refused to say whether she believes the attack on Iran violated international law, and only will say that Canada is not militarily involved, though she also says she wants to see a “diplomatic solution.” Other members of the government has also been backtracking on the assertion that India stopped engaging in foreign interference and repression, including secretary of state for combatting crime, Ruby Sahota, which makes it look an awful lot like that senior official was set up to try and deflect questions on the interference ahead of the trip (which backfired spectacularly because we could all tell that it was bullshit).

Meanwhile, while in London, Pierre Poilievre expounded on his idea of a critical mineral stockpile available to allies with tariff-free trade agreements (but again, I fail to see how this will change Trump’s mind). He is also getting all hot and bothered by the impact that the Iran conflict is having on the oil market, but it’s making him say dumb things about Canada trying to step in and displace that Middle Eastern oil and gas. It’s never going to happen, and none of what he’s saying is true, but nobody’s going to challenge him on it (other than Andrew Leach).

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2028513969766560215

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2028517629439414642

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-02T23:08:01.907Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine’s military continues to make gains reclaiming territory in Zaporizhzhia region, while a naval drone attack his the Russian oil terminal at Sheskharis, suspending operations. President Zelenskyy says that Russia won’t be able to fulfil its short-term goals in the invasion.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/2028512953016733884

Continue reading →

Roundup: Davos speech vs Iran support

Posted on by

In the early hours of Saturday morning, the Americans and Israelis stuck Iran under dubious pretences—later confirming that nuclear talks were merely a ruse, and that Trump and Netanyahu had been planning this for weeks—and managed to effectively decapitate the country’s leadership, including killing Ayatollah Khomeini. Within hours, prime minister Mark Carney sent out a statement from his trip in Mumbai, where he effectively supported the actions, but also did not promise any Canadian support, military or otherwise. Nevertheless, everyone went on a big round of hand-wringing about how this statement jived with his big Davos speech.

My statement on Iran-related hostilities in the Middle East:

— Mark Carney (@mark-carney.bsky.social) 2026-02-28T12:31:32.929Z

It's not small-dick energy.It's smallest dick energy.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-28T19:10:15.695Z

Of course, the thing about the Davos speech is that it was a bit of a Rorschach test, depending on one’s priors. Sure, Carney talked about sovereignty and territorial integrity, but he also made it clear that the existing system of international law was a mirage, so he was kind of saying that it didn’t matter? In either case, I don’t think we should expect anything other than “pragmatism” without much in the way of principle, because that is the tone Carney has been setting for a while now, which could eventually work to our detriment.

People keep saying that this goes against the Davis speech. It does not. Carney said the rules based international order was always hypocritical, is now dead, and we live in a time of rupture. I disagree with support but this is not against what he said. The sign is gone. GONE GONE.

— Stephanie Carvin (@stephaniecarvin.bsky.social) 2026-02-28T14:54:02.726Z

In Davos, Carney argued that only countries w/ strong economies could afford “principled” foreign policies. Carney’s pro-US, pro-illegal war statement is that idea in action.The thing is, this view is both self-serving and wrong. Wrong because there is always a cost to standing up for principles.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-02-28T14:14:37.709Z

But if you always subordinate principles (i.e., non-economic interests like international law) to economic growth, you’ll never stand for anything. ESPECIALLY Canada, since the best we can hope for is only sending HALF of our exports to the US. They will ALWAYS have leverage over us.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-02-28T14:14:37.711Z

In reaction, Bob Rae wonders what happens after the military operation ends, which has long been the question for those who want to attack Iran. Anne Applebaum lays out the fact that Trump has no plans for what to do next with Iran, and has already dismantled programmes which might have helped, which is a huge danger of creating something worse. Justin Ling wonders why Carney chose the route he did of cheering on such a dangerous gambit.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-02-28T22:10:01.821Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Zelenskyy’s chief of staff says that Russia has accepted the proposal for post-war security guarantees (which…means not much).

Continue reading →