Tag Archives: Trade

QP: Concern trolling about Mexico’s growth rates

Posted on by

The prime minister was off to Mexico City, and most of the other leaders weren’t present either. Pierre Poilievre was, however, and he led off in English, and compared Mexico’s economic growth compared to Canada’s (as though there were different baselines or circumstances). Mélanie Joly praised Carney’s trip before reminding him that there is a global trade war that is affecting us. Poilievre insisted that we both trade with the U.S., and that they must be doing something right. Joly accused Poilievre of always talking down Canadian workers, and praised yesterday’s interest rate cuts. Poilievre switched to French to say that they support workers, then accused the Liberals of “collapsing” the economy, before repeating his first question about their growth rates. Joly said that Poilievre doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and praised the interest rate cuts as good news, and said that we need to work with trade partners to grow the economy. Poilievre returned to English to accuse Carney of only heading to Mexico for a photo op, and then repeated the line that the economy is “collapsing,” and Joly said that Poilievre believes in isolationism while the government is engaging abroad. Poilievre said that we already have trade agreements and that this trip was just for fake engagement, and said Carney could ask those other counties why they’re doing so much better than we are. Maninder Sidhu patted himself on the back for the trading relationships Canada has. Poilievre said he was taking credit for things he never did while the economy collapses, to which Sidhu said he wouldn’t go to personal attacks, before reading off some trade statistics with Mexico.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she accused the government of attacking the ability of Quebec to pass their own laws with their factum to the Supreme Court of Canada in an upcoming hearing. Steven Guilbeault says that the government has a duty to protect the Charter. Normandin repeated the accusation, which was wholly specious in its arguments, and again Guilbeault said that they are not preventing any province from invoked the Clause, and he could organise a presentation through the department of Justice. Rhéal Fortin returned to his same questions as earlier in the week, attacking a judicial appointment on false grounds. Patricia Lattanzio read a statement about the independence of the judiciary.

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 →

QP: The “sword” hanging over the PBO

Posted on by

All of the leaders were present today, as is customary for a Wednesday, even if Wednesdays are no longer the pronto-PMQs of Trudeau’s era. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and demanded to know the size of the deficit. Prime minister Mark Carney responded that the budget will be on November 4th, and it would have the biggest investment in the country’s future. Poilievre asked the same in English, and got much the same response. Poilievre returns to French to lament that we still don’t have an answer on the deficit, which creates uncertainty for business, and demanded to know the number. Carney thanked him for the compliment about being a fiscal expert, and said that the trade war left uncertainty that made sure they have to do what they can control. Poilievre repeated the same in English, and this time, Carney boasted that interest rates were lower in Canada than the U.S. Poilievre dismissed this as saying that was because the economy was collapsing, and then claimed that a liberal members of the finance committee threatened the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s job (while someone chirped that didn’t happen). Carney said that he just the PBO, and that he didn’t recognise the characterisation. Poilievre said that the post was temporary in order to hold a sword over his head, and then demanded he be made permanent and demanded a deficit figure. Carney said that if they wanted him to be permanent, he would be open to consulting on that in the new spirit of collaboration.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and worried that the government was going to table something on the use of the Notwithstanding Clause, and demanded it be allowed to be used by provinces, even in a “preventative” measure. Carney said that the government’s job is to uphold the Charter and it was up to the Supreme Court to determine what is and is not legal. Blanchet claimed that putting limits on use of the Clauses was denigrating the Memory of a Pierre Trudeau, and Carney dismissed this, saying this was up to the Supreme Court to rule on.  Blanchet accused the government of hiding behind the Court, and attacking Quebec’s state secularism, to which Carney reminded him that this is the legislative branch, not the judiciary. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Freeland out—for good this time

Posted on by

It was nine months to the day since Chrystia Freeland first resigned from Cabinet, previously under Justin Trudeau, when he told her that he planned to replace her as finance minister with Mark Carney, but would she mind first delivering the fall economic update that had a bigger-than-promised deficit number in it? Carney had not said yes to the position at the time, and things went downhill from there. This time, Freeland says she’s leaving to take up new opportunities—in this case, a position of special envoy related to the reconstruction of Ukraine. Her roles got split up, as the transport portfolio was given to Steve MacKinnon, and the internal trade to Dominic LeBlanc.

https://twitter.com/cafreeland/status/1967994021227401685

I do think that this move solidifies a few narratives that have been floating around, one of which is that Carney is consolidating loyalists. Freeland supporters were pretty much entirely frozen out of Cabinet and other senior roles, and Freeland herself was made a minister as a gesture of unity in the party, but six months later, she’s out. That’s fairly problematic on its face. As well, it’s one more woman out of a senior role, and one who had influence behind the scenes, which again consolidates the bro atmosphere in the PMO, which is not good, and will cause plenty of problems going forward as the blind spots start to grow. For the moment, Freeland is keeping her seat, but will eventually resign it once she has consulted with her riding association and so on. With rumours that Carney plans to offer diplomatic posts to at least two other former ministers, he could be looking to free up a handful of fairly safe seats that he can put more friends or loyalists into (like he did with Evan Solomon).

Alberta carbon price

Danielle Smith is making changes to her province’s industrial carbon price, exempting companies from paying it if they invest in their own emissions reduction projects. You know, which the carbon price incentivised them to do so that they didn’t have to pay as much, because that’s the whole gods damned point of carbon pricing. Absolutely unbelievable stupidity on display here.

About that ovation

There has been a lot of talk about how the House of Commons gave a standing ovation about Charlie Kirk on Monday. That’s not exactly true, and has been torqued by people who may or may not be acting in good faith. The ovation had more to do with standing against political violence rather than Kirk himself. That said, of course it was Rachael Thomas who got up to praise a fascist like Kirk, because this is who Thomas is. She has been marinating in the fever swamps of the American far-right discourse for years, and imports it into Canadian politics all the time, including the very careful creation of an alternate dystopian reality where Justin Trudeau is a “dictator,” and the Liberals are busy censoring tweets on the Internet and are generally being authoritarians, in all defiance of the logic and reality. Thomas absolutely deserves to be called out for venerating a fascist, but I think everyone needs to calm down about the applause that happened afterward because it’s pretty clear the context was about the broader message.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-09-16T21:22:02.480Z

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy is calling for a combined European air defence system given that Russia’s attacks are now extending beyond just Ukraine. Here is a look at the struggle for Ukrainian authorities to identify their war dead.

Continue reading →

QP: Day two, and the front bench is useless

Posted on by

An hour before things got underway, it was announced that Chrystia Freeland was leaving Cabinet (but not her seat) to take on a special envoy role for Ukrainian reconstruction, meaning the front bench got shifted one day into the new sitting, and the gender balance skewed just a little more male. The PM was not present, as he was off to meet with Scott Moe, but other leaders did show up.

Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and decried that a budget had not been delivered yet, and claimed that the deficit had been doubled—higher than Trudeau’s. He claimed that inflation was fifty percent higher than the target (it’s not), and worried about people relying on food banks; if people were to judge Carney based on food prices, then what was the verdict? François-Philippe Champagne said that Canadians chose a government that would focus on change, and that they were going to be rigorous in spending and ambitious in investment. Poilievre worried that empty promises led to empty stomachs, to which Champagne again praised their tax cut, which was going to help the Middle Class™. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his faux concern that deficits cause food price inflation, and the empty promises/empty stomachs line. Champagne recited the “spend less to invest more” line, before praising their tax cut and the elimination of the carbon levy. Poilievre said this government’s failure led to human suffering, and this time, Tim Hodgson stood up to praise their pledge to expand the LNG terminal in BC. Poilievre said it was insulting that nobody would answer a question on the price of food, and Gregor Robertson said that while they were concerned about the cost of food, they were taking action on housing. Poilievre again pounced on the fact that the question was about food, and this time Adam van Koeverden got up to chide Poilievre for voting against school food programmes, and that Poilievre voted against the other measures in the Food Banks Canada report, like strengthening the social safety net.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and he worried about the state of talks with the U.S. Dominic LeBlanc assured him that the talks continue, and that they are preparing for the review of the New NAFTA. Blanchet said that he heard in Washington that there is disappointment that Carney is not in Washington more often, and LeBlanc agreed that the U.S. is an essential economic partner, and that with the trade relationship changing they need to work to get the best deal. Blanchet wondered if Carney would speak to Trump on the summit circuit, or go to Washington, and LeBlanc again reiterated that we treat the American relationship with great respect, but we are also diversifying out trade relationships.

Continue reading →

QP: A collegial-ish return for Poilievre

Posted on by

The first day back, and absolutely everyone was salivating for prime minister Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre’s first face-to-face since the election. As Members’ Statements were underway, Carney and Poilievre met in the centre aisle and shook hands before the show got starter. When it it, Poilievre led off by praising the people of his new riding, and wanted to see if Carney agreed that they were united in believing in…a list of his slogans. Carney said that he spoke for everyone in welcoming him back, and noted a few things changed he was last here, including the largest women’s caucus in history, and a sprit of collaboration in passing legislation. Poilievre repeated the thanks for his constituents in French before listing those slogans again and seeking agreement for them. Carney said he agreed with the sentiments expressed. Poilievre returned to English, to give a few swipes at Trudeau, and then applied those to Carney, demanding real change. Carney patted himself on the back for their tax cut and eliminating federal barriers to internal trade. Poilievre again returned to French, said that they would simply insist on Carney listening up to his promises, decried food price inflation, and demanded a budget that would address this. Carney repeated his back-patting in English, including a new point about supporting the CRTC in bringing broadband prices down. Poilievre switched back to English to repeat his same points, and Carney insisted that they were undertaking the biggest investment in the Canadian military, and promised more to come. Poilievre railed about deficits and debt, and Carney insisted that they were still going to build the strongest economy in the G7, which means being clear about the size of the challenge ahead of them.

Yves-François Blanchet took over for the Bloc, and lamented that there was still no resolution to the trade war, and wanted a commitment to ending tariffs. Carney responded that we currently have the best deal with the Americans worldwide, and that counted as a success. Blanchet contested such an assertion, and wanted the trusted relationship re-established (as though Trump was a rational actor). Carney said that he spoke with Trump over the weekend about the situation with Russia, Ukraine, and China. Blanchet demanded that Carney made it a priority to go to Washington, and Carney said that we need to diversity trade with Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A narrower, more revealing book ban

Posted on by

Alberta’s amended book ban was announced on Wednesday, and lo, it is now being confined to graphic novels that depict supposed sexually explicit images, and wouldn’t you just know it, we’re back to the original four books that triggered this whole thing, three of those four titles being queer or trans-related. And nobody will actually say that out loud—not the premier, not the education minister, and wouldn’t you know it, not legacy media either.

To be clear, this move brings us back to the very pointed targeting of LGBTQ2S+ graphic novels that got us here in the first place.Books that were on the government's radar thanks to far-right advocacy groups like Action4Canada.

— Mel Woods (@melwoods.me) 2025-09-08T21:18:06.510Z

The Canadian Press didn’t mention anything about queer or trans materials, and they got quotes from Action4Canada, calling them a “parents advocacy group” instead of a far-right Christian nationalist organization, which they absolutely are. CBC’s reporting kept focusing on “explicit images of sexual acts,” and their televised coverage made zero mention of queer or trans materials, though the print story at least did quote the Fyrefly Institute for Gender and Sexual Diversity, who expressed concern that this could “disproportionately affect 2SLGBTQ+ representation,” but didn’t specify that three of the four main targeted books were queer or trans, which again, is important context to have. Neither of their coverage actually mentioned that if you look at the images that the government sent to the media about the offending images (which the government did actually provide), pretty much none of them were “explicit images of sexual acts” either, even if there was some nudity or allusions to sexual acts that were not graphic or explicit. I also have to wonder why neither the Alberta NDP (and Naheed Nenshi especially), or the Alberta Teachers’ Association could call this out for what it is.

There is a large portion of people who only really started to care about the Alberta book ban stuff when it was Margaret Atwood being pulled from shelves.I hope those same people are willing to stand up and defend queer and trans comics artists too, and call this what it is

— Mel Woods (@melwoods.me) 2025-09-08T21:41:10.098Z

Meanwhile, Maclean’s published a profile of six Alberta separatism supporters in an attempt to humanize them and show how they’re just ordinary people with real concerns. Those concerns? Vaccines, believing climate change is a scam designed to punish Alberta, immigration, and the general grievance addiction that social media addicts on the right have become dependent upon. They couldn’t even be bothered to correct the one gullible woman who believes that the National Energy Program is still running and siphoning the province’s wealth. No discussion about the fact that Alberta separatism is fuelled largely by Christian nationalism and white supremacy, which is really important context to have when you’re trying to humanize these people. It’s astonishingly bad journalism, but, well, that’s Maclean’s these days (just inhabiting the corpse of a once-great magazine).

https://bsky.app/profile/daveberta.bsky.social/post/3lygl7xvz7s22

In fact the #Alberta economy was impacted more because the world oil price dropped while the NEP was in place and actually continued to drop after the NEP was cancelled.#ABpoli

— True Oak (@trueoak.bsky.social) 2025-07-17T17:40:34.155Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Things have been escalating, as last night, a number of Russian drones entered Polish airspace and were downed by NATO air defences (Thread here). And the day before that, glide bombs struck in Yarova, where elderly villages were lining up for their pension cheques. And the day before that was the largest barrage of the war to date, with 805 drones and 13 missiles, and government buildings in Kyiv were hit for the first time. And Trump still isn’t doing anything while Putin mocks him.

Since January 20, Russian air raids in Ukraine have intensified dramatically

— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum.bsky.social) 2025-09-09T20:08:04.868Z

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1965345997044744662

Continue reading →

Roundup: Presiding officers (more or less) assemble

Posted on by

Over the past couple of days, Speaker Scarpaleggia hosted his counterparts from most of the other G7 countries (Japan’s had to bow out because of a prior obligation), with the addition of the president of the European Parliament and the chairman of Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada, in a fairly long-standing tradition that rotates hosting. There wasn’t much coverage on the meeting, and apparently the location was kept secret until journalists were bussed to the location out at Meech Lake, but there was but a single story on the CP wire about it.

These kinds of meetings are important, not only for the sake of parliamentary diplomacy, but also because it allows democratic presiding officers to compare notes on best practices in the age of disinformation and increased security threats, and particularly after several legislatures adopted hybrid formats during the height of the pandemic, and only a few have allowed them to lapse. (Let me be clear—Canada should end the hybrid format and online voting for MPs as well because they’re an affront to some of the basic features of our parliamentary democracy, but the Liberals under Trudeau were very resistant to doing so). This is absolutely beneficial to all concerned, particularly because of the diversity of legislatures represented, and there are similar kinds of meetings among Commonwealth parliaments that align more traditionally on the Westminster model.

The thing that always gets me about this particular meeting every year, however, is the inclusion of the American Speaker. Not because America shouldn’t be included (which is now up for debate given that they are no longer a democracy), but rather because their Speaker is not really a presiding officer in the way our Speaker is, or the chairmen of other legislatures. Instead, the American Speaker is more of a de facto prime minister, who controls the majority party in the legislature, and isn’t really chairing debates in the same way. I find it odd and somewhat incompatible with the purpose of these kinds of meetings, but that’s just more of a curiosity. Of course, as soon as Speaker Mike Johnson returned to Washington, he delivered this steaming pile of horseshit, so spending time with actual democratic presiding officers didn’t rub off on him.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-09-05T22:56:01.960Z

Programming Note: I’m taking a long weekend from the blog for my birthday, so I’ll see you back here on Wednesday.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian forces have attacked Russia’s Ryazan oil refinery, part of a series of attacks that are cutting refining capacity and accelerating the stagnation of Russia’s economy. The US says they are ending a military assistance programme that is of particular benefit to Baltic nations, because of course they are.

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 →

Roundup: Carney invites a Christo-fascist to address Cabinet

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney held a presser on his way into the Cabinet Retreat Planning Forum (because corporate-speak), and said that he spoke with Trump on Monday but not to expect any “white smoke” on tariffs, even though the Clerk of the Privy Council is currently in Washington right now (because there is no deal to be had, and I wish he’d stop pretending there was). The thing is, there was no readout from his office about this call, which is really not good for transparency.

Carney also used the term “austerity” when talking about his plans to rein in spending, but he was also talking about “efficiencies,” which is a magical term that politicians like to claim they’ll find. How did that work out for Doug Ford? He won’t say just what spending he plans to rein in, of course, but the neat trick in politics is that everyone expects that spending on everyone else is going to be cut, but not the things that they rely on, because that’s necessary and everyone else is waste or fat, until suddenly their programmes are cut and they feel it intensely. Meanwhile, Carney remains incoherent about cutting spending in order to invest, which ignores the fact that austerity comes with its own costs, and they can be significant over time, and some of the damage it causes can take decades to recover from, if it can be recovered at all.

The more troubling aspect, however, was that Carney invited the head of the Christo-fascist Heritage Foundation, which authored Project 2025, to address Cabinet because he knows what Trump’s agenda is. Erm, excuse me? I mean, if they wanted to read the playbook, they could do that, but what utility does it serve to invite a far-right authoritarian to your meeting? So that he can tell you that you need to be more fascist to get on with Trump? Really? Talk about an utter lack of judgment.

I can't decide which is worse: either our government doesn't understand that these guys are Nazis, or they think it's a good idea to invite Nazis to their cabinet retreat.

— Kate Heartfield (@kateheartfield.com) 2025-09-03T23:12:27.419Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-09-02T14:08:03.486Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The attacks on Ukraine early Wednesday morning consisted of over more than 500 drones and dozens of missiles, targeting energy and transport infrastructure, demonstrating yet again that Russia has no interest in ending the war. Russia claims that they have captured half of the city of Kupiansk, which Ukraine denies.

Continue reading →