Tag Archives: Trade

QP: Demanding a win from the Trump meeting

Posted on by

The PM was in town but readying himself for a meeting with Danielle Smith before he flew out to Washington, but only some of the other leaders were present for QP. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he recited a scary crime story before exhorting the government to pass their “jail not bail” bill. Sean Fraser said that they have made commitments to reforms to the system, and that they are willing to work across the aisle to advance sensible legislation and not cut-and-paste American legislation. Poilievre switched to English to recite another scary tale, decried so-called “Liberal bail,” and demanded the vote on their bill. Fraser reminded him that some of the laws he decries came in under Harper, when Poilievre was in his Cabinet. Poilievre returned to French to wonder if Carney was going to announce the elimination of tariffs with the U.S., and Dominic LeBlanc gave a general assurance of issues they will be discussing but no promises of announcements. Poilievre switched back to English, and repeated the same demand, and got the same response from LeBlanc. Poilievre was outraged that there was no deal, and decried all of the capitulations, and LeBlanc reminded him that we remain in the best position of any other country, and wondered if Poilievre would turn down an invitation to a working lunch if he was in government. Poilievre tried to poke holes in the assurance that we have the best deal, as though it wasn’t all relative. Mélanie Joly accused Poilievre of talking down workers and the economy, before she listed new job announcements.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she praised the visit to Washington before lamenting his past capitulations, and demanded some gains for Quebec. LeBlanc got back up praise the work they are doing to get a deal. Normandin again listed failures, and demanded the government let the promised aid for the forestry sector flow to companies. Joly said that different streams of funding “will be available,” but didn’t give an indication as to when. Xavier Barsalou-Duval worried about immigrant truck drives in Ontario who don’t have proper certification and demanded the government do something about it. Patty Hajdu read a statement about truckers advancing the economy, and that they have created a specialised inspection team to enforce the law rigorously, while working with provinces to fight against false classifications.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Telling on themselves about bail

Posted on by

After Question Period today, there will be a vote on the Conservatives’ latest Supply Day motion, which is for the House of Commons to pass their blatantly unconstitutional “jail not bail” bill at all stages. This is going to be an increasingly common tactic as they have loaded up the Order Paper with a number of these kinds of private members’ bills, and they are using the rhetoric that the government is somehow “obstructing” their legislation, even though most of those bills would ordinarily never see the light of day because there is a lottery system for private members’ legislation to come up for debate, with no guarantee of passage in either chamber (because the Senate can and will sit on private members’ bills long enough for them to die on the Order Paper if they’re particularly egregious). But most people don’t understand the legislative process, or that opposition MPs can’t just bring stuff up for debate at any point in time, so this is just more rage-baiting over through use of scary crime stories to make the point about how the Liberals are “soft on crime,” and so on. It would be great if legacy media could call out this bullshit, but they won’t.

At the same time, the Conservatives calling it “Liberal bail” is telling on themselves. The law of bail stems from the pre-Charter right to the presumption of innocence, which is a cornerstone of our entire legal system. The specific law of bail has been honed through decades of Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, and the last time the Liberal government made any major bail reform legislation, it was to codify that Supreme Court jurisprudence, and to actually increase the onus for cases of domestic violence. None of this made things easier for bail, but the Conservatives haven’t stopped demanding that legislation be repealed (and only once in a while will a Liberal minister or parliamentary secretary actually call that out). This is about undermining important Charter rights, but do the Conservatives care? Of course not. They want to look tough and decisive, no matter who gets hurt in the process.

Meanwhile, much to my surprise, Poilievre says he won’t support the (really bad) omnibus border bill, C-2, so long as it contains privacy-violating sections like enhanced lawful access, which is a surprise, because the Conservatives have been champions of it for years (much as the Liberals used to be opposed to it). So, the world really is upside down now. Unless this is some kind of tactic or ploy, which I also would not be surprised by, but at the moment it looks like they’re on a “the Liberals are the real threats to your freedom” kick, which to be fair, this legislation is not helping the Liberals’ case.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched their largest aerial assault against Lviv and surrounding regions early Sunday, killing at least five. Earlier in the weekend, Russia attacked a passenger train at a station in Sumy, killing one and injuring approximately thirty others.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An eight-day sitting?

Posted on by

I don’t follow provincial legislatures too much, but this headline caught my eye—that the Nova Scotia legislature had just wrapped up an eight-day sitting, which absolutely rankles me as someone who cares (perhaps a little too) deeply about parliamentary democracy. While on the one hand, it’s not uncommon for provincial legislatures to have shorter sessions that we see in Ottawa, and for them not to have the same kind of fixed schedule that we do, eight days is frankly insulting.

What is perhaps even worse from this story is the fact that the Houston government rammed through a bunch of omnibus legislation, when clearly, they had the time and the ability to actually debate legislation on their own. Even more problematic is the fact that these omnibus bills included poison pills to try and trap the opposition parties into supporting disparate things. The one example was protections for renters, which the NDP supported, being in the same bill that imposed heavy fines or jail time on protesters on Crown land, effectively criminalising certain kinds of dissent, which they could not support (especially as these protests involve protests on logging roads). I’m sure Tim Houston thought that this was clever, when it’s just abusive. This is not how the parliamentary process is supposed to work. This is certainly a problem in most Westminster legislatures, and there are now mechanisms in the federal Parliament that can break apart omnibus bills in certain circumstances, and perhaps the province needs to adopt some of these measures on their own because that should be out of bounds.

Part of what irritates me about this is that Houston is doing this while he’s trying to sell himself to Canadians as this reasonable, progressive conservative who’s not tied to the federal party, and that he’s this kind of anti-Poilievre figure. I’ve certainly heard from people who used to sit in that legislature that he has a reputation for bullying, but even beyond that, these kinds of tactics demonstrate a kind of contempt for elected office, and for elected officials to be doing their jobs, which includes scrutinizing legislation properly, and holding government to account. A rushed eight-day sitting where you ram through omnibus bills is clearly not how a legislature is supposed to operate, and the people in the province should be raising a bigger racket about this—especially in Nova Scotia, which was where Responsible Government was first achieved in the colonies.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia targeted Ukraine’s natural gas facilities in an early morning attack on Friday, with much of the targets to being facilities in Kharkiv. A Russian drone also killed a French photojournalist on the front lines in Eastern Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Streamlining defence procurement?

Posted on by

The government announced the creation of a new agency yesterday morning—the Defence Investment Agency, which has a dual purpose of streamlining defence procurement contracts by putting them into a single office to avoid duplicating approvals, but to also encourage domestic defence industrial capacity in order to ensure there is more domestic production rather than just being able to buy new kit faster. Part of this will involve working more closely with allies in the UK, Australia and France, among others, in order to shift more procurement dollars away from the Americans.

Some of this may be easier said than done, because they are folding in the same risk-averse bureaucrats into this agency, which means that they will still need to encourage culture change around these processes, and that could be a problem because many of those existing bureaucrats will have scars from botched procurements in the past, where things went awry because of haste, sole-sourcing, or other political machinations that were intended to maximise Canadian industrial benefits and turned into boondoggles. The general instinct in Canadian bureaucracy is that after every scandal, they put in all kinds of new rules and reporting structures to prevent it from happening again, but those new rules and structures keep piling on without any proper rationalization, and soon you have your civil servants spending all of their time doing compliance checks rather than their jobs, but funnily enough, this never seems to get the attention it deserves when we talk about reforming the civil service or when finding places where cuts can be made. And I fully expect that there is going to be an early scandal or two in this procurement body that will shape the future of how it operates.

Meanwhile, Carney hand-picked its CEO, and wouldn’t you know it, he slotted in a banker friend from Goldman Sachs and RBC to head it up. I’m sure that there will be plenty of justification about how this is supposed to get past the culture of risk-aversion or something, but I find there is a whiff of cronyism that is likely to get worse the closer we get to the eventual byelections for all of those soon-to-be retiring former Cabinet ministers that Carney is finding new diplomatic posts for. Things are getting awfully clubby in Carney’s bro-culture PMO, and this looks like a signal that there’s more of this to come.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-10-02T14:05:15.840Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine has brought home 185 service personnel and twenty civilians in the latest prisoner swap. President Zelenskyy is currently in Copenhagen to meet with European leaders.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1973658861148979359

Continue reading →

QP: Scary crime script day

Posted on by

Unusually for a Thursday, the PM was present, and maybe he would correct false accusations again? Maybe? Pierre Poilievre led off in French, reciting scary tales of an murder while on bail and a child who found a crack pipe, and blamed it on “Liberal laws.” Mark Carney offered sympathy for families, and said that “comprehensive” legislation was on the way. Poilievre switched to a English to only mention the murder, and told the government to “get out of the way” to pass their bill. Carney expounded on how the government’s consultations and said that they have evidence-based laws on the way, and not just cut-and-paste American laws. Poilievre accused him of “screaming” and “ranting and raving,” and again decried the bail system. Carney, more calmly, said that they have only been in government for six months, and that comprehensive was on the way. Poilievre insisted that there were “massacres” happening in the streets, and Carney repeated that they have comprehensive bail reform on the way in a few weeks. Poilievre ranted about me tales of victims of crime, and got the same answer again from Carney. Poilievre again spouted falsehoods about past laws, and demanded the government set-aside partisanship to pass their own bill at all stages. Carney said that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms won’t just “get out of the way” like the Conservatives want, and invited the Conservatives to support their incoming legislation. 

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and accused the government of letting the postal strike happen. Carney said that Canada Post is no longer viable and that they need reforms, which is why they need to implemented the policies from the industrial report. Normandin said the government was absent on reforms for the years, and allowed things to get to this point. Carney again raised that report as a path forward and said that they need to come to an agreement. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau read a script that said the same thing, and Carney repeated that they need a real solution.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Forcing a pipeline project

Posted on by

Believing herself clever, Alberta premier Danielle Smith is trying to lay a trap for prime minister Mark Carney, but it’s a really obvious trap and Admiral Ackbar can see it from a mile off. Because she is apparently now a socialist, Smith has decided that the provincial government will take the lead on proposing a pipeline to the northern coast of BC, with the “advice” of three pipeline companies, but none of them will actually be the proponent as this goes to the Major Projects Office. Smith claims that she is trying to get around the “chicken and egg” problem of not having any interested proponents in such a pipeline, and hopes that she can get it off the ground so that a private company will take it over, but remember that it’s not 2014, and there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of market demand. (Oh, and she wants to use digital asbestos to help map the route, which is even more hilariously sad).

This is very much a dare to everyone to oppose her. BC premier David Eby has called this out as a stunt because it’s not a real project, with no real proponent, and no buyers lining up for any of the product. The Indigenous rights and title-holders in the area are not interested in the project, and are opposed to a bitumen pipeline going through their territory and off their coast, because this would also require lifting the tanker ban because Smith wants to ship bitumen through it, which is a “persistent” product unlike LNG. Carney has previously said that if the province and First Nations are opposed to the project, it won’t go ahead, but he has also given himself the power to override pretty much any objection, or the tanker ban, or any of it, if he really wants to. But a refusal is largely what Smith is counting on, so that she can once again play the victim, and blame the federal government for a lack of market interest.

In a sense, the province wasting millions of dollars on this for the sake of grievance theatre is not new. Jason Kenney sunk $1.3 billion into the dead Keystone XL project in an attempt to revive American interest in it, even going so far as to proposed to fund its construction if the proponent wouldn’t to try and challenge the Biden veto. This feels like more of the same, where she is sinking money she doesn’t have into a losing prospect in an empty gesture in order to secure her political future by playacting as the great defender of Alberta and its ossifying industry. But there are going to be epic tantrums, and she’s going to try and use the threat of separatism to try and get her way (because she thinks it worked for Quebec and doesn’t understand how much it devastated the economy in that province), and we’ll see if Carney is actually prepared to handle it, because so far, he’s telling a lot of people what they want to hear, and those messages are starting to collide.

Ukraine Dispatch

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant is now going the longest it’s been without external power for cooling reactors, increasing concern. This after Russia also attacked the area near Chornobyl, which also briefly cut its external power supply.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another politicized terror listing

Posted on by

The federal government has listed the Bishnoi gang, which largely operates out of India, as a terrorist entity, saying that they engage in “murder, shootings and arson, and generates terror through extortion and intimidation.” The Conservatives blame them for the rash of extortion crimes, primarily in the lower mainland in BC, and the BC premier has called for this designation. The problem? Not only are we conflating criminal organisations with terrorism, which gets messy on a number of fronts, but this is another example of process that should be apolitical and technocratic being politicised, and we are now getting into territory where groups are being listed after a vote in the House of Commons, which is Very Bad.

Here’s Jessica Davis on why this is a problem.

Back in the day, when I worked on listings, they were a largely technocratic process. I won't say there was a solid methodology for choosing which groups would get listed, but it was a bureaucratic one, with departments and agencies contributing.

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-09-29T13:46:59.828Z

Increasingly, we've seen groups listed after votes in the House of Commons, or campaigns to have them listed, or at the behest of our (sometimes) allies like the US.

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-09-29T13:46:59.829Z

The listings process itself isn't particularly rigorous. A single incident can result in a group getting listed. And there is no real mechanism for challenging listings. (Yes: processes exist. In practice, it would require getting a lawyer to argue the case of a terrorist entity, likely pro bono).

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-09-29T13:46:59.830Z

We are overdue for listings reform. We're trying to do far too much with it. Why not create a separate criminal listings regime? Having everything lumped together as terrorist dilutes the analytic power that comes from sensical categorization, and limits our ability to identify finance mechanisms.

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-09-29T13:46:59.831Z

Increasingly, some of our listings are also not lawful. Look at the listing for the IRGC QF, and more recently the IRGC. There's a clear carve-out that should prevent the listings of state militaries. But we don't seem to care about the lawfulness of this process anymore.

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-09-29T13:46:59.832Z

Overall, this process is increasingly meaningless: governments press the listings button (not unlike sanctions) and then do very little to actually counter terrorism or tackle hard problems like RCMP reform that could actually result in real improvements in Canadian safety and security.

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-09-29T13:46:59.833Z

The only way a government will be incentivized to change is to have this process challenged in court, which could actually be both really bad for Canada (undermine a huge part of our sanctions regime and throw our CTF system into turmoil), but could strengthen rule of law in Canada longer term.

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-09-29T13:46:59.834Z

Or, you know, the Carney government could just do the right thing and fix the system itself and toughen the process so it can't be politicized. Honestly, we're a stone's throw away from listing ANTIFA as a terrorist entity if the US asks. I'm sure it's fine.

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-09-29T13:46:59.835Z

The added issue here is that the RCMP already don’t have enough resources or capacity to enforce existing terrorist designations, let along the mounting sanctions, so these declarations are rapidly becoming symbolic, and that’s a very bad thing. This is one more reason why we need wholesale reform of the RCMP and most especially its federal policing responsibilities (and by wholesale reform, I generally mean disband it and stand up a new federal policing agency), but ultimately, this situation is just exacerbated by these political listings, which are about to even more problematic the more the Trump administration starts making demands, like they did with Mexican cartels.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims that they have taken control of two villages in the Donetsk region, as Ukraine is pushing back on other fronts in the same region. The nuclear plant in Zaporizhzhia has been without external power needed to cool its reactors for six days. Neighbouring Moldova saw the pro-EU party win the election in spite of a spate of Russian interference.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The supposed fiscal precipice

Posted on by

My sinking feeling about the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer continues to plummet, not only in response to last week’s committee appearance where he not only used a bunch of over-the-top adjectives to describe his read of the fiscal situation, but also telegraphed that he has taken all of the wrong lessons from his predecessor and that he intends to make himself a media darling, in defiance of what his role is actually supposed to be according to his legislated mandate:

“If the government wants to go 12 months without producing a budget, as a citizen I would feel a little bit uncomfortable. But as somebody who works in the Parliamentary Budget Office, I’d say, ‘That’s great for us. Because we will occupy all the space that they decide to give up.’”

He was back on TV this weekend, and saying a bunch of alarmist things about how we’re on a “precipice” and so on, which…is not what his office was saying just a few months ago. If anything, this is the kind of alarmism that we’re used to hearing from the “it’s 1995 and will always be 1995” crowd, where any budget deficits are treated as some kind of national catastrophe, and that we’re sitting on a “debt bomb,” but we’re not. People are actively forgetting the measures taken to save the economy during the height of COVID, pretending that it didn’t happen, and now they’re downplaying just what exactly the effect that Trump’s tariffs are having on the economy—or the fact that we have managed to avoid a recession so far (not that it has stopped Poilievre from insisting that our economy is “collapsing.”)

Meanwhile, we’re once again getting the litany of demands from business groups about the budget, and they’re entirely of the “cut taxes and deregulate” variety, because nobody has learned a single lesson about how trickle-down doesn’t work, and that the scars from the last round of government austerity have not healed. And from the looks of it, this PBO is not only trying to become a media darling, but he’s basically rooting his analysis/opinion in these very same frameworks, which I suspect is going to really start to skew just what his analysis is and what it’s saying, which is going to do a real disservice to the job that he’s supposed to be doing.

Ukraine Dispatch

There was another major attack on Kyiv early morning Sunday, with 595 drones and 48 missiles, which killed four people, including a child.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giving credence to Poilievre’s trolling

Posted on by

In spite of it being an exhaustingly packed news week, The Canadian Press took time out to get some reaction to Pierre Poilievre’s trolling tweets about prime minister Mark Carney’s many international trips of late. Yes, it’s summit season right now and there is a lot more travel coming up, but he has made a number of trips since he was appointed PM, and we have to ensure that it’s not “excessive” or something. Never mind that we’re in a moment of global crisis as the United States has turned into an authoritarian regime that is upending the post-war international order and tacitly siding with other authoritarian regimes, and this requires a global realignment of liberal democracies, but is he travelling too much? Guys.

The one thing that irked me the most in the story was the point about Carney having only attended three Question Periods since Parliament resumed last week, and only nine in the four-week spring session. There was no context to this, which is that it means once or twice per week, which is perfectly normal for any sitting prime minister. Once or twice a week was all Stephen Harper could deign to attend. Justin Trudeau started out with three a week, but then fell back to two on most weeks, but sometimes was just once. The difference of course was that Trudeau made it his practice to answer every question on Wednesdays, which no previous PM had done, and which Carney has not kept up (possibly because he may not have stamina enough to pat himself on the back for a full forty-five minute). In other words, Carney’s QP attendance is fully within the norm, and you would think that the national wire service could point this out, but that might mean that they would have to have someone with enough institutional knowledge and memory to know this, but pretty much every bureau on the Hill no longer has either. (As a reminder, I am the only journalist who goes to QP every day, because someone has to).

This being said, I think we need to once again have a discussion about the kind of insular nativism that Poilievre is stoking by making it sound like foreign travel by the prime minister is somehow illegitimate, or that every trip must come with some kind of signed agreement (even though we may already have signed agreements with countries like Mexico, and forging stronger ties is important beyond just a signed piece of paper). Trying to create this false expectation that the PM can’t go anywhere so long as there is “crime and chaos” at home is juvenile and frankly troubling, because it means that they have absolutely no idea how the real world works, and are playing with fire, especially if they ever want to form government one day.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-09-26T13:24:02.797Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The front line in the conflict has grown to nearly 1250 km in length, as Russian forces have shifted tactics to try and make breakthroughs. That said, both president Zelenskyy and his top military commander say that Russia’s 2025 offensive has failed to meet their goals, and suffered heavy losses in the process. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s assessment of the drone incursions into NATO airspace is that Russia is trying to stoke fatigue in Ukraine’s allies in the hopes of drawing down military support.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The weird fixation on east coast LNG

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

Ukraine Dispatch

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

Continue reading →