Tag Archives: Trade

QP: A specious connection between food prices and a budget

Posted on by

The prime minister was out at Fort York, having made his big defence spending announcement, while the opposition was having their first allotted Supply Day in the Commons, with a nonsense motion calling for a budget because of food price inflation, blaming it on government spending when that’s not even remotely correct. 

Even though Andrew Scheer was present, he didn’t lead off, leading that up to Michael Barrett, who signalled to their motion, and demanded a budget that will bring down grocery prices (How? Price controls?) François-Philippe Champagne assured him that there will be a budget in the fall, and said it was ironic that the Conservatives consistently voted against measures to help people. Barrett claimed that the savings from the tax cut would be “vapourised” by “inflationary spending,” and demanded a budget again. Champagne said that they will always side with Canadians, like they sided with children to give them a national school food programme, or seniors with dental care, or families with child care. John Brassard took over to give the same mendacious framing of food price inflation, to which Wayne Long praised their cutting the consumer carbon levy. Brassard repeated the line about tripling food price inflation, and Long praised the headline inflation number, the workforce participation number, and the triple-A credit rating. Luc Berthold cited the “food professor” to blame food price inflation on government spending in French, to which Champagne pointed out that the Conservatives voted against any measures to help Canadians. Berthold repeated the same falsehoods to demand a budget, and Champagne retorted that the responsible thing to do was to cut taxes which they did.

Once again confused about all these questions in QP about food prices.Eliminating the carbon tax was supposed to take care of that.

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-06-09T18:21:50.749Z

Christine Normandin worried that the bill on trade barriers would force a pipeline through Quebec, and demanded the bill be split apart. Chrystia Freeland said that this is a critical moment for the country, so everyone needs to work together to build one Canadian economy. Normandin called the bill a step backward for the environment and democracy, and this time, Steve MacKinnon said that this bill is a response to an economic crisis caused by the Americans. Patrick Bonin also worried about the declaratory powers in the legislation, and Dabrusin says the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is that the Liberals believe in protecting the environment. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Historical revisionism of federalism in the past decade

Posted on by

Last week had largely been spent trying to determine what the love-in with the premiers all means, so much so that Danielle Smith is losing her grip on reality as she insists that she’ll convince BC premier David Eby to let another pipeline cross his province (in spite of there being no actual proposals for one), while also claiming that Albertans have the “lowest living standards in the world,” and I just can’t even.

Meanwhile, I’m seeing comments from the pundit class that I’m just finding hard to square with reality. This one quote from the weekend dispatch of The Line is a good example of these pundit narratives that are completely ahistorical.

The Liberals under Justin Trudeau were so fantastically uninterested in working with the provinces, and so relentlessly hostile to basic economic growth, that having a prime minister simply acknowledge (as Carney has) that we are in an economic emergency seems like a massive step forward.

Trudeau did work with the provinces a lot in his first parliament—he had the first face-to-face meeting with them as a group in years after Harper refused to, and they got big things done—the agreement on carbon pricing, enhancing CPP, a suite of health measures that Jane Philpott negotiated with the provinces. None of this was inconsequential, but there was a very different group of premiers in 2015 than there was in 2024. And let’s also be frank—the premiers didn’t want to work together with the federal government anymore. They wanted to gang up on him for more money with no conditions (those health transfers that Philpott negotiated didn’t go toward fixing anything), while the pleading that everyone was making around finding exceptions to the carbon levy was very unproductive (not that Trudeau did any favours in his “pause” on the price for heating oil rather than a better system of rebates in areas where energy poverty was a problem). But seriously, the premiers get away with blaming Trudeau for all of the things that they refused to do that were their responsibility, and somehow he was the problem?

As well, the notion that Trudeau was hostile to basic economic growth is, frankly, unhinged. How many trade deals did he sign or push over the finish line? What was the whole attempt to stand-up a North American EV supply chain? What were the billions spent to keep the entire economy afloat during COVID? If you’re going to cite the capital gains changes as being “hostile,” then congratulations—you’re a gullible numpty who bought the lines of people who engage in tax arbitrage and want that sweet roll to continue. If you think environmental regulation was killing economic growth, just wait until you see what climate change is already doing to the economy and is going to get exponentially worse. Just because Trudeau didn’t bow to the tax-cut-and-deregulate crowd, it doesn’t mean he was hostile to economic growth. Yes, he and his government had problems. A lot of them. But let’s not make up things that are blatantly ahistorical or outright fictional just to help put a shine on Carney.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-06-07T21:10:14.180Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drone and missile attacks killed four people in Kharkiv on Saturday. Russian forces claim to have crossed into the Dnipropetrovsk region, while a row is now brewing over an agreement to exchange bodies of dead soldiers, which Ukraine says they are not delaying. Meanwhile, a drone attack on a Russian electronics factory has forced them to suspend production.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1931395337958084711

Continue reading →

Roundup: Back-channel tariff talks?

Posted on by

Ever since the latest round of steel and aluminium tariffs went into place, there have been questions as to when and how Canada will respond, and earlier in the week, prime minister Mark Carney counselled patience and that there were “intensive negotiations” happening, but retaliatory measures were also being prepared. We found out yesterday that Carney and Trump have been having back-channel conversations on the subject, so retaliation while this is happening may be counter-productive. But you also have industry worrying that the longer this goes without retaliation, the more they become vulnerable to other things like steel imports from other countries being diverted to Canada, which could make their situation even worse.

That being said, we may not be able to eliminate all tariffs, and some level could remain because Trump does love tariffs, and has a completely wrong-headed notion about them because of the people he has been surrounding himself with. Never mind that our auto sector can’t survive with tariffs, or that the Americans will simply pay through the nose for aluminium that they can’t smelt themselves.

Meanwhile, the Star has a really good five-point explainer about the counter-tariffs, and why the Conservatives’ claims that they were “secretly removed” is false, but rather a certain number of counter-tariffs were suspended for six months to give Canadian companies time to adjust supply chains, but there are still plenty of counter-tariffs in place.

Ukraine Dispatch

There was another missile and drone attack overnight which hit Kyiv, has killed at least four people.

Continue reading →

QP: Worrying about (below-target) inflation

Posted on by

With the (non) drama around the first “confidence vote” (which wasn’t really either) out of the way, MPs were back for Thursday QP, but this time most of the leaders were absent. While Andrew Scheer was present, it was Jasraj Hallan who led off, citing that the PBO was “concerned” about the size of the interest payments on the federal debt, and demanded to know what date the budget would be tabled on. François-Philippe Champagne thanked him for voting for the Ways and Means motion on the tax cut, and couldn’t wait for the Conservatives to support the main bill. Hallan demanded Champagne apologise for collecting the carbon levy (erm, which went back to people), railed about inflation, and demanded a budget. Champagne patted himself on the back for not only the tax cut, but the GST break on first-time house purchases. Leslyn Lewis read the same script demanding a budget with the same false threats about inflation, and Champagne enthused about all of the good things that were in the Estimates, such as dental care and child care. Lewis read the same concern from the PBO and accused the Liberals of breaking their promise to cap spending, to which Champagne proclaimed that they were proud to support people with their programmes. Chris Lewis read the script about counter-tariffs and demanded a budget, to which Dominic LeBlanc said that they are negotiating a new agreement with the Americans because the tariffs are unjustified and ridiculously punitive. Richard Martel read the French script about aluminium tariffs, and LeBlanc praised the aluminium workers, and he denounced the tariffs again, saying they will support workers.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and worried there was still no help for the aluminium industry, and demanded action. LeBlanc repeated his praise for the industry and that they are working to protect the workers. Normandin worried about forestry and aerospace also being targeted, and again demanded action. Mélanie Joly raised her meetings with the CEOs in the industry and insisted they are protecting the sector. Jean-Denis Garon took over to also demand support, along with a budget being tabled, and Champagne insisted they are fighting against tariffs and protecting industry while they build Canada.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The confidence vote that wasn’t

Posted on by

Debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech From the Throne was due to wrap up, meaning a final vote. Media outlets insisted that this would be the first major confidence vote of the new Parliament, and that if the Liberals lost it, we could go back to an election, and there was all this building drama because of how they lost the vote on the Conservatives’ amendment (to “urge” the government to table a spring budget). And my headache started.

The vote on the Address in Reply is not automatically a confidence vote. It is if the opposition amendments explicitly state that they have no confidence in the government, and sometimes that happens because this is the first opportunity to test the confidence of the Chamber, especially in a minority parliament or legislature, but again, that was not the case here. But along the way, the NDP decided that they were going to play tough and declare that they would vote against it for specious reasons (and because Don Davies is an idiot, and has a long track record of being an idiot and a blowhard), while the Government House Leader, Steve MacKinnon, told reporters that this would be a confidence vote. So, if the government says it’s a confidence vote, it’s a confidence vote, and it was likely intended to be something of a bit a put-up-or-shut-up dare, which can be risky in a minority parliament, but sometimes you also need to play hardball with the opposition. This was likely going to mean that the Bloc would either vote in support or abstain (because they did say they would give the government a year before they started to seriously oppose anything, given the Trump situation), but the government was never in any serious danger of falling. If, by some fluke, they did lose a vote they declared to be confidence, they could simply hold another vote and basically say “Did you mean it?” and chances are they would win that vote, and all would go back to normal.

And in the end, there wasn’t even a vote. News of Marc Garneau’s death reached the Chamber just before the vote was to be taken, and it seems like the appetite for drama was gone, and it passed on division, meaning that they agreed to disagree, that they were going to let it pass, but not bother with a recorded vote. And thus, the least exciting outcome happened.

I must advise the beings of Bluesky that, in a truly only-in-this-particular-Canadian-parliament twist, the much-anticipated will-they-or-won't-they-trigger-an-election over it motion on the Throne speech as amended — has been adopted on division.

— Kady O'Malley (@kadyo.bsky.social) 2025-06-04T22:25:39.121Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-06-04T22:02:26.904Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones struck an apartment building in Kharkiv, injuring at least seventeen. Russian forces have also pushed further into Sumy region. Here’s a look at how Operation Spiderweb was carried out.

Continue reading →

QP: Angry about the new tariffs

Posted on by

A hot Wednesday in the Nation’s Capital, and everyone was fired up from their caucus meetings in the morning. Mark Carney was present, as were the other leaders, and Andrew Scheer actually stood up to speak today, when he didn’t earlier in the week. With that in mind, Scheer led off by denouncing the new Trump tariffs, and said that other countries got them removed while Canada had them doubled (not really true), said that Carney couldn’t get a deal, and then went on a tangent about the counter-tariffs being “secretly” removed (not true), and then demanded a budget. Carney called the tariffs, illegal, unjustified and illogical, and said they did have retaliatory tariffs on over $90 billion of U.S. goods, and they are undertaking “intensive” negotiations and are preparing reprisals if they don’t succeed. Scheer then tried to tie this to the fact that the PM won’t approve a new pipeline, and said that consensus can’t happen because BC premier David Eby is a “radical,” and tried to needle the divisions in Cabinet on energy projects, before he demanded an approval for a pipeline “today” (never mind that there is no pipeline being proposed). Carney said that everyone is agreed to build projects of national importance, and consensus includes Indigenous people, which the Conservatives don’t agree with. Scheer retorted that if photo ops and phoney rhetoric got things done, Trudeau would still be prime minister. He then pivoted to food price inflation, to which Carney patted himself on the back for their tax cut. Dominique Vien took over, and she demanded the government respect their motion to table a spring budget. Carney said that the bill before the House would reduce taxes for 22 million Canadians. Vien also raised food price inflation, and railed about the Estimates bill, to which Carney said that these estimates included things like health transfers and pensions for seniors. Richard Martel took over, and he gave the French script about counter-tariffs, and Carney repeated that the U.S. tariffs were illegal and unjustified, and that they are in negotiations with the Americans.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he too was concerned about the doubled steel and aluminium tariffs. Carney said that they need to do several things at the same time—building a single economy, negotiating with the Americans, and that they were going to win, just like the Oilers. Blanchet tried again, and got the same response. Blanchet demanded support for the sector, and wanted support for a wage support bill (which would be unvoteable). Carney again said they were negotiating.

Carney says they will win with US negotiations, “Just like the Oilers.”Sorry to be That Guy, but you know the Oilers famously choke at the end, right? #QP

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-06-04T18:30:47.920Z

Continue reading →

Roundup: A lost vote for the sake of point-scoring

Posted on by

The opposition shenanigans manifested during one of the very first votes of the new Parliament, where the government was not able to defeat the Conservative amendment to the Address in Reply to the Speech From the Throne. Said amendment urged the government to table a spring budget, but it’s not binding, and it looks like Mark Carney and the rest of Cabinet will take it under advisement and leave it at that (because you can’t produce a budget within two weeks’ notice, and the Conservatives know that very well).

What gets me is that you have the Conservatives (and others) going “what does it say when the government loses their first vote?” when it says nothing at all. If anything, it says that in a minority parliament, the opposition parties will do everything they can to embarrass the government, just as they have in previous parliaments, and given the current configuration of parties, this is really just a continuation of the constant juvenile bullshit we’ve seen over and over again that resulted in a paralyzed House of Commons last fall. Nothing really changed, and we’re going to see more that very same thing because we have the same insistence on juvenile point-scoring from the opposition, and we have the same Liberal government that is both inept at communicating their way out of a wet paper bag, and who are tactically incompetent because they think that they will somehow come out looking sympathetic to the procedural warfare and gamesmanship when they absolutely won’t because legacy media will simply not actually call anyone’s bullshit, but just both-sides the whole thing, and the Liberals will always lose in that framing. And I suppose what it says about the government is that they haven’t learned a single gods damned lesson from their near-death experience, and Carney’s complete political inexperience isn’t doing them any favours here either.

Meanwhile, the government introduced their big omnibus border bill, and it has a lot of troubling elements, from lowering thresholds for electronic data collection by law enforcement that won’t always require a warrant, and gives Canada Post more authority to open mail they deem suspicious. It also changes particular thresholds for asylum claims, and gives the government powers to simply stop claims or immigration processes with no explanation or apparent avenues for appeal. There are some positives, such as more resources for financial crimes, but in the grand scheme of things, I’m not sure it balances the negatives. The government claims they found the right balance that respects Charter rights, but I am dubious, and I suspect that law enforcement convinced them that they need these rights-violating powers and used Trump’s threats as a justification to get what they want.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian rocket attack killed at least four and injured at least 25 in Sumy. The city of Sumy remains under threat as Russians advance in that region. Ukraine detonated explosives on the concrete piers supporting the bridge linking Russia to Crimea, forcing its closure.

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1929871991034568954

Continue reading →

QP: The difference between budgets and estimates

Posted on by

A Tuesday in June, and the prime minister was present today, as were the other leaders. Even though Andrew Scheer was present, but stayed seated, and left it up to Dan Albas to lead off, who crowed that the House voted last night to make the government table a spring budget (the motion doesn’t actually require, it merely “urges”) and went on to mischaracterise how the Budget and Estimates work, and gave the nonsense quote about how people need a budget before they spend, before demanding that the “minority” government table a budget immediately. Mark Carney praised the London Knights hockey team, and patted himself on the back for his successful meeting with the premiers. Albas listed supposed “facts,” and demanded to know when a spring budget would be tabled. Carney listed a bunch of other non sequiturs, also punctuated by “fact.” Kelly McCauley read another demand for the spring budget, and Carney noted that Canadians deserve the transfers in the Main Estimates. McCauley said those things would be in a budget, and again demanded one. Carney said that he knows the difference between the Main Estimates and the budget, unlike the members opposite, and there was an uproar. When things calmed down, Carney repeated the line and said that they know how to grow the economy without spending money. Joël Godin took over in French to read the same demand for a budget and falsely called the Estimates a “blank cheque.” (It has line items for departmental spending, for fuck sakes). Carney said in French they took note of the vote, but they stand with the premiers of Quebec to have one Canadian economy. Godin trotted out the nonsense line about people needing a budget before spending, and Carney said that they would be a budget, but in the meantime they would boost growth with a bill to build a strong economy.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and wondered about the potential project to create a pipeline to Hudson Bay. Carney said that they had plenty of projects around infrastructure and green energy. Blanchet wondered whether they were trying to find markets in Europe or refine heavy crude in western Canada. Carney said they hadn’t come to any decisions, but the projects need to have environmental standards and have a big impact. Blanchet demanded that the prime minister respect Quebec’s environmental agency. Carney said that they discussed the possibility with the premier, and that they need to have commitments around environmental standards.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No list of projects, unsurprisingly

Posted on by

In the wake of the First Ministers’ meeting in Saskatoon, there was no list of priority projects that they planned to fast-track, and a bunch of media and pundits seemed surprised by that even though it would likely have been an impossibility given the timeline. What we got instead was more of a process that they plan to use in order to designate these projects on an ongoing basis, which makes a lot more sense from a reality-based perspective. (Photo gallery here).

That didn’t stop the questions on pipelines, even though there are no actual projects being proposed by any proponent (and I have more on that in my column out later today). I do think it’s a problem that legacy media are focusing on pipelines as though they are the be-all-end-all of projects, particularly given the economics involved. They are not magical money trees. Building them will not “unlock” trillions of dollars in the oil sands, and frankly, at a time when the country is literally burning, you would think that we would have a bit more of a critical conversation around that, but no. Oh, and the fact that they are talking about “de-carbonized” oil and gas projects is…mostly fantasy. Pathways Alliance are grifters. It’s not going to capture and store carbon on an industrial scale, and not enough for you to ramp up production. This just seems completely ridiculous on its face, but Danielle Smith thinks she’s getting a win out of this, so I’m mostly just throwing up my hands.

As well, none of these “nation-building” projects involved things like, oh, funding university research networks so that we can not only take advantage of the intellectual resources in this country, but also take advantage of the ”brain drain” in the US as they dismantle their universities in an ideologically-driven crusade, and considering that the premiers were around the table, and this is their responsibility, it would have been great if they could have paid the slightest bit of attention to that, but nope. This country sometimes…

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3lqnyktksck2m

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-06-02T22:08:15.235Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia’s overnight attacks have killed one person in Kharkiv and injured several more in Chernihiv. As well, shelling in Kramatorsk killed at least five people. President Zelenskyy answered more questions on the Spiderweb operation, and confirmed that his was more than a year in planning. At the talks in Istanbul, there was only an agreement to swap dead and wounded prisoners, but little more.

Continue reading →

QP: Counter-tariff concern-trolling

Posted on by

The PM was away in Saskatoon, meeting with the premiers, while things got underway back in Ottawa. Even though Andrew Scheer was present, he didn’t lead off Question Period, and instead left that up to Kyle Seeback, and he worried that the prime minister ran on a platform of “elbows-up,” and promised to get $20 billion in retaliatory tariffs, but most of the counter-tariffs were “secretly” cancelled (not true), before he raised the prospect of higher steel and aluminium tariffs, and demanded to know how much the counter-tariffs would generate. François-Philippe Champagne promised to fight the unjust tariffs, and that they would build the Canada of tomorrow. Seeback complained that the Liberals don’t answer questions, and accused the prime minister of lying to steel workers. Mélanie Joly responded that she was in contact with industry leaders, and that they were in “solution mode” by promising to use Canadian steel and aluminium in major projects. Raquel Dancho took over and she too concern trolled about the dollar-for-dollar tariffs and demanded to know how much had been collected. Joly congratulated Dancho for being named her critic and said that no executive order has been signed yet. Dancho said that she could assume the figure was zero, and tried again while adding in the “punishing carbon tax” as a drain on business. Champagne insisted that they were defending workers and Canadian industry. Richard Martel took over in French to again demand to know how much in counter-tariffs have been collected, and Joly spoke about meeting with aluminium industry and union leaders over the weekend. Martel took some gratuitous swipes at Carney and said he talks out of both sides of his mouth, and Champagne insisted that they did not capitulate, and that they were standing up for industry and workers.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she claimed that the first ministers’ meeting was about forcing a “dirty oil pipeline” through Quebec. Joly pointed out the size of the Liberals’ Quebec caucus, and trotted out the lines about the standing up for industry workers. Normandin raised Carney’s meeting with oil and gas executives, and accused him of putting them first. Joly said that the job of the prime minister is to meet with everyone, and that right now they were focused on building, including high-speed rail. Mario Simard took over and repeated the same accusation, and Joly said that job creation was in the national interest. 

Continue reading →