Tag Archives: Trade

Roundup: Lessons learned for the NDP?

Posted on by

NDP interim leader Don Davies have his year-ender to The Canadian Press, talking about getting out to listen to Canadians, and reflect on the party’s devastating loss, and joking that the best part about being burnt to the ground is the ability to rebuild the foundation. And he’s not entirely wrong there, so long as he’s taking the right lessons. But in the same interview, he’s waxing poetic about pharamacare without actually seeming to understand what the issues are (i.e. the provinces), and totally ignoring the work that Trudeau did into building up the programme from the ground up (such as establishing the Canadian Drug Agency) so that provinces could sign on once they were ready, as PEI did (and NDP provinces refused to, particularly BC and John Horgan most especially).

On the same day, the NDP’s Renew and Renewal Report from the last campaign was also released, and it has a few interesting things to say. Once you get past the usual back-patting about how hard everyone worked and how it didn’t feel like it was doomed, and how the leader’s campaign went well, you start getting into some of the structural problems within the party that really do need addressing. Things like the sense that there is an allergy to fundraising in the party, and that nobody wants to actually do it, which doesn’t really help anyone (but also perpetuates the weirdness that bequests from the estates of dead people are one of the party’s top fundraising sources). And there was also a lot in there about the party not properly developing riding associations, and relying too heavily on the central party at the expense of those associations. And to be frank, this should have been a lesson the party internalized after they got nearly entirely wiped out from Quebec in 2015, because they didn’t build up their riding associations during the “Orange Wave,” but assumed that somehow those MPs would have incumbency advantage forever when they didn’t really establish grassroots after all of those accidental victories.

The other thing that is worth noting is that once again, it draws American examples for inspiration, and again it’s Zohran Mamdani. I suspect the reason for this is that too many people in the NDP’s brain trust are terminally online, and as with so many things, the American discourse pervades and they simply think that it can apply to Canada if you divide it by ten, even though we are very separate countries and that we are not just a maple cupcake version of Americana. I’m also going to note that the report said pretty much nothing about the NDP constantly trying to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction (particularly with their “bold progressive ideas”), because again, their American analogues don’t translate to Canada in the same way, but this was apparently an area of introspection they didn’t want to engage in. Alas.

This reminds me of something I've been wondering about. Given the various examples of the NDP being the government or official opposition at the provincial level, I'm not sure why federal New Democrats so often — or so recently? — look to the U.S. for inspiration.

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-12-19T21:14:07.891Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-19T14:24:03.406Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched another missile attack on Odesa, killing seven and wounding at least 15 late Friday. There was an exchange of bodies by both governments—1003 dead Ukrainian servicemen for the bodies of 26 Russians. Ukraine and Poland are working out a cooperation agreement around drones.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Shrugging off the trade irritant list

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney made remarks on the trade situation with the US yesterday, saying that the timelines being what they are, hope for any sectoral tariff deals will likely be rolled into the broader New NAFTA review taking place next year, in spite of the fact that we had apparently been close to a deal before they got blown up by the Reagan ads (though one should contend that it is more than likely that if it wasn’t the ads, something else would have been used as justification to call off the talks, because this is Trump exercising the so-called “art of the deal.”)

Carney was somewhat dismissive of the capitulation list that the US Trade Representative has laid out, and insisted that this was really nothing, that there are dozens of irritants on all sides, but made the promise again to protect Supply Management, because reasons. This being said, there has been commentary that within the existing market cap there could be better efforts for US dairy access, because of how the supply management system works in that only certain producers are allowed to hold the quotas for imports, and if they want to make it difficult, then the market cap doesn’t get reached. This has long been a complaint for Europe, because frankly, the Canadian system is designed with fuckery in mind. Fixing that might help alleviate some of the complaints, but it would take political will to actually do that (though I’m not sure just what American dairy we would be so eager to import, given that their cheese is nothing special compared to Europe or the UK).

Nevertheless, I am most especially worried about the Online Streaming Act and Online News Act complaints from the Americans, and that Carney would be tempted to dump those as capitulation for the sake of “continuing negotiations” like he did with the Digital Services Tax. The problem here is that Trump is going to bat for the tech broligarchy because they have pledged their fealty to him and offered him up large bribes, so he is bullying other countries on their behalf because they don’t want to be regulated. The fact that these specific complaints continue to be treated as trade irritants and not just tech bros being whinging babies is a problem, and will continue to be a problem so long as they remain his loyal backers.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian shelling near Odesa has killed one person, and hit power systems. This comes after an attack on power systems in five regions the night before. European countries have agreed on another €90 billion loan for Ukraine, putting off the question of frozen Russian assets once again. Here is a look at Russia’s hybrid warfare sabotage operations across Europe, designed to distract and overwhelm those country’s resources.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More bespoke agreements that undermine certainty

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney is set to sign an agreement with Doug Ford about “reducing the regulatory burden” for major projects in the province, again with the “one project, one review” line (which I have reservations about as I mentioned yesterday). Ford is keen to use this to develop the “Ring of Fire” region, in spite of the fact that a) there are much more accessible critical mineral projects that could be more easily developed, and b) they have yet to get most of the First Nations in the region to agree, mostly because they are looking for revenue-sharing agreements because they have been burned by proponents who promised them all kinds of things for previous developments and didn’t live up to their agreements. Funny that.

As Andrew Leach points out, this pattern of bespoke deals with provinces is going to wind up being a bigger problem than it winds up solving because there won’t be consistent rules across the country, and inconsistent rules and malleable agreements mean regulatory uncertainty, particularly because they are likely to change further as governments change on either level of government. Letting Alberta undermine federal standards as part of the MOU was a prime example of just that (not that Alberta plans to live up to their end of the agreement).

Meanwhile, here’s a callout about the things the oil and gas industry likes to promise before reneging because it will cost them too much money, such as with the methane regulations that were announced yesterday. Funny that.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-17T14:25:03.817Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia has attacked Zaporizhzhia, injuring at least 26 people. Ukraine reports that they control over 90 percent of Kupiansk, which Russia claimed to have conquered weeks ago. President Zelenskyy says that any territorial concessions would need to be put to a referendum (which would fail).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Methane regulations, and Alberta’s exceptions

Posted on by

There were some movements on the environment front today, as Mark Carney admitted to a Radio-Canada year-end interview that we’re not on track for either our 2030 or 2035 emissions targets (we knew 2030), but tried to make the case that they need to find climate solutions in the current economic climate, which seems to go against what they’re actually doing, by eliminating the consumer carbon levy, weakening or outright undermining the industrial carbon price, and weakening emissions to make it easier for the oil and gas sector to produce and export more, which isn’t going to bring in billions because there is a supply glut on the market that will keep depressing prices. Meanwhile, the costs of climate change continue to increase, and will get even more expensive the longer we delay action.

With this in mind, Julie Dabrusin announced new methane regulations with the aim to reduce them by 75 percent over 2014 levels by 2035, which is great—except if you’re Alberta. You see, part of the MOU with Alberta means that the methane regulations that Carney and Dabrusin keep patting themselves on the back for don’t have to reach their targets until 2040, which means weaker regulations and longer timelines so that they can pollute more for longer because the industry whinged and cried that it wasn’t fair they had to spend more money.

Meanwhile, the federal government has signed a “one project, one review” agreement with New Brunswick, which sounds fine in theory, but the thing that I keep getting hung up on in competencies. Everyone keeps saying they don’t need two reviews because it’s “duplication,” but each level is assessing different things, because each of them has specific competencies, such as species at risk (provincial), fish habitats or migratory birds (federal), site contamination (provincial—unless it crosses a border), and so on. And there were already provisions for joint review panels, so again, I’m not sure what this is all about other than reducing the actual oversight because it would seem to be ensuring that less rigorous assessments are done than with a joint review panel, particularly if the provincial assessors are supposed to be assessing federal areas of responsibility, which they may not have the expertise in.

Ukraine Dispatch

Europe has launched an international commission for war damages in the invasion of Ukraine. The Kremlin says a proposed Christmas ceasefire depends on the status of peace talks (which essentially means it’s not going to happen).

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/2000830874183712972

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Speaker hypothetical

Posted on by

It looks like NDP interim leader Don Davies may have been done dirty by CTV News over the weekend as their headline suggested that his “party ‘open’ to Speaker of the House role in exchange for resources.” While the text of the story presents this as a proposal that no one has actually discussed, the fact that this is the headline from an interview on CTV Question Period makes it sound like this was somehow being floated. It was not.

Instead, in the interview, he was asked about his scenario as a hypothetical for him to weigh in on, given that it could give the Liberals one more vote in order to be an effective majority, and he said he’d be open to it, as the discussion around official party status was now closed (which was not what he was telling the Star a week ago, but perhaps those illusions have since been shattered) but he’s still trying to get additional resources, never mind that it’s not like his party needs them for caucus management or committee research or anything like that.

This is an object lesson in why politicians don’t like to answer hypothetical questions—because they get blown up like this, and to be frank, it feels like that kind of question is borderline, if not outright, irresponsible. And sure, Davies could have simply said “I’m not going to answer hypotheticals like that,” and probably will going forward, but asking these kinds of hypotheticals also doesn’t get you very useful answers in journalism either, and so you’ve built an entire story around this this hypothetical scenario that is outright delusional. Nobody came out ahead here, especially the readers, so I fail to see the point.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-12T23:56:01.838Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Odesa suffered further attacks on Saturday, leading to a major blackout.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ignoring the true meaning of the Statute of Westminster

Posted on by

Yesterday was the Anniversary of the Statute of Westminster (1931), which is one of the most pivotal moments in our evolution as a sovereign country, but it rarely gets much mention. When I was in junior high, I remember them talking about how this ensured that Canada could control its own foreign policy, but they never said why. And it turns out that no official account or even the Government of Canada’s web page gave the reason either. The reason is that this was the creation of the Canadian Crown as a separate and distinct legal entity from the Crown of the UK, which mean that we could control our own foreign policy, and were seen as an equal to the UK and not a subordinate. But absolutely nobody mentions the Crown of Canada as the reason. Nobody.

The government's page undersells the importance of this date, because today is the anniversary of the creation of the Crown of Canada as a separate and distinct entity from the UK crown. That's why we gained control over our foreign affairs and "our own voice" on the world stage.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-11T14:17:20.569Z

The Governor General did not put out a release about the day or its importance to the Canadian Crown. Mark Carney did not put out a release about the day at all. Pierre Poilievre did, but not only did he not mention the Canadian Crown, but he talked up conservative figures from the era of history to try and distract from the fact that Mackenzie King was prime minister at the time, which was frankly sad and a little bit pathetic. Nobody else put out a release, and absolutely nobody mentioned the anniversary of the Canadian Crown.

Nothing about the Crown of Canada.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-11T21:53:33.606Z

The creation of the Canadian Crown is one of the most pivotal moments in our history, and it goes completely unremarked because the department of Canadian Heritage is full of republicans, and too many members of civil society are quietly embarrassed by our status as a constitutional monarchy, as though it’s still colonial or “not grown up” when it’s not that at all. The separate Canadian Crown means we are grown up, that we control our own Crown and destiny. And if you don’t want to time-share the monarch with the UK and the other Realms, well, we can change that at any point as well (with the unanimous consent of Parliament and the provinces), and I for one would not be averse to making Princess Anne the full-time Queen of Canada, as she is not only the best royal, but her grandchildren are already Canadian, so that helps with the succession issues. Suffice to say, we have to stop effacing the fact that the Canadian Crown is the central reason why we gained full independence then.

Another floor-crossing

After both Houses of Parliament rose for the winter break, and just before the Liberals had their Christmas party, Conservative MP Michael Ma crossed the floor to join the Liberal ranks. He’s from Markham—Unionville, which is John McCallum’s old riding, so it’s flipped back-and-forth between the Liberals and Conservatives, and Ma has been almost anonymous in the House of Commons, pretty much never put up in QP to read a script for the sake of clips, so he has no profile in the party. His statement talked about “unity and decisive action” for Canadians, which could translate to the fact that he (and possibly his constituents) is tired of the petty little games that Poilievre and his caucus spend all of their time doing.

It also puts the Liberals one seat away from a workable majority, and the House Leader, Steve MacKinnon, hinted that there are more conversations ongoing with Conservatives, and according to the journalists and pundits on the political talk shows, Ma’s name has never been bandied about as a possibility, so this was a complete surprise. But it will also serve to shut Don Davies up if they do get that one more MP, because Davies will have no leverage to try and blackmail Carney with. So, I guess we’ll see what happens by the time Parliament returns.

Well. That happened.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-11T23:22:51.428Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian commanders claim to have taken Siversk in the east, but Ukraine denies this. Here is an analysis of how the potential fall of Pokrovsk won’t collapse Ukraine’s front lines. In the back-and-forth on “peace” plans, the US wants to turn ceded lands in the Donbas into a “free economic zone,” and no, I don’t get it either.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to jam the Liberals on the MOU

Posted on by

Because Pierre Poilievre thinks he’s a tactical genius, he has announced that next week’s Conservative Supply Day motion will be about the MOU with Alberta, and forcing a vote on the language about a pipeline to the Pacific, in defiance of the tanker ban.

It’s a transparent attempt to try and jam the Liberals, at least rhetorically, into supporting the motion in order to show support for the MOU, after which Poilievre can keep saying “You supported it!” and “Give me the date when construction starts,” as though there’s a proponent, a project and a route already lined up (to say nothing about the long-term contracts about who is going to buy the product once it’s built, because yes, that does matter). The thing is, these kinds of motions are non-binding, and really means nothing in the end. So if a number of Liberals vote against it, it doesn’t actually mean anything, other than the rhetorical notion that lo, they are not fully in lock-step on something, which actually sets them apart from pretty much every other party where uniformity and loyalty to the leader and all of his positions are constantly being enforced in one way or another. Maybe he will tolerate differences of opinion—or maybe he’ll crack the whip. We’ll see when Tuesday gets here.

Ukraine Dispatch

The International Atomic Agency says the protective shield around Chornobyl has been damaged by Russian strikes.

Continue reading →

QP: Swipes at Marc Miller

Posted on by

The PM was present today, as were the other leaders, and it remained to be seen what Carney would be grilled on. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, where he immediately took aim at Marc Miller being appointed to cabinet, blamed him for “ruining” the immigration system and increasing the cost of living (huh?) and then took aim at comments he’d made about being tired of the decline of the French language, while Poilievre claimed he wanted to defend it. (That would be news to much of Poilievre’s base). Mark Carney stood up to declare that the government has immigration “under control,” and that the number of asylum seekers have dropped by one third, and that they will defend the French language with the greatest investments in the cultural sector. Poilievre needled on Miller’s statement about being tired of the debate over the decline of French, and he wondered why Miller got appointed. Carney said that he was for his new minister and against Poilievre being against their investments in language and culture. Poilievre then switched to English to raise the lack of consultations with First Nations about the “promised” pipeline to the Pacific, and that the Assembly of First Nations condemned his plan, and demanded that Carney make it clear to them that they will build the pipeline and do the “consultations to make it happen” (without actually apparently getting their consent). Carney said that Hansard showed Poilievre wanted to ram a pipeline through while the government would consult to get free, prior and informed consent with First Nations, and work with the province of BC, because they know how to consult and respect. Poilievre took another swipe at Miller, and quoted Miller taking a few shots about the lack of consultations, and wondered why Carney didn’t start consultations eight months ago. Carney said that there needs to be a project and a proponent, and in order to do that, they needed to create the conditions to do so, which they have now done. Poilievre switched to the PBO’s report on housing, declaring it a “broken promise” go get housing built, and that it showed they would only get one percent of their promised houses built. Carney responded with a swipe that as a life-long MP, he’d never built anything, and then pointed out that Poilievre didn’t actually read the report, and listed the housing numbers contained therein. Poilievre hit back that Carney created the housing crisis in the UK after being governor of Bank of England (huh?), and insisted that he wouldn’t fulfil the promised housing, and pointed to the modular partial house that was used for a photo op and then dismantled. Carney pointed out that house was sent to Nunavut, and that it’s a place where people live and not just fly there for a photo op without meeting with the premier.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and worried about BC’s rights around the possible pipeline. Carney insisted that they will work with the province and that everything will be done in cooperation. Blanchet argued that provinces need to be respected, and decried this particular “contract.” Carney insisted that this wasn’t a contract, but a memorandum of understanding that lays out a pathway in conjunction with the province and First Nations. Blanchet insisted that it was a contract, and worried about the tanker ban, and that all parties should sign it with free, prior and informed consent. Carney again insisted that it was an MOU that obligates Alberta to make environmental investments.

Carney then got up and left, to much Conservative consternation and chanting, and the Speaker had to deliver another warning.

Continue reading →

QP: Promises to steel workers

Posted on by

The PM was in town, but not in QP as he prepared for his Cabinet shuffle to replace Steven Guilbeault. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, where he raised a report on the increase in food insecurity in Quebec, and he blamed the government for forcing them to pay more in taxes and inflation (which is contradictory because most taxes are disinflationary). Anna Gainey praised the government’s investments in things like the school food programme, their income tax cut, and investments in affordable housing. Poilievre claimed they voted against measures that feed bureaucracy instead of families and children, and claimed tried to draw a connection between the increase in children at food banks since with the creation of the school food programme, and make the false connection between government spending and food price inflation. Steve MacKinnon raised the child care benefit and automatic tax filing to ensure more people get benefits as more help for those facing food insecurity, which the Conservatives voted against. Poilievre switched to English to raise that Algoma Steel in Sault Ste Marie was laying off a thousand workers, and said that the prime minister failed to live up to his promises to protect their jobs, and said it was made worse by the fact that the government was raising the industrial carbon price. Mélanie Joly said that their thoughts were with the workers, and that they were in contact with Algoma, and that they have every confidence in those workers and they would support them while they developed new products for new markets. Poilievre said that Liberal thoughts wouldn’t put food on their tables, then turned to the another report on food insecurity, this time in Ontario, but again tied food bank use to industrial carbon prices (which, again, is bullshit). Patty Hajdu decried that the Conservatives have been fighting supports for people, and noted that they voted against the expansion of EI for workers like those from Algoma. Poilievre again blamed the industrial carbon price on food inflation, and François-Philippe Champagne touted their tax cuts, and proclaimed that the government was there for workers and families while Conservatives voted against them. Poilievre then pivoted to the latest Missing Middle Initiative report on housing starts being down, but blamed it again on the industrial carbon price, while somehow trying to tie this to Brookfield tax havens in Bermuda. Gregor Robertson retorted that if they cared about affordable housing, they would have supported the measures in the budget. 

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and raised Steven Guilbeault’s remarks in the media on the weekend, and wanted the government to admit they were abandoning the fight against climate change. MacKinnon praised the “clear commitments” in the MOU with Alberta, which was something to see with a straight face. Normandin wondered, rhetorically, why more Liberals didn’t follow Guilbeault’s lead. MacKinnon again praised the MOU and said that BC was the big winner with major projects. Mario Simard gave his own condemnation, and Mélanie Joly defended the agreement as energy sovereignty. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: The MOU and a resignation

Posted on by

Prime Minister Mark Carney and Danielle Smith signed that MOU which will set up the conditions for Alberta to set up a process to build a bitumen pipeline to the coast where the tanker ban would be eviscerated, while also giving them a bunch of exemptions to other emissions reductions regulations, and the promise on Alberta’s part is to reduce emission intensity—meaning as they produce more, emissions are still increasing, just by a smaller amount in theory, though I certainly believe that intensity reductions in the oilsands flatlined a while ago. It also means that this relies even more on Pathways, which is expensive and is going to keep demanding money, and I have no confidence that Carney’s government will resist the calls to subsidise it directly. David Eby went on to refer to this future pipeline as an “energy vampire,” while coastal First Nations continue to insist it’ll never happen. And then Steven Guilbeault resigned from Cabinet, because this goes against everything he has been fighting for his entire life, and his time in office, while other MPs in his caucus are increasingly angry about how they are being treated over this issue.

https://bsky.app/profile/supriya.bsky.social/post/3m6ngogmhqs2x

In the midst of this, Andrew Leach has been reminding us about the real history of Northern Gateway, not the sanitized and revisionist version that the Conservatives have been promoting, and the fact that their constant demands that the government “get out of the way” didn’t seem to apply to the entirety of the Harper government, as the project started under the Martin government, and ultimately failed at the end of Harper’s tenure, when his government couldn’t even be arsed to follow their own process for Indigenous consultation.

In pundit reaction, Jason Markusoff notes that this agreement will do little to mollify the separatists in Danielle Smith’s base when her leadership review comes up. Andrew Coyne sees this as a shift in Canadian politics back toward building things, and capturing the political centre. Stephen Maher wonders just how politically canny Carney really is, considering the traps for himself that this agreement sets.

No it fucking won't. They've been gorging themselves on grievance porn for decades now. Nothing any government does is going to calm them.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-28T03:30:10.597Z

Danielle Smith Celebrates Her Glorious Pipeline Victoryyoutu.be/GVk54cla9zw

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2025-11-27T21:13:16.340Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Putin claims that Russian forces have surrounded Pokrovsk, while Ukraine contends that the fighting continues in the city centre, and that they are pushing back hard. He also says it’s no use signing an agreement with “illegitimate” Ukrainian leadership (because he really wants peace, you guys).

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1994013852753702989

Continue reading →