Roundup: Immediately approve what pipeline?

Posted on by
Reply

In the wake of the Venezuela happenings, Pierre Poilievre has decided to do what Pierre Poilievre does best, which is come up with a half-baked pronouncement and make it confidently—in this case, demand the immediate approval of a pipeline to the Pacific. Erm, you know, with absolutely no plan attached, or any of the necessary details about said pipeline. But sure, approve it. (Incidentally, Alberta launched a website for its attempt to get proponents for such a plan).

Poilievre and his followers are so insistent that if government just “got out of the way” that things would get built. Of course, the other thing that Poilievre has said outright is that even though he will “consult” with local First Nations, he will push through a pipeline without their consent, on their lands, where they hold treaty rights. I don’t think he understands what that actually means, and that’s going to be a problem that will merely ensure that all of his plans will land in protracted litigation, and eventually fail (and no, you can’t invoke the Notwithstanding Clause on treaty rights).

And because of course he is, David Eby is musing about refineries instead of export pipelines, which isn’t going to happen because they are extremely expensive to build and would require billions and billions in government subsidies for little return (and yes, the Alberta government tried that and is still paying for that particular error in judgment.

Ukraine Dispatch

The new Czech prime minister says they will continue to run the ammunition sourcing programme for Ukraine, but won’t contribute money to it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Freeland’s botched departure announcement

Posted on by
Reply

Early Monday morning, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that he had appointed Chrystia Freeland as a new advisor on economic development, which was a little peculiar considering that she is still a sitting MP, and still holds the role of a parliamentary secretary in her capacity as the prime minister’s special representative on Ukrainian reconstruction. This being said, we know she’s on her way out the door because her new job with the Rhodes Trust starts in July, so she had a definite end date in being before that.

Immediately, Conservatives like Michael Chong demanded her immediate resignation because of the conflict of interest this posed, and it wasn’t for several more hours that she announced that she will be formally resigning by the end of the month, with an immediate tweet from Carney to praise her for her work and for Ukraine, but Great Cyllenian Hermes, this was so badly handled by Carney’s PMO.

While I will grant that this pretty much went down while he was in the air on the way to Paris, they should have been prepared for this to go live at the same time as Zelenskyy’s announcement, and been aware of the time zones in play, because all they manged to do was muddy the waters around the potential conflict of interest, what is going on with any kind of approvals from the Ethics Commissioner, and not spent the bulk of daylight hours looking stunned or blindsided—especially as there was talk that the offer from Zelenskyy came in late December, even if most of Official Ottawa has been shut down for the bulk of that time period. This kind of thing continues to make Carney’s PMO look like amateur hour, and that once again, a Liberal government can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag. Honestly…

In Case You Missed It:

  • My column on whether Carney is capable of adapting to a post-neoliberal world in order to be the right prime minister for the moment (as Poilievre sure can’t).
  • My year-end episode taking a cue from the Ellie Goulding meme about how anything could happen—and did in Canadian politics in 2025.
  • My weekend column on the credulousness by which the supposed “end of the consensus on immigration” gets covered, and what gets omitted in the retelling.
  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take on changes that Carney has made to Canada over the past year, and what we should be watching out for as a part of it.
  • My column on the faux debate raging over whether Carney wants to turn the Senate back to a two-party system when they should worry about his appointments.
  • My weekend column on how Carney’s plans to Build Canada requires better data from the provinces, which we can’t keep waiting for them to get their acts together.

Very chuffed to see several of my stories on this list, including the most-read story of the year. Thanks to all of my readers!

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-29T22:50:06.873Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones hit a hospital in Kyiv on Sunday night, and struck energy infrastructure in Kharkiv as well as a US-based agricultural producer in Dnipro late Monday. President Zelenskyy is shaking up his top officials, including his spy chief.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Appointing another friend to an important post

Posted on by

It’s now official—prime minster Mark Carney has announced his plan to name his friend Mark Wiseman to the role of Ambassador to the US as of February 15th. Wiseman has no prior diplomatic experience, but was a mergers & acquisitions lawyer before becoming an asset manager at Blackrock, and yes, he was a donor to Carney’s leadership campaign as well as his election campaign, donating the maximum for each.

There were immediate howls about this appointment from the Bloc and the Conservatives because of Wiseman’s involvement in the “Century Initiative,” which was a proposal to triple Canada’s population to 100 million by 2100, which we were on track to do regardless (before the current decision to halt immigration to the point where our population was in decline last quarter). The Bloc are treating this kind of thing like their own version of “Great Replacement Theory” because a) they are an ethnic nationalist party, and b) they see an expansion of the rest of the Canadian population as diminishing Quebec’s influence, because they heavily limit their own immigration (because again, ethnic nationalism) and their birth rate is very low. The Conservatives are treating it like Great Replacement Theory writ-large, and use it to scaremonger about Muslims and such, while also pretending to care about Quebec. There was also that stupid brouhaha about when Wiseman retweeted an Andrew Coyne column headline about said Initiative and people took it to be Wiseman insulting Quebec, so that’s great. Oh, and he apparently said he’s opposed to Supply Management, so of course Quebec and the majority of Conservatives are also opposed to his appointment.

This being said, I find myself increasingly uncomfortable by the fact that Carney keeps naming friends and former colleagues to top jobs, some elected (Tim Hodgson), some appointed (the head of the Defence Investment Agency), is a worrying trend because it’s starting to reek of cronyism. I also am reminded of the fate of Bill Morneau, who also did not grasp the ethical considerations in government of just calling up your friends and network to do things (in Morneau’s case, those friends were WE Charity), because that’s how you do them in the corporate world. Government is not the corporate world, and I know we’re all tired of hearing it, but no, you should not run government like a business or a corporation. Nothing good can come of this.

Programming Note: And that’s it for 2025. I’m taking a break from the blog until the first week of January, so enjoy your holidays everyone.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-22T23:08:01.593Z

Ukraine Dispatch

There was yet another strike on Odesa, the second within twenty-four hours. President Zelenskyy says those kidnapped villagers from Sumy region had long had dealings across the border without incident. Here is a look at Ukraine’s new low-cost interceptor drones, taking out attacking Russian drones for much cheaper. (Gallery here).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Naïve assumptions about the energy transition

Posted on by

There were a couple of longreads over the weekend that are worth your time when it comes to understanding where we are at with the current government. The first was a deep dive into Carney’s past climate “leadership,” from his time at central banks to the UN, and a pattern emerges throughout where much of this “leadership” was fairly surface-level. Scratch the surface, and you find a lot of on naïve assumptions around a market response to the clean energy transition, coupled with some arrogant beliefs that he was right and no one could tell him otherwise (as those companies he was touting were also heavily invested in fossil fuels). In the time since, we have all watched as Carney has systematically betrayed that former climate leadership, and continues to rely on a “just trust me” approach to that clean energy transition as he breaks his word with little regard.

The second longread was in the Globe & Mail about Tim Hodgson and his adjustment going from banker CEO to Cabinet minister, with his belief that government bureaucrats are essentially lazy and stupid, and needing to learn how to be politically sensitive to the realities that he has little patience for as he looks to secure deals as quickly as possible. Along the way, he is learning that things don’t work like that, and that there are plenty of other considerations that he continues to ignore, like obligations regarding First Nations. And how he continues to alienate the actual clean energy people in his own department, along with the part of the Liberal caucus that actually care about climate change, because hey, he needs to be Mr. Business. This is what “running government like a company” is bringing, and it comes with a hell of a lot of ideological blind spots, while they insist that they’re not being ideological.

As well, in year-enders, Carney has been criticising the Trudeau approach to climate change as “too much regulation, not enough action,” which goes back to his particular assumptions about the market and why the government wasn’t able to rely on carbon pricing alone to achieve its goals, Oh, and he’s still completely sold on the belief that carbon capture is the route to go, even though it only captures a fraction of the emissions from the production process (and none of the downstream uses), so the math doesn’t even work there. He also talks about “guardrails” in dealing with China, but considering there has been no hint of that with India, I’m not holding my breath.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-20T15:08:01.975Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Following more Russian airstrikes and bombings in the Odesa region, president Zelenskyy says that Russia is trying to cut off Ukraine’s Black Sea access. Russian forces have crossed the border in Sumy region and kidnapped 50 villagers. Ukraine has signed an agreement with Portugal go co-produce sea drones. Here is a look at a Ukrainian artist who is reflecting the war through his collection and work.

Continue reading →

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: Getting played by your leakers

Posted on by

The Department of National Defence is investigating the leak of selective information by F-35 proponents that made that fighter look like a clear winner in the competition with the SAAB Gripen-E fighter, and the journalists who accepted the leak and wrote that story is getting a bit huffy about it. His story on the investigation quotes a Quebec journalists’ union about how important it is that journalists “do their work freely,” and that such a big purchase deserves scrutiny. This kind of self-righteousness is not unexpected.

That said, he also quoted security expert Wesley Wark who basically took him to the woodshed because the leak was quite obviously propaganda as it was selective, they didn’t provide information on the criteria that the scores were based on (just that it looked like the F-35s were the clear winner with no actual context), and this should have been completely obvious as part of the original story. It’s no secret that there is a cadre within the Canadian Forces that is heavily invested in acquiring as much American military tech as possible, in part because they operate so closely with American forces, but also because they are socialised into believing that it’s the very best and they want the very best, so they have been doing everything they can to manipulate the purchase of these fighters from the very beginning, starting with the Harper government who credulously just said “okay, we’ll sole-source it” on the military’s recommendation in the first instance, before it turned into something of a scandal because of the escalating price tag. (This is not how you do civilian control, guys). These same military folks seem to think that the Americans will never turn on us, and that Trump’s threats are not to be taken seriously.

I should be surprised—but really, I’m not—that the journalist in question allowed himself to be played like this, and clearly it did the job the leakers wanted because you had a bunch of pundits take the story to proclaim that the F-35 is the fighter for Canada, hands-down. That’s ultimately why I find the self-righteous response to a leak investigation to be…funny? Sad? Either way, I’m not a defence expert, but I do read and I do talk to people a lot, and I could see clearly that what got leaked was a frame-up job, and the journalist who wrote the original piece should have seen that as well, and done a better job of canvassing dissent to the leak rather than seeking out sources to confirm what the leakers were selling. But he didn’t, and so he got the head of a journalists’ union to get self-righteous on his behalf. It’s not great for the trust in the institution of journalism if we let ourselves get played like this.

Ukraine Dispatch

An underwater Ukrainian drone struck and disabled a Russian submarine docked at a Black Sea naval base (though Russia denies this). European leaders are meeting in The Hague to launch an International Claims Commission to compensate Ukraine for hundreds of billions of dollars in damages from Russia’s attacks and war crimes.

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 →