Roundup: Do something about privatization!

Posted on by
Reply

If there is something I am getting mighty tired of, it’s the constant demands by certain healthcare groups that the federal government needs to stop in and “do something” about creeping provincial privatisation, and most especially Alberta’s proposed legislation on essentially creating a two-tiered system. Yesterday the demand came from community leaders in PEI who are afraid that Alberta will poach their doctors. To all of them, I ask just what exactly they think the federal government should do, and to be specific.

I am getting so tired of these."Ottawa must intervene!"How? Be specific. The Canada Health Act doesn't just the federal government swoop in and take over, or give them the power to stop a province doing something you don't like. At most, it lets them claw back funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-17T14:20:41.917Z

The thing is, this is provincial jurisdiction. The federal government can’t just swoop in and overrule them. The Canada Health Act doesn’t work like that. It is a funding agreement that if provinces abide by the five conditions laid out, then they get federal dollars, and if they don’t, those dollars get clawed back. And every year, Health Canada provides a report on provincial compliance and that includes lists of clawbacks, which are dollar-for-dollar what people get charged inappropriately. But that’s the extent of their powers. And in spite of what certain people (and certain journalists most especially) may think, a funding agreement does not make it “shared jurisdiction.” It’s fully provincial jurisdiction, and the federal government has conditions on their funding. That’s it.

So, while the Canadian Health Coalition may keep having press conferences and rallies in Ottawa, it won’t do any good. Their call to action for the federal government on Alberta is basically 1) Conduct a compliance review for Alberta which, again, already happens every year; 2) Urge the Alberta government to “pause implementation” of their legislation; and 3) use the penalties available to them, which again, they already do. Wow. Do what you’re already doing and urge Alberta not do go ahead. Wow. So effective! Meanwhile, the place they’re not rallying day in and day out is in front of the Alberta legislature, and everywhere Danielle Smith goes, even though that’s where the pressure needs to be applied. The federal government is not the provinces’ daddy, and it can’t send bad premiers to bed with no dinner if they misbehave. That’s not how the constitution works, and people need to grow up and hold their own premiers to account.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian attack damaged port and energy infrastructure in Odesa. Russia claims to have taken villages in Sumy and Donetsk, which Ukraine has not confirmed. President Zelenskyy was in London to meet with Keir Starmer about continued support for Ukraine; he also met with the King while there.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Longest Ballot Committee is back at it

Posted on by
Reply

The losers at the Longest Ballot Committee are back at it, this time targeting the by-election in Terrebonne, because of course they are. Despite the fact that their supposed protest has not garnered them any actual traction to their cause, which tracks, because their means of protest is pretty divorced from the results they’re trying to achieve, which is to convince people that what we really need is proportional representation. Flooding the ballot with names nobody will vote for doesn’t scream “We need PR,” but what do I know? And then, their “longest ballot” turned into the shortest ballot in Battle River—Crowfoot, when it simply became a write-in ballot because it was easier for Elections Canada at that point (even though those ballots take more time to verify).

This being said, we could have had measures to help blunt their attempts when the House of Commons was trying to pass changes to the Canada Elections Act in the previous parliament, and the Chief Electoral Officer had suggestions for how to thwart these losers, but none of it got implemented. Why? The Conservatives, led mostly by the antics of Michael Cooper. The Conservatives decided to fuck around with that bill instead of treating it seriously for a myriad of reasons, some of which included the fact that one of the proposals was to move the “fixed” election date a week later to avoid Diwali, but it also would have put a bunch of MPs (mostly Conservatives) over the line for their pensions, and the Conservatives (and Bloc and NDP) decided that this was a ploy by the Liberals to get their MPs those pensions (again, even though it was mostly the Conservatives who would benefit).

Cooper then spent his time on dilatory motions, such as “reasoned amendments” at second reading to prolong debate, and then once at committee, it was all manner of silly buggers, like “Change the fixed election date to three weeks from now so that the election is before Jagmeet Singh’s pension comes to pass,” and on and on it went, until we had the prorogation for Trudeau’s announced resignation, and the election call once the leadership had passed, before prorogation ended. That meant the bill died, and no changes were made to blunt the losers at the Longest Ballot Committee from doing this over, and over again, no matter that the Conservatives complained when Poilievre was targeted. And so, here we are, with them going at it yet again.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia made a rare daytime drone attack on Kyiv, that included targeting the city’s independence monument. Russia claims to have taken a dozen settlements over the past two weeks, which Ukraine is disputing (as they push Russian lines back).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Myth-busting the carbon price on diesel

Posted on by
1

For months, we’ve been hearing the Conservatives blame the industrial carbon price and the clean fuel standard for rising food prices, often citing the so-called “Food Professor” as the source of these claims. They’re hilariously wrong, but just how wrong? Energy economist Andrew Leach does the math, and demonstrates where the “Food Professor” went so wrong. (Some of these are threads, so be sure to click through because they were too long to replicate in this post).

And the longest explainer thread is here:

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched 430 drones and 68 missiles at Ukraine on Saturday, and six people were killed, five of them in Kyiv. President Zelenskyy says that Ukraine wants money and technology in return for the anti-drone assistance they are providing to countries in the Gulf region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to politicize the Order of Canada

Posted on by
4

Because everything needs to be stupid all of the time, Conservative MP and obnoxious windbag Andrew Lawton started circulating a petition in support of his nomination of Don Cherry to the Order of Canada. The Order of Canada advisory board does not respond to petitions. It is an arm’s-length body chaired by the Chief Justice in order to apolitically weigh the nominations for the Order. I make this point because the honours system in Canada is held by the Crown in order to keep it apolitical (which is one reason why constitutional monarchy is superior). Lawton circulating this petition, which is being signed and championed by members of his caucus, including his leader, is the very definition of politicising these honours for the sake of culture war bullshit—after all, Cherry eventually lost his lucrative CBC gig because of racist commentary.

But because Lawton was so keen to gin up the culture war grift, he inadvertently pissed off members of his own caucus—specifically, most of the Quebec members, who are not fans of Cherry because Cherry also spent his career insulting Quebec and European players, and they are not looking to forgive and forget. And now this is spiralling because culture war grifting is by its very definition stupid and self-defeating. But when your political fundraising is tied to this same grifting complex, is it any wonder that this kind of self-own happens? And will they learn any lessons from this? Of course not.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-13T13:24:01.664Z

Carney-versary

It’s the one-year anniversary of Mark Carney being sworn-in as prime minister, so there are a few retrospectives. The National Post takes stock of what we know and don’t know about him, and the fact that there are still a few mysteries. JDM Stewart enumerates the expectations placed on Carney that he will need to deliver on. Althia Raj talks to 33 sources about that first year in office, and it’s a pretty honest assessment of the trends both good and bad he has demonstrated.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian shelling killed one and wounded six in Dnipropetrovsk region, and an attack in Zaporizhzhia region injured four. President Zelenskyy warned that pausing Russian oil sanctions will only prolong the war.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another call for NEP 2.0

Posted on by
Reply

Pierre Poilievre has written another letter to the prime minister, this time demanding the creation of a strategic oil reserve like other countries have, never mind that unlike other countries that have said reserves, we are a net exporter and not a net importer (and yes, the US is now a net exporter, but they were not always, which is why they have a strategic reserve). The most ironic thing? This is just one more example of Conservatives demanding a redux of the hated National Energy Programme that Pierre Trudeau tried to launch in the late seventies, after the global oil crisis that happened then.

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2032212730762166778

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2032122736475337196

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2031814419584520455

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2031815720108257417

Of course, part of this has to do with Poilievre’s fantasy notion that such an oil stockpile, along with critical minerals, is going to be how he gets leverage over Trump in trade talks, and that it can be used to bolster allies—but only allies with whom we have tariff-free trade agreements. Never mind that it is unlikely to persuade Trump to abandon tariffs, which he loves. Never mind that he has no plan for how to pay for such a stockpile, and he would need to fund some kind of an oil arbitrage agency. It’s facile, and it’s deeply cynical, particularly because included in this demand are once again the insistence that we abolish environmental laws, because Poilievre has convinced himself that they’re just one big con, and that it’s a bunch of environmental elites somehow profiting off of said laws (because apparently there are no costs to climate change, and it’s all just in our imaginations).

https://twitter.com/coreyhoganyyc/status/2032214070892642460

Meanwhile, the Canadian Climate Institute published a report that says that once the industrial carbon price reaches minimum price of $130 per tonne, that it would effectively add fifty cents to a barrel of oil, in direct contravention to the pronouncements of doom that Poilievre and the Conservatives keep insisting that said price is doing to food prices and the economy. This after certain pundits claimed it would add $20 per barrel, which is of course nonsense.

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2031860654190281176

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2032152971174428885

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian drones hit an oil pumping station in Russia’s Krasnodar region. Ukraine signed a joint defence procurement with Romania, that includes the production of drones.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding a strategic oil reserve

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was on his way to Yellowknife, and Pierre Poilievre was elsewhere, in advance of his own trip to the US, leaving it up to Melissa Lantsman to lead off. She complained that there is no strategic oil reserve, and demanded the government adopt their plan to create one, to which Tim Hodgson explained how the IEA works, which is that net importers have reserves while net exporters don’t. Lantsman shot back that just because you don’t need one it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t, before she demanded the government scrap environmental laws to pump more oil. Hodgson responded that the Conservatives apparently can’t take a lesson from the Alberta government in working together to build. Gérard took over in French to demand the same oil reserve, to which Steven MacKinnon repeated Hodgson’s first response in French. Deltell accused the government of having “contempt” for Canadian energy, before he pivoted to food price inflation, and this time MacKinnon reminded him that he voted against all help for Canadians who needed it. Chris Warkentin took over, and in English, he too read the script on food price inflation with the falsehoods about “hidden taxes.” Wayne Long took a swipe about Poilievre going to Europe for no reason while Carney was in the Asia Pacific to sign trade deals including uranium. Warkentin tried again and Julie Dabrusin reminded him that the industrial carbon price has zero effect on food prices.

"A ten-year record of shutting down our oil and gas sector"

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2026-03-12T18:23:43.134Z

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she worried about the government not informing the public about Canadian personnel at a military base in Kuwait being targeted by Iran. Anita Anand said that Canada is not participating in the conflict, but could not say more for security reasons. Normandin tried again, and Anand again stated that all Canadian Armed Forces personnel in the region are safe and sound, and then made a pitch for international law. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay tried this yet again, and Anand repeated her same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Return of the security clearance punchline

Posted on by
Reply

Pierre Poilievre’s lack of a security clearance is becoming a punchline in Question Period once more, which is not really great. In the current context, it’s around the claims that there are some 700 Iranian agents in the country, a figure compiled by a civil society group in 2023, before the IRGC was listed as a terrorist entity, and included people in the country temporarily at the time, but far be it for Poilievre to include any context when he’s trying to stir up a moral panic. We should remember, however, that this is not something that opposition leaders routinely applied for, nor is it something that all MPs need.

There were a bunch of people in my social media replies claiming nonsense like daycare workers needing a clearance when MPs don’t. No. Daycare workers need to undergo background checks. They don’t need access to classified materials, nor do the vast majority of MPs (though there is a place for a group of MPs to be cleared for certain oversight activities). This conflation of what a clearance actually means is not helpful to anyone, and while I know that people like to claim that Poilievre can’t get one and is therefore some kind of security risk, that is also false and is actually disinformation.

Throughout this, prime minister Mark Carney did not help matters by dodging the questions from reporters on Indian foreign interference and transnational repression by saying that his security clearance precluded him from saying anything. Aside from the fact that this is false, it just provided fuel for Poilievre’s bullshit claims that he would be “muzzled.” The only thing that he would be muzzled about is making wildly irresponsible remarks in order to drum up outrage. Knowledge means being more circumspect in his claims, which he doesn’t want. He wants to say bold, dumb things in the House and in the media, because it gets clicks and attention. Clare Blackwood explained it perfectly here.

Because Poilievre's security clearance is once again back as an applause line in #QP, here is @clareblackwood.bsky.social to accurately explain why Poilievre won't get his.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-11T21:35:30.234Z

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian drone strike hit a civilian business in Kharkiv, killing two. Ukrainian military trainers will start preparing Germany to defend against Russian attacks by 2029, reversing the trend of western militaries training Ukraine’s.

Continue reading →

QP: Our strategic oil reserve?

Posted on by
Reply

Quite unusually in the life of this Parliament, the PM was in attendance for a second day in a row, and with yet another floor-crosser in his ranks, this time Lori Idlout from the NDP. Pierre Poilievre was also present, and he led off in French, and again insisted that there are 700 Iranian regime agents in Canada that the government has not removed. Mark Carney said that this is a serious situation, that the government has already stopped 10,000 IRGC from entering the country, that they are 140 investigations and 28 under removal orders. Poilievre then switched to English to meander about supposed flip-flops and then demanded the government develop more oil and as exports. Carney noted that they already have record production and that new projects are already approved. Poilievre gave another meandering demand for more pipelines to the Pacific, and Carney cited his own book to say that they want the lowest risk and lowest cost oil and gas sector, which is why they have the MOU with Alberta and the Bay Du Nord project. Poilievre went on a tangent about not having stockpiles of oil, and again demanded the government “get out of the way.” Carney responded with a jab about Poilievre searching for new ridings to run in before he again touted record production levels. Poilievre again went on about not having a stockpile before again demanding the government “get out of the way.” Carney reminded him that importers need strategic reserves while exporters do not, and that the G7 has authorised the release from their collective stockpile. Poilievre claimed that the stockpile logic was backwards—which his hilariously wrong, and Carney quipped that Poilievre thinks he’s tapping a rich vein when it’s just a dry well.

Idlout is sitting next to Carney for #QP.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-11T18:20:43.585Z

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and once again, she raised the pension software and demanded a public inquiry. Carney responded that Service Canada has more than 7.7 million people successfully transitioned to the system, and that the backlog was reduced by 10,000 over the past week. Normandin tried again, calling it a financial fiasco, and Carney said that her accusations don’t relate to facts and the system is on budget. Sébastien Lemire tried the same lines again, and Carney said that the Bloc have refused all offers of briefings on the matter.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Credulous takes on private members’ bills

Posted on by
Reply

There have been a few stories over the past few days that have raised my ire, so I’m going to take a few minutes to point a few things out. One of them is this CBC story yesterday about Jenny Kwan’s private member’s bill, and that as many as sixteen Liberals are considering supporting it. My beef: the sub-hed on the story reading “Vote would mark first time some in caucus split from government line under Carney.” Split from the government line? It’s a private member’s bill. Those are free votes by default. That’s the whole point of them. CBC should know better, and frankly, I really don’t like it when the media tries to play party whip while at the same time wishing that MPs were more independent.

The other story yesterday was about Conservative MP Dan Albas’ private member’s bill, which purports to empower Canada Post to deliver alcohol across provincial lines. Most of the stories in various outlets talked about how Dominic LeBlanc appeared to support the bill in Question Period, which he actually did not. What LeBlanc said was that this is an area of provincial regulation (which only the Star’s story mentions), but that he would bring it up when he meets with his provincial counterparts in a few weeks because he thinks it’s a good idea. And more to the point, this bill is a gimmick, which Albas and Pierre Poilievre insist overrides provincial regulation, but it actually doesn’t because, and just puts Canada Post in a bind. It would be great if any story could point that fact out, or talked to a lawyer, but nope, they focused on LeBlanc’s answer in QP, and even then couldn’t get the nuance right.

The third is a story from CBC on Monday, which was very concerned that a lot of bills are passing “on division,” meaning without a vote. The problem was the initial sub-hed on the story which stated “Half the bills passed in the House this session have cleared 3rd reading without a head count or consensus,” which is wrong, because “on division” is consensus you don’t need a vote—the “or consensus” was later dropped from the sub-hed. Of course, the real reason is that the Conservatives don’t want to go to an election, so they’re not going to force a vote and have Andrew Scheer and Scott Reid hide behind the curtains again to ensure that the math is right and that they won’t accidentally do something stupid with the vote counts given how everything is so close, but the person you reached as your source for your explainer is Peter Van Loan? Possibly the worst Government House Leader in decades (which is saying a lot)? It came across as amateurish, and like CBC’s parliamentary bureau has a hard time understanding how parliament works, which is not a good look.

When your parliamentary bureau doesn't understand parliament, dumb things happen.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-09T13:50:45.982Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-10T21:22:01.632Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia dropped three guided bombs on Sloviansk in the east, and hit Kharkiv and Dnipro with drones, injuring another twenty people. Ukrainian forces have pushed Russian invaders out of Dnipropetrovsk region, while Russia claims to be making gains in Donbas. Ukraine hit a missile plant in Bryansk region in Russia.

Continue reading →

QP: The phantom menaces of supposed terrorists and hidden taxes

Posted on by
Reply

While he had initially not planned to attend, things apparently changed and the PM did opt to show up today, as did Pierre Poilievre. He led off in French, and he immediately launched into his bullshit claims that the Trudeau government allowed Iranian terrorists into the country and that ten government needs to deport them. Mark Carney stated that the government deplores the shooting at synagogues and the U.S. consulate in Toronto, and they are offering police support, while the IRGC is already a listed terrorist entity. Poilievre meandered into food price inflation, and claimed it was because of the government’s “inflationary” taxes and policies. (Taxes are deflationary). Carney stayed on the claim about Iranian terrorists and said they are conducting removals, before switching to the food prices, and noted that they have provided additional support. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first bullshit claims, and this time Carney exhorted him to support Bill C-14 and gun control, and noted that the government is investigating potential IRGC members in the country and that they have committed to another thousand RCMP. Poilievre claimed that the government was more concerned with protecting turkeys from farmers than people from criminals, and again repeated his same bullshit claim about Iranian terrorists. This time Carney exhorted the Conservatives to support Bill C-9 to protect synagogues. Poilievre dismissed this as the government trying to protect the Jewish community by banning sections of the Torah, and again blamed the government for Iranian terrorists. Carney said that the Charter protects the Torah and the Bible and any other religious text. Poilievre then returned to his false claims about food prices and demanded the government cut those hidden taxes. Carney reminded him that he impact of the industrial carbon price is close to zero, but the impact of their trade agreements for the farmers in his riding is enormous. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he demanded clarity from the prime minister on his position on the Iran conflict and the strategic vision for the Middle East. Carney said that Canada supports the necessity of preventing Iran’s nuclear programme, but is not participating in the offensive operations and will not. Blanchet wondered what our European allies have come to in terms of position, and Carney listed the leaders of the G7 he has spoken to as they come up with a policy on de-escalation. Blanchet wondered if there were any short-term measures for those suffering from the affects of the conflict, such as higher inflation. Carney said the best option is de-escalation, which is why he is having conversations with other leaders in the G7 and in the Middle East.

Continue reading →