A PQ win with a minority legislature

Posted on by
2

It looks like the Parti Québécois have won government with a minority legislature, which is at least better than their winning a majority and using that to do a bunch of very bad things over the next few years. The governing CAQ were wiped off the map, while both the Quebec Liberals did better than anticipated, and the Quebec Conservatives have made gains, as did Quebec Solidaire. It was a change election, but unfortunately the options for change were not great.

Unfortunately, while you’re going to have a lot of profiles in the next few days about the rise of PSPP and the return of the PQ after they were nearly wiped out in the last election, much of the dialogue save a few outlets are going to be pretty mute about the fact that what underpinned the PQ campaign was outright racism, and that the foundations for this were laid by the CAQ running an ethnic nationalist regime for two successive legislatures while nobody could be bothered to call it out. And now PSPP is going to try and do stupid, unconstitutional things like try to “abolish the monarchy” in the province, and I’m sure there will be a wholly inadequate response to that as well.

Meanwhile, because a bunch of people are going to focus on the popular vote figures from this election result, we’re going to see the electoral reform nerds rise up again, and it’s going to be incredibly tiresome. A reminder: The popular vote is not a real thing. It’s a logical fallacy, because this is not one election, it’s 127 separate but simultaneous elections, and just aggregating the results in spite of the fact that you had different numbers of parties and people on the ballots in each riding means you’re making false comparisons across the board. We elect individuals, not parties, in spite of what people think, and that matters. But everyone is going to distort how the system works over the next few weeks amidst all of the hand-wringing, so I fully expect this to work my last nerve.

I am going to have to spend the next number of weeks reminding everyone that the popular vote is not a real number. It's a logical fallacy because this was not one election, it was 127 separate elections that happened at the same time. Adding them up is not a meaningful number.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-10-06T03:58:39.965Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-10-05T19:08:01.723Z

My Latest:

My weekend column recounts what was said and not said at the Independent Senators Group’s tenth anniversary discussion, and what it says about the “independent” Senate.

For National Magazine, I recount the speeches during the Supreme Court of Canada’s ceremonial opening of the judicial year.

Continue reading →

QP: Plaintive wails about Canadian steel

Posted on by
Reply

The prime minister was present today, unusually for a Monday, as was Pierre Poilievre across from him. Poilievre led off in French, noted the prime minister’s stated goal of buying more Canadian, but an analysis from the Toronto Star shows that both dollar amounts and share of procurement were up when it comes to American procurements. Mark Carney toute that they have a buy Canadian policy, and listed off several of the big ticket items. Poilievre repeated the same question in English, and got the same response with the added point about the pipeline announcement last week. Poilievre repeated the same question and said that there were nothing but promises with no results, and Carney listed projects where shovels were in the ground. Poilievre sniped back that he was taking credit for projects approved before he was in office, and noted that the steel for LNG-2 was coming from China and not Hamilton. Carney praised the announcement, and said there would be 15,000 tonnes of Canadian steel in the “broader ecosystem” of the project. Poilievre then blamed Carney for the Stelco owner’s decisions, and demanded more projects with Canadian steel. Carney said that there was such a project—Pacific Link—while they were going after the owners to the full force of the law for not living up to their promises. Poilievre gave another paean about Canadian steel, and Carney repeated his same points about LNG-2 and invited Poilievre to support Bill C-39.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she lambasted the government for subsidising Pacific Link with no environmental assessment, and that the private sector has no interest in. Carney insisted that the pipeline was in the national interest because it would make Canada more independent, prosperous, and “inclusive.” Normandin accused Carney of putting his personal interests above the law, and Carney patted himself on the back for Churchill Falls. Xavier Barsalou-Duval took his own shot at the diminution of environmental standards and making the Henry VIII powers permanent. Carney responded with some bafflegab about building.

Continue reading →

Danielle Smith gets her shiny PONI

Posted on by
Reply

Prime Minister Mark Carney was in Fort McMurray yesterday to announce what we all knew was coming—that the proposed new west coast pipeline, now named “Pacific Link,” will formally be designated as the country’s first PONI (Project of National Interest). But let’s remember what got us here—the MOU with Alberta was supposed to have a number of conditions checked off before this could go ahead, most of which they either fudged. There is no private sector proponent. There is no Indigenous buy-in. The Pathways Project was supposed to be a mandatory component, but they then downgraded its obligations so that what it will capture will be a miniscule fraction of the emissions generated to fill the pipeline. There are no commitments to fill the pipeline or buyers for the product, and by the time it gets built, countries will be further along the decarbonization route as they accelerate their plans following the conflict in Iran, and we’ll just be pumping more product into an overall global supply glut which will further depress prices, making production less attractive.

The Indigenous component is a big question mark here, because the Major Projects Office did “consultations” with 110 First Nations communities over two months, and from the sounds of it, it was mostly junior staffers. This is clearly insufficient, and shows that they haven’t learned from past mistakes. When Trans Mountain was going through, one of the things that they needed to do was have the minister do face-to-face meetings, and that was the only thing that would satisfy many of these communities, which did not happen here. “We want to build faster,” and mouthing all of the right things about working with Indigenous communities, but you can’t even learn how to avoid the same problems that plagued the previous project? What exactly do they think they’re doing?

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3mwu2c3n3ic2y

Meanwhile, Carney continues to fraudulently claim that this oil will be “low carbon,” which it absolutely won’t be. And for everything he has capitulated to Danielle Smith to make this happen, it will win him exactly nothing with Alberta. Remember how much goodwill Justin Trudeau got when he gave supports to the province during their oil recession that Harper refused to, or when he created special orphan wells projects during the pandemic, or when he burned all of his political capital and environmental goodwill to ensure that Trans Mountain got built? Oh, right—it was none, and they continued to blame him for the oil price crash of 2014, before he was even in office. Yeah, Carney will get nothing from this, and Smith will just take this as a sign that threatening separation gets her what she wants, so she’ll just continue to find new ways to level threats. Carney has played himself, once again.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-10-01T13:08:05.385Z

Continue reading →

Never missing an opportunity to be himself

Posted on by
Reply

For Truth and Reconciliation Day yesterday, the prime minister was in Edmonton (as he’s still on his oil and gas announcement tour), and gave the usual assurances that this is a process and a journey we are all on, but there didn’t appear to be much in the way of firm commitments on a renewed push for action, and when you consider that his government has been slowly walking back from commitments around the environment, or their shameful walking back of the rights that were expressed in the previous government’s version of the clean drinking water legislation, well, it’s a reminder that a lot of the things Carney says when it comes to his commitments to things tend to be somewhat tenuous and vulnerable to being walked back.

Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre decided that he couldn’t resist a moment to keep being his worst self, so he put out a statement that blamed residential schools on “government interference,” which is what he’s also blaming Alberta separatism on. (When all you have is a hammer…) One probably shouldn’t be too surprised at just how much he completely missed the point in all of this, or the fact that he’s making this all about his faux grievances and bugaboos rather than about the truth of what Canada as a whole perpetrated, or to making any commitment to doing better in the future. Because of course not. This is Poilievre we’re talking about.

Only Pierre Poilievre could turn Truth and Reconciliation Day into a gripe about federal government "intrusion."

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-09-30T20:38:11.023Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-30T19:08:01.442Z

My Latest:

My column wonders why Mark Carney seems so eager to go along with the Big Lie that underpins the referendum that Danielle Smith has engendered.

Continue reading →

Poilievre endorses the Big Lie

Posted on by
Reply

Pierre Poilievre gave a “major speech” in Edmonton last night, which was supposed to be his big speech for the Remain side in the upcoming Alberta referendum, and wouldn’t you just know it, he endorsed Danielle Smith’s Big Lie, once again insisting that the fake grievances that successive provincial leaders have drummed up for political gain were not only real, but that they were because the federal government—not saying “Liberal”—was guilty of constitutional overreach. The problem is not only that by endorsing the Big Lie, he feeds the separatists’ cause, but that he’s articulating a fairytale version of federalism that has never existed and that no province actually wants.

According to Poilievre, Albertans keep having their “personal freedoms” trampled on by a federal government, who are supposed to only take care of “borders, national defence and criminal law,” while provinces should be left alone to deal with health care and education. But this is fantasy—the federal government may write a common criminal code, but provinces enforce and administer it. The federal government has steered clear of education, and when it comes to healthcare, the provinces were not strong-armed into accepting federal dollars for it. If anything, they would rather not pay for any of it at all (while still insisting on retaining full control). And add to that, the federal government has not been “regulating our resources”—there is shared jurisdiction over the environment, particularly because emissions do not stop at provincial borders, but the federal government is not regulating the resources. The market has done that after the oil price crash of 2014 (which Poilievre conspicuously ignores). And frankly, not that many Albertans are that exercised about hunting rifles.

But what pisses me off in addition to the capitulation to Smith’s Big Lie is the fact that the National Post (the only major outlet to actually write about the speech), insisted that Poilievre “never once mentioned the federal Liberal Party or Prime Minister Mark Carney, leaving aside politically-charged attacks in favour of a more statesmanlike appeal to the problem of government excess.” He didn’t say “Liberal” but he spoke about the previous decade of government, which was the Liberals. That’s not being “statesmanlike.” It’s being a petulant child who continues to lie because it suits his purposes. Stop trying to give him a pass because he can barely manage the bare minimum.

Continue reading →

The lessons from Trump’s lies

Posted on by
Reply

Circulating online over the weekend was a piece by Daniel Dale over on CNN about what it’s been like fact-checking Trump for ten years, and what this kind of industrial scale lying is doing to the landscape. He does correctly lay part of the blame on legacy media outlets who simply treat all of the lying as background noise, as they have few fact-checkers on staff, and they are overwhelmed by the volume of it. In this, Dale correctly surmises, the Steve Bannon tactic of “flooding the zone with shit” has proven affective, because there is so much that it goes unchallenged, so the lies fester, particularly among adherents who treat it like gospel. What he doesn’t do, however, is point out that the continued insistence by legacy media to both-sides everything led to this situation. Conservatives in the US and Canada have long-since figured out that they can lie with impunity because the most that will happen is that it will be both-sidesed, and thus not actually challenged.

In amidst these recollections, I wanted to note that this problem is not confined to the US, but it’s present here on a smaller scale, particularly with Pierre Poilievre and his constant stream of out-of-context, cherry-picked statistics, or his outright bald-faced assertions that are not only incorrect, but hysterical lies that virtual nobody (David Cochrane excepted) has any appetite to challenge. This is especially true for any economic data, which Poilievre spouts unchallenged even though it’s almost all wrong. But because it goes unchallenged, you have a lot of people who think that he knows what he’s talking about so they believe that he’s some kinds of economic genius. He’s not—he learned what he knows from crypto bros on YouTube, and if you actually have an inkling of what the actual data is, then you would see that he is hilariously wrong, but nobody will call him on it, least of all the government.

The other point that Dale made in his post was that the other side-effect of Trump’s constant lies is that because he “authentically speaks his mind” when he lies constantly, it has the effect of making him seem more “honest” than his opponents, which is utterly baffling, and yet populist and wannabe populist leaders, including Poilievre and his would-be challengers, have taken this lesson to heart. There are just so many compounding failures, and yet legacy media in this country refuses to learn any lessons, and most outlets have been even more timid when it comes to challenging any of this, and that’s a very worrying prospect.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-27T23:08:01.337Z

My Latest:

My (belated) weekend column points to areas of arrogant presumption on the government’s part with their latest omnibus legislation and why it may yet backfire.

New episodes released early for C$7+ subscribers. This week I look at the study that says that 20 percent of MPs' speeches were assisted with digital asbestos, and why we need a major change in Parliament now more than ever. #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-09-27T22:34:15.933Z

Continue reading →

MPs increasingly relying on digital asbestos

Posted on by
Reply

An analysis from The Economist estimates that one-fifth of all of the words spoken in our House of Commons originally came from digital asbestos. That same analysis puts us on par with Australia, whereas the UK Parliament’s House of Commons is about one-tenth (though it also found the House of Lords at a higher percentage). At first blush, this figure seems high, if only because supposed “AI-detectors” are not necessarily that accurate, and we have a high degree of rote speechifying in our Parliament, in large part because MPs especially rely on the talking points supplied to them by their leaders’ offices, while backbench MPs have access to speeches written by civil servants on the topic of certain bills (and yes, I do find this practice absolutely scandalous). On the other hand, it doesn’t come as a complete surprise to me because our parliamentarians are so reliant on scripts that they don’t write themselves that learning that those who prepare these speeches are offloading the process onto digital asbestos would be fitting—especially because the Carney government is so committed to boosting the use of this digital asbestos.

The solution to this, of course, is to ban prepared speeches, which we should have done decades ago. As I wrote in my book, there is a 1956 Speaker’s ruling about the only acceptable uses of prepared speeches that we need to return to, because the current state of affairs is untenable. There is no excuse for MPs to spend their days reading prepared speeches into the record that nobody pays attention to, only to fill time. You can get battle droids to do this job (and vote on command for the party line). If we want to reclaim our Parliament, the first step is banning these speeches and changing the speaking clocks so we don’t have MPs just filling time for twenty-minute stretches. Continuing with the status quo is just ridiculous at this point.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-24T19:08:02.855Z

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding an emergency diesel plan

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was present today, unusually for both a Thursday and a second day in a week, while he took a break from entertaining the president of Vietnam. Pierre Poilievre led off, and noted the death of a civil servant, and invited the prime minister to share condolences, and Mark Carney did, and hoped that the perpetrator would be caught.

Poilievre then turned to French to decry the rising cost of diesel, and demanded the government cut taxes and costs to bring the price down. Carney noted that it is a difficult situation, and noted that this is a result of the wars in Iran and Ukraine, and that the government has responded by cutting the gas excise tax and giving help to households who need it. Poilievre switched back to English to decry a full “diesel price crisis,” and dismissed that this was because of “foreign factors,” and demanded the government do more. Carney noted that they had cut the excise tax and then stated that they are working with refiners to increase supply. Poilievre complained that diesel is more expensive in Canada than elsewhere, and Carney reminded him that the provinces put their own taxes on diesel and gasoline, and that was a difference between Canada and the US, and then said that the Build Canada Act could help build new refineries. (No, that is never going to happen). Poilievre demanded other taxes be cut to lower prices, and Carney hit back by intimidating that Poilievre has been here twenty years and done nothing while he has done a lot in a little over a year. Poilievre demanded an emergency diesel price reduction plan, and Carney reminded him that they need to pass C-38 on fuel excise taxes. Poilievre repeated the demand in French, and Carney said that it’s not the federal government’s job to remove provincial taxes, and patted himself on the back for major project legislation. 

Carney says that the Build Canada Act could see a new diesel refinery built. Oh, no. No, no, no. Nobody is going to build a new refinery and he should know that. #QP cc @aleach.ca

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-09-24T18:33:36.680Z

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he decried the “special economic zone” portions of Bill C-39, which would intrude on provincial jurisdiction. Carney denied this, and said the bill was about more efficient reviews so they are done under a year. Blanchet wanted an amendment to the bill to affirm provincial jurisdiction, and Carney insisted this was solely about federal regulations, and they have agreements with six provinces to use their provincial assessment tools. Blanchet worried that this could suspend the rule of law or sidestep the constitution to benefit foreign corporate inserts, and Carney again accused him of dreaming this up.

Continue reading →

Opposing Alberta separatism is inconvenient for many Conservatives

Posted on by
Reply

In find myself extremely annoyed with Conservatives who are whining that they’re accused of not helping enough with the Remain side in the upcoming Alberta referendum, because they’re not helping. And why aren’t they helping? There are a number of reasons. One of them is that they don’t want to alienate the separatists, who are also in their voter base. Remember that their electoral strategy has been to court the far-right (and yes, the separatists are far-right), including adopting their language and pandering hard to them, rather than courting the political centre. Another reason is that they can’t stop using the same lies that the separatists use in order to attack the Liberals, many of those being around the so-called “strangling” of development, which is and always has been bullshit. Their resources have been constrained by the world price of oil, especially after it collapsed in 1981, and again in 2014. In both cases, they blamed a Trudeau (even though Stephen Harper was in power in 2014), but the effect is the same. Finally, the Conservatives are sympathetic to the cry-baby nature of the separatist threat, that it’s more about there being a Liberal government federally. Manh Albertans have developed a warped view of democracy because they have lived in what is essentially a one-party state for most of their lives, and they cannot fathom that it’s legitimate if a party other than the Conservatives governs, and so they throw these tantrums. So, when Dane Lloyd says “They don’t have a problem with Canada. They have a problem with Ottawa,” what he is effectively saying is that they have a problem with Liberals, so by “fixing that,” they mean Conservatives need to be in power. It’s all bullshit and they’re not helping the Remain side so long as they continue to lie and treat this like an excuse to score partisan points.

Meanwhile, separatist leaders are trying to trot out the line about voting for “Option 2” (meaning a “binding referendum”) as a means of giving Alberta “leverage” against the federal government, which is also a big lie. You don’t announce you are doing something to gain leverage, because that announces that you actually have none, and you know that these lying shitbags will then say “Look at all of the people who voted for separation, we need to continue the process” even though they have absolutely no democratic legitimacy to do so (and the fact that referendums are elite-driven fuckery). Do not give them the excuse—and that especially means not boycotting this referendum out of protest. Danielle Smith is trying to burn democracy to the ground in the province for her own benefit, and that means it’s all hands on deck to stomp this whole thing down.

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2102832673043648730

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-23T13:08:05.225Z

My Latest:

My column looks at the ways in which Danielle Smith is trying to engineer a crisis of confidence in democracy in the province as she sabotages Elections Alberta.

My Loonie Politics Quick Take looks at the return of Parliament for the fall sitting.

Continue reading →

QP: Disingenuous questions about parole

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was wrapping up his trip to the UN, while Pierre Poilievre was again absent. Melissa Lantsman led off, and quote a National Payroll Institute study about people using their entire income on expenses, to which François-Philippe Champagne insisted that they have acted for Canadians, with new housing programmes, the enhanced GST credit, and extending the excise fuel tax exemption. Lantsman insisted that if the government’s plans worked, then they wouldn’t have these stories, before she recited the story of a totally real constituent. Champagne responded by listing benefit programmes that help people, which the Conservatives voted against. Sandra Cobena took over, and she quoted a downgraded OECD report on reduced growth expectations, and also gave a constituent sob story. Champagne was shocked that she would talk the economy down, and listed off good news talking points. Cobena insisted that the Liberals were driving the economy down and listed projects with timelines that were a decade out (because you can deliver a major project overnight). Tim Hodgson listed projects currently underway and how many jobs they were generating. Luc Berthold took over in French, and he read his own script that said the very same quotes of the payroll report. Champagne reiterated his first response about the three major actions they have taken to help Canadians. Berthold recited a sob story from “Jessie” in Quebec Centre, and Joël Lightbound asked how he explains to “Jessie” how he voted against programmes that help people like her.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, even though Yves-François Blanchet was present, and she decried the latest omnibus bill, and in particular noted the “special economic zone” portion of the bill. Steven MacKinnon grumbled that she was ignoring the work the government was doing, and raised the Churchill Falls agreement as an example. Normandin asked about ports privatisation, and he insisted that wasn’t happening. Jean-Denis Garon took over to denounce that the Quebec government was not consulted on a tax cut that would hurt the province’s finances, and Champagne insisted they provided breathing room for Quebec businesses.

Continue reading →