Was it really always “Plan A”?

Posted on by
Reply

Over the long weekend, prime minister Mark Carney released another one of this “Forward Guidance” videos, to talk about the current moment we find ourselves in with the trade war. Some of this was a good bit of history in that one of the reasons for confederation was to guard against American predation, though he didn’t fully spell out that Sir John A Macdonald was very concerned that a newly militarized US post-Civil War would turn their attention northward. And yes, American tariffs did force the newly-united Canadians to better develop their own internal markets because yes, we did a lot of north-south trade at the time as well. He brought up the “iron spine” of the trans-Canada railway with some lip-service as to the human cost of it (more than he has in the past), but from there his metaphors started to drift again. The thing is, that “iron spine” has weakened considerably since free trade, and it’s been a whole lot of north-south trade once again, and his trying to say that the new north-south iron spine would be around energy, both electricity and crude oil, didn’t really make a lot of sense.

More than that, however, Carney was engaging in some revisionist history of his own, insisting that building up our industry domestically and to export to more markets was “always Plan A” didn’t really mesh with his stated desire during negotiations to have a stronger security and defence relationship with the US. He lamented in the video that the Americans were trying to force dependency, but Carney’s own goals included a stronger comprehensive relationship, so it feels a lot like he’s trying to play both sides here. He also said that there’s no going back to “normal” with the US, but again, this has been his whole strategy up until two weeks ago. It feels like he’s only just started saying things he was supposed to be saying all along two weeks ago, and is now pretending like it’s what he was always saying.

And then, of course, he brought up digital asbestos, because it’s “important,” and insisted that Canada would be maintaining its values and sovereignty with it. Erm, really? How? This is just lip service while he continues to swallow the CEO hype around it rather than waking up to the fact that this is garbage tech that is burning cash and the environment, and like he’s trying to be the last guy in before the bubble bursts. It’s getting cringey how much Carney and Evan Solomon are still enthralled by the false promises, like their lives depended on it.

My Latest:

  • For National Magazine, I got some reaction to the news that the Ontario Courts’ case management system suffered a hack.
  • My weekend column wonders if it’s time that we get serious about domestically-built EVs, as the age of the integrated North American auto industry appears to be over.
  • My column on the Conservatives on the Remain side of the Alberta referendum trying to have it both ways by blaming Liberals, playing into Separatist hands.

Continue reading →

Pinky-swearing data centre expectations

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday morning, minister of digital asbestos, Evan Solomon, was in Markham to announce that the government had created a new framework of “key expectations” for building data centres in Canada, and that 23 major digital asbestos companies had signed on. It all sounds good, until you realise that this is a voluntary code of conduct made with bad faith actors, and that the federal government has pretty much no levers to enforce any of these promises that these companies make, because so much of the regulation is either a provincial or municipal responsibility. So what you have instead is Solomon once again putting on a performance for the cheap seats at the community theatre, and is expecting applause and bouquets for said performance. It’s like we’re back in the Trudeau era of “the announcement is the policy.” This is not serious governance, and governance is the cornerstone of digital sovereignty—that thing that Solomon keeps claiming to care about.

Non-binding 'expectations'? Solomon & Carney are not serious about governing data centres in Canada; they're offside w/ the large & growing anti-data centre public sentiment. These companies won't comply w/ voluntary 'rules.' They have lied about energy & water use. This is weak & shameful.

— Natasha Tusikov (@ntusikov.bsky.social) 2026-09-03T18:53:05.383Z

In technical terms, this is referred to as a "pinky swear." And it's just as binding and effective."The responsible development principles do not include any compliance mechanism or penalties for broken pledges."This is not serious governance.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-09-03T17:01:43.644Z

@ntusikov.bsky.social and I wrote this oped about social media regulation, but its main point stands here. Regulatory theory tells us that voluntary agreements don't work with bad actors. The companies listed above are some of the least trustworthy of the past several decades.This is just empty PR.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-09-03T17:01:43.645Z

Later in the day, prime minister Mark Carney announced via press release the launch of Digital Transformation Canada, which aims to “refine how the government develops, buys and uses technology.” While this could be a good thing, particularly if it means developing home-grown digital solutions that would get us off of American platforms, that was not really mentioned in the release at all. Instead, it was more about the CEO bullshit around digital asbestos, with “eliminating duplication” and “improve outcomes,” which just sounds like more hype that Carney has swallowed. We have real needs when it comes to our digital sovereignty, but if there is any consideration about how to do that, it doesn’t appear to be coming from this plan as outlined.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-03T13:08:02.353Z

Programming Note: I am taking an extra-long weekend, so posts will resume later in the week. Enjoy!

Continue reading →

Poilievre takes credit for pushing on an open door

Posted on by
Reply

Not unexpectedly, the federal government extended their federal gas excise tax “holiday” for several more months as an “affordability measure,” and then sent out MPs and parliamentary secretaries to pat themselves on the back for it. And the rhetoric is just so braindead. “Image waking up on Tuesday and having to pay ten cents more per litre,” Ryan Turnbull said on Power & Politics by way of justification, and well, yes, that’s what happens when a tax holiday expires. Prices go back up. So unless you plan to keep extending said “holiday” to the point where it’s no longer a holiday but merely a removed excise tax in all but name, then the price will have to go up eventually, and of course you’re going to have to swallow the hit when it happens. And there has also been no mention about the lost revenues from this excise tax and how the particular envelopes of funding that it goes toward will not suffer, while the federal deficit continues to climb. Is Carney laying off civil servants and cutting programmes solely for people to get cheaper gasoline? If so, he should just say so.

Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre took to social media to take credit for this holiday extension, but of course, it’s not good enough because he is still calling for the destruction of the industrial carbon price (which is not relevant here), and for the clean fuel standard (which is not a tax, and any dollar figures associated with it were mere projections of what it might cost refineries to meet this standard). On the one hand, he’s trying to claim victory for pushing on an open door, which is sad in and of itself. On the other hand, he’s being an obsequious pick-me after his party’s abysmal performance in Monday’s by-elections, so much so that they only came in second in one of those ridings. Nevertheless, we can expect more of this “Conservatives won this round!” back-patting for the weeks to come, while he continues to make more demands to simply destroy all environmental legislation under the most ridiculous pretences possible.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-02T19:08:01.648Z

My Latest:

My column points to data showing average income declines in Alberta, and whether the Remain campaign can actually be honest about them or just play into separatist hands.

Continue reading →

A very selective celebration of Alberta’s “birthday”

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, Alberta and Saskatchewan had their “birthdays” as provinces, when they were carved out of the Northwest Territories in 1905, and wouldn’t you just know it, the statement put out by the Alberta government first mentioned the First Nations people whose land the province is on, then removed the reference in an updated version, before needing to backtrack and insist that the first version was the correct one. It has also not gone unnoticed that Alberta has not marked the 150th anniversary of Treaty 6 with those First Nations, while Saskatchewan held ceremonies to mark the occasion. It also doesn’t go unnoticed that Danielle Smith has pushed ahead with this quasi-separation referendum in spite of the fact that owing to the treaties, the province can’t actually separate from Canada because it’s not their land. Smith has also said that if the referendum passes, she would hold a “binding referendum on separation” (which is not a Thing because it’s blatantly against the constitution) early in the spring, which should give her plenty of time to “consult” with First Nations. Erm, no. They’ve already stated that your position is contrary to the treaties they signed with the Crown.

Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre entered the chat and put out separate statements on the Alberta and Saskatchewan “birthdays,” and those statements were very, very different from one another. The Saskatchewan statement talked about the local First Nations and Métis, and the white immigrants who settled in the area, and it was noticeable that he pointed to white immigrants only. The Alberta statement, however, made no mention of First Nations or immigrants of any kind, and instead was all about farmers, ranchers, energy workers, and “freedom!” It was a very, very blatant sop to the separatist sentiments in a minority of the province (remember that Alberta separatism is a white/Christian nationalist project) because he’s too afraid to tell these people that he doesn’t want their votes in his party as a matter of principle. It’s an absolutely craven attempt to play both sides, and it’s going to bite him in the end, and only allows this situation to fester the longer they coddle these loathsome separatists for the sake a few votes.

https://bsky.app/profile/journodale.bsky.social/post/3mui3drbfis2h

As Dale points out, these notably exclude immigrants of colour.My grandparents ran a store in Lake Alma, SK, then moved to Regina, where my grandfather worked at the Model Cafe. They lived above Glasgow Confectionery, then later founded the B. Y. W. Grocery in 1962.Guess we don't count.

— Tim Ford (@timfordwrites.bsky.social) 2026-09-01T19:03:58.660Z

Continue reading →

The Trojan Horse of digital imperialism

Posted on by
Reply

The one thing everybody was talking about over the weekend was Google Maps changing the name of Lake Ontario, but selectively—showing Trump’s preferred hydronym in the US, Lake Ontario in Canada, and showing both names internationally for some unfathomable reason. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth as Canadian websites, including government and Crown corporations, and even political parties, were using a Google Maps API that identified it using the false name, largely because of back-end issues, and many, many pixels were spilled over it over social media. And while I would rather ignore the child’s tantrum in the cereal aisle, Google’s compliance is a deeper underlying problem that is a very big deal when you think about it. (Note that Apple has not complied, and MapQuest saw a huge jump in downloads as a result).

Google is not acting cowardly. They are not capitulating.Sundar Pichai was sitting in the front row at Donald Trump's inauguration.Google knows that digital imperialism is a joint project of the US government and Silicon Valley. Google benefits enormously, so you give a bit to get a bit.

— James McLeod (@jamespmcleod.ca) 2026-08-30T13:47:05.370Z

Google is furthering Trump's interests and Trump is furthering Google's interest.Google isn't capitulating, because they're both on the same side.

— James McLeod (@jamespmcleod.ca) 2026-08-30T13:48:30.266Z

The Lake Ontario/Lake America thing is exactly the sort of thing where Canada could be subsumed by American "digital trade alignment" which we know they were asking for before talks broke down.It's not cultural imperialism. It's just "aligning" on database entries for the name of a lake.

— James McLeod (@jamespmcleod.ca) 2026-08-30T13:16:29.864Z

The United States wants the Internet, and the systems run by American tech giants, to be governed exclusively under American rules.Any assertion by other countries that we might have other ideas about how to regulate digital commerce and online culture constitute a trade barrier.

— James McLeod (@jamespmcleod.ca) 2026-08-30T13:18:13.440Z

We have seen the focus by US trade negotiators over “digital trade alignment,” but it is increasingly becoming clear that this is a Trojan Horse for undermining our digital sovereignty, and that they keep dressing up our sovereignty as “trade irritants” that they expect us to capitulate on for their benefit. These particular issues are demonstrating a vulnerability that we have by being so attached to US web services, not just in the cloud, but through payments, and other digital infrastructure. This is a major vulnerability that I think this government needs to start addressing immediately, rather than focusing so much time and attention on digital asbestos in the false belief that it will boost our productivity or that we’ll be “left behind” if we don’t race to adopt it blindly, which so many companies have learned was the wrong thing to do.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-08-31T19:08:01.941Z

My Latest:

My weekend column points out that we don’t have any reliable allies in the US, as they all will keep tariffs in place, and we have to stop pretending otherwise.

New episodes released early for C$7+ subscribers. This week I make a few observations about the drama happening within the BC Conservatives. #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-31T00:13:00.427Z

Continue reading →

Ignore the toddler meltdown in the cereal aisle

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration players continue to try and spin their own versions of how the talks collapsed, with Trump insisting that we’re “nasty” and the “worst” (because we won’t just submit), we also saw Howard Lutnick claim that Carney has manufactured all of this because of the Quebec election and the Alberta referendum, and that once those over, Canadian officials will come flooding back to Washington to resume talks. Sure, Jan. Meanwhile, Dominic LeBlanc has taken notes of their denials over certain files, and is taking those as assurances that the “trade irritants” they keep identifying won’t be brought up any longer and publicly saying so. Clever.

Lutnick accuses Mark Carney of "manufacturing" a controversy over trade so Alberta doesn't secede from Canada

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-08-27T18:18:00.166Z

Meanwhile, Trump’s continued tantrum saw him sign an executive order to demand that the US Department of Interior change the name of Lake Ontario to Lake America, which is going to be another loyalty test for MAGA adherents going forward. And of course, we had a bunch of Canadian media outlets falling all over themselves to try and get reactions to this (and a certain CBC guest host was extremely cringey about it), when we don’t need to respond to this. We can just ignore it, guys. Take Shannon Proudfoot’s advice here, and treat this like a toddler having a meltdown in the cereal aisle. He’s trying to get attention, and if you don’t give it to him, he’ll move on to something else, and you won’t have to make an ass of yourself trying to “get reactions” to this bit of nonsense. Nobody wins by taking this seriously, so just stop.

The last time the Americans tried to claim Lake Ontario in 1813, we intentionally lured them into Fort York and then blew up our entire gunpowder magazine to kill as many Americans as possible.A foundation part of Toronto history is "blowing our own fort to smithereens rather than being American"

— ℳatt (@matttomic.bsky.social) 2026-08-27T18:15:24.761Z

I mean this very, very seriously: It is absolutely an option for us to ignore his idiotic Lake America stunt. We can do that. We can just tune it out like you would block out a child howling at you in the cereal aisle, recognizing that to do anything else would be to give the whiner what they want.

— Shannon Proudfoot (@sproudfoot.bsky.social) 2026-08-27T17:54:13.273Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-08-27T19:08:03.250Z

My Latest:

  • My column takes note of where we’re at with the trade war, and the fact that Carney spent a year-and-a-half making concessions for a deal that was never real.
  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take points to the difficulties about sacrificing the Online News Act for a deal that didn’t come to pass, which would be a Pandora’s Box.

Continue reading →

Greer’s version and his telling non-denials

Posted on by

The info war aspect of our trade war is heating up, both in terms of childish tantrum—see Trump’s Instagram post of the bald eagle attacking the Canada goose (neglecting that in the end of that particular exchange, which was caught on video a couple of years ago, the goose eventually prevailed and drove the eagle off), but also American officials giving their version of what happened. Jamieson Greer was on CBC to insist that everything was fine on Tuesday night when Trump and prime minister Mark Carney spoke on the phone, and then at the last minute, the Canadians had new demands, presumably coming from the premiers. But there were some interesting omissions and non-denials in that interview, both ignoring the involvement of Howard Lutnick, and shrugging off disagreements around implementing that agreement, which is a pretty important detail. When the details of implementation include expanding just what is covered by auto tariffs, that’s a big detail, for example. And Greer did not deny that the point of this is to destroy the auto industry in Canada, trying to recast the Auto Pact and previous trade agreements as Canada somehow taking advantage of the American industry, which is hardly what happened. That non-denial spoke volumes, pretty much confirmed that this is the goal. (For more, Jennifer Robson goes through his responses and annotates them here).

Meanwhile, back in Canada, Scott Moe again roared that he didn’t want any hint of export taxes on energy or potash, nor is he going to take US booze off the shelves in the province—but he will subject it to an additional 50 percent tariff, which is the most useless symbolic gesture since most people are boycotting it of their own accord. As for Danielle Smith, she held a press conference and gave a dire warning about the effect of any export taxes, that it will force Americans to import heavy oil from Venezuela and it will cause a chain reaction and destroy the Canadian economy. I am dubious, not the least of which is that if you paid any attention to the discourse around the American kidnapping of the Venezuelan president, that the state of the oil industry in that country is so dire that it would take a decade of sustained investment to bring them back up to an export capacity that would threaten us, and no major oil company wants to invest because of their past investments being expropriated. So, I’m really not sure that Smith’s scenario is all that credible. I’m not saying there wouldn’t be retaliation, because you can bet there would be, but her scenario comes off as abject nonsense (while she continues to counsel capitulation). Smith also rejected the calls to cancel her referendums because of the trade war, like the Parti Québécois leader promised to hold off on. Smith claimed it’s because she’s following her “citizenship initiation” law, but she gamed those rules to ensure there would be a referendum, so this is her putting her own party problems above the nation, once again.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-08-26T19:08:03.507Z

My Latest:

Continue reading →

Unveiling the counter-tariffs

Posted on by

The government announced the details of their dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs yesterday, and it was a fairly broad list, but largely focused on protecting domestic markets than extracting a price from the Americans—there is a whole explanation of defensive versus offensive tariffs here. In many cases, these are things where there are domestic alternatives available, which means that it creates a price incentive to buy the Canadian alternative, which is laudable. And there does seem to be some distribution where the effect of those retaliatory tariffs does seem to disproportionately impact swing states, which is also not a bad thing. Of course, that’s not to say that there isn’t a discussion to be had about whether we shouldn’t be trying to maximize the political price for the Americans, particularly as the midterms approach, whether that is export taxes or otherwise on things like potash or energy, which is particularly fraught, because it could invite even harsher retaliation from the Americans. However, if this is indeed an economic war and we are fighting for our sovereignty, that could mean using bigger economic guns, and ensuring that the burden faced by Canadians is more evenly shared than it is right now (especially by Alberta and Saskatchewan).

Where do Canadian retaliatory tariffs land? Based on all affected products on Sept 8 (including pre-existing tariffs), here's the value of exports times tariff rates as a share of each state's GDP. #cdnecon #cdnpoli

— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe.bsky.social) 2026-08-25T18:50:14.657082Z

Also announced were some of the tweaks to EI to support workers, but it’s not a lot of tweaks as they do nothing about the hours worked requirements. I will also note that this government promised EI reform years ago, and did a lot of work on it (and I can personally say that a friend of mine worked on the file and did a tonne of work that has apparently never seen the light of day), and nothing came of it, whether it was because it was too politically unsaleable, or some other reason we don’t know.

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3mtwaluxa2k2g

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3mtwalvxp4k2g

Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre continues to demand that the “text” of the trade deal be released, when there may not have been a finalized text, and it’s a Cabinet confidence in any case, and shouldn’t be released because it can point to particular pain points in future negotiations. Poilievre is also calling for his economic “plan” to be adopted, with its tax cuts, environmental law repeal and his bizarre notion about zero tax on capital gains being reinvested in Canada, which I will remind you Jim Flaherty tried to implement in the Harper era and gave up because it was way too complex to manage. But Poilievre has one set of ideas (doubling-down on trickle-down), and he’s going to keep swinging that hammer for every problem under the sun, no matter how inappropriate it may be. And then there’s Danielle Smith who wants negotiations to resume right away, even though there is no trade deal to be had because the Americans are not interested in trade, only in subjugation. Unbelievable, but also unsurprising, that she is so keen to be a Vichy premier.

Pierre Poilievre demands that the PM adopt his economic plans, no matter how nonsensical they actually are. Because he has one set of solutions for all of Canada’s problems, and he will not be dissuaded.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-25T17:06:31.112Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-08-25T19:08:02.395Z

Continue reading →

More threats and childish name-calling

Posted on by

In the wake of the collapse of trade talks, the Trump was administration trying desperately to put the blame on Canadian negotiators rather than the fact that Howard Lutnick came stomping in at the end and undid the work that Jamieson Greer was doing (not that there was any deal to be had, let me be clear—this was only about extracting concessions from us so that they could demand more). Trump himself decided to start throwing more threats around, starting with threats of fifty percent tariffs on autos (including parts) and steel come January, possibly in the hopes that it would send Carney and his team back to the table so that they could offer fresh capitulations to head off said tariffs. Of course, it’s also pretty ridiculous at this point—the margin on auto assembly in this country runs around six percent, so whether tariffs are at twenty-five or fifty percent it hardly seems to matter, but it really seems incumbent upon the auto industry in the US to push back against this.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-24T14:54:38.444Z

And measured in US terms (because they measure unemployment different than we do), I believe ours is about 5.3% on an apples-to-apples basis, if memory serves.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-24T18:28:16.720Z

And then, because it can always get worse, it devolved into a bunch of name-calling between Doug Ford and Trump, with Ford at one point inviting Trump to kiss his ass, while Trump saying that Ford was a “flunky” and a pale imitation of his older brother, the late Rob Ford. And it’s so stupid. What gets me, however, is the fact that once again, Ford is uncritically being praised for his standing up to Trump, even though it’s just bluster, and we’re back to people saying “I don’t normally support Ford, but…” and guys, guess what? This is what he wants. This is how he hopes to turn his tanking poll numbers around, just like he did before the last provincial election. It’s incredible how much people keep falling for this.

Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre is demanding that the government recall Parliament so that they can “get answers” about what happened, but there is nothing to be legislated here, and the government is not going to release everything in public because trade negotiations are Cabinet confidences for a reason, not the least of which is because it can expose pain points for others to exploit. This being said, yes, we do need them to give more about how the Americans scuppered their own deal, but there are ways of doing that that don’t give away everything. If the opposition wants to call Dominic LeBlanc and Janice Charette to the trade committee and ask questions, they can do that without recalling Parliament a month early, but this looks to me like a desperate bid by Poilievre to try and start harvesting clips for his social media channels.

What, exactly, needs to be legislated at this moment? If you want to haul LeBlanc and Charette before a committee, you don't need to recall Parliament to do that. Otherwise, this looks like a desperate need to start farming clips for social media.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-24T13:04:55.035Z

Also, I am bemused that yet again, Poilievre's solution to everything is to destroy environmental laws. Because apparently we'll save the economy through years of endless litigation?

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-24T13:04:55.036Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-08-24T19:08:01.739Z

Continue reading →

Walking away from a bad deal at the last minute

Posted on by

The Canadian delegation walked away from the negotiation table late Friday after rumours came down that Howard Lutnick inserted himself into the talks because he felt that Canada was getting too good of a deal, and lo, talks have ended. New tariffs were applied to Canada, and we will counter with tariffs of our own after Labour Day. Never mind the fact that there could never actually be a deal—there is no negotiating with a party that will not and will never honour any deal it makes, so it never made sense for Carney to go through the pretence, and from the sounds of it, was willing to make some very serious concessions, including our digital sovereignty, to get pretty much nothing in return (and no, accepting lower permanent tariffs on things that used to be traded freely is not something).

The Robot Chicken version:

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-22T16:00:16.149Z

On Saturday, Carney noted in his speech that at the last minute, the US tried to attack French and other elements of our sovereignty, including limiting our other trading relationships, which cannot stand. Even worse was the text circulating that would prohibit us from any retaliatory measures anytime they decided to his us with new tariffs for any reason, which is just vassal state bullshit. But again, it raises the question of how Carney thought he was ever negotiating in good faith with an explicitly bad faith administration? And how can he not see that we are not in a trade war, but we are fighting against gangsterism, and that is very different.

https://bsky.app/profile/stephaniecarvin.bsky.social/post/3mtomikpack27

How the trade negotiations between Canada and the USA went sour. Note the last paragraph on slide 2, specifically. The Americans were never working for a trade deal. They were demanding the right to abuse Canada whenever Trump is in a mood. #cdnpoli

— Kikki Planet (@kikkiplanet.bsky.social) 2026-08-22T14:06:54.528Z

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3mtovnjbzhc2v

….and to be clear, the attack on Canada is not simply a "trade war". The US ripped up the Gordie Howe Bridge deal and expropriated the revenue stream.That's not a trade war; that's simply gangsterism. And that repeats on many other non-trade fronts.So, stop analyzing this as a "trade war".

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-08-22T16:27:21.608Z

In reaction, Jennifer Robson makes the observation that many of the American demands were aimed at positioning us vis-à-vis China, and looks for hints about the latest round of demands based on past grievance reports. Kevin Carmichael ponders Carney’s history as a risk manager and how he might be applying that to the current situation. Justin Ling is confident we’ll win this war with the Americans, like we’ve won against their repeated attempts to invade us. Matt Gurney calls on the government to release details and names for why the deal failed, as this is also an info war, and we need to get more allies on-side. Stephanie Carnvin points out that even if Trump loses the next election, there is no “normal” to go back to, which is why Canadian business leaders need to stop pining and get with the times.

The Canadian Government Is Dumping Donald Trumpyoutu.be/2wj7DI2NMPk

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2026-08-22T17:32:23.386Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-08-23T23:08:01.038Z

My Latest:

  • My column wonders if Danielle Smith isn’t trying to set up a showdown in advance of her referendums on her dual practice healthcare legislation.
  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take notes that our national security laws are overdue for legislative review, and that this should be something committees take up right away.
  • My weekend column looks at the recent study on the rise in instances of Canadian conservatives claiming elections were fraudulent when they lose.

Continue reading →