Davies’ go-nowhere bill to ban floor-crossing

Posted on by
Reply

Perhaps out of a need to feel a sense of relevance as his party disappears into the woodwork, the NDP’s Don Davies tabled a private members’ bill yesterday that would ban floor-crossing and require an MP to run in a by-election before changing parties. This is little surprise for the NDP, who have declared their dislike of floor-crossings, probably because people like to cross away from them, as was most especially the case in the post-2011 caucus when Lise St. Denis saw the illegal stunts they were trying to pull with their “regional office” scheme and demanding parts of her office budget to do so and said “Nope,” and crossed to the Liberals, while another one of their MPs joined with a former Bloc MP to try and start a new Quebec party that went nowhere. Lori Idlout is just the latest who decided there was no future in the NDP.

“The power to decide who governs belongs exclusively to Canadian votes [sic],” Davies concluded.This fundamentally misunderstands parliamentary democracy, which is frankly on-brand for the NDP.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-02T17:39:49.995Z

The NDP, at least federally, fundamentally believe that party trumps individual—they are the most whipped caucus in Parliament, and they have an internal culture that demands “solidarity,” so MPs that stray from those lines face bullying, and if they vote against the party line, they face punishments. This is long-standing. (It’s also not just federal—there were allegations of internal bullying in the Rachel Notley caucus as well, and Wab Kinew kicked someone out of his party for the most dubious of reasons). Davies’ press release, however, also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of parliamentary democracy, which is that voters elect a parliament, and that parliament decides on who forms government. Yes, we have reduced this to a bunch of shorthand around the party with the most seats, etcetera, but fundamentally, we elect individual MPs to a parliament, we don’t elect governments. Electing individuals means that they get to make their own choices including whether they want to continue to sit with the party they were elected under, and then voters can hold them to account in the next election.

The NDP doesn’t understand or believe in that, instead espousing a bunch of nonsense about being elected under a team banner so therefore that team is more important than the individual. What they are instead saying is that MPs don’t matter—they shouldn’t have rights, and they shouldn’t have their own agency, because the party is everything. That’s the thing that is actually fundamentally undemocratic, and that’s why Davies bill should go down in flames—not that it will ever see the light of day, because he’s near the bottom of the Order of Precedence, and it is mathematically impossible for his slot to come up before the next election.

Continue reading →

QP: The (absent) PM need to own the “recession”

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was again absent, which is unusual for a Tuesday, as he was on his way to Longueuil, Quebec, for another infrastructure announcement announcement, while Pierre Poilievre was present, and in French, he declared the question was for the “Liberal prime minister” and he complained that he expected a parade because GDP per capita went up 0.2 percent. Mélanie Joly said that incomes are outpacing inflation, and that Canada has become a destination for investment, so their plan was working. Poilievre took a swipe that the (absent) PM was not answering, and complained about the number of monthly declines in GDP. Steven MacKinnon noted that they are facing headwinds, but they have a plan that is working. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his demand that the PM answer the question and repeated the same question on GDP per capita. Tim Hodgson noted that our Canada is the most integrated with the U.S., and that Canadians understand the headwinds that include two “economy-destroying wars” and wanted him to stop taking down the economy. Poilievre repeated his point from yesterday about Mexico, and David McGuinty accused him of inventing a phoney narrative, and that the last time Poilievre had a plan, he told people to buy crypto. Poilievre read a quote about the scarring effects of recessions, and demanded Carney stand up and own it. Patty Hajdu insisted that Canadians are excited about all of the building happening. Poilievre went on a rant about how tired Canadians are and that Carney doesn’t have the “decency” to answer, and after some prolonged applause and shouting, to which Anita Anand reminded the House that Canadian exports to non-U.S. markets rose by over 17 percent, and they have secured $10 billion in new investments.

Poilievre is leaving the Chamber after his round of questions, and the Liberals are all loudly bidding him farewell after Poilievre spent his questions pretending Carney was present and not answering. #QP

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-02T18:28:45.885Z

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and demanded wage subsidies for business suffering from tariffs so that they can maintain jobs and expertise. Joly patted herself on the back for the measures they are taking. Blanchet said that wasn’t a wage subsidy, and wanted the government to adopt the solutions from the forestry industry about buying back countervailing duties. MacKinnon noted that Carney would be in Quebec later this afternoon to make an announcement. Gabriel Ste-Marie took over to repeat the same demand for the buy-back, and Joly repeated her same back-patting as before.

Continue reading →

Ceding the recession narrative

Posted on by
Reply

The is-it-or-isn’t-it recession talk continued apace over the weekend and on Monday, as Pierre Poilievre demanded an emergency debate on it (which the Speaker denied), while more economists continued to line up on the side of “it’s not a recession.” Even the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada appeared at committee and warned them not to take a single point of data when the economic indicators as a whole remain mixed.

Ignore all of those other economists, including the Senior Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada. Andrew Scheer, who couldn't even complete his insurance certification, is going to school you on the recession.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-02T01:36:43.140Z

This being said, prime minister Mark Carney has been wholly silent on it since the data were released on Friday morning. He made two separate media appearances yesterday but took no questions at either one, and he has avoided Question Period yesterday and he’s avoiding it today, and it really starts to look like he’s ceding the ground to Poilievre, who keeps bellowing his ridiculous narratives while Carney, who is supposed to have the economic gravitas as a former central bank governor, remains absent. And there are important things we should probably be talking about with this data, such as the fact that in periods of slow growth, these indicators dipping below zero are less important than the overall picture, and that overreacting and panicking can lead to greater problems or damage in the longer term. But we’re not having this conversation because, again, Carney is ceding the field, and given that Poilievre seems to enjoy this unearned economic credibility, it’s frankly arrogant to think that his bogus narratives can’t gain traction because they absolutely can, and that will spell trouble overall.

My Latest:

  • For National Magazine, my dive into Friday’s pair of Supreme Court of Canada decisions on the exceptions for the Jordan timelines on trial lengths.
  • My weekend column points to things that Steven Guilbeault’s departure has highlighted as just how much this government is backsliding on its climate goals.

Continue reading →

QP: The only G7 country in a recession

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was off at a construction site for a photo op before jetting off to Toronto to make an announcement, while Pierre Poilievre was present, and he led off in French, and demanded to know why Canada is the only G7 country in recession (and to be clear, most economists do not believe we are really in one). Mélanie Joly reminded him that we are in a trade war, and that our economy is very integrated with the Americans’, which he knows full well, before listing expected job creation at several approved projects. Poilievre then noted that Mexico, which is also highly integrated with the American economy, is not in a recession, and then noted the crisis facing food banks. Dominic LeBlanc repeated that we face unjustified tariffs from the U.S., and noted that they are trying to reach an agreement on them, but they are not waiting and are working to build Canada in the meantime. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first list of G7 countries not in recession, and Tim Hodgson repeated the line that our economy is the most deeply integrated with the U.S., before listing projects that have been approved. Poilievre repeated the line about Mexico, and then listed job losses in the last several months, and again insisted that we are the only country in a recession. David McGuinty listed off all of the jobs being created by their procurements, and exhorted Poilievre to stop running down the economy. Poilievre then railed that the prime minister has not taken any questions since the news broke that we are in a recession (which, again, is debatable), and Patty Hajdu took this one, patting herself on the back for the support they are giving to skilled trades. Poilievre the returned to the latest Food Banks Canada report in English, and Hajdu suggested he read the entire report because it called for things that the government has already done as reason for optimism, which the Conservatives voted against.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and demanded the numbers on emissions reductions after all of the government’s setbacks. Julie Dabrusin decided not to give those, but to pat herself on the back for their methane regulations and the electricity strategy. Normandin demanded those numbers again, and listed the government’s walk backs on programmes, and Dabrusin offered to once again pat herself on the back, this time for international climate funds and electric cars. Alexis Deschênes took over to try again, and this time Joel Lightbound responded by patting himself on the back for their nature strategy. 

Continue reading →

A technical recession?

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday morning, Statistics Canada reported that the first quarter of GDP was very slightly in the negative on an annualized basis—on a real GDP quarter-over-quarter basis, it was flat (and if you really want to get into it, GDP per capita was up after a second quarterly population decline). This immediately led to a flurry of speculation of whether this is a “technical recession,” meaning two quarters of negative growth, or not, given that the data were mixed. And three economists who spoke to the Financial Post said it’s not a real recession, and it was also noted that when the data are revised in the next quarter’s release, it may very well be revised upward. To add to that, the preliminary estimate for April GDP is that it rose 0.4 percent, so that means that we would already be out of said recession if we were indeed in one.

Pierre Poiliever, however, pounced on this, screaming that it’s a RECESSION and he quickly added to all of the QP scripts that morning that “Canada is the only G7 country in a recession,” but since most of the questions were on prime minister Mark Carney’s in-flight meal service on the government jet, it sounded an awful lot like he was blaming said recession on said in-flight catering. Because we’re a serious country. Poilievre then called a hasty press conference to say that this was all Mark Carney’s fault, because no other G7 country is in a recession, as though their economies weren’t as exposed to the US and its tariffs as ours is. Once again, we appear to have no actual adults in our parliament.

Noted economist Andrew Scheer has deigned to correct The Canadian Press' headline.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-05-29T22:54:32.367Z

Continue reading →

Canada Strong to help MAGA?

Posted on by
2

Prime minister Mark Carney was in New York yesterday to address the Economic Club of that city, and as part of his speech, gave the line that “Canada Strong™ will help Make America Great Again”—a line that was sure to get a reaction from the White House as much as it got a reaction from the American ambassador. Carney continues to believe he can outmanoeuvre Trump and company, and that he can be so clever as to keep with the talk about “ruptures” and diversifying trade while still trying to get “fortress North America” and even deeper integration with the Americans on other files. You want to assert sovereignty, but keep finding excuses to try and get even closer when the money is just right? Eventually something is likely to give, and it just might be Canadians’ patience.

This being said, I also noted the list of people that Carney met with, and it’s a lot of big money bosses, like Blackrock and JPMorgan Chase—the kind of money that is unconcerned that America has devolved into outright fascism. I will note that is also while the Canadian military signed an agreement with the Canadian branch-plant of an American techno-fascist’s digital asbestos firm, but justified it as being a “legitimate” procurement process. So much of this is starting to feel like the casino scene from The Last Jedi—a look at the monied class that is unconcerned that there is a war going on (or that the capital was obliterated days ago) because they are profiting by selling to both sides. Carney sucking up to this monied class in New York feels an awful lot like that right now.

The list of who the PM met with in New York today.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-05-29T01:47:21.770Z

IYKYK

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-05-29T01:47:21.771Z

effinbirds.com/post/8132596…

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-05-28T13:08:05.261Z

My Latest:

My column points to the crisis in grassroots democracy that is brewing in the Ontario Liberal Party that the Scarborough Southwest nomination contest revealed.

Continue reading →

QP: Deliberately crashing the economy?

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was in New York, fresh from his speech at the Economic Club, while Pierre Poilievre disappeared after making a statement condemning antisemitism. Lianne Rood led off, and railed about restrictive foreign investment rules. Maninder Sidhu pointed out that foreign direct investment is at a twenty-year high. Rood accused the Liberals of creating a failing economy while most of Carney’s personal investments are in the U.S. Mélanie Joly responded by patting herself on the back for the Saab Global Eye contract. Mark Strahl took over to make the same bizarre accusations, and Tim Hodgson patted himself of the back for recent investments by Shell, before they did another round of the same. Gérard Deltell read the same script in French, and Joly pointed out that Canada is now the favourite destination for investment in North America before repeating the praise for the Saab deal. Deltell tried again, and this time Steven MacKinnon enthused about building mines and military aircraft.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc to declare that the National Assembly unanimously condemned Carney’s statement about the Clarity Act, to which Lightbound countered that Quebec’s priorities are really things like mines and aircraft. Normandin demanded the Clarity Act be repealed, and Lightbound repeated his same points. Rhéal Fortin tried one more time, and Dominic LeBlanc went on a bit of a ramble about how there will be an election in Quebec in the fall.

Continue reading →

Amending the lawful access bill?

Posted on by
Reply

This government’s utter ineptitude on the lawful access file would be farcical if it wasn’t so serious. After years of opposing it because it’s unconstitutional, the Liberals did an about-face and suddenly supported it once Carney took office, and they immediately insisted that this was crucial for law enforcement. Then they had to redraft the provisions into a separate bill because there was a tonne of pushback, tacitly admitting they got it wrong, but still would say in Question Period that the opposition should have helped them pass it months ago. You know, when it was flawed. Then the minister insisted that the pushback was “misinformed” and that they simply didn’t do a good enough job communicating around the bill, and had Public Safety’s media team aggressively trying to push journalists around if they didn’t publish the government’s line, and would send the RCMP and CSIS out to media to make the case for it, while they contradicted themselves along the way. (It’s not about expanded surveillance—but we need to ensure that they have the capability to have that surveillance when we say so!)

I lived in Romania shortly after the fall of the Iron Curtain. It was rumored that the Securitate could remotely activate the microphones of any phone to turn it into a listening device. That was chilling.

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-05-28T00:02:55.364Z

Under Bill C-22 Lawful Access, the Minister of Public Safety can secretly order every phone manufacturer to embed that same capability into the phone in your pocket. That's also chilling.

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-05-28T00:02:55.384Z

Would the current Minister do that? Don't know. Would a future Minister do that? Don't know. I know that the police currently get warrants to implant spyware on phones. They'd love to have that capability without a warrant, and would put pressure on the Minister to enable that.

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-05-28T00:02:55.406Z

And now after even more pushback, they’re saying they will be introducing amendments, again admitting that they still got it wrong—but again, still chiding the opposition that it should have been passed months ago. We’ll see what those amendments look like, but the minister is not exactly instilling confidence in what he’s proposing. I worry that they plan to use their majority to bully this through regardless, but after so many admissions that they keep getting this wrong, I have zero confidence that this won’t blow up in everyone’s faces, and eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada because they ignored all of the warnings.

Meanwhile, at the moment when the Minister should be most familiar with the details of his Bill, he flubs up something pretty basic and important.

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-05-27T23:25:37.244Z

My Latest:

Continue reading →

QP: Reruns of the “credit card” script

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was in the building after attending a reception with the Olympic and Paralympic athletes, but did not stick around for QP before he headed off to New York later in the day. Pierre Poilievre was giving a press conference in the Foyer as QP got underway, leaving it up to Luc Berthold to lead off in French, reading the tired script about the supposed “national credit card.” Steven MacKinnon rose to proclaim the announcement from this morning about surveillance planes and the LNG deal with Germany. Berthold kept on with the same script, and Mélanie Joly took her own turn to boast about the aircraft sale. Carol Anstey read a variation of the same script, but in her typical Karen delivery that sounded like she wanted to speak to the government’s manager. MacKinnon got back up to loudly proclaim the same good news about the surveillance plane sale in English. Anstey read some nonsense about inflation, and Joanne Thompson took the opportunity to recite the good news talking points about the funding for small craft harbours. The very masculine Jacob Mantle tried to crack wise about the spaceport lease in Nova Scotia, and David McGuinty took his own turn to crow about the good news on those surveillance planes. Mantle demanded a copy of the lease agreement, and McGuinty read some good news talking points about the Canadian Forces.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and spoke about how those who have an environmental conscience must must Trudeau, and lamented the resignation of Steven Guilbeault. Julie Dabrusin patted herself on the back for the government’s nature strategy and methane regulations. Blanchet listed the government’s backtracking on the environment, and Dabrusin shrugged this off, saying his own record as environment minister in Quebec was nothing to brag about. Blanchet again wondered if there was anyone with an environmental conscience left in the Liberal Party, and Dabrusin took credit for our largely clean electricity grid (which this government has nothing to do with).

Continue reading →

Setting the terms of the referendum debate

Posted on by
1

As the Alberta referendum “debate” starts to heat up, you are seeing a lot of places where separatists or their proxies are trying to set the terms of debate on the federalist side, whether that’s demanding to be platformed so that they can spout lies and distortions, or treating emotional appeals as “flamethrowers” when they are allowed to use absolutely unhinged rhetoric with no consequence. They have become used to the kinds of egregious both-sidesing in legacy media that allowed MAGA to flourish in the States, or that allows Conservatives in this country to lie with wild abandon because they know they won’t be called on it, and if federalists don’t want to play that game, they cry foul.

The thing I am most concerned about, however, is federalists conceding that the invented grievances of these Alberta separatists are somehow legitimate—particularly when it comes to small-c conservatives advocating on the federalist side. And it’s going to be nigh impossible for them to actually argue against the invented grievances because they rely on them to this day to make their points. Max Fawcett made a very trenchant argument in that Albertans have become addicted to grievances politics (true!) and that Conservative politicians and pundits need give that up if they want to save confederation. That’s also true, but might be an impossible-level challenge for them to do, because that kind of grievance politics are all most of these Conservatives have ever known, and they don’t know how to argue in any other way. And this is why I worry about the Pandora’s box that’s been opened, because the people who are going to be counted on to save confederation are going to be unable to do what is required of them, because nobody will actually call bullshit on these grievances after Albertans have been force-fed them for so long that they’ve internalised them. That could wind up being a fatal flaw in the federalists’ arguments.

My Latest:

New episodes released early for C$7+ subscribers. This week I delve into the Online Streaming Act obligations, and why it's not a "Netflix tax." #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-05-27T01:34:48.770Z

Continue reading →