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
1

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
Reply

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.

These are the EI changes that have been announced today. Some of them address some of the more common reasons for otherwise eligible claims to be delayed (ie: separation pay) or denied (a voluntary separation before a layoff). These are long-standing. Source: www.canada.ca/en/departmen… 1/n

— Jennifer Robson 🇨🇦 (@jrobson.bsky.social) 2026-08-25T16:31:48.904Z

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
Reply

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
Reply

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 →

Tariffs to change our behaviour

Posted on by
Reply

As we wait for the deadline on whatever trade “agreement” is supposed to be signed today, there are still a lot of concerning signs about what is in it, whether that’s with the tariff levels, or the “digital trade alignment,” which is very concerning. But much of the discussion today kept going back to the issue of the “booze ban,” which requires premiers to cooperate (and apparently Carney was pleading with them to do so on their call on Wednesday), and they’re not all on board. Some want to ensure that there is actual tariff reductions for industries in their province, while others are sounding more amenable, though there is still a combative tone around the fact that they may put it back on the shelf, but nobody is obligated to buy it, and they will actively discourage people from doing so. And fair enough. But as Jennifer Robson points out here, an official ban could find legal basis for certain of Trump’s tariffs (even though these bans were retaliatory in nature), so perhaps a more unofficial ban and popular boycott action may be the more legalistic approach to take.

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3mtkceer5q224

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3mtkcefexjc24

Wrote this alongside the very funny @ianmmacintyre.bsky.social, mostly just so I had an excuse to invent the atrocity that is "lobster wine"

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2026-08-20T22:08:22.467Z

Meanwhile, I’m at my limit with the California winemakers whinging that it’s not fair that we’ve banned their product, claiming that they’re allies and not the problem. Erm, except that a good half of the California vintner lobby donated to Trump and his proxies, so yeah, I would say that makes you a problem and that you’re not actually allies. I also don’t exactly see them doing anything to stand up to Trump in any way, so again, not seeing how that’s being a good ally. Meanwhile, JD Vance gave an interview that was trying to belittle prime minister Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre (who is a non-entity as far as the Americans are concerned), and says that the whole point of this exercise is to change Canadians’ behaviour, and that they think we’re moving in a more Trumpian direction, so they’re going to claim that as a win, particularly as they are already boasting that they got “significant concessions” from us as part of this deal. Why do I suspect this is going to wind up being a slow-motion disaster?

I'm at my limit with these guys. Half of the California wine-growers' lobby donated or endorsed Trump and his candidates (and @davidreevely.bsky.social went through and gathered all the receipts a few weeks ago). Don't go insisting you're allies being unfairly treated when you enabled this.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-21T01:03:48.040Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-08-20T19:08:01.415Z

Continue reading →

A trade deal or future vassalage?

Posted on by
2

The back-patting and self-congratulation has already started as word is that there is some kind of deal with the Americans, on certain tariffs, but not actual free trade, and not on any kind of renewal of the New NAFTA. Trump insisted that this means no more trade barriers into Canada for alcohol and for farmers, while Dominic LeBlanc insists that Supply Management remains intact. (Fixing the import quota allocations would actually be a good thing, because the way it’s currently structured is fuckery, and Canada keeps losing at trade tribunals because of it). Premiers did confirm that Carney has asked them to end their booze bans—not that it will stop people from boycotting it on their own accord. But there are other questions that remain, such as Jamieson Greer talking about “digital trade alignment,” and there’s still no word about forestry, or what auto tariffs are going to be. What we’ve heard is that the s.232 tariffs on steel and aluminium are being lowered from 50 percent to 25, but is that really worth it?

We still have no real idea what's in this Canada-U.S deal from last night. There's been a few vague leaks from PM Carney's briefing of the premiers, but now Quebec's premier says a deal is "far from being concluded" and isn't sure she can get behind it.

— Justin Ling (@justinling.ca) 2026-08-20T02:13:16.970Z

There is this weird dichotomy happening between Carney and company talking about diversifying our trade while at the same time pursuing “deeper integration” with the US, as typified by the Keystone XL talk, which just sends even more oil to our captive market. And it remains to be seen just how much Carney is giving up for this temporary relief—and make no mistake, it will be temporary because there is no dealing with Trump, and even if he says he’s got a signed deal, that can implode overnight (and we have seen countless examples of this). I worry most about the likelihood that this gives Trump a win that will let him and his cadre believe that they have figured out the formula for Canadian capitulation, and that this becomes just one more step in pressure that leads to eventual vassalage. There cannot be “deeper integration” that just makes us a resource colony. And all of the Carney apologists are going to be absolutely apoplectic about this notion, but he’s not just giving Canadian businesses time to transition, because most of them have no interest in doing so. Most of them keep hoping that things will go back to the way they were before so that they can continue to be rent-seekers, and Carney has done absolutely nothing to disabuse them of that notion, and that’s a problem, and it’ll be an even bigger problem once we’re a vassal state.

As Goodale' comments here reaffairm, Carney's strategy has always been deeper US integration plus a slight hedge against future bad US economic policy. The belief that Carney's trade diversification and infrastructure projects can balance against closer ties is, and always has been, a fantasy….

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-08-19T22:38:48.514Z

… b/c in the new normal, stable, mutually beneficial long-term agreements are literally impossible.So long as Carney, Goodale et al hold onto the fantasy that a normal trade agreement is possible & that certainty can be returned to the relationship, Canada will become increasingly a vassal state.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-08-19T22:38:48.515Z

What Carney and Goodale and others stubbornly refuse to understand (or don't care) is that trade agreements with the United States today are no longer about negotiating potentially mutually beneficial economic advantages They're tools of domination designed to guarantee subservience.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-08-19T22:38:48.516Z

My Latest:

Continue reading →

A brief reprieve from threatened tariffs

Posted on by
3

There has been a slight reprieve on the expected imposition of new tariffs, which Trump says has to do with the revival of Keystone XL (which isn’t actually called that anymore). I’m not sure that that accomplishes overall, because it will likely mostly just wind up being trans-shipment for export on the Gulf Coast, and I doubt we have production capacity to fill both that pipeline as well as a second west coast pipeline, and if that means this is an invitation to ramp up even more production in the oilsands, well, that’s yet another climate betrayal by Carney.

Trump says he's pausing the new Canada tariffs for three days because there's a tentative deal which may include reviving the Keystone XL pipeline

— Thomas Seal (@twseal.bsky.social) 2026-08-19T02:20:17.599Z

From PMO:

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-19T03:14:59.266Z

Earlier in the day, the rumour being leaked was that the Americans were trying to put forward a deal on auto tariffs to lower them to 15 percent, but with a possible base level of 7.5 percent if the American content was increased. The problem, however, is that according to the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association’s Flavio Volpe, margins in auto assembly run around six percent, so they’d still be losing money, so it’s a non-starter. All of this to say that this is dragging out further, and I’m still not discounting yet more capitulation by Carney to get some kind of a “deal,” even though there is no actual deal to be had.

Proxy voting

Mike Moffatt published an op-ed in the Globe and Mail yesterday that expanded on his previous thoughts about proxy voting for parents with children, which is his way of getting around the notion that not giving everyone a vote undermines the one-person-one-vote ethos. I’m not a fan of this particular logic, and I think that his enthusiasm for how mothers would vote better in the interest of their children (as most mothers would be given the proxy vote using CCB rules in his vision) is wildly optimistic or utopian, I do worry that this would essentially be rewarding people with additional political power for having children, even for the sixteen or eighteen years that they have the proxy, which I find a bit distasteful.

More to the point, I worry about unintended consequences. Like how voting rates plummeted after we lowered the voting age to 18, and how people have been wringing their hands about it ever since. One of my particular concerns is that this becomes yet another de facto gerrymander to increase the weights of rural ridings over urban ones, as rural families tend to have more children than urban ones, and this just perpetuates the already egregious problem of rural ridings being artificially weighted heavier than urban ridings, which in turn favours conservative parties in those areas, and that is often a deliberate strategy (looking especially at you, Alberta). Maybe I’m just being cynical, but as much as I can respect Moffatt’s reasoning, I don’t think it survives the test of reality.

Continue reading →

Poilievre’s plan to fuel inflation

Posted on by
Reply

The July inflation data was released yesterday, which means that Pierre Poilievre had something to say about it, and it was…mind-numbingly wrong and stupid. The data were not terrible—yes, it ticked up to 3.0% because of gasoline prices thanks to Trump’s misadventures in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz (and there was also an effect from World Cup tourism prices in there as well), but core measures (which strip out the volatile categories) are all hovering at two percent, and that’s a pretty good thing. This is what we want. Poilievre, however, wants to say dumb things.

In which Poilievre selectively reads this morning's inflation data in order to support his pre-determined but purely bullshit narrative.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-17T14:43:12.309Z

For starters, grocery prices. They are actually at their lowest rate of inflation in months, but when you look at the things driving it (fresh fruit, coffee, beef), all of it has fuck all to do with federal deficits. But that’s what Poilievre keeps his focus on. Federal deficits, and taxes. But the thing is, taxes are disinflationary, because they take available spending money out of the system. So, advocating for a continued or larger “gas tax” cut (and to be clear, they’re not all taxes, and won’t equal 25 cents per litre, which is another lie he keeps telling) is actually an inflationary policy. He is literally advocating for what he doesn’t want. Because of course he is.

Poilievre keeps fancying himself an economic genius because he watches crypto bros on YouTube, but he absolutely does not understand anything he’s talking about, and the tax cut/deregulate ideology he espouses got us into the mess we’re in as a society, where the young people he claims to advocate for can’t get ahead. Doubling down on those measures won’t help young people, but he refuses to change his mind, and when your only plan is to betray the audience you claim to be fighting for, well, I’m not sure what to tell you.

My Latest:

My weekend column takes issue with the gross mismatch in funds the government is spending on pipelines rather than climate mitigation and adaptation measures.

New episodes released early for C$7+ subscribers. This week I discuss the various legal challenges to the different oaths to the King. #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-17T00:14:10.972Z

Continue reading →

The CBC fails basic civics, yet again

Posted on by

The CBC has once again officially outraged me. In a short vertical clip for social media, one of their reporters referred to the story about the constitutional challenge in Quebec about the oath to the King, for which she refers to it as the “King of England.”

CBC using "King of England" in the Canadian context. Not King of Canada.There hasn't been a King of England since 1702.FFS, CBC. This is basic civics and you can't even get that right. www.youtube.com/shorts/R5B-N…

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-14T01:11:30.309Z

For. Fuck. Sakes.

This is basic, grade-school civics. In Canada, Charles III is the King of Canada. Canada has had its own separate and distinct Crown since the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Even more to the fact, England has not had a separate Crown since 1707, when it was merged with the Crown of Scotland to become the Crown of the United Kingdom. In fact, there hasn’t been a King of England since 1702. And yet, here’s the gods damned CBC, using the phrase in reference to the King of Canada, like it’s no big deal.

Even worse was the fact that the clip just uncritically aired the Parti Québécois leader’s completely false claims about swearing the oath to the “King of England” (who doesn’t exist) and that it’s to a “foreign monarch,” which again, hasn’t been true since 1931. Sure, we may time-share the physical person of Charles III, but the King of Canada is not a foreign imposition. These should be basic facts that the national public broadcaster should be able to correct, but chose not to, and presented the PQ’s framing as fact, which it absolutely is not. This is complete malpractice on the part of the journalist in question, her editors and producers, and the CBC writ-large. If they can’t put out accurate information about the basic civics of this country, then what are they even doing?

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-08-13T19:08:01.541Z

My Latest:

My Xtra column wonders which rights Carney will capitulate on next, once he’s finished capitulating on trade.

Continue reading →