QP: Poilievre makes common cause with the PQ leader

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was present today, fresh from the Pride flag raising on the Hill, and Pierre Poilievre was present as well. He led off in French, worrying that in the midst of the “worst recession in the G7,” he lamented that the government planned to spent $90 billion on the high-speed rail that would “destroy farms in Quebec.” Mark Carney listed the jobs that this was expected to create. Poilievre dismissed these as “jobs for Liberal friends,” and again lamented the projected cost of the project. Carney praised that this would be the biggest infrastructure project in the country’s history, and we need to build. Poilievre switched to English to worry about the rise in bankruptcies and worried the government’s spreading was making it worse. Carney praised the number for jobs created in the past month. Poilievre countered with even more cherry-picked dismal numbers, and Carney dismissed this as Poilievre not believing in Canada. Poilievre insisted it was his patriotic duty to fight for the people who are suffering, and that he would make no lessons on patriotism from a guy who stashes his funds in a tax haven. The Speaker noted that there wasn’t a question, and so they moved onto the next one, and Poilievre cited delinquency rates, and blamed the PM for driving the country into recession, to which Carney insisted they are growing a stronger and more independent economy.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she accused the government of abandoning Quebec culture in the face of tech giants and Donald Trump, in exchange for absolute nothing. Carney responded that the question is why the Bloc keeps voting against investments in Quebec culture. Normandin listed the cancellation of policies and the abandonment of the flight against climate change, and that he is deregulating things like pesticides, all for the benefit of American corporations. Carney shrugged this off by listing things the Bloc voted against. Martin Champoux also accused Carney of abandoning Quebec culture for bargaining chips, and Carney said it was sad that the Bloc didn’t read the previous budget and the investments for culture therein.

Continue reading →

Political blackmail under the guise of a unity speech

Posted on by
Reply

Pierre Poilievre kicked off his supposed “unity campaign” in Calgary yesterday (as he skipped the installation of the Governor General to do so), and gave a speech which was little more than a remix of the same campaign speech he’s been giving for three years now. And not even a good remix, but a shitty extended dub mix that is mostly just a lot of electronic noise. In it was the usual litany of invented grievances that Albertans have been touting for years—pretending that the federal government is somehow interfering in their jurisdiction, or that Justin Trudeau’s environmental policies were somehow strangling the province’s resource sector and that the global oil price crash of 2014 didn’t happen (just like the oil price crash of 1981 didn’t happen, and all of their woes were the fault of Pierre Trudeau). It’s a tired mythology that is not true, but is so intrinsic to the core of the invented grievances that have dominated Alberta politics for more than four decades.

But what is particularly dangerous about this kind of tactic is that it hijacks a potential national unity crisis for partisan ends. It makes unity conditional on the conservatives, federally or provincially, getting their own way as though there aren’t political considerations in the rest of the country either. As Andrew Coyne puts it, this message posits that the rest of the country needs to “prove” that it’s worth saving, and if that means dismantling what little federalism we have in this country, then so be it. The notion that the only Canada worth having is their narrow vision of the country, which is exclusionary and frankly mean, is not a unity message. It’s little more than the same kind of blackmail that Danielle Smith and Jason Kenney before her were trying to use in leveraging separatist sentiment to hold a knife to their own throats to force concessions from the federal government because they think it worked for Quebec. (It did not, and Quebec’s economy has never actually recovered). It’s fundamentally undemocratic, and shows them to be little more than crybabies who can’t handle the fact that sometimes democracy means you lose at politics.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-06-08T19:08:01.492Z

My Latest:

  • My latest for National Magazine on Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision and the warning they gave to judges about how to do a credibility analysis.
  • My weekend column takes note of the way in which Poilievre’s rhetoric tends to catastrophize what is happening, along his tendency to rewrite history.
  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take on that Conservative MP trying to refuse his raise, and why that kind of populism is poisonous to democracy.

Continue reading →

QP: Still refusing to say “recession”

Posted on by
2

The PM was absent, despite having just been at the installation ceremony for the new Governor General, while Pierre Poilievre was also absent, giving a speech in Calgary, leaving it up to Gabriel Hardy to led off in French, where he used the usual tired script of framing the “recession” accusations around use of food banks. Steven MacKinnon patted himself on the back for the good job numbers that were released on Friday. Hardy then tried to equate something Carney said about a “technical recession” when he was governor of the Bank of England, which MacKinnon ignored and instead listed the supports in the enhanced GST credit that went out over the weekend. Tim Uppal took over to read the script about a “recession,” and this time, Wayne Long got up to first praise Jeremy Hansen’s attendance, before exhorting the Conservatives to get on board with their plan. Uppal recited more of the the “technical recession” talking points, and Long continued to pat himself on the back for the programmes they are rolling out for Canadians. Andrew Lawton then loudly recited the same script, to which Tim Hodgson disputed the talking point about investment leaving the country, and listed projects moving ahead. Lawton took a swipe at Hodgson and kept shouting his script, to which Hodgson listed jobs being created at approved projects.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, unusually for a Monday, and he lamented the prime minister’s directive to wipe out all levies on web giants for Canadian content, to which Marc Miller accused the Bloc of turning up their noses at the $600 million for culture. Blanchet noted the comparison to the EU, who are adding to these levies, and Miller said that Quebec’s cultural media sector praised their investments. Blanchet railed that they re undercutting the cultural emotion, and Miller took a swipe back at Blanchet in return.

Continue reading →

Digital Asbestos For All!

Posted on by
1

The prime minister and his minister of digital asbestos, Evan Solomon, released their “Digital Asbestos for All” strategy in Toronto yesterday, which involves giving half a billion dollars to firms to scale up their adoption of said digital asbestos, and doing a lot of back-patting about sovereign capability—or at least laying the foundations for it—and there were some utterly fantastic estimations of just how many jobs this will create. And by fantastic, I mean it looks an awful lot like fantasy. But it’s also a lot about trying to get people hooked, through giving access to ‘trusted [digital asbestos] agents” to all post-secondary students, which is not what professors want and is going to make their lives more difficult as they already have a hard enough time preventing cheating using these tools. They are also promising a “National [digital asbestos] Literacy Initiative” that involves training and tool-kits available to educators, which feels a lot like giving pot to high school students and telling them it’s good for them.

"Provide access to trusted AI agents for every post-secondary student – from the arts and commerce to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), and medicine."I'm pretty sure that nobody who teaches in a post-secondary institution asked for this, and this makes their jobs even harder.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-04T15:46:27.206Z

If this wasn’t bad enough, there was a whole lot of handwaving from Solomon about “building trust” and “safety” without actually saying how they’re going to ensure that these platforms can be trusted, or what kinds of safety measures they’ll put into place. On Power & Politics, David Cochrane was giving Solomon the gears about how he can possibly make these kinds of promises when the tech bros controlling these companies have more money than many economies at their disposal so fines won’t be of any use, and they have the weight of the Trump administration behind them, so trying to force them to build any kinds of safety features that they don’t want to build are extremely unlikely to happen. And Solomon wouldn’t answer, but just kept repeating his lines. “Trust” is a whole lot of “just trust me,” and I’m sorry, but that’s not good enough. But that’s all that this government is going to offer, because Mark Carney and Solomon have guzzled all of the tech bro hype, and they’re going to pour all kinds of money into this just as the bubble is about to burst. We’re going to lose so much money, while this government is already cutting spending to programmes that need it, and we’re all going to pay the price because they couldn’t stop guzzling the hype.

My Latest:

Continue reading →

QP: The second time as farce

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was once again away, off to Toronto for his big digital asbestos announcement, while Pierre Poilievre was also absent, leaving it up to the very masculine Jacob Mantle, who started listing countries, quoted Big Bird, and wondered which of them was in a recession. Steven MacKinnon noted that we are facing headwinds thanks to the trade war the U.S. launched, and wondered which of those countries he listed he would rather live in. Mantle reasoned that he would rather live in a Canada led by a Conservative government, before giving the “is this a recession or is this technical?” Talking point. François-Philippe Champagne listed the G7 countries and noted the OECD forecast of our having the second-fastest growth. Rhonda Kirkland tried to give Poilievre’s line about a recession or a technical recession, and Wayne Long listed countries that the government has signed agreements with. Kirkland made a Beetlejuice quip before repeating the same talking point, and David McGuinty lamented that the Conservatives have no plans. Gabriel Hardy read the script in French, and Mélanie Joly praised their recent announcements in Quebec. Hardy tried again, and this time Joël Lightbound wondered what Hardy would say to the people in his riding who are benefitting from programmes he voted against. 

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and lambasted the government for capitulating on the streaming levy, and Marc Miller considered it hypocritical that they weren’t supporting their new money for the cultural sector. Normandin noted that these funds were from taxpayers and not the web giants, and that in other countries, their levies haven’t raised prices. Miller repeated his same points. Martin Champoux gave the same again, and Joël Lightbound says the Bloc have voted against their cultural funding.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Capitulating to the streaming giants

Posted on by
1

Just days after the CRTC outlined the obligations under the Online Streaming Act that web giant streaming services would need to abide by when it comes to a portion of their Canadian revenues to be sent to Canadian content funds (which, to be clear, they could then draw from in order to develop shows and put on their platforms), and a day after Dominic LeBlanc was in Washington for more trade talks, the government decided to try and walk back these CRTC obligations. Minister Marc Miller ordered the CRTC to review the decision (as he can’t outright ignore it, as the CRTC is a quasi-judicial body) but with a “focus on affordability” as the claim is that these streaming services will simply raise their prices and Canadian households are already hit hard. Oh, but they’ll devote $600 million to Canadian media in lieu of these funds.

They insist it’s not a capitulation, but that’s exactly what it feels like, particularly since Trump mouthpieces were grousing that this levy was “discriminatory” (it’s not—it levelled the playing field with Canadian broadcasters and streaming services), and that it was yet another “trade irritant” as though they are allowed to throw up whatever tariffs they want (this week: New ten percent tariffs because of forced labour, but don’t look at their own deals with China, or the forced labour that comes from American prisons). Miller also insists that because the funds collected to date were frozen due to court challenges also seems to be beside the point. The point was that these web giants are taking Canadian money and giving nothing back (and no, treating our production studios as a resource colony is not exactly giving back), so having them contribute the same way a Canadian broadcaster contributes was both fair, and, I stress again, gave them the option to use these same funds that they contributed in order to create their own Canadian content that they could put up on their platforms.

I’m not going to engage in any kind of elbow discourse, but when you consider just how much these web giants and the tech bros that own them are integrated into Trump’s fascist regime, capitulating to them yet again is not exactly giving the impression that we’re protecting Canada’s cultural sovereignty, or that all the talk about Heated Rivalry and how much of a success it’s been is hollow if we keep letting the web giants dictate our own cultural policy. Where is the self-respect that should be a bare minimum in this conversation?

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-06-03T13:08:04.315Z

My Latest:

My column on legacy columnists opining about the “condescension” of central Canadians when it comes to Alberta separatists and their crybaby tendencies.

Continue reading →

QP: A recession or a technical recession?

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was finally present today for the first time since the GDP numbers were released, as was Pierre Poilievre, itching for a confrontation. Poilievre led off in English for a change, and he worried that nineteen of the G20 nations Arena not in recession, and asked for only leader of a G20 nation in recession to stand up. the Speaker said this was not a question but a request, and moved onto the next question. Poilievre then worried about all of the people in food insecurity and asked if we are in a recession or technical recession. Mark Carney first wished Poilievre a happy birthday before launching into a script about how much we are building as a country. Poilievre thanked him for the wishes, and noted that he is 47 but that’s 50 with inflation, before he listed more things going wrong in the country, and again asked if it was a recession or technical recession. Carney suggested he asked the CD Howe Institute and noted the OECD growth projections. Poilievre switched to French to repeat his G20 framing before asking again if it was a recession or technical recession. Carney corrected what the promise he made in the election was, and repeated his talking points about building. Poilievre returned to English to complain about the PM’s in-flight catering and again demanded to know if it was a recession or a technical recession. Carney decided to instead praise the international investment he has been able to attract to the country. Poilievre dismissed this as being about private corporations getting rich regardless while people suffered, and again asked if it was a recession or a technical recession. Carney said that we are in an economy in the midst of transformation and praised the increase in investment and exports to non-U.S. markets. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and lambasted the government for attempting to back track on the streaming levies charged to web giants. Carney said that this was about affordability and patted himself on the back for spending $600 million more on culture. Blanchet tried to again, and this time Carney said that everyday people would pay for that levy through increased costs, so they have decided to focus on affordability while ensuring the cultural sector is supported. Blanchet said this was worse than capitulating, but validating the American notion that the French language and culture are a barrier, and it also capitulated to the Conservatives. Carney insisted that they were investing, and that they have “more than made whole” the cultural sector (which I am less convinced about).

Continue reading →

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 →