Author Archives: Dale

About Dale

Journalist in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

Roundup: Red flags around the “grand bargain”

Posted on by

The more I read about the budget’s “climate competitiveness,” the more I find myself questioning just what is on offer from Mark Carney. There is an attempt to build this so-called “grand bargain” that failed the last time it was tried, where approving the Trans-Mountain Expansion was supposed to help fund the green transition and provide the social licence for doing things like the tanker ban on the northwest coast of BC, and yet here we are, where the oil and gas sector and by extension, the provincial government of Alberta, have not lived up to their end of the bargain at all. The companies that insisted they were going to meet their 2025 Net-Zero targets suddenly started to complain that it was too hard, and when the greenwashing legislation kicked in, suddenly all of those Net-Zero pledges vanished, as though they were never real to begin with.

That’s why I’m particularly unimpressed that one of the promises in the budget is to water down the greenwashing legislation, which sounds an awful lot like Carney is looking for the industry to lie to him once more about all of the reductions that they’re totally going to make in the future—really! You just need to let them have a free hand with even fewer environmental regulations in the meantime. As well, the fact that Carney is pinning his hopes on so-called “decarbonized” oil production with the Pathways project is even looking like he’s going to lose a tonne of money trying to get it to scale up, because hey, he’s offering a bunch of tax credits for them to operate, which is a de facto subsidy for oil operations. But it’s extremely expensive, and all of those oil companies want even more taxpayer money to make it work, while they pocket their profits, naturally. Nevertheless, it looks an awful lot like Carney is going to capitulate to that sector and remove the emissions cap on a bunch of half-hearted greenwashed promises and pretend that he still cares about the environment.

Speaking of the tanker ban, BC premier David Eby and the coastal First Nations are organising a pushback against any move by the federal government to lift it in order to push a pipeline through the region, while Danielle Smith puts ever more pressure on the federal government to approve that project (even though there’s no proponent, or route, or even just a line on a map). Will it be enough to dissuade Carney? At the pace he’s going, I’m not taking any bets.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-05T14:25:06.884Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The fighting continues in the streets of Pokrovsk, which is the kind of fighting that can’t be done with the same kind of drone warfare that the rest of the front line has become accustomed to.

Continue reading →

QP: Continually invoking the so-called “Food Professor”

Posted on by

Post-budget, the PM was finally present for the first time in two weeks, as were all of the other leaders, ready to put on a show. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he declared that never has any budget forced Canadians to pay more for so little, decried the size of the deficit. Mark Carney insisted that Canada still has the best position in the G7, and that this was about building for the future. Poilievre decried that the cost to service the debt meant less money for doctors, and Carney retorted that debt servicing charges were less than they were under Harper. Poilievre repeated his first question in English, and threw in a couple of added slogans. Carney declared that 75 percent of the measures in the budget are to protect are sovereignty while the rest are for help for the cost of living, such as their tax cut. Poilievre insisted that the industrial carbon price was threatening “food sovereignty,” and quoted the so-called “Food Professor” to make his point. Carney patted himself on the back for killing the consumer carbon levy, that farms all fell below the industrial carbon price cut-off, and that the Climate Institute calculated that the impact of the industrial carbon price on inflation is zero. Poilievre tried to tie this to steel production and food prices, and Carney repeated that the effect of the industrial carbon price on food inflation is zero. Poilievre then switched to Friday’s Supreme Court decision, falsely characterised it, and demanded the government invoke the Notwithstanding Clause. Carney said that they would come up with new legislative measures in response. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, to lament that their priorities were not in the budget, and Carney responded that clean electricity tax credits was a good measure. Blanchet insisted that a tax credit was just creative accounting, and Carney insisted that Hydro-Quebec would be the biggest beneficiary, and that carbon capture was needed for the oil Quebec uses. Blanchet decried that the budget was just austerity, and Carney insisted this was about investing and that this was a growth budget.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A floor-crossing during the budget reveal

Posted on by

So, that was the “generational” budget, which is cutting away at the civil service, and claiming “efficiencies” in most government departments (though a few defence and security related departments, as well as Indigenous Services only faced a two percent cut), while there are plenty of those investments for resource projects. The “climate competitiveness” strategy is promising to remove the emissions cap if provinces and industry can get other things like methane emissions reductions and carbon capture implemented at scale, but considering the latter isn’t cost-effective without a sufficiently high carbon price, I’m guessing that’s going to wind up failing (and no, there is “grand bargain” because Alberta and the industry won’t respect it). The deficit is at $78 billion, which is actually smaller than Stephen Harper’s $55.6 billion deficit in 2009-10 if you adjust for today’s dollars.

Here are some highlight stories, starting with some key numbers:

  • A $2 billion “critical minerals sovereign fund” that can include equity stakes
  • A suite of new tax measures designed to help compete with the US
  • $73 billion for national defence by the end of the decade, but there are few details about how it will all happen..
  • Slashing temporary immigration numbers and freezing permanent resident intake (because that’ll help with labour shortages)
  • $150 million more for CBC, and “exploring” participation in Eurovision.
  • Using buying power to spur the development of data centres without actually funding those projects (because it’s likely a bubble).
  • Moving ahead with regulating stablecoins.
  • Oversight over open banking was moved from the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to the Bank of Canada.
  • Ending investment transfer fees to encourage more banking competition.
  • $2.7 billion in cuts to foreign aid over four years (as the destruction of USAID has created a massive need for foreign aid, so well done there).
  • Research and Development tax incentives aren’t limited to Canadian-owned firms.
  • They lifted the tax on luxury yachts and on foreign-owned vacation homes.
  • Weakening the laws around greenwashing, because of course they are.
  • Establishing sovereign space-lift capabilities.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-04T21:31:12.741Z

The seemingly outsized cuts to Global Affairs Canada in Budget 2025 are hard to square with the government’s repeated call to expand and deepen Canada's international partnerships. Reinvesting in the military is welcome – but defence is just one tool of our international policy.

— Roland Paris (@rolandparis.bsky.social) 2025-11-04T22:00:30.407Z

https://bsky.app/profile/plagasse.bsky.social/post/3m4tnilpugk2j

We're cutting $s to low-income 18 year-olds to access education, but we still have half a billion a year to make student loans interest-free for early-career 20-somethings "to help with the rent" AS DUMB AS A BAG OF HAMMERS.

— Alex Usher (@alexusherhesa.bsky.social) 2025-11-04T23:47:10.318Z

Staring at Canada's own gender-based analysis of its budget. Give you one guess at the main beneficiary of all the major spending investments….

— Lauren Dobson-Hughes (@ldobsonhughes.bsky.social) 2025-11-05T01:09:27.537Z

In pundit reaction, Heather Scoffield has a quick overview of some of the tax and investment measures. Mike Moffatt is sorely disappointed in just how little there was for the housing crisis in the budget, particularly as it puts too much focus on reducing immigration. Justin Ling notes the corporate tax cuts, and the fact that the budget doesn’t acknowledge the short-term problems associated with Trump’s gangster economics. Kevin Carmichael considers this a hybrid of Harper and Trudeau’s budgets, which winds up missing the mark as a result. Paul Wells remarks on some of the political considerations in the budget that is geared to investment when business hasn’t been keen to do so, and that there is a whole lot of downside in the budget, some of which is the fact that our chronic weaknesses of low productivity and internal barriers are an even bigger problem than they were before. Susan Delacourt says the budget misses the mark, being too vague in where the cuts will come from, and does a poor job in telling its story.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-04T22:22:02.466Z

Floor-crossing

In amidst budget being delivered, Conservative MP Chris d’Entremont went on record with Politico that he was considering crossing the floor to the Liberals, and my immediate thought was that there was some residual bitterness because he was forbidden from running to be Speaker, and to be put forward as Deputy Speaker once Francis Scarpaleggia had been voted in. But he has also seemed dejected when I’ve seen him in the Chamber of late, never wearing a tie, not participating in anything. Once this was public, I heard from a source that there was screaming happening in the opposition lobby outside of the House of Commons. d’Entremont quickly resigned from caucus, and within an hour, had formally crossed to the Liberals, who were happy to have him, particularly because he’s an affable Red Tory, and it doesn’t hurt that this completes the Liberals’ sweep of Nova Scotia. The Conservatives later put out a bitter statement (and by contrast, when Leona Allslev crossed from the Liberals to the Conservatives, Justin Trudeau wished her well). This means that the Liberals only need two more votes or abstentions to get their budget through, so we’ll see what that looks like in the days ahead.

Continue reading →

QP: Trading budget slogans back-and-forth

Posted on by

In advance of the budget release, the PM was around but not at QP yet again (and it is just shy of two weeks since he last has been). Pierre Poilievre was absent, likely getting his budget briefing so that he can comment to the media once it’s released, so it was up to Andrew Scheer to lead off, and he recited the tired lines about every dollar the government spending coming from the pockets of Canadians whether in taxes or inflation, and they were about to find out how much money the budget would take from Canadians’ pockets, and declared that they wanted an “affordable budget.” Steve MacKinnon thundering that this was a good day for the opposition because they would see that this is an affordable and historic budget that would build the country. Scheer then went onto the imaginary taxes and demanded the industrial carbon price he killed. MacKinnon said it was great news that those imaginary taxes weren’t in the budget. Scheer went on about the clean fuel standard, claiming that CRA collects it (utter nonsense), and Julie Dabrusin scoffed at this notion. Gérard Deltell took over in French to demand an affordable budget, and MacKinnon gave his “good news” talking point in French. Deltell quoted the “Food Professor,” meaning there was no credibility to be had, and Anna Gainey praised the good things that would be in the budget. Deltell then raised the industrial carbon price, still quoting the “Food Professor,” and Dabrusin again scoffed at imaginary taxes before praising the upcoming budget. 

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she lambasted the planned cancellation of the two billion tree programme and the that the implementation was always going to be their issue. Tim Hodgson recited a bland statement about the budget. Normandin called out the government for abandoning even the meagre measures from Trudeau, and MacKinnon insisted that they would have climate measures as they invest in the future. Patrick Bonin gave his own condemnation of the cancellation and the climate capitulation plan, and Dabrusin insisted that they would continue to fight against climate change as they build Canada.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Making his own budget shoes

Posted on by

On Budget Eve, finance minister François-Philippe Champagne summoned the media to Saint-Tite, Quebec, where he was not just buying new shoes for the budget, in that strange Canadian tradition, but he was actually helping to make them at a shoe manufacturer, which was to symbolise the importance of investing in Canadian business. His message was that there will be no surprises in the budget, which they keep describing with the term “generational investment.” (Carney has also used “austerity,” so there’s that as well).

Meanwhile, more leaks about what’s in the budget are coming out, like the cancellation of the two billion trees programme (meaning by the time the current contracts are fulfilled, it will be about one billion trees). Or the fact that they have rejected calls to increase judges’ salaries to attract more talent to the bench. There are also going to be tax changes and updates to things like the capital cost allowances, because of course there are. Here is the updated tally of what has been promised so far. Also of note is that it looks like about $3 billion was collected in counter-tariffs in the trade war with the US before most of them were lifted—but they promised to raise $20 billion as part of their election platform.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives keep making the same demands for things that are imaginary—ending supposed “hidden taxes” which are not taxes, and in some cases are regulatory regimes either for the environment or other purposes, but they’re calling them taxes because dur, taxes are bad. But the worst canard that they have been allowed to get away with scot-free is this bullshit notion that somehow, deficits are being financed by “printed money” which is driving up inflation, which is not true at all. No money has been printed, even at the height of COVID, when the Bank of Canada did briefly engage in quantitative easing to keep liquidity in the market, but that’s not printing money, and they have been engaged in quantitative tightening for at least two years now. And even more to the point, if inflation was rampant, the Bank of Canada wouldn’t have cut interest rates again, but what are facts? And Carney, as a former central banker, should be putting a stop to this kind of thing, but he refuses, and sticks to his four prepared bullet points instead. To what end? I do not understand the reluctance to challenge this economic disinfo.

The Conservatives' budgetary demands include fiction. There are no "hidden taxes" on food. The industrial carbon price doesn't apply to agriculture. There is no "food packaging tax," and plastic regulations largely exempt food packaging. The clean fuel standard "17¢" was one scenario over time. 1/2

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-03T14:31:01.939Z

And most egregious of all, nobody is printing money to pay for deficits. Nobody. There isn't even quantitative easing happening as there was during the height of the pandemic, and the Bank of Canada has been on quantitative tightening since. These are all lies that the Liberals just let fester. 2/2

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-03T14:31:01.940Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-03T23:08:02.163Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims they have advanced within Pokrovsk, but Ukraine says they continue to hold them at bay. Meanwhile, Ukrainian troops have advanced near Dobropillia, reclaiming territory. Ukrainian drones have attacked a Russian petrochemical plant in Bashkortostan.

Continue reading →

QP: Vile accusations amidst imaginary tax nonsense

Posted on by

The PM was back in town after his Asia trip, but opted not to come to QP for whatever reason. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he immediately worried that tomorrow would be another “costly” budget that would “skyrocket” the cost of living, and said that they would vote for it only if it lowers the cost of living, and demanded an “affordable” budget. Steve MacKinnon took this as good news, and that Poilievre would order his MPs to vote for it because it will be an affordable budget. Poilievre then took swipes at the finance minister and blamed the government for the cost of housing, and again demanded an “affordable budget.” MacKinnon again repeated that it would be an affordable budget and would “open the door” to opportunities. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question and the claim he would vote for an affordable budget. (Spoiler: He won’t). MacKinnon repeats that he took this as good news that Poilievre would order his troops to vote for their “affordable” budget and listed the tax cuts they were promising. Poilievre then called on the government to scrap the industrial carbon price under dubious pretexts, and MacKinnon noted that farmers are largely exempt from any of those prices, and again insisted not to call an election. Poilievre again listed things the price applies to and tried to tie it to food prices, and this time Wayne Long got up to deliver the “generational budget” lines. Poilievre mocked along calling the government “new,” and made another appeal of falsehoods about the industrial carbon price. Long tried to mock Poilievre’s tenure in return, and said that in 20 years, Poilievre has only voted against any help for Canadians.

Christine Normandin rose for the Bloc, and said it was curious that 24 hours before the budget, that the government isn’t negotiating and just threatening an election instead. MacKinnon first congratulated the municipal election winners in Quebec, and then raised their discussions so far. Normandin tried again, and MacKinnon praised what is in the budget and the investments that would benefit Quebec. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay took over and wondered why the priority in the budget wasn’t help for Quebeckers, and listed their demands. Mélanie Joly said that they are still in negotiations with the U.S., and that they have support for sectors in the meantime. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Setting up tomorrow’s budget

Posted on by

Tomorrow is budget day, so that’s pretty much all anyone is going to talk about today, as François-Philippe Champagne gets his budget shoes (in that peculiar tradition), while the melodrama over whether or not it will pass continues to swirl. To get you up to speed, here are set-ups from both CBC and The Canadian Press, which are all about the promises, and the set-up of austerity and sacrifices to make these “generational investments,” as though there aren’t trade-offs that come with austerity that are very long-lasting. And Carney is saying that he’s convinced this is the right budget for the moment, and that this is “not a game,” so he’s serious, you guys.

But we still have obligatory melodrama, which is a whole lot of “who is going to support it?” because this is a minority parliament, but guys. Stop pretending that the Conservatives would ever support it in a million years because they won’t. They’re the official opposition. They are never, ever going to support it for that very reason. Constantly asking them and getting them to lay out unrealistic conditions is not helping anyone, and just muddies the water from where any pressure needs to be applied, which is of course, the Bloc and the NDP. And the Bloc have already laid out wholly unrealistic “non-negotiable” demands, which leaves the NDP. And they can’t oppose it because they’re broke, they have no leader, and they are going to have to swallow themselves on this one, because they have no choice.

The budget will pass. The only possible way it’s not would be by accident because Don Davies is too big for his britches, and no one else can count properly. It won’t happen. You can cut out the artificial drama.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-02T21:02:19.947Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian attacks overnight Saturday left the Donetsk region without power and killed at least two. That said, Ukraine is still holding Pokrovsk, in spite of the recent Russian advance. Ukraine has hit one of Russia’s key Black Sea oil ports.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Any excuse to delegitimise the Court

Posted on by

There was a big eruption yesterday after the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the mandatory minimum sentence for possession or accessing child sexual abuse materials, but nearly all of the outrage is based on the headline and not actually reading the decision, because of course it is. Who wants to actually read when you can just rage? While I would suggest you read my story on the decision (go ahead, I’ll wait), the highlights remain that the Court strongly denounced this kind of activity, that the two accused in this instance did receive sentences that met the mandatory minimum, but that the decision focused on the scope of the mandatory minimum. Essentially, it is a challenge to Parliament—if you make laws overly broad, they are vulnerable to being struck down because you risk giving a grossly disproportionate sentence to someone on certain sets of facts, so maybe craft better laws.

That of course didn’t stop the demands for the Notwithstanding Clause to come from Pierre Poilievre, Danielle Smith, Doug Ford, and Scott Moe, who charmingly added that this kind of decision is why Parliament alone should make laws. None of them bothered to actually read the decision. None of them actually thought about what it said, and why using blunt instruments can do more harm than good in certain cases. More than that, there was an immediate need to delegitimise the Court on manufactured outrage rather than accept that the Court still has to safeguard rights when Parliament doesn’t do its job properly. Oh, but wait—these are all premiers and leaders who are less interested in rights than they are in targeting and scapegoating minorities for their own political ends, so of course they want to keep the courts at bay.

Watch out! Kenney's decided to start stroking his rage-boner again!

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-01T02:43:07.978Z

We are at a place in this country right now where rights are under attack by populist leaders, be it Alberta, Quebec, Saskatchewan, or Ontario (though Ford is more likely to back down when actually confronted). They like to use language like “the will of the people,” which means that it becomes open season on minorities, which is antithetical to a liberal democracy like ours, and they don’t want any checks on that, which is why they take every opportunity to delegitimize the Court. This particular situation was just too easy for them to weaponise, and so they went with it, to hell with the facts. There is an outcome they want, and that is unchecked power.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-10-31T22:56:01.799Z

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy says that Russia has deployed some 170,000 troops to try and claim Pokrovsk, but Ukraine is slowly whittling them away. To that end, special forces troops have been landed at the city. Meanwhile, Ukraine reports that they have successfully struck 160 Russian oil and energy facilities this year.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1984173351720440022

Continue reading →

Roundup: A new pipeline study—to what end?

Posted on by

Ontario premier Doug Ford announced that his government would be launching a study about a potential new west-east pipeline, that could either head to existing refineries in Sarnia, or ports along the Great Lakes, Hudson Bay or James Bay. This sounds a lot like it’s going to be a waste of time and money because contrary to what Danielle Smith likes to think, the oil and gas industry has been irrevocably altered since 2014-15, and there is very little demand for these options. Enbridge isn’t going to want to strand its existing pipeline network running through the US, in spite of the arguments about energy security to build a (longer, more expensive) line on Canadian soil, and using northern ports makes no sense as they are only good for a few months of the year when demand its lower.

Energy economist Andrew Leach released a new paper yesterday that takes a look at the case for whether we need another pipeline, and it puts a lot of this in perspective. The oil market has changed since the major price drop in 2014, and American demand has fallen down a lot. While there might be a case for another pipeline to the Pacific, the timelines involved mean running the risk of stranding assets as global demand falls off. Keystone XL, if revived, is likely simply to be used for re-export at the Gulf Coast, while the eastern Canadian market is already well served, and would likely mean more transportation costs, and Alberta would see bigger discounts as compared to world prices. Danielle Smith says that the industry can double production, but that’s not what industry is saying, and more pipelines run the risk of eroding the value of oil, particularly as the rise of electric vehicles and heat pumps push down demand.

One of the other points that the paper makes is that for as much handwringing as there is about how long it takes projects, most of the delays that people point to were regulatory shortfalls and not structural delays. When proponents try to cut corners, or not do proper Indigenous consultations, that is what leads to court challenges and delays, not the actual regulatory system itself, but that’s an inconvenient narrative for certain players. These are things we need to be more cognisant of, and call bullshit on, as the drumbeat for “just one more pipeline” or even “a pipeline in every direction” get more intense.

effinbirds.com/post/7808260…

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-10-30T14:05:46.292Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched sustained drone and missile attacks on Ukraine’s power infrastructure early Thursday, and killed at least three people. Two others were killed in a bomb strike on a thermal power plant in Sloviansk. Ukrainian forces are bolstering their defences in Pokrovsk as Russian forces have entered the city.

Continue reading →

QP: Executive bonuses vs sacrifices

Posted on by

The Nation’s Capital was under a rainfall warning as MPs gathered in the West Block for QP, with the PM still in South Korea. Pierre Poilievre was absent, leaving it to Andrew Scheer to lead off, and he declared that elites have never had it so good while people are being asked to make sacrifices. To illustrate, he noted that CMHC paid out $30 million in executive bonuses rather than providing down payments for young Canadians. Rechie Valdez responded by reading the good news about cutting the GST on houses for first-time homebuyers, along with other housing programmes. Scheer insisted that if flushing billions through big bureaucracies worked, they would not be in this situation, and again went to the notion that they are just funding big bonuses while youth have nothing left to give. Patty Hajdu praised the investments they have been making in skills training for youth. Jasraj Hallan took over to peevishly push the same narrative that “insiders” are getting rich while youth are being asked to sacrifice, and Valdez got back up to mouth the falsehood that Poilievre only built six houses as he was minister responsible. Hallan got back up to proclaim that the only people who have it good now are the prime minister and his elitist insiders. Hajdu got back up to talk about her meeting with her PEI counterpart to deliver for Canadians. Luc Berthold then took over to deliver the same script in French, and this time Joël Lightbound delivered the indignant response that the the Conservatives just vote against help for Canadians. Berthold raised a news story about pregnant women cutting back on protein, and Lightbound repeated that it was astounding that the Conservatives vote against programmes that people need.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and raised the anniversary of the 1995 referendum, and decried the federal Clarity Act preventing a democratic decision (which his not true), and asked it to be repealed. Steven Guilbeault said that Quebec elected twice as many Liberals as Bloc, and that they don’t want another referendum, but rather to build the country with their upcoming budget. Normandin again dared the government to repeal the Clarity Act, and Guilbeault again insisted that nobody is talking about another referendum. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe took over to again make the same demand, and Guilbeault noted it was interesting that the Quebec government was tabling legislation with no Indigenous consultation, which is not reconciliation. 

Continue reading →