Tag Archives: Pierre Poilievre

Roundup: Carney’s boneheaded “green incentives”

Posted on by

Liberal leadership hopeful Mark Carney revealed his plan to replace the consumer carbon levy yesterday, and it’s a handwavey bunch of “green incentives” for things like improving your home insulation, furnace, appliances, or buying an electric vehicle. This would be offset by maintaining or increasing the industrial carbon pricing system, along with carbon border adjustments. Carney claimed that the current system isn’t working, which is false, because emissions have been driven down, and then shrugs and says it’s “too divisive,” which is the Liberals’ own gods damned faults for being such incompetent communicators about how the levy works, the rebates (remember when they thought that calling them “climate action incentives” was a genius idea?), and how reducing one’s own carbon footprint maximises those rebates. The government was absolutely incapable of communicating any of it, and Pierre Poilievre swooped in and filled the space with lies and disinformation.

I find Carney’s plan absolutely infuriating for a number of reasons. One of them is that this imparts a false narrative that carbon emissions reductions can happen for free for consumers. Even if there is no consumer-facing price, industrial emitters will pass along costs, and people won’t get a rebate for those higher costs, which hurts lower-income households harder. Everyone fawning over Carney’s economic credentials should be smacking themselves upside the head because of this fiction he is trying to perpetrate and just how economically illiterate it actually is.

Meanwhile, how much of an “incentive” can it really be for one-time purchases? You can only really re-insulate your house once, or buy a new furnace once every twenty years. There is no price disincentive to increased carbon use, and there is no ongoing reward for a low-carbon lifestyle, which the rebates provide. Again, very few people actually understand this because the government steadfastly refused to actually communicate how the levy and rebates actually work, how to maximise them, and how it rewards ongoing low-carbon behaviour. They hoped that legacy media and would communicate that (they absolutely will not), and it was basically up to five economists on Twitter, which is useless to ninety-five percent of the population. So now the people who have done the work to reduce their carbon footprint will now be punished, and people will take advantage of those one-time purchases for what? The pat on the back that they can give themselves? Everyone involved here needs to take a long, hard look at some of their life choices, but then again, if they had any modicum of self-reflection, they likely wouldn’t be in politics. What an absolute disaster.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones injured four in Odessa, damaging a hospital and grain warehouse, while a missile attack seriously damaged a historic centre in the same city. Russian forces are also tightening their approach to Pokrovsk, which is a key logistics hub in the region. Ukrainian forces destroyed a Russian command post in the Kursk region, and are also reporting that they haven’t seen any North Korean troops in the area for three weeks. Ukrainian drones also damaged an oil refinery in Russia’s Volgograd region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Foreign interference commission final report released

Posted on by

Justice Marie-Josée Hogue released the final report of the Foreign Interference public inquiry yesterday, and there really weren’t too many surprises involved. While there have been attempts at foreign interference, it hasn’t affected the outcomes of any elections, and that our institutions have held up rather well—though not perfectly. Government has been too slow to respond in many cases, and we don’t have enough transparency around national security issues, nor is there a culture of national security in government to make these issues a priority. There has been progress, but we’re not there yet. In many respects, this report proves that David Johnston’s report was right, and we’ve spent a year-and-a-half duplicating efforts because opposition party leaders decided it was more fun to smear Johnston than take him seriously.

One of the most significant aspects was a repudiation of the NSICOP report that claimed there were parliamentarians that were somehow compromised, and Hogue went through how the intelligence didn’t actually say that, and how NSICOP’s characterisation torqued what had been alleged—and frankly, much of the news reporting torqued further because they didn’t bother to read the context in that report. Hogue also noted that much of the reporting that drove this moral panic and the subsequent inquiry was wrong, though she didn’t necessarily blame the journalists because they only had so much to go on. (Nevertheless, this should be a warning about just how absolutely credulous some of those reporters have been on this file since the beginning, and why they failed to adequately question the motives of those doing the leaking).

A couple of other notables—Hogue noted that transnational repression is probably a bigger threat, but her mandate didn’t give her the latitude to explore that, so that remains a big flag for this or the next government to address. Even more to the point, she flagged disinformation as the most existential threat to our democracy, and called for a dedicated federal watchdog to monitor and intercept foreign meddling that uses social media platforms and “AI” tools like deep-fakes. She also recommended developing digital and media literacy among Canadians, which feels a bit like a “perfect world” wish, or at least something that we may be able to impart onto the next generation but I worry that the current one may be lost in that regard.

For more, here’s a thread from Stephanie Carvin who went through the report:

In the wake of this, Pierre Poilievre has let it be known that he’s not going to take that CSIS threat reduction briefing after all, because he can’t talk about what it says, so he is once again relying on the false notion that this, or any other security clearance, is somehow going to “gag” him. It won’t, but it would mean he has to be responsible with his commentary, which he does not want to do. He wants to be bombastic, and to lie at every opportunity, and so he will keep refusing a clearance or briefings, because he only cares about “owning the Libs,” not national security or the good of the country.

Ukraine Dispatch

Overnight Russian air attacks wounded eight and damaged residential buildings around Ukraine on Monday night. Ukrainian drones are targeting power and oil facilities in the west and northwestern regions of Russia.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Piercing Lantsman’s kayfabe

Posted on by

Because everything is so stupid, Conservative Twitter got itself all hot and bothered over the weekend because Nathaniel Erskine-Smith had the temerity to break the kayfabe when the Melissa Lantsman was engaging in performative outrage.

Context: This was an event Erskine-Smith held in his riding for Mark Carney, and Lantsman stood outside to say ludicrously stupid things, and Erskine-Smith, who was standing right there, made a good-natured objection, and did so in a way where Lantsman broke—her performative outrage cracked, she smiled and basically admitted it was all bullshit, and then tried to carry on to finish the performance, got her talking points backwards, but she finished the scene. Conservatives, however, were incensed that the fakery was exposed, so they edited the clip, invented the charge that Erskine-Smith was a creep because he touched her shoulder and shook her hand—the most regular things in politics—and *gasp!* suggested they get a drink like a good-natured colleague would. This would not stand.

What’s particularly hilarious about this is that this is just more Conservative cry-bullying (which I have been on the receiving end of), where they pretend to be the wronged party in order to have someone “cancelled,” while they bemoan and wail about so-called “cancel culture” (which has never actually cancelled anyone, especially in a country where the National Post gives them column inches the very next day). Meanwhile, if they think that women like Lantsman are that fragile, perhaps they should start insisting that women not be accompanied outdoors without a male relative escorting them, or that they should start wearing burkas so as not to attract unwanted attention—you know, like the Taliban would say.

It’s all so fake, and this is what they want our political discourse to be.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine downed 50 out of 72 Russian drones launched overnight Saturday. President Zelenskyy replaced the commander of the eastern forces for the third time in a year, as Russia continues to encroach on strategic settlements.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Day one depravity

Posted on by

Yesterday was inauguration day in the US, and it was pretty much as horrible as you can imagine, with the pardoning of insurrectionists, and the executive order that made a full-on assault on the rights of trans people (which is always the first target of authoritarian regimes, followed by the rest of the queer communities). Oh, and Elon Musk threw a Nazi salute. So yeah, it was pretty much everything you thought it would be.

What didn’t happen on day one was the tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Instead, word came out early in the morning that Trump wouldn’t sign them on day one, and he would instead order an investigation into trade imbalances, and so on. So that was a reprieve, or a stay of execution, right? Danielle Smith certainly thought so, and started taking credit for it. Her followers and media apologists quickly amplified that self-praise. And then, after a few hours, Trump said that yes, the tariffs would be coming as of February 1st. Oops.

That was day one, and we can only imagine what worse predations are to come. There will be a number of demands for retaliation, but the government is keeping their powder dry for the moment, as is probably best. This may yet come to nothing, because Trump believes he’s an ace negotiator and these are his usual tactics to extract some kind of “win” from us, because that’s who he is. It may yet come to naught, but it could still be a kneecapping of our economy. It’s still too early to say, but nobody should be doing victory laps right now—especially those who tried to obey in advance.

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3lg7y2jnygs2t

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine’s state investigation bureau has detained two generals and a colonel accused of negligence in failing to adequately defend the Kharkiv region last year.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre’s revisionist history on energy exports

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre held a media availability in Vancouver yesterday to promise that he would undo the changes to the capital gains taxes, spinning some bullshit provided to him by Jack Mintz about how this kills tens of thousands of jobs, when in reality it only provides a loophole for self-incorporated wealthy individuals to pay less tax—a fact that the Liberals were too incompetent to properly communicate. But this wasn’t the biggest whopper of the event. When asked by the media about where he stands on potential export taxes on oil exports as retaliation from Trump, Poilievre claimed that the Liberals blocked pipelines and LNG terminals, forcing Canadians to export more to the US, which gives Trump more leverage. Absolutely nothing about his is true. None of it. And with receipts, here’s Andrew Leach.

There’s more. In fact, another whole thread here about the history of Northern Gateway that Poilievre has memory-holed in order to create a false version of history to blame Trudeau rather than note the lack of action under the Harper government. (First tweet below)

And then Danielle Smith tried to start chiming in about an Alberta-first “Team Canada” approach grounded entirely in fantasy.

And just because…

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine downed 34 out of 55 Russian drones overnight Thursday, but debris damaged energy infrastructure in Poltava region. There was a further drone attack on Kyiv as UK prime minister Keir Starmer was visiting. Ukrainian forces have begun using remote-controlled ground assault vehicles. Ukraine attacked a major Russian gunpowder factory in the Tambov region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The heresy of well-wishes

Posted on by

It began with Anita Anand writing that she was not only going to stay out of the Liberal leadership race (which was a surprise given that she had previously been organizing an effort before the job was even open), but was also not going to be running again in the next election—which is a shame, because she was not only an extremely competent minister, but probably the best defence minister the country has had in a couple of decades at least. Former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole did the classy and dignified thing and saluted her work.

https://twitter.com/erinotoole/status/1878482424193073181

That simply wasn’t going to be on.

https://twitter.com/jenni_byrne/status/1878513929229320380

Whether Byrne misgendered O’Toole by accident or deliberately (because Conservatives thought it was hilarious to call Trudeau “Justine” and feminise him at every single opportunity), or if she was referring to Anand, it almost doesn’t matter because this is the kind of toxic, purity-test bullshit that she thinks the party really needs—and make no mistake, she is running the party. (If people thought it was bad that Katie Telford was running the PMO, should Poilievre win it’ll be Byrne doing the same). There’s a reason why Conservative MPs aren’t allowed to travel with anyone from other parties anymore, or why Byrne is attacking O’Toole for showing a modicum of human decency is praising someone from the other side—because in her conception of the world, they are not rivals or people who disagree on matters of policy, but rather they are the enemy, and if you don’t realise that you are a heretic and the problem. This is going to make Canadian politics even more toxic the more this takes hold.

This in turn led to people praising O’Toole for being a decent Conservative, which is in and of itself revisionist history, and ignores his own behaviour during his leadership contest and right up until his ignoble ouster as leader, where he lied about everything under the sun, and acted imperiously with his own caucus, going so far as to kick Senator Batters out of caucus for daring to challenge him. That, in his retirement, he did the classy thing to wish Anand well, doesn’t change his prior behaviour, and it makes me feel like I’m taking crazy pills that everyone else has memory-holed his actual record.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian forces shelled Kherson, targeting power systems that left tens of thousands without power. Russia also claims it captured Shevchenko, near Pokrovsk. South Korean intelligence says that North Korean troops captured by Ukrainians in Kursk haven’t expressed a desire to defect. It is believed there have been there have been more than 3000 North Korean fatalities to date (which includes suicides to avoid capture).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Leadership rules released

Posted on by

The Liberal Party National Council met last night, and around 10:30 PM released the rules of the forthcoming leadership contest. The voting ends March 2nd, with the announcement made on March 9th. There will be a $350,000 entry fee (high enough to discourage no-hope candidates), and candidates must declare by January 23rd. People registering to vote in the contest have until January 27th to sign up (remember, the Liberals don’t have memberships you need to buy), and they have tightened those rules to only include citizens and permanent residents, following all of the talk at the Foreign Interference Inquiry.

There are already complaints over social media that the entry fee is too high, meaning the field will be narrow, but that’s kind of the point—this is a race to be prime minister, not leader of the third party like it was the last time around, so you only want serious people, not those looking to build a profile (as far, far too many people do in leadership races). Yes, it’s a barrier to entry, but again, this needs to be a race for serious candidates only. As for the changes to who can register, there were a number of people on social media talking about how they registered their cats to vote, and things like that, because they thought they were being terribly clever in proving a point about how easy the system is to game. The Party spokesperson tweeted out that those fraudulent “memberships” (which they’re not really) will be removed, because again, the point of this exercise is really to collect data to populate a voter identification database, and it’s not too difficult to tell that your pets don’t have voter identification to match to in the system.

Speaking of unserious entrants, backbencher Chandra Arya announced he was running yesterday, and included a list of ridiculous plans including ending Canada’s monarchy, which is not only disqualifyingly dumb, but would mean getting unanimous consent of the provinces to essentially rewrite the constitution to do so. He also speaks no French and dismissed its importance (and good luck with that too). Christy Clark is apparently due to announce her bid shortly, but I did notice that Chantal Hébert was calling her out over social media for refusing to do an interview in French (to say nothing about actually knowing which party she belongs to, as she apparently took out a Conservative membership to vote for Jean Charest in their last leadership race after musing about her own bid for that leadership).

Ukraine Dispatch

Two people were killed in Russian shelling of the town of Siversk in the Donetsk region. Ukraine’s air force says that Russia has launched over 51,000 guided aerial bombs on Ukraine since the start of the invasion. And that oil depot that Ukraine hit near a strategic Russian airfield has continued to burn for more than 24 hours.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1877283979574845612

Continue reading →

Roundup: More threats about annexation

Posted on by

It was yet another day that we have to become used to once again, where Donald Trump said something that was all at once boneheaded, insulting, and vaguely disturbing, as he talked about using economic forces to annex Canada (while also threatening Denmark/Greenland and Panama), and of course, that made every two-bit pundit and wannabe in this country light their hair on fire, yet again, because of course they did. And our political leaders were forced to respond, and I’m not sure what’s worse—Trump’s chaotic insanity, or the fact that our political leaders have to come up with something in response.

While threats to our sovereignty are one thing, it also goes to show that all of the obsequious scrambling to strengthen border measures—to say nothing of the boot-licking and obeying in advance of certain premiers—are pretty much for naught because Trump is not about to be mollified by any of this. He doesn’t have any tangible demands, because he wants a win, and today, he’s fixated on annexation as that win, but in a week’s time, he’ll likely move onto something else, because he is likely to lose interest, especially if something is difficult (and you’d better believe that annexation is incredibly difficult, particularly because it involves some near-impossible constitutional wrangling). It’s one of the reasons why we should probably be keeping our powder dry rather than freaking the fuck out every time he says something stupid and insane, but certainly be preparing retaliatory measures, and that’s going to likely mean the big guns like broad-based retaliatory counter-tariffs rather than selective ones like the last time, or export taxes on things like energy products, even if Scott Moe starts to throw a tantrum about it.

Amidst this, there was no end to people who should know better throwing a tantrum that the prorogation should be “rescinded” (no, it doesn’t work like that) and that Parliament needs to be recalled over these threats. Which would do what, exactly? The government continues to function, and no, it’s not a “caretaker” government. What would MPs actually do about this situation? There is no legislation that requires passage to counter any of this. The most that we would get are a unanimous consent motion condemning Trump’s words (maybe, if certain parties don’t balk and say we shouldn’t antagonise Trump), or a take-note debate where MPs spend six hours reading prepared speeches into the record. Oooooh! That’ll show Trump!

Ukraine Dispatch

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau’s slow exit

Posted on by

And Monday morning, the inevitable happened. Prime minister Justin Trudeau summoned the media outside of Rideau Cottage, and first announced that he had been granted a prorogation until March 24th, and then stated that he had told his children and the president of the Liberal Party that he intends to resign as leader and prime minister once a successor has been chosen in a robust national competition. While he was tinged with sadness, there were still some elements that rankled—he blamed the decision on “internal divisions” in the party rather than a self-aware recognition that he was dragging them down, and that his time had come (or had come months ago and he refused to listen). When asked about Chrystia Freeland, he implied that her version of events was not what happened and that he offered her a chance to work on the most important file but she turned him down (and no, a portfolio with no department, staff, or levers of power, is not a promotion). When asked about his biggest regret, he said that it was that he couldn’t implement ranked ballots (which he never actually tried to do during the whole bloody Electoral Reform Committee process).

Response from other parties was quick. Jagmeet Singh was first out the door with a statement devoid of class or graciousness, and Pierre Poilievre soon followed on with the same. In a video message shortly thereafter, Singh said that he plans to vote non-confidence no matter who the leader is, but well, his mind changes with the cycles of the moon and the phases of the tide. Poilievre also delivered an absolutely psychotic video message about how the “dark days” are nearly over, and near sweet Rhea, mother of Zeus, that is absolutely divorced from reality.

The party now has to come to decisions about the length of the contest, the rules, and how they plan to deal with the potential for any foreign interference that comes with such an open system that doesn’t even have paid memberships (which, I will reiterate, was always a stupid move, and the Alberta Liberal Party, which instigated this kind of scheme, is now pretty much extinct). Those rules will help determine the shape of the race, and who may throw their hat into the ring, to take what could very well be a poisoned chalice.

Here is a high-level look over Trudeau’s political career. The Star has assembled a list of possible candidates for the job, but that’s going to start changing rapidly. There are concerns about what this will do with the response to Trump tariffs.

In reaction, Emmett Macfarlane sees no issues with the prorogation call (which is not unexpected). Susan Delacourt looks back over Trudeau’s political career and the air of inscrutability he has cultivated around himself. Althia Raj wonders about where the party goes next after Trudeau, and if they have enough runway to make a difference. Paul Wells lays out the four main challenges that Trudeau’s announcement has unleashed.

In case you missed it:

My weekend column on Poilievre and the lessons he seems to be eager to take from the “tech broligarchy” that is flexing its muscles around Trump.

My column on how Poilievre’s plan for a “massive crackdown on crime” is predicated on repealing laws that don’t do what he claims.

My weekend column on why there’s no such thing as an “interim” prime minister, and how the Liberals need to consider their next steps in replacing Trudeau.

My Loonie Politics Quick Take points out that the Conservatives’ plan to use the Public Accounts committee to call for non-confidence is a non-starter.

My year-end column on the four main political lessons that we’ve learned (or in some cases, refused to learn) over 2024.

My weekend column on the considerations around prorogation, now vs 2008, and what’s changed and what hasn’t since them.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian forces claim to have taken the stronghold of Kurakhove, but Ukraine says they are still fighting. The fighting appears to have intensified in the Kursk region of Russia with a possible new Ukrainian offensive, and they are saying that Russia and North Korea has suffered 38,000 casualties, with nearly 15,000 of those dead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The shuffle and the kabuki responses

Posted on by

The Cabinet shuffle happened, and four ministers had a change in portfolio, with eight new faces joining the ranks. Nothing is too much of a surprise here—David McGuinty did get public safety, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith got housing as was expected and that means he is going to run again. Anita Anand is now solely transport but also got “interprovincial trade,” which is interesting. There is no minister from Alberta, as George Chahal remains tainted (and has been vocal in calling for a secret ballot in caucus on Trudeau’s future), so Terry Duguid from Winnipeg is pretty much it for the prairie representative. In some respects, this may be a “caretaker” Cabinet as the leadership question remains in the air, or it could have a short shelf-life, as threats of non-confidence circle ever-closer. It doesn’t solve any problems, it doesn’t really put a fresh face on government, and the only thing that can do that is for Trudeau to make as graceful an exit as possible, because the number of MPs who are publicly against him continues to grow, and he could very well be pushed by the next caucus meeting.

Amidst this, Jagmeet Singh decided to publish an open letter to say that he was ready to vote non-confidence in the government, but…blamed them for things that are completely within provincial jurisdiction, like healthcare and building housing. But more to the point, this is more performance art after he got called out by absolutely everyone for his “all options are on the table” equivocation, and this letter also didn’t specify that he would seek to vote them out at the first opportunity, so he has wiggle room. Trudeau may yet prorogue (but most likely if he does decide to step down), and if a new leader is chosen before Parliament comes back, Singh can always prevaricate and equivocate yet again about giving said new leader a chance, or something else like that. This is just more of the kabuki theatre that Canadian politics has descended into.

And then to top it all off (and possibly to try and call Singh’s bluff), Pierre Poilievre called a press conference to say that he wrote a letter to the Governor General so that she can “reconvene” parliament and demand a confidence vote. Erm, except we’re not prorogued, so Parliament is merely adjourned and not suspended, and it’s at the call of the Speaker to recall the House on a non-sitting week, not the Governor General. Never mind that the government just survived a series of confidence votes, this is deliberate obfuscation and confusion of our system, and no doubt he will attack the GG if she doesn’t accede to his request (which she can’t, because it’s not in her powers to do so). Poilievre is deliberately misleading people about how our system operates so that he can claim that constitutional safeguards are illegitimate if anyone tries to use them against him. Aspiring autocrats love to weaken the guardrails, and Poilievre is engaged in a very concerted effort to do that right now.

Programming Note: This is it for 2024, barring some major news happening. Loonie Politics content will continue on its usual schedule, but the blog is on holiday because the burnout is real. Thanks for sticking with me all year, and we’ll see you in 2025.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile struck Kyiv in the morning rush hour, killing at least one person and damaging a historic cathedral. Ukrainian forces needed to pull back from two locations in the eastern Donetsk region, lest they become encircled. Here is a look at some of the people staying in Pokrovsk, in spite of Russia’s advance.

Continue reading →