“If companies have concerns about their competitiveness, let’s have that conversation. But let’s do that based on spreadsheets, not based on vibes.” Dale Beugin on our industrial carbon pricing analysis and cost calculator for the oilsands.👇
https://ow.ly/tVQK50YtzhV
I think it's important to remember that there was really no way to foresee that a light-rail transit system in Ottawa might have to deal with freezing rain.
This is a central tension. And I actually wouldn't ever say voters are wrong or that they're thinking about their votes wrong.
It absolutely makes sense that most voters think primarily about party and leader.
It's just another thing to pass a law that elevates those things above individual MPs.
I think it puts another barrier in the way of MPs holding party leaders to account.
Leaders already hold the hammer on nominations. To borrow from Hirschman, when things are going poorly, MPs really only have three tools: exit, voice, and loyalty. Changes like this reduce their options further.
On a tangential point: We should adopt saying "hung parliament" instead of "minority parliament" and I encourage everyone to start working "hung parliament" into their day-to-day conversation.
But I also come back to a counterfactual I threw out a few weeks ago.
Say the Liberals had won 175 seats last year. And then 4 Liberals crossed to the CPC or NDP.
Would they be "defying the will of voters" by turning a majority government into a minority government?
As for the question of whether there's something bad about gaining a majority via floor-crossing, I do think there's some political risk the Liberals need to be mindful of — if they look too triumphant or if they somehow seem to abuse majority power.
Do floor-crossings have the potential to increase voter cynicism? Yes. Does the legality of the practice have, at least in theory, the potential to lead to unethical acts? Sure.
But it doesn't necessarily follow that the practice has to be restricted *by law*.
As no less than Stephen Harper noted, voters will be able to pass judgment on a member who switches parties — at the next election, which is never more than four years away.
And given how much and how often everyone has lamented the erosion of power and influence of individual MPs and the concentration of power in leaders and parties, you have to ask whether you really want to introduce a new law that actually puts more emphasis on party stripe.
But again, a law ban floor-crossing would really run up against the basic building-block idea of parliamentary democracy: that voters elect individual representatives to serve in the House of Commons.
I think if Parliament passed a law that required a byelection before an MP could switch parties, you'd just end up with potential floor-crossers sitting as independents while voting with the party they would have otherwise joined.
i am genuinely astonished by how this guy speaks exclusively in cliches
This paragraph goes hard, as they say.
This is one of the best things I've read on the current state of the United States and how it got there.
Every Headline Must Be Two Sentences Now. You'll Never Guess Why
March 12, 2026: A fourth MP joins the Liberals, 3 byelections in April, Conservatives push to step up deportations of IRGC members, Poilievre's speaking tour to the U.S. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pznc...
@rosiebarton.bsky.social @chebert18.bsky.social @althiaraj.bsky.social @aaronwherry.bsky.social 🍁
NEW: US Treasury issued a general license for the delivery and sale of Russian oil loaded on vessels as of March 12.
Moscow continues to be the single largest beneficiary of the Iran War.
I think you mean, "Niagara chair owns historical book found in many libraries"
"A ten-year record of shutting down our oil and gas sector"
Floor-crossing: So hot right now
Solid Sheryl Crow reference.
I find the topic of public service reform particularly hard to judge because how government works is sort of a black box (unless you've worked in it, I presume).
Just for my own sake, I'd appreciate more explanation.
"I would argue it probably starts with at least the Rivard Affair" is just an ominous thing to read.
But I appreciate this contribution from @jrobson.bsky.social. I find the debate about the public service is had in very blunt, broad terms and it's really crying out for specificity and explanation.
The House of Commons is currently consumed with debate over whether (or if?) Canada has (or should have?) a strategic oil reserve.
What kind of Timbit though?
Are you suggesting Canadians would prefer a "strong, stable, national majority government"?
We've quantified the long-standing media narrative that Carney's gvt feels like a "PC gvt".
There's some public agreement - but the people most likely to agree are those who have the least experience with actual PC governments: young people, Quebecers, and British Columbians.
