The News Rundown

Conservative MP Matt Jeneroux crosses the floor to the Liberals

Conservative MP Matt Jeneroux has crossed the floor to the Liberals.
This was one of the MPs that was talked who could potentially cross the floor late last year but instead he decided that he wanted to spend more time with his family and resign in the spring. As with other politicians who’ve said that such as Anita Anand and Sean Fraser on the Liberal side it appears that Jeneroux has spent enough time with his family now.
On Wednesday Jeneroux announced that he would be working with the Liberals to “build our country’s strength as we face the challenges ahead.”
The event that apparently tipped Jeneroux over the edge was the speech in Davos that was delivered by Mark Carney.
To see how important this could potentially be, we need to look at the math of the House of Commons.
The seats vacated by Bill Blair and Chrystia Freeland create a net deficit of 2 if we’re counting how many MPs are needed to get the Liberals to a majority. If the Liberals win the Terrebonne by-election that we talked about last week with Jeneroux counted they will be at 172.
That is a majority but it is not a workable majority yet as the Speaker would need to break any ties that come up.
Matt Jeneroux was first elected in 2012 as an Alberta Progressive Conservative MLA. He served in the Legislature during the time of Allison Redford’s chaotic premiership.
During that time he considered sitting as an independent while her government was coming unraveled. Jeneroux supported the principles of the Progressive Conservative government.
During tumultuous times he could have instead chose to cross the floor to the Wildrose. The Wildrose was leading in the 2012 election polls but in the last few days the Progressive Conservatives closed the gap due to the Wildrose being seen as not ready to form government.
The party at the time led by now Premier Danielle Smith was the populist option for Albertans. If the Progressive Conservatives were having their own internal troubles and Jeneroux chose to sit as an independent rather than support the Wildrose opposition that says quite a bit about his own personal politics.
There is no question that today’s Conservatives are closer ideologically to the Alberta Wildrose than the Alberta Progressive Conservatives if we are making a comparison in the lens of 2012.
Matt Jeneroux choosing the Carney Liberals given his history makes sense and how Mark Carney claims to want to govern.
Both Carney and Jeneroux flew into Edmonton to announce the floor crossing at the Edmonton International Airport on Wednesday.
Carney was on another trip and Jeneroux was presumably coming from Victoria where he lives after his family recently moved there to support his wife’s hospital work.
This of course raises ethical questions that the media is not talking about.
Should there by a by-election at every floor crossing?
Should MPs be required to live in the riding they represent?
Do Jeneroux’s constituents know that he primarily moved to Victoria?
These questions were not asked and instead a sky is falling narrative has been presented in the mainstream media when it comes to the Conservatives.
The legacy media in particular bases a lot of their theoretical analysis on historical norms and polls.
Historical norms that if anything the last decade shows us should be thrown away.
And polls that are treated as gospel when they are not the be all and end all of political analysis.
We go back to the 87.4% approval that Poilieve won at the leadership convention in January. In the end the people decide and polls aren’t gospel.
The CBC at issue panel this week painted this floor crossing as a result of Poilievre not paying attention to his constituents. The panel said, “[the MPs] don't understand what their leader is doing. [Poilievre] seems to be more focused on the Twitter influencers than he is on the constituents they hear about at the door."
This last bit of course is a dig because modern politicians if they play their cards right can get more engagement, more media coverage, and more reach from online influencers.
This wasn’t panned when Trudeau went online or when Jagmeet Singh posted daily to TikTok, it’s only a problem because the CBC is not setting the agenda.
For Jeneroux, he has already been named a special advisor on economic and security partnerships. Carney said, “Matt’s leadership will contribute to strengthening Canada’s alliances and trade partnerships, advancing Canada’s leadership in global security cooperation, and building our strength at home.”
Mark Carney has also been praised as a master negotiator as a result of being able to win over somebody like Jeneroux. But given his history, is it much of a stretch?
That’s the question that the media is not asking.
Supplementals:

It’s quite an accomplishment to produce a provincial budget that nobody likes. But the B.C. government managed to pull it off Tuesday, with its 2026-27 fiscal plan.
At the centre of this rare feat is the double whammy of hiking taxes by almost $1 billion next year while still posting record deficit and debt levels.
It means voters get all the annoyance of watching more of their hard-earned money siphoned away to government, but none of the benefit of it actually meaning anything in the wake of a historic $13.3-billion deficit. It’s all pain, no gain budgeting.
Finance Minister Brenda Bailey was unapologetic about this latest strategy. She said the budget is “about stepping back from many of the things we’d like to do and focusing on what we have to do.”
Except for spending at a rate that far exceeds growth in revenue and the economy. New Democrats have been doing that since David Eby took power in 2022, and it continued Tuesday with government expenses budgeted to rise almost four per cent while revenue flatlines at 0.5 per cent and the economy slumps to 1.3 per cent. In other words, the NDP is still growing government three times faster than the private sector that funds it.
Not all the changes Tuesday were confined to the budget itself. Quietly in the legislature, buried within one of its budget bills, New Democrats moved to shut down the independent Office of the Merit Commissioner, as they seek to cut back the public service by 15,000 full-time employees and start shuffling people around to save money.
That merit commissioner is supposed to oversee fair hiring within the public service to ensure governments don’t award plum jobs to partisan friends and insiders, among other things. Removing that independent oversight while simultaneously cutting 15,000 FTEs gives the Eby cabinet unprecedented discretion over who stays, who goes and who gets promoted.
It’s a big deal. But it wasn’t acknowledged in the budget, spoken about by the many government officials in the budget lockup, or communicated by Bailey when she introduced her legislation in the house.
Instead, Eby’s deputy minister, Shannon Salter, broke the news in a memo to the public service Tuesday: “As part of an efficiency review process, government has introduced legislation to amend the Public Service Act so that the responsibilities of the Office of the Merit Commissioner would return to the PSA. The commitment to the merit principle remains unchanged.”
Paul Finch, president of the BC General Employees’ Union said: “They’re overseeing themselves. [I]t effectively eliminates the audit function.”
The union, which represents tens of thousands of public service workers, says it was not consulted and learned of the change after the budget was released.
Finch said: “We’re in a partial hiring freeze, so in these situations where there’s a lot more strenuous competition, it’s more important than ever to ensure these highly sought-after positions are in fact being awarded on merit.”
The rest of the budget appeared to be mostly an exercise in spreading pain around. The personal income tax hike is broad-based, hitting everyone with a 0.5 per cent increase on the first $50,000.
It will be a deeply unpopular move. So unpopular the last government to try something like that was the 2001 BC Liberals under Gordon Campbell, who were in the middle of ripping up public sector labour contracts as part of their budget process.
Seniors were next. PST exemptions on land lines and cable are gone. Property tax deferrals (a program designed to help cash-poor seniors stay in their homes longer) will now carry higher, compounded interest.
Families will lose a $1,200 government RESP contribution program. Northern residents lost a $200 annual tax credit. And businesses lose PST exemptions on private security they’re increasingly forced to hire because the province cannot control retail theft and street disorder.
Page after page, the NDP’s latest budget paper is a series of paper cuts designed to bleed $4 billion in new tax revenue out of the public over the next three years. And yet, it barely moves the needle on eye-watering deficit and debt projections.
Total provincial debt is set to hit $183 billion in 2026-27. That’s a rise of 18 per cent in a single year, 49 per cent from when Eby took office and 178 per cent since the NDP formed government in 2017.
The cost of just paying interest on the provincial debt is rising to $6.5 billion under the budget, surpassing the Ministry of Social Services and Poverty Reduction to sit at the third most expensive ministry in government.
Put another way, B.C. is now paying more on servicing its gigantic debt every year than it is on helping its most vulnerable citizens with welfare and disability payments. By the end of this latest three-year plan, annual interest payments will almost hit what B.C. spends on the entire education system. B.C. already had its credit rating downgraded in 2024, and speculation is rising it could happen again.
Bridgitte Anderson, president of the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade said: “This is a very dark day. The size of the debt is growing two and a half times the economy. That’s just not sustainable. This is a very deep hole and, sadly, I’m not sure how British Columbia gets out of it.”
Based on this budget, it doesn’t look like the government knows either.
Supplementals:

https://globalnews.ca/news/11675150/bc-eliminates-merit-commissioner/

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announces fall referendum on immigration, constitutional questions

This week Alberta Premier Danielle Smith issued a paid televised address outlining what’s coming in the provincial budget.
There will be a big budget deficit and the government aims to not cut services or raise taxes. They aim to continue to invest in the Heritage Trust Savings fund.
What was on display though was the view of the provincial government that recent high levels of migration to the province are contributing to the budget shortfall in that the demands for services can’t be met.
Because of this the Premier is seeking a mandate to change immigration and discuss matters of a Constitutional nature with the federal government by way of a referendum on October 19th.
The main questions are as follows in general:
Alberta taking more control over immigration, giving preference to economic migrants and giving Albertans “first priority to new employment opportunities."
Granting eligibility for provincially funded programs in health, education and social services only to citizens, permanent residents and people with “an Alberta-approved immigration status."
Setting up a one-year residency requirement before anyone who isn’t a citizen or permanent resident can qualify for provincial social support programs.
Charging people with non-permanent immigrant status a fee or premium to access health care and education.
Requiring proof of citizenship before an elector can cast a ballot in a provincial election.
There will also be questions about Alberta selecting justices appointed the the provincial court of King’s Bench and Appeals Court, abolishing the Senate, allowing provinces to opt out of federal programs that intrude on provincial jurisdiction such as health care, education, and social services (without losing funding), and better protecting provincial rights from federal interference by giving a province’s laws dealing with provincial or shared areas of constitutional jurisdiction priority over federal laws when they conflict.
The response was quick framing the government now to be on a witch hunt against immigrants.
Mount Royal political scientist Lori Williams said, “To suggest that this budget deficit is primarily caused by immigration — that non-citizens who come to Alberta are filling emergency rooms and classrooms and that’s where problems coming from — it creates, I think, a distorted picture of what’s actually going on”
Immigration consultants don’t buy into what has been presented by the UCP. Daniel Briere, an immigration consultant in Calgary, said, "People that come here as workers, they work, they pay taxes like you and I and they're eligible to go to see the doctor.”
The UCP has not put forward any numbers on how many non-citizens, permanent residents, or temporary foreign workers or international students are using our systems.
Those numbers would be beneficial.
That being said though, people did delve into hyperbole.
Former NDP leader Rachel Notley took prose from a German pastor condemning those who stood by those targeted by the third reich.
In Notley’s words, first it was trans people, then unionized workers, then judges, and now immigrants.
Former Deputy Premier Thomas Lukaszuk who spearheaded the Pro Canada campaign said “For Hitler it was the Jews.”
Deputy NDP Leader Rakhi Pancholi called on the government to “cut the s*** and get back to work” and said that Naheed Nenshi was on a vacation that was pre-scheduled so he would not be able to respond.
The proposals put forward by Smith offer a third way, not federalism as the status quo and not independence.
It has been almost 3 months since the MOU between Ottawa and Alberta was signed and no significant progress has been made.
These referendum questions are an opportunity to try to do as much as the province can in a way that an independent Alberta would without going the full independence route.
Whether Albertans will stand for it, whether the federal government will listen, and if the independence minded Albertans accept the proposal is up in the air.
Quebec has an agreement with the federal government to select the number and type of immigrants that come to the province. They use this to have preference to those who can speak French.
The province has attempted the referendum path before with equalization, it did not work.
There’s also a real chance that the Premier will lose support from independence minded Albertans by choosing this path.
Ultimately referendums put the deciding power in the hands of the people. The biggest thing we should take away from this is the people saying that referendums should not be used.
Specifically we must question why: are they afraid of what might happen? Or do they just want political discourse to stay in a narrow comfortable lane?
Smith ended her speech on exactly this note saying, “I want you to know how confident I am in the judgment of Albertans on these and other delicate issues. Although there are some politicians and commentators that fear direct democracy, such as referendums, I do not. I trust the judgment of Albertans.”
Those questions and what happens on October 19th will informer the future of Alberta.
Supplementals:

Firing Line

Carney constructs a mega anti-Trump trade alliance

Mark Carney has been in the news a lot this past week, the international news specifically, with many US and other international outlets posting some pretty sensationalist headlines about the Canadian Prime Minister. German-owned US political newspaper Politico says "Carney constructs a mega anti-Trump trade alliance", while American progressive website Raw Story goes even further and says "International rebellion as Canada's PM leads 40 nations in plan to buck Trump". Meanwhile, European news website Euractiv says that "Mark Carney is eager to build a unified super-bloc capable of squaring up to the trade leviathans of China or the US." The question is, are these foreign websites being too sensational, or are they telling a story that the Canadian outlets are not covering, as is so often the case?
We'll start with Politico. They say that Canada is spearheading international trade cooperation discussions after Carney called on middle powers to buck trade war coercion last month. The EU and CPTPP (members of the original Trans-Pacific Partnership, minus the United States) are starting talks this year to strike an agreement to intertwine the supply chains of members like Canada, Singapore, Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Australia with Europe.
The EU and the Indo-Pacific club, known as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, resolved last November to combine their economic forces to push back on the fragmentation of free trade in the wake of Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs.
An anonymous Japanese trade official said: “We see a lot of value in increasing trade among the EU and CPTPP parties, which would also contribute to enhancing supply chain resilience.”
A trade diplomat from another CPTPP nation said: “If the EU is up for the conversation, then of course it would make things very interesting indeed.”
Within the EU, some officials are “super keen” to pursue the cumulation deal, said a senior business representative briefed on their thinking.
While the deal “is indeed part of the broad scope of the EU-CPTPP cooperation,” an EU official confirmed, it is “not part of the priority for actions for now.” More immediate discussions prioritize “concrete outcomes,” they said, on bringing supply chains in the blocs closer together and bolstering trade diversification among their members.
A Canadian government official said, "The work is definitely coming along. We’ve had very fruitful discussions on it with other partners around the world."
Klemens Kober, director of trade policy, EU customs and transatlantic relations at the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry, also confirmed relevant parties were looking into an agreement which, if signed, could hinder Trump and his administration's hold on world economics.
All relevant actors are looking at it," Kober said. "If there can be a focus on having these rules as harmonized and simple as possible, as part of these negotiations, that could prove advantageous for German companies.
"Having the possibility of cumulating origin between different FTAs is very useful. We hope that if that’s a success, if you can see tangible benefits in different areas, that could also entice other countries to join in and team up in a positive sense. So the more the merrier."
Meanwhile, Rawstory says: "The [US] president's economic plan, which he implemented during his second term, has caused disruptions domestically and internationally. World leaders are now seeking a way through the economic spiral, and Canadian PM Mark Carney is believed to be at the helm of this plan."
Rawstory pretty much copy pasted the same story as Politico, but sensationalized the headline more.
On the other hand, the Euractiv piece calls the so called "rebellion" a fiction.
The article says: "Canadian Prime Minister and rising international political superstar Mark Carney makes for good headlines. A transcontinental trade alliance of over 1 billion people and nearly 40 economies that could serve as a counterweight to Washington and Beijing would certainly make for a great story. But like many great stories, it is fiction."
Notably absent from the CPTPP is the US, which withdrew from accession talks in 2017, during the first Trump administration. Beijing, by contrast, has shown more interest in joining and has pursued membership since 2021. But negotiations have now stalled.
China’s state-led economic model remains a major obstacle to accession, according to Elixabete Arrieta, a policy analyst at the Brussels-based European Policy Centre (EPC). Key sticking points include limited financial liberalisation, restrictions on data flows and the dominant role of state-owned enterprises.
While the bloc is not explicitly anti-China, she notes that a recent EU-CPTPP joint statement refers to “market-distorting practices” that create excess capacity – a clear nod to Beijing. “They don’t name China, but there’s clear finger-pointing,” Arrieta told Euractiv.
That leaves a bloc without a dominant power – a “vacuum” that the EU could, in theory, help fill. In practice, however, this looks eminently unlikely.
Even when the UK formalised its accession, David Henig of the European Centre for International Political Economy argued that Brussels shouldn’t follow suit – a view he stands by, despite the subsequent tariff threats and geopolitical shocks.
Coordinating trade policy among the EU’s 27 member states is already painstaking; negotiating with an external 12-member bloc of comparable (or even greater) political differences would be all the more challenging. An EPC analysis published in December warned that such talks would carry “high political costs” and reach “unprecedented complexity”.
Australia serves as a cautionary tale. EU negotiators have spent years wrangling over agricultural trade, to the point of arguing over 30,000 tonnes of beef per year – only enough for about half a burger per European. The Australia deal still presents high political costs, as farmers persist with protests and France clings to protectionist tendencies.
The latest calls for closer ties are coming from Ottawa, not Brussels. And for good reason. Canada’s heavy reliance on the US market, combined with growing uncertainty around US trade policy, creates strong incentives to diversify quickly. Carney has even kindled closer trade ties with China, easing electric vehicle tariffs in a “cars-for-canola” agreement. Henig says that deep EU-CPTPP engagement still looks a bit premature. “Others are not ready to make the same moves that Canada would like to see.”
David Henig of the European Centre for International Political Economy says that deep EU-CPTPP engagement still looks a bit premature. “Others are not ready to make the same moves that Canada would like to see.”
Brussels has been cautious, and quiet, on this front – even if the EU does want to cooperate more with CPTPP. Put simply: Bilateral EU trade deals already take decades. Negotiating bilateral deals with nine CPTPP members individually has required immense effort. Expanding that to a full bloc-to-bloc framework would only multiply the obstacles.
Broader diversification – especially for Canada, which still sent 72% of its exports to the US in 2025 – will take time.
All of which means that a unified super-bloc capable of squaring up to the trade leviathans of China or the US remains a pipe dream. The reality will be far more complex, cooperation shaped by shifting geopolitical pressures and encumbered by the sensitivities of ever-vocal European sectors. A grand transcontinental trade club will remain a fantasy.
Supplementals:

Quote of the Week

“I want you to know how confident I am in the judgment of Albertans on these and other delicate issues. Although there are some politicians and commentators that fear direct democracy, such as referendums, I do not. I trust the judgment of Albertans.” - Alberta Premier Danielle Smith on the use of referenda.

Word of the Week

Rebellion - an organized, often armed, uprising or resistance against an established government, authority, or social norm

How to Find Us

Westerncontext.ca

westerncontext.ca/subscribe

westerncontext.ca/support

x.com/westerncontext

facebook.com/westerncontext

Show Data

Episode Title: The Canadian Rebellion
Teaser: Matt Jeneroux crosses the floor to the Liberals, BC’s budget includes tax hikes and high debt, and Alberta looks at a referendum on immigration. Also, Carney’s international trade rebellion is not quite what it seems.
Production Code: WC-457-2026-02-21
Recorded Date: February 21, 2026
Release Date: February 22, 2026
Duration: 1:11:26
Edit Notes: Shane sneeze

Podcast Summary Notes

Duration: XX:X