The government tabled new hate crime legislation yesterday, and while I’m not going to delve too deeply into it here because I’m writing something more substantial about it for another outlet, I wanted to make a couple of observations, starting with the complaints of every reporter in the room during the press conference, which was that they didn’t have copies available at the time, nor did they have press releases available, so everyone was essentially flying blind. Part of this is a function of parliamentary privilege—no one can see the bill until it has been tabled in the House of Commons (or it violates the privileges of MPs), and upon first reading it can be ordered printed, which is why there is a delay on seeing the bill. This isn’t the first time it’s happened, and you would think that some of the more senior reporters would know this, but of course not. It was also the fact that they had the press release immediately after it was tabled, but that was in part a function of the clock (the minister had a flight to catch). But the inability to at least furnish press releases was a legitimate complaint, and the minister’s staff (or the department) should have known better.

This being said, much is being made about the fact that certain symbols are being criminalized if used in the context of promoting hate, and some of the reporters in the room just could not wrap their heads around that context. “But what if someone is wearing a t-shirt?” “What if they have Nazi memorabilia in their house?” The minister was not going to engage in hypotheticals, but the fact that there is context to these offences was a little too abstract.

Some of the reactions were expected, such as the concerns that this is going to impact legitimate protest even though the government has tried to make a clear delineation in the language of the bill that intention to intimidate because of hate is the target, and yes, there are specific legal tests about this. Of course, one of the biggest problems is that we already have laws for most of these offences, but police simply don’t enforce them, and that could be the case after this bill passes as well. Or it could wind up that this bill provides more clarity for police and prosecutors than the existing jurisprudence, but that remains to be seen.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims it has taken control over two more village in Donetsk region, while president Zelenskyy says that Ukrainian forces have inflicted heavy losses on Russians on the frontline counteroffensive near two cities in the same region. Russian jets violated Estonia’s airspace as part of their latest test of NATO resolve.

Good reads:

• Here is a small photo gallery of Mark Carney’s trip to Mexico City.
• Carney won’t be giving a speech at the UN General Assembly, but Anita Anand will be. Anand also says that recognition of a Palestinian state isn’t normalization.
• Dominic LeBlanc says that consultations have begun around the New NAFTA renegotiations, thanks to the Americans moving ahead with it.
• Gregor Robertson says the government homes to use Build Canada Homes in order to drive modernisation in the housing industry as conditions of its agreements.
• Liberal MP Kody Blois, in his capacity as Carney’s parliamentary secretary, says that more ministers will be heading to China to try and resolve the trade conflict.
• The government is pulling the plug on the Greener Homes Loan Programme.
• The CRA says it’s hiring more call centre staff and using digital asbestos to improve services. (I can’t wait for that to blow up in its face).
• Parts shortages and backlogs means that the Canadian Forces no longer have enough vehicles both for deployment to Latvia as well as training at home.
• Irish rap group Kneecap has been deemed inadmissible for entry into Canada; they plan to take legal action as a result.
• Dental care providers say that while implementation of the federal programme is improving, the political message that it’s “free” when it’s not causes problems.
• The EV mandate might actually force automakers to invest in the very charging infrastructure that they say is insufficient and drives down demand.
• The CBC has some data on the effect of Canadians’ boycotts of the US.
• Here’s an overdue fact-check on the temporary foreign worker programme and the claims it’s “stealing jobs.”
• The number of international students applying for Canadian schools had dropped as they’ve received the message that they’re unwelcome (thanks to scapegoating).
• Natan Obed has been re-elected as president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami.
• The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a strip of park land fenced into a backyard could become part of the property as it met the test for adverse possession.
• Pierre Poilievre says he has no “magic number” in mind of getting over during his leadership review vote in January.
• Avi Lewis is the first out of the gate in the NDP leadership contest. (For context, his grandfather led the party federally, and his father led the Ontario party).
• Saskatchewan’s auditor general is looking into allegations that the government vastly overpaid for new firefighting water bombers.
• Rights groups are vowing to continue to challenge Alberta’s anti-trans legislation, even if Danielle Smith invokes the Notwithstanding Clause.
• Mike Moffatt worries about the economic damage that layoffs in the construction industry will cause as housing starts continue to languish in major centres.
• Patricia Treble has seven thoughts about Trump’s state visit to Windsor Castle.
• Philippe Lagassé ponders the influence of tone and attitude on major military procurements, and the contrasts between the current processes.
• Andrew Coyne weighs in on the histrionics around the federal government’s factum in the Supreme Court case on the Notwithstanding Clause.
• Susan Delacourt wonders if the Liberals moving away from progressive policies is just backsliding, or if it’s backlash, and why that matters.
• My weekend column looks at how that faked committee meeting was not just ragebait, but a symptom of the deeper rot within our Parliament.

Odds and ends:

The best part of the meltdown that conservatives are having over the federal factum to the SCC in the Notwithstanding Clause case (that they didn't bother to read) is the number of straight white men opining on the legislature's ability to "balance" the rights of minorities.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-19T19:06:57.934Z

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.