Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

A grab-bag of Carney answers

Posted on by
Reply

Prime minister Mark Carney held a press conference yesterday to pat himself on the back for his government’s accomplishments over the spring sitting, but as with most of these exercises, the real interest was in his responses to questions, which he doesn’t do very often. So, what did we learn?

  • That big call with Trump this week with the extremely vague readout was mostly about Iran and NATO, and not about trade.
  • We’re still a long way away from any kind of trade deal with Trump.
  • The six upcoming by-elections will likely be spaced out.
  • We finally got more details on that condo purchase in Vancouver, which is 90 percent provincial funding/10 percent federal, and is intended as rent-to-own.
  • He will be going to Stampede, and plans to defend national unity, and is using Brexit as a cautionary tale (as well he should be).
  • We are sending aid to Venezuela after the earthquakes, and while it might be useful to have some kind of consular services there or in Iran, we’ll go through partners.

Shortly afterward, Pierre Poilievre gave his own press conference to decry the state of the Canadian economy and blame Carney for it, as though Trump wasn’t a factor, or that climate change isn’t affecting things like food prices. In fact, he pretty much admitted he’d accept a bad deal with Trump for the sake of getting a deal. So there’s that.

"It's all an illusion."

— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson.bsky.social) 2026-06-25T19:54:15.597Z

My Latest:

For National Magazine, I delve into the Supreme Court of Canada’s increasing caseload, and why the Chief Justice’s explanation of cleared backlogs doesn’t hold.

Continue reading →

The totally avoidable condo “bailout” meltdown

Posted on by
Reply

There’s been a meltdown happening in certain circles, and Pierre Poilievre’s among them, about the federal government supposedly spending $3.2 billion to “bail out condo developers” as they seek to convert 2200 vacant condo units into affordable housing units. The details are pretty much entirely wrong, thanks to a poorly worded PMO communiqué and flawed reporting, and it’s just spiralling out of control.

To wit, the condo acquisition is not $3.2 billion, as that figure is about expanding “housing-enabling” infrastructure. There is no dollar figure attached in the release about how much they are spending on the vacant condos, other than it’s part of the Build Canda Homes funding envelope to acquire affordable housing. And it took days for the minister responsible, Gregor Robertson, to actually explain this—over Twitter, no less—and not do a coordinated media blitz (and I’m given to understand that those media outlets have not offered corrections on the initial reporting). This is absolutely appalling, and it’s yet another own-goal by a government whose arrogance is exerting itself at every opportunity.

It's weeks like this where I fear for Canada's future. We have governments putting out housing plans they can't explain, and a media that struggles to report even basic facts, and won't correct their errors.I'm not sure how Canadians can be expected to trust our institutions.

— Dr. Mike P. Moffatt (@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social) 2026-06-25T03:19:10.000Z

And Moffatt is absolutely correct here. This is an absolute clusterfuck that the government could have avoided if they actually bothered to explain (and I’m undecided if this is a “can’t explain” or a “won’t explain” situation), and not simply insisted that the “just trust me” approach is going to keep working for them. It obviously won’t, and they need to start recognizing that before it becomes a serious problem for their voters (and that’ll come at them really fast if they don’t change course).

My Latest:

My column draws a couple of lessons for Canada from what we saw of Keir Starmer’s resignation in the UK.

Continue reading →

Cherry-picking the incel manifesto

Posted on by
Reply

There were more details released yesterday about the shooting in Montreal—the name of the officer and the civilian who were killed, and a few details are emerging about the shooter, who is believed to have been a university student from Lethbridge, Alberta. His purported manifesto, however, is what is burning up the social media channels, with everyone searching for what they want to read in it—“anti-police/anti-government,” antisemitic/anti-Zionist, “communist,” among others, but at its heart it was an incel manifesto.

The Post's white nationalist apologist has cherry-picked the purported manifesto to discover it says what she hopes it will say. Imagine that!

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-24T02:42:49.682Z

Here is Carleton University professor Stephanie Carvin, whose latest book was on the far-right in Canada, and she has read the purported manifesto, and has some interview clips here to put it into context. (For some unknown reason, CBC didn’t post either this interview or the one she did with Power & Politics to YouTube, so this will have to do for the moment.

Stephanie Carvin on Montreal shooter's manifesto: There is the incel philosophy here as well as a lot of anti-government extremism … the shooter is basically holding police responsible for upholding a system that is seen as inherently corrupt and degrading certain classes of men in society.

— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson.bsky.social) 2026-06-23T13:37:16.747Z

Stephanie Carvin on RCMP issuing warning to police agencies across the country: There's an explicit call for what the shooter calls "revolutionary acts of terrorism" in this manifesto.

— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson.bsky.social) 2026-06-23T13:39:50.999Z

Carvin: The radicalization story here is going to be very important for understanding what happened, why this person seems to — it's been reported that he drove from Alberta to Montreal. Why did he choose Montreal? There's a lot we can speculate on there.

— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson.bsky.social) 2026-06-23T13:43:11.177Z

Carvin: If this is the manifesto, it is what I would describe as an incel critique of capitalism. And he's really coming at a variety of different topics in here. You do have ideas, I would say, from the extreme left and the extreme right. But the continuing thread throughout is a hatred of women.

— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson.bsky.social) 2026-06-23T13:43:25.847Z

I do have to wonder about what more the federal government should be doing, and in particular, the Conservatives who keep insisting that they are trying to do something for disaffected young (white) men. That’s what Jamil Jivani’s big campus tour is all about, insisting that these young men need special dispensation in life because they’re just soooo disaffected. Poilievre’s solution to everything is to just cut taxes and hope that doubling down on trickle-down economics will do the trick, but somehow, I doubt that’s going to do much in this situation—particularly given that he’s tried to engage the “manosphere” to try and attract those voters to his cause. None of this is good, and I worry about where this goes the more that they try to appeal to a toxic internet culture and keep ignoring people in the real world.

Continue reading →

Ginning up an faux inflation narrative

Posted on by
Reply

The inflation data for May was released yesterday, and unsurprisingly, the headline number ran high because of gasoline prices, entirely because of the situation that Trump created with Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. Looking into the data, it’s quite clear that core measures—which strip out volatile food and fuel prices—is right on the Bank of Canada’s target at 2.1 and 2.0 percent (there are two different core measures the Bank of Canada tracks). And yes, food price inflation continues to run hot, and the data shows pretty clearly that it’s supply disruptions—things like tomatoes coming from Mexico, where they planted fewer crops because of US tariffs, and then that smaller crop was affected by weather conditions (read: climate change). Constrained supply means higher prices. This is basic supply-and-demand.

Before Poilievre lights his hair on fire about inflation hitting 3.2% last month, this is pretty much entirely on gasoline prices because of Iran. Core measures remain at 2.1% and 2.0%. And he's going to decry the price of food and blame "Liberal inflation" as opposed to the truth:

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-22T13:30:56.569Z

Predictably, Pierre Poilievre came out and blamed “Liberal high taxes, waste, and deficits.” None of those have anything to do with inflation. Taxes (which the Liberals have cut consistently) are disinflationary. The size of the deficit has nothing to do with Trump’s foreign misadventures, or climate change affecting food-producing regions, and yet, Poilievre has a convenient target for everything. Who needs facts when you have a narrative, and a government who refuses to actually push back on any of this, and merely pats themselves on the back for OECD projections.

Just completely ignoring the relevant facts, because he has a narrative.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-22T18:21:00.215Z

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2069136495693418894

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-06-22T13:08:01.946Z

My Latest:

  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take takes issue with the Conservative private member’s bill to take the GST off of used cars, which is both bad policy and bad economics.
  • For National Magazine, I delve into Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision that allows a failed candidate the opportunity to sue the province’s chief electoral officer.
  • My (belated) weekend column on the government unnecessarily jamming complex bills through the Senate for no good reason at all.
  • For National Magazine, I contributed to this look at the next Supreme Court of Canada justice, Glenn Joyal.

Continue reading →

The arrogant “tinfoil hat” dismissal

Posted on by
Reply

The House of Commons rose for the summer yesterday afternoon, after a particularly busy few months. Government House Leader Stephen MacKinnon took to the Foyer yesterday to pat himself on the back for passing twenty-one bills in the sitting, which is a lot, particularly after the record of the last few years when unrelenting procedural warfare meant that only one or two non-money bills (by which I mean either budget implementation or Estimates) got passed. This is thanks to the government having secured a working majority in the Commons, allowing them to use time allocation on a regular basis to move bills along—perhaps a little too often. Yes, things were being slow-walked but the solution is not to time allocate everything, which only creates distrust and bad will, but well, the Liberals have become arrogant since getting the majority. So if Ruby Sahota and Gary Anandasangaree are slowly morphing into Vic Toews given their rhetoric on lawful access, well, MacKinnon is morphing into Peter Van Loan, who time allocated absolutely everything when he was House Leader. (And suddenly I am having flashbacks of Peter Julian standing up to say “Here we go again…” with every time allocation motion).

An absolutely shameful statement by Steven MacKinnon. Every organization with a long track record of expert commentary on the rule of law in Canada condemned the bill. "Liberals dismiss ‘tinfoil hat’ privacy fears as lawful access bill passes"globalnews.ca/news/1191195…

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-06-19T01:15:29.519Z

What was beyond the pale, however, was the fact that MacKinnon over the past couple of days has decided to start casting concerns about the lawful access bill—which they rammed through with some absolute procedural fuckery—as being “tinfoil hat” conspiracy theories. Sorry, but no—the level of metadata they are demanding that companies track and retain is legitimately invasive, as are the requirements that telecom companies install equipment that will turn your phones into tracking devices (but only with judicial authorization…on a very low threshold to obtain it). The Supreme Court has twice ruled that lawful access is unconstitutional, but this government went and bowled ahead anyway, and think that they can dismiss any legitimate criticism as some kind of mental illness. (And no, the amendments they hastily passed before passage do not address any of the core concerns with the legislation).

Every privacy expert in this country is raising the alarm, and no, the fact that every police organization in the country wants these surveillance powers is not reassuring. It is, in fact, the opposite of that. We already have big problems in this country with cops who use the police database as a dating registry—do we really need to give them the ability to stalk any woman that they choose? What about the allegations of police in Toronto passing along information to organised crime? Do we need to give those cops the ability to track any phone so that they can pass along that information to organised crime as well? This is not far-fetched or out of the realm of possibility—these kinds of things are already happening. This government used to care about these kinds of things, but that has gone out the window with Carney in charge.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-06-18T13:08:10.185Z

Continue reading →

Cowardly responses on MAiD expansion

Posted on by
2

It was not a surprise that the majority of the special joint committee on MAiD recommended that the government “pause indefinitely” on expanding access to those whose sole condition is a grievous or irremediable mental illness. The fix was in on this committee from the start—the chairs were both anti-MAiD advocates, and the Conservative position going in was to be against, while many Liberals have become squeamish. It was also no surprise to see that there were five supplemental or dissenting reports to the main report, most of them from senators on the joint committee, four of whom were keen to call bullshit on the process that was torqued, ignored certain expert witnesses, and where the biased chairs put their thumbs on the scale all the way through.

To be frank, there was a lot of cowardice on display. Those senators and the Bloc members all wanted the matter referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, because once again, MPs don’t want to have to make an important decision without being dragged, kicking and screaming, by the Court to do the right thing. There is a well-established pattern in this country, and it should surprise absolutely no one that they want to continue it. In addition, the position that people with a grievous and irremediable mental illness cannot access the same remedy as someone who has the same condition plus a comorbidity is untenable, and is going to be found to be unconstitutional when this is dragged through the courts, which it inevitably will be because the government is cowardly.

Finally, the notion that the federal government shouldn’t legislate in their area of competence—the Criminal Code—because provinces refuse to provide the necessary healthcare and social services makes this whole debate infuriating. Just about as infuriating as the federal government tinkering with the law of bail in the Criminal Code because provinces refuse to properly resource their court systems, which is where the real problem lies. So once again, people suffer while the provinces get off scot-free for abdicating their responsibilities, while the Liberals continue to backtrack on their being the “Party of the Charter.” What a sorry state we’re in.

My Latest:

My column tracks the state of play in Question Period, and Mark Carney’s infrequent appearances and disappointing performance, even it’s his job to answer to MPs.

Continue reading →

Ham-fisted programming motions on bad bills

Posted on by
Reply

As the spring sitting of Parliament winds down, the government has decided to be maximally ham-fisted in order to ram through several bills for no good reason at all. In the Commons, they put through a programming motion to speed through the lawful access bill (which, to be clear, is a very bad bill that is going to get struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada), but this motion was full of procedural fuckery, including retroactive deadlines on amendments, and no time to debate the amendments that they did have prepared, so they were going to be straight up-down votes, because they insist that this pass the Commons before they rise, even though the Senate is not going to look at it until the fall. Why the rush? Because they are reaching the kinds of arrogance that is the usual Achilles heel of the Liberals, and it’s going to cost them.

This is exactly the Liberal arrogance that always, without fail, comes to bite them in the ass.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-17T01:19:27.773Z

Over on the Senate side, they have also put through a programming motion on three bills that the government insists they need passed before the summer, but this motion essentially gives these complex pieces of legislation a single day of study at committee at which point they are deemed to have passed, no matter if they vote or not. That’s absolutely insane, and quite frankly abusive, and is contemptuous of the job the Senate is supposed to be doing. But this is how Carney and his crew have decided they want to treat Parliament. I would say it’s unbelievable, but no, we’ve come to expect this kind of behaviour, and it needs to be callsed out.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-06-16T19:08:17.950Z

Continue reading →

A privacy bill that takes away from the Privacy Commissioner

Posted on by
Reply

The federal government tabled long-overdue privacy reform legislation yesterday, which is intended to work in concert with their Digital Asbestos For All Strategy, and while there are some needed updates within it, there are also some concerning aspects. For example, there will be more powers to demand deletions from online searches (“right to be forgotten” powers), and while they are going to give the federal Privacy Commissioner more powers like he’s been begging for, they are going to restrict him to only public sector complaints and hive off private sector complaints to this new Digital Safety Commissioner. They’ve also decided to jump on the “surveillance pricing” hysteria, which both lets Avi Lewis claim a victory, but they have no details on how this will work, to say nothing of the fact that consumer protection is a provincial responsibility!

I have regularly butted heads with the Privacy Commissioners we've had over the past 20+ years, but sidelining an organization with decades of experience to empower an as yet unconstituted body is frankly shocking. #BillC34

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-06-15T21:41:45.003Z

It's worth noting that there's nothing new in #BillC36 that has anything to do with "surveillance pricing". The provision that the Minister pointed to in his presser has been in PIPEDA since 2001.

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-06-15T22:42:03.453Z

The fact that they are taking the new Digital Safety Commissioner that is being created as part of the Online Harms legislation, and loading him or her up with these enormous new powers is concerning, as is the fact that this commissioner will report to government and not to Parliament. I worry about creating a new regulator with so much scope of authority that it will need to build an enormous bureaucracy off the start, meaning it will be slow to start up, slow to react, and eventually start empire-building, particularly given how much online regulation it is being asked to do in addition to privacy work. We will have to see if the government bothers to offer a justification for this model (which they may not!) but I suspect we’ve got a long summer ahead of Evan Solomon exhorting the opposition to pass this while pretending it’s the solution to all of our problems.

A modernized privacy law should be something that gets broad support, but I think the creation of this new super-regulator that reports to the government and not parliament may be this bill's undoing. #BillC36

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-06-15T23:09:34.362Z

https://bsky.app/profile/joshtabish.bsky.social/post/3moeciabcks2u

My Latest:

  • For National Magazine, I delve into Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision on why all future Lieutenant Governors of New Brunswick needs to be bilingual.
  • My weekend column on how the Liberals have shamelessly reversed their policies so many times under Carney that they are virtually just Conservatives now.

Continue reading →

A long-term food strategy

Posted on by

Yesterday, before jetting off to the G7 in France, prime minister Mark Carney was in Toronto to unveil the details of his national food security strategy. The initial announcement was a couple of months ago, when he announced the rebranding and expansion of the existing GST credit, and the details for this new strategy could bear fruit (groan!) in the long-term, but I worry that he is raising expectations that these measures will lower food prices immediately. They won’t. Building up new food production infrastructure via greenhouses and vertical farms will take time and a lot of dollars to get off the ground, as will creating new domestic processing capabilities, which we may not even have the necessary labour for. Same thing with bolstering the rules around competition in order to attract new entrants into a marketplace dominated by oligopolies—you can’t unwind that in a day, and certainly not without just inviting in more American companies, which would go against the notion of trying to ensure food sovereignty.

Again—these kinds of investments and commitments to increasing domestic production and processing are good, and overdue. But in the vein of you can lead a horse to water, corporate Canada is not all that keen on investing in things, including productivity measures, because they are too accustomed to relying on trade with the US (which they keep pinning all of their hopes on normalising once more, as though there will be no lasting damage from the country descending into outright fascism), and their whole modus operandi is about getting monopolistic power and becoming a rent-seeker rather than investing in productivity or innovation. And yes, Canadian food prices are very high, and only part of that has to do with the fact that we’re a cold-weather country that needs to import a lot of what we eat. This is a strategy built for the long-term, and that’s great, but I know that by September, Pierre Poilievre will stand up in Question Period every day and declare that this new strategy hasn’t reduced food prices, so therefore we must burn everything down for the sake of tax cuts and going harder on trickle-down economics (and the government will respond by patting themselves on the back). They’re going to have to do the hard work of pushing this and then actually defending, and I have doubts that they are capable of doing just that.

Jennifer Robson has additional thoughts on the announcement.

My Latest:

My Xtra column points out how much Mark Carney patted himself on the back for doing the absolute bare minimum at this year’s Pride flag raising.

Continue reading →

Reversing themselves on age verification

Posted on by

The government’s online harms bill dropped yesterday, and while there are some good parts to it, there are some very, very bad parts that I am absolutely outraged about. Because this government has developed a real penchant for major omnibus bills, this contains parts of the previous online harms bill, such as the duty to act responsibly for platforms around safe design for sites and apps, which is the good part. It dropped the hate crime provisions that included restoring some of the functions of the Human Rights Tribunal around hate, which were controversial to begin with, but was also about trying to respond to the increasing amounts of hate being seen online. It seeks to create a Digital Safety Commission as the regulator in charge of the online harms scheme, who will oversee enforcement and implementation. It has a partial social media ban for youth under sixteen, but is also incorporating the age verification scheme of that Senate Public Bill, S-209, which has failed time and again, and which the Trudeau government opposed for all of the right reasons, including the fact that age verification cannot work without becoming mass surveillance (and yes, this is the part that I am absolutely livid about). (More from CBC here and here).

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3mnxuplffys2b

Part of what is so infuriating is that they are putting the age-gating into this legislation, but there are no details on how that is going to work, other than mention of “age estimation,” which is poor technology when it can have trouble distinguishing between a fifteen and a sixteen year-old, and doesn’t work well for anyone who is racialised or trans (and certain age estimation technologies have been easily thwarted with fake moustaches). And remember, this is technology that everyone on the internet is going to be subjected to, which is inevitably going to involve mass surveillance, and the loss of internet privacy writ-large. The Liberals have reversed themselves yet again, shamelessly. (For more, here is Michael Geist’s first impressions of the legislation).

My Latest:

My column highlights remarks that Louise Arbour made about diversity during her installation speech, given we are at a time of increasing ethnic/white nationalism.

Continue reading →