Tag Archives: Access to Information

Roundup: Trying to politicize the Order of Canada

Posted on by
4

Because everything needs to be stupid all of the time, Conservative MP and obnoxious windbag Andrew Lawton started circulating a petition in support of his nomination of Don Cherry to the Order of Canada. The Order of Canada advisory board does not respond to petitions. It is an arm’s-length body chaired by the Chief Justice in order to apolitically weigh the nominations for the Order. I make this point because the honours system in Canada is held by the Crown in order to keep it apolitical (which is one reason why constitutional monarchy is superior). Lawton circulating this petition, which is being signed and championed by members of his caucus, including his leader, is the very definition of politicising these honours for the sake of culture war bullshit—after all, Cherry eventually lost his lucrative CBC gig because of racist commentary.

But because Lawton was so keen to gin up the culture war grift, he inadvertently pissed off members of his own caucus—specifically, most of the Quebec members, who are not fans of Cherry because Cherry also spent his career insulting Quebec and European players, and they are not looking to forgive and forget. And now this is spiralling because culture war grifting is by its very definition stupid and self-defeating. But when your political fundraising is tied to this same grifting complex, is it any wonder that this kind of self-own happens? And will they learn any lessons from this? Of course not.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-13T13:24:01.664Z

Carney-versary

It’s the one-year anniversary of Mark Carney being sworn-in as prime minister, so there are a few retrospectives. The National Post takes stock of what we know and don’t know about him, and the fact that there are still a few mysteries. JDM Stewart enumerates the expectations placed on Carney that he will need to deliver on. Althia Raj talks to 33 sources about that first year in office, and it’s a pretty honest assessment of the trends both good and bad he has demonstrated.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian shelling killed one and wounded six in Dnipropetrovsk region, and an attack in Zaporizhzhia region injured four. President Zelenskyy warned that pausing Russian oil sanctions will only prolong the war.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Credulous takes on private members’ bills

Posted on by
Reply

There have been a few stories over the past few days that have raised my ire, so I’m going to take a few minutes to point a few things out. One of them is this CBC story yesterday about Jenny Kwan’s private member’s bill, and that as many as sixteen Liberals are considering supporting it. My beef: the sub-hed on the story reading “Vote would mark first time some in caucus split from government line under Carney.” Split from the government line? It’s a private member’s bill. Those are free votes by default. That’s the whole point of them. CBC should know better, and frankly, I really don’t like it when the media tries to play party whip while at the same time wishing that MPs were more independent.

The other story yesterday was about Conservative MP Dan Albas’ private member’s bill, which purports to empower Canada Post to deliver alcohol across provincial lines. Most of the stories in various outlets talked about how Dominic LeBlanc appeared to support the bill in Question Period, which he actually did not. What LeBlanc said was that this is an area of provincial regulation (which only the Star’s story mentions), but that he would bring it up when he meets with his provincial counterparts in a few weeks because he thinks it’s a good idea. And more to the point, this bill is a gimmick, which Albas and Pierre Poilievre insist overrides provincial regulation, but it actually doesn’t because, and just puts Canada Post in a bind. It would be great if any story could point that fact out, or talked to a lawyer, but nope, they focused on LeBlanc’s answer in QP, and even then couldn’t get the nuance right.

The third is a story from CBC on Monday, which was very concerned that a lot of bills are passing “on division,” meaning without a vote. The problem was the initial sub-hed on the story which stated “Half the bills passed in the House this session have cleared 3rd reading without a head count or consensus,” which is wrong, because “on division” is consensus you don’t need a vote—the “or consensus” was later dropped from the sub-hed. Of course, the real reason is that the Conservatives don’t want to go to an election, so they’re not going to force a vote and have Andrew Scheer and Scott Reid hide behind the curtains again to ensure that the math is right and that they won’t accidentally do something stupid with the vote counts given how everything is so close, but the person you reached as your source for your explainer is Peter Van Loan? Possibly the worst Government House Leader in decades (which is saying a lot)? It came across as amateurish, and like CBC’s parliamentary bureau has a hard time understanding how parliament works, which is not a good look.

When your parliamentary bureau doesn't understand parliament, dumb things happen.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-09T13:50:45.982Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-10T21:22:01.632Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia dropped three guided bombs on Sloviansk in the east, and hit Kharkiv and Dnipro with drones, injuring another twenty people. Ukrainian forces have pushed Russian invaders out of Dnipropetrovsk region, while Russia claims to be making gains in Donbas. Ukraine hit a missile plant in Bryansk region in Russia.

Continue reading →

Roundup: “Breaking ranks” to represent his constituents

Posted on by

Every news outlet in the country is framing Liberal MP Bruce Fanjoy as “breaking ranks” because he wrote a letter to the government in opposition to the latest return-to-office mandate for civil servants. Why is this language suspect? Because he’s not a member of Cabinet, so the expectation that he must be a compliant sheep and not step out of line is frankly wrong and non-existent. Backbenchers are there to hold the government to account, even if they’re in the same party. In fact, especially if they’re in the same party, because they are no good to anyone if they are nothing more than mindless clapping seals whose only purpose is to stand up and vote for the government and its programme at every opportunity.

https://twitter.com/brucefanjoy/status/2020920966893928589

The thing about Fanjoy is that he worked that riding in order to oust Pierre Poilievre, and part of that was the message that Poilievre took them for granted, and that he was going to actually represent them, and that’s what he’s doing, because there are a lot of civil servants in that riding. After all of the work in his winning the riding, can you imagine the message it would send for him to say absolutely nothing as the government moves ahead with its very ill-thought-out plan for return-to-office? It’s likely he wouldn’t win it again if that were the case. So yeah, he’s going to “break ranks” to deliver this very gentle message to the government.

This being said, I am once again going to absolutely rage at the expectation that this kind of framing devices places on MPs. It’s an old media dichotomy—we insist we want MPs to act more independently, but the moment they do, they have “broken ranks,” or the leader is “losing control,” or any other means by which We The Media police MPs into being good little drones and just following the (presidentialised) leader when that’s not what they should be doing. It’s beyond frustrating that we are worse whips than the actual party whips, which is saying something in this country with our parliament. It’s just ridiculous that this keeps happening, even when the party has room for disagreement (see: Nate Erskine-Smith).

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched 149 drones and 11 missiles early Monday, killing four people. Russian forces are also trying to push ahead at Pokrovsk, in spite of previously claiming they had already captured it. Ukraine is opening up sales of its domestically-produced weapons to help finance the war effort.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Letting Trump’s lackeys spin the narrative

Posted on by

Because everything is so stupid all the time, there was a whole ridiculous bit of drama yesterday as US treasury secretary Scott Bessent went on TV to claim that prime minister Mark Carney aggressively walked back his Davos speech on the phone to Trump, when the rest of us didn’t know there even was a call because there was no readout. When Carney came in for his caucus meeting yesterday and was asked about it, he disputed the characterisation, said he meant what he said at Davos, and then turned it into one of those quasi-flattering but also quasi-shady remarks akin to calling Trump “transformational,” in saying that Canada was the first to recognize the changes to global trade that Trump instituted. I’m sure he thinks he was very clever about it too.

Nevertheless, the point stands that the lack of a readout from PMO about the call means that it let the Americans get out ahead in terms of spinning the call and what was said, and as this administration does with everything, is to just lie. Part of this is also transparency, so that we know when there are calls with world leaders, particularly given the situation we’re in with Trump, and the fact that they had a thirty-minute call on a range of topics that included Ukraine is actually kind of important to know, but Carney has refused to be transparent and has said he’s not going to provide readouts for these “informal” calls going forward. So you just keep letting Trump and his people lie about what’s being said? I do not understand why they refuse to understand how to deal with this kind of behaviour.

Amidst this are a bunch of conservatives, some MPs, some designated talking heads on media shows, who were so very eager to take Trump’s side and blaming Carney for harming the relationship, or in trying to insist that it’s Carney who is holding up a tariff deal instead of Trump being mercurial and untrustworthy. I get that for a lot of these people, it’s “anything to own the Libs,” and they will contort themselves to almost the point of treason in order to get that thrill they’re looking for, but for the love of Zeus, have some self-respect.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian drone struck a passenger train near Kharkiv, killing five, while drones attacking Odesa killed at least three. There was also a strike against a natural gas facility in western Ukraine. The US says that Ukraine needs to sign a peace deal with Russia to get security guarantees (but Russia has no interest in a peace deal).

Continue reading →

Roundup: A major agreement with the EU

Posted on by

At the Canada-EU summit in Brussels yesterday, Mark Carney signed a new security and defence partnership, and the joint communiqué was very, very long. A lot of stuff that might have been part of a G7 communiqué, but that wasn’t going to happen given how much time and energy was spent managing Trump and the Americans, and that included a lot of talk about upholding the rules-based international order, or combatting climate change, and that kind of thing, that would have caused Trump to throw another one of his public tantrums. But that’s the world we live in now.

This means that Canada is now on the road to participating in programmes like ReArm Europe, which seeks to drive down the cost of joint military procurement projects by increasing the scale of the buys, and helps to keep those industries in Europe rather than relying on the American defence-industrial complex, but the hope is that this agreement will open the Canadian market to those procurements as well (though I am curious to know how many Canadian firms are actually Canadian and not just American branch-plants).

Today will be the big NATO summit where increasing the expected defence spending target is the major focus, though there will likely be some sidebars around de-escalation with Israel and Iran. Ukraine will also be a focus, though president Zelenskyy is not expected to attend (though he was in the UK yesterday to sign new agreements on military production there, and to have lunch with the King at Windsor Castle). Nevertheless, that five percent target—to ostensibly be divided up as 3.5% operational spending and 1.5% in related spending that has some kind of a defence-adjacent component—is going to be incredibly difficult for the majority of countries to achieve, but especially to sustain. You already have some countries who met their two percent target by front-loading a bunch of procurement, but they have no idea how they’ll manage to stay at two percent, let alone 3.5%-plus going forward. (It’s also a dumb metric because it doesn’t deal with contributions to operations, and the disparity between the denominators among member countries is pretty vast, to say nothing about the fact that it’s easier to hit your targets if you crash your economy to drag your denominator down). One hopes there will be some cooler heads around the table, but it looks like the 5 percent is a done deal, which will create problems down the road.

https://bsky.app/profile/plagasse.bsky.social/post/3lsbzgrlhpk2u

Ukraine Dispatch

The attack on Kyiv early Monday wound up killing at least ten, including a child, as an apartment block was struck. Ukraine says that it attacked and set ablaze an oil depot in Russia’s Rostov region.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1937171580552966364?s=61

Continue reading →

Roundup: A big defence commitment?

Posted on by

Yesterday, at Fort York in Toronto, prime minister Mark Carney announced that Canada would meet its NATO commitment of two percent of GDP by the end of next fiscal year instead of by 2030, in part through use of greater pay, more funds for sustainment, support for the defence industry, and some good ol’ creative accounting. Carney prefaced this by making a very real point about the changing nature of America’s place in the world: “The United States is beginning to monetize its hegemony, charging for access to its markets and reducing its relative contribution to our collective security.”

One of the big question marks has to do with the status of the Coast Guard, and how it gets folded into the calculation around defence spending—there were mixed messages on whether it stays under Department of Fisheries and Oceans, of if it will be moved into Department of National Defence (though there is also an argument for it to go to Public Safety), and the question of whether or not to arm those ships is a fraught one because of the training requirements for armaments. It sounds like there will be things like CSE’s cyber-capability being counted as part of this calculation as well, which again, seems to be more fudging numbers that we typically accused other nations of doing while we were more “pure” in terms of what we counted toward our spending commitments, and that seems to be going away.

I would add that while we get a bunch of competing narratives around the target, whether it’s the Conservatives’ memory-holing the fact that they cut defence spending to below one percent of GDP (in order to achieve a false balance on the books in time for the 2015 election), or the notion that we are nothing more than freeloaders in NATO, we should keep reminding people that even with lower per-capita defence spending, we have been punching above our weight taking on the tough missions in NATO (Kandahar, leading a multi-country brigade in Latvia) where as other allies who have met their two percent targets don’t contribute (looking at you, Greece). A poor metric of spending is not a good indicator of contribution, but it has created a whole false narrative that we should be correcting, but that’s too much work for the pundit class, who are more interested in hand-wringing and calling Justin Trudeau names than they are in looking at our actual contributions. (Here’s a timeline of the spending target melodrama).

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia made another massive overnight attack against Ukraine, launching 479 drones and twenty missiles of various types, targeting the western and central parts of the county. Another prisoner swap did go ahead yesterday.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1932086386145841186

Continue reading →

Roundup: The PBO immolates his credibility

Posted on by

In their need to constantly frame issues as both-sides, The Canadian Press inadvertently downplayed the severity of what happened with the notice that the Parliamentary Budget Officer quietly put on his website to say that they got some of their analysis on the federal carbon levy wrong. The CP story focused it on a Liberal MP writing the PBO to get him to broadcast the correction, rather than framing the story as the PBO made an error, and giving the briefest of mentions to the MP and his open letter, because that letter shouldn’t have been the story.

The story, as it turns out, is not only that the PBO made the mistake in his analysis, it’s that he is steadfastly refusing to take any responsibility for it, never mind that this particular report has been politically charged and is at the centre of much of the debate over the carbon levy. Putting aside that the report itself was not very well done (the distributional analysis was undermined by his insistence on including average figures and that the calculation on the impact of the price were done in the absence of any kind of counterfactual, and in a binary price/no price way that is in itself inherently misleading, the fact that the PBO didn’t advertise that there was a problem with the report, didn’t include any kind of correction (he’s planning a fully re-done report in the fall), and he’s saying thing that don’t logically follow, such as it’s too complex to recalculate like this…but the outcome from the error is unlikely to change the outcome of that portion of the report (this being the impact on the broader economy, which the Conservatives misleadingly cherry-pick to “prove” households are worse off). So, in addition to refusing to take responsibility, he won’t pick a lane.

But it gets worse. Yves Giroux went on Power & Politics to discuss this incident, and immolated his credibility as he not only continued to refuse to take any responsibility, but tried to prevaricate, and make excuses with a wall of bafflegab, but he also started arguing that his “small office” shouldn’t be responsible for the climate-related economic modelling that MPs are demanding, that the government should be doing it, but his one job is literally doing this kind of analysis to provide an independent analysis from the government’s. Of course, Giroux has always had a problem sticking within the bounds of his legislated mandate, and has preferred to act like a talking head pundit and opining on all kinds of things the government is doing, while still insisting that he’s independent and hence more credible than the government as a result. And I’m not too surprised that Giroux is trying to avoid taking any responsibility, being that he is a career civil servant for whom responsibility is something to be avoided, but in refusing to do so, he has tainted his office. There can’t be trust about his numbers going forward, and as was pointed out, especially if he’s going to be costing election platform promises (which he’s done a pretty shite job of so far, such as sticking his letterhead on Andrew Scheer’s handwaving), but that was something the PBO never should have done in the first place. This should be a resignation-worthy offence, but so should it have been when he decided he wanted to be a television pundit. But we’ll see if he can finally accept responsibility and do the right thing here and step down.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Four people were injured in a Russian missile attack on Kharkiv early Thursday morning. NATO’s secretary general is proposing a way to help Trump-proof military aid for Ukraine, but there will be obstacles that include Hungary’s objections. Reuters has a lengthy look at the front lines in Donetsk.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford bringing back 1890s patronage

Posted on by

Ontario premier Doug Ford made a rousing defence for his appointing two former senior staffers onto the committee tasked with appointing provincial judges, saying that it’s “democracy” for him to make “like-minded” appointments, which is like a throwback to the 1890s. It’s very true that control of patronage was one of the key reasons why Responsible Government happened in the Canadian colonies back in the 1840s, but there has been a move over decades to professionalise and de-politicise, most especially with the judiciary, and when Ford is talking about needing to appoint his people so that he can get “tough” judges and justices of the peace on the bench, that’s a warning sign that he is backsliding on democratic norms (and he has had a history of very partisan patronage appointments since the very beginning of his government). It’s not that Ford has any particular coherent ideology other than he thinks that locking people up and throwing away the key will please voters, Charter rights, or the presumption of innocence be damned.

https://twitter.com/dwjudson/status/1761064514298986702

This kind of talk undermines the justice system, because it leaves the impression that judges are acting in partisan ways, or who were appointed because of partisan leanings, which is not a feature in the Canadian legal system. And the point Judson made about contagion is because there are people on the political right who feel that they can move the goalposts of what is acceptable for political interference in institutions that should be impartial or independent—and that is a very, very big problem at a time when the political right is undermining whatever institutions they can. It’s a key feature of Orbánism, coming out of Hungary, which the right in America and Canada keeps lapping up. That’s incredibly damaging, and it needs to be called out when it happens, even if Ford isn’t doing this for the sake of becoming like Orbán, but for his own populist ends.

https://twitter.com/dwjudson/status/1761228183674712200

Meanwhile, as an example of premiers politicizing the judiciary, Quebec premier François Legault is attacking the Quebec Court of Appeal as being federally-appointed after they handed him his ass on his attempt to prevent asylum-seekers from accessing the subsidised child care system. Part of this was blasting the Parti Québécois for agreeing with the decision, accusing their leader of “prostrating himself before Ottawa.” That said, Legault is appealing the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, which is also federally-appointed, so I’m not sure why this will be any different if his logic holds. Unsurprisingly, the Quebec bar association is denouncing this, but this is exactly the kind of contagion being referred to with Ford’s comments, and how they undermine confidence in the justice system. Legault is doing it for his own purposes, and it’s a problem just as much as Ford’s comments.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians launched another drone attack against Odesa, which hit a residential building and killed one person and injured another three. Russians are also claiming that they are pushing further west after security Avdiivka. Ukraine took out one of Russia’s early warning aircraft, which is part of their air defences and of which they have very few remaining. Four Western leaders including Justin Trudeau have arrived in Kyiv to show solidarity as the war enters its third year. Ukrainian officials have launched investigations into 122,000 suspected war crimes since the beginning of the invasion, and 511 perpetrators have been identified to date. Meanwhile, Russia has been cranking up its production and refurbishment of old equipment, but there are questions as to whether quantity can outdo quality.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bad Supreme Court reporting is bad

Posted on by

There is a reason why journalists should have beats, and why it can be dangerous to write about topics or institutions when you’re not familiar with them. There was a case in point yesterday in the National Post which was trying to sound some kind of alarm about what’s going on at the Supreme Court of Canada—except there’s actually no story here. I’m really not trying to pick on the reporter of the piece, because he’s a good journalist, but he just doesn’t know the file, and got swept up in what a particular lawyer was telling him without having a proper bullshit detector.

The supposed crisis is that the Court is hearing fewer cases lately, and a lot of what it is hearing is being decided in rulings from the bench, meaning they generally don’t release written decisions, and that this is somehow bad for developing case law. Because he talked to one lawyer who tracks stats, he figures that’s the story. Except it’s really not. They’re hearing fewer cases as a direct result of the pandemic, which slowed down the ability to hear cases at the trial court level, which then slows down appeals, which slows down their ability to get to the Supreme Court. They piece pooh-poohs that almost four years later this is still a problem, when of course it is. These things take a long time, particularly when courts were operating on a minimal standard for nearly two years. And because they were operating minimally, most of what they did hear were criminal cases, because they have timelines attached lest they get stayed for delays. That means that most of what does filter up to the Supreme Court are criminal cases, many of them as of right (meaning that at the appeal level, it wasn’t unanimous, so it automatically goes to the Supreme Court of Canada). That’s why a lot of these cases are being decided from the bench—there isn’t any matter of national importance being decided, so they have few needs for written rulings. In the Court’s current session, only two of the cases are not criminal because that’s how the lower courts have been operating. It’s a problem for sure, but it’s one because provinces aren’t funding courts adequately, and the federal government is too slow to make appointments to fill vacancies. This is not a Supreme Court problem.

Furthermore, the piece quotes from a literal constitutional crank—a particular law professor who is of the “burn it all down” school—because it’s a lazy journalist’s trick to make the piece sound more controversial or edgy. But here, he’s saying that he can’t believe they weren’t hearing certain cases without actually saying what he wanted them to hear, and then, out of nowhere, says the Court is going to have to expand, but doesn’t explain why. It makes no sense other than it’s piggybacking on an American issue that has nothing to do with our Court. There is also concern that the court’s decisions are a lot more divided these days and not unanimous without actually exploring that. This is largely because of the different styles of chief justice—under Beverley McLachlin, she strove for more unanimous decisions, and in the end, many of the rulings became so narrowly focused in order to achieve unanimity that they were largely useless for the purposes of developing case law. There is more dissent now because Richard Wagner isn’t concerned with achieving unanimity to the detriment of the decisions, and you have a couple of judges on the court who like to be contrarians. That’s not a bad thing. There is no crisis with the Supreme Court, and if the reporter had any grounding in the institution, he would have seen that there’s no smoke, no fire, and stats without context are useless.

Ukraine Dispatch:

The fighting is now inside the city of Avdiivka, which Russians have been trying to capture for months. There was another prisoner swap yesterday, with 100 exchanged on each side. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has replaced the top army commander, looking for fresh ideas on how to push Russian invaders back. (More about the new chief here).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another diminished Auditor General Day

Posted on by

It was Auditor General Day yesterday, and she had five reports that weren’t terribly complimentary of the government and its efforts, especially as some have been in the works for years and are making progress that is far too slow for the task at hand.

  1. In spite of working to make changes to the processing, there is still a massive backlog of permanent resident applications at Citizenship and Immigration, as well as a major problem with asylum claims that are taking years to be processed.
  2. The efforts to combat racism in government departments and the RCMP are falling short (which is not a huge surprise because this government has a particular problem of saying “intersectional” and “GBA+” and assuming that it will magically fix things rather than doing the actual hard work).
  3. The work to modernise the critical IT infrastructure of the government, particularly when it comes to delivering services Canadians rely on, is getting worse and Treasury Board doesn’t have plans yet on how to replace some of it (which should be alarming).
  4. Modernising the delivery of benefits like CPP, EI, and OAS is behind schedule and facing cost overruns, because of course it is.
  5. Canadians can’t get access to critical antimicrobial drugs as drug resistant strains get worse, and while data collection is improving, there remain gaps in access, which the Pandemic made worse.

You might also note that only three of those five items had news stories attached to them, and not all five. Even more to the point, two were Canadian Press wire stories, one came from the Globe and Mail, and that was it. The National Post had their own version of the immigration story, but of the major outlets, that was all that got covered. It used to be that on Auditor General days, the lock-up room at the OAG was packed, and each outlet sent several reporters to ensure that most of the reports got adequate coverage (some of the special audits of Crown corporations excepted). What we see now is a sad indictment of just how diminished our media capacity is, and how little value we are placing on these reports, which is a problem.

Ukraine Dispatch:

New overnight attacks focused on both the north and south of Ukraine, but no casualties have been reported yet. Russian forces resumed their onslaught of the eastern city of Avdiivka, which Ukrainian forces continued to hold at bay. Russians have also stepped up their bid to re-take the city of Kupiansk, which was liberated late last year. Meanwhile, Ukraine is looking to fill 2000 judicial vacancies (and we thought it was bad in Canada), while also looking to vet the current roster of judges for malfeasance as they work toward cleaning up corruption in order to meet the conditions for acceptance into the EU.

Continue reading →