Tag Archives: Anita Anand

Roundup: Forgiveness over permission, C-5 edition

Posted on by

With hours left on the clock before the House of Commons would vote on Bill C-5, per the terms of the Closure motion passed earlier in the week, the Speaker agreed with an NDP motion that yes, the bill was indeed abusive omnibus legislation and agreed to split it into two parts to separate it for the final vote. It was a bit late to do so, because there was no ability to only advance one half and not the other, and it wasn’t going to matter much either considering that the Conservatives were going to vote in favour of it (because they absolutely want this Henry VIII clause on the books if they should form government in the next five years). And so, the first half of the bill, on the federal trade barriers, got near-unanimous support with only Elizabeht May voting against it, and the second half on major projects—and that Henry VIII clause—had the Bloc, the NDP, Elizabeth May and Liberal Nathaniel Erskine-Smith vote against it, not that those numbers made any kind of difference.

After the bill passed, Carney called a press conference in the Foyer, and had every Indigenous MP in the caucus as his backdrop (with a few others dropping in), and he insisted that it simply wasn’t communicated effectively how much Indigenous participation would be required for these projects, and that they would respect UNDRIP, and yes they would hold consultations with rights-holders over the summer to ensure that implementation of this legislation would be done “the right way.” Oh, and he totally swears that he’s not going to put a Henry VIII clause in any other bills—really! But all of those assurances left a sour taste.

It very much seems that Carney has taken the route of asking for forgiveness rather than permission, which is a really strange way to go about building trust with those rights-holders, especially when your MPs refused to let them speak at committee or have any participation in the legislative process. And you will forgive me if I don’t believe that they won’t ever use that Henry VIII clause to bulldoze over UNDRIP obligations on a project, because they gave themselves those powers for a reason. And if they think that they got away with asking for forgiveness rather than permission worked this time, who’s to say they won’t try that again when they do use those powers? Let’s not kid ourselves.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-06-20T22:56:10.284Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Drone attacks from Russia in the early hours of Thursday hit apartment buildings in Kharkiv and Odesa. There was another POW swap, and again, numbers were not disclosed. President Zelenskyy says that Ukraine is developing interceptor drones to deal with the Russian drones, whose numbers have increased in the past weeks.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Lots of new faces, but a few questionable choices

Posted on by

The Cabinet shuffle proceeded apace yesterday morning, and Mark Carney put together a Cabinet of 28 ministers and ten secretaries of state (as opposed to ministers of state, meaning they are subordinate to ministers). Some of the big names stayed in—Dominic LeBlanc, François-Philippe Champagne, Chrystia Freeland, while Anita Anand and Mélanie Joly swapped roles. Sean Fraser is back in Cabinet as justice minister, but Nathaniel Erskine Smith is out, and everyone was all over the fact that he was the mildest bit sore about it considering that he decided to run again for the sake of taking on the housing portfolio, and he probably would have been better staying there than giving it to former Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson, who has been accused of being asleep at the wheel as housing prices in Vancouver skyrocketed and their housing crisis accelerated on his watch. There is gender parity in the Cabinet itself, but not the secretaries of state, but there are a number of indigenous ministers, including Mandy Gull-Masty as the first Indigenous minster of Indigenous Services. Carney says that this new Cabinet will work with “urgency and determination” to bring about the greatest economic transformation since the Second World War, but those are a lot of expectations. (Photo gallery here).

I’m genuinely pissed Nate Erskine Smith is out at housing — and all together from Cabinet. It’s a terrible call. Whatever you think of Robertson — not much, for me — NES was a perfect fit for housing. He knew what he was doing. He could communicate it well. Own goal.

— David Moscrop (@davidmoscrop.com) 2025-05-13T20:04:24.898Z

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3lp2tf65jnc2j

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3lp3n3fhvk22h

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3lp3n3fii3s2h

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3lp3n3fij322h

I am going to spend a minute to rail about the fact that Evan Solomon was named minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation, because there is something so absolutely grubby about it. Solomon is forever ethically tainted from the manner of his departure at CBC, but Carney was one of the people he brokered art sales for, and the two are good friends. So Carney found him a safe seat in a city that Solomon hasn’t lived in for over a decade, and then slid him into Cabinet in a bullshit made-up portfolio (that a bunch of the Canadian tech sector are projecting their hopes and dreams on), while at the same time Carney pats himself on the back for how “pared down” this Cabinet is. Pared down except for this made-up portfolio for his friend (and a few other questionable decisions, like a secretary of state for “nature.”) This is exactly the kind of thing that makes people cynical, and that’s even before we get to the problematic nature of the state of AI, the fascism of tech bros, and gullible people believing that this technology will solve all kinds of problems when there is little proof that plagiarism machines can actually do so. This whole thing just gives a complete sinking feeling about the judgment involved.

So was including Evan fucking Solomon.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-05-13T21:19:59.501Z

I thought this was supposed to be a pared-down, gimmick-free cabinet.Canadian digital policy is about to take three enormous steps backwards, as Mark Carney confirms what’s I’ve suspected since I read his leadership platform: he’s 100% on board the AI hype train.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2025-05-13T16:13:15.407Z

As was expected, Pierre Poilievre responded to the shuffle, and while he made a few contrite remarks off the top about working together for the country and not “reflexively opposing” everything, he then turned to gratuitous swipes about the people chosen, and implored Carney to “steal his ideas,” even though they were incoherent, and his platform was made up of fantasy math. Frankly I’m not seeing much of a change in tone, nor do I actually expect there to be a real one, because that’s not who Poilievre is, and him trying to show his softer side is going to be impossible for him to maintain.

In other reaction, here is The Logic’s analysis about what this Cabinet says about Carney’s economic plans for the country. My colleague Mel Woods at Xtra notes that Rechie Valdez is the new point person on LGBTQ+ issues, and it remains to be seen what that is going to look like in an age where you have provinces like Saskatchewan and Alberta who are legislating attacks on trans youth, while we look at what is happening south of the border. Susan Delacourt remarks on how Carney is carefully trying to construct distance from Trudeau with this Cabinet, but some of the Trudeau-era impulses remain. Justin Ling is much more critical of some of the choices made in this shuffle (and some of them were a choice).

Ukraine Dispatch

Continuing to call Putin’s bluff, president Zelenskyy is prepared to head to Istanbul for “peace talks.” And if Putin doesn’t show, the EU is prepared to tighten sanctions even more, which is going to really squeeze the Russian economy, which is in worse shape than they like to claim.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Clutched pearls over a paper move

Posted on by

Because everything is stupid, the Conservatives spent the whole day screaming, both at a media availability and over social media, that Mark Carney “lied” about his involvement with Brookfield Asset Management relocating their headquarters to New York, and tried to tie this to Trump inviting companies to relocate to the US. This is something that the Conservatives have been howling about for months, but they claim that there is “proof” now that Carney “lied” because his timeline of events doesn’t match up. And maybe he was wrong, but this has pretty much been a non-story from the start, because this was largely a paper move to their pre-existing New York office in order to get access to the New York Stock Exchange, while their parent company remains headquartered in Toronto. It’s not an actual scandal, but the Conservatives have been ginning up faux-outrage over Carney for two years now, and this is just the latest example.

But I can’t get over the fact that every single Conservative has been lining up to declare that Carney “lied,” when pretty much every single member of that party has been lying about everything under the sun for years now, because they know they can get away with it. The fact that someone like Andrew Scheer isn’t bursting into flames over the abused irony of him of all people trying to call Carney a liar is just too much. It’s not just projection—it’s a complete lack of self-awareness that they lie so much about everything (especially things they don’t actually need to lie about!) that they don’t even realise that they’re doing it anymore, and then they start running for their fainting couches over this absolute non-issue. Unbelievable.

The Conservatives have also taken to calling Carney “sneaky,” and claiming that he’s hiding the truth about his assets, and whether this business activities were benefitting from his advising the government. But as this fact-check explains, he is under no obligation to comply with conflict-of-interest laws because he is not yet a public office holder, but if he does win the contest and becomes prime minister, lo, he will be subject to the disclosures. Again, this is just more faux outraged being ginned up, and making the Conservatives look like they are desperate.

Ukraine Dispatch

The overnight attack on the Kyiv region overnight Tuesday killed two and damaged energy facilities. Russia claims that it retook two settlements in the Kursk region, as more North Korean troops arrive. Ukraine’s drones have hit Russia’s Tuapse oil refinery. Ukraine’s prime minister says a preliminary agreement has been reached with the Americans on an economic deal that includes access to rare earth minerals.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cautious optimism on trade barriers

Posted on by

Anita Anand told reporters yesterday that she is making progress with provinces when it comes to eliminating interprovincial trade barriers, which sounds great. In fact, she claims that some of those barriers could be “wiped away” in the next thirty days. It would be great news if that’s true, but I have my doubts because these barriers are incredibly difficult to harmonise around the country, and they’re mostly differing regulations, which are perfectly valid exercise of provincial powers. They’re extremely difficult to harmonize because sometimes they differ for a reason. Kevin Milligan explains in this thread if you click through. (He also throws cold water on the notion that we could or should join the EU).

Glad we got through the tariff emergency (at least the first wave of it….). Also glad that people are bringing creativity, energy, and determination to figuring out a medium and long-run response.But I want to throw cold water on three ideas I've seen floated. I'll explain…

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2025-02-04T20:24:14.385Z

I have to say that I am very curious regarding the method by which Anand is securing these changes, because I have heard no chatter about provinces being willing to surrender some of their provincial sovereignty in order to eliminate some of these barriers. I have also heard nothing about any kind of common regulatory body that could make determinations and that the provinces would adhere to, because they’ve all eschewed a common securities regulator, which should be low-hanging fruit for regulatory harmonisation, and yet… That would seem to imply that they have been establishing some sort of framework around mutual recognition of standards or credentials, but as of yet we have no real details.

As one example from that story: size and weight regulations for transport trucks.There is a very good reason that BC has detailed rules about snow chains for trucks and other provs may not. We have snowy mountains; some provs do not….www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/…

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2025-02-05T20:36:21.924Z

…so this doesn't mean we can't have a Canada-wide standard for truck size/weight. It means you really have to work hard to ensure the standard makes sense for each prov.If you get this wrong, people die. Regs that are too loose result in trucking accidents. So it takes work to get it right.

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2025-02-05T20:40:05.709Z

The other note of caution I would make is that even if these barriers were reduced or eliminated, it would take time to reorient supply chains east-to-west rather than north-to-south, so there would be no immediate cushioning effect from any Trump tariffs. People will need to have realistic expectations about what this will achieve, particularly in the short-to-medium term.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine is blaming an explosion at a draft office in Khmelnytskyi region that killed one person and wounded several others as a series of Russian spies orchestrating attacks. 150 Ukrainian POWs were returned in a prisoner swap with Russia. Here are some of the details about how Ukrainians captured two North Korean soldiers fighting in Kursk region. Ukrainians are also noting a marked improvement in the accuracy of North Korean missiles fired at Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The heresy of well-wishes

Posted on by

It began with Anita Anand writing that she was not only going to stay out of the Liberal leadership race (which was a surprise given that she had previously been organizing an effort before the job was even open), but was also not going to be running again in the next election—which is a shame, because she was not only an extremely competent minister, but probably the best defence minister the country has had in a couple of decades at least. Former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole did the classy and dignified thing and saluted her work.

https://twitter.com/erinotoole/status/1878482424193073181

That simply wasn’t going to be on.

https://twitter.com/jenni_byrne/status/1878513929229320380

Whether Byrne misgendered O’Toole by accident or deliberately (because Conservatives thought it was hilarious to call Trudeau “Justine” and feminise him at every single opportunity), or if she was referring to Anand, it almost doesn’t matter because this is the kind of toxic, purity-test bullshit that she thinks the party really needs—and make no mistake, she is running the party. (If people thought it was bad that Katie Telford was running the PMO, should Poilievre win it’ll be Byrne doing the same). There’s a reason why Conservative MPs aren’t allowed to travel with anyone from other parties anymore, or why Byrne is attacking O’Toole for showing a modicum of human decency is praising someone from the other side—because in her conception of the world, they are not rivals or people who disagree on matters of policy, but rather they are the enemy, and if you don’t realise that you are a heretic and the problem. This is going to make Canadian politics even more toxic the more this takes hold.

This in turn led to people praising O’Toole for being a decent Conservative, which is in and of itself revisionist history, and ignores his own behaviour during his leadership contest and right up until his ignoble ouster as leader, where he lied about everything under the sun, and acted imperiously with his own caucus, going so far as to kick Senator Batters out of caucus for daring to challenge him. That, in his retirement, he did the classy thing to wish Anand well, doesn’t change his prior behaviour, and it makes me feel like I’m taking crazy pills that everyone else has memory-holed his actual record.

The #cdnpoli vibes…

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-01-13T04:02:12.787Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian forces shelled Kherson, targeting power systems that left tens of thousands without power. Russia also claims it captured Shevchenko, near Pokrovsk. South Korean intelligence says that North Korean troops captured by Ukrainians in Kursk haven’t expressed a desire to defect. It is believed there have been there have been more than 3000 North Korean fatalities to date (which includes suicides to avoid capture).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pushing back against PMO

Posted on by

There was an op-ed in the Star over the weekend from former Cabinet minister Lloyd Axworthy, in which he lamented the increasing centralization of power under the PMO, and that under Trudeau, ministers have become “infantilised,” particularly after seeing testimony at the Foreign Interference inquiry where chiefs of staff were keeping ministers in the dark about certain files. It’s a valid complaint, but not one unique to the Trudeau PMO, as Canadian academics have been making it since the previous Trudeau government, and was particularly egregious in the Harper government where everything flowed through the PMO—most especially message control—and ministers were rarely without approved talking points on their files.

I will also note that the current Trudeau did make an attempt to return to a system of “government by Cabinet,” and while certain ministers were free and capable to run their files, there was not an equitable distribution of talent in Cabinet as much as there was of gender, ethnicity and geography, so PMO did need to step in for some ministers. But there is also an inescapable reality that governing has also become more difficult than in the days of the first Trudeau government, and power is distributed much more horizontally because most issues require the cooperation of several ministries, and that requires a lot more central coordination from PMO or PCO. This being said, the real sin of the current government is that everything requires the sign-off from his chief of staff, which creates bottlenecks in decision-making, and that has been a continual problem.

In response to the Axworthy op-ed were a couple of tweets from Catherine McKenna about her experience—that PMO would say something, and she would push back if it didn’t come from Trudeau directly. It shows that a minister in charge of their file and who has the spine enough to stand their ground can do so, but not every minister is capable, and it’s something we need more ministers to learn how to do, because that’s how they will actually manage to own their own files.

Ukraine Dispatch

Two civilians were killed in a Russian attack on the southern Kherson region, while Russians have been making air attacks against Kharkiv and Kyiv. Ukraine continue to target ethanol plants in Russia with drones. A high-level South Korean delegation will be briefing the NATO Council about the North Korean troops now fighting on Russia’s behalf.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Speaker Fergus on the spot in new privilege battle

Posted on by

The brewing privilege battle over the Sustainable Development Technologies Canada documents is largely going under-reported, save for the National Post, but it’s going to be an interesting showdown with the Speaker about the refusal to turn over these documents. The government’s argument is that the stated purpose for demanding these documents is not for Parliamentary business, such as committee study, but because they intend to be turned over to the RCMP, which is in and of itself a problem because it does violate the separation of powers and really, really looks like politicians trying to direct the police (who have said that they don’t want the documents, because it would violate the Charter rights of any accused). I think this is a sound argument, and one that is necessary because of the ongoing abuses of privilege that the past couple of parliaments have engaged in.

Yes, Parliament has unfettered authority to send for the production of papers, but there have to be limits on this privilege, or it can be abused, and I think that this case demonstrates the limits. The complicating factor is that limits are especially difficult to maintain in a minority parliament situation because all of the opposition parties tend to be all be interested in embarrassing the government at any turn (and this is not unique to this government, but any government). It’s partly why NSICOP was fine during a majority Parliament but became the subject of political manoeuvring during the minority years—because opposition parties will try to use their leverage to embarrass a government or score points when they think they can.

I don’t envy Speaker Fergus in having to make this decision, but this kind of exercise is clearly beyond the pale. It’s not up to MPs to get information on behalf of the RCMP, and that crosses so many red lines that it should be blinding. He’s going to be criticized whatever he makes, but hopefully for the sake of precedent, he makes the right choice and rein in some of this foolishness, because once MPs feel empowered enough to do this to one organisation—SDTC in this case—they’re going to start going after anyone they disagree with ideologically on an increasing base going forward.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians targeted a geriatric centre in Sumy, as well as the power grid, which a UN body believes is probably against international humanitarian law. Russia says they are ramping up their drone production tenfold (but that may just be all talk, given the sanctions and the availability of components).

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1836807096391676132

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poking holes in all of Singh’s arguments

Posted on by

Today was the day that NDP leader Jagmeet Singh went before the media to answer questions about his decision to pull out of the agreement with the Liberals, but he didn’t really. He repeated the same lines about 75 times, but wouldn’t answer any specific or concrete questions, which is not unsurprising, but considering that he made this huge announcement and lobbed a bunch of grenades as part of it, you would think he could actually explain himself. Nope.

Singh went on Power & Politics, and got absolutely eviscerated by David Cochrane. He did confirm that they shot the video weeks ago, but wouldn’t say why they waited this long, or what had changed to make them release it this week. He refused to give a phone call to Trudeau to explain himself, because he didn’t want any new deals. He also pretty much straight-up admitted that he was the one acting in bad faith, which was amazing. The longer it went on, the worse it went for Singh as Cochrane poked holes in absolutely every one of Singh’s answers, up to and including demanding to know what concrete policy solutions he was demanding were, the issues around provincial jurisdiction, and forcing Singh to admit that he was acting in bad faith by refusing to live up to his end of the agreement with the Liberals when they lived up to theirs, and probably most damning of all, pointing to all of the ways the Liberals have been trying to rein in big corporations, such as the digital services tax, the global minimum tax negotiations, and the works. And Singh couldn’t do more than sputter his talking points. Just an empty suit with a few hollow talking points that are all sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing. Politics in 2024 is bad, you guys.

Programming Note: I am taking the weekend off of blogging for my birthday, and then I’m away for the early part of next week, so I’ll see you probably on Thursday.

Ukraine Dispatch

While the death toll from the attack on Poltava continues to climb, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy shuffled his Cabinet yesterday, hoping that new faces can bring fresh energy to their portfolios at this critical stage of the war. Zelenskyy is headed off to a meeting in Ramstein in order to argue for more long-range missiles that can strike military targets in Russia.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1831598527077630079

Continue reading →

Roundup: Asking about Canadian LNG like it’s a free cookie

Posted on by

Once again, CTV’s Vassy Kapelos asks a visiting European leader if they’d like Canadian LNG, and spins a whole story out of the fact that they say yes, while absolutely ignoring all of the many reasons why it’s never going to happen. This has happened with at least three leaders now, the latest being the president of Poland, who was visiting Canada last week (the taped interview aired over the weekend), and predictably, the story is making rounds with people insisting that Trudeau is wrong to say there’s no business case for it.

To wit: There is no ready supply of natural gas to be liquified on the East Coast, because they get it shipped from the north-eastern US. Blaine Higgs’ ambitions aside, nobody wants to be fracking in New Brunswick (not the First Nations, not the people who live in the region), and that would mean either paying even more to import American gas to liquefy, or build a pipeline from Alberta (and just as a reminder, Energy East was killed by the proponent because they didn’t have enough contracts to fill it and Keystone XL, and the latter was the surer bet at the time), and it costs money to ship gas across the country in a pipeline like that, which would increase the selling price. Then they would have to build a new export terminal to liquefy said gas, (there is one existing import terminal that could theoretically be converted), but all of this takes years, billions of dollars, and would need guaranteed operations for about 45 years to pay off, which is going to put them past the 2050 Net Zero date for a rapidly decarbonizing Europe to still want the LNG—which would be at a higher price than they can get it from Algeria or the Persian Gulf. That’s why there is no business case. There have been proposals to build terminals on the east coast before, and nobody in Europe wanted to sign a contract to make it a worthwhile investment to pursue. Hell, there are plenty of fully permitted projects on the west coast not moving ahead because nobody wants to sign contracts for the product.

But Kapelos and the CTV team keep ignoring all of these issues when they ask this question, which as one reply on Twitter stated, is like asking someone if they want a free cookie. The most the story says about the feasibility of east coast LNG is “There has been political debate for years around whether Canada could or should plan to export to European countries, as well.” That’s it. Seriously? This is malpractice at this point, and no, this is not because she or anyone is “in the pocket of Poilievre,” or anyone. It’s just lazy journalism, plain and simple. It’s not serving anyone, and frankly, is distracting from the actual issues.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian drones struck a hotel in Mykolaiv on the Black Sea, severely damaging it and local energy infrastructure, but fortunately there were no casualties. Another Russian oil refinery has suspended operations after a Ukrainian drone attack. While Ukraine waits on the arrival of more American aid, their forces have had to fall back from three more villages northwest of Avdiivka.

Continue reading →

Roundup: NSIRA spanks Global Affair’s intelligence program

Posted on by

A long-delayed public release of NSIRA’s report into the activities of the Global Security Reporting Program—the “intelligence” arm of Global Affairs, which has diplomats openly engaging with persons of interest abroad—was finally released, and it’s making some waves. In particular, for a programme that isn’t actual covert intelligence gathering has some governance problems, with a lack of coherent policies or training that has led to some lines being blurred, which can make some countries believe this is an actual foreign intelligence service (it’s not, and we don’t have one).

So, with this in mind, here are four threads from some very reputable sources. Stephanie Carvin walks through the report, and breaks down its components, as well as the government’s responses.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1737569161042096138

Jessica Davis has a shorter walkthrough (with paragraph numbers!) about her own concerns about what she reads in it.

Leah West has a few legal observations about the report.

And Thomas Juneau gives a much more generous read, and places some of the GSRP’s work into better context.

Ukraine Dispatch:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy dismissed journalists’ questions about whether Ukraine is losing the war, but acknowledges challenges of being in a country under siege. Ukraine’s forces appear to be moving to a more defensive posture, likely because of the artillery shortage.

Continue reading →