Tag Archives: CRA

Roundup: Sandboxing powers?

Posted on by
Reply

Over the weekend, Althia Raj published a column that points to a power the government is trying to give itself in the budget that lets ministers exempt certain people and companies from non-criminal laws, and the fact that this felt like it was being snuck into the budget implementation bill when it wasn’t in the main budget document. Jennifer Robson, inspired by Raj’s column, delves into the Budget Implementation Act to see the sections in question for herself, and makes some pretty trenchant observations about the fact that the powers in here are giving ministers a pretty hefty amount of leeway without necessarily a lot of transparency, because they have the option of simply not publishing or reporting which laws they’re suspending for whom, and that we need to worry about the injuries to democratic norms.

So, what is up with these particular powers? Well, it turns out that this is very likely some long-promised action on creating “regulatory sandboxes,” and the means to implement them.

The 2024 budget talked about working up a plan for "regulatory sandboxes"—temporary exemptions from restrictions to allow experiments with new things, especially products, that existing regulations didn't anticipate. It's in a few places, like this:

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T13:55:47.297Z

They'd consulted publicly on it before. This is generally a pretty dull type of government consultation, but it was done. www.canada.ca/en/governmen…

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T13:58:04.805Z

Having announced plans to legislate on it in 2024, the Trudeau government did not follow through, in either of the two "budget bills" that stemmed from the budget.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T13:59:51.381Z

But the regulatory-sandbox idea returned in the 2025 budget. Not at length, but it's in the roundup of legislative changes that implementing the 2025 budget requires. (Some people start with the deficit numbers when first picking a new budget up; I start with the legislative changes.)

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T14:03:09.547Z

My point is that you have to be careful with premises like, "I didn't know about it, so they've been hiding it and being sneaky."Tech businesses have been calling for regulatory sandboxes for *years,* there've been public consultations, and it was promised in two successive budgets.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T14:06:02.132Z

The idea's history goes back much farther than 2024, to be clear. Here's a Logic story from 2018, the first year we existed, noting a promise on regulatory sandboxes in the 2018 fall economic statement: thelogic.co/news/special…

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-12-07T14:10:57.100Z

So, this could very well be what that is referring to. This being said, I do see the concerns of Robson when it comes to some of the transparency around these measures, because these powers give ministers all kinds of leeway not to report on their suspension of laws for this “sandboxing,” and you have to remember that Carney already gave himself broad Henry VIII powers under his Build Canada Act legislation, which is ripe for abuse, particularly in a parliament that has largely lost its ability to do necessary oversight. I think the government needs to be extremely careful here, because this could easily blow up in their faces.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-06T15:08:02.695Z

Ukraine Dispatch

At least seven people have been injured in a drone strike in Sumy region. Russia claims to have taken two more villages in the Kharkiv and Donetsk regions. Here is a look at Ukraine’s naval drone operations, and the growing number of women in combat roles.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another weaponized committee appearance

Posted on by
Reply

There was drama at the immigration committee yesterday as Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner decided to go after minister Lina Diab for the sake of putting on a show for the cameras, so that she can harvest as many clips from it as she can for social media. Now, I will be the first to say that Diab is not a great minister, and she is unable to answer basic questions on her file during Question Period, and yesterday as no exception. That being said, Rempel Garner was harassing her over things that are outside of Diab’s purview as minister.

In particular, Rempel Garner was going after Diab on foreign nationals who have committed crimes, but who have received lenient sentences so as to avoid removal. Part of this is no doubt part of a campaign of scapegoating of immigrants, along with blaming them for housing shortages, the collapse of the healthcare system, and youth unemployment, which is gross and unbecoming, but we are now in a political era where parties have let the anti-immigration sentiments fester while trying to blame it on the Liberals (and for which Carney has gone along with that scapegoating and alarmingly has adopted Nigel Farage’s language to blame it on Trudeau). But Diab has nothing to do with court sentences, and saying that she was “pro-raper” for pointing out that sentencing decisions are made by courts independent of government crosses a line, and its’ incredibly disappointing in particular because Rempel Garner used to be one of the most progressive members of the Conservative caucus, but has apparently decided to turn herself into one of its most vociferous attack dogs for the sake of ingratiating herself with the leadership after she was initially kept on the outs for her support of Erin O’Toole.

It was also noted by the committee chair that previous witnesses at the committee, who were all civil servants, were subject to harassment after their previous committee appearances because they were used for social media clips, because that’s what committees have devolved to. It’s a denigration of Parliament and it’s making it so that nobody will want to appear at a committee again, which diminishes the role of Parliament, to say nothing of the fact that it is turning MPs into a bunch of performing monkeys for the party’s social media team. MPs need to stop this behaviour before we find ourselves at a point of no return.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-04T15:03:21.264Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians attacked power and heating systems for Kherson and Odesa in the south. Drone footage shows the devastated city of Myrnohrad nearly surrounded by Russian forces, even though Putin claims they already control it. Ukraine has attacked and damaged the Asov Sea port of Temryuk, as well as a large chemical plant in Stavropol. Five drones were spotted in the flight path of president Zelenskyy’s aircraft on his approach to Ireland, but his early arrival avoided them.

Continue reading →

QP: Grousing about the PM’s travels

Posted on by

With the PM still in Abu Dhabi, other leaders opted not to show up as well, nor did Pierre Poilievre did show, so it was up to Andrew Scheer to lead off in English, where he breathily recited the script about things get worse every time Mark Carney travels. Maninder Sidhu read a response about Carney signing a Foreign Investment and Promotion Agreement with the UAE. Scheer then pivoted to the tanker ban on BC’s northwest coast, and wondered if American tankers were included. Tim Hodgson read a non-response about working with stakeholders about a potential pipeline. Scheer then answered his own question and railed that American can still travel those waters, and said the government was hampering its own industry. Hodgson dismissed this as empty anger. Pierre Paul-Hus took over in French to repeat the same snide remarks about Carney’s travels, to which Dominic LeBlanc said that his colleague across the way might be confused, and praised the agreement signed in the UAE. Paul-Hus claimed that the government was elected on false pretences, before pivoting to the CRA and the problems with the call centres. Joël Lightbound assures him that they are well on the way with their 100-day plan, and things were getting better. Paul-Hus noted the cuts that were made by the previous minister, and demanded that the government treat this like an emergency. Lightbound insisted that it was what they were doing, and the online portals were now working.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc lambasted Carney for choosing travel to a petro-monarchy instead of the COP30 conference in Brazil. Stephen MacKinnon said that he chose to be in Ottawa to vote for the budget. Normandin accused the government of setting the country back ten years on climate, and MacKinnon assured her that the UAE is one of top ten investors in renewable energy. Patrick Bonin repeated the same accusations, to which Julie Dabrusin assured him that she was at the conference and that they were Building Canada Strong™.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ahistorical expectations about project timelines

Posted on by

A couple of quick notes for the weekend. First is that for all of the projects referred to the Major Projects Office, none have actually officially been designated a PONI (Project of National Importance), so my calling the referred projects as such is admittedly premature. But that also means that none of them have the special rules that trigger the Henry VIII Clause from the legislation, which again, leads to the same question that Althia Raj asked in her most recent column about why the rush to ram that bill through Parliament with almost no debate and little stakeholder input if they haven’t bothered to use it, nearly six months later.

The other note is that the talk about timelines remain ahistorical and nothing but wishful thinking. “We used to build big things. We built a railway in four years.” Erm, not really. This is likely a reason why most of the projects that have been referred to the MPO so far have been in the works for years is for the very reason that they’re much further along. This is likely going to be one of the death knells of Danielle Smith’s pipeline plan, which is that it’s starting from zero, and there is no way, even with the magic wand of the Henry VIII clause, that they can make it go from concept to shovels in two years.

They didn't go from "Shall we build a railway?" to a railway in four years.The CPR was a Confederation promise before 1867. Construction began in 1881.Or, actually, in 1875, when they started a section in Manitoba and northern Ontario. Which hooked up to other rails built on their own earlier.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:17:30.293Z

There were planning, scandal, false starts, re-awarding of the contract. And not a lot of attention to, you know, Indigenous people's rights.Or working conditions, which were eventually the subject of Heritage Minute you might recall. www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE3I…

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:20:55.646Z

What's the right length of time to plan and build a new high-speed rail line in 2025? I don't know.But they didn't do the entire CPR from concept to completion in four years, and I don't think we want a dead temporary foreign worker for every mile of track.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:23:15.475Z

And then there’s Poilievre’s completely nonsense demanding that government “get out of the way,” or Ontario’s Stephen Lecce talking about the problems with federal regulations killing projects when that also relies on a very selective reading of history and what happened. Northern Gateway started planning before Harper took over, and over his nine years in power, Mr. “Get government out of the way” couldn’t get it past the finish line either (in part because they couldn’t even be arsed to live up to their own consultation process with First Nations). Nothing Poilievre is saying is true, so We The Media need to stop treating it like it’s credible.

Ukraine Dispatch

The attack on Kyiv early Friday killed six and injured dozens, along with more strikes on energy facilities. Ukraine hit the oil port at Novorossiyk the same day, suspending oil exports. Ukraine is now mass-producing interceptor drones to bolster their air defences.

Continue reading →

QP: Executive bonuses vs sacrifices

Posted on by

The Nation’s Capital was under a rainfall warning as MPs gathered in the West Block for QP, with the PM still in South Korea. Pierre Poilievre was absent, leaving it to Andrew Scheer to lead off, and he declared that elites have never had it so good while people are being asked to make sacrifices. To illustrate, he noted that CMHC paid out $30 million in executive bonuses rather than providing down payments for young Canadians. Rechie Valdez responded by reading the good news about cutting the GST on houses for first-time homebuyers, along with other housing programmes. Scheer insisted that if flushing billions through big bureaucracies worked, they would not be in this situation, and again went to the notion that they are just funding big bonuses while youth have nothing left to give. Patty Hajdu praised the investments they have been making in skills training for youth. Jasraj Hallan took over to peevishly push the same narrative that “insiders” are getting rich while youth are being asked to sacrifice, and Valdez got back up to mouth the falsehood that Poilievre only built six houses as he was minister responsible. Hallan got back up to proclaim that the only people who have it good now are the prime minister and his elitist insiders. Hajdu got back up to talk about her meeting with her PEI counterpart to deliver for Canadians. Luc Berthold then took over to deliver the same script in French, and this time Joël Lightbound delivered the indignant response that the the Conservatives just vote against help for Canadians. Berthold raised a news story about pregnant women cutting back on protein, and Lightbound repeated that it was astounding that the Conservatives vote against programmes that people need.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and raised the anniversary of the 1995 referendum, and decried the federal Clarity Act preventing a democratic decision (which his not true), and asked it to be repealed. Steven Guilbeault said that Quebec elected twice as many Liberals as Bloc, and that they don’t want another referendum, but rather to build the country with their upcoming budget. Normandin again dared the government to repeal the Clarity Act, and Guilbeault again insisted that nobody is talking about another referendum. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe took over to again make the same demand, and Guilbeault noted it was interesting that the Quebec government was tabling legislation with no Indigenous consultation, which is not reconciliation. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Alberta uses Notwithstanding Clause against teachers

Posted on by

The Alberta legislature sat until about 2 AM on Tuesday morning to pass their bill to end the teacher’s strike with the invocation of the Notwithstanding Clause, with time allocation limiting debate at each stage of the bill to a mere hour apiece, which makes this an affront to both parliamentary democracy, and the very notion of rights in the province given that Danielle Smith has decided there is little to fear from her tramping over them. Oh, and while the legislature was sitting until 2 AM, Smith herself was in an airport lounge on her way to Saudi Arabia.

There are too many disingenuous arguments made to justify invoking the Clause for me to rebut here, but suffice to say, merely saying that the Clause is part of the constitution therefore that justifies its use is horseshit, or that the Supreme Court of Canada invented a right to strike, therefore the Clause is justified to pushback against judicial activism is also motivated reasoning. Even more than that, Smith’s government is claiming they can’t meet the teachers’ demands because they’re too expensive is also risible—they’re the richest province in the country, but they made the choice to double down on resource royalties (whose value has been plunging) in order to cut taxes once again. This is self-inflicted, ideological, and one has to wonder when Albertans are going to wake up that their government is quite literally undermining the entire public sector in the province quite deliberately.

https://bsky.app/profile/lindsaytedds.bsky.social/post/3m4azh342fk27

Populations on whom Canadian governments have used or threatened to use the notwithstanding clause, allowing them to override Charter rights: – trans and nonbinary kids- religious minorities – homeless people – teachersedmontonjournal.com/news/politic…

— Anna Mehler Paperny (@mehlerpaperny.bsky.social) 2025-10-28T00:33:22.757Z

We’ll see what the next steps are in terms of responses, given that the teachers’ union has decided against work-to-rule, but for the moment, say goodbye to extra-curricular activities as teachers exempt themselves from them. There is talk of mass protest from other labour unions in the province, and a general strike is always a possibility. But can I just take a moment to say that those of you who are bringing out the “No Queens” stuff already to please just not. We live in a constitutional monarchy and we have a Queen, and aping American protests is lazy and gauche. Find a different slogan.

Guys. Come on.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-10-28T12:56:29.934Z

effinbirds.com/post/7810977…

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-10-28T21:22:02.896Z

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy says that he won’t cede land in any future peace talks, just in case you were wondering.

https://twitter.com/KI_Insight/status/1983180684031349128

Continue reading →

Roundup: Only premiers can make pharmacare happen

Posted on by

The Star takes a deep dive into the notion of pharmacare as a nation-building project, instead of just thinking of mines, pipelines or other major infrastructure, and it’s an interesting piece to read. This being said, it once again ignores the problem of the premiers in the equation, which is starting to feel like a pattern for a newspaper that actually has the resources and the bench depth in their Queen’s Park bureau to actually take on this state of affairs. You can’t look at an issue that is almost entirely squarely within an area of provincial jurisdiction, whether that’s pharmacare or bail courts, and then ignore provincial culpability, and yet, this is what keeps happening in legacy media.

As for the pharmacare issue, yes, there are plenty of good arguments to be made for a universal single-payer system, and yes, the Liberals did spend years trying to build up this system on the back-end before the NDP made this a condition of their supply-and-confidence agreement, and put in the work of doing things like establishing the Canadian Drug Agency and getting an agreement with PEI off the ground for a full co-pay system (because they had no provincial drug plan), but that went entirely unrecognised as the NDP demanded a useless piece of legislation that tried to do things backwards, to legislate before an agreement had been made with provinces, and this is what the media kept their focus on, in particular because the NDP made such a dog-and-pony show about it, while at the same time, refusing to call out their provincial counterparts who actively resisted signing onto a federal pharmacare programme. Former BC premier John Horgan was particularly vociferously opposed, but did Jagmeet Singh, Don Davies or Peter Julian say a gods damned word about it? Nope.

Premiers have been allergic to this issue for decades now, because they don’t want to have to pay for one more thing, particularly as they are trying to starve the existing healthcare system in the hopes that they can privatise it to relieve themselves of the burden of paying for it. But nobody wants to hear that. They’d rather blame the federal government for supposedly under-funding (they don’t), or that they aren’t working hard enough to get a pharmacare deal with the provinces when the Trudeau government worked for years before NDP made their demands, and got an extremely limited agreement and called it a win. And premiers continue to be let off the hook.

effinbirds.com/post/7813695…

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-10-27T13:08:08.642Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian forces are reinforcing positions in Pokrovsk as some 200 Russian troops have infiltrated the city in small groups. A UN inquiry has found that Russians have been using drones to hound and hunt down civilians who live near the front lines.

Continue reading →

QP: Disingenuously reading the Food Banks Canada report

Posted on by

The PM was jetting off to Singapore while the fallout from Trump’s latest tantrum continued to reverberate at home. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, where he raised Food Banks Canada’s latest report, and the dire numbers therein about food bank usage, to which he attributed culpability on the federal government’s “inflationary prices,” and asked how many more meals people would miss because of the government’s upcoming budget. Steve MacKinnon pointed out that the report pointed to four main issues to overcome food insecurity, and that they point to things like disability support, affordable housing, and school food programmes, all of which the Conservatives voted against. Poilievre paraphrased the report saying how the acceleration of food insecurity has taken place, and accused the government’s school food programme of only “feeding bureaucracy.” Anna Gainey responded that the government was investing in Canadian families to help them get ahead, and raised the school food programme, as well as dental care, child care, and the Canada Child Benefit. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question on the report on food insecurity, and again this time, tied it to Carney’s speech on “sacrifice.” MacKinnon reiterated that Poilievre didn’t read the report, which praised their programmes like the school food programme. Poilievre dismissed this as not feeding anything but bureaucracy, and again, Gainey quoted from the report which called on the government to make the school food programme permanent with legislation, which is what they plan to do, and the Conservatives opposed. Poilievre hammered away at number of people at food banks and continued to blame the “costly” government, and this time Gregor Robertson got up to praise their plans to build me homes. Poilievre kept at those same statistics, and Patty Hajdu said that she took this as support for their budget with the school food programme and their recently announced tax credit for personal support workers.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and raised the government’s concerns that they don’t have the votes to pass the budget, and blamed the government for not working with any opposition party. MacKinnon retorted that the government is working hard, and they have more Quebec MPs than the Bloc does. Normandin said the budget doesn’t meet Quebeckers’ needs and listed their demands, and this time, Steven Guilbeault said the Bloc are incoherent because they made demands and still say they will vote against it. Denis Garon took over to complain that the government didn’t do adequate consultations in Quebec ahead of the budget, and MacKinnon reiterated that they are building, and dared the Bloc to vote against it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An “explainer” that ignores provincial culpability

Posted on by

The Star had a supposed explainer piece on bail reforms over the weekend, which talked a lot about over-incarceration, and poorly explained stats about certain offenders being out on bail with no context as to the charges they were facing prior to the alleged second offence, but absolutely nothing about the actual problems that the system faces, which is the continued and pervasive under-funding of courts by provinces, and Ontario most especially. It’s absolutely maddening how an explainer piece can lack that whole entire and most vital piece of the supposed puzzle. (It’s not a puzzle).

Part of the problem is who the reporter spoke to, being the “balanced” choices of the Toronto Police Association and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. The CCLA is just fine, because they provided a lot of relevant points about lack of data that means we don’t actually have any proper information on reoffences on bail, or anything like that (because—wait for it!—provinces have refused to fund that data collection). But police associations, by and large, are not credible sources. (Police associations, by and large, exist to protect bad apples within police forces, and remain a huge problem when it comes to reforming police services). There was nobody from the broader legal community interviewed for this piece, neither Crown nor defence counsel, who could have explained the resourcing issues. Am I biased because I write for legal publications? A little, but the perspective from my piece on bail reform differs vastly from the “explainer” in the Star for that very reason.

This is one of the most quintessential policy issues of our times where provincial underfunding is having an outsized impact on the system in question, this being the justice system, and it keeps getting ignored by the vast majority of legacy media, while the federal minister is behaving naively when he says that his provincial counterparts say they understand the problems in the system. But the problem is them, and their governments not funding the system. They like to complain that the problem is the Criminal Code, or that judges are being too lenient, but no, the problem is the provincial funding, and no changes to the Criminal Code will ever change that. And for yet another legacy media publication to ignore this, and let the provinces off the hook yet again, is beyond irresponsible.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-10-25T21:10:02.092Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian attacks on Kyiv and Dnipropetrovsk killed four and wounded at least twenty early Saturday, while attacks early Sunday wounded at least 29 in Kyiv.

Continue reading →

QP: Parsing Carney’s “miserable” speech

Posted on by

The PM was away again today, this time having spent the morning at the Darlington nuclear plant, and before his planned appearance at the Blue Jays’ practice (because priorities). Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and said that Mark Carney’s speech last night was “depressing,” and that he was demanding young people make sacrifices, when they have already been making sacrifices and have nothing left. Joël Lightbound said that young people sacrificed a  pessimistic, negative vision of Canada from Poilievre and chose a serious leader with an ambitious government. Poilievre said that Lightbound didn’t listen to the speech, and he repeated the supposed sacrifices that these young people have made, including falsely claiming that these are the worst job numbers in 30 years, before demanding an “affordable budget.” Lightbound said that the gulf between Poilievre and Carney gets wider and wider, and he rhymed off the talking points about the “transformational budget” and “spending less to invest more.” Poilievre switched to English to repeat his lament for the “depressing speech” and the sacrifices being demanded. John Zerucelli stood up to proclaim that he was proud to present red seals to a three young tradespeople before he praised the government’s plans. Poilievre again falsely claimed that the jobless rate was at a thirty-year high outside of COVID, and that young people need jobs and housing. Zerucelli proclaimed how much they were going go build. Poilievre again lamented that nobody had apparently watched Carney’s “miserable” speech and that youth would have to sacrifice more when they have already sacrificed enough, and wanted his own plan put into the budget. Steve MacKinnon got up to quip that the only person who is miserable when the prime minister speaks is Poilievre, before he gave a soaring paean about the announcement this morning and that the future was bright for youth. Poilievre again pitched his own plan to be put into the budget, and again, MacKinnon gave another soaring speech about the hope they are giving youth.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and decried the government’s dismissing of the Bloc’s demands as “political games.” Steven Guilbeault said that Blanchet was changing his plans as often as he changes his shirts, and his tone of cooperation has given way to panning the budget before reading it. Normandin panned Carney’s empty consultations, and Guilbeault listed all of the people who met with the Bloc leader. Yves Perron again decried the “political games” line and insisted that the Bloc’s demands represent the needs of Quebeckers. As he always does in the face of such rhetoric, MacKinnon reminded the Bloc that they have fewer seats that the Liberals do in the province.

Continue reading →