Tag Archives: David Lametti

Roundup: Danielle Smith’s Notwithstanding hypocrisy

Posted on by

Danielle Smith is planning to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause to protect her anti-trans legislation before the courts can weigh in, much as what happened in Saskatchewan. If you’ve been following that case, at the first court injunction, Scott Moe hurriedly not only invoked the Notwithstanding Clause, but also enacted legislation to shield his government from lawsuits for any harm that may come to these youths as a result of his policy—because if that’s not telling on himself, I’m not sure what else is.

But it gets better. Danielle Smith is also self-righteously opposing the federal government’s factum to the Supreme Court of Canada on the upcoming challenge to Quebec’s Law 21, saying that provinces have a right to use this clause, but then says she disagrees with Quebec’s use of it, but they should have the right. So, she disagrees with using it to attack religious minorities, but she’s totally justified in using it to attack trans or gender-diverse youth? The absolute hypocritical audacity. She’s also built an entire false discourse that the federal factum is going to cause a national unity or constitutional crisis, which mischaracterises what the federal factums says. The federal government position is that the courts can weigh in on whether the law the Clause is protecting violates rights or not. A declaration of no force or effect. But she doesn’t want them to do that, because they would expose her for attacking the rights of vulnerable youth, and that makes her look bad. The poor dear.

Meanwhile, the meltdowns over the federal factum continue, with the Bloc insisting that this is an attack on Quebec’s ability to legislate for itself (it’s not), and conservatives all over insisting that this is going to tear the country apart, and that the Supreme Court needs to be removed if they impose limits, and so on. Not one of them has read the factum, of course, but they’re treating this like political Armageddon, because that’s never backfired before. I’m not sure the minister is helping by soft-pedalling the message of the federal position, especially since pretty much every media outlet is getting the very basics of this factum wrong. But of course, he would be explaining, and “when you’re explaining, you’re losing,” so they never explain, and things continue to slide downhill at an alarming rate.

Ukraine Dispatch

Fragments of a drone attack over Kyiv have damaged the city’s trolley bus network. President Zelenskyy says that Ukrainian forces are pushing Russians back in a counteroffensive along the eastern front. Ukrainian drones have hit Russia’s Gazprom Neftekhim Salavat oil processing and petrochemical complex, one of the largest in the country. Russia has turned over the bodies of over 1000 Ukrainian soldiers. Ukrainian forces are training their Polish counterparts on more effective ways to counter Russian drones following the incursion.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Asking for declaratory powers, not limits

Posted on by

There is a bunch of confusion and/or bad faith arguing going on around just what the federal government said in their factum to the upcoming Supreme Court of Canada hearing on the challenge of Quebec’s Law 21, which they claim is “state secularism” but is really just wholesale discrimination and racism. The reporting hasn’t been great—in fact, the National Post’s is downright misleading—because they keep describing this like it’s a reference question to the Court, which it isn’t, but rather, the argument that they’re putting forward during the existing challenge, and something that they feel the Court should address (which is how factums tend to work).

What their argument consists of is that the Court should be able to declare when a law that is protected by the Notwithstanding Clause is actually unconstitutional. They can’t strike it down, but they can weigh in and say “Yeah, this contravenes Charter rights.” They also want the Courts to be able to do this when something has been ongoing in its use of the Clause (which only lasts for five years before it needs to be renewed in legislation), and to rule on whether it may result in the “irreparable impairment” of rights, because they argue that repeated use of the Clause amounts to “indirectly amending the Constitution.” This is also not coming out of nowhere—the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal just recently ruled that they have this right when it comes to the challenge around the province’s attack on trans youth, saying that invoking the Clause should not be the last word.

Why is this important? Because the point of the five-year time-limit on the Clause is that it allows that government to be voted out before it can be renewed. Having the courts weigh in and say “Yeah, this is discrimination,” even if they can’t strike down the law, is powerful information for voters to have. And it’s absolutely democratic. But you have conservative thinkers who are trying to say that this will cause a “constitutional crisis,” or a national unity crisis if it offends Quebec or Alberta, is frankly absurd. It’s trying to give cover for attacks on minority rights and abuse of the Clause, and they should be honest about those intentions rather than trying to sow confusion and undermining the Court.

Ukraine Dispatch

An overnight Russian attack on the Kirovohrad region has partially cut power and disrupted railway operations. A top Russian commander claims they are advancing on all fronts, in contravention to Ukrainian reports. Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies say they need more resources to crack down on the “shadow economy.”

Continue reading →

Roundup: Alberta’s censorship plan goes ahead

Posted on by

The Alberta government released their policy on “explicit materials” in school libraries yesterday, and it went badly, in part because it was confusing about what they considered acceptable “non-explicit sexual materials,” and pretty much every media outlet got it wrong, while my Xtra colleague Mel Woods was out there correcting everyone for several hours until they could update their stories. The government even had to put out a clarification.

Alberta's new school library standards are here, and include a total ban on "explicit sexual content" from school libraries in the province Notably, "religious texts" are excluded — and when asked during the briefing today to give examples, only the Bible was brought up as an obvious exception.

— Mel Woods (@melwoods.me) 2025-07-10T18:35:11.927Z

I understand that the confusion is between "non-explicit sexual content" and what the government is defining as "not considered sexual" — they are two separate things

— Mel Woods (@melwoods.me) 2025-07-10T20:01:59.483Z

All of the media outlets reporting that books with puberty/kissing/hugging are banned in Alberta for Grade 9 and under … that's not true!!

— Mel Woods (@melwoods.me) 2025-07-10T20:33:27.209Z

All of this being said, what got me was that they got a token trans person to insist that this particular censorship (and let’s be clear that it’s what this is) has nothing to do with LGBTQ+ people but is just about sexually explicit materials, and they even said something to the effect of “At that age, we need guidance and not sexual materials.” And I immediately started swearing at the TV, because this is where it always starts. This is a page directly out of the playbook of autocrats like Viktor Orbán, who use LGBTQ+ scapegoating to further their ends. Hell, we have a history in this country where wannabe censors at Canada Customs (as it was then known) for seizing innocuous queer materials bound for the Little Sisters bookstore in Vancouver and claiming it was “obscene” (and there’s a Supreme Court decision on this).

For them to say "This is not about LGBTQ+ material, it's about sexually explicit material" as if Little Sisters didn't happen in this country or Viktor Orbán's anti-LGBTQ+ laws that target innocuous books aren't happening RIGHT NOW is absolutely enraging.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-07-10T18:46:28.143Z

Of course, this is about LGBTQ+ people and materials. Three of the four books that started this moral panic on the part of the Alberta government were queer or trans. They were weaponised by Christian nationalists to achieve this very result. And they will keep complaining that any queer materials are “sexually explicit” by their very nature until the government capitulates. It’s also why the proposed age verification legislation that is making yet another attempt federally is 100 percent guaranteed to be used to attack queer and trans materials. Pretending otherwise means you are either mendacious or an idiot, or possibly both.

Ukraine Dispatch

Here is a look at how the residents of Kyiv are dealing with the increasing waves of attacks in recent weeks. A rebuilding conference took place in Italy, committing over ten billion Euros to the effort. Meanwhile, the UK signed a deal to supply air defence missiles to Ukraine, while the UK and France also agreed that Paris would be the headquarters of the “coalition of the willing” for Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The wrong people taking credit for disinflation

Posted on by

Statistics Canada released the January Consumer Price Index data yesterday, and lo, it shows that inflation is dipping back into the control range at 2.9% annualized, which was lower than anticipated, and fairly broad-based including food prices decelerating to just above the headline number, meaning prices are stabilising finally, and yet somehow, with carbon prices still in place, and the grocery oligopolies not having been subjected to punitive windfall taxes. Imagine that!

In all seriousness, because there were month-over-month price drops in fuel prices in Manitoba thanks to Wab Kinew’s decision to pause gas taxes, and Saskatchewan not collecting the carbon levy, we got a bunch of people who should know better saying stupid things about carbon prices and inflation. Kinew, who has economics training, should especially know better.

Inflation is a year-over-year measure. Carbon prices have a negligible impact on it because it rises at the same level every year, so it’s not inflationary. A one-time drop in prices is also not deflationary or disinflationary because it’s a one-time drop, not sustained or pervasive. If you need a further explainer, economist Stephen Gordon has resurrected this thread to walk you through it.

On the subject of things that are unfathomably dumb, it looks like the CRA has decided to buy Saskatchewan’s transparent legal fiction that the provincial government is the natural gas distributor for the province, in spite of it being against the clear letter of the federal and provincial law, which means that consequences for the province not remitting the carbon levy on heating will be borne by Cabinet and not the board of SaskEnergy. What the hell?

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian attacks on the northern part of Ukraine killed seven on Tuesday, while Ukraine’s forces say they destroyed 13 out of 19 drones launched by Russia on Wednesday. Ukrainian officials are investigating the Russians shooting three soldiers captured on Sunday. Here is a look at the shattered ruins of Avdiivka. Ukraine’s state arms producer has signed an agreement with a German arms manufacturer to help produce more air defences domestically.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1759942168989360468

Continue reading →

Roundup: The crybully edit

Posted on by

Because yes, everything is that stupid, the Conservatives are crying that Justin Trudeau is racist because in his speech to caucus, he referred to Conservative candidate Jamil Jivani as a “twofer,” and then immediately says that it’s because Jivani is an “insider and an ideologue,” and went on to talk about how he’s a parachute candidate in the Durham by-election. Not sure why this was a topic in said speech to caucus, but it was.

Jivani then edited the video and just used the part where Trudeau referred to him as the “twofer,” said he didn’t know what that was supposed to mean—even though he deliberately edited out the part where Trudeau spelled it out—and then recited the Pierre Poilievre slogan checklist. Partisans posted a purported definition of “twofer” as a person from an underprivileged background who can fulfil two quotas or appeal to two political constituencies—a definition I have never heard in my life—and started screaming racism, and revived the whole Blackface thing, because of course they did.

The point here is that this is yet another example of the very same Conservatives who mock the “snowflakes” on the left who need their trigger warnings, and trying to play crybully at the very same time. They did it to me when I said that a joke was lame, and tried to insist that I threatened to shoot one of their MPs (which they know full well is not what I said). They are so quick to play the victim because they think that it works for “the left,” and so therefore it should work for them equally, which is dumb, and completely doesn’t get the point that people on the left make about oppressive language, or structural racism, or what have you. They make this big song and dance about how censorious the “left” is (and yeah, some of them are), but then immediately try to replicate it while at the same time try and insist that they’re the ones who are all about free speech and so on. It’s childish, it’s dishonest, and when they have to edit video and lie to try and make their crybully point, it’s even more obnoxious.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians continue to insist that Ukraine shot down that plane that allegedly contained POWs, but won’t provide evidence or access to the crash site (making it even more likely that this is an info op). There is also word that president Volodymyr Zelenskyy has invited Xi Jinping to the forthcoming peace talks in Switzerland.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Just what farm emissions are subject to the carbon levy?

Posted on by

While Pierre Poilievre continues to insist that the federal carbon levy is driving up food prices, he provides no proof of that other than his “common sense” reckon that the levy increases the price of everything.

It doesn’t really, but Poilievre likes to make you think it does. So, University of Alberta’s Andrew Leach has crunched the numbers, and lo, the carbon levy is exempt on very nearly all farm emissions, and contributes but a fraction to other expenses, like transportation. Of course, Poilievre is lying to make you angry, but it’s nice to have some receipts to know just exactly what the lies are.

Ukraine Dispatch:

The fallout of that Russian plane downing that allegedly carried Ukrainian POWs continues to reverberate, as Russia claims they gave Ukraine a 15-minute warning about said plane, which Ukraine denies; as well, Ukraine’s human rights commissioner says that he believes this is an information op because the list of supposed POWs provided included several names on it that had previously been swapped. Several Ukrainian state organisations are reporting that they are experiencing cyber-attacks. Russia is also claiming that Ukrainian drones are responsible for an attack on an oil refinery in Russia’s south.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another missed opportunity for the Senate

Posted on by

A mere day after the House of Commons rose for the summer, the Senate did the same after a marathon day of passing most of the bills on its Order Paper, but leaving several key pieces of legislation to languish over the summer. As I do every summer, I remind readers that it used to be normal for senators to sit for at least an extra week in the summer to clear their Order Paper, and at this particular juncture, it would make even more sense for them to do so because they no longer have to compete with the House of Commons for resources, and most especially interpreters.

The biggest bill in question is the gun control bill, which they sent to committee, where it will sit over the summer. What they should have done was use the time and resources that they have now in order to hold a week’s worth of committee hearings, and do the job of scrutinizing the bill. And sure, you’ll get a certain cohort of senators insisting that it “doesn’t make sense” for them to sit when the Commons isn’t, in case they need to make amendments, to which I will remind them that it doesn’t matter if the Commons has risen. If the Senate wants to propose amendments, they can do the study now, propose them, and send it to the House for when they get back in September. If the Government House Leader on the Commons side wants to bellyache and moan that the Senate wants the House to recall at so many tens of thousands of dollars a day, well, too bad. They don’t have to recall. They can deal with the Senate amendments in September. And I will reiterate—it would make much more sense for the Senate to deal with a bill this big and contentious now, when they’re not competing for resources, rather than letting it drag out for months in the fall like they did with a couple of other big and contentious bills.

This is a better use of the time and resources available, and it shows that the Senate isn’t afraid to work hard when the MPs have gone home. It’s too bad nobody can see this plain and obvious PR win for the Senate that’s staring them in the face.

Ukraine Dispatch:

There were overnight missile and drone attacks, largely targeted to Odesa and Kryvy Rih, hitting homes in the latter. Ukrainian forces are reporting “partial success” in their southeast and east operations, as fighting continues. An explosion has damaged the bridge between occupied Crimea and Kherson province, which is partially occupied. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that their intelligence services have information that Russia is planning a “terrorist” attack at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant and that it will involve the release of radiation, and that Russia is hiding the bodies of those killed by the breach of the Kakhovka dam. Meanwhile, the EU says that Ukraine has completed two of the seven steps necessary for membership, with progress made on other reforms, but tackling corruption remains a concern for Europe.

https://twitter.com/rubrykaeng/status/1671855902830329857

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1671756814814265344

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s farewell hypocrisy

Posted on by

Former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole gave his farewell speech to the House of Commons yesterday, and it’s been a while since I’ve heard something as grossly hypocritical as that. Using his sombre voice (which has the benefit of completely beguiling the pundit class), he decried “performance politics,” where they chase social media algorithms, using the Chamber to generate clips, and fuelling polarisation, and replacing discussion with “virtue signalling”—which is his way of whataboutery to insist that the Liberals and NDP are just as bad. He also decried the use of conspiracy theories around things like the United Nations.

The problem? He hired a professional shitposter, Jeff Ballingall, to chase those very social media algorithms he is decrying. He fully used the Chamber to generate clips, he fully endorsed a number of conspiracy theories, whether it was about the firing of the scientists at the Winnipeg Lab, or around the United Nations when he was pretending to be a “true blue conservative” during the leadership. And while this has been seen by some as a rebuke of Poilievre, there was absolutely no contrition about any of what he did, from the serial lying, to his autocratic power games at the end of his leadership. The most he said was “too many members on all sides of this Chamber, and from time to time I have been guilty of it myself, are becoming followers of our followers when we should be leaders.” That was it. That was his contrition to how much he has done all of the things he is decrying as he exits, the bravery of someone who no longer has to live with the consequences of his actions.

https://twitter.com/dwjudson/status/1668484357089099777

It amazes me that the pundit classes, who have been falling all over O’Toole’s speech, keep memory-holing the entire tenure of his leadership and what an absolute lying, tyrannical disaster that he was throughout. Ignoring who he proved himself to be in favour of the image that pundits so desperately want him to be is a choice. And as he heads off to spend more time in his basement podcast studio, it would be great if we could be clear-eyed about just who O’Toole is, instead of just falling for his sombre-voice trick.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine says it has liberated seven villages in Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia provinces, as the counter-offensive gets underway. Russians, meanwhile, have been shelling Kharkiv, as well as nine towns and villages in Donetsk. They also launched an overnight attack against the central city of Kryvyi Rih, and there are reports of dead and wounded.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1668246754540630017

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, David Lametti isn’t threatening to tear up the constitution

Posted on by

You may have noticed that the Conservatives engaged in a lot of rage-farming over the long weekend, sometimes to the point of flailing and reaching. There was one particular bad-faith episode (well, they’re all bad faith episodes) that was particularly egregious, and roped in several premiers, who were also engaged in their own bad faith. Late last week, justice minister David Lametti attended a special chiefs’ assembly of the Assembly of First Nations, and was asked about the Natural Resources Transfer Act of 1930, and how these treaty nations were not benefitting from them, and Lametti said he’d look at it, but acknowledged this would be controversial.

And how! Immediately, Danielle Smith, followed by Scott Moe and later Heather Stefanson insisted this was a plan to “tear up the constitution” and nationalise the control over natural resources, and before long, Pierre Poilievre got in on it, along with a chunk of his caucus who insisted this was some sinister federal plan. It’s not, and this is more bad faith bullshit (which, of course, the gods damned CBC just both-sidesed, because they still think you can both-sides bad faith).

It’s actually in the legislation that the federal government can give back land to the First Nations to honour treaty obligations, and that’s at the heart of this. It’s their land. The treaties are to share the wealth, and, well, we haven’t been. They have a legitimate point here and the government has an obligation to at least hear them out on this. Is that going to cause a fuss? Yeah, probably, because settler governments, particularly in provinces, particularly those who are dependent on resource revenues, are not going to want to share that wealth. But the time is coming, sooner or later, when these conversations need to be had, because economic reconciliation means more than just dangling bribes to affected First Nations when resource extraction projects happen on their lands. Not that bad faith actors like Danielle Smith, Scott Moe or Pierre Poilievre will acknowledge this reality.

Ukraine Dispatch:

In what seems to be a repeating story, Russian Wagner group mercenaries claim—again—that they control most of Bakhmut, while Ukrainian forces claim, again, that they are holding firm. Not far away in Avdiivka, it is estimated that some 1800 people are still living in the city as Russian forces pound it. There was a prisoner swap of about 200 Russians and Ukrainian soldiers on Monday. Ukraine also resumed electricity exports to Europe now that they are able to meet their domestic demand after Russia targeted their energy infrastructure late last year.

https://twitter.com/denys_shmyhal/status/1645857297955192848

Continue reading →

Roundup: Opposing amendments at committee

Posted on by

I find myself amused by the ongoing stories that some Liberal MPs may vote against the official languages bill when it comes out of committee as amended, and the constant oh noes! Trudeau is losing control of his caucus! narrative that accompanies it. This said, there are egregious amendments that I have a hard time believing that they’re in order, because they reference provincial legislation in Quebec. For example, the change to the preamble of the bill to acknowledge Quebec’s Law 96 should have no place in federal legislation. There is also an amendment that says that if federal and provincial language laws come into conflict, the provincial law (especially Quebec’s Law 96) takes precedence, which is against every single constitutional practice and statutory interpretation principle in this country, and beyond that, it sets an absolutely terrible precedent for other areas of the law where one level of government tries to impose something on another jurisdiction, and because this one went unchallenged its okay. Yeah, we don’t want that to happen.

As mentioned, these are a result of Conservative and Bloc amendments, and the Conservatives are back to pandering to Quebec voters (and François Legault) by being as shameless as possible in trying to out-bloc the Bloc, and in some cases, they are being supported by the NDP’s Niki Ashton. It stands to reason that if the government objects to a number of these amendments, they can vote them down during report stage debate, and that would mean the whole chamber is voting, not just the Bloc and the Conservatives, so it could be enough votes to ensure that these amendments are left out of the final bill, which would mean this “rebellion” by a few Liberal MPs has done its job. There are still a couple of meetings left for this bill in committee, so we’ll see what the final shape of the bill looks like.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 358:

Russian troops are mounting constant attacks, and are claiming to have broken through two fortified lines in the Luhansk region (but they make lots of claims that aren’t true), while the regional governor denies that Ukrainian troops are in retreat. The Russians have been changing their tactics at Bakhmut, moving in smaller groups, without the support of tanks or armoured personnel carriers, and the Ukrainians are adapting to the new tactics. Reuters has a photo essay of one family’s evacuation from the area near Bakhmut, during which their grandmother died in the van.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1625861957549948929

Continue reading →