Tag Archives: Doug Ford

Roundup: Streamlining defence procurement?

Posted on by

The government announced the creation of a new agency yesterday morning—the Defence Investment Agency, which has a dual purpose of streamlining defence procurement contracts by putting them into a single office to avoid duplicating approvals, but to also encourage domestic defence industrial capacity in order to ensure there is more domestic production rather than just being able to buy new kit faster. Part of this will involve working more closely with allies in the UK, Australia and France, among others, in order to shift more procurement dollars away from the Americans.

Some of this may be easier said than done, because they are folding in the same risk-averse bureaucrats into this agency, which means that they will still need to encourage culture change around these processes, and that could be a problem because many of those existing bureaucrats will have scars from botched procurements in the past, where things went awry because of haste, sole-sourcing, or other political machinations that were intended to maximise Canadian industrial benefits and turned into boondoggles. The general instinct in Canadian bureaucracy is that after every scandal, they put in all kinds of new rules and reporting structures to prevent it from happening again, but those new rules and structures keep piling on without any proper rationalization, and soon you have your civil servants spending all of their time doing compliance checks rather than their jobs, but funnily enough, this never seems to get the attention it deserves when we talk about reforming the civil service or when finding places where cuts can be made. And I fully expect that there is going to be an early scandal or two in this procurement body that will shape the future of how it operates.

Meanwhile, Carney hand-picked its CEO, and wouldn’t you know it, he slotted in a banker friend from Goldman Sachs and RBC to head it up. I’m sure that there will be plenty of justification about how this is supposed to get past the culture of risk-aversion or something, but I find there is a whiff of cronyism that is likely to get worse the closer we get to the eventual byelections for all of those soon-to-be retiring former Cabinet ministers that Carney is finding new diplomatic posts for. Things are getting awfully clubby in Carney’s bro-culture PMO, and this looks like a signal that there’s more of this to come.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-10-02T14:05:15.840Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine has brought home 185 service personnel and twenty civilians in the latest prisoner swap. President Zelenskyy is currently in Copenhagen to meet with European leaders.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1973658861148979359

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giving credence to Poilievre’s trolling

Posted on by

In spite of it being an exhaustingly packed news week, The Canadian Press took time out to get some reaction to Pierre Poilievre’s trolling tweets about prime minister Mark Carney’s many international trips of late. Yes, it’s summit season right now and there is a lot more travel coming up, but he has made a number of trips since he was appointed PM, and we have to ensure that it’s not “excessive” or something. Never mind that we’re in a moment of global crisis as the United States has turned into an authoritarian regime that is upending the post-war international order and tacitly siding with other authoritarian regimes, and this requires a global realignment of liberal democracies, but is he travelling too much? Guys.

The one thing that irked me the most in the story was the point about Carney having only attended three Question Periods since Parliament resumed last week, and only nine in the four-week spring session. There was no context to this, which is that it means once or twice per week, which is perfectly normal for any sitting prime minister. Once or twice a week was all Stephen Harper could deign to attend. Justin Trudeau started out with three a week, but then fell back to two on most weeks, but sometimes was just once. The difference of course was that Trudeau made it his practice to answer every question on Wednesdays, which no previous PM had done, and which Carney has not kept up (possibly because he may not have stamina enough to pat himself on the back for a full forty-five minute). In other words, Carney’s QP attendance is fully within the norm, and you would think that the national wire service could point this out, but that might mean that they would have to have someone with enough institutional knowledge and memory to know this, but pretty much every bureau on the Hill no longer has either. (As a reminder, I am the only journalist who goes to QP every day, because someone has to).

This being said, I think we need to once again have a discussion about the kind of insular nativism that Poilievre is stoking by making it sound like foreign travel by the prime minister is somehow illegitimate, or that every trip must come with some kind of signed agreement (even though we may already have signed agreements with countries like Mexico, and forging stronger ties is important beyond just a signed piece of paper). Trying to create this false expectation that the PM can’t go anywhere so long as there is “crime and chaos” at home is juvenile and frankly troubling, because it means that they have absolutely no idea how the real world works, and are playing with fire, especially if they ever want to form government one day.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-09-26T13:24:02.797Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The front line in the conflict has grown to nearly 1250 km in length, as Russian forces have shifted tactics to try and make breakthroughs. That said, both president Zelenskyy and his top military commander say that Russia’s 2025 offensive has failed to meet their goals, and suffered heavy losses in the process. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s assessment of the drone incursions into NATO airspace is that Russia is trying to stoke fatigue in Ukraine’s allies in the hopes of drawing down military support.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The weird fixation on east coast LNG

Posted on by

There was another report about Europeans looking for Canadian LNG, this time in The Logic in a conversation with the German ambassador. What it did not really mention was the actual business case—only that the “long timelines” involved was a reason why former prime minister Justin Trudeau said that there wasn’t a business case for it. The thrust of the piece is that demand maybe longer than just short-term because even rapid electrification will still require some gas, however there is a boatload of context about this that journalists who have this weird fetish for LNG never actually touch on.

First of all, this discussion is only about east coast LNG, not west coast, where the conditions are different, and where there a whole bunch of potential projects that are fully permitted, and have all of their approvals in place, but aren’t moving ahead because the market isn’t showing demand (and by demand, we mean signing long-term contracts to buy the product). While this was also the case on the east coast, it’s complicated by the lack of ready supply of natural gas to liquify. Neither Quebec nor New Brunswick are about to start fracking for the sake of domestic supply, and the costs to bring a pipeline from western Canada to New Brunswick for export purposes is a lot to consider when we think about what is “long term.” That means supply is likely to becoming from the US, and that in turn will drive up local prices because they’re competing with the theoretical export terminal. To add to that, the “long term” we need to keep in mind is that these kinds of plants need to be operating for a good forty years or so to get their money’s worth. Is anyone in Europe thinking about the infrastructure necessary on that kind of time scale? Unlikely, and unlikely at that time scale for the kinds of prices that Canada would be offering, which are higher than they could get elsewhere.

What do they mean by "long-term"? Because these kinds of projects need a 40-year lifespan or so to actually get their money's worth, by which time we'll be well past net-zero goals.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-25T13:37:04.762Z

This is why these stories never actually make sense, because those journalists never actually talk to an energy economist about it, or if they do, it goes right out the other ear while they maintain this weird fixation on LNG. I’m not quite sure what it’s in service of—have they simply absorbed the propaganda of the oil and gas industry, who say dumb and wrong things like how our fossil fuels are the “cleanest” (they absolutely are not), or worse, that it will displace coal (the final emissions profile is not that much lower than coal, and as David Cochrane is the only journalist to push back on this talking point, there is no guarantee that they wouldn’t just use Canadian LNG in addition to coal rather than displacing it)? Or is this some kind of sad attempt at playing gotcha with Trudeau and the business case line? Because certain journalists are relentless in badgering and hectoring European leaders about this, and it’s just weird, and just completely ignorant of the facts on the ground.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian attack on Chernihiv meant power cuts for 70,000 people. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte says that members can target Russian planes that enter their airspace as necessary. And president Zelenskyy says he is ready to leave office once the war is over.

Continue reading →

Roundup: NSICOP vs lawful access

Posted on by

Yesterday, the CBC’s national security reporter filed a story about the NSICOP report into lawful access, which was frankly a poor piece of journalism. The story merely quoted from the report without any outside comment, but more than that, the focus and entire framing of the story was more on the frustrations of police and CSIS that they don’t have lawful access tools—and by lawful access, we mean the ability of police or intelligence services to access your digital online history and movements, usually without a judicial warrant. This is very bad. In fact, it’s so bad that the Supreme Court of Canada has twice ruled that it’s unconstitutional, and that police can’t even get your ISP information without a warrant because it offers too much access to the “digital breadcrumbs” of your online life that it can and will violate your privacy.

This is not mentioned in the CBC story. The report talks extensively about the Supreme Court’s definition of privacy and why it’s important, and why it’s important to try and find pathways for information that still require a judicial warrant, and so on. But how was this reported in the story? A single sentence: “It dives into one of the most controversial issues in national security: balancing the individual right to privacy while safeguarding public safety.” If that’s not soft-pedalling one of the major problems underpinning this whole report, I’m not sure what is. And then the story goes back to enumerating the complaints about how hard it is to access that data.

I do think that the NSICOP report’s findings are a problematic in places because it essentially wants Parliament to thread that needle in a way that makes it sound easy.

In the Committee’s view, the primary way the government could facilitate and enable national security investigations while at the same time protecting Canadians’ right to privacy would be to modernize lawful access legislation, based on clearly articulated principles that reaffirm the requirement for a legitimate need for exceptional, targeted and judicially authorized access emphasize privacy and cybersecurity protections, and define transparency and oversight mechanisms. In light of the complexity of the lawful access challenge, the Committee suggests that the government implement an incremental approach to allow for meaningful engagement with stakeholders and a diversity of input.

I also question the wisdom of encouraging a comprehensive data-sharing agreement with the US, given that they are no longer a functional democracy and it’s probably a very bad thing if their authorities have easy access to Canadians’ data for their own purposes. And these are real problems that Parliament needs to confront, in both the (terrible) omnibus border bill C-2, which has lawful access provisions in it, or how it and the cyber-security bill, C-8, can try and force companies to put in backdoors to their encryption (which at least the NSICOP report says is a bad idea). This is a very problematic area of law, but that CBC story did absolute injustice to it, and most especially about the absolute importance of privacy rights, and why we shouldn’t make it easy for police to access our data whenever they claim it’s necessary (especially because CSIS has a history of not being candid with the courts about why they need information or warrants).

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine has hit Russian oil infrastructure in both the Bryansk and Samara regions, which is widening the fuel crisis in that country. Under the theory that Trump repeats whatever the last person he was speaking to says, he was saying that Ukraine can win the war and reclaim their territory with NATO help.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford casting blame for his own failures—bail edition

Posted on by

While the federal Conservatives are tabling a litany of “tough on crime” bills in order to make themselves look like they’re offering solutions to what they term the “warzone” on Canadian streets, Ontario premier Doug Ford decided that he didn’t want to be left out. Ford tasked his attorney general with sending an open letter to the federal government to call for a bunch of performative nonsense like mandatory minimum sentences or “three strikes” laws, most of which are unconstitutional, and is making all kinds of noises about the problems with the bail system and demanding that the federal government fix them. The problem? The biggest problems with bail are Ford’s fault.

The administration of justice is a provincial issue, and the biggest problem with bail by far is resourcing in the court system. There aren’t enough functional courthouses (especially in Peel Region), there aren’t enough clerks and other staff at these court houses to run trials, there are not enough provincially-appointed judges who handle the bulk of criminal cases, there are issues with the appointment and training of justices of the peace, who deal with nearly all bail hearings. The province isn’t hiring enough Crown attorneys to prosecute cases, and they are burnt out and nearly went on strike fairly recently because of being underpaid. Oh, and provincial remand facilities are overcrowded and they can’t keep people in custody there, and those who are will wind up getting sentencing discounts if they are convicted, because the conditions are so terrible. All of these things are on Ford. But he would rather blame the federal government. Oh, and during this all, Ford is also going to war against photo radar, because of course he is—apparently, it’s all well and good to break traffic laws (which are provincial jurisdiction), but he’s big mad about other laws being broken. Just incoherent.

This being said, I am once again absolutely livid that the media outlets who did report on this letter couldn’t be arsed to get the basics right, such as the provincial responsibilities. It was straight-up stenography from both The Canadian Press and CBC, both of whom should know better. (Neither the Star nor the National Post ran this story). So once again, Ford gets his bullshit repeated uncritically, the federal government again gets blamed, and the very real problems that are his responsibility will again go unchallenged. Utterly infuriating.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-09-21T20:02:03.613Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia’s attack on Zaporizhzhia early Monday morning killed three and injured at least two others.

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: Five projects already approved or underway

Posted on by

As expected, prime minister Mark Carney revealed the first five projects for the Major Project Office yesterday, and they were all…projects that have approvals and are underway in some stage, some more than halfway through construction, making one wonder just what exactly this was supposed to do. Carney made some vague remarks about getting them over the finish line, but the only halfway plausible explanation I heard came from an executive from one of the mining projects on Power & Politics who said this was sending positive signals necessary for investor confidence. Carney also made vague remarks about greenhouse gas targets and whether he planned to keep them, but his talk of a “grand bargain” doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of economic sense.

It was less the five announced projects that got premiers (other than David Eby) salivating, but the promises in the next tranche of projects that Carney says will be announced “by the Grey Cup,” because Canadian sports references. This includes a potential offshore wind farm in Nova Scotia, and expanding the Port of Churchill in Manitoba, which would also mean a need for expanded icebreaking capacity in Hudson’s Bay, which sounds an awful lot like a fairly significant federal subsidy. Dominic LeBlanc touted the possibility of construction on high-speed rail starting within four years (at least in the Toronto-to-Quebec corridor, and not the Windsor-to-Toronto arm). Perhaps most surprising, however, was Danielle Smith praising the projects, including the possibility of “Pathways Plus” (being the Pathways Alliance carbon capture scheme, which remains unviable without a high enough carbon price), and being effusive about her meeting with Carney on Wednesday, which one might take as a worrying sign that she is finding common conservative ground with Carney.

And predictably, the federal Conservatives went out to mock everything as being pathetic, that this was just an email to an office that doesn’t exist yet, and that everything is in the realm of mere possibility—and the lack of a pipeline on the list, though they are unable to name any pipeline project that is ready for federal approval. And the worst part remains that there is plenty to criticise, particularly that these five projects are already at underway, and that this is Carney trying to give himself undue credit for them. But no, they instead need to make cartoonish arguments, because they are incapable of being serious, even when they have been handed legitimate criticisms on a silver platter.

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy says that allies need to rethink their air defences in light of the drone incursion in Poland, given that countering drones requires different, layered defences than planes or missiles.

Continue reading →

Roundup: First list of major projects incoming

Posted on by

Today is the day where the first tranche of major projects to be tackled by the Major Projects Office gets announced, and surprising nobody who has paid the slightest bit of attention, there are no pipeline projects on that list. And the reason is because there are no proposals on the table—you can’t approve a project that doesn’t exist, but that hasn’t stopped Pierre Poilievre or Danielle Smith from making hay about it. Instead, what will be on the list is not too surprising—phase two of LNG Canada, the new nuclear project at Darlington, expanding the Port of Montreal, a copper mine project in Saskatchewan, and expanding the Red Chris mine in BC, with a further list of potential projects for the second tranche. The Indigenous Advisory Council for the Major Projects Office was also announced yesterday, for what that’s worth.

Carney did address the media at the opening of the caucus retreat yesterday, and while he spoke about the dire economic situation (in a way that defies it being taken seriously), and talked about diversifying trade with Europe and Asia, and the launch of Build Canada Homes next week, there was one thing that did bother me in particular. Carney said that they were shifting from a question of if we want to build projects to a question of how, which I think is a gross misreading of the situation. It wasn’t really a question of if before—most any project proposal that was submitted for review was serious, but the question of how was predominant all along. The thing is that the “how” changed dramatically over time because the old ways of doing things were no longer acceptable, whether that was in regards to environmental standards, or ignoring the wishes of local First Nations, or making a bunch of promises to those First Nations and then screwing them out of the revenues and jobs that were promised to get their support. Yes, there is lip-service being paid to Indigenous consultation or UNDRIP principles, but Carney has yet to demonstrate that he actually understands what this all means (as he gave himself a giant Henry VIII clause to exempt himself from any of it, he doesn’t want to deal with), so you can understand why there is trepidation about what this is supposed to all mean. And if he doesn’t understand that “how” was always the question, then that’s also a very big problem in how he conceives of things going forward.

Meanwhile, Carney said that there needs to be heightened pressure applied to Russia after the drone attack on Poland (and it sounds like there will be a NATO Article 4 meeting in the near future about it), not that I would expect the Americans to be serious about it. Carney also said that there needs to be a “focused approach” to the temporary foreign workers programme, after former immigration Marc Miller called out Pierre Poilievre for stoking anti-immigration sentiments (because that’s what he’s doing for engagement).

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-09-10T13:25:07.322Z

Ukraine Dispatch

All of the talk yesterday was about how Poland found 14 Russian drones in its territory in the aftermath of the overnight attack, and western leaders rushing to condemn Russia for the attack. President Zelenskyy said that Ukraine and Europe need to work together to create an effect air defence shield.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A narrower, more revealing book ban

Posted on by

Alberta’s amended book ban was announced on Wednesday, and lo, it is now being confined to graphic novels that depict supposed sexually explicit images, and wouldn’t you just know it, we’re back to the original four books that triggered this whole thing, three of those four titles being queer or trans-related. And nobody will actually say that out loud—not the premier, not the education minister, and wouldn’t you know it, not legacy media either.

To be clear, this move brings us back to the very pointed targeting of LGBTQ2S+ graphic novels that got us here in the first place.Books that were on the government's radar thanks to far-right advocacy groups like Action4Canada.

— Mel Woods (@melwoods.me) 2025-09-08T21:18:06.510Z

The Canadian Press didn’t mention anything about queer or trans materials, and they got quotes from Action4Canada, calling them a “parents advocacy group” instead of a far-right Christian nationalist organization, which they absolutely are. CBC’s reporting kept focusing on “explicit images of sexual acts,” and their televised coverage made zero mention of queer or trans materials, though the print story at least did quote the Fyrefly Institute for Gender and Sexual Diversity, who expressed concern that this could “disproportionately affect 2SLGBTQ+ representation,” but didn’t specify that three of the four main targeted books were queer or trans, which again, is important context to have. Neither of their coverage actually mentioned that if you look at the images that the government sent to the media about the offending images (which the government did actually provide), pretty much none of them were “explicit images of sexual acts” either, even if there was some nudity or allusions to sexual acts that were not graphic or explicit. I also have to wonder why neither the Alberta NDP (and Naheed Nenshi especially), or the Alberta Teachers’ Association could call this out for what it is.

There is a large portion of people who only really started to care about the Alberta book ban stuff when it was Margaret Atwood being pulled from shelves.I hope those same people are willing to stand up and defend queer and trans comics artists too, and call this what it is

— Mel Woods (@melwoods.me) 2025-09-08T21:41:10.098Z

Meanwhile, Maclean’s published a profile of six Alberta separatism supporters in an attempt to humanize them and show how they’re just ordinary people with real concerns. Those concerns? Vaccines, believing climate change is a scam designed to punish Alberta, immigration, and the general grievance addiction that social media addicts on the right have become dependent upon. They couldn’t even be bothered to correct the one gullible woman who believes that the National Energy Program is still running and siphoning the province’s wealth. No discussion about the fact that Alberta separatism is fuelled largely by Christian nationalism and white supremacy, which is really important context to have when you’re trying to humanize these people. It’s astonishingly bad journalism, but, well, that’s Maclean’s these days (just inhabiting the corpse of a once-great magazine).

https://bsky.app/profile/daveberta.bsky.social/post/3lygl7xvz7s22

In fact the #Alberta economy was impacted more because the world oil price dropped while the NEP was in place and actually continued to drop after the NEP was cancelled.#ABpoli

— True Oak (@trueoak.bsky.social) 2025-07-17T17:40:34.155Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Things have been escalating, as last night, a number of Russian drones entered Polish airspace and were downed by NATO air defences (Thread here). And the day before that, glide bombs struck in Yarova, where elderly villages were lining up for their pension cheques. And the day before that was the largest barrage of the war to date, with 805 drones and 13 missiles, and government buildings in Kyiv were hit for the first time. And Trump still isn’t doing anything while Putin mocks him.

Since January 20, Russian air raids in Ukraine have intensified dramatically

— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum.bsky.social) 2025-09-09T20:08:04.868Z

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1965345997044744662

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to make Churchill happen. (It’s not going to happen)

Posted on by

In light of news that the new Major Projects Office is due to be launched this week, and comments that prime minister Mark Carney and others have been making about the possibility of an LNG terminal at the Port of Churchill, Manitoba, it behoves me to once again bring up energy economist Andrew Leach, who has a giant reality check for everyone saying this is going to be a thing. It’s not—unless we want to spent billions of taxpayer dollars on a money-losing exercise, that is. Which is not what this whole drive toward expanding resource extraction is supposed to be about.

That said, I think that Leach is ultimately correct here—that Carney and his brain trust have spent too long reading the Conservatives’ talking points about resource development and have believed them to be true, which they obviously are not. But when you have legacy media in this country just completely uncritically regurgitating the talking points from the Conservatives and Danielle Smith, and reporters and political talk show hosts just uncritically mocking the “no business case” line about why we don’t have LNG terminals on the east coast without talking to a gods damned energy economist about why that didn’t happen, well, of course it becomes easy for someone like Carney to just uncritically believe this nonsense, because that’s all that’s being presented. Justin Trudeau and his Cabinet couldn’t actually articulate why there was no business case (because “if you’re explaining, you’re losing,” so they never explained anything), and trusted the media to do it for them, which media wasn’t going to do, and could barely be arsed to even both-sides that particular issue. And this is where we are today, and Carney is going to be forced to take the loss on this one, because Liberals refuse to take Conservatives to task for their bullshit.

Speaking of, Pierre Poilievre was in Charlottetown, PEI, to decry that the incoming clean fuel regulations are “Carney’s Carbon Tax 2.0,” even though Trudeau’s government put through those regulations years ago, they’re not a tax, and associated costs are not going into government coffers, but simply businesses passing along the costs of reducing their emissions. It’s the same brand of dishonest bullshit that he trades in, and even some Conservatives are getting tired of it, telling the National Post that he’s become a caricature of himself. So, way to go there.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-08-27T22:01:25.944Z

Ukraine Dispatch

There was a massive Russian drone and missile attack on energy infrastructure across six regions of Ukraine in the early morning hours, looking in part to exacerbate an existing has shortage. Russia also says that they object to the European proposals around security guarantees, which is not a shock at all.

Continue reading →