Tag Archives: Foreign Interference

Roundup: Double the campaign announcements

Posted on by

Day sixteen, and suddenly each of the parties was doubling up on their news releases today, each announcing not one but two different policy planks, because apparently, we were a little too comfortable already.

Mark Carney was in Victoria, where the first announcement was about protecting retirement savings through reducing the minimum amounts that need to be withdrawn from an RRIF for a year, as well as a temporary increase of the GIS. Later, but still in Victoria, Carney spoke about conservation efforts by pledging new national parks and marine protected environments, bolstered Indigenous stewardship, and nature-based climate solutions. Carney also insisted that he’s prepared and has a plan to deal with the market chaos that Trump has unleashed. Carney also met with BC premier David Eby to talk about the softwood tariffs that Trump plans on increasing. Carney will start the day in Delta, BC, and head to Calgary later in the day.

Pierre Poilievre was in Terrace, BC, and declared that he will create a single office for resource projects, with one application, and a maximum one-year timeframe for approvals (which raises all kinds of question about provincial jurisdiction, and the complexity of projects). He even listed projects as examples that…already have their approvals but the market hasn’t bought into the projects, which should raise even more questions about whether he has a clue about what he’s talking about, other than “oil project good.” Poilievre later said he would delay the age by which seniors need to withdraw their savings from their RRSPs. Poilievre will start the day in Edmonton, and then head for Sault Ste. Marie later today.

Jagmeet Singh was in Toronto, and used the demise of Hudson’s Bay Company to tout more protections for workers during bankruptcies, and to keep “predatory” foreign private equity funds at bay. Later in the day, he promised that he could build three million homes by 2030, and good luck with that given just how few details their plan contains for such a complex, multi-jurisdictional problem. Singh will be in Vancouver this morning, followed by his home riding in Burnaby (where apparently his seat is under threat, if polls are to be believed).

In other campaign news, the Longest Ballot jackasses have targeted Poilievre’s riding, making his Liberal rival’s job all that much harder. And nominations are now closed, so here is a look at some of the familiar names that will be on ballots.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia continues to claim that Ukraine is targeting its power stations in spite of the “energy ceasefire.” Funerals were held in Kryvyi Rih for those killed in Friday night’s attack. President Zelenskyy confirmed that there are Ukrainian troops in Russia’s Belgorod region.

 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Chiang overshadows the day

Posted on by

Day nine, and in spite of the big plans that some of the leaders were trying to put forward, the issue of Paul Chiang loomed over everything. Mark Carney was in Vaughan, Ontario, and pitched a very bold plan to stand up a new Build Canada Homes organization, which would see the federal government take charge of building houses, with a goal of reaching 500,000 new homes per year, and using the market power to stand up a pre-fabrication industry that would have the certainty that these orders are coming in. (They also had to quietly change the French name of the proposed organisation after the initial version was grammatically incorrect). He also promised a number of things around development charges and permitting that are not within federal jurisdiction, so questions remain as to how he expects to reach those goals. Carney will be in Winnipeg today.

Pierre Poilievre was in Fredericton, New Brunswick, pitching a national energy corridor, without saying how he plans to actually achieve it over the provinces and First Nations. (Yes, Carney talked about this with the premiers, but there have been no details yet). When asked about the mounting frustration within the campaign, Poilievre avoided answering the question, but defended his platform under the rubric that the Liberals weakened the country. Poilievre will be in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador this morning, and hold a rally in Borden-Carleton, PEI, in the evening.

Jagmeet Singh was in Victoria, and promoted energy retrofits that would create “good union jobs,” which continues to feel hopelessly behind the curve. We also saw Singh’s messaging strategy start to shift as well, insisting that electing more NDP MPs mean more people fighting for the “little guy” in negotiations around the future of the country and yeah, I’m not sure that’s not quite how it works. Singh remains in Edmonton today.

In other campaign news, here’s a comparison of how the party leaders are each dealing with the Trump threats, and how that is reflected in their policies. On the Paul Chiang question, Carney said that he spoke with Chiang and that he still has his confidence, which raises big questions about Carney’s political judgment. Chiang posted that he had resigned as candidate around midnight, which takes the issue off the table, but leaves the questions around Carney’s judgment hanging in the air.

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy says that Russia has committed over 183,000 war crimes in Ukraine since the start of their invasion, and that they need to be punished for it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reviving an abandoned capital gains plan

Posted on by

Day eight of the campaign, and in spite of there being policy announcement, it was another fairly low-key day, or maybe it just felt like that without the usual wall-to-wall coverage. Mark Carney continued to hold private events in his riding, and took to media questions. There was no announcement of where Carney will be today.

Pierre Poilievre was in the GTA, and announced a plan to waive capital gains taxes if they are re-invested in Canadian companies. If this sounds familiar, it was because the Conservatives floated this in 2006, only to abandon it because it was impractical. Poilievre insists that this could be “economic rocket fuel,” but there is no lack of irony with the fact that it comes with an absolute mountain of red tape in the form of compliance paperwork. Poilievre heads to Fredericton, New Brunswick, later today.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1906432179493883989

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1906433266069963227

Ok here is the capital gains tax deferral idea (story from @stevenchase.bsky.social 17 years ago). Looks like the exact same promise from Mr. Poilievre today as from Mr. Harper in 2006. I wonder if anything has changed to now make this feasible?www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-bu…

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2025-03-30T16:31:49.860Z

"The problem, Mr. Flaherty has acknowledged recently, is it's proven "difficult and complicated" to enact the capital gains pledge.That's a euphemistic way of admitting what experts have long warned: that the pledge is too vague, open-ended and costly to translate into law."

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2025-03-30T16:33:04.102Z

https://twitter.com/JohnPasalis/status/1906408130826674682

I notice the CPC, despite spending two years calling for an election, have no backgrounders for their election proposals. So here is my comment on their latest cap gains proposal: it is really stupid. Want more details? Release a backgrounder

— Dr Lindsay Tedds (@lindsaytedds.bsky.social) 2025-03-30T17:39:44.686Z

Jagmeet Singh was in Port Moody, BC, and promised to have CMHC offer low-cost loans to first-time home buyers, yet another demand-side solution to a supply-side problem. Singh is campaigning in Victoria today, before heading to Edmonton.

Meanwhile, the Paul Chiang controversy continues to simmer as the Liberals refuse to turf him, in spite of the fact that there can be no justification for the kind of behaviour he exhibited in instructing people to turn over his would-be Conservative rival to Chinese authorities for a bounty. (That would-be rival is now the Conservative candidate in nearby Don Valley North). That Chiang himself has not resigned is as much of a problem. The cut-off for nominations has not been reached yet, and they could still find a replacement in time (though not much time) rather than continue to let this complete lapse in political judgment continue to haunt them throughout the campaign. Carney is not Teflon, and the Liberals shouldn’t treat him as such.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones attacked Kharkiv for a second night in a row, injuring two and damaging a kindergarten and private houses.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Security clearances back in the spotlight

Posted on by

Day three of the campaign, and Mark Carney remained in Halifax, where he had an announcement at the Irving Shipyard about his plans to continue recapitalizing the Royal Canadian Navy, and pledged to fill all 14,500 vacancies in the Canadian Forces expeditiously (and good luck with that). He also promised to expand the mandate of the Canadian Coast Guard, and that’s a lot of expensive promises for someone who wants to balance the “operating budget” and still give a tax cut. Over the course of the day, Carney also mispronounced the name of one of his “star” candidates in Montreal, and misidentified the École Polytechnique as Concordia (where another shooting did happen), which she forgave him for, but these are more rookie mistakes creeping in. Up next on the tour will be Windsor, Ontario, then London and Kitchener.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1904280770199347527

Pierre Poilievre was in the GTA and promised to expand his proposed GST cut on new homes to now cover all new homes under $1.3 million—a pledge that has both upsides and downsides. There was also a bit of a gaffe with the sign on the lectern, where it looked like two separate verb-the-noun slogans of “Axe the Sales!” and “Tax on Homes.” That wasn’t the case, but someone should have caught that. He also insisted that people wouldn’t lose their federal dental or pharamacare coverage, but was unclear on just who would be covered under his government (and I have a hard time believing that given the scale of cuts that need to happen to fund his promises). He then headed to Hamilton in the evening for another rally.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1904565775353987257

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1904565818949538241

As for Jagmeet Singh, he was in Hamilton and mostly complained about Brookfield being capitalists as a way to talk down Mark Carney, and somehow that was supposed to tie into affordable housing, but I couldn’t see anything actually being announced. He did boast about union endorsements, but did admit that the party is facing challenges (as their poll numbers continue to plummet), but insist he’s still in the fight. Today he’s still in Hamilton for his announcement (trying to save the seats there, no doubt) before heading to London, Ontario.

The big story of the day, however, was the revelation in the Globe and Mail that CSIS did allege that India organised support for Poilievre’s leadership campaign (not that he really needed it), but also that they couldn’t brief him on this because he refuses to get his security clearance. Poilievre insisted this was a partisan smear, spun a conspiracy theory about a trip Carney took to Beijing after he was made the Liberal economic advisor, before returning to the falsehood that getting his clearance would be a “gag order,” and seemed wholly unaware that the bigger issue for him to be briefed on was who in his party may be compromised so that he, as party leader, can deal with the matters internally. This having been said, there are questions about the timing of this leak, but we can’t be sure that this was someone trying to put their thumb on the scales in the election when it’s very possible that the Globe sat on this for a while with the intention of dropping it during the campaign so that they can be seen to be setting the agenda, and not the parties. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time a media outlet has done that.

Indeed. Looks like an attempt to influence the election. (First leaks make it seem like an attempt to get Trudeau booted.) I have very little time for this type of politicking from an intelligence insider. Anti-democratic. This is "thumb on the scale" bullshit.

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-03-25T11:47:00.103Z

I am on TeamIgnorantCritic: that PP just does not want the responsibility of knowing stuff–he'd rather spew whatever bs he wants. I don't think he had the foresight to anticipate this foreign election interference stuff.

— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman.bsky.social) 2025-03-25T18:18:01.580Z

Comes with the territory when you cover #cdnpoli for a living.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-03-26T01:37:45.877Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched 139 drones and missiles at Ukrainian targets overnight Monday, with damage and injuries in the Poltava region. A partial truce on energy and sea attacks was reached with American help, though the Americans are looking to ease sanctions on Russian fertilizer (which only helps their war effort, guys). President Zelenskyy warns, however, that Russia is already trying to manipulate and distort those accords, not that this should be a surprise.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Election 2025, Day One

Posted on by

Around noon on Sunday, prime minister Mark Carney visited Rideau Hall and advised the Governor General to dissolve Parliament for an election. She agreed, signed the proclamation, and the 45th general election was underway. The election will be held on April 28th, making it a short five-week campaign.

Message from the Office of the Speaker of the House of Commons:

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-03-23T18:16:45.323Z

Remember: Writs are drawn-up. 343 of them, in fact—one for every riding, because a general election is 343 separate but simultaneous elections, not a single event. Nothing gets "dropped," and certainly not a singular writ.No, it's not a "turn of phrase," and no, it's not allowed. #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-03-23T17:38:11.308Z

Mark Carney spoke afterward, and immediately promised a “Middle Class™ tax cut,” because clearly what’s needed in a time of economic uncertainty, and when we need to ramp up our defence spending and response to the economic predations of Trump, is a tax cut that will disproportionately benefit top income earners. Carney then headed to St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, for his first campaign stop.

Sigh. Is it possible for everyone to remember that Cutting the lowest tax rate means 1. all tax credits are now worth less 2. And high earners benefit much more from the rate cut than anyone else. Don’t make me break out SPSD/M

— Dr Lindsay Tedds (@lindsaytedds.bsky.social) 2025-03-23T18:37:33.520Z

Pierre Poilievre got his message out early, and he took a couple of mild jabs at Trump, before doubling down on his usual nonsense about “open border” creating crime (which is completely false), and insisted that his campaign offers hope and change, and insisted that they will “restore” the promise of the country. He then headed off to Toronto for a “Canada First™” rally.

Jagmeet Singh accused the Liberals of letting the country “rot from the inside,” and that he’s about people and not billionaires. (All tens of them in Canada?) From his initial Ottawa launch, he then headed to Montreal for his first stop.

And the Green co-leaders Elizabeth May and Jonathan Pedneault called for unity during the election in order to stand up to Trump and the global oligarchs that are seeking to destroy democracy.

In the background of all of this was an interview that Danielle Smith gave to Breitbart News in the US, where she claims that she told members of the Trump administration to hold off on tariffs in order to help get Poilievre elected, because he would be more in sync with them. This is pretty shocking, if she is indeed telling the truth and not just giving some kind of boast to make herself look good for the Breitbart crowd. Poilievre insists that Trump wants Carney to win because he’ll be a pushover, and I mean, come on. Carney gave his usual points about needing respect from Trump before they’ll talk. Nevertheless, the fact that we have premiers freelancing foreign policy like this is a Very Bad Thing and they need to be reined in.

In sync with authoritarianism?Yes. Yes he would be.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-03-23T01:52:45.612Z

 

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched 147 drones at several cities across Ukraine overnight Sunday, and killed at least seven. On Saturday, Russian shelling killed three in Pokrovsk. The blaze at Russia’s Krasnodar oil depot has been burning for over five days now.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1903740311689363767

Continue reading →

Roundup: Starmer sputters instead of speaking up

Posted on by

UK prime minister Keir Starmer visited the White House yesterday, and a couple of bizarre scenes erupted. One was that he presented an invitation from King Charles for Trump to make a second state visit to the UK, which way too many people took as a personal invitation rather than one at the behest of the government—because the King does not act unilaterally, and does not make state visit invitations on his own. Later, when Starmer was asked about the annexation threats, Stamer didn’t stand up for Canada, but sputtered about there being no divisions before Trump cut him off with a sharp “That’s enough.” And worse, when Starmer was asked by a journalist if the King had anything to say about the annexation threats, Starmer said that he can’t say what the King’s opinions are and that he’ll let them be known in his own way.

*seethes*

On the one hand, Starmer is sucking up to Trump to avoid being tariffed, which probably won’t work, but I get his self-interest here, but it’s nevertheless a sign of the shifting global order and a sense of who our allies really are. (Thus far, only Germany has expressly said that they have Canada’s back). On the other hand, the fact that reporters are trying to drag the King into this is wildly inappropriate, and I’m not sure whether that’s because American journalists cannot grasp what a constitutional monarchy is (seriously, it makes their brains melt), but the fact that so many people in this country who should know how constitutional monarchy works because we are one, are rising to take the bait and are raging about how the King is supposedly “betraying” us is really disheartening because it’s a reflection of just how poor our civics education is, and how ignorant our own media are about how the very basic rules of our system of government operate.

The King does not freelance, he does not say things without advice, and his governments do not drag him into their fights because the first rule of constitutional monarchy is that you DO NOT involve the King. Starmer should have given a better answer in both cases, and Canadians following along shouldn’t take the bait.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians launched air attacks on energy sites in the Kharkiv region. Ukraine’s top army commander visited sites on the front lines in eastern Donetsk region.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1895048627690656241

Continue reading →

Roundup: The threat of annexation is serious

Posted on by

Well, things got real again today, as Justin Trudeau told the audience at his Canada-US Economic Summit that Trump isn’t joking around with his talk of annexation, and that part of the reason why is access to our critical minerals. Trudeau apparently also talked about the need to mend fences with Mexico as well, which was apparently an oblique shot at Doug Ford, who has been trying to throw them under the bus rather than working with them to counter Trump. (Ford, meanwhile, disparaged the whole summit while on the campaign trail, because apparently, it’s stealing his thunder). There was also talk at the summit about pipelines, nuclear energy (and conservative shills who claim Trudeau is anti-nuclear are straight-up lying), and removing some of the federal-situated trade barriers around financial services regulations and procurement.

As the day went on, more details came out about those two calls that Trudeau had with Trump on Monday about the tariffs and the “reprieve” that was granted. Comments included that Trump was musing about breaking a 1908 boundary treaty, was dismissive of our contributions to NORAD, and listed off a litany of complaints. (Because “it’s all about fentanyl,” right?) It was also on this call that Trudeau apparently deduced that Trump hadn’t been briefed on the $1.3 billion border plan, but maybe that’s what you get when Trump refuses your calls for weeks while he plays gangster. (And he was also refusing the Mexican president’s calls as well, so this was not a Trudeau-specific snub).

So this is where things are at—the stakes are higher than we may want to admit (and certainly the head of the Canadian American Business Council doesn’t want to admit it and still believes this is just an offensive joke), but maybe this existential threat will help shake off the normalcy bias that has perpetuated a certain status quo. Nevertheless, the political landscape is shifting drastically right now, and it’s going to make for a very different election campaign than what everyone was counting on.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian guided bomb attack on Sumy region in the northeast killed three. Russians claim to have taken the settlement of Toretsk, but the Ukrainian brigade in the outskirts says they haven’t moved. International nuclear monitors are concerned that the number of attacks on the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant have increased.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Carney’s boneheaded “green incentives”

Posted on by

Liberal leadership hopeful Mark Carney revealed his plan to replace the consumer carbon levy yesterday, and it’s a handwavey bunch of “green incentives” for things like improving your home insulation, furnace, appliances, or buying an electric vehicle. This would be offset by maintaining or increasing the industrial carbon pricing system, along with carbon border adjustments. Carney claimed that the current system isn’t working, which is false, because emissions have been driven down, and then shrugs and says it’s “too divisive,” which is the Liberals’ own gods damned faults for being such incompetent communicators about how the levy works, the rebates (remember when they thought that calling them “climate action incentives” was a genius idea?), and how reducing one’s own carbon footprint maximises those rebates. The government was absolutely incapable of communicating any of it, and Pierre Poilievre swooped in and filled the space with lies and disinformation.

This is so unbelievably stupid. "Green incentives?" I live in an apartment. I can't change the insulation or heating system. Instead, with the rebate from the carbon levy, I get cash, which is a pretty nice incentive given that I don't have a car or do much that I need to pay the carbon levy for.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-01-31T15:13:28.930Z

This is just about as moronic as Erin O'Toole's "airmiles for carbon" plan, where you would get more rewards the more you pollute, and those of us who are already living low-carbon lifestyles get nothing. The carbon levy was fine if the Liberals could actually properly defend it.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-01-31T15:13:28.931Z

I find Carney’s plan absolutely infuriating for a number of reasons. One of them is that this imparts a false narrative that carbon emissions reductions can happen for free for consumers. Even if there is no consumer-facing price, industrial emitters will pass along costs, and people won’t get a rebate for those higher costs, which hurts lower-income households harder. Everyone fawning over Carney’s economic credentials should be smacking themselves upside the head because of this fiction he is trying to perpetrate and just how economically illiterate it actually is.

Meanwhile, how much of an “incentive” can it really be for one-time purchases? You can only really re-insulate your house once, or buy a new furnace once every twenty years. There is no price disincentive to increased carbon use, and there is no ongoing reward for a low-carbon lifestyle, which the rebates provide. Again, very few people actually understand this because the government steadfastly refused to actually communicate how the levy and rebates actually work, how to maximise them, and how it rewards ongoing low-carbon behaviour. They hoped that legacy media and would communicate that (they absolutely will not), and it was basically up to five economists on Twitter, which is useless to ninety-five percent of the population. So now the people who have done the work to reduce their carbon footprint will now be punished, and people will take advantage of those one-time purchases for what? The pat on the back that they can give themselves? Everyone involved here needs to take a long, hard look at some of their life choices, but then again, if they had any modicum of self-reflection, they likely wouldn’t be in politics. What an absolute disaster.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones injured four in Odessa, damaging a hospital and grain warehouse, while a missile attack seriously damaged a historic centre in the same city. Russian forces are also tightening their approach to Pokrovsk, which is a key logistics hub in the region. Ukrainian forces destroyed a Russian command post in the Kursk region, and are also reporting that they haven’t seen any North Korean troops in the area for three weeks. Ukrainian drones also damaged an oil refinery in Russia’s Volgograd region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Freeland’s smaller Cabinet promise

Posted on by

Chrystia Freeland released another policy statement/promise yesterday which says that she will cut the size of Cabinet and the PMO in half—both to make Cabinet more efficient, and to give ministers more control over their files, rather than PMO dictating everything for them. While on the one hand, every incoming prime minister has promised to cut the size of Cabinet and then it starts to grow over time, I also suspect this is a bit of a screw you to Katie Telford, who runs Trudeau’s PMO, and who selects the chief of staff for all ministers with her own loyalists, and who has been a bottleneck for so much of this government’s business as it flows through her office. Caucus has been calling on Trudeau to get rid of Telford for a while now, correctly identifying her as the source of some of their problems (including the fact that she is in the caucus room taking notes, which was never the case under previous leaders), and Freeland appears to be heeding those concerns as endorsements pile up (mostly for Carney).

I do think it’s a fairly bold plan, and it reminds me of Trudeau’s initial attempt to have a “government by Cabinet” in the early days, but all ministers are not created equal, and gradually PMO started to exert more control for many of those ministers who were having trouble managing their files. It also looks like Freeland would be reverting to an older model of having the hard cap of twenty ministers, while additional responsibilities would be filled by ministers of state, which is also essentially how the UK operates, where there is a hard cap on Cabinet, but there are numerous junior ministers. Trudeau did away with this and made everyone a full minister as part of the gender parity promise, given that it would be likely that there would be an imbalance between how many women were in senior versus junior portfolios, and by making everyone a full minister, they also got a full minister’s salary. It seems clear in Freeland’s promise that she feels this was bloating Cabinet, particularly as Trudeau made it the practice that all appointments and Orders in Council needed to be presented to the full Cabinet, which took up a lot of time and focus. Does that mean that a lot will change if junior positions are restored? I guess it will depend on her leadership style if she’s successful, but it is an interesting signal nevertheless.

I will also note that Freeland has been consistently putting out these kinds of statements, unlike Carney. Meanwhile, Ruby Dhalla is turning out to be a clown show of braggadocious claims that the online right is amplifying.

Ukraine Dispatch

The Russians claim to have taken control of Novoielyzavetivka in the Donetsk region, near Pokrovsk. An overnight Ukrainian drone attack hit an oil pumping station and a missile storage facility, while a drone attack has hit Russia’s fourth-largest oil refinery in Kstovo. Ukraine’s corruption watchdog has opened an investigation into the defence minister over a procurement dispute.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1884525942229364847

Continue reading →

Roundup: Foreign interference commission final report released

Posted on by

Justice Marie-Josée Hogue released the final report of the Foreign Interference public inquiry yesterday, and there really weren’t too many surprises involved. While there have been attempts at foreign interference, it hasn’t affected the outcomes of any elections, and that our institutions have held up rather well—though not perfectly. Government has been too slow to respond in many cases, and we don’t have enough transparency around national security issues, nor is there a culture of national security in government to make these issues a priority. There has been progress, but we’re not there yet. In many respects, this report proves that David Johnston’s report was right, and we’ve spent a year-and-a-half duplicating efforts because opposition party leaders decided it was more fun to smear Johnston than take him seriously.

One of the most significant aspects was a repudiation of the NSICOP report that claimed there were parliamentarians that were somehow compromised, and Hogue went through how the intelligence didn’t actually say that, and how NSICOP’s characterisation torqued what had been alleged—and frankly, much of the news reporting torqued further because they didn’t bother to read the context in that report. Hogue also noted that much of the reporting that drove this moral panic and the subsequent inquiry was wrong, though she didn’t necessarily blame the journalists because they only had so much to go on. (Nevertheless, this should be a warning about just how absolutely credulous some of those reporters have been on this file since the beginning, and why they failed to adequately question the motives of those doing the leaking).

Two cents: The Chair of NSICOP should have been far more willing to explain what message the committee's report was meant to convey last summer.NSICOP reports have exaggerated things in the past. Hopefully, the next chair takes a more measured approach.

— Philippe Lagassé (@plagasse.bsky.social) 2025-01-28T17:55:57.033Z

Hogue's call for greater transparency in the national security space is key, too. That should be a key priority for whichever party is in government after the next election.

— Philippe Lagassé (@plagasse.bsky.social) 2025-01-28T18:02:26.554Z

Probably a good thing that the pressure to 'name names' wasn't followed through on, eh? We could have outright destroyed innocent people with potentially empty innuendo.

— Emmett Macfarlane (@emmettmacfarlane.com) 2025-01-28T17:38:06.873Z

A couple of other notables—Hogue noted that transnational repression is probably a bigger threat, but her mandate didn’t give her the latitude to explore that, so that remains a big flag for this or the next government to address. Even more to the point, she flagged disinformation as the most existential threat to our democracy, and called for a dedicated federal watchdog to monitor and intercept foreign meddling that uses social media platforms and “AI” tools like deep-fakes. She also recommended developing digital and media literacy among Canadians, which feels a bit like a “perfect world” wish, or at least something that we may be able to impart onto the next generation but I worry that the current one may be lost in that regard.

For more, here’s a thread from Stephanie Carvin who went through the report:

For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, here is the summary

— Stephanie Carvin (@stephaniecarvin.bsky.social) 2025-01-29T00:25:45.506Z

In the wake of this, Pierre Poilievre has let it be known that he’s not going to take that CSIS threat reduction briefing after all, because he can’t talk about what it says, so he is once again relying on the false notion that this, or any other security clearance, is somehow going to “gag” him. It won’t, but it would mean he has to be responsible with his commentary, which he does not want to do. He wants to be bombastic, and to lie at every opportunity, and so he will keep refusing a clearance or briefings, because he only cares about “owning the Libs,” not national security or the good of the country.

Because he's a self-interested venomous partisan who wants maximum freedom to be act like a weasel. I'm not sure why some Liberal partisans decided there was anything more nefarious than that at play.

— Emmett Macfarlane (@emmettmacfarlane.com) 2025-01-28T19:12:35.197Z

exactly so.Phil and I found in our work that the average MP would rather speak ignorantly than know more and then have to be somewhat responsible.PP is the extreme version of this–rather be a bomb thrower than have any responsibility.

— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman.bsky.social) 2025-01-28T19:23:04.269Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Overnight Russian air attacks wounded eight and damaged residential buildings around Ukraine on Monday night. Ukrainian drones are targeting power and oil facilities in the west and northwestern regions of Russia.

Continue reading →