Tag Archives: Gun Control

Roundup: Sandboxing powers?

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ukraine Dispatch

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

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to jam the Liberals on the MOU

Posted on by
Reply

Because Pierre Poilievre thinks he’s a tactical genius, he has announced that next week’s Conservative Supply Day motion will be about the MOU with Alberta, and forcing a vote on the language about a pipeline to the Pacific, in defiance of the tanker ban.

It’s a transparent attempt to try and jam the Liberals, at least rhetorically, into supporting the motion in order to show support for the MOU, after which Poilievre can keep saying “You supported it!” and “Give me the date when construction starts,” as though there’s a proponent, a project and a route already lined up (to say nothing about the long-term contracts about who is going to buy the product once it’s built, because yes, that does matter). The thing is, these kinds of motions are non-binding, and really means nothing in the end. So if a number of Liberals vote against it, it doesn’t actually mean anything, other than the rhetorical notion that lo, they are not fully in lock-step on something, which actually sets them apart from pretty much every other party where uniformity and loyalty to the leader and all of his positions are constantly being enforced in one way or another. Maybe he will tolerate differences of opinion—or maybe he’ll crack the whip. We’ll see when Tuesday gets here.

Ukraine Dispatch

The International Atomic Agency says the protective shield around Chornobyl has been damaged by Russian strikes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Dabrusin does damage control

Posted on by
Reply

There is some damage control happening, as environment minister Julie Dabrusin is making the rounds on the weekend political talk shows to insist that the MOU with Alberta is not abandoning climate action, and that the clean electricity regulations, for example, are not being carved out, but given more flexibility for each province to come up with equivalency plans. That might be more believable if Danielle Smith wasn’t doing a victory lap claiming that it was being scrapped (after she lied about what it entailed for the past several years).

Meanwhile, I have to question the editor who let this particular CBC headline run over the weekend: “Do activists have a role in government? Steven Guilbeault’s resignation raises questions.” Seriously? Activism is the lifeblood of politics, and that includes roles within government (meaning Cabinet). We don’t live in a technocratic state where bureaucrats are governing and making policy decisions. Activism is what gets people involved, precisely because they have issues that they care about and want to make change. That’s part and parcel of the system.

What this winds up doing is trying to paint Guilbeault as some kind of zealot unable to make compromises, which is again, something that is not borne out by the facts. Guilbeault ran for the Liberals federally after the Trans Mountain decision. He was very much seen as a pragmatist within the environmental movement. The piece mentions that he was first given the heritage portfolio and wasn’t immediately slotted into environment, but that was also something Trudeau started doing more broadly, to give someone somewhere to get their training wheels on and learn how to deal with how government works before giving them the portfolio from their previous career, because it didn’t always go well from his first Cabinet when he tried to simply slot subject-matter expertise into Cabinet roles where they may wind up being captured, or simply not suited in spite of all appearances (*cough*Jody Wilson-Raybould*cough*). The whole piece is just poorly conceived and written, and someone should have exercised more editorial oversight.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched nearly 600 drones and 36 missiles at Ukraine overnight Saturday, killing six and wounding dozens, while knocking out electricity to much of Kyiv. Ukrainian naval drones struck two Russian tankers as part of their “shadow fleet” used to evade sanctions. Reuters tracked a cohort of 18-24-year-olds fighting in Ukraine; none of them are fighting any longer.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1995035870307483725

Continue reading →

Roundup: Confusion over who authored the “peace plan”

Posted on by

It has been a crazy weekend when it comes to making heads of tails of what is happening with the so-called “28-point peace plan” between Russia and Ukraine. A bunch of US legislators at the Halifax Security Conference were insisting that they were told that the plan was the starting point of negotiations, that the deadline of Thursday was to start talks, and that this was all a big misunderstanding. You had other reports saying that people were saying that this was the Russian plan that was just for discussion purposes. Then you had reports saying that no, the White House said that this is the plan, leaving everyone in the dark as to just what the hell was going on.

What the actual fuck is going on.America put forward a nearly carbon copy version of the Russian plan for Ukrainian conquest, admitted it and backtracked, then doubles down.

— Justin Ling (@justinling.ca) 2025-11-23T02:54:54.829Z

As this was happening, world leaders, including Canada, were treating this as if it’s a starting off point that “needs work” as opposed to being a betrayal of Ukraine and that it should be killed with fire, because nobody wants to make Trump too angry, because they rely too much on the Americans for too many things still (though Ukrainians have pointed out that it’s no longer 2023, and they are much more self-reliant). European leaders did come out with their own suggested 28 pointswhich are far more fair to Ukraine, but seem to be willing to let Russia continue to occupy territory it has gained by force (unless I’m misreading it), and still doesn’t call for much in the way of penalties other than to pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine.

PMO readout of Carney's call with Zelenskyy. Maintaining the façade that the "peace plan" is a good start (when it is in fact a betrayal).

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-23T20:07:37.708Z

Meanwhile, Anne Applebaum savages the plan as not being anything more than a starting off point for a larger future war, while the only beneficiaries are some unnamed Russian and American investors, because this is what Trump is really all about. Paul Wells laments the “don’t wake Trump” tactic that those world leaders are using, because it rewards how much of a betrayal it is, and soft-pedals the fact that it invites future wars of aggression.

G20 Outcomes

There were a number of things coming out of the G20 summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, and it leave a whole lot of questions about prime minister Mark Carney and his values and priorities. Carney had plenty of praise for his hosts, and talking about the G20 being a bridge following the rupture of the US withdrawing from its role with global institutions, and that he has no “burning issue” to talk with Trump at the moment, and they’ll talk when they’re ready to. This being said, Carney also declared that the government’s “feminist foreign policy” was effectively dead, in spite of it being about the best way to achieve outcomes and at a time when the US is doing things like calling reproductive rights and gender equity “human rights violations” (no, seriously). Carney announced a joint technology partnership with India and Australia, and that talks were being revied about a comprehensive trade agreement with India, in spite of their foreign interference in Canada and trans-national repression (that their High Commissioner insists is all a delusion).

https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3m6dt3iyjjc2i

So, nothing on trans-national repression or India's foreign interference.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-11-23T22:26:23.696Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Four people were killed in a drone attack on Kharkiv on Sunday. The death toll from last week’s missile strike on Ternopil is now up to 34. Ukraine has struck power and heat stations in the Moscow region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A 28-point capitulation plan

Posted on by

Things are heating up for Ukraine now that Trump has presented his so-called 28-point “peace plan,” which is nothing of the sort, and he’s giving president Volodymyr Zelenskyy one week to agree to it, or he is threatening to withdraw American support, even though that support has been mercurial and dwindling for the past year. Nevertheless, they have some key defensive technologies that Ukraine relies upon, particularly for air defences. But in no way is this plan at all acceptable, and is little more than a demand for Ukraine to capitulate, and to pay America for the privilege because Trump is a gangster running a protection racket.

This is what a protection racket looks like, although they are rarely put in writing

— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman.bsky.social) 2025-11-21T17:56:08.496Z

The “plan” (full text here) proposes that Ukraine turn over remaining areas in the regions Putin has been unable to conquer after four years, which are essentially a fortress belt. Turning those over, plus reducing the size of Ukraine’s army, is essentially an invitation for Putin to come back and invade with nothing to stop him the next time. The “deal” wants Ukraine to forgo NATO membership, which essentially gives Putin a veto over NATO. It wants Ukraine to pay the US for security guarantees, but no agreement with Trump is worth the paper it’s written on. It wants Ukraine to abandon any attempt to hold Russia accountable for its actions, including mass torture and crimes against humanity. And it wants Russia’s frozen assets returned. So Russia gives up nothing, and it positions itself to fully conquer Ukraine in a few months or a year, when Trump gets bored, and then creates an existential threat for the rest of Europe given that Putin will have gotten rid of the biggest obstacle to his expansionary plans.

Zelenskyy says he will work earnestly with the Americans on this, but that he won’t betray Ukraine’s interests, which pretty much means that he can’t accept these terms. European leaders say that they’re standing behind Ukraine, because they know the danger. But some of the reporting in Canada is abysmal, treating the plan like it’s serious when getting defence minister David McGuinty to comment on it. At least he says that any plan has to be “acceptable,” but this plan clearly is not, so I’m not sure why anyone is bothering to ask if he supports it because there is no way he could or should. This “plan” merely confirms that there is no point in relying on the US any longer, which means that Europe and Canada need to step up right now, and give Ukraine all of the support possible right now because anything less is a disaster for the future of western democracies.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-11-21T14:24:03.043Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims it has taken a string of four settlements in the Donetsk region, which Ukraine denies. They also claim that 5000 Ukrainian troops are trapped in the Kharkiv region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions about the “energy accord” with Alberta

Posted on by

The news broke early yesterday that Alberta and the federal government are getting close to striking an “energy accord” of some variety with a memorandum of understanding that could allow for a bitumen pipeline to the northwest coast of BC with “limited exemptions” to the tanker ban so long as conditions are met, including changes to industrial carbon pricing, carbon capture, and lowering or eliminating the emissions cap. There were also Sources™ who said that it would require a private sector proponent, buy-in from coastal First Nations, and environmental approvals, which could mean it won’t happen at all.

As the day went on and other outlets started to get their own sources to confirm the story, differing details emerged. While Tim Hodgson said in Question Period that the BC government would need to be on-side, his office later said that no, they’re not getting a veto as part of the MOU. And then there are the Liberals themselves, many of whom are deeply opposed and will point out that ending the tanker ban will risk billions in ongoing projects from First Nations in the region. And those First Nations are not going to give consent, which would seem to make this whole thing moot anyway, unless the plan is ultimately to run roughshod over their rights yet again.

So, while we await the details, where the devil will lie, I am once again going to point out that we shouldn’t count on any kind of “grand bargain” with the oil companies or Alberta as a condition because they won’t live up to it. They have proven time and again that they won’t, or that they will lie to claim that they will do all kinds of things to reduce their emissions and to decarbonise when they actually have no intention of doing so. Meanwhile, the market may ultimately prove to be the veto here, because it’s no longer the world from before 2014, and nothing the federal or provincial government will do is going to change that fact.

Ukraine Dispatch

The death toll from the attack on Ternopil early Wednesday has risen to 25, with more than 73 injured. The latest US “peace plan” proposal is just more of the same rehashed Russian propaganda. Ukraine also plans to seek $44 billion in damages from Russia for their carbon emissions as a result of the war.

Continue reading →

QP: What about baby formula?

Posted on by

The PM was away in Abu Dhabi, while the other leaders and their fired-up caucuses were raring to go. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, where he claimed that the deficit in the budget is the highest outside of COVID (not true) and worried about people having to pay for it. Mélanie Joly supposed that Poilievre had not read the budget, or that he’s operating in bad faith in opposing the necessary investments. Poilievre then lamented that Carney is off on yet another trip, which have not resulted in any reduced tariffs. Joly retorted that the only one hiding under a rock is Poilievre when he has to face his focus, and that he apparently wants us to remain dependent on the American market. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question on the size of the deficit, and Patty Hajdu lambasted the Conservatives voting against the Canadians that they claim to care about. Poilievre repeated his same condemnation of Carney’s travels, and this time Maninder Sidhu said that Poilievre has been in the House for nearly twenty years with nothing to show for it, before he listed off new trade agreements they have been working on. Poilievre then pivoted to pipelines, gave some revisionist history about Northern Gateway and demanding a new pipeline to the Pacific. Tim Hodgson reads that there are productive discussions underway with premiers. Poilievre demanded the tanker ban on the BC Northwest coast be lifted, and MacKinnon taunted that the Liberals got a pipeline to tidewater built when the Conservatives couldn’t.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and raised cultural investments in the budget, and said that it could have been more if they still had the Digital Services Tax, so that web giants could pay for it. Steven Guilbeault corrected to a higher investment figure, which the Bloc voted against. Blanchet then worried about the lack of funding for private broadcasters, to which Guilbeault continued to list funding in the budget that the Bloc voted against, but didn’t really answer the question. Blanchet accused the government of not understanding the crisis for private broadcasters in Quebec, to which Guilbeault encouraged him to read the CBC/Radio-Canada annual plans for expanding in Quebec. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Playing chicken with the budget vote

Posted on by

The vote on the Ways and Means motion around the federal budget will be held early this evening, at the collapse of debate, and as of yet, nobody is willing to say just how it’s going to pass. And rest assured, it will pass, because nobody wants an election, and the NDP in particular have no way of affording going to an election (with an interim leader, no less), but absolutely nobody wants to actually look like they’re going to back down when they can swing their dicks around instead.

And so, we’re now in a game of chicken. The Government Whip says they’re ready to go to an election on this budget if they have to, but it’s an empty threat because nobody actually wants to go to an election. The real problem is there being a potential accident where someone isn’t supposed to vote (for the sake of the numbers) does, because everyone can vote on their phones now (which, I remind you, is a parliamentary abomination and should be stopped), and it goes over the edge. But I’m pretty sure that’s not going to happen, because again, nobody wants to go to an election, especially the Conservatives and the NDP. So, I suspect the Conservative whip is going to ensure that someone has unforeseen circumstances that they “just can’t vote,” and oh, well, the budget passed by the narrowest of margins. Oh darn.

Because we’re not going to have an election over this.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile struck the city of Balakliia in Kharkiv region, killing three and wounding at least ten. Russia claims it has taken two more settlements in the Zaporizhzhia region in the south. President Zelenskyy says he is working on another prisoner exchange with Russia.

Continue reading →

QP: Scattershot demands for an “affordable budget”

Posted on by

It was a rare PM-less Wednesday, as Mark Carney had a full day planned of meeting with industry leaders in South Korea, while back at home, the rest of the party leaders were all present and ready to go. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he lamented “ballooning” debts and deficits, tied this to food bank usage, and wanted the government to work with them on an “affordable budget.” Steven MacKinnon said that Poilievre was demanding things he couldn’t even put in his own budget, and worried they wanted a Christmas election. Poilievre said that people shouldn’t have to choose between an expensive budget or an expensive election, and then falsely tied the industrial carbon price to food price inflation. MacKinnon said that they have affordable measures like the school food programme which the Conservatives voted against. Poilievre switched to English, to falsely claim that deficits caused inflation, and demanded the government eliminate the imaginary “hidden taxes on food.” MacKinnon assured him it would be an affordable budget and wondered if Poilievre would order his “troops” to vote for it. Poilievre repeated his claim to “positive collaboration” with the falsehood about the industrial carbon price. MacKinnon jibed that Poilievre’s imaginary taxes were only matched by his imaginary friends in caucus. Poilievre concern trolled about the Food Banks Canada report and re-read the anecdote from it, and again demanded an “affordable budget.” Patty Hajdu read a competing quote from the CEO of Food Banks Canada in support of federal programmes. Poilievre claimed that these programmes only feed bureaucracies and lobbyists and that things got worse, and repeated his “affordable budget” line. Hajdu said that it was clear that Poilievre was aiming for a Christmas election rather than help for Canadians.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, even though Yves-François Blanchet had delivered a member’s statement moments before, and accused the government of preferring an election to consulting with the opposition on the budget. MacKinnon listed off members of the Bloc he’s met with, and offered to meet with her as well. Normandin listed off Bloc demands and said this was preferable to an election. MacKinnon wondered why the Bloc was trying to negotiate with non-negotiable demands. Gabriel Ste-Marie blamed the federal government for the housing crisis, and scapegoated immigrants, before demanding more unconditional transfers to Quebec. Gregor Robertson responded that they were focused on homelessness first and foremost.

Continue reading →

QP: A trillion-dollar falsehood

Posted on by

The PM was back from his trip to Washington, and every leader was present and ready to grill him on it, and the nothing he came back with. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he decried Mark Carney as a weak leader, and then falsely claimed that Carney promised one trillion dollars in investment if he gets the deal he wants, and that this money would flee Canada. The Liberals gave Carney an ovation as he stood to speak, childishly, and he said that this was an economic lesson for the opposition, saying that the two economies are closely linked, and that this is what is at stake for the U.S. if they don’t get a deal. Poilievre railed that Carney was giving the Americans a $54 billion gift, and complained about softwood lumber tariffs. Carney said that we currently have the best deal of any country and that they are still working on other gains. Poilievre switched to English to complain about the investment question and demanded action on the auto tariffs, and Carney reiterated that we already have the best deal, and that they are working on other sectors including getting a new auto agreement. Poilievre accused the government of selling out the auto sector as job losses mount, and said the government betrayed them. Carney patted himself on the back and said that they have taken measures to assist the sector. Poilievre said that Carney has had his elbows “surgically removed” and listed the lost investment and jobs, and Carney said there were three things that were true—the relationship with the Americans is not the same as it was, that we have the best deal of anyone, and that he would get an even better deal. Poilievre kept hammering away at lost jobs and investments, repeated the falsehood about the trillion dollars. Carney looked exasperated as he said that there is something called the private sector, and the rest of his response was drowned out.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he mocked Carney for only getting nice words and being contented with not calling on his face. Carney said he was happy that the President had a meeting of the minds for a deal about the steel, aluminium and energy sectors. Blanchet again demanded more action, and Carney repeated that we have the best deal available but that they are working to get more. Blanchet said that the best deal is not working for the forestry or aluminium sectors, and before he raised the fable of the fox and the crow, and the problem with flattery. Carney insisted that their team is hard at work negotiating on behalf of the aluminium sector.

Continue reading →