Tag Archives: Gun Control

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 →

Roundup: Forcing a pipeline project

Posted on by

Believing herself clever, Alberta premier Danielle Smith is trying to lay a trap for prime minister Mark Carney, but it’s a really obvious trap and Admiral Ackbar can see it from a mile off. Because she is apparently now a socialist, Smith has decided that the provincial government will take the lead on proposing a pipeline to the northern coast of BC, with the “advice” of three pipeline companies, but none of them will actually be the proponent as this goes to the Major Projects Office. Smith claims that she is trying to get around the “chicken and egg” problem of not having any interested proponents in such a pipeline, and hopes that she can get it off the ground so that a private company will take it over, but remember that it’s not 2014, and there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of market demand. (Oh, and she wants to use digital asbestos to help map the route, which is even more hilariously sad).

This is very much a dare to everyone to oppose her. BC premier David Eby has called this out as a stunt because it’s not a real project, with no real proponent, and no buyers lining up for any of the product. The Indigenous rights and title-holders in the area are not interested in the project, and are opposed to a bitumen pipeline going through their territory and off their coast, because this would also require lifting the tanker ban because Smith wants to ship bitumen through it, which is a “persistent” product unlike LNG. Carney has previously said that if the province and First Nations are opposed to the project, it won’t go ahead, but he has also given himself the power to override pretty much any objection, or the tanker ban, or any of it, if he really wants to. But a refusal is largely what Smith is counting on, so that she can once again play the victim, and blame the federal government for a lack of market interest.

In a sense, the province wasting millions of dollars on this for the sake of grievance theatre is not new. Jason Kenney sunk $1.3 billion into the dead Keystone XL project in an attempt to revive American interest in it, even going so far as to proposed to fund its construction if the proponent wouldn’t to try and challenge the Biden veto. This feels like more of the same, where she is sinking money she doesn’t have into a losing prospect in an empty gesture in order to secure her political future by playacting as the great defender of Alberta and its ossifying industry. But there are going to be epic tantrums, and she’s going to try and use the threat of separatism to try and get her way (because she thinks it worked for Quebec and doesn’t understand how much it devastated the economy in that province), and we’ll see if Carney is actually prepared to handle it, because so far, he’s telling a lot of people what they want to hear, and those messages are starting to collide.

Ukraine Dispatch

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant is now going the longest it’s been without external power for cooling reactors, increasing concern. This after Russia also attacked the area near Chornobyl, which also briefly cut its external power supply.

Continue reading →

QP: Pretending there are taxes on groceries

Posted on by

The PM was in town, back from one set of travels and before the next, while the day felt both like Monday as no one had sat for the previous two days, while the post-caucus Wednesday energy still suffused the Chamber. Pierre Poilievre led off in English for a change, and he lamented job losses across various sectors, and blamed the prime minister. Mark Carney offered his sympathies for families affected, and touted their actions to protect industries. Poilievre quoted the hyperbolic statements of the interim PBO, accusing the PM of killing jobs, to which Carney said that Poilievre was ignoring the effect of U.S. tariffs, and offered his “spend less, invest more” line. Poilievre went on a tear about the deficits, to which Carney offered a “fiscal lesson,” which consisted of our AAA credit rating and the lowest deficit in the G7. Poilievre accused Carney of being worse than Trudeau, and Carney chanted that the country is building industry, houses, the country, etc. Poilievre switched to French to once again quote the PBO, and Carney again cited our strong fiscal position in the G7. Poilievre returned to English, to return to the issue of food price inflation, blaming “taxes” on groceries. Carney cite that there’s no GST on food, there’s no carbon levy, there is no carbon price on farms, and that real wages are growing.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and accused the government of meddling in the Canada Post labour dispute, and considered it a “provocation.” Carney stated that Canada Post is an essential service and it needs to be viable, but they need to take action to stop it from losing millions of dollars. Blanchet said that if it was an essential service, why radical cuts would be made, and that workers learned about the cuts TV. Carney stated that he just became PM, and that they have needed to make changes for a long time. Blanchet accused Carney of being a conservative, and demanded “serious experts” to reform Canada Post. Carney said that the corporation and union need to come to an agreement between themselves, but that they also needed more flexibility. 

Continue reading →

QP: Happy birthday to Poilievre’s mother

Posted on by

The prime minister was once again away, off to the UK after a morning meeting with the visiting Taoiseach of Ireland (who did come by to watch QP), and most of the other leaders absented themselves as well. Pierre Poilievre, however, was still here, and he led off in French, accusing the prime minister of “fleeing scandal and crime,” and began his daily list of the public safety minister’s supposed failures. François-Philippe Champagne stated that the prime minister was travelling to build Canada, and that the opposition should congratulate him. Poilievre repeated the same again in English, and Champagne praised the budget en anglais. Poilievre said that today was his birthday and he said that she complained about grocery prices, and he demanded the government eliminate “all taxes on groceries.” Patty Hajdu wished Poilievre’s mother a happy birthday before pointing out that the voted against the school food programme. Poilievre moved onto the PBO’s latest deficit projections and wondered how anyone could be worse than Trudeau. Champagne also wished his mother a happy birthday and said that she should be happy because her taxes got cut. Poilievre praised his mother’s ability to budget and lamented the government’s deficits. Hajdu again raised the school food programme that Conservatives voted against. Poilievre returned to French to repeat the question about the PBO’s numbers, and Champagne said ghat he wouldn’t want to tell Poilievre’s mother that he voted against child care, dental care, or the school food programme. 

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she declared that Canada Post is an essential service that people needed. Joël Lightbound said that it was essential, which is why they needed to make reforms to ensure its viability, while maintaining services for seniors and people with disabilities. Normandin worried about the closure of rural post offices, and pointed to the essential nature in the remote areas. Lightbound assured her they would not abandon these communities. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau asked the same question about people who need at-home delivery and, Lightbound said that they will ensure those Canadians still have access, and that they needed to ensure the corporation would remain viable.

Continue reading →

QP: Harvesting food insecurity clips

Posted on by

The PM was freshly back from his trip to the UN General Assembly, and was stopping into the House of Commons before meeting with the President of Indonesia, who was dropping by Parliament for a visit. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he accused the government of taking money away from border officers and police for the gun buyback, and then switched to English halfway through to call for the public safety minster to be fired. Mark Carney said that they were going to do a voluntary buyback the right way. Poilievre repeated the accusation of “ripping money away” in English, and railed about hunting rifles. Carney said that he didn’t know where to begin that intervention, that Poilievre voted against gun control, and that the government was doing things the right way. Poilievre said that he voted against soft on crime policies, complained about the “broken border,” and implored the government to “leave Grandpa Joe’s hunting rifle alone.” Carney said that he doesn’t know any hunters who use AR-15s, and that the government was strengthening the border. Poilievre listed guns used by farmers to kill gophers being banned, and implored Carney to read his briefing books. Carney insisted that they providing fair compensation for illegal weapons, and that they were tightening the border. Poilievre again listed guns that are being banned, and accused the government of harassing farmer and duck hunters while gun crime rages in the streets. Carney said the RCMP gets this, and that they want these guns off the streets. Poilievre moved onto food prices, and declared Carney to have been a failure. Carney patted himself on the back for cutting taxes and cutting the carbon levy. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the NDP, and he calmly spouted absolute rot about the factum before the Supreme Court on the Quebec “secularism” law challenge. Carney cited that the Charter protects everyone, and it was the government’s responsibility to defend it. Blanchet declared that Liberal applause was an insult to Quebeckers, and Carney again praised the Charter and that it was the government’s job to defend it. Blanchet insisted that the constitution was “imposed” on Quebec (not true) and demanded that Carney withdraw the factum and apologise to Quebeckers. Carney declared that the government would not backtrack on this.

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 →

QP: Gun buyback questions, rinse and repeat

Posted on by

The PM was still in New York at the UN, with a long schedule of meetings, while back home, the Bloc had their Supply Day motion about the federal government’s factum at the Supreme Court of Canada on the Law 21 case under debate. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he offered theatrical disbelief that the government was moving ahead with the gun buyback in spite of the minister’s private comments on tape, and demanded the government sack the minister. Gary Anandasangaree praised the pilot project moving ahead in Cape Breton in English. Poilievre, still in French, was incredulous that they were still moving ahead and listed a litany of sins from the minister, real or imagined, and Anandasangaree said that public safety is not a binary, that people can turn over their guns while the governor moves ahead with “smart” criminal justice reform. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question, and Anandasangaree was incredulous in turn that “Grandpa Joe” is using an AR-15 for hunting. Poilievre ratcheted up his histrionics about the government going after the wrong guns. Sean Fraser took this one and pointed up out that when Poilievre was in government, they cut CBSA and made it easier for guns to cross the border. Poilievre took some swipes at Fraser and said the government was doing nothing about hiring more RCMP and CBSA, and Fraser pointed out that it was an election promise that people voted on. Poilievre held up a document saying the department was “breaking their own promise” on the hiring—and got chided for using a prop—and Anandasangaree said that he didn’t understand the hiring process, before saying that Poilievre should get his security clearance. 

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and decried that federal factum at the SCC, and made a bunch of ludicrous claims about it. Fraser said they have had the same stance for decades, that the government weighs in when an issue is at the SCC. Normandin kept up with her denunciation of this factum, and Steven Guilbeault responded that she was the one laying it on thick, as courts cannot change the constitution. Mario Simard took over, and invited the government to reopen the constitution, to which Fraser said they are not looking to change the constitution, merely for the Court to clarify it.

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 →

QP: Two ministers under fire

Posted on by

The PM was away on this grey and rainy Monday, off to the UN General Assembly in New York, while that meant other leaders felt they could get away with not showing up. Pierre Poilievre, however, was present, and led off in French, and he raised the story of the secretly recorded call with Gary Anandasangaree about the gun buyback. Anandasangaree said that his comments were “misguided.” Poilievre repeated the question in English, and this time, Anandasangaree talked about Canadians demanding gun control after mass shooting. Poilievre repeated phrases from the recording, and again thundered about playing politics with guns. Anandasangaree repeated his same points about the mass shootings. Poilievre said Liberals only tell the truth when they think nobody is listening, and Anandasangaree said it was a good thing it was on tape, and accused Poilievre of playing politics. Poilievre decried the entire gun buyback scheme, and this time Sean Fraser railed about Poilievre’s record in opposing gun control. Poilievre demanded the government pass their “three strikes” law instead, and Fraser pointed out their tabling the hate crimes legislation and said that more legislation is on the way.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and suggested the government was engaging in conspiracy theories with their factum to the Supreme Court. Fraser said they were working toward the national interest in protecting the constitution, and that the Supreme Court was the right forum to debate these issues. Normandin said that this should be litigated in Parliament, and Steven Guilbeault said that her assertions were misinformed, and that their factum doesn’t put forward that provinces can’t use the Notwithstanding Clause. Rhéal Fortin gave his own jab at the factum, which was similarly devoid of facts, and Guilbeault pointed to his own pride in being a Quebecker before pointing to the government’s record on supporting Quebec.

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 →