Tag Archives: Gun Control

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.”

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1968289157341647326

Continue reading →

Roundup: Undue back-patting for Poilievre

Posted on by

It really should not have been a surprise to anyone that Pierre Poilievre won the by-election in Battle River—Crowfoot by around 80 percent, which is why he chose that riding after all. But that won’t but an end to the back-patting about the “hard work” he put in, and so on. What I find particularly odd is this narrative that has emerged, from Jason Kenney and others, about how this somehow proved that Poilievre stuck it to the so-called “separatist” movement in the province, and exposed them for the empty shell that they are. Because I don’t see him having done that at all.

https://twitter.com/jkenney/status/1957815691299713180

This was a federal by-election and there was no real “separatist” presence, particularly when the ballot question in the riding was whether Poilievre deserved a second chance after he was defeated in his own riding. There was no actual separatist narrative being advanced, and even if there was, Poilievre basically said that they have “legitimate grievances,” which is not exactly a rousing condemnation. More to the point, those separatists are focused on the provincial level, because they know that they can wedge Danielle Smith internally within the UCP, because these are the same face-eating leopards that Jason Kenney invited into the party while he kicked out the centrist normies (and those leopards subsequently ate his face). Smith is the one giving these losers oxygen, especially as she has tried to do everything she can to ensure that they get the referendum that they’re looking for, so that she can play it to her advantage in trying to leverage concessions from the federal government. It’s going to blow up in her face eventually, but this has nothing to do with Poilievre and everything to do with Smith, so giving Poilievre any credit here is grasping.

As for Poilievre’s return to Ottawa, could legacy media be less credulous about his supposed change in tone, or his bullshit about how he’ll work with the government on “non-partisan solutions,” which in his mind is the obliteration of environmental legislation, and the other bullshit in his so-called “Canadian Sovereignty Act.” He has explicitly stated this outright. Stop pretending he’s going to act “prime ministerial” or “statesmanlike,” because he is completely incapable, nor is he willing because that doesn’t get him clicks on social media/funds in the party’s coffers.

Ukraine Dispatch

Within hours of the “peace” talks in Washington, Russia launched their biggest overnight attack of the month, with 270 drones and ten missiles, striking energy facilities in Kremenchuk and Chernihiv. But hey, they’re going to draw up options for “security guarantees” that Russia won’t agree to, because their goal is the elimination of Ukraine. (Why are we pretending otherwise?)

Continue reading →

Roundup: Going to war over the EV mandate

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre called a press conference yesterday in rural Saskatchewan to declare that he’s going to war with the government over the EV mandate, during which he said that he’s going to call it a “Carney tax” (for the nonsense reason that manufacturers that don’t meet their targets can face penalties), and he lied entirely about what the mandate does, right up to claiming that this is about killing rural and small-town life in Canada. It’s not only unhinged, but entirely indicative of the fact that Poilievre hasn’t learned a single gods damned lesson about why he lost the last election. These kinds of stunts for the sake of the attention economy aren’t exactly showing him to be credible about, well, anything.

He also once again demanded that the prime minister cancel the loan to BC Ferries for the ships they plan to get from China, because of the canola tariffs, which again, is not how this works. The prime minister can’t tell the Infrastructure Bank what they can and can’t do, because it was set up to ensure that it wasn’t ministers directing their investments. That’s the whole point of making it an arm’s-length agency. (And also, once again, no Canadian shipyards bid on this contract).

But Poilievre also decided to blame Carney for China’s bullying tactics, saying that they smell weakness. Erm, China bullies regardless. That’s why we shouldn’t be giving into their pressure tactics, because it’ll embolden them to do more again, and to do other things, like kidnapping more Canadians, and engaging in hostage diplomacy. Again, did Poilievre pay absolutely no attention for the past decade? Or is this yet more elaborate performance art for the sake of getting clicks on his social media, in the hopes that those clicks turn into gullible people opening up their wallets to him. The answer, of course, is the latter.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-08-14T14:08:08.062Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian forces say that they have stabilised their eastern front after that brief breakthrough by Russians earlier in the week. The latest prisoner swap with Russia returned 84 Ukrainians, many of them civilians.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More proof the carbon levy didn’t raise food prices

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre is at it again, railing about food price inflation, but lo, he can no longer blame it on the carbon levy because that was never actually the problem or the cause of food price inflation, but he certainly vilified it, and Mark Carney capitulated and allowed Poilievre’s vilification to work. Poilievre is now blaming government spending on food price inflation, which is hilariously wrong, but Carney has also capitulated to that as well and is ushering in a new wave of austerity, because why actually explain things when you can just surrender to the bullshit?

Meanwhile, here’s Andrew Leach walking you through why it wasn’t the carbon levy and never was the carbon levy.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians broke through the front lines near Dobropillia, but were quickly contained (but it’s a poor narrative for the upcoming Trump-Putin talks). Ukraine has also been regaining territory in Sumy region. President Zelenskyy says that Russia wants the remaining 30 percent of Donetsk region for a ceasefire, which they won’t give him.

Continue reading →