Tag Archives: Immigration

Roundup: A digital asbestos task force

Posted on by

Everyone’s favourite bullshit Cabinet minister, Evan Solomon, is putting together a task force to determine the next steps in the government’s digital asbestos strategy. While we wait to see just who is going to be on this task force, because that will say volumes, it’s almost inevitable at this point that this is mostly going to wind up being more hype, because Solomon has guzzled it all down, while prime minister Mark Carney has also bought into it as the cure for Canada’s flagging productivity and other problems (rather than the obvious fact that corporate Canada is lazy). We’ve all heard everything Solomon has said so far. I’m not optimistic at all.

It's gonna be so much more hype. We are so boned.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-24T15:21:05.227Z

I’m also extremely sceptical about Solomon insisting that they’re going to take the lessons from the Privacy Commissioner’s investigation into TikTok and its privacy violations in order to shape the new digital asbestos laws, because that would be too much intervention for what Solomon has been preaching about “light touches.” Part of the problem with the TikTok violations are that this is their business model, and while they insist that they are trying to keep children off the platform, they put more effort into hoovering up private data for marketing purposes than they did in using those very same tools they developed to keep kids off the platform, as it was hoovering up their data at an alarming rate. So much of what makes up digital asbestos is similar business models about siphoning that personal data, as well as using techniques to keep users engaged on that platform, hallucinations and all, and not caring about it sending them on delusional spirals that craters their mental health. They don’t care because it’s the business model, and that’s why I can’t trust Solomon to actually regulate—because he has bought into the hype around that model, and if he regulates, the tech bros will cry and whine that they can’t operate in those rules, and he’ll kill the industry, and gods forbid, we couldn’t have that.

Evan fucking Solomon says they'll take the lessons from the TikTok privacy report in order to shape new digital asbestos laws. www.thestar.com/politics/fed…

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-25T03:13:46.890Z

Meanwhile at the UN, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is warning about the destructive arms race happening right now with digital asbestos and drones, and is calling for international rules about limiting its spread. But of course, I can just hear someone like Solomon insisting that we don’t want too many rules, because that will “stifle innovation,” and so on. Absolutely nobody is taking any of this seriously (and no, we’re not talking about Skynet), and we’re heading for some serious problems in the very near future as a result.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine has attacked the petrochemical complex in Salavat for the second time in a week, further reducing Russia’s refining capacity.

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: New hate crime legislation tabled

Posted on by

The government tabled new hate crime legislation yesterday, and while I’m not going to delve too deeply into it here because I’m writing something more substantial about it for another outlet, I wanted to make a couple of observations, starting with the complaints of every reporter in the room during the press conference, which was that they didn’t have copies available at the time, nor did they have press releases available, so everyone was essentially flying blind. Part of this is a function of parliamentary privilege—no one can see the bill until it has been tabled in the House of Commons (or it violates the privileges of MPs), and upon first reading it can be ordered printed, which is why there is a delay on seeing the bill. This isn’t the first time it’s happened, and you would think that some of the more senior reporters would know this, but of course not. It was also the fact that they had the press release immediately after it was tabled, but that was in part a function of the clock (the minister had a flight to catch). But the inability to at least furnish press releases was a legitimate complaint, and the minister’s staff (or the department) should have known better.

This being said, much is being made about the fact that certain symbols are being criminalized if used in the context of promoting hate, and some of the reporters in the room just could not wrap their heads around that context. “But what if someone is wearing a t-shirt?” “What if they have Nazi memorabilia in their house?” The minister was not going to engage in hypotheticals, but the fact that there is context to these offences was a little too abstract.

Some of the reactions were expected, such as the concerns that this is going to impact legitimate protest even though the government has tried to make a clear delineation in the language of the bill that intention to intimidate because of hate is the target, and yes, there are specific legal tests about this. Of course, one of the biggest problems is that we already have laws for most of these offences, but police simply don’t enforce them, and that could be the case after this bill passes as well. Or it could wind up that this bill provides more clarity for police and prosecutors than the existing jurisprudence, but that remains to be seen.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims it has taken control over two more village in Donetsk region, while president Zelenskyy says that Ukrainian forces have inflicted heavy losses on Russians on the frontline counteroffensive near two cities in the same region. Russian jets violated Estonia’s airspace as part of their latest test of NATO resolve.

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 →

QP: The “sword” hanging over the PBO

Posted on by

All of the leaders were present today, as is customary for a Wednesday, even if Wednesdays are no longer the pronto-PMQs of Trudeau’s era. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and demanded to know the size of the deficit. Prime minister Mark Carney responded that the budget will be on November 4th, and it would have the biggest investment in the country’s future. Poilievre asked the same in English, and got much the same response. Poilievre returns to French to lament that we still don’t have an answer on the deficit, which creates uncertainty for business, and demanded to know the number. Carney thanked him for the compliment about being a fiscal expert, and said that the trade war left uncertainty that made sure they have to do what they can control. Poilievre repeated the same in English, and this time, Carney boasted that interest rates were lower in Canada than the U.S. Poilievre dismissed this as saying that was because the economy was collapsing, and then claimed that a liberal members of the finance committee threatened the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s job (while someone chirped that didn’t happen). Carney said that he just the PBO, and that he didn’t recognise the characterisation. Poilievre said that the post was temporary in order to hold a sword over his head, and then demanded he be made permanent and demanded a deficit figure. Carney said that if they wanted him to be permanent, he would be open to consulting on that in the new spirit of collaboration.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and worried that the government was going to table something on the use of the Notwithstanding Clause, and demanded it be allowed to be used by provinces, even in a “preventative” measure. Carney said that the government’s job is to uphold the Charter and it was up to the Supreme Court to determine what is and is not legal. Blanchet claimed that putting limits on use of the Clauses was denigrating the Memory of a Pierre Trudeau, and Carney dismissed this, saying this was up to the Supreme Court to rule on.  Blanchet accused the government of hiding behind the Court, and attacking Quebec’s state secularism, to which Carney reminded him that this is the legislative branch, not the judiciary. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: No First Ladies in Canada, so stop asking

Posted on by

Because this is sometimes a media criticism blog, I’m going to sigh and rub the bridge of my nose, and maybe massage my temples a few times of this particular doozy of a piece in The Walrus about Mark Carney’s wife, Diana Fox Carney. The subhed refers to her as the “unofficial First Lady,” but in the story itself, it just refers to her as a “First Lady” along with other spouses of heads of state or heads of government interchangeably, and I just can’t you guys.

Guys. Stop it.Canada's "First Lady" is Queen Camilla. Stop trying to import Americanisms, even if you try and couch them in "unofficial" status.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-15T11:44:05.416Z

First of all, it matters that we’re a constitutional monarchy and not a presidential republic. That means that our “First Lady,” if we were to have one, would be Queen Camilla. If you were discounting the Canadian monarch, the next candidate would be the spouse of the Governor General (who once upon a time was called the “Chatelaine/Chatelain of Rideau Hall” as an unofficial title). Yes, this matters, in particular because the difference between a head of state and a head of government matters a great deal, particularly when it comes to the kind of role they play within government, and just because the American system fuses the two together, that’s pretty much unique in the world, and is a far cry from how our Westminster system operates. And right at nearly the very bottom of the piece, she writes:

In this way, being a first lady in Canada is fundamentally different from being one in the US, where the position, while unofficial, comes with an office and staff. In Canada, the prime minister’s spouse has no formal role or institutional support, and technically isn’t even the partner of a head of state. As a result, the title “first lady” doesn’t really apply in the same way.

No kidding! In fact, it undermines the whole gods damned point of your story. You just tried to compare apples and hedgehogs, tried to mash two fundamentally different concepts together, and then was like “Oh well, maybe she’ll get more active at some point!” No! We don’t elect spouses, and they don’t have a role for a reason. If she wants to have a role, she should seek a seat. (This especially goes for Poilievre’s wife, by the way). But trying to jam the spouse of a prime minister into the “First Lady” box is both fundamentally wrong, and a sign of really lazy conceptualizing of how our system of government works. The Walrus should absolutely know better.

Speaking of terrible reporting, the Globe and Mail put out a story yesterday that had the headline that “Liberal staffers strategized over $1-billion loan for Chinese ferries while Freeland dismissed federal connection,” which sounds like they were maybe somehow involved in the loan or procurement while claiming otherwise. But no. The story was about how comms staffers in ministers’ offices were trying to spin the story. That’s it. I saw lots of reactions on social media from people who read the headline and assumed that something hinky was going on that should be looked into by parliamentarians, but no. It’s about comms staffers spinning. Can we just not? This was not a story, and it especially was not a story about some kind of cover-up.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-09-14T20:02:07.093Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched a massive attack against Zaporizhzhia, killing at least one and injuring at least seven so far. International monitors say that cluster munitions have resulted in over 1200 civilian casualties since the Russian invasion began in 2022.

Continue reading →

QP: A collegial-ish return for Poilievre

Posted on by

The first day back, and absolutely everyone was salivating for prime minister Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre’s first face-to-face since the election. As Members’ Statements were underway, Carney and Poilievre met in the centre aisle and shook hands before the show got starter. When it it, Poilievre led off by praising the people of his new riding, and wanted to see if Carney agreed that they were united in believing in…a list of his slogans. Carney said that he spoke for everyone in welcoming him back, and noted a few things changed he was last here, including the largest women’s caucus in history, and a sprit of collaboration in passing legislation. Poilievre repeated the thanks for his constituents in French before listing those slogans again and seeking agreement for them. Carney said he agreed with the sentiments expressed. Poilievre returned to English, to give a few swipes at Trudeau, and then applied those to Carney, demanding real change. Carney patted himself on the back for their tax cut and eliminating federal barriers to internal trade. Poilievre again returned to French, said that they would simply insist on Carney listening up to his promises, decried food price inflation, and demanded a budget that would address this. Carney repeated his back-patting in English, including a new point about supporting the CRTC in bringing broadband prices down. Poilievre switched back to English to repeat his same points, and Carney insisted that they were undertaking the biggest investment in the Canadian military, and promised more to come. Poilievre railed about deficits and debt, and Carney insisted that they were still going to build the strongest economy in the G7, which means being clear about the size of the challenge ahead of them.

Yves-François Blanchet took over for the Bloc, and lamented that there was still no resolution to the trade war, and wanted a commitment to ending tariffs. Carney responded that we currently have the best deal with the Americans worldwide, and that counted as a success. Blanchet contested such an assertion, and wanted the trusted relationship re-established (as though Trump was a rational actor). Carney said that he spoke with Trump over the weekend about the situation with Russia, Ukraine, and China. Blanchet demanded that Carney made it a priority to go to Washington, and Carney said that we need to diversity trade with Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Kenney’s omitted immigration changes

Posted on by

The Conservatives are full-on throwing everything they can at the wall to see what sticks, and yesterday it was the moral panic over immigration figures. Pierre Poilievre put out a press release decrying that permits issued had blown past the proposed caps, and that the system is “facing collapse,” which I’m pretty sure is bullshit, before promising to propose “fixes” in the fall, which you can already be assured will mostly be comprised of dog-whistles. (And remember, the problem is less with immigration numbers than it is with premiers who are not doing their jobs with regards to building housing of properly funding healthcare).

Enter Jason Kenney, who went on an extended rant about how he “fixed” the system when he was minister, and how Trudeau and company broke it, but this is also revisionist history. He talks about the sweeping reforms he brought in in 2010, and how everyone praised it, but he omitted that he blunted most of those reforms before they could be implemented. You see, in 2010, it was a hung parliament and the Conservatives couldn’t push through draconian immigration legislation, so they needed to work with the opposition (most notably Olivia Chow as the NDP’s immigration critic), and they passed a bill that had plenty of safeguards in place. In 2011, there was an election where they got a majority, and before the 2010 bill could be fully implemented (because the coming-into-force provisions were going to take as long as a year), Kenney rammed through a new bill that curtailed most of those safeguards, and used tales of international migration cartels, and human smuggling rings that would bring people into the country to collect social assistance, which those cartels would then collect, and so on. Yes, there were problems with high rates of claims from certain countries, but like most things, Kenney was less than honest and building his scaremongering case, while also doing the thing where he played economic migrants against asylum seekers, and made “good immigrants versus bad asylum claimants” arguments to justify his legislation.

https://twitter.com/jkenney/status/1960088637925961993

The other thing that Kenney is blatantly ignoring is that the world is not the same world as it was in 2010, and the migration situation is vastly different than it was back then. So yes, the current government is facing different challenges, but I wouldn’t expect Kenney to be honest about well, pretty much anything, because that’s who Jason Kenney is.

effinbirds.com/post/7790141…

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-08-24T20:02:02.229Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine has been stepping up drone attacks on Russian oil refineries and fuel terminals, squeezing their war economy.

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 →