Tag Archives: Maple Crown

Pinky-swearing data centre expectations

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday morning, minister of digital asbestos, Evan Solomon, was in Markham to announce that the government had created a new framework of “key expectations” for building data centres in Canada, and that 23 major digital asbestos companies had signed on. It all sounds good, until you realise that this is a voluntary code of conduct made with bad faith actors, and that the federal government has pretty much no levers to enforce any of these promises that these companies make, because so much of the regulation is either a provincial or municipal responsibility. So what you have instead is Solomon once again putting on a performance for the cheap seats at the community theatre, and is expecting applause and bouquets for said performance. It’s like we’re back in the Trudeau era of “the announcement is the policy.” This is not serious governance, and governance is the cornerstone of digital sovereignty—that thing that Solomon keeps claiming to care about.

Non-binding 'expectations'? Solomon & Carney are not serious about governing data centres in Canada; they're offside w/ the large & growing anti-data centre public sentiment. These companies won't comply w/ voluntary 'rules.' They have lied about energy & water use. This is weak & shameful.

— Natasha Tusikov (@ntusikov.bsky.social) 2026-09-03T18:53:05.383Z

In technical terms, this is referred to as a "pinky swear." And it's just as binding and effective."The responsible development principles do not include any compliance mechanism or penalties for broken pledges."This is not serious governance.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-09-03T17:01:43.644Z

@ntusikov.bsky.social and I wrote this oped about social media regulation, but its main point stands here. Regulatory theory tells us that voluntary agreements don't work with bad actors. The companies listed above are some of the least trustworthy of the past several decades.This is just empty PR.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-09-03T17:01:43.645Z

Later in the day, prime minister Mark Carney announced via press release the launch of Digital Transformation Canada, which aims to “refine how the government develops, buys and uses technology.” While this could be a good thing, particularly if it means developing home-grown digital solutions that would get us off of American platforms, that was not really mentioned in the release at all. Instead, it was more about the CEO bullshit around digital asbestos, with “eliminating duplication” and “improve outcomes,” which just sounds like more hype that Carney has swallowed. We have real needs when it comes to our digital sovereignty, but if there is any consideration about how to do that, it doesn’t appear to be coming from this plan as outlined.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-03T13:08:02.353Z

Programming Note: I am taking an extra-long weekend, so posts will resume later in the week. Enjoy!

Continue reading →

A trade deal or future vassalage?

Posted on by

The back-patting and self-congratulation has already started as word is that there is some kind of deal with the Americans, on certain tariffs, but not actual free trade, and not on any kind of renewal of the New NAFTA. Trump insisted that this means no more trade barriers into Canada for alcohol and for farmers, while Dominic LeBlanc insists that Supply Management remains intact. (Fixing the import quota allocations would actually be a good thing, because the way it’s currently structured is fuckery, and Canada keeps losing at trade tribunals because of it). Premiers did confirm that Carney has asked them to end their booze bans—not that it will stop people from boycotting it on their own accord. But there are other questions that remain, such as Jamieson Greer talking about “digital trade alignment,” and there’s still no word about forestry, or what auto tariffs are going to be. What we’ve heard is that the s.232 tariffs on steel and aluminium are being lowered from 50 percent to 25, but is that really worth it?

We still have no real idea what's in this Canada-U.S deal from last night. There's been a few vague leaks from PM Carney's briefing of the premiers, but now Quebec's premier says a deal is "far from being concluded" and isn't sure she can get behind it.

— Justin Ling (@justinling.ca) 2026-08-20T02:13:16.970Z

There is this weird dichotomy happening between Carney and company talking about diversifying our trade while at the same time pursuing “deeper integration” with the US, as typified by the Keystone XL talk, which just sends even more oil to our captive market. And it remains to be seen just how much Carney is giving up for this temporary relief—and make no mistake, it will be temporary because there is no dealing with Trump, and even if he says he’s got a signed deal, that can implode overnight (and we have seen countless examples of this). I worry most about the likelihood that this gives Trump a win that will let him and his cadre believe that they have figured out the formula for Canadian capitulation, and that this becomes just one more step in pressure that leads to eventual vassalage. There cannot be “deeper integration” that just makes us a resource colony. And all of the Carney apologists are going to be absolutely apoplectic about this notion, but he’s not just giving Canadian businesses time to transition, because most of them have no interest in doing so. Most of them keep hoping that things will go back to the way they were before so that they can continue to be rent-seekers, and Carney has done absolutely nothing to disabuse them of that notion, and that’s a problem, and it’ll be an even bigger problem once we’re a vassal state.

As Goodale' comments here reaffairm, Carney's strategy has always been deeper US integration plus a slight hedge against future bad US economic policy. The belief that Carney's trade diversification and infrastructure projects can balance against closer ties is, and always has been, a fantasy….

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-08-19T22:38:48.514Z

… b/c in the new normal, stable, mutually beneficial long-term agreements are literally impossible.So long as Carney, Goodale et al hold onto the fantasy that a normal trade agreement is possible & that certainty can be returned to the relationship, Canada will become increasingly a vassal state.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-08-19T22:38:48.515Z

What Carney and Goodale and others stubbornly refuse to understand (or don't care) is that trade agreements with the United States today are no longer about negotiating potentially mutually beneficial economic advantages They're tools of domination designed to guarantee subservience.

— Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart.bsky.social) 2026-08-19T22:38:48.516Z

My Latest:

Continue reading →

The CBC fails basic civics, yet again

Posted on by

The CBC has once again officially outraged me. In a short vertical clip for social media, one of their reporters referred to the story about the constitutional challenge in Quebec about the oath to the King, for which she refers to it as the “King of England.”

CBC using "King of England" in the Canadian context. Not King of Canada.There hasn't been a King of England since 1702.FFS, CBC. This is basic civics and you can't even get that right. www.youtube.com/shorts/R5B-N…

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-08-14T01:11:30.309Z

For. Fuck. Sakes.

This is basic, grade-school civics. In Canada, Charles III is the King of Canada. Canada has had its own separate and distinct Crown since the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Even more to the fact, England has not had a separate Crown since 1707, when it was merged with the Crown of Scotland to become the Crown of the United Kingdom. In fact, there hasn’t been a King of England since 1702. And yet, here’s the gods damned CBC, using the phrase in reference to the King of Canada, like it’s no big deal.

Even worse was the fact that the clip just uncritically aired the Parti Québécois leader’s completely false claims about swearing the oath to the “King of England” (who doesn’t exist) and that it’s to a “foreign monarch,” which again, hasn’t been true since 1931. Sure, we may time-share the physical person of Charles III, but the King of Canada is not a foreign imposition. These should be basic facts that the national public broadcaster should be able to correct, but chose not to, and presented the PQ’s framing as fact, which it absolutely is not. This is complete malpractice on the part of the journalist in question, her editors and producers, and the CBC writ-large. If they can’t put out accurate information about the basic civics of this country, then what are they even doing?

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-08-13T19:08:01.541Z

My Latest:

My Xtra column wonders which rights Carney will capitulate on next, once he’s finished capitulating on trade.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Capitulating to the streaming giants

Posted on by

Just days after the CRTC outlined the obligations under the Online Streaming Act that web giant streaming services would need to abide by when it comes to a portion of their Canadian revenues to be sent to Canadian content funds (which, to be clear, they could then draw from in order to develop shows and put on their platforms), and a day after Dominic LeBlanc was in Washington for more trade talks, the government decided to try and walk back these CRTC obligations. Minister Marc Miller ordered the CRTC to review the decision (as he can’t outright ignore it, as the CRTC is a quasi-judicial body) but with a “focus on affordability” as the claim is that these streaming services will simply raise their prices and Canadian households are already hit hard. Oh, but they’ll devote $600 million to Canadian media in lieu of these funds.

They insist it’s not a capitulation, but that’s exactly what it feels like, particularly since Trump mouthpieces were grousing that this levy was “discriminatory” (it’s not—it levelled the playing field with Canadian broadcasters and streaming services), and that it was yet another “trade irritant” as though they are allowed to throw up whatever tariffs they want (this week: New ten percent tariffs because of forced labour, but don’t look at their own deals with China, or the forced labour that comes from American prisons). Miller also insists that because the funds collected to date were frozen due to court challenges also seems to be beside the point. The point was that these web giants are taking Canadian money and giving nothing back (and no, treating our production studios as a resource colony is not exactly giving back), so having them contribute the same way a Canadian broadcaster contributes was both fair, and, I stress again, gave them the option to use these same funds that they contributed in order to create their own Canadian content that they could put up on their platforms.

I’m not going to engage in any kind of elbow discourse, but when you consider just how much these web giants and the tech bros that own them are integrated into Trump’s fascist regime, capitulating to them yet again is not exactly giving the impression that we’re protecting Canada’s cultural sovereignty, or that all the talk about Heated Rivalry and how much of a success it’s been is hollow if we keep letting the web giants dictate our own cultural policy. Where is the self-respect that should be a bare minimum in this conversation?

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-06-03T13:08:04.315Z

My Latest:

My column on legacy columnists opining about the “condescension” of central Canadians when it comes to Alberta separatists and their crybaby tendencies.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A call to ignore Pathways

Posted on by

In a sit-down interview with The Canadian Press, prime minister Mark Carney says that an oil pipeline out of Alberta is “more likely than not,” and this doesn’t mean the revived Keystone XL (aka “Bridger Pipeline”). But he’s also not saying anything about Pathways, which is a bit suspicious because he tied the approval to Pathways getting underway, and industry has made it very clear they’re not interested in paying for it.

To that end, who showed up in the op-ed pages of the Globe and Mail but Martha Hall Findlay, former Liberal MP and now head of the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, who put on a big show to say that she found it hard to write, but lo, she must recommend that the government “pause” Pathways, because it’s useless on a global scale, and “the world changed.” And then there was more hand-wringing and rationalization that Canada is such a small contributor to global emissions that it doesn’t matter.

The world didn’t change. Facts didn’t change. Climate change didn’t stop with the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, so quite frankly, this is bullshit and special pleading. The notion that we don’t contribute enough to global emissions is such a poor argument because it’s a common action problem. We have some of the highest emissions on a per capita basis, and yes, that matters. Hall Findlay was going on about how this is all about ego, and we just want to look like we’re leaders, but guess what—every action matters. And if you think that it’s too expensive to reduce emissions now, well, it’s going to be even more expensive the longer we push it down the road, when the effects are even more entrenched globally. We’re already spending billions of dollars in insurance payouts every year that are directly related to climate. The vast majority of food price inflation is climate-related, even if people don’t want to admit it. Frankly, these arguments of hers are tired and baseless and not worth listening to, no matter how much she insists she still believes in climate action…eventually.

My favourite moment in any oil price shock cycle is when the Very Serious Energy People explain why this — again! — is not the time to give a shit about the climate crisis

— Chris Turner (@theturner.bsky.social) 2026-05-01T15:21:29.234Z

If Canada can make that argument at 1.4% then presumably so can Saudi Arabia (1.5), Iran (1.9) and Japan (2.0).Then I imagine both Indonesia (2.3) and Brazil (2.5) would say, "hey, us too." And at that point, you've ruled out 204 countries accounting for roughly 46% of all national emissions.

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2026-05-01T15:02:42.580Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-05-01T19:08:02.330Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched yet another attack on port infrastructure in Odesa early Friday, and then launched more than 400 drones in a daytime attack that injured ten people in Ternopil in the west. Ukraine is planning an overhaul of its military rotations, particularly after an outcry over images of emaciated soldiers emerged.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ignoring the true meaning of the Statute of Westminster

Posted on by

Yesterday was the Anniversary of the Statute of Westminster (1931), which is one of the most pivotal moments in our evolution as a sovereign country, but it rarely gets much mention. When I was in junior high, I remember them talking about how this ensured that Canada could control its own foreign policy, but they never said why. And it turns out that no official account or even the Government of Canada’s web page gave the reason either. The reason is that this was the creation of the Canadian Crown as a separate and distinct legal entity from the Crown of the UK, which mean that we could control our own foreign policy, and were seen as an equal to the UK and not a subordinate. But absolutely nobody mentions the Crown of Canada as the reason. Nobody.

The government's page undersells the importance of this date, because today is the anniversary of the creation of the Crown of Canada as a separate and distinct entity from the UK crown. That's why we gained control over our foreign affairs and "our own voice" on the world stage.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-11T14:17:20.569Z

The Governor General did not put out a release about the day or its importance to the Canadian Crown. Mark Carney did not put out a release about the day at all. Pierre Poilievre did, but not only did he not mention the Canadian Crown, but he talked up conservative figures from the era of history to try and distract from the fact that Mackenzie King was prime minister at the time, which was frankly sad and a little bit pathetic. Nobody else put out a release, and absolutely nobody mentioned the anniversary of the Canadian Crown.

Nothing about the Crown of Canada.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-11T21:53:33.606Z

The creation of the Canadian Crown is one of the most pivotal moments in our history, and it goes completely unremarked because the department of Canadian Heritage is full of republicans, and too many members of civil society are quietly embarrassed by our status as a constitutional monarchy, as though it’s still colonial or “not grown up” when it’s not that at all. The separate Canadian Crown means we are grown up, that we control our own Crown and destiny. And if you don’t want to time-share the monarch with the UK and the other Realms, well, we can change that at any point as well (with the unanimous consent of Parliament and the provinces), and I for one would not be averse to making Princess Anne the full-time Queen of Canada, as she is not only the best royal, but her grandchildren are already Canadian, so that helps with the succession issues. Suffice to say, we have to stop effacing the fact that the Canadian Crown is the central reason why we gained full independence then.

https://twitter.com/CrimCartier/status/1999180446534672527

Another floor-crossing

After both Houses of Parliament rose for the winter break, and just before the Liberals had their Christmas party, Conservative MP Michael Ma crossed the floor to join the Liberal ranks. He’s from Markham—Unionville, which is John McCallum’s old riding, so it’s flipped back-and-forth between the Liberals and Conservatives, and Ma has been almost anonymous in the House of Commons, pretty much never put up in QP to read a script for the sake of clips, so he has no profile in the party. His statement talked about “unity and decisive action” for Canadians, which could translate to the fact that he (and possibly his constituents) is tired of the petty little games that Poilievre and his caucus spend all of their time doing.

It also puts the Liberals one seat away from a workable majority, and the House Leader, Steve MacKinnon, hinted that there are more conversations ongoing with Conservatives, and according to the journalists and pundits on the political talk shows, Ma’s name has never been bandied about as a possibility, so this was a complete surprise. But it will also serve to shut Don Davies up if they do get that one more MP, because Davies will have no leverage to try and blackmail Carney with. So, I guess we’ll see what happens by the time Parliament returns.

Well. That happened.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-12-11T23:22:51.428Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian commanders claim to have taken Siversk in the east, but Ukraine denies this. Here is an analysis of how the potential fall of Pokrovsk won’t collapse Ukraine’s front lines. In the back-and-forth on “peace” plans, the US wants to turn ceded lands in the Donbas into a “free economic zone,” and no, I don’t get it either.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ahistorical expectations about project timelines

Posted on by

A couple of quick notes for the weekend. First is that for all of the projects referred to the Major Projects Office, none have actually officially been designated a PONI (Project of National Importance), so my calling the referred projects as such is admittedly premature. But that also means that none of them have the special rules that trigger the Henry VIII Clause from the legislation, which again, leads to the same question that Althia Raj asked in her most recent column about why the rush to ram that bill through Parliament with almost no debate and little stakeholder input if they haven’t bothered to use it, nearly six months later.

The other note is that the talk about timelines remain ahistorical and nothing but wishful thinking. “We used to build big things. We built a railway in four years.” Erm, not really. This is likely a reason why most of the projects that have been referred to the MPO so far have been in the works for years is for the very reason that they’re much further along. This is likely going to be one of the death knells of Danielle Smith’s pipeline plan, which is that it’s starting from zero, and there is no way, even with the magic wand of the Henry VIII clause, that they can make it go from concept to shovels in two years.

They didn't go from "Shall we build a railway?" to a railway in four years.The CPR was a Confederation promise before 1867. Construction began in 1881.Or, actually, in 1875, when they started a section in Manitoba and northern Ontario. Which hooked up to other rails built on their own earlier.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:17:30.293Z

There were planning, scandal, false starts, re-awarding of the contract. And not a lot of attention to, you know, Indigenous people's rights.Or working conditions, which were eventually the subject of Heritage Minute you might recall. www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE3I…

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:20:55.646Z

What's the right length of time to plan and build a new high-speed rail line in 2025? I don't know.But they didn't do the entire CPR from concept to completion in four years, and I don't think we want a dead temporary foreign worker for every mile of track.

— David Reevely (@davidreevely.bsky.social) 2025-09-14T23:23:15.475Z

And then there’s Poilievre’s completely nonsense demanding that government “get out of the way,” or Ontario’s Stephen Lecce talking about the problems with federal regulations killing projects when that also relies on a very selective reading of history and what happened. Northern Gateway started planning before Harper took over, and over his nine years in power, Mr. “Get government out of the way” couldn’t get it past the finish line either (in part because they couldn’t even be arsed to live up to their own consultation process with First Nations). Nothing Poilievre is saying is true, so We The Media need to stop treating it like it’s credible.

Ukraine Dispatch

The attack on Kyiv early Friday killed six and injured dozens, along with more strikes on energy facilities. Ukraine hit the oil port at Novorossiyk the same day, suspending oil exports. Ukraine is now mass-producing interceptor drones to bolster their air defences.

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 →

Roundup: The rules Poilievre defended are no longer good enough

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre decided he needed some more media attention yesterday, so he called a press conference in Ottawa, and declared that following the public disclosure of prime minister Mark Carney’s ethics filings, that none of this was good enough, that Carney needed to cash out all of his investments instead of putting them into a blind trust, and that nothing was good enough because he’ll be constantly managing conflicts (even though the point of the ethics screen is that he isn’t managing conflicts, his chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council manage the conflict so that he’s not involved). Perish the thought that this special set of rules for Carney will only serve to keep other accomplished individuals away from political life.

Of course, the whole episode is rife with hypocrisy. These are the conflict-of-interest laws that the Harper government put into place, of which Poilievre was not only a part of, but defended them, particularly when questions arose around Nigel Wright and his assets when he was Harper’s chief of staff, and Poilievre personally swore up and down at committee that these rules were amazing and that the blind trust was blind, and so on. Of course, now that it’s convenient, his tune has changed, but that didn’t stop the CBC from pulling out the footage from the archives.

Meanwhile, Poilievre also told reporters that the country needs “more people leaving than coming,” which is not even a dog-whistle at this point but a bullhorn. If this is pandering to the far-right elements of the riding he’s trying to win, well, it is likely to backfire on his attempts to continue wooing other newcomer communities, particularly the Sikh and Punjabi communities he spent so much time wooing in the leadup to the last election. Immigration numbers have already flatlined, and it’s going to cause problems down the road, sooner than later. For Poilievre to say this as the mass deportations south of the border pick up speed shows he’s not only incapable of thinking through the implications of the things he says, but he’s fine with mouthing the words of fascists, and that’s a real problem.

(Incidentally, Poilievre once again said he opposes Alberta separation but says that they have “legitimate grievances,” and repeated his same bullshit line about the Ottawa telling Alberta to “pay up and shut up.” They pay the same income tax as the rest of us, and have the same representation in Parliament).

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones killed two people in the Kherson region. President Zelenskyy is proposing a major government reshuffle that includes a new prime minister, while the current one is to be shuffled to defence. Trump’s “ultimatum” to Putin to reach a ceasefire in 50 days is just license for him to keep firing drones and missiles at Ukraine for another 50 days, and probably longer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Countdown to the G7 summit

Posted on by

It’s the run-up to the G7 summit on Monday and Tuesday, and it will start with dinner with UK prime minister Keir Starmer tonight, before everyone starts heading to Calgary, where Danielle Smith will be greeting delegates as they arrive for the G7, starting on Sunday, and will host an event with them. We already know that there will be some different features in this summit in that they will forgo the usual joint communiqué, but instead, Carney will put out a chair’s statement (because there is unlikely to be any kind of consensus to be had with Trump in the room).

Another question is about what some of the discussions will wind up being about, given the chaotic nature of what is happening right now, such as Israel and Iran attacking one another, while there are wildfires burning in Alberta, and the conflict in Ukraine has intensified after Ukraine destroyed a significant portion of Russia’s strategic bomber fleet. The number of other non-G7 members invited to attend will also help shape the discussions, which includes Indian prime minister Narendra Modi (whose activities we are apparently overlooking for the sake of the conference), though it should also be noted that “bone saws” Mohammed bin Salman won’t be attending after all, despite being invited. Here is a rundown of the additional invitees to the summit.

Meanwhile, Canada and India have reached an agreement to share information about cross-border crimes, such as transnational crimes, syndicates, terrorism, and extremist activities. That makes the obvious question to be whether the Indian government will disclose its transnational repression and contracting of syndicates to carryout transnational crimes (like extrajudicial killings)? Or do they simply expect Canada to turn over information about the legal activities of Khalistani advocates in this country? Because if we’re not getting any of the former, I’m not sure what value this agreement really has as a “reset” of the relationship.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine and Russia had another swap of bodies of fallen soldiers yesterday.

Continue reading →