Tag Archives: Mark Carney

Ham-fisted programming motions on bad bills

Posted on by
Reply

As the spring sitting of Parliament winds down, the government has decided to be maximally ham-fisted in order to ram through several bills for no good reason at all. In the Commons, they put through a programming motion to speed through the lawful access bill (which, to be clear, is a very bad bill that is going to get struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada), but this motion was full of procedural fuckery, including retroactive deadlines on amendments, and no time to debate the amendments that they did have prepared, so they were going to be straight up-down votes, because they insist that this pass the Commons before they rise, even though the Senate is not going to look at it until the fall. Why the rush? Because they are reaching the kinds of arrogance that is the usual Achilles heel of the Liberals, and it’s going to cost them.

This is exactly the Liberal arrogance that always, without fail, comes to bite them in the ass.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-17T01:19:27.773Z

Over on the Senate side, they have also put through a programming motion on three bills that the government insists they need passed before the summer, but this motion essentially gives these complex pieces of legislation a single day of study at committee at which point they are deemed to have passed, no matter if they vote or not. That’s absolutely insane, and quite frankly abusive, and is contemptuous of the job the Senate is supposed to be doing. But this is how Carney and his crew have decided they want to treat Parliament. I would say it’s unbelievable, but no, we’ve come to expect this kind of behaviour, and it needs to be callsed out.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-06-16T19:08:17.950Z

Continue reading →

A privacy bill that takes away from the Privacy Commissioner

Posted on by
Reply

The federal government tabled long-overdue privacy reform legislation yesterday, which is intended to work in concert with their Digital Asbestos For All Strategy, and while there are some needed updates within it, there are also some concerning aspects. For example, there will be more powers to demand deletions from online searches (“right to be forgotten” powers), and while they are going to give the federal Privacy Commissioner more powers like he’s been begging for, they are going to restrict him to only public sector complaints and hive off private sector complaints to this new Digital Safety Commissioner. They’ve also decided to jump on the “surveillance pricing” hysteria, which both lets Avi Lewis claim a victory, but they have no details on how this will work, to say nothing of the fact that consumer protection is a provincial responsibility!

I have regularly butted heads with the Privacy Commissioners we've had over the past 20+ years, but sidelining an organization with decades of experience to empower an as yet unconstituted body is frankly shocking. #BillC34

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-06-15T21:41:45.003Z

It's worth noting that there's nothing new in #BillC36 that has anything to do with "surveillance pricing". The provision that the Minister pointed to in his presser has been in PIPEDA since 2001.

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-06-15T22:42:03.453Z

The fact that they are taking the new Digital Safety Commissioner that is being created as part of the Online Harms legislation, and loading him or her up with these enormous new powers is concerning, as is the fact that this commissioner will report to government and not to Parliament. I worry about creating a new regulator with so much scope of authority that it will need to build an enormous bureaucracy off the start, meaning it will be slow to start up, slow to react, and eventually start empire-building, particularly given how much online regulation it is being asked to do in addition to privacy work. We will have to see if the government bothers to offer a justification for this model (which they may not!) but I suspect we’ve got a long summer ahead of Evan Solomon exhorting the opposition to pass this while pretending it’s the solution to all of our problems.

A modernized privacy law should be something that gets broad support, but I think the creation of this new super-regulator that reports to the government and not parliament may be this bill's undoing. #BillC36

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-06-15T23:09:34.362Z

1/ Spent some time going through Canada's new privacy bill (Bill C-36). At over 100 pages, there's a lot to unpack here. Here are a few initial observations, but I reserve the right to change my mind on any of this because it's a beast… 🧵

— Josh Tabish (@joshtabish.bsky.social) 2026-06-15T22:11:40.607Z

My Latest:

  • For National Magazine, I delve into Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision on why all future Lieutenant Governors of New Brunswick needs to be bilingual.
  • My weekend column on how the Liberals have shamelessly reversed their policies so many times under Carney that they are virtually just Conservatives now.

Continue reading →

A long-term food strategy

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, before jetting off to the G7 in France, prime minister Mark Carney was in Toronto to unveil the details of his national food security strategy. The initial announcement was a couple of months ago, when he announced the rebranding and expansion of the existing GST credit, and the details for this new strategy could bear fruit (groan!) in the long-term, but I worry that he is raising expectations that these measures will lower food prices immediately. They won’t. Building up new food production infrastructure via greenhouses and vertical farms will take time and a lot of dollars to get off the ground, as will creating new domestic processing capabilities, which we may not even have the necessary labour for. Same thing with bolstering the rules around competition in order to attract new entrants into a marketplace dominated by oligopolies—you can’t unwind that in a day, and certainly not without just inviting in more American companies, which would go against the notion of trying to ensure food sovereignty.

Again—these kinds of investments and commitments to increasing domestic production and processing are good, and overdue. But in the vein of you can lead a horse to water, corporate Canada is not all that keen on investing in things, including productivity measures, because they are too accustomed to relying on trade with the US (which they keep pinning all of their hopes on normalising once more, as though there will be no lasting damage from the country descending into outright fascism), and their whole modus operandi is about getting monopolistic power and becoming a rent-seeker rather than investing in productivity or innovation. And yes, Canadian food prices are very high, and only part of that has to do with the fact that we’re a cold-weather country that needs to import a lot of what we eat. This is a strategy built for the long-term, and that’s great, but I know that by September, Pierre Poilievre will stand up in Question Period every day and declare that this new strategy hasn’t reduced food prices, so therefore we must burn everything down for the sake of tax cuts and going harder on trickle-down economics (and the government will respond by patting themselves on the back). They’re going to have to do the hard work of pushing this and then actually defending, and I have doubts that they are capable of doing just that.

Jennifer Robson has additional thoughts on the announcement.

My Latest:

My Xtra column points out how much Mark Carney patted himself on the back for doing the absolute bare minimum at this year’s Pride flag raising.

Continue reading →

Expecting an online harms disaster

Posted on by
2

The federal government will be tabling their online harms legislation today, and it looks like it’s going to include some form of ban on social media for youth under the age of sixteen, which is going to be little more than an invitation to create mass online surveillance, because everyone will need to verify their ages and identities in order to access social media or adjacent sites. Meanwhile, that will do very little to actually deal with the harms, and it’s likely going to be unconstitutional in the first place.

here’s me from earlier on power & politics talking digital safety act (tldr: age appropriate design codes + duty to act responsibly > age bans)

— Supriya Dwivedi (@supriya.bsky.social) 2026-06-10T00:48:36.353Z

As we anticipate a social media ban to be proposed by the Canadian government tomorrow, it's worth noting in the Charter of Rights: "everyone" includes young people and "media of communication" includes social media.

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-06-09T21:59:05.964Z

This being said, the Liberals are already going past Helen Lovejoy and going directly to “children are dying,” which makes me suspect that they are going to try and use their majority to ram this through, in spite of what are likely to be massive problems with it, and the fact that the problems that they are having with their lawful access bill are likely to be magnified. Any kind of online age verification is bad news no matter how it’s dressed up, and this is going to be no different in the end. I do not have confidence that they will be able to pull this off without a lot of hand-waving and “just trust me,” and “surely these companies can figure out a way to do it” when that way is more mass surveillance and siphoning even more data.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-06-09T19:08:01.734Z

My Latest:

For National Magazine, I recap what Chief Justice Richard Wagner had to say during his annual press conference, particularly on defending judicial independence.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Capitulating to the streaming giants

Posted on by
1

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 →

Ceding the recession narrative

Posted on by

The is-it-or-isn’t-it recession talk continued apace over the weekend and on Monday, as Pierre Poilievre demanded an emergency debate on it (which the Speaker denied), while more economists continued to line up on the side of “it’s not a recession.” Even the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada appeared at committee and warned them not to take a single point of data when the economic indicators as a whole remain mixed.

Ignore all of those other economists, including the Senior Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada. Andrew Scheer, who couldn't even complete his insurance certification, is going to school you on the recession.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-02T01:36:43.140Z

This being said, prime minister Mark Carney has been wholly silent on it since the data were released on Friday morning. He made two separate media appearances yesterday but took no questions at either one, and he has avoided Question Period yesterday and he’s avoiding it today, and it really starts to look like he’s ceding the ground to Poilievre, who keeps bellowing his ridiculous narratives while Carney, who is supposed to have the economic gravitas as a former central bank governor, remains absent. And there are important things we should probably be talking about with this data, such as the fact that in periods of slow growth, these indicators dipping below zero are less important than the overall picture, and that overreacting and panicking can lead to greater problems or damage in the longer term. But we’re not having this conversation because, again, Carney is ceding the field, and given that Poilievre seems to enjoy this unearned economic credibility, it’s frankly arrogant to think that his bogus narratives can’t gain traction because they absolutely can, and that will spell trouble overall.

My Latest:

  • For National Magazine, my dive into Friday’s pair of Supreme Court of Canada decisions on the exceptions for the Jordan timelines on trial lengths.
  • My weekend column points to things that Steven Guilbeault’s departure has highlighted as just how much this government is backsliding on its climate goals.

Continue reading →

Canada Strong to help MAGA?

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney was in New York yesterday to address the Economic Club of that city, and as part of his speech, gave the line that “Canada Strong™ will help Make America Great Again”—a line that was sure to get a reaction from the White House as much as it got a reaction from the American ambassador. Carney continues to believe he can outmanoeuvre Trump and company, and that he can be so clever as to keep with the talk about “ruptures” and diversifying trade while still trying to get “fortress North America” and even deeper integration with the Americans on other files. You want to assert sovereignty, but keep finding excuses to try and get even closer when the money is just right? Eventually something is likely to give, and it just might be Canadians’ patience.

This being said, I also noted the list of people that Carney met with, and it’s a lot of big money bosses, like Blackrock and JPMorgan Chase—the kind of money that is unconcerned that America has devolved into outright fascism. I will note that is also while the Canadian military signed an agreement with the Canadian branch-plant of an American techno-fascist’s digital asbestos firm, but justified it as being a “legitimate” procurement process. So much of this is starting to feel like the casino scene from The Last Jedi—a look at the monied class that is unconcerned that there is a war going on (or that the capital was obliterated days ago) because they are profiting by selling to both sides. Carney sucking up to this monied class in New York feels an awful lot like that right now.

The list of who the PM met with in New York today.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-05-29T01:47:21.770Z

IYKYK

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-05-29T01:47:21.771Z

effinbirds.com/post/8132596…

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-05-28T13:08:05.261Z

My Latest:

My column points to the crisis in grassroots democracy that is brewing in the Ontario Liberal Party that the Scarborough Southwest nomination contest revealed.

Continue reading →

QP: Deliberately crashing the economy?

Posted on by

The PM was in New York, fresh from his speech at the Economic Club, while Pierre Poilievre disappeared after making a statement condemning antisemitism. Lianne Rood led off, and railed about restrictive foreign investment rules. Maninder Sidhu pointed out that foreign direct investment is at a twenty-year high. Rood accused the Liberals of creating a failing economy while most of Carney’s personal investments are in the U.S. Mélanie Joly responded by patting herself on the back for the Saab Global Eye contract. Mark Strahl took over to make the same bizarre accusations, and Tim Hodgson patted himself of the back for recent investments by Shell, before they did another round of the same. Gérard Deltell read the same script in French, and Joly pointed out that Canada is now the favourite destination for investment in North America before repeating the praise for the Saab deal. Deltell tried again, and this time Steven MacKinnon enthused about building mines and military aircraft.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc to declare that the National Assembly unanimously condemned Carney’s statement about the Clarity Act, to which Lightbound countered that Quebec’s priorities are really things like mines and aircraft. Normandin demanded the Clarity Act be repealed, and Lightbound repeated his same points. Rhéal Fortin tried one more time, and Dominic LeBlanc went on a bit of a ramble about how there will be an election in Quebec in the fall.

Continue reading →

The “dangerous bluff” of a referendum

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney made a housing announcement yesterday morning, when he was inevitably asked about the proposed Alberta referendum. Carney invoked his time in the UK and the experience with Brexit, that for people who think that this kind of referendum is just a way to send a message and that there are no consequences are playing a “dangerous bluff” that will have consequences. And yes, he would know, because he watched it happen and lived with the fallout. But will this actually help? Hard to say, but Conservatives have already been seeding the narrative that Carney created a lot of the post-Brexit economic damage with claims that he was “printing money” and fuelling inflation and so on, so the very people who need to hear the message have already been primed to ignore it. So that’s helpful.

Carney was also asked about the fourteen members of his caucus that sent him a letter about his environmental backsliding, and to this, Carney basically swatted the question away saying he has 160 other members of caucus who are just fine with his moves. This, however, starts to sound a wee bit arrogant for a party leader who has been patting himself on the back for listening to his caucus more than his predecessor did. You can pretty much guarantee that it’s not just these fourteen, but there are plenty more members of caucus who aren’t quite as willing to stick their necks out just yet but are similarly unhappy. They also learned a lot of lessons about pushing back against a leader when they started organising against Justin Trudeau in caucus, so the lessons are fresh, and Carney should remember that. As well, he’s betrayed the “Value(s)” he campaigned on and wrote a book about, so he’s already on thin ice with his voters on this issue. He may want to show a bit more contrition than this particular combative stance.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-05-25T13:08:03.361Z

My Latest:

  • My weekend column on Danielle Smith’s referendum, and why this is the culmination of decades of populism rotting the politics of the province.
  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take talks about the glut of senate bills hitting the Commons, and why MPs who complain about it have only themselves to blame.
  • For National Magazine, I looked at the appointment of the new advisory body for the next Supreme Court of Canada justice.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Referendum on a referendum reactions

Posted on by

It was a strange day in the wake of Alberta premier Danielle Smith put having a referendum about a future referendum, as everyone was offering reactions. Prime minister Mark Carney summoned a small press pool to the empty Library of Parliament in the Centre Block, undergoing renovations, to make the somewhat bizarre case that he is “renovating the country” and that Alberta is essential to that. (Huh?) Pierre Poilievre says that national unity is the prime minister’s job, before going on to repeat the invented grievances that the separatists are furiously masturbating over, while other Conservative MPs started tweeting variations of the same. A group of small-c conservatives launched a “Vote to Stay” campaign, and Jason Kenney is attaching himself to that while refusing to take any responsibility whatsoever for creating this situation when he invited the separatists into his “united” party (before they ate his face). Here is some assorted reaction quotes, while the Calgary Chamber of Commerce is denouncing the move as coming at the worst time for the economy in the province.

Takes no responsibility for creating this situation, and now wants to swoop in to play hero.Fuck that guy.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-05-22T17:20:14.040Z

Also, "Alberta Built Canada"? Because apparently we're going to engage in self-aggrandizing bullshit in the name of national unity? Speaking as an Albertan, my eyes rolled so far back in my head I saw black.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-05-22T17:20:14.041Z

Brexit lessons: – An insurgent populist right will be invigorated by a referendum, not vanquished- They don't care about Leave/separate as a real policy. They possibly don't even want it implemented. It's a vehicle for grievances, racism, and graft- Crypto and dark money will sink you

— Lauren Dobson-Hughes (@ldobsonhughes.bsky.social) 2026-05-22T14:09:20.929Z

Brexit lessons cont:- The pro movement will make dry, factual cases for support that don't resonate- The Leave/Cede side will make emotive, wildly untrue claims that are actually about tapping into grievances and identity- Dark money will sink you

— Lauren Dobson-Hughes (@ldobsonhughes.bsky.social) 2026-05-22T14:10:51.779Z

And Smith? She was busy casting blame about to everyone else for “causing” this to happen when she knows damn well this is her decision. She also told the separatists to focus on the referendum rather than trying to oust her, which just confirms once again that this is all about her own fortunes, and to hell with the rest of the province and the country as a whole. Smith also says she wants to try to amend the Constitution to “refine” Indigenous land rights, as though this isn’t their land that they agreed to share (and we’ve been screwing them over ever since).

Danielle Smith Is Holding A Referendum Whether You Whiny Losers Like It Or Notyoutu.be/N_q4WLMdUQQ

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2026-05-22T19:41:46.443Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-05-22T19:08:02.606Z

Supreme Court

Yesterday was both the final hearing for Justice Sheilah Martin before she retires, and also the final hearing in the iconic courtroom at the Supreme Court’s building before the Court decamps for their new digs this summer so that the building can undergo needed reparations. As someone who was there for the final sitting in Centre Block, being present for the last hearing at the SCC was also a little bittersweet.

You can watch the Chief Justice’s remarks, plus Justice Martin’s farewell speech, here.

Justice Martin makes remarks on her decision to retire in advance of the mandatory date, and asserts that her health is excellent. She then speaks about her time on the bench. #SCC

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-05-22T13:37:45.698Z

Justice Martin: “The joke is often that it’s like having eight spouses. And I will add: in an arranged marriage.” #SCC

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-05-22T13:41:48.569Z

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile struck a UN relief supply warehouse in Dnipro, destroying $1 million worth of aid. Ukrainian drones hit another Russian oil refinery, this time in Yaroslavl, some 700 kilometres away from the Ukrainian border.

Continue reading →