Tag Archives: NATO

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 →

Roundup: The problem with “building things” nostalgia

Posted on by

In all of the announcements that prime minister Mark Carney made this week, particularly around the Major Projects Office and the first tranche of projects that he was championing, there was something he said that bothers me. “We used to build big things in this country and we used to build them quickly,” he said, which is something that we hear a lot, particularly from conservatives. “We built a cross-country railroad in seven years!” But nobody wants to mention how that railroad, or any of those big projects got built, and what changed, because nostalgia is a seductive liar.

What changed, of course, is that we realized we can’t just devastate the environment, and that we can’t just keep displacing Indigenous peoples on their own lands, or that we can’t treat imported labour like slaves, or with working conditions that ensured that a great many of them died along the way. (Yes, I know there are problems with temporary foreign workers and modern-day slavery, but that is a separate discussion). And what is particularly concerning is that while Carney is not acknowledging what changed is that he gave himself a giant Henry VIII clause in his major projects legislation that lets him ignore environmental legislation, or whatever he finds inconvenient, in order to get these big things built fast. Does nobody see a problem here? Really?

Meanwhile, Poilievre mocks the “speeds not seen in generations” talks, and the unspoken part of his “government get out of the way” line is that it ultimately means environmental degradation, ignoring Indigenous rights, labour rights, you name it, because those are the things that are inconvenient. So, in a way, Carney and Poilievre are ultimately aligning on these particular things, and we shouldn’t be shrugging this off. Things changed for a reason. Going back to the 19thcentury is not a sustainable way forward, no matter how dire the economic situation we find ourselves in.

Ukraine Dispatch

Three people were killed in an incursion in the Sumy region, but that incursion has been pushed back. Ukrainian drones hit Russia’s key oil terminal in Primorsk. NATO announced plans to further shore up defences on their eastern flank after the incursion into Polish airspace. And Prince Harry made a surprise visit to Kyiv in support of wounded soldiers.

Continue reading →

Roundup: First list of major projects incoming

Posted on by

Today is the day where the first tranche of major projects to be tackled by the Major Projects Office gets announced, and surprising nobody who has paid the slightest bit of attention, there are no pipeline projects on that list. And the reason is because there are no proposals on the table—you can’t approve a project that doesn’t exist, but that hasn’t stopped Pierre Poilievre or Danielle Smith from making hay about it. Instead, what will be on the list is not too surprising—phase two of LNG Canada, the new nuclear project at Darlington, expanding the Port of Montreal, a copper mine project in Saskatchewan, and expanding the Red Chris mine in BC, with a further list of potential projects for the second tranche. The Indigenous Advisory Council for the Major Projects Office was also announced yesterday, for what that’s worth.

Carney did address the media at the opening of the caucus retreat yesterday, and while he spoke about the dire economic situation (in a way that defies it being taken seriously), and talked about diversifying trade with Europe and Asia, and the launch of Build Canada Homes next week, there was one thing that did bother me in particular. Carney said that they were shifting from a question of if we want to build projects to a question of how, which I think is a gross misreading of the situation. It wasn’t really a question of if before—most any project proposal that was submitted for review was serious, but the question of how was predominant all along. The thing is that the “how” changed dramatically over time because the old ways of doing things were no longer acceptable, whether that was in regards to environmental standards, or ignoring the wishes of local First Nations, or making a bunch of promises to those First Nations and then screwing them out of the revenues and jobs that were promised to get their support. Yes, there is lip-service being paid to Indigenous consultation or UNDRIP principles, but Carney has yet to demonstrate that he actually understands what this all means (as he gave himself a giant Henry VIII clause to exempt himself from any of it, he doesn’t want to deal with), so you can understand why there is trepidation about what this is supposed to all mean. And if he doesn’t understand that “how” was always the question, then that’s also a very big problem in how he conceives of things going forward.

Meanwhile, Carney said that there needs to be heightened pressure applied to Russia after the drone attack on Poland (and it sounds like there will be a NATO Article 4 meeting in the near future about it), not that I would expect the Americans to be serious about it. Carney also said that there needs to be a “focused approach” to the temporary foreign workers programme, after former immigration Marc Miller called out Pierre Poilievre for stoking anti-immigration sentiments (because that’s what he’s doing for engagement).

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-09-10T13:25:07.322Z

Ukraine Dispatch

All of the talk yesterday was about how Poland found 14 Russian drones in its territory in the aftermath of the overnight attack, and western leaders rushing to condemn Russia for the attack. President Zelenskyy said that Ukraine and Europe need to work together to create an effect air defence shield.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions about Carney’s lack of political judgment

Posted on by

It was announced early in the morning that the Christo-fascist that prime minister Mark Carney invited to address the Cabinet retreat couldn’t make it after all, but don’t worry—they fully planned to continue to engage with him. No, seriously. The mind absolutely boggles, and I can scarcely believe that there wasn’t a revolt in the room from members of Cabinet who absolutely should know better. And then there was François-Philippe Champagne, who insisted that it was important to hear from “different perspectives.” What Christo-fascist perspective is so important to hear about? Removing the rights of women, or LGBTQ+ people? Re-segregating the United States? The destruction of the separation of church and state? Which of these issues, pray tell, did Cabinet most need to hear all about from the guy who wrote the 900-page playbook that Trump’s acolytes are following? Honest to Zeus, does a single person in that Cabinet have any political judgment whatsoever?

The Christo-fascist couldn't attend the Cabinet retreat after all, but don't worry, Carney's office says they will continue to engage with him.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-04T13:12:41.573Z

And then there are Carney’s defenders online, who insisted over and over again that Carney needs to “know your enemy,” and that it was important to get a sense of their “motivations and goals.” As though the 900-page manifesto doesn’t spell any of that out? And to be perfectly frank, does nobody remember the homily about the Nazi bar? This should not be difficult, but apparently Carney is not only demonstrating a lack of political judgment, but a lack of judgment period, and his defenders will praise him up and down and insist that this is just very clever strategy. It’s not. Stop pretending that making nice with fascists is at all acceptable.

The Carney stans are having another normal one in my replies, justifying consorting with Christo-fascists, I see.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-04T15:25:19.693Z

EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS WHO THEY ARE.Stop pretending there is a valid reason to make nice with fascists.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-04T15:15:13.455Z

https://bsky.app/profile/alwayslate.bsky.social/post/3lxzwrjhyyc2c

Meanwhile, Carney and several ministers will be making a series of “sector-based” announcements this morning, which could include things like measures to help sectors affected by tariffs, or the EV mandates. At the retreat yesterday, Champagne was using the corporate euphemisms of “adjustments” to the civil service in service of their austerity plans, but what struck me was his language about how they were trying to “rebuild Canada.” Erm, rebuild from what? You were part of the government for the past ten years, and it’s not like there was a smoking crater left in Trudeau’s wake. Champagne believed in that spending, whether through COVID or in implementing new social programmes that were helping with the cost of living. So again, I ask—what exactly are we rebuilding from?

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile strike hit a de-mining operation near Chernihiv, killing two. Ukraine’s top military commander is looking for increased use of interceptor drones. Twenty-six countries have pledged to provide security guarantees if there is a cease-fire (which Putin is not interested in). Here is a look at some of the people who are evacuating ruined cities in the country’s east after holding out in the hopes that the war would end.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to make Churchill happen. (It’s not going to happen)

Posted on by

In light of news that the new Major Projects Office is due to be launched this week, and comments that prime minister Mark Carney and others have been making about the possibility of an LNG terminal at the Port of Churchill, Manitoba, it behoves me to once again bring up energy economist Andrew Leach, who has a giant reality check for everyone saying this is going to be a thing. It’s not—unless we want to spent billions of taxpayer dollars on a money-losing exercise, that is. Which is not what this whole drive toward expanding resource extraction is supposed to be about.

That said, I think that Leach is ultimately correct here—that Carney and his brain trust have spent too long reading the Conservatives’ talking points about resource development and have believed them to be true, which they obviously are not. But when you have legacy media in this country just completely uncritically regurgitating the talking points from the Conservatives and Danielle Smith, and reporters and political talk show hosts just uncritically mocking the “no business case” line about why we don’t have LNG terminals on the east coast without talking to a gods damned energy economist about why that didn’t happen, well, of course it becomes easy for someone like Carney to just uncritically believe this nonsense, because that’s all that’s being presented. Justin Trudeau and his Cabinet couldn’t actually articulate why there was no business case (because “if you’re explaining, you’re losing,” so they never explained anything), and trusted the media to do it for them, which media wasn’t going to do, and could barely be arsed to even both-sides that particular issue. And this is where we are today, and Carney is going to be forced to take the loss on this one, because Liberals refuse to take Conservatives to task for their bullshit.

Speaking of, Pierre Poilievre was in Charlottetown, PEI, to decry that the incoming clean fuel regulations are “Carney’s Carbon Tax 2.0,” even though Trudeau’s government put through those regulations years ago, they’re not a tax, and associated costs are not going into government coffers, but simply businesses passing along the costs of reducing their emissions. It’s the same brand of dishonest bullshit that he trades in, and even some Conservatives are getting tired of it, telling the National Post that he’s become a caricature of himself. So, way to go there.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-08-27T22:01:25.944Z

Ukraine Dispatch

There was a massive Russian drone and missile attack on energy infrastructure across six regions of Ukraine in the early morning hours, looking in part to exacerbate an existing has shortage. Russia also says that they object to the European proposals around security guarantees, which is not a shock at all.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Carney hits Berlin and Riga

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney started his day in Berlin, where he signed a critical mineral partnership with Germany, intent on encouraging joint-financing of resource projects and to boost exports to Europe. There was also talk about an energy partnership, both with respect to energy and LNG, with Carney going so far as to muse about maybe using the Port of Churchill for an LNG terminal, but that seems wildly unrealistic given the timelines and realities at play, and the fact that the market is changing rapidly. As much as some of the lesser fill-in hosts at CBC’s Power & Politics have been trying to play the dumb game of “Trudeau said there was no business case for LNG!” with European diplomats on air, there hasn’t been a business case because no European buyers were willing to sign long-term contracts for proposed LNG facilities on the East Coast, much as Asian buyers have largely been unwilling to commit to long-term contracts for LGN proposals on the west coast that have all of their permits in hand.

Carney then headed to Latvia, where Carney announced a “three-year extension” to the NATO mission there, which he didn’t need to do because we have a long-term commitment and were not about to let it lapse because we have plans to further expand our presence. But he had to look like he’s doing something…

A classic announcement that is not an announcement–Canada is committed to the Latvia mission for the foreseeable future. To put term limits on it is silly. The real problem is a good one–if the war ends in Ukraine, maybe CA might reduce a bit in Latvia so that it can help deter/reassure in Ukr

— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman.bsky.social) 2025-08-26T19:49:30.742Z

Ukraine Dispatch

One worker was killed and at least three wounded in a Russian attack on a coal mine in Donetsk region. Russia has also captured two more villages in the Dnipropetrovsk region, which they claimed to have captured weeks ago.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1960353705879846944

 

Continue reading →

Roundup: The same counterproductive demands, once again

Posted on by

The “changed” and “humbled” Pierre Poilievre was back on his old bullshit yesterday, calling a press conference in Surrey, BC, to decry crime rates, blame the government, give some misleading bullshit about past legislation, and then take friendly questions from hand-picked outlets. Sounds familiar?

But seriously, we’ve been through all of this before. Calling for a terrorism designation for the Bishnoi gang is not helpful, and risks watering down terrorism designations in general (which is why it was a problem to do it for Mexican cartels at the behest of the Trump administration, not to mention designations shouldn’t be made for political expediency). Tougher penalties for extortion? Extortion with a firearm already has a maximum sentence of life in jail, so why they want a four-year minimum is not exactly doing anything more than current sentencing already does. Repealing the former Bill C-75 on bail? As we have said time and time again, this merely codified Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on the law of bail and made it tougher for those accused of domestic violence to get bail, so repealing it will do nothing. What is it going to take to drive home that these are not solutions, and will do nothing about the current uptick in police-reported crime (and again, these are small upticks that are well below historic norms)?

Meanwhile, Poilievre, Andrew Scheer, and others, spent their day engaging in supportive posts for transphobes, during Ottawa Pride Week no less. So yeah, up to their same old bullshit because they want to rile up the grievance mongers so that they can begin a new round of grifty fundraising. Poilievre has learned absolutely nothing from losing his seat and the election.

Conservatives are going all-in on transphobia today, as Pride Week in Ottawa is underway. #canqueer

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-08-20T21:13:56.179Z

Ukraine Dispatch

At least fourteen people were wounded in a Russian attack on the Sumy region, three people were killed in an artillery attack on the eastern city of Kostiantynivka, and a gas distribution station was hit in Odesa. Russians claim to have advanced in the Dnipropetrovsk region, while Ukrainians knocked out power in parts of Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A committee of handwringing over ferries

Posted on by

On Friday, the Commons transport committee met to wring their hands and express their dismay at BC Ferries’ decision to buy new ships from a Chinese firm, and lo, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Chrystia Freeland expressed her dismay. Gregor Robertson expressed his disappointment. The representative of the Canada Infrastructure Bank pointed out that they don’t make any decisions on procurement, and that their loan was secured before that decision was made. And the head of BC Ferries pointed out, once again, that no Canadian shipyard bid on these ships, if they did, it would take them a decade to deliver them (at least), and that the Chinese bid was $1.2 billion cheaper than any of the others.

That of course didn’t stop opposition MPs from doing the performative song and dance. Conservative Dan Albas demanded the government cancel the loan—which the government can’t do because the Infrastructure Bank is arm’s length. And now they want all documents and emails released, which is going to tell them yet again that no Canadian shipyards bid on this contract.

1) This procurement is entirely provincial jurisdiction2) The Infrastructure Bank operates at arm's length and ministers can't cancel any loans it gives3) NO CANADIAN SHIPYARDS BID ON THIS CONTRACT!Is the federal government going to dictate that one of them build these ferries? Seriously?

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-08-05T13:50:03.050Z

Perhaps most galling of all was Bloc MP Xavier Barsalou-Duval wanted an apology from the government and from the Canada Infrastructure Bank because it’s “unacceptable” that the government plans to invest in foreign infrastructure when our own steel industry is facing tariffs from Trump—but the federal government isn’t investing. BC Ferries, a provincial Crown Corporation is, and the loan from the Infrastructure Bank is a fully repayable loan. You would think the Bloc of all people would rather the federal government respect a decision by a provincial body, but apparently that only matters if it’s in Quebec.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-08-04T13:08:04.388Z

In case you missed it:

  • My weekend column on the false choice between emissions caps and prosperity, as the costs of climate change are already being felt in significant ways.
  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take points out that Poilievre and the Conservatives had a chance to deal with the Longest Ballot nuisances, but chose stupid games instead.
  • My column which responds to what was in that weekend CBC story on the “radically overhauled” Senate and the problems with some of the arguments made.
  • My long weekend column looks at the current issue with contracts for freelance interpreters in Parliament, and why it’s exacerbating an existing crisis.
  • My column asks if it’s time to revive the Economic Council of Canada as we did with the Law Commission, given the uncertain times we live in.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims to have captured another village in the Dniporpetrovsk region. On Monday, Ukraine destroyed one Russian military jet and damaged four others stationed in occupied Crimea. Ukrainian officials say that Indian components have been found in Russian drones. Two days after Ukraine’s parliament voted to restore anti-corruption agencies’ independence, they announced that they had uncovered a major graft scheme involving drone procurements.

https://twitter.com/Denys_Shmyhal/status/1952763302699729187

Continue reading →

Roundup: Money for not living up to your end of the bargain

Posted on by

One of the stories that has been floating around the past few days is that Toronto stands to lose up to $30 million in federal funding from the Housing Accelerator Fund because council did not approve city-wide zoning for sixplexes, which was a condition that they signed up for when they negotiated their deal for this money. And of course, this also comes with voices who claim that the federal government would be “using money as punishment” if they don’t give them all the money anyway, even though they have quite deliberately thumbed their noses at the very thing that they agreed to in order to get that money.

The established media narrative is that municipalities are *always* the victims who have no tools at their disposal.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-07-13T17:58:54.360Z

Unfortunately, we have a history of the federal government backing down when it comes to either giving money anyway when deals are broken, or by not recovering costs when they should. For example, the federal government was clawing back health transfers from New Brunswick for not funding abortion access at a clinic that was in an underserved part of the province, but when COVID hit, they released all of the clawed back money so that they didn’t look like the bad guys in ensuring that the province was living up to its obligations (or, for that matter, proving that they were sticking to their feminist principles, and using that money as leverage for the province to back down and fund the clinic). Another example is that provinces have deliberately underfunded their emergency management systems because they have been conditioned to know that the federal government will provide assistance from the Canadian Forces, and that provinces will get that assistance for free. The federal government has the authority to recover those costs from the provinces, but they never do because it would look like they’re somehow being mean to those provinces, when the provinces deliberately underfunded their own capacity.

If we want to reform things and start enforcing a system of accountability, that starts with making sure that provinces and municipalities live up to their agreements, or they don’t get transfer payments. But that requires a backbone and a willingness to actually hold them to account for those failures, and not being so timid that they refuse to actually say in clear terms that those provinces or municipalities didn’t live up to their agreements, so they would lose the funding/didn’t fund their own services because they thought they could get federal services for free, but they can’t, because there’s one taxpayer and they think they’re being clever. Nothing will change if someone doesn’t take a stand, and it’s time we start doing so.

Ukraine Dispatch

Trump says that America will resume sending Patriot missiles to Ukraine, so we’ll see how long it lasts this time.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A major far-right terror arrest

Posted on by

The big news yesterday was that four people were arrested and charged in terrorism-related charges for plans to start an anti-government militia, and to violently seize land near Quebec City for their own purposes, and more to the point, that two of those charged are serving members of the Canadian Forces, and not reservists as we have seen in the past. They were also heavily armed and had a number of explosive devices prepared—and it was likely the largest number of weapons and devices seized in a terror-related event in Canadian history.

I can’t speak to the nature of the plot (too few details) but this is the largest amount of weapons and devices seized as part of a terrorism incident in Canada. Ever.

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-07-08T14:20:46.149Z

Details are still scarce, but former CSIS analyst Jessica Davis has some particular observations.

Not small time: "Searches conducted in January 2024 in the Québec City area led to the seizure of 16 explosive devices, 83 firearms and accessories, approximately 11,000 rounds of ammunition of various calibres, nearly 130 magazines, four pairs of night vision goggles and military equipment."

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-07-08T13:19:41.537Z

This is an ideologically motivated plot. In Canada, 77% of terrorist attacks have been carried out by ideologically-motivated actors: newsletter.insightthreatintel.com/p/rising-thr…

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-07-08T13:29:30.504Z

Over the last two decades, however, most terrorism charges have been laid against religiously-motivated terrorists. That has slowly been changing, with more ideologically-motivated individuals getting caught: newsletter.insightthreatintel.com/p/terror-on-…

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-07-08T13:29:30.505Z

They do point to the ideology — anti-government extremism. And there's a long history in Canada of breaking down our terrorism into different categories. (ideological, political, and religious). There's a lot to criticize the RCMP about, but this is not top of the list.

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-07-08T20:09:49.002Z

Another issue here has to do with the military not doing an adequate job of investigating the full extent of far-right extremism in their ranks, in part because they refuse to let outsiders do the investigating, as Leah West demonstrates in this thread. Some of this has to do with an insistence on cleaning up their own messes, but, well, their history on that score has not been great given the sexual misconduct problems and abuse of power scandals they have been dealing with over the past couple of decades. There is still work to do, and it doesn’t help when things happen, such as the commander of the Canadian Army saying he wasn’t notified about certain army members posting to an “abhorrent” Facebook group during the investigation into it.

There is much about this story that is staggering. But the inclusion of military members while deeply troubling is not surprising. A story:I was part of the RWE CAF research network funded by the Department of National Defence to study IMVE in the military for three years 2020-2023.

— Leah West (@leahwest-nsl.bsky.social) 2025-07-08T22:30:36.625Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The only real Ukraine news today is that Trump is planning to resume weapons shipments to Ukraine, feeling hurt that Putin was bullshitting him, but more concerningly, says he doesn’t know who ordered the shipments to stop (because he’s clearly not running his own show).

https://bsky.app/profile/united24media.com/post/3ltixwozuor2a

Continue reading →