Tag Archives: Online Harms

Disparity in premiers’ reactions to new tariffs

Posted on by
Reply

There was more reaction to the threatened Section 338 tariffs yesterday, particular from the premiers, who were meeting in Charlottetown, though those reactions were mixed. Doug Ford was full of bluster and saying that if we cut off oil and potash, we could “dismantle” the US, while Danielle Smith and Scott Moe, true to form, insisted that no, we mustn’t use those products for retaliation. Prime minister Mark Carney had a curb-side press conference to say that he spoke with Trump this morning and that they will “intensify negotiations,” whatever that is supposed to mean, because apparently the thinking is that we can still come to some kind of trade agreement with the US? Even though there is no agreement to be had, and never will be? I also note that if you look at how provinces are affected by these threatened tariffs that Alberta and Saskatchewan are barely threatened at all—it’s quite clear that a lot of these were chosen to exacerbate divisions.

There's a lot of variation across #cdnecon in exposure to the new 50% U.S. tariffs (on August 19). Here's a preliminary estimate of the share of exports affected (based on HS6, so a slight over-estimate). BC/ON/QC most exposed. Others far less so.

— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe.bsky.social) 2026-07-21T19:53:38.355840Z

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3mr6jtyqv522e

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3mr6jxnjdk22e

News In Photo:

— The Beaverton (@thebeaverton.com) 2026-07-21T18:13:17.448Z

Meanwhile, senior officials have confirmed that what Carney said about the bridge agreement was wrong, and that the revenue-sharing is tolls minus operations (like snow clearing) and not post-debt repayment, meaning that it’s likely he was being misleading in the media. But in light of the latest threats, the Canadian government has decided not to attend any kind of ribbon-cutting when it opens next week, because why should they?

My Latest:

For National Magazine, I delve into why the government’s Digital Safety Act is very likely unconstitutional, and completely unworkable.

Continue reading →

A privacy bill that takes away from the Privacy Commissioner

Posted on by

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

https://bsky.app/profile/joshtabish.bsky.social/post/3moeciabcks2u

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

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 →

Reversing themselves on age verification

Posted on by

The government’s online harms bill dropped yesterday, and while there are some good parts to it, there are some very, very bad parts that I am absolutely outraged about. Because this government has developed a real penchant for major omnibus bills, this contains parts of the previous online harms bill, such as the duty to act responsibly for platforms around safe design for sites and apps, which is the good part. It dropped the hate crime provisions that included restoring some of the functions of the Human Rights Tribunal around hate, which were controversial to begin with, but was also about trying to respond to the increasing amounts of hate being seen online. It seeks to create a Digital Safety Commission as the regulator in charge of the online harms scheme, who will oversee enforcement and implementation. It has a partial social media ban for youth under sixteen, but is also incorporating the age verification scheme of that Senate Public Bill, S-209, which has failed time and again, and which the Trudeau government opposed for all of the right reasons, including the fact that age verification cannot work without becoming mass surveillance (and yes, this is the part that I am absolutely livid about). (More from CBC here and here).

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3mnxuplffys2b

Part of what is so infuriating is that they are putting the age-gating into this legislation, but there are no details on how that is going to work, other than mention of “age estimation,” which is poor technology when it can have trouble distinguishing between a fifteen and a sixteen year-old, and doesn’t work well for anyone who is racialised or trans (and certain age estimation technologies have been easily thwarted with fake moustaches). And remember, this is technology that everyone on the internet is going to be subjected to, which is inevitably going to involve mass surveillance, and the loss of internet privacy writ-large. The Liberals have reversed themselves yet again, shamelessly. (For more, here is Michael Geist’s first impressions of the legislation).

My Latest:

My column highlights remarks that Louise Arbour made about diversity during her installation speech, given we are at a time of increasing ethnic/white nationalism.

Continue reading →

Expecting an online harms disaster

Posted on by

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 →

Davies’ go-nowhere bill to ban floor-crossing

Posted on by

Perhaps out of a need to feel a sense of relevance as his party disappears into the woodwork, the NDP’s Don Davies tabled a private members’ bill yesterday that would ban floor-crossing and require an MP to run in a by-election before changing parties. This is little surprise for the NDP, who have declared their dislike of floor-crossings, probably because people like to cross away from them, as was most especially the case in the post-2011 caucus when Lise St. Denis saw the illegal stunts they were trying to pull with their “regional office” scheme and demanding parts of her office budget to do so and said “Nope,” and crossed to the Liberals, while another one of their MPs joined with a former Bloc MP to try and start a new Quebec party that went nowhere. Lori Idlout is just the latest who decided there was no future in the NDP.

“The power to decide who governs belongs exclusively to Canadian votes [sic],” Davies concluded.This fundamentally misunderstands parliamentary democracy, which is frankly on-brand for the NDP.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-02T17:39:49.995Z

The NDP, at least federally, fundamentally believe that party trumps individual—they are the most whipped caucus in Parliament, and they have an internal culture that demands “solidarity,” so MPs that stray from those lines face bullying, and if they vote against the party line, they face punishments. This is long-standing. (It’s also not just federal—there were allegations of internal bullying in the Rachel Notley caucus as well, and Wab Kinew kicked someone out of his party for the most dubious of reasons). Davies’ press release, however, also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of parliamentary democracy, which is that voters elect a parliament, and that parliament decides on who forms government. Yes, we have reduced this to a bunch of shorthand around the party with the most seats, etcetera, but fundamentally, we elect individual MPs to a parliament, we don’t elect governments. Electing individuals means that they get to make their own choices including whether they want to continue to sit with the party they were elected under, and then voters can hold them to account in the next election.

The NDP doesn’t understand or believe in that, instead espousing a bunch of nonsense about being elected under a team banner so therefore that team is more important than the individual. What they are instead saying is that MPs don’t matter—they shouldn’t have rights, and they shouldn’t have their own agency, because the party is everything. That’s the thing that is actually fundamentally undemocratic, and that’s why Davies bill should go down in flames—not that it will ever see the light of day, because he’s near the bottom of the Order of Precedence, and it is mathematically impossible for his slot to come up before the next election.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More gas-fired electricity, just because

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney announced his national electricity plan yesterday, which he’s calling Powering Canada Strong™ (and I swear to Zeus, I am so tired of branding everything “Canada Strong™” by this point). He wants to double production by 2050, as well as connect provincial power grids with interties, build the skilled workforce necessary, and manufacture the technology to do so in Canada. And it all sounds well and good, but to get there, he plans to weaken the Trudeau-era Clean Electricity Regulations in order to allow a lot more natural gas-fired production. You know, for “flexibility.”

At this point you have to wonder how Carney can keep up the pretence that he is still going to meet our climate targets, and yet, he keeps saying that’s what’s going to happen. Sure, he’ll “adjust them,” but if you say we’re weakening them, he gets testy and huffy. But the notion that by “building up we can drive emissions down” is farcical on its face. It relies on the same logic of reducing emissions intensity while increasing the overall volume of production (and it was a tell that he used emissions intensity when talking about gas-fired electricity)—you’re still increasing overall emissions, albeit at a slightly lower rate. And to be clear, Canada was making progress in driving emission down, and we had an actual path to meeting our targets, but that has been completely blown out of the water now.

I’m also getting increasingly tired of this being billed as “pragmatic,” when it’s not in the longer term. The climate crisis is already here, and it’s reflected in the dramatic increase in wildfire season, extreme weather events, and increasing droughts that have pushed up food prices, at home and abroad. We can’t just keep ignoring this and treating climate goals or environmental protection as a luxury add-on. It’s essential to ensuring we have a stable economy of the future, and the fact that Carney and nearly everyone else is ignoring this fact is a really, really big problem, because the costs for kicking this down the road are already being felt. It’s only going to get worse from here, and they keep insisting that they want to make that future pain as bad as it can possibly get.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-05-14T19:08:01.779Z

Programming Note: I am taking the full long weekend off from the blog. See you Wednesday, and happy Victoria Day.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia’s massive drone attack continues, with the count at over 1567 drones since Wednesday, and the death toll now over 37 as an apartment building was struck. Zelenskyy’s former chief of staff has now been arrested in relation to money laundering charges. Meanwhile, the government of Latvia has lost its parliamentary majority over the handling of the incident where a Ukrainian drone accidentally flew into their territory.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reading into the Spring Update

Posted on by

There was a bit of a dust-up, if we can call it that, online over the weekend, following Althia Raj’s weekend column, in which she calls out the fact that while Carney claims he’s protecting social programmes, he is in fact cutting them along with transfers to provinces. And she’s not wrong in the fact that there is a lot of sunsetting funding with no indication that it’s being renewed again, which makes it hard for provinces or organisations to plan on what their future funding will be. Enter Tyler Meredith, who was an economic advisor to Justin Trudeau (but who is now out of government), and he took issue with Raj’s assertions in this thread:

https://twitter.com/tylermeredith/status/2050715852773695646

And I take his point that no decisions have been made on any of this funding that is due to sunset, but I also think he’s being a bit overly generous with the government on some things, such as the creation of a personal support workers’ tax credit as “proof” that the government is being too bro-focused. One tax credit does not a care economy/women’s state make, particularly one that is that low. And to that end, Raj gave her own response in this thread:

And she brings the receipts when it comes to what’s in the documents, particularly around how Carney’s rhetoric around things like pharmacare not matching the reality on the ground, where there is a half-assed programme in a few provinces, which has not been extended to all others in the past year, and which seems to be no closer to negotiating toward the creation of an actual national programme, beyond the things the NDP insisted on in the dumbest way possible. Which brings me to this point that Mike Moffatt made about the two exchanges:

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/2050943140949856708

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/2050945741221195827

The Carney government doesn’t like to give a lot of details, and relies an awful lot on saying “just trust me” to a whole lot of things, which it really shouldn’t do. And then for everyone to get upset because they we can’t read minds or scry into the future is a problem in trying to communicate to the public. We’re not getting good information out of this government, and that needs to change, and these exchanges are a perfect encapsulation of that.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian drone hit a bus in Kherson, killing two and injuring seven others. Ukraine struck the port of Primorsk, the largest oil export port on the Baltic Sea.

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: Two committees move behind closed doors

Posted on by

There is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth happening by the Conservatives because debate in two committees was moved behind closed doors now that the Liberals are able to exert majority control of them. The cry is that they’re shutting down “public debate,” but I’m dubious. Members of the government won’t say why this was necessary, but I’m not ready to pull the fire alarm just yet.

Why? Because the two committees in question have been in the throes of attempted witch hunt studies that the Conservatives have been trying to orchestrate (with the gleeful assistance of the Bloc, who are happy to embarrass the government any day of the week). In the ethics committee, it’s been the wrangling over trying to insinuate that François-Philippe Champagne was in a conflict of interest because the Alto high speed rail project was included in the budget when he has since put up an ethics screen because his spouse is now an executive on the project. The thing is, the Ethics Commissioner already said that there is no conflict because Alto reports to a different line minister, but Champagne put up the screen out of an abundance of caution. He did agree to appear after a filibuster, but this may be the Liberals trying to get out of it, and not unsurprisingly. The Conservatives have been trying to engineer this meeting so that they can harvest a bunch of clips of them calling Champagne corrupt and him prevaricating or looking obstinate.

The other committee is health, where the Conservatives are trying to manufacture another “boondoggle” around the PrescribeIT project, which as I understand it, was created at the behest of the provinces, who then decided not to take it up once it was developed. Oh, but there was outsourcing! And? They haven’t been able to make any particular allegation other than it cost money, and this is somehow entirely the federal government’s fault for trying to accommodate provinces who, to this day, refuse to come together on common standards for electronic health records, which has been a persistent problem for two decades now. Suffice to say, I’m not convinced that moving procedural wrangling in camera is a sign that democracy is under threat, and there was a whole lot of this very same thing when the Conservatives had a majority on committees (and they turned those committees into branch plants of ministers’ offices). They may try to cast themselves as heroes for inventing scandals, but I remain unconvinced that this is a danger to parliamentary democracy just yet.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-04-29T13:08:02.607Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia’s attack on Odesa early Wednesday hit residential buildings and a hospital. Ukraine says its new long-range drones hit a Russian oil pumping station 1500 km away from the border. Here is a look at the interceptor drone programme to stop Russia’s Shahed drones, and how the interception rate is now up to 90 percent.

Continue reading →