Tag Archives: Terrorism

An intent for a 100-year agreement

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday was the first day of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Canadian visit, where there was an announcement in Calgary with prime minister Mark Carney before the pair headed to Banff to address the Cabinet retreat. There were a number of different announcements made, largely with the signature on a “declaration to establish a 100-year partnership,” which means that it’s not finalised, but they still wanted to put on a production. The 100-year thing has already been signed with the UK, and will be more of an intention of long-term support than a binding 100-year agreement of any particular variety, but Ukraine gets the validation of a partner like Canada, amidst the other supports. There was also an energy-partnership signed, new funds for Ukrainian war veterans, and the coordination around new anti-ballistic missile sanctions that Canada is taking the lead on.

One of the big items was a drone deal, where Canada is standing up a drone production industrial base as opposed to an inventory of several thousand drones because of the pace of technological change. A third of that production will head to Ukraine immediately, but this is where Ukraine leads in developing the technology, and Canadian industry will help fund and carry out the production. This is where the future of warfare is headed, and Canada is the first to sign such a deal in the Americas (a number of countries in the Persian Gulf have signed their own deals because of the Iran conflict demonstrated their necessity), but it certainly help ensure that Ukraine has what it needs as the conflict carries on.

Meanwhile, we learned that Carney is still communicating regularly with Trump on issues like Ukraine and Iran (not that he’s bothered to publish a readout of any of these conversations). He spoke about compartmentalising these conversations about the broader trade war happening, but okay. And then he said that he still thinks that there’s a deal to be had with the US, and that we can “strike a fair deal.” We have a fair deal—it’s the New NAFTA. There is no deal to be had with Trump because he doesn’t keep his word, and is a gangster who will always try to take more. Carney may think he’s going for optimism, but he’s just delaying action when we need to make it clear that there’s no going back to “normal” for at least a generation, if not more.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-09-10T13:08:02.542Z

My Latest:

My Xtra column looks at the documents that Alberta separatists have been putting out, and why they may sound great on the surface but have hidden warnings if you look.

Continue reading →

Was it really always “Plan A”?

Posted on by
Reply

Over the long weekend, prime minister Mark Carney released another one of this “Forward Guidance” videos, to talk about the current moment we find ourselves in with the trade war. Some of this was a good bit of history in that one of the reasons for confederation was to guard against American predation, though he didn’t fully spell out that Sir John A Macdonald was very concerned that a newly militarized US post-Civil War would turn their attention northward. And yes, American tariffs did force the newly-united Canadians to better develop their own internal markets because yes, we did a lot of north-south trade at the time as well. He brought up the “iron spine” of the trans-Canada railway with some lip-service as to the human cost of it (more than he has in the past), but from there his metaphors started to drift again. The thing is, that “iron spine” has weakened considerably since free trade, and it’s been a whole lot of north-south trade once again, and his trying to say that the new north-south iron spine would be around energy, both electricity and crude oil, didn’t really make a lot of sense.

More than that, however, Carney was engaging in some revisionist history of his own, insisting that building up our industry domestically and to export to more markets was “always Plan A” didn’t really mesh with his stated desire during negotiations to have a stronger security and defence relationship with the US. He lamented in the video that the Americans were trying to force dependency, but Carney’s own goals included a stronger comprehensive relationship, so it feels a lot like he’s trying to play both sides here. He also said that there’s no going back to “normal” with the US, but again, this has been his whole strategy up until two weeks ago. It feels like he’s only just started saying things he was supposed to be saying all along two weeks ago, and is now pretending like it’s what he was always saying.

And then, of course, he brought up digital asbestos, because it’s “important,” and insisted that Canada would be maintaining its values and sovereignty with it. Erm, really? How? This is just lip service while he continues to swallow the CEO hype around it rather than waking up to the fact that this is garbage tech that is burning cash and the environment, and like he’s trying to be the last guy in before the bubble bursts. It’s getting cringey how much Carney and Evan Solomon are still enthralled by the false promises, like their lives depended on it.

My Latest:

  • For National Magazine, I got some reaction to the news that the Ontario Courts’ case management system suffered a hack.
  • My weekend column wonders if it’s time that we get serious about domestically-built EVs, as the age of the integrated North American auto industry appears to be over.
  • My column on the Conservatives on the Remain side of the Alberta referendum trying to have it both ways by blaming Liberals, playing into Separatist hands.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre’s anti-trans colours

Posted on by

Yesterday, Pierre Poilievre tweeted an endorsement of JK Rowling praising the International Olympic Committee’s decision to ban trans women from sport, using a photo of Algerian boxer Imane Khelif as illustration. In spite of conspiracy theories and slander, Khelif is not trans (and is from a country where being queer is a crime). Poilievre should know this, but he is choosing to double down on anti-trans rhetoric (with a dose of misogyny and slander along the way). This is not the first time he has shown himself to be anti-trans, but this is the first major opportunity since he’s been trying to cast himself in a new light.

In case you needed any clarification where Poilievre stands on trans rights.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-27T17:16:48.712Z

The discussion of this online turned to Mark Carney’s stance on trans rights (he has been blandly supportive, and one of his children identifies as non-binary), and whether he is going to do anything about provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, who have invoked the Notwithstanding Clause to protect their anti-trans legislation from court challenges. The answer is that he doesn’t have the constitutional tools to do anything about it other than moral suasion. And then someone will pipe up and say that he can use disallowance.

No, he can’t. Disallowance is a constitutional dead letter because it was largely meant to prevent provinces from intruding into areas of federal jurisdiction, and that power was essentially adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada’s reference function. This means that any residual disallowance power would be a declaration of war on a province, at a time when you have two provinces that are flirting with separatist agitation. It’s not going to happen. Stop pretending that it’s a possibility because it’s not.

For the last time:The federal government is NOT going to use disallowance.Stop pretending it is a magic wand to deal with asshole premiers. You want to stop them? Get off your ass and organize, organize, organize. That's how politics works.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-28T04:36:47.504Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-27T13:24:01.622Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine’s economy minister said that the rise in fuel and fertilizer prices thanks to the Iran conflict are not expected to impact Ukraine’s spring planting season.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Big problems with student visas

Posted on by

Yesterday was Auditor General Report Day, and there were three on offer—the replacement for the Phoenix pay system, recruitment problems with the RCMP, and problems with the student visa system.

In short:

  1. The Phoenix replacement, Dayforce, is taking lessons learned from the problems of Phoenix, but in terms of simplifying pay rules, there has been no progress with the unions (which is not a surprise).
  2. The RCMP recruitment process is so bad partly because the RCMP hasn’t done enough workforce planning, their application process times keep getting longer, and they aren’t filling training classes. (Of course, the real problem is the force is horribly broken and needs to be dismantled and replaced).
  3. The student visa issue has been beset by problems with anti-fraud controls, and there has been a lack of resources to investigate cases. Additionally, the planned reductions in visa numbers wound up being way worse than intended (but that’s hardly a surprise when they get the message that they’re not wanted).

The thing that gets me in particular about the student visa issue is that the provinces are getting off scot-free here. I know the AG has no mandate to investigate provinces, but so many of the problems with this programme started with the provinces, who have not been held accountable for them, whether it’s because they cut university funding, which made them reliant on the higher tuition of foreign students, or the fact that several provinces, most especially Ontario, let these fraudulent strip mall colleges flourish, which were in turn used to be a source of cheap labour, and the federal government, which doesn’t have the mandate or capacity to investigate these colleges, is left taking all of the blame. No, the department is not blameless, as the audit shows, but the wider problem is not addressed by this, and continues to go without any accountability.

PBO candidate

The nominee for the new Parliamentary Budget Officer, Annette Ryan, appeared at the finance committee, where the Conservatives outright declared that they will not vote for her because they claim that the interim PBO, Jason Jacques, was “silenced” for calling the government out, and that he should get the job. Except that he disqualified himself, and he was not fired, nor did he “expose” anything. He made an ass of himself on camera, but that’s what the Conservatives want, and they are now spreading lies to make that point. Just unbelievable.

This is pathetic.Jacques wasn't fired. He didn't "expose" anything. His term expired, and he disqualified himself from the permanent post because he decided he wanted to play for the cameras. But that's why Poilievre wants him on the job, because for him, Parliament is a clip factory.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-03-24T00:46:12.483Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-03-23T13:08:04.927Z

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy is warning of an imminent “massive attack” against the country. He also says that he has “irrefutable proof” that Russia is providing intelligence to Iran.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Davies again demands official status

Posted on by

I will have to give it to NDP interim leader Don Davies that he has some big cajónes as he is once again demanding official party status as the House of Commons finds itself in a near deadlock on most legislation. He’s now into full-on blackmail territory—if you want this Parliament to work, give us status. But there are a few problems with this:

  • The NDP have nowhere near earned the right to be trusted after they tore up their previous agreement with the Liberals in bad faith;
  • The NDP were complaining that they were tired of being seen to be propping up the Liberals, but they’re once again offering to do just that, which leads back to the trust question; and
  • The math as it relates to committees has not changed. The NDP do not have the numbers to sit on committees in a fair manner

Davies says that Parliament will work better if the NDP get seats on committees, but which committees? The whole point of the cut-off of 12 for official party status is that it’s just barely enough MPs to be able to cover-off a member on every committee (and that means they are doing double or triple duty). Is he suggesting that they just get to pick five or six committees that they should be allowed to sit on but not the others? How is that fair to those other committees, or those other issues that the NDP are effectively ignoring? Yes, Davies is desperate for more resources and staff that official status would offer, but you cannot demonstrate the fundamentals of being able to be present. Rules exist for a reason.

The current budget bill — C-15 — was tabled on Nov. 18. It's been debated on 10 different sitting days. It still hasn't received a vote at second reading and made it to committee. Would things move faster if C-15 was a dozen different bills?I'm unconvinced.

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-12-10T18:02:17.857Z

MPs seemingly:a) don't want to spend much time in Ottawa and b) don't like to agree to move legislation along without undue delay.

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-12-10T18:00:25.458Z

The current budget bill — C-15 — was tabled on Nov. 18. It's been debated on 10 different sitting days. It still hasn't received a vote at second reading and made it to committee. Would things move faster if C-15 was a dozen different bills?I'm unconvinced.

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-12-10T18:02:17.857Z

Meanwhile, the fact that the budget implementation bill was debated over some eleven days at second reading is a problem. Yes, it’s a problem that it’s a giant omnibus bill, but the Commons has been getting worse about debate times since at least 2011, and nobody shows any willingness to start doing anything differently, and that’s a problem. One of the things I keep reminding people is that in Westminster, second reading debate is one afternoon, because that’s all it needs to be because you’re debating the general principle of the bill—that’s it. Your entire caucus does not need to weigh in with repetitive talking points and slogans. You do not need to put everyone one to get clips. House Leaders need to grow up and start cracking down on this abuse of procedure, and that starts with the Government House Leader, who needs to put his foot down. Enough is enough.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-12-10T14:25:06.076Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian forces have been fending off an “unusually large” mechanised assault on Pokrovsk. Russian drones hit the gas transport system in Odesa. Ukrainian sea drones have disabled another vessel in Russia’s “shadow fleet” in the Black Sea.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another politicized terror listing

Posted on by

The federal government has listed the Bishnoi gang, which largely operates out of India, as a terrorist entity, saying that they engage in “murder, shootings and arson, and generates terror through extortion and intimidation.” The Conservatives blame them for the rash of extortion crimes, primarily in the lower mainland in BC, and the BC premier has called for this designation. The problem? Not only are we conflating criminal organisations with terrorism, which gets messy on a number of fronts, but this is another example of process that should be apolitical and technocratic being politicised, and we are now getting into territory where groups are being listed after a vote in the House of Commons, which is Very Bad.

Here’s Jessica Davis on why this is a problem.

Back in the day, when I worked on listings, they were a largely technocratic process. I won't say there was a solid methodology for choosing which groups would get listed, but it was a bureaucratic one, with departments and agencies contributing.

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-09-29T13:46:59.828Z

Increasingly, we've seen groups listed after votes in the House of Commons, or campaigns to have them listed, or at the behest of our (sometimes) allies like the US.

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-09-29T13:46:59.829Z

The listings process itself isn't particularly rigorous. A single incident can result in a group getting listed. And there is no real mechanism for challenging listings. (Yes: processes exist. In practice, it would require getting a lawyer to argue the case of a terrorist entity, likely pro bono).

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-09-29T13:46:59.830Z

We are overdue for listings reform. We're trying to do far too much with it. Why not create a separate criminal listings regime? Having everything lumped together as terrorist dilutes the analytic power that comes from sensical categorization, and limits our ability to identify finance mechanisms.

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-09-29T13:46:59.831Z

Increasingly, some of our listings are also not lawful. Look at the listing for the IRGC QF, and more recently the IRGC. There's a clear carve-out that should prevent the listings of state militaries. But we don't seem to care about the lawfulness of this process anymore.

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-09-29T13:46:59.832Z

Overall, this process is increasingly meaningless: governments press the listings button (not unlike sanctions) and then do very little to actually counter terrorism or tackle hard problems like RCMP reform that could actually result in real improvements in Canadian safety and security.

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-09-29T13:46:59.833Z

The only way a government will be incentivized to change is to have this process challenged in court, which could actually be both really bad for Canada (undermine a huge part of our sanctions regime and throw our CTF system into turmoil), but could strengthen rule of law in Canada longer term.

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-09-29T13:46:59.834Z

Or, you know, the Carney government could just do the right thing and fix the system itself and toughen the process so it can't be politicized. Honestly, we're a stone's throw away from listing ANTIFA as a terrorist entity if the US asks. I'm sure it's fine.

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2025-09-29T13:46:59.835Z

The added issue here is that the RCMP already don’t have enough resources or capacity to enforce existing terrorist designations, let along the mounting sanctions, so these declarations are rapidly becoming symbolic, and that’s a very bad thing. This is one more reason why we need wholesale reform of the RCMP and most especially its federal policing responsibilities (and by wholesale reform, I generally mean disband it and stand up a new federal policing agency), but ultimately, this situation is just exacerbated by these political listings, which are about to even more problematic the more the Trump administration starts making demands, like they did with Mexican cartels.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims that they have taken control of two villages in the Donetsk region, as Ukraine is pushing back on other fronts in the same region. The nuclear plant in Zaporizhzhia has been without external power needed to cool its reactors for six days. Neighbouring Moldova saw the pro-EU party win the election in spite of a spate of Russian interference.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giving credence to Poilievre’s trolling

Posted on by

In spite of it being an exhaustingly packed news week, The Canadian Press took time out to get some reaction to Pierre Poilievre’s trolling tweets about prime minister Mark Carney’s many international trips of late. Yes, it’s summit season right now and there is a lot more travel coming up, but he has made a number of trips since he was appointed PM, and we have to ensure that it’s not “excessive” or something. Never mind that we’re in a moment of global crisis as the United States has turned into an authoritarian regime that is upending the post-war international order and tacitly siding with other authoritarian regimes, and this requires a global realignment of liberal democracies, but is he travelling too much? Guys.

The one thing that irked me the most in the story was the point about Carney having only attended three Question Periods since Parliament resumed last week, and only nine in the four-week spring session. There was no context to this, which is that it means once or twice per week, which is perfectly normal for any sitting prime minister. Once or twice a week was all Stephen Harper could deign to attend. Justin Trudeau started out with three a week, but then fell back to two on most weeks, but sometimes was just once. The difference of course was that Trudeau made it his practice to answer every question on Wednesdays, which no previous PM had done, and which Carney has not kept up (possibly because he may not have stamina enough to pat himself on the back for a full forty-five minute). In other words, Carney’s QP attendance is fully within the norm, and you would think that the national wire service could point this out, but that might mean that they would have to have someone with enough institutional knowledge and memory to know this, but pretty much every bureau on the Hill no longer has either. (As a reminder, I am the only journalist who goes to QP every day, because someone has to).

This being said, I think we need to once again have a discussion about the kind of insular nativism that Poilievre is stoking by making it sound like foreign travel by the prime minister is somehow illegitimate, or that every trip must come with some kind of signed agreement (even though we may already have signed agreements with countries like Mexico, and forging stronger ties is important beyond just a signed piece of paper). Trying to create this false expectation that the PM can’t go anywhere so long as there is “crime and chaos” at home is juvenile and frankly troubling, because it means that they have absolutely no idea how the real world works, and are playing with fire, especially if they ever want to form government one day.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-09-26T13:24:02.797Z

Ukraine Dispatch

The front line in the conflict has grown to nearly 1250 km in length, as Russian forces have shifted tactics to try and make breakthroughs. That said, both president Zelenskyy and his top military commander say that Russia’s 2025 offensive has failed to meet their goals, and suffered heavy losses in the process. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s assessment of the drone incursions into NATO airspace is that Russia is trying to stoke fatigue in Ukraine’s allies in the hopes of drawing down military support.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The growing incoherence with environmental protections

Posted on by

This government’s incoherence with regard to its environmental policies continues apace, as Tim Hodgson told Vassy Kapelos that exceptions to things like the tanker ban or emissions cap could be made through Bill C-5, which doesn’t make any gods damned sense. Why have a tanker ban or an emissions cap if it’s only applied on an ad hoc basis? If you want to get rid of them (and with that tanker ban, be ready for a major fight with local First Nations), actually lay out a rationale for it other than hand-wavey nonsense, But seriously, Hodgson is worse than any Trudeau-era minister when it comes to being unable to communicate his way out of a wet paper bag, and I fail to see how he could possibly have been considered a star by Carney.

Meanwhile, while Alberta continues to beat the drum for the obliteration of environmental laws, they keep using examples where there are already permits in hand, and where the market has determined that they don’t see a business case to move ahead, which has nothing to do with government. But hey, why be honest about it?

Oh, and because this government seems to be pinning a lot of hopes on reinventing the wheel, there already was a pre-existing major projects office, but Carney has determined to recreate it under a different minister, just because, and not actually learn any lessons as to why projects take time or approvals take as long as they do.

effinbirds.com/post/7772964…

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-08-21T14:04:55.394Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched another massive attack in the early morning hours of Thursday, with 574 drones and 40 missiles, and one of the targets was an American-owned household electronics company based in Lviv, because they know the Americans won’t respond. Ukraine attacked an oil refinery in Russia’s Novoshakhtinsk city. And Putin’s demands include the whole Donbas region, and a prohibition on joining NATO or having Western troops in the country, which are clearly unacceptable because Russia has no intention of ending the war.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Clueless American senators pay a visit

Posted on by

A group of US senators were in Ottawa for a second time in as many months, to meet with prime minister Mark Carney about the trade talks with the US, which is…a pretty useless gesture because they have pretty much no influence in the current American political environment, and they’ve been spectacularly ineffective in doing the slightest bit to rein in his abuse of powers. And speaking of useless gestures, they were all wearing Canada-U.S. friendship bracelets provided by the US Embassy, because apparently treating this like a Taylor Swift concert is how they’re “building bridges.” Honestly…

And it just doesn’t stop. One of the Democratic senators was lecturing Carney about fully repealing the Digital Services Tax, which…is doing what Trump wants, and just letting the authoritarian tech bros dictate our sovereign tax policies. Like really? That’s what you came to tell us? The sole Republican in the group, who is a sometimes Trump critic, said that his annexation rhetoric was “not constructive.” Gee, you think? That’s your contribution to this conversation? One of the other Democrats said that we’re they’re “best friends” but that the relationship was going through some “great strain.” Gosh, really? This is what you’ve come up here to say? One of them wanted to talk about stopping the flow of precursor chemicals for fentanyl. How about guns? Why don’t you do something about stopping them from coming over our border? I just can’t with any of these guys.

Meanwhile, the US ambassador says that Trump thinks we’re “nasty” for boycotting travel and American booze, as he has openly made threats of annexation and trying to destroy our economy to make it happen. Like, seriously, what did you think we were going to do?

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-07-21T22:08:21.155Z

Ukraine Dispatch

It was another heavy barrage of 426 drones and a dozen missiles fired at Ukraine overnight Sunday and into Monday, killing two and wounding at least fifteen people. Later in the day were attacks on the Sumy region, injuring another fourteen people. President Zelenskyy has named new ambassadors to several countries, including Canada (which is a shame because Yulia Kovaliv was great). Meanwhile, Russian TV showed teenagers working in their drone factories.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Spending vs inflation

Posted on by

 

Last week, the CD Howe Institute put out a report on the recent bout of inflation, and tried to pin it either on government spending or the Bank of Canada, and in the process ignored a whole lot of things that happened during the pandemic that were material to those price increases. Or the fact that early in the pandemic, we had deflation, and that the Bank of Canada needed to act fast to ensure that it did not continue lest it turn into a spiral that would lead to a depression, because that’s what deflation does.

Naturally, however, the moment Pierre Poilievre saw that they were pinning blame on government spending, he had to jump on that because it’s his entire central thesis for inflation, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. I report on economic data on a regular basis, and that includes the Consumer Price Index (or inflation) data every month, and the Bank of Canada’s Monetary Policy Report every quarter. I can tell you what prices increased and where, because that’s in the data every month. None of the causes had anything to do with government spending.

I also have to take some exception to the notion that government supports like CERB were driving demand. CERB was not extra spending money. It was survival money for low-income people who were out of work because of the pandemic. It staved off a wave of bankruptcies and even more demand on provincial social services or food banks (and the lack of provincial social services is the main driver behind increased food bank use, per their own reports). The “excess demand” was coming from higher-income households who had plenty of money to spend when they couldn’t go out to restaurants or go on vacations. They were not the recipients of government support, and trying to conflate the two is disingenuous, and frankly smacks of a great deal of ideological bias.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-07-19T21:10:16.169Z

Ukraine Dispatch

There has been another barrage of drones and missiles that have killed at least one person in Kyiv overnight. Here is another look at how the people in Kyiv are coping with the increased attacks.

Continue reading →