Tag Archives: Tiff Macklem

Roundup: A digital asbestos task force

Posted on by

Everyone’s favourite bullshit Cabinet minister, Evan Solomon, is putting together a task force to determine the next steps in the government’s digital asbestos strategy. While we wait to see just who is going to be on this task force, because that will say volumes, it’s almost inevitable at this point that this is mostly going to wind up being more hype, because Solomon has guzzled it all down, while prime minister Mark Carney has also bought into it as the cure for Canada’s flagging productivity and other problems (rather than the obvious fact that corporate Canada is lazy). We’ve all heard everything Solomon has said so far. I’m not optimistic at all.

It's gonna be so much more hype. We are so boned.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-24T15:21:05.227Z

I’m also extremely sceptical about Solomon insisting that they’re going to take the lessons from the Privacy Commissioner’s investigation into TikTok and its privacy violations in order to shape the new digital asbestos laws, because that would be too much intervention for what Solomon has been preaching about “light touches.” Part of the problem with the TikTok violations are that this is their business model, and while they insist that they are trying to keep children off the platform, they put more effort into hoovering up private data for marketing purposes than they did in using those very same tools they developed to keep kids off the platform, as it was hoovering up their data at an alarming rate. So much of what makes up digital asbestos is similar business models about siphoning that personal data, as well as using techniques to keep users engaged on that platform, hallucinations and all, and not caring about it sending them on delusional spirals that craters their mental health. They don’t care because it’s the business model, and that’s why I can’t trust Solomon to actually regulate—because he has bought into the hype around that model, and if he regulates, the tech bros will cry and whine that they can’t operate in those rules, and he’ll kill the industry, and gods forbid, we couldn’t have that.

Evan fucking Solomon says they'll take the lessons from the TikTok privacy report in order to shape new digital asbestos laws. www.thestar.com/politics/fed…

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-09-25T03:13:46.890Z

Meanwhile at the UN, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is warning about the destructive arms race happening right now with digital asbestos and drones, and is calling for international rules about limiting its spread. But of course, I can just hear someone like Solomon insisting that we don’t want too many rules, because that will “stifle innovation,” and so on. Absolutely nobody is taking any of this seriously (and no, we’re not talking about Skynet), and we’re heading for some serious problems in the very near future as a result.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine has attacked the petrochemical complex in Salavat for the second time in a week, further reducing Russia’s refining capacity.

Continue reading →

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: Historical revisionism of federalism in the past decade

Posted on by

Last week had largely been spent trying to determine what the love-in with the premiers all means, so much so that Danielle Smith is losing her grip on reality as she insists that she’ll convince BC premier David Eby to let another pipeline cross his province (in spite of there being no actual proposals for one), while also claiming that Albertans have the “lowest living standards in the world,” and I just can’t even.

Meanwhile, I’m seeing comments from the pundit class that I’m just finding hard to square with reality. This one quote from the weekend dispatch of The Line is a good example of these pundit narratives that are completely ahistorical.

The Liberals under Justin Trudeau were so fantastically uninterested in working with the provinces, and so relentlessly hostile to basic economic growth, that having a prime minister simply acknowledge (as Carney has) that we are in an economic emergency seems like a massive step forward.

Trudeau did work with the provinces a lot in his first parliament—he had the first face-to-face meeting with them as a group in years after Harper refused to, and they got big things done—the agreement on carbon pricing, enhancing CPP, a suite of health measures that Jane Philpott negotiated with the provinces. None of this was inconsequential, but there was a very different group of premiers in 2015 than there was in 2024. And let’s also be frank—the premiers didn’t want to work together with the federal government anymore. They wanted to gang up on him for more money with no conditions (those health transfers that Philpott negotiated didn’t go toward fixing anything), while the pleading that everyone was making around finding exceptions to the carbon levy was very unproductive (not that Trudeau did any favours in his “pause” on the price for heating oil rather than a better system of rebates in areas where energy poverty was a problem). But seriously, the premiers get away with blaming Trudeau for all of the things that they refused to do that were their responsibility, and somehow he was the problem?

As well, the notion that Trudeau was hostile to basic economic growth is, frankly, unhinged. How many trade deals did he sign or push over the finish line? What was the whole attempt to stand-up a North American EV supply chain? What were the billions spent to keep the entire economy afloat during COVID? If you’re going to cite the capital gains changes as being “hostile,” then congratulations—you’re a gullible numpty who bought the lines of people who engage in tax arbitrage and want that sweet roll to continue. If you think environmental regulation was killing economic growth, just wait until you see what climate change is already doing to the economy and is going to get exponentially worse. Just because Trudeau didn’t bow to the tax-cut-and-deregulate crowd, it doesn’t mean he was hostile to economic growth. Yes, he and his government had problems. A lot of them. But let’s not make up things that are blatantly ahistorical or outright fictional just to help put a shine on Carney.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-06-07T21:10:14.180Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drone and missile attacks killed four people in Kharkiv on Saturday. Russian forces claim to have crossed into the Dnipropetrovsk region, while a row is now brewing over an agreement to exchange bodies of dead soldiers, which Ukraine says they are not delaying. Meanwhile, a drone attack on a Russian electronics factory has forced them to suspend production.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1931395337958084711

Continue reading →

Roundup: The same government, not a new one

Posted on by

The final results of the BC election started rolling in as the absentee ballots were counted, and lo, it looks like the NDP managed to flip one seat in the final tally, making it a 47-44-2 tally NDP/Conservative/Greens. And while that’s all well and good, the way in which major media outlets described this was a gods damned tragedy, and I was about to lose my mind.

No, the NDP are not going to “form government,” because they are already the government. Only the legislature changes. No, the Lieutenant-Governor didn’t ask Eby to form government, her statement explicitly said “David Evy advised me that he is prepared to continue as premier.” Because she doesn’t sit around waiting to make a decision—she acts on advice, and he never resigned, so he is not forming anything. He will be shuffling his Cabinet, but it’s the same government that carries over to another legislature. That’s it, and it’s a really big problem when neither the national wire service of the national public broadcaster couldn’t actually read what she wrote, and instead wrote their copy based on a falsehood and changed her words to suit their wrong meaning.

Additionally, because I am going to get pedantic here, there is also no such thing as a “majority government” or a “minority government.” Government—meaning Cabinet—is government. What changes is whether they control a majority or minority of the legislature. The legislature is not government. What matters is whether the same government is able to maintain the confidence of the chamber, which is much easier to do when you have a majority of the seats. The fact that Eby has managed to secure a razor-thin majority of those seats means that he has essentially ensured that he can maintain that confidence (though the Speaker issue could remain tricky). But my gods, could our media outlets have a modicum of civic literacy? It’s not only embarrassing that they don’t, but it’s outright dangerous for democracy going forward.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian air attacks killed four in Kyiv and four in Kharkiv, where they also shattered a historic building and celebrated landmark. Critical infrastructure was also damaged in two regions in the north of Ukraine, leading to more power outages.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pledging to do things differently—really!

Posted on by

If by some chance you managed to survive the complete and utter wank-fest of pollsters, poll analysts and Elder Pundits doing the media rounds yesterday without straining your eyeballs as they rolled endlessly, well, good for you. Just don’t expect anything but this to dominate the media landscape for the next several weeks to come, because going into this, the Elder Pundits declared that this was a sign that Trudeau needs to go, and they feel themselves perfectly vindicated, and they want you to know it. (Such a healthy media ecosystem we have in this country). So, while the entrails of this by-election get picked over, expect nothing but demands for a leadership review (which the Liberal Party’s constitution only allows for after a general election loss), for Trudeau to step down, and for successor chatter to spin up, with Mark Carney’s name all over the place in spite of all evidence to the contrary. (Gretchen, stop trying to make Mark Carney happen. It’s not going to happen).

Of course, Trudeau isn’t going to step down. He has convinced himself that he’s the one who can stand up to Poilievre, and that he wants to keep doing the work. Justin Trudeau, Chrystia Freeland and Karina Gould were all making the point that they have to listen more and work harder to regain trust, but the one that stuck out for me the most was Gould telling Power & Politics that they need to “do things differently,” but therein lies the problem with Trudeau. They don’t do things differently, starting with the fact that Katie Telford is still on the job and hasn’t decided that she needs to do something more with her life that just this, and being the central person by which everything flows (becoming part of the bottleneck of files this government needs to address). They are still communicating the same way after having been told time and again that it’s hindering them, and the most they’ve done is get some Gen Z staffers to put them in cringey TikToks (from their personal phones!) in addition to the same pabulum that they keep feeding us. They continue to pat themselves on the back for declaration over actions to implement those declarations. I get that they are trying to say the right things right now, but I have yet to see any desire on the part of Trudeau to do things differently, and maybe that should be the lesson here.

And in reaction, we have Susan Delacourt pointing out why this becomes a problem for Poilievre’s expectations management. Jen Gerson mockingly declares Trudeau to be dead in the water, because of course she does. Paul Wells also makes the observation that Trudeau will espouse making changes but won’t, and will just keep doing what he’s been doing the whole time.

Ukraine Dispatch

The shells obtained by the Czech initiative are starting to arrive in Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia exchanged 90 prisoners of war. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy welcomed an International Criminal Court warrant for two more Russian military leaders.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1805173797705728292

Continue reading →

QP: The “refusing to rule out” ploy

Posted on by

On a bright and sunny Tuesday in the nation’s capital, both the prime minister and his deputy were present for QP, as were most of the other leaders (some of whom stated they would be here but were not). Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he worried that the city of Montreal has requested the “legalization of hard drugs” in their communities, and wanted an admission that what happened in BC was a “deadly mistake,” lest the prime minister repeat the same problem. Trudeau reminded him that they are working with BC on modifying their project, and that they are working only with provinces, and no other requests have been made. Poilievre switched to a English to ask if the prime minster supports decriminalisation for using drugs in parks, hospitals or public transit, and Trudeau repeated his answer. Poilievre pointed out that Trudeau refused to answer his question, and suspected it means he wants to impose the same “radical” policy elsewhere. Trudeau said that nobody supports that, but that Poilievre was trying to use tragedies to score political points, and took a jab at Poilievre for willing to suspend Charter rights if he feels it suits him. Poilievre accused the prime minister of secretly planning to impose “legalisation” on Toronto, and Trudeau reminded him that they will only with with provinces, not the municipalities directly. Poilievre said that Trudeau was not ruling out future extensions, which was obviously ridiculous, before he accused the prime minister of killing more people in the meantime. Trudeau said that they only took three days to approve BC’s completed request, and that the opposition was only scoring cheap points.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and accused the government of threatening French, to which Trudeau gave a paean about defending the French language and language minorities around the country, while the Bloc was just picking fights. Blanchet raised comments by an MP about “extremists,” and Trudeau said that they stand for protecting French across the country. 

Peter Julian rose for the NDP in French, and took swipes at Conservatives for not supporting pharmacare legislation, and exhorted the government to support them in passing it (which is dumb, because it’s the government who needs their support as it’s government legislation). Trudeau thanked the NDP for their support, and said that the Conservatives were against it because their anti-choice members opposed contraception. Leah Gazan took the question in English, with more of an emphasis on birth control instead of diabetes, and Trudeau repeated his same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: More misleading over opioids

Posted on by

The weekend discourse appears to have been much of what last week’s was, which was the Conservatives lying about the state of the opioid crisis in BC, lying about Justin Trudeau’s culpability, and lying about…well, pretty much everything. I feel like I need to keep saying this, but the decriminalisation project in BC is not what caused people to start using drugs openly in public places. That is happening everywhere. It is happening right now on the streets in Ottawa, where there is no decriminalisation, because there is currently a prevailing ethos that if you use in public places and overdose, you have a better chance that someone will come across you and get a Naloxone kit to save your life. It’s not about decriminalisation. That also didn’t cause users to leave needles in parks—that’s been happening for decades in some urban centres. We’re now fully into moral panic territory.

Meanwhile, Toronto Public Health’s hopes for a similar decriminalisation programme don’t seem to be going anywhere, and Justin Trudeau stated last week, in QP that they only work with provinces and not individual cities on these kinds of projects, which is why they didn’t accept Vancouver’s proposal earlier, and why they’re not contemplating Toronto or Montreal now. And frankly, that shouldn’t be unexpected because public health is a provincial responsibility, so it would make more sense for the federal government to work with a province rather than an individual municipality that may be at odds with the province in question. Federalism matters, guys.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces shot down 23 of 24 drones overnight on Sunday, with more airstrikes on Kharkiv during the day on Sunday. There was also a drone attack on power supply in the Sumy region early Monday morning. Drone footage shows how the village of Ocheretyne is being pummelled by Russians, as residents are scrambling to flee the area, as Russia claims they have captured it. Problem gambling has become an issue for a lot of Ukrainian soldiers dealing with the stress of combat.

https://twitter.com/kyivindependent/status/1787172469100478665

Continue reading →

Roundup: Tiff Macklem goes to committee

Posted on by

Bank of Canada governor Tiff Macklem appeared before the Commons’ finance committee yesterday, and reiterated that a decision on a rate cut is getting close, which should be good news to (most) everyone—most especially the government. There were a couple of other interesting things he said, which is that we’re not beholden to matching the US’ rate, but at the same time, we can’t diverge too much, or we would face currency devaluation.

The Conservatives have been clipping his appearance at the Senate’s banking committee the day before, claiming that he said that the federal budget and its deficit are fuelling inflation, which isn’t what he said. He said that the budget won’t have any impact on inflation, because any increased spending is balanced out by higher revenues—but they clipped the part about revenues off, because deceit is their current modus operandi.

https://twitter.com/jasrajshallan/status/1786033120690544860

And because of where the discourse is at, Macklem had to once again point out that the carbon levy is not having an impact on inflation, and that if you “axed” it, there would be a small one-time drop in inflation that would disappear the next year (because inflation is a year-over-year measure), and it wouldn’t really change much—a message that Conservatives don’t like to hear, or who like to fudge, because it messes with their narrative that said levy had driven people into poverty (which is not true). But seriously, how many times does he need to say this?

Ukraine Dispatch:

Guided bombs hit close to a sports complex in Kharkiv, injuring eight children. The tally is that Russia fired more than 300 missiles, around 300 drones, and over 3200 guided bombs against Ukraine in April. Russia has massed its forces, and they are making a concerted push along all of the front lines in Donetsk, though Ukraine is holding them off for the time being, though they are forced to be judicious with their ammunition until more can arrive. Here is a look at the state of minefields in Ukraine, where they are now one of the most mined countries in the world.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Back to challenging the Speaker once again

Posted on by

Not unexpectedly, a number of MPs have renewed the call to oust Greg Fergus from the Speaker’s chair after Tuesday’s dramatics during Question Period. For the Bloc, who soured on Fergus shortly after his election and his recording a video in his robes, they’re complaining that he can’t control the room, which is a bit unfair because MPs themselves have hobbled the Speaker’s ability to enforce decorum by giving him narrow powers in the Standing Orders. This logic also ignores the culpability of those who are making the noise—the Speaker isn’t making them behave like that. And for the record, Fergus says he’s not stepping down.

For the Conservatives, however, they are playing the victim, as is a common far-right tactic these days, and claiming that he had a double standard on Tuesday. Their proof—that prime minister Justin Trudeau wasn’t forced to retract or get named when he referred to Poilievre’s “spineless leadership” in not denouncing far-right extremists and Alex Jones. Note that the language Trudeau used was that the leadership was spineless, he did not call Poilievre that. And he was warned about inflammatory language, and he rephrased. Poilievre called Trudeau “whacko,” which was is a direct attack, and then refused to withdraw the word when instructed to—and again, the prevarication and wheedling of trying to replace the word is not respecting the Speaker’s authority, especially when invited to simply withdraw four times. There is a difference between what each leader said and how each responded, and if Conservatives can’t tell that difference, then they have a real problem with their critical thinking skills, which isn’t a good thing for an MP.

There was added drama when Conservative MP Rachael Thomas, who now claims that she withdrew her remarks yesterday but was ejected anyway, and more to the point, says that Hansard was edited to justify Fergus’ decision. Recall that Fergus was cautioning her for yelling at him during an outburst, to which she shot back “I have big problems with the Chair.” Fergus told her to withdraw that, to which Thomas’s response was “Mr. Speaker, I stated that the Chair is acting in a disgraceful manner,” and then says that she added “I withdraw,” which is also in the Blues (meaning the unedited transcripts before they go for final polish). But I was sitting right above her, and didn’t hear her say “I withdraw,” but even if she did, you can’t challenge the Speaker again and then just say “I withdraw” and expect no consequences. That’s not even like a qualified apology, it’s openly challenging a second time, and then trying to give yourself a fig-leaf of cover. That’s bullshit, and she knows it.

To put a cherry on top of this, CBC dug up video of then-Speaker Andrew Scheer saying you can’t challenge the integrity of the Speaker, which includes allegations of partisanship, and lo, what are they doing now? Rules for thee but not for me is very much their modus operandi, and it’s not great for democracy.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian ballistic missile struck a postal depot in Odesa, injuring fourteen and starting a huge fire, and Russians claim to have struck Ukraine’s southern command post in the same attack. There was also a guided bomb attack in the Kharkiv region, killing two in an attack on the village of Zolochiv, while there was also an attack on the town of Hirnyk near the front lines, which killed at least two more people. Drone footage shows the way that Chasiv Yar has been devastated by Russian bombardment as the move toward it, while Ukrainian forces in that area say they badly need more ammunition. The US is accusing Russia of breaking international chemical weapons ban by deploying choking agent chloropicrin against Ukrainian troops.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Premiers want unconditional money

Posted on by

The premiers are at it again. They’ve written yet another letter to Justin Trudeau to complain about the budget, and all of the ways that it infringes on their jurisdiction, and to call for a return to a “cooperative approach” that means just giving them “unconditional federal funding.” (It was also hilarious to watch certain premiers complain about federal spending as though they also weren’t running their own deficits, while simultaneously demanding more money from the federal government). And I get that they’re concerned that the costs of these new programmes will be downloaded onto them if a future federal government cuts their funding—it’s a legitimate concern. But at the same time, most of these programmes will have longer-term payoffs, whether it’s child care (which Quebec has proved will pay for itself), or pharmacare or dental care, which has the potential to reduce overall healthcare costs—costs the government is going to have to pay when they could have avoided doing so with proper investments.

Nevertheless, it’s not lost on me that we’ve spent years of people saying “nobody cares about jurisdiction,” and demanding the federal government do something—including some of the premiers—and when the federal government not only does something but attaches strings so that the money has to go to particular outcomes, those same premiers immediately go “No, not like that.” But once burned, twice shy—the federal government learned the hard way during the height of the pandemic when the billions they sent to the provinces largely went unspent but went toward their provincial deficits—so they’re going to very much demand strings attached to those dollars. So, of course the federal government is going to do what they can seeing as they’re shouldering the blame anyway, while the premiers continue to be precious about it.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian missiles destroyed grain storage facilities in Odesa, as well as the foodstuffs they contained that were bound for Asia and Africa. Ukrainian forces say they shot down a Russian strategic bomber, while Russia claims it crashed due to a malfunction. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited the command post used by the troops defending Chasiv Yar in the east.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1781227417404600676

Continue reading →