Tag Archives: Ukraine

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 →

Political blackmail under the guise of a unity speech

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre kicked off his supposed “unity campaign” in Calgary yesterday (as he skipped the installation of the Governor General to do so), and gave a speech which was little more than a remix of the same campaign speech he’s been giving for three years now. And not even a good remix, but a shitty extended dub mix that is mostly just a lot of electronic noise. In it was the usual litany of invented grievances that Albertans have been touting for years—pretending that the federal government is somehow interfering in their jurisdiction, or that Justin Trudeau’s environmental policies were somehow strangling the province’s resource sector and that the global oil price crash of 2014 didn’t happen (just like the oil price crash of 1981 didn’t happen, and all of their woes were the fault of Pierre Trudeau). It’s a tired mythology that is not true, but is so intrinsic to the core of the invented grievances that have dominated Alberta politics for more than four decades.

But what is particularly dangerous about this kind of tactic is that it hijacks a potential national unity crisis for partisan ends. It makes unity conditional on the conservatives, federally or provincially, getting their own way as though there aren’t political considerations in the rest of the country either. As Andrew Coyne puts it, this message posits that the rest of the country needs to “prove” that it’s worth saving, and if that means dismantling what little federalism we have in this country, then so be it. The notion that the only Canada worth having is their narrow vision of the country, which is exclusionary and frankly mean, is not a unity message. It’s little more than the same kind of blackmail that Danielle Smith and Jason Kenney before her were trying to use in leveraging separatist sentiment to hold a knife to their own throats to force concessions from the federal government because they think it worked for Quebec. (It did not, and Quebec’s economy has never actually recovered). It’s fundamentally undemocratic, and shows them to be little more than crybabies who can’t handle the fact that sometimes democracy means you lose at politics.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-06-08T19:08:01.492Z

My Latest:

  • My latest for National Magazine on Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision and the warning they gave to judges about how to do a credibility analysis.
  • My weekend column takes note of the way in which Poilievre’s rhetoric tends to catastrophize what is happening, along his tendency to rewrite history.
  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take on that Conservative MP trying to refuse his raise, and why that kind of populism is poisonous to democracy.

Continue reading →

Digital Asbestos For All!

Posted on by

The prime minister and his minister of digital asbestos, Evan Solomon, released their “Digital Asbestos for All” strategy in Toronto yesterday, which involves giving half a billion dollars to firms to scale up their adoption of said digital asbestos, and doing a lot of back-patting about sovereign capability—or at least laying the foundations for it—and there were some utterly fantastic estimations of just how many jobs this will create. And by fantastic, I mean it looks an awful lot like fantasy. But it’s also a lot about trying to get people hooked, through giving access to ‘trusted [digital asbestos] agents” to all post-secondary students, which is not what professors want and is going to make their lives more difficult as they already have a hard enough time preventing cheating using these tools. They are also promising a “National [digital asbestos] Literacy Initiative” that involves training and tool-kits available to educators, which feels a lot like giving pot to high school students and telling them it’s good for them.

"Provide access to trusted AI agents for every post-secondary student – from the arts and commerce to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), and medicine."I'm pretty sure that nobody who teaches in a post-secondary institution asked for this, and this makes their jobs even harder.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-04T15:46:27.206Z

If this wasn’t bad enough, there was a whole lot of handwaving from Solomon about “building trust” and “safety” without actually saying how they’re going to ensure that these platforms can be trusted, or what kinds of safety measures they’ll put into place. On Power & Politics, David Cochrane was giving Solomon the gears about how he can possibly make these kinds of promises when the tech bros controlling these companies have more money than many economies at their disposal so fines won’t be of any use, and they have the weight of the Trump administration behind them, so trying to force them to build any kinds of safety features that they don’t want to build are extremely unlikely to happen. And Solomon wouldn’t answer, but just kept repeating his lines. “Trust” is a whole lot of “just trust me,” and I’m sorry, but that’s not good enough. But that’s all that this government is going to offer, because Mark Carney and Solomon have guzzled all of the tech bro hype, and they’re going to pour all kinds of money into this just as the bubble is about to burst. We’re going to lose so much money, while this government is already cutting spending to programmes that need it, and we’re all going to pay the price because they couldn’t stop guzzling the hype.

My Latest:

Continue reading →

Roundup: Capitulating to the streaming giants

Posted on by

Just days after the CRTC outlined the obligations under the Online Streaming Act that web giant streaming services would need to abide by when it comes to a portion of their Canadian revenues to be sent to Canadian content funds (which, to be clear, they could then draw from in order to develop shows and put on their platforms), and a day after Dominic LeBlanc was in Washington for more trade talks, the government decided to try and walk back these CRTC obligations. Minister Marc Miller ordered the CRTC to review the decision (as he can’t outright ignore it, as the CRTC is a quasi-judicial body) but with a “focus on affordability” as the claim is that these streaming services will simply raise their prices and Canadian households are already hit hard. Oh, but they’ll devote $600 million to Canadian media in lieu of these funds.

They insist it’s not a capitulation, but that’s exactly what it feels like, particularly since Trump mouthpieces were grousing that this levy was “discriminatory” (it’s not—it levelled the playing field with Canadian broadcasters and streaming services), and that it was yet another “trade irritant” as though they are allowed to throw up whatever tariffs they want (this week: New ten percent tariffs because of forced labour, but don’t look at their own deals with China, or the forced labour that comes from American prisons). Miller also insists that because the funds collected to date were frozen due to court challenges also seems to be beside the point. The point was that these web giants are taking Canadian money and giving nothing back (and no, treating our production studios as a resource colony is not exactly giving back), so having them contribute the same way a Canadian broadcaster contributes was both fair, and, I stress again, gave them the option to use these same funds that they contributed in order to create their own Canadian content that they could put up on their platforms.

I’m not going to engage in any kind of elbow discourse, but when you consider just how much these web giants and the tech bros that own them are integrated into Trump’s fascist regime, capitulating to them yet again is not exactly giving the impression that we’re protecting Canada’s cultural sovereignty, or that all the talk about Heated Rivalry and how much of a success it’s been is hollow if we keep letting the web giants dictate our own cultural policy. Where is the self-respect that should be a bare minimum in this conversation?

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-06-03T13:08:04.315Z

My Latest:

My column on legacy columnists opining about the “condescension” of central Canadians when it comes to Alberta separatists and their crybaby tendencies.

Continue reading →

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 →

Ceding the recession narrative

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

My Latest:

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

Continue reading →

A technical recession?

Posted on by

Yesterday morning, Statistics Canada reported that the first quarter of GDP was very slightly in the negative on an annualized basis—on a real GDP quarter-over-quarter basis, it was flat (and if you really want to get into it, GDP per capita was up after a second quarterly population decline). This immediately led to a flurry of speculation of whether this is a “technical recession,” meaning two quarters of negative growth, or not, given that the data were mixed. And three economists who spoke to the Financial Post said it’s not a real recession, and it was also noted that when the data are revised in the next quarter’s release, it may very well be revised upward. To add to that, the preliminary estimate for April GDP is that it rose 0.4 percent, so that means that we would already be out of said recession if we were indeed in one.

Pierre Poiliever, however, pounced on this, screaming that it’s a RECESSION and he quickly added to all of the QP scripts that morning that “Canada is the only G7 country in a recession,” but since most of the questions were on prime minister Mark Carney’s in-flight meal service on the government jet, it sounded an awful lot like he was blaming said recession on said in-flight catering. Because we’re a serious country. Poilievre then called a hasty press conference to say that this was all Mark Carney’s fault, because no other G7 country is in a recession, as though their economies weren’t as exposed to the US and its tariffs as ours is. Once again, we appear to have no actual adults in our parliament.

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2060452517142827077

Noted economist Andrew Scheer has deigned to correct The Canadian Press' headline.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-05-29T22:54:32.367Z

Continue reading →

Canada Strong to help MAGA?

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

IYKYK

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

effinbirds.com/post/8132596…

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

My Latest:

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

Continue reading →

Amending the lawful access bill?

Posted on by

This government’s utter ineptitude on the lawful access file would be farcical if it wasn’t so serious. After years of opposing it because it’s unconstitutional, the Liberals did an about-face and suddenly supported it once Carney took office, and they immediately insisted that this was crucial for law enforcement. Then they had to redraft the provisions into a separate bill because there was a tonne of pushback, tacitly admitting they got it wrong, but still would say in Question Period that the opposition should have helped them pass it months ago. You know, when it was flawed. Then the minister insisted that the pushback was “misinformed” and that they simply didn’t do a good enough job communicating around the bill, and had Public Safety’s media team aggressively trying to push journalists around if they didn’t publish the government’s line, and would send the RCMP and CSIS out to media to make the case for it, while they contradicted themselves along the way. (It’s not about expanded surveillance—but we need to ensure that they have the capability to have that surveillance when we say so!)

I lived in Romania shortly after the fall of the Iron Curtain. It was rumored that the Securitate could remotely activate the microphones of any phone to turn it into a listening device. That was chilling.

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-05-28T00:02:55.364Z

Under Bill C-22 Lawful Access, the Minister of Public Safety can secretly order every phone manufacturer to embed that same capability into the phone in your pocket. That's also chilling.

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-05-28T00:02:55.384Z

Would the current Minister do that? Don't know. Would a future Minister do that? Don't know. I know that the police currently get warrants to implant spyware on phones. They'd love to have that capability without a warrant, and would put pressure on the Minister to enable that.

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-05-28T00:02:55.406Z

And now after even more pushback, they’re saying they will be introducing amendments, again admitting that they still got it wrong—but again, still chiding the opposition that it should have been passed months ago. We’ll see what those amendments look like, but the minister is not exactly instilling confidence in what he’s proposing. I worry that they plan to use their majority to bully this through regardless, but after so many admissions that they keep getting this wrong, I have zero confidence that this won’t blow up in everyone’s faces, and eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada because they ignored all of the warnings.

Meanwhile, at the moment when the Minister should be most familiar with the details of his Bill, he flubs up something pretty basic and important.

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-05-27T23:25:37.244Z

My Latest:

Continue reading →

Setting the terms of the referendum debate

Posted on by

As the Alberta referendum “debate” starts to heat up, you are seeing a lot of places where separatists or their proxies are trying to set the terms of debate on the federalist side, whether that’s demanding to be platformed so that they can spout lies and distortions, or treating emotional appeals as “flamethrowers” when they are allowed to use absolutely unhinged rhetoric with no consequence. They have become used to the kinds of egregious both-sidesing in legacy media that allowed MAGA to flourish in the States, or that allows Conservatives in this country to lie with wild abandon because they know they won’t be called on it, and if federalists don’t want to play that game, they cry foul.

The thing I am most concerned about, however, is federalists conceding that the invented grievances of these Alberta separatists are somehow legitimate—particularly when it comes to small-c conservatives advocating on the federalist side. And it’s going to be nigh impossible for them to actually argue against the invented grievances because they rely on them to this day to make their points. Max Fawcett made a very trenchant argument in that Albertans have become addicted to grievances politics (true!) and that Conservative politicians and pundits need give that up if they want to save confederation. That’s also true, but might be an impossible-level challenge for them to do, because that kind of grievance politics are all most of these Conservatives have ever known, and they don’t know how to argue in any other way. And this is why I worry about the Pandora’s box that’s been opened, because the people who are going to be counted on to save confederation are going to be unable to do what is required of them, because nobody will actually call bullshit on these grievances after Albertans have been force-fed them for so long that they’ve internalised them. That could wind up being a fatal flaw in the federalists’ arguments.

My Latest:

New episodes released early for C$7+ subscribers. This week I delve into the Online Streaming Act obligations, and why it's not a "Netflix tax." #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-05-27T01:34:48.770Z

Continue reading →