The totally avoidable condo “bailout” meltdown

Posted on by
Reply

There’s been a meltdown happening in certain circles, and Pierre Poilievre’s among them, about the federal government supposedly spending $3.2 billion to “bail out condo developers” as they seek to convert 2200 vacant condo units into affordable housing units. The details are pretty much entirely wrong, thanks to a poorly worded PMO communiqué and flawed reporting, and it’s just spiralling out of control.

To wit, the condo acquisition is not $3.2 billion, as that figure is about expanding “housing-enabling” infrastructure. There is no dollar figure attached in the release about how much they are spending on the vacant condos, other than it’s part of the Build Canda Homes funding envelope to acquire affordable housing. And it took days for the minister responsible, Gregor Robertson, to actually explain this—over Twitter, no less—and not do a coordinated media blitz (and I’m given to understand that those media outlets have not offered corrections on the initial reporting). This is absolutely appalling, and it’s yet another own-goal by a government whose arrogance is exerting itself at every opportunity.

It's weeks like this where I fear for Canada's future. We have governments putting out housing plans they can't explain, and a media that struggles to report even basic facts, and won't correct their errors.I'm not sure how Canadians can be expected to trust our institutions.

— Dr. Mike P. Moffatt (@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social) 2026-06-25T03:19:10.000Z

And Moffatt is absolutely correct here. This is an absolute clusterfuck that the government could have avoided if they actually bothered to explain (and I’m undecided if this is a “can’t explain” or a “won’t explain” situation), and not simply insisted that the “just trust me” approach is going to keep working for them. It obviously won’t, and they need to start recognizing that before it becomes a serious problem for their voters (and that’ll come at them really fast if they don’t change course).

My Latest:

My column draws a couple of lessons for Canada from what we saw of Keir Starmer’s resignation in the UK.

Continue reading →

Cherry-picking the incel manifesto

Posted on by
Reply

There were more details released yesterday about the shooting in Montreal—the name of the officer and the civilian who were killed, and a few details are emerging about the shooter, who is believed to have been a university student from Lethbridge, Alberta. His purported manifesto, however, is what is burning up the social media channels, with everyone searching for what they want to read in it—“anti-police/anti-government,” antisemitic/anti-Zionist, “communist,” among others, but at its heart it was an incel manifesto.

The Post's white nationalist apologist has cherry-picked the purported manifesto to discover it says what she hopes it will say. Imagine that!

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-24T02:42:49.682Z

Here is Carleton University professor Stephanie Carvin, whose latest book was on the far-right in Canada, and she has read the purported manifesto, and has some interview clips here to put it into context. (For some unknown reason, CBC didn’t post either this interview or the one she did with Power & Politics to YouTube, so this will have to do for the moment.

Stephanie Carvin on Montreal shooter's manifesto: There is the incel philosophy here as well as a lot of anti-government extremism … the shooter is basically holding police responsible for upholding a system that is seen as inherently corrupt and degrading certain classes of men in society.

— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson.bsky.social) 2026-06-23T13:37:16.747Z

Stephanie Carvin on RCMP issuing warning to police agencies across the country: There's an explicit call for what the shooter calls "revolutionary acts of terrorism" in this manifesto.

— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson.bsky.social) 2026-06-23T13:39:50.999Z

Carvin: The radicalization story here is going to be very important for understanding what happened, why this person seems to — it's been reported that he drove from Alberta to Montreal. Why did he choose Montreal? There's a lot we can speculate on there.

— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson.bsky.social) 2026-06-23T13:43:11.177Z

Carvin: If this is the manifesto, it is what I would describe as an incel critique of capitalism. And he's really coming at a variety of different topics in here. You do have ideas, I would say, from the extreme left and the extreme right. But the continuing thread throughout is a hatred of women.

— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson.bsky.social) 2026-06-23T13:43:25.847Z

I do have to wonder about what more the federal government should be doing, and in particular, the Conservatives who keep insisting that they are trying to do something for disaffected young (white) men. That’s what Jamil Jivani’s big campus tour is all about, insisting that these young men need special dispensation in life because they’re just soooo disaffected. Poilievre’s solution to everything is to just cut taxes and hope that doubling down on trickle-down economics will do the trick, but somehow, I doubt that’s going to do much in this situation—particularly given that he’s tried to engage the “manosphere” to try and attract those voters to his cause. None of this is good, and I worry about where this goes the more that they try to appeal to a toxic internet culture and keep ignoring people in the real world.

Continue reading →

Ginning up an faux inflation narrative

Posted on by
Reply

The inflation data for May was released yesterday, and unsurprisingly, the headline number ran high because of gasoline prices, entirely because of the situation that Trump created with Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. Looking into the data, it’s quite clear that core measures—which strip out volatile food and fuel prices—is right on the Bank of Canada’s target at 2.1 and 2.0 percent (there are two different core measures the Bank of Canada tracks). And yes, food price inflation continues to run hot, and the data shows pretty clearly that it’s supply disruptions—things like tomatoes coming from Mexico, where they planted fewer crops because of US tariffs, and then that smaller crop was affected by weather conditions (read: climate change). Constrained supply means higher prices. This is basic supply-and-demand.

Before Poilievre lights his hair on fire about inflation hitting 3.2% last month, this is pretty much entirely on gasoline prices because of Iran. Core measures remain at 2.1% and 2.0%. And he's going to decry the price of food and blame "Liberal inflation" as opposed to the truth:

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-22T13:30:56.569Z

Predictably, Pierre Poilievre came out and blamed “Liberal high taxes, waste, and deficits.” None of those have anything to do with inflation. Taxes (which the Liberals have cut consistently) are disinflationary. The size of the deficit has nothing to do with Trump’s foreign misadventures, or climate change affecting food-producing regions, and yet, Poilievre has a convenient target for everything. Who needs facts when you have a narrative, and a government who refuses to actually push back on any of this, and merely pats themselves on the back for OECD projections.

Just completely ignoring the relevant facts, because he has a narrative.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-22T18:21:00.215Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-06-22T13:08:01.946Z

My Latest:

  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take takes issue with the Conservative private member’s bill to take the GST off of used cars, which is both bad policy and bad economics.
  • For National Magazine, I delve into Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada decision that allows a failed candidate the opportunity to sue the province’s chief electoral officer.
  • My (belated) weekend column on the government unnecessarily jamming complex bills through the Senate for no good reason at all.
  • For National Magazine, I contributed to this look at the next Supreme Court of Canada justice, Glenn Joyal.

Continue reading →

The arrogant “tinfoil hat” dismissal

Posted on by
Reply

The House of Commons rose for the summer yesterday afternoon, after a particularly busy few months. Government House Leader Stephen MacKinnon took to the Foyer yesterday to pat himself on the back for passing twenty-one bills in the sitting, which is a lot, particularly after the record of the last few years when unrelenting procedural warfare meant that only one or two non-money bills (by which I mean either budget implementation or Estimates) got passed. This is thanks to the government having secured a working majority in the Commons, allowing them to use time allocation on a regular basis to move bills along—perhaps a little too often. Yes, things were being slow-walked but the solution is not to time allocate everything, which only creates distrust and bad will, but well, the Liberals have become arrogant since getting the majority. So if Ruby Sahota and Gary Anandasangaree are slowly morphing into Vic Toews given their rhetoric on lawful access, well, MacKinnon is morphing into Peter Van Loan, who time allocated absolutely everything when he was House Leader. (And suddenly I am having flashbacks of Peter Julian standing up to say “Here we go again…” with every time allocation motion).

An absolutely shameful statement by Steven MacKinnon. Every organization with a long track record of expert commentary on the rule of law in Canada condemned the bill. "Liberals dismiss ‘tinfoil hat’ privacy fears as lawful access bill passes"globalnews.ca/news/1191195…

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2026-06-19T01:15:29.519Z

What was beyond the pale, however, was the fact that MacKinnon over the past couple of days has decided to start casting concerns about the lawful access bill—which they rammed through with some absolute procedural fuckery—as being “tinfoil hat” conspiracy theories. Sorry, but no—the level of metadata they are demanding that companies track and retain is legitimately invasive, as are the requirements that telecom companies install equipment that will turn your phones into tracking devices (but only with judicial authorization…on a very low threshold to obtain it). The Supreme Court has twice ruled that lawful access is unconstitutional, but this government went and bowled ahead anyway, and think that they can dismiss any legitimate criticism as some kind of mental illness. (And no, the amendments they hastily passed before passage do not address any of the core concerns with the legislation).

Every privacy expert in this country is raising the alarm, and no, the fact that every police organization in the country wants these surveillance powers is not reassuring. It is, in fact, the opposite of that. We already have big problems in this country with cops who use the police database as a dating registry—do we really need to give them the ability to stalk any woman that they choose? What about the allegations of police in Toronto passing along information to organised crime? Do we need to give those cops the ability to track any phone so that they can pass along that information to organised crime as well? This is not far-fetched or out of the realm of possibility—these kinds of things are already happening. This government used to care about these kinds of things, but that has gone out the window with Carney in charge.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-06-18T13:08:10.185Z

Continue reading →

QP: Call it “Soliloquy Period”

Posted on by
Reply

For the final QP of the spring sitting, the PM was once again absent—back from France, but off again to Vancouver to watch a World Cup match. Priorities. Pierre Poilievre was present for the first time this week, and he led off in French, to read a soliloquy about our woeful economic situation, and demanded the prime minister defend it. Steven MacKinnon got up to pat himself on the back for delivering 21 pieces of legislation and the supposed biggest criminal justice reform ever. (Really?) Poilievre launched into the old tactic of the question being for the prime minister and that he wasn’t answering, and after being cautioned by the Speaker, Poilievre asked when the recession would end. François-Philippe Champagne go up to say that he was surprised that Poilievre didn’t thank the PM for the success at the G7. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question, framing intact, and MacKinnon repeated his same response as before. Poilievre declare that they plan to spend the summer fighting the “Liberal recession” and he launched into a his demand that the prime minister standup to defend it. Champagne got back up and patted himself on the back for increased investment, and recited a couple of slogans along the way. Poilievre accused this of being a “hallucination” and railed about the shrinking economy, and again demanded the PM stand up. Patty Hajdu took this as an insult to people in the skilled trades (erm, really?). Poilievre launched into another soliloquy about the supposed “recession” we are not actually in. Tim Hodgson listed the conservative premiers who are interested in working with the government. 

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she accused the prime minister of betraying the environment and Quebec culture, undoing a generation of struggle. MacKinnon got up to praise their “generational investment” and that the government is investing hundreds of millions in culture, and got a swipe about high-speed rail in there as well. Normandin called out the constant concessions to Trump, and the lack of respect shown to Parliament. Miller was incredulous that the Bloc were talking about betrayal when they want to destroy the country. Mario Simard took over, and repeated the same points. Joël Lightbound listed things that the Bloc were voting against.

Continue reading →

Cowardly responses on MAiD expansion

Posted on by
2

It was not a surprise that the majority of the special joint committee on MAiD recommended that the government “pause indefinitely” on expanding access to those whose sole condition is a grievous or irremediable mental illness. The fix was in on this committee from the start—the chairs were both anti-MAiD advocates, and the Conservative position going in was to be against, while many Liberals have become squeamish. It was also no surprise to see that there were five supplemental or dissenting reports to the main report, most of them from senators on the joint committee, four of whom were keen to call bullshit on the process that was torqued, ignored certain expert witnesses, and where the biased chairs put their thumbs on the scale all the way through.

To be frank, there was a lot of cowardice on display. Those senators and the Bloc members all wanted the matter referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, because once again, MPs don’t want to have to make an important decision without being dragged, kicking and screaming, by the Court to do the right thing. There is a well-established pattern in this country, and it should surprise absolutely no one that they want to continue it. In addition, the position that people with a grievous and irremediable mental illness cannot access the same remedy as someone who has the same condition plus a comorbidity is untenable, and is going to be found to be unconstitutional when this is dragged through the courts, which it inevitably will be because the government is cowardly.

Finally, the notion that the federal government shouldn’t legislate in their area of competence—the Criminal Code—because provinces refuse to provide the necessary healthcare and social services makes this whole debate infuriating. Just about as infuriating as the federal government tinkering with the law of bail in the Criminal Code because provinces refuse to properly resource their court systems, which is where the real problem lies. So once again, people suffer while the provinces get off scot-free for abdicating their responsibilities, while the Liberals continue to backtrack on their being the “Party of the Charter.” What a sorry state we’re in.

My Latest:

My column tracks the state of play in Question Period, and Mark Carney’s infrequent appearances and disappointing performance, even it’s his job to answer to MPs.

Continue reading →

QP: Dismissing legitimate concerns about abusing their majority

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was on his way back from France, while Pierre Poilievre was also absent. That left it up to Andrew Lawton to lead off, bafflingly, and he dutifully recited the latest round of “recession” talking points that the party has put up. Steven MacKinnon responded with the assertion of just how proud Canadians are of the prime minister and the accomplishments at the G7 meeting. Lawton continued to rail about people using food banks, and tied in some mention of “surveillance pricing,” to which François-Philippe Champagne retorted that while the Conservatives are busy making videos, the prime minister was signing deals. Pierre Paul-Hus took over in French, and he decried that companies have stopped investing in Canada, and that everything has ground to a halt. Champagne disputed this characterisation, and insisted things were going great, Paul-Hus tried again, and Champagne accused him of running down the economy, while the government was proud of the economy. Michael Guglielmin took over and read the script about so-called “inflationary spending.” Patty Hajdu accused them of voting against supports for families that need them. Guglielmin trotted out the in-flight catering talking points, and Tim Hodgson responded by listed countries who are investing in Canada.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she raised the Liberals abusing their majority to ram through bills that were contentious or offensive. Champagne said he was happy to talk about Bill C-30 and that the Bloc should want to help build the Quebec economy. Normandin (correctly) pointed out the abuse of Parliament, and Joel Lightbound patted himself on the back for the fact that there are more Quebec Liberals than Bloc MPs, and accused them of taking orders from the PQ. Claude DeBellefeuille also called out the abuse of Parliament, including retroactive deadlines, for C-22, and MacKinnon said that Quebeckers are also concerned about crime and that these were tools law enforcement asked for (which is not something you should give them).

Continue reading →

Ham-fisted programming motions on bad bills

Posted on by
Reply

As the spring sitting of Parliament winds down, the government has decided to be maximally ham-fisted in order to ram through several bills for no good reason at all. In the Commons, they put through a programming motion to speed through the lawful access bill (which, to be clear, is a very bad bill that is going to get struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada), but this motion was full of procedural fuckery, including retroactive deadlines on amendments, and no time to debate the amendments that they did have prepared, so they were going to be straight up-down votes, because they insist that this pass the Commons before they rise, even though the Senate is not going to look at it until the fall. Why the rush? Because they are reaching the kinds of arrogance that is the usual Achilles heel of the Liberals, and it’s going to cost them.

This is exactly the Liberal arrogance that always, without fail, comes to bite them in the ass.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-17T01:19:27.773Z

Over on the Senate side, they have also put through a programming motion on three bills that the government insists they need passed before the summer, but this motion essentially gives these complex pieces of legislation a single day of study at committee at which point they are deemed to have passed, no matter if they vote or not. That’s absolutely insane, and quite frankly abusive, and is contemptuous of the job the Senate is supposed to be doing. But this is how Carney and his crew have decided they want to treat Parliament. I would say it’s unbelievable, but no, we’ve come to expect this kind of behaviour, and it needs to be callsed out.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-06-16T19:08:17.950Z

Continue reading →

QP: Ministers not proving their ability to know their files

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was still at the G7 in France, while Pierre Poilievre was also absent, and for some reason, Branden Leslie led off with a shouted recitation of the “recession” script, and François-Philippe Champagne suggested that the Conservatives were not happy but he bought good news about the highest level of foreign direct investment and the second-fastest growth in the G7. Leslie cited people turning to GoFundMe pages to afford to live, and Champagne assured him that Canadians don’t want another clip, they want action, and he listed measures the government has taken. Gabriel Hardy took forward in French, read a weeks-ago talking point about the prime minister talking about the level of affordability before reading today’s clip-bait about GoFundMe pages. Champagne accused the Conservatives of hypocrisy for their voting against programmes to help people. Hardy suggested that people want the government to stop what’s not working, and that government spending was driving the country into recession. Lightbound suggested the number of people in Hardy’s riding getting that GST credit would disagree. Shannon Stubbs picked up the metaphorical baton to angrily read the day’s script, including the GoFundMe mention, and this time Tim Hodgson listed programmes that are getting underway. Stubbs railed about the prime minister’s in-flight catering and meandered into the “inflationary spending” talking point. Steven MacKinnon got up to wonder what the Conservatives are for if they vote against all measures to help people.

Yves Perron led for the Bloc, and complained about the programming motion on Bill C-22 and time allocation on Bill C-30. MacKinnon took a swipe at the Bloc for opposing the high-speed rail project and all of good things it would bring. Perron kept up his complaints about these “gag orders” that prevent MPs from doing their jobs, and to keep civil society from realising the abuse in those laws. MacKinnon said they would not apologise for working on the priorities of Canadians, like high-speed rail. (Erm, lawful access is not this, guys). Claude DeBellefeuille took her own crack at complaining about the motion on Bill C-22, and Lightbound said he wouldn’t apologise for taking action on things like transit…which again, is not lawful access.

Continue reading →

A privacy bill that takes away from the Privacy Commissioner

Posted on by
Reply

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 →