Tag Archives: Telecom

QP: Low-energy economic bafflegab

Posted on by

On a rainy Monday, the prime minister was in town but not at QP, while his deputy was in his stead. Some of the other leaders were present today, but not Pierre Poilievre, unusually. That left Andrew Scheer to lead off to read some utter nonsense about “economic vandalism” and a “per capita” recession, and demanded a cancellation of “tax hikes.” Patty Hajdu got up to first speak to the passing of Senator Murray Sinclair. Scheer said they joined in sending condolences, before returning to his claims of economic vandalism and railed about the proposed emissions cap, and demanded it be scrapped. Jonathan Wilkinson said that they are moving to address climate change, and that low-carbon sources will be more valuable. Scheer read some statistics without context to claim the government was creating jobs in the U.S., to which Steven Guilbeault responded that Scheer should actually read the regulations, and not that production was still projected to increase. Luc Berthold took over in French to read the same non-sequitur economic stats, and Chrystia Freeland shot back with countering statistics about how much better the situation in Canada was compared to the U.S. Berthold insisted that the wealth gap is growing between countries, and Freeland quoted an American economist who suggested companies leave New York for Toronto.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he railed that the Senate needed to pass the Supply Management bill, lest there be economic doom. Lawrence MacAulay reminded him that he as been a farmer under the system his entier career, and that the government supports it. Therrien railed further about the Senators holding up the bill, two which Marie-Claude Bibeau reminded him that Senator are independent and that only a Liberal government would protect it.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP to point to doctors in Quebec offering private options, and demanded the government do something. Mark Holland recited the paean about public healthcare and suggested that they work together to pressure provinces. Singh repeated the same in French, and got much the same paean en français.

Continue reading →

QP: Poilievre vs Fraser on GST cuts

Posted on by

Both the PM and his deputy were present today, and as a result, so were most of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he claimed the PM had “copied and pasting” his idea of cutting the GST on rentals, and then patted himself on the back and quoted Mike Moffatt in praising his current plan to cut GST on new houses under $1 million, and wanted the government to adopt it. Justin Trudeau recited the false talking point that Poilievre had only built six affordable units when he was “minister” before saying they wouldn’t sign onto a programme of cuts. Poilievre insisted his plan would build by cutting bureaucracy, and Trudeau pointed out that cutting the Accelerator Fund would mean cutting investment in social housing in Quebec. Poilievre repeated his first question in English, and Trudeau noted that the fine print of Poilievre’s plan is to cut affordable housing programmes. Poilievre then recited some particular misleading talking points another the two housing programmes he plans to cut, and Trudeau gave a half-hearted defence of those programmes, getting back to his “fine print” talking points. Poilievre repeated his policy pledge in order to get a clean clip, and Trudeau returned to his same “check the fine print” talking point.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1851331074929918416

Yves-François Blanchet led for the NDP, and in his most ominous tone, brought up that the government didn’t pass their two bills, and tried to sound as though those bills were the most common sense plan for Quebeckers. Trudeau said that they have supported Supply Management and they hoped the Senate would pass it, before listing measures they have taken to help seniors. Blanchet then threw some shade at the Conservatives for their privilege filibuster which prevented any confidence motions that could bring down the government, and Trudeau noted that they could all see who was in the Chamber to play petty politics versus those there to help Canadians.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he complained about Rogers rising fees and said that the Conservatives don’t care because their leader gets “big cheques” from Edward Rogers, before some disruption, before demanding the government force Rogers to lower fees or ban them from federal contracts. Trudeau gave some blame talking points about hold the telcos to account. Singh switched to French to raise the recent documentary that cited Alain Rayes’ comments on the anti-abortionists in the Conservatives before demanding the federal government increase access (which is provincial jurisdiction). Trudeau threw a verbal grenade across the aisle about Quebec Conservatives who are not saying anything about the anti-abortionists in their caucus.

Continue reading →

QP: Proud of their new housing policy

Posted on by

The PM was ostensibly in town but not present for Question Period, though his deputy was in his stead. All of the other leaders were absent, including Pierre Poilievre, even though he had just launched another policy position on housing. That left Andrew Scheer to lead off, and he raised the plan from said press conference on cutting GST on new house under $1 million, and asked the government to adopt it. Sean Fraser said that it was great that they took inspiration from the policy to remove the GST on purpose-built rentals, but the Conservative plan to pay for this policy, buy cutting other programmes including to existing low-income housing, was irresponsible. Scheer insisted that the current plan was only paying for bureaucracy and photo ops, and demanded again the policy be adopted. Fraser scoffed that their plan was to do less for housing and spend money on a snitch-line for people who don’t like their neighbours’ housing plans. Scheer repeated his “bureaucracy and photo ops” talking points, and claimed housing starts were down. Fraser retorted that housing starts were in fact up, and tens of thousands over when the Conservatives were last in charge, before reiterating that the Conservative plan is to cut housing supports. Luc Berthold took over in French to demand the government match their pledge to cut GST, and this time, Chrystia Freeland responded that at Poilievre’s rare press conference, he accidentally told the truth and said that they would cut two programmes to pay for this, and listed what those might be. Berthold tried again, decrying how long it took people to afford a home, and this time, Soraya Martinez Ferrada gave her own version of the Conservatives will only cut, and that the programmes the would cut included social housing in Quebec.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and worried about an influx of migrants from the U.S. if Trump wins and asked if the government had a plan. Marc Miller repsonded with a single “oui.” Therrien gave another soliloquy that asked the very same thing. Miller repeated that they do have a plan, and that they have always managed the border with the U.S.

Jenny Kwan rose for the NDP, demanded federal action on abortion access, as though the federal government controlled it. Mark Holland got up and gave a rant about the conservatives and that no man should control a woman’s reproductive freedom. Rachel Blaney gave another round of the same, and Patty Hajdu gave her own rant about not standing for attacks on reproductive rights.

Continue reading →

QP: Concern trolling about caucus matters

Posted on by

The prime minister was present today for the first time in more than a week, as was his deputy, as were most of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led of in French, and he needled the fact that as many of forty Liberal backbenchers are pushing back against him, and concern trolled about their freedom of expression. Speaker Fergus noted that this wasn’t under the administrative responsibilities of the government, but Justin Trudeau got up to speak anyway, and gave a paean about the things they are delivering for Canadians. Poilievre tried to bring the Bloc in on this, but kept it as a question about caucus, but Trudeau again got up to pat himself on the back for pharmacare. Poilievre turned to English to repeat his concern trolling about caucus, and got another warning from Fergus. Trudeau again got up in spite of this and said that Poilievre only wants to score political points and not talk about what the government is delivering for Canadians. Poilievre claimed that these backbenchers were talking to Conservatives to ask this in QP—obvious bullshit—and Trudeau didn’t get up this time. Poilievre listed a lot of non sequitur statistics to demand an election, and Trudeau told that Poilievre’s only solution for tough times is cuts to programmes and services people rely on.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and he demanded support for their two bills, on OAS and Supply Management. Trudeau said that they will always protect Supply Management, before listing all the times the Bloc voted against help for seniors. Blanchet called this a “manipulation of the facts,” and demanded support for those bills in order to break the deadlock in Parliament. Trudeau listed ways in which they have been there for seniors.

Alexandre Boulerice led for the NDP, listed the false statistic of people being $200 away from insolvency (which has been debunked numerous times), and demanded action on forcing corporations to control food prices. Trudeau noted ways they have acted, and threw in a jab at the Conservatives. Lori Idlout got up to note the failure of the agreement on First Nations child and family welfare last week, and demanded immediate action on this. Trudeau noted that they are looking at ways to move forward.

Continue reading →

QP: Conspicuous silence about India

Posted on by

The first day back after a busy constituency week, and the PM was absent, though his deputy was present. Most of the other leaders were also away, but Pierre Poilievre was there, and he once again began in French to lament mortgage costs in Quebec, and complained that Trudeau was too worried about his own survival, before demanding an election. Chrystia Freeland said that she was glad the Conservatives were thinking about the economy, and she praised the fact that inflation has been tamed, which the Conservatives don’t want to talk about. Poilievre needed that Trudeau is facing a backbench revolt and demanded an election, to which Karina Gould noted that the Conservatives were trying to avoid another vote in the Chamber that they would lose. Poilievre switched to English to lament that people lined up in Cloverdale, BC, for “ugly potato day,” and used this to demand an election. Freeland noted that Poilievre was crying crocodile tears because he voted against their school food programme. Poilievre gave a more emphatic version of the same, and Freeland noted that the Conservatives were damning themselves by their intransigence, and described the launch of their school food programme in Manitoba on Friday. Poilievre was incredulous as this, accused the prime minister of being in the “fetal position” under his desk, and demanded an election. Freeland dismissed this as the Conservatives losing the plot, and their concerns about inflation Missed that his has been back in the target range for nine months.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he demanded the government support the Bloc’s OAS enrichment bill. Steve MacKinnon said the Bloc have never voted in the interests of seniors, so this was disingenuous. Therrien then turned to the Supply Management bill in the Senate, and lamented that the prime minister was not pressuring senators, and Jean-Yves Duclos noted the government’s support for system all along.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, worried about foreign interference from India, and wondered if the PM had personally urged Poilievre to get his security clearance. Dominic LeBlanc said that they extended the offer, and that they are working to keep Canadians safe. Singh tried again in French and got much the same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Impossible to extrapolate

Posted on by

As with so many elections these days, it brings out the electoral reform fetishists, and they get self-righteous and say dumb things all over social media, and this week’s general election in the UK is no different. And lo, those fetishists are again making pronouncements about things like “voters’ wishes” because they’re trying to find a grand narrative that confirms their priors, and I fear I may lose my gods damned mind over this.

Once again, let us remember what this election is—650 separate and simultaneous elections, each one for a specific seat. So yes, the voters’ wishes are reflected because they chose who filled each seat. As well, I will once again remind you that the so-called “popular vote” is a logical fallacy because there is too much variation between each electoral contest to make any kind of grand aggregate that is meaningful—particularly in the UK, where the smaller countries have regional parties that England doesn’t, and yes, that does distort the “national picture” (as what happens in Canada with the Bloc). And no, every vote that is cast does not deserve their own seat. That’s not democracy, and it’s actually sore loserism if you believe that your vote doesn’t count if the person or party you prefer doesn’t win.

This is the other aspect of these fetishists spouting off and producing their own graphs of how they claim that Parliament “should” look if they had a PR system, erm, except they seem to always insist that it would be pure-PR (which is almost entirely unlikely), and it discounts that voting behaviour would change, but so would party formation under a system that no longer rewards big-tent brokerage in favour of post-election negotiation for coalitions. In no possible way can you extrapolate a vote like Thursday’s and come up with what a Parliament “should” look like, but that won’t stop the fetishists from trying.

Oh, and if one of these fetishists also tries to bring up lines about how the current single-member plurality system is “bad for democracy,” I’m not sure that PR is having a great run right now, as it legitimizes far-right and extremist parties that is almost impossible under SMP, and that legitimacy afforded to them is allowing them to grow across Europe. The situation in the Netherlands is also cause for concern, given that the far-right parties there have taken months to try to cobble together some sort of working coalition and may prove completely unworkable or ungovernable, and that’s not good for anyone.

Ukraine Dispatch

The Russian advance toward Toretsk in the Donetsk region means that time is running out for any Ukrainian citizens that want to flee. While Ukraine managed to destroy all 32 Russian drones launched Friday night, early Saturday morning was another story—drones hit an energy facility in Sumy, and hits on Selydove and Komar killed eight combined. Meanwhile, the head of Ukraine’s navy says that Russia has  nearly re-based all of its combat-read warships from occupied Crimea, because of the number of successful Ukrainian strikes on the region.

Continue reading →

QP: Not taking yes for an answer on Hogue

Posted on by

The prime minister was off in Quebec City to meet with the premier of that province, but his deputy was present, having just made the formal announcement of the Ways and Means motion on the capital gains changes that they want to use as a political wedge. Most of the other leaders were away, and Pierre Paul-Hus led off in French, and raised the NSICOP report, and demanded to know the names of who was implicated. Dominic LeBlanc noted that he was surprised by the question because Andrew Scheer had sent a letter asking to send this to the Hogue Commission, and there was a Bloc motion on the same thing, and the government was going to support it. Paul-Hus wanted it clear whether the prime minister would reveal the names to Justice Hogue, and let her deal with it, and LeBlanc repeated that they were going to support the Bloc motion. Jasraj Hallan took over in English to ramp up the rhetoric, launching accusations, and LeBlanc reiterated that they agree the Commission is well-placed, and already has access to the documents in question. Hallan torqued his rhetoric even further, and LeBlanc again said they would support the Bloc motion, and LeBlanc said that he asked the deputy RCMP commissioner what would happen if he stood up and read off those names, and was told he would be criminally charged, which he would not do. Hallan switched topics to claim there was some secret carbon price report that the PBO couldn’t release (there was no report), and Steven Guilbeault recited his lines about the PBP report saying that eight out of ten households got more money back than they spent.

Alain  Therrien led for the Bloc, and patted himself on the back for their motion, claiming they were being the adults in the room. LeBlanc repeated that they would support the motion. Therrien demanded further reassurance that they would turn over any additional documents and LeBlanc assured him they were.

Jagmeet Singh conflated a number of incidents with the NSICOP report revelations, and Dominic LeBlanc gave some back-patting on the only government actually taking action. Singh repeated the conflation in French, and got much the same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: The demand to name names

Posted on by

The day was largely marked with the discourse around that NSICOP report, and the demand that the government name names, even though that’s never going to happen because intelligence is not evidence, there may be ongoing investigations that it might jeopardise, and the possibility of reputational damage for someone who may be unwittingly involved is great—all things the RCMP pointed to in their own release on the subject. The chair of NSICOP said that any next steps are up to the RCMP, but that hasn’t stopped reporters from asking salacious questions about whether they can trust their fellow caucus-members (because remember, reputational damage).

With all of this in mind, I went back to the report, and looked for more than just that one paragraph that every media outlet highlighted. It noted that much of that witting assistance was in relation to India, which is not a “hostile power” last time I checked, even if we have particular issues with them (such as their decision to assassinate someone on our soil). I have no doubt that some MPs would see no problem in trying to “forge closer ties” with India. The other thing that I noted was that, at least in relationship with the Chinese government is that there was an expectation of a quid pro quo relationship, that engaging with them would benefit the political player in question in the hopes that the PRC would mobilise their influence networks in favour of that candidate in the riding. I suspect that in several of these cases, the MPs in question wouldn’t think of it as foreign interference, but that they’re being so clever in leveraging diaspora politics to their advantage, and believing that they can somehow outwit Chinese agents to do it. Likewise with instances of blind eyes being turned to money flowing into ridings, particularly from the Indian government—that they think they can leverage that government to their advantage and not that they’re being played, and why I don’t think that certain media outlets and political figures screaming “name the traitors!” is doing much for the level of discourse. The report did make mention of Chinese and Indian influence in at least two Conservative leadership races, but no details provided as to how or the vectors that took shape as (money, membership sign-ups under the promise of repayment, or so on). There was also mention of one former MP who had wittingly provided information while maintaining a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer, but this was being conflated with the other allegations, which is not helpful in the slightest.

As for what’s next, it would seem to me that the real question here is why certain party leaders continue to be wilfully blind as to the full details of the report, and how they continue to refuse to accept classified briefings. The notion that it would “muzzle” them is bullshit—it would mean they can’t talk about certain specific details, but it would give them a more complete picture of what is happening and if their own MPs are implicated, which would allow them to take internal party action, even if they can’t publicize the details.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces downed 22 out of 27 Russian drones overnight Wednesday, and an industrial facility in Poltava suffered damage. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with the emir of Qatar in advance of the peace summit in Switzerland.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1798300991407940083

Continue reading →

QP: Sophistry on the carbon levy

Posted on by

Fresh from his trip to Philadelphia, the prime minister was present for QP today, while his deputy was off to Toronto. All of the other leaders were present, and Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and blamed the prime minister and the Bloc for debt, taxes and inflation, and raise a Food Banks of Canada report that cites half of people saying they are in worse situations than before, with more use by young people, and blamed the prime minister of feeding the “obese government” when people can’t feed themselves. Justin Trudeau said Poilievre’s outrage would be more credible if he didn’t oppose things like their school food programme, and praised dental care. Poilievre said that the school food programme has created zero meals and only created red tape. Trudeau said that the Conservatives are trying to score points on the backs of the challenges Canadians are facing, and patted himself on the back some more for their programmes. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his food bank report/“obese government” lines, and Trudeau repeated that Poilievre lacked credibility for voting against school food and things like dental care. Poilievre wondered aloud if the government’s programmes were working, why so many people we lined up at food banks. Trudeau said that he vote on the school food programme was coming up after QP, and Poilievre would have a chance to show his support. Poilievre wondered why all of those government programmes were showing for naught, and Trudeau sang the praises of dental care and seniors getting the help they need.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, worried about the decline of French in Western Canada, and turned this into another swipe at Francis Drouin and his outburst at committee. Trudeau said that the Bloc don’t really care about francophones outside of Quebec, and disputed that the only way to protect French is with separation, but by investing. Blanchet railed that he wasn’t allowed to talk about French outside of Quebec during the last English debate in the election, and Trudeau shot back that he always defends the French fact in Canada.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and railed about greedy CEOs, and how the government hasn’t lowered prices (which is not what anyone promised), to which Trudeau cited the StatsCan data showing cellphone fees decreasing, and praised their bill empowering the Competition Bureau. Singh repeated the question in French, and got much the same response. 

Continue reading →

QP: Gas tax holidays and make-up jabs

Posted on by

For Monday-on-a-Tuesday QP, the prime minister was off in Philadelphia, but his deputy was present, as were most of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, rattled off some slogans, and accused the Bloc and government of scheming to raise gas taxes when other countries have cut their taxes, and mentioned his demand to cut fuel taxes over the summer. Chrystia Freeland said that she was glad he raised inflation because it allows her to mention this morning’s inflation figures, which showed another decrease thanks to their responsible management. Poilievre switched to English to insist that the government shouldn’t pat themselves on the back because inflation is still 35 percent above target, and repeats the demand to cut gas taxes. Freeland noted that he doesn’t even know that the target is between one and three percent. Poilievre returned to French to insist the target was two percent, and then lambasted the government for not locking in longer-term treasury bonds, meaning higher government interest payments. Freeland insisted he was incompetent, and Poilievre returned to English to call her incompetent, and repeat his lines about treasury bonds. Freeland suggested he was grouchy because he doesn’t like that inflation is at a three-year low. Poilievre switched to a demand to support their motion on banning all hard drugs for all times. Freeland pointed out that Poilievre was wearing more make-up than she was—got a warning from the Speaker—and after withdrawing the remark pointed out that Poilievre was phoney to the core, and that he didn’t really care about the economy or people dying from opioids, but only wants to score partisan points.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and lamented a lack of government interest in the Francophonie. Freeland says that the situation of French in Quebec is not a joke, and they are taking it seriously. Normandin took a swipe at Francis Drouin and the Liberals sticking by him, and Freeland repeated her statement of support for the French language. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, raised the pending arrest International a criminal Court warrants for senior Hamas and Israeli officials and demanded to know if the government would support it. Freeland said that they respect the independence of the ICC, condemn Hamas, and doesn’t believe you can draw an equivalence of Hamas’ actions with Israel’s. Singh insisted that it wasn’t the question, and repeated it in French, but got the same answer.

Continue reading →