Tag Archives: Telecom

Roundup: Duelling tax cut offers

Posted on by

Day two of the campaign, and the first full day of campaigning. Mark Carney began in Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, where he played up the Canadiana and the fact that Gander hosted passengers from aircraft stranded on 9/11 (which became the basis for the musical “Come from Away.” This was part of his appeal to Canadian values in the face of Trump and the trade war, before he jetted off to Halifax. (Day one recap here, and more about the fishers protesting his speech.). Carney also released a second, more earnest ad with Mike Myers, who officially endorsed him in it. Carney also added that he hasn’t spoken to Trump yet, but he suspects Trump is waiting until after the election to call.

Pierre Poilievre was still in the Greater Toronto Area, where he had pledged his own, larger income tax cut, and gave a faux assurance that it would be paid for with “cuts to bureaucracy, consultants, and foreign aid.” (Yeah, that’s not going to get you the money for this kind of a tax cut, it will absolutely disproportionately benefit the wealthy, and you can bet that social programmes will be on the chopping block). He also regaled the crowd with a stupid meme tale about telling a child that income tax is a “punishment for doing well,” rather than the entry fee for civilization. Because Poilievre is fundamentally an anti-government conservative (in spite of having spent his entire life in public office). (Day one recap here).

The NDP started off in Montreal, where he promised to set aside even more public land for rent-controlled homes, but didn’t exactly spell out how this would be different than what the federal government is already doing about leasing public lands (nor did he address the fact that a lot of that “government-owned land” are actually contaminated sites). He also took some jabs at a punching bag in an outdoor gym—because he’s spent the last few weeks trying to burnish a tough-guy image—before the bus went down the 401 to Toronto. (Day one recap here). He’ll spend much of the day there today, before heading to Hamilton later afternoon.

Given the two promises around tax cuts, here are some analyses of what it might mean, once we get more details. Economists, however, are pretty sceptical thus far that the maths are going to work out for these cuts.

The Leadership Debates Commission announced the dates for the two official “consortium” debates as April 16th and 17thin Montreal, French first, then English, each with a single moderator after the complete gong show of the previous two election cycles. There will not be a TVA “face-à-face” debate this time, as they planned to charge the leaders $75,000 each to “offset costs,” and the Liberals balked, so it won’t go ahead. The other campaigns are trying to say Carney was too afraid of a second French debate, but charging the parties to hold it was a very, very bad precedent, and it’s probably for the best that it wasn’t’ allowed to take hold.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian missiles hit a densely-populated part of Sumy, wounding 88 people, while there were further air attacks on Kyiv, wounding one and damaging houses. A Russian cyberattack also hit Ukraine’s state railway service, adding to the chaos of the situation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau’s slow exit

Posted on by

And Monday morning, the inevitable happened. Prime minister Justin Trudeau summoned the media outside of Rideau Cottage, and first announced that he had been granted a prorogation until March 24th, and then stated that he had told his children and the president of the Liberal Party that he intends to resign as leader and prime minister once a successor has been chosen in a robust national competition. While he was tinged with sadness, there were still some elements that rankled—he blamed the decision on “internal divisions” in the party rather than a self-aware recognition that he was dragging them down, and that his time had come (or had come months ago and he refused to listen). When asked about Chrystia Freeland, he implied that her version of events was not what happened and that he offered her a chance to work on the most important file but she turned him down (and no, a portfolio with no department, staff, or levers of power, is not a promotion). When asked about his biggest regret, he said that it was that he couldn’t implement ranked ballots (which he never actually tried to do during the whole bloody Electoral Reform Committee process).

Response from other parties was quick. Jagmeet Singh was first out the door with a statement devoid of class or graciousness, and Pierre Poilievre soon followed on with the same. In a video message shortly thereafter, Singh said that he plans to vote non-confidence no matter who the leader is, but well, his mind changes with the cycles of the moon and the phases of the tide. Poilievre also delivered an absolutely psychotic video message about how the “dark days” are nearly over, and near sweet Rhea, mother of Zeus, that is absolutely divorced from reality.

The party now has to come to decisions about the length of the contest, the rules, and how they plan to deal with the potential for any foreign interference that comes with such an open system that doesn’t even have paid memberships (which, I will reiterate, was always a stupid move, and the Alberta Liberal Party, which instigated this kind of scheme, is now pretty much extinct). Those rules will help determine the shape of the race, and who may throw their hat into the ring, to take what could very well be a poisoned chalice.

Here is a high-level look over Trudeau’s political career. The Star has assembled a list of possible candidates for the job, but that’s going to start changing rapidly. There are concerns about what this will do with the response to Trump tariffs.

In reaction, Emmett Macfarlane sees no issues with the prorogation call (which is not unexpected). Susan Delacourt looks back over Trudeau’s political career and the air of inscrutability he has cultivated around himself. Althia Raj wonders about where the party goes next after Trudeau, and if they have enough runway to make a difference. Paul Wells lays out the four main challenges that Trudeau’s announcement has unleashed.

In case you missed it:

My weekend column on Poilievre and the lessons he seems to be eager to take from the “tech broligarchy” that is flexing its muscles around Trump.

My column on how Poilievre’s plan for a “massive crackdown on crime” is predicated on repealing laws that don’t do what he claims.

My weekend column on why there’s no such thing as an “interim” prime minister, and how the Liberals need to consider their next steps in replacing Trudeau.

My Loonie Politics Quick Take points out that the Conservatives’ plan to use the Public Accounts committee to call for non-confidence is a non-starter.

My year-end column on the four main political lessons that we’ve learned (or in some cases, refused to learn) over 2024.

My weekend column on the considerations around prorogation, now vs 2008, and what’s changed and what hasn’t since them.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian forces claim to have taken the stronghold of Kurakhove, but Ukraine says they are still fighting. The fighting appears to have intensified in the Kursk region of Russia with a possible new Ukrainian offensive, and they are saying that Russia and North Korea has suffered 38,000 casualties, with nearly 15,000 of those dead.

Continue reading →

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 →