Tag Archives: Telecom

Roundup: Fears over a fire at a nuclear plant

Posted on by

At the start of day nine of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there was a lot of tension and drama as Russian forces shelled the nuclear power station at Zaporizhzhia, leading to concerns that a fire could lead to some kind of Fukushima-style meltdown, particularly after firefighters were also fired upon. In the end, it turns out that the fire was a separate building and that the reactor was fine, with no changes to radiation levels, but it was nevertheless a huge concern for a few hours, and which president Volodymyr Zelenskyy to proclaim that Russia has targeted their nuclear reactors as a form of blackmail. It’s really, really a bad situation.

In terms of Canadian contributions, new shipments of lethal aid were announced yesterday morning, along with new punitive measures against Russia and Belarus, removing their “most favoured nation” status (they now join North Korea as the only countries without it), and slapped tariffs of 35 percent on all of their products (though as was pointed out, this is still less than tariffs that our dairy cartel forces upon imports from out allies and trading partners). Canada is leading calls to have Russia’s membership in INTERPOL suspended. On top of this, new streamlined immigration and refugee processes were announced that will take two weeks to fully implement, during which time those wishing to come to Canada can get their biometric data sorted at consulates in countries surrounding Ukraine, as they had beefed up their capabilities ahead of time. Of course, this also raises questions as to why this kind of expedited process hasn’t been made for other refugee groups (though the obvious reply is that Ukrainian refugees are making it to European countries with more resources).

The Toronto Star’s editorial board caught up with Mélanie Joly between her visit to Poland and meetings in Brussels, where she reiterates once again that no, a no-fly zone is not going to happen, particularly because Putin is an irrational actor. Elsewhere, Chrystia Freeland warned that there could be severe consequences if any Canadian heads over to Ukraine to join the fight as it may not be legal to do so (and this is a fight over the international rules-based order), and Anita Anand added that if they want to sign up, they should enlist with the Canadian Forces (which has a 10,000 person shortfall at present).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Recalling a committee for a dog and pony show

Posted on by

The House of Commons’ access to information, privacy and ethics committee will be recalled for emergency meetings after the Conservatives were “alarmed” to hear that the Public Health Agency used anonymised mobile data to see how Canadians were responding to public health measures. The point of the data collection is to get a sense of travel patterns during these kinds of measures, and to see whether people stay at home, or how far they go, and because its anonymised, nobody can see who is doing what individually—they’re looking at patterns.

But this kind of wailing and gnashing of teeth over anonymised data is nothing new for Conservatives, who have sounded this particular alarm before when Statistics Canada was hoping to use anonymised bank data to track Canadians’ purchasing habits in a more robust and accurate way than shopping diary surveys can, and lo, that project got iced. Of course, because irony is dead, the Conservatives’ election platform had their “carbon points” plan, which would require so much itemised consumer data that it puts this kind of anonymised data to shame, but why worry about consistency or logic?

Because this is a House of Commons committee, we are guaranteed that this is going to be nothing more than a dog and pony show. If they agree to hold a study on this—which it’s not yet guaranteed—it’s going to be hauling public health officials before committee and subjecting them to ridiculous questions that have little to do with this particular issue, in the hopes of catching them out on something, and attempts to build some kind of conspiracy theory that the government was trying to play Big Brother during the pandemic, and it will balloon from there until the point where the government has had enough and starts filibustering the increasingly unreasonable demands by opposition members, and the committee will grind to a halt. Because that’s how this kind of thing happens every time, because our MPs are more concerned with being partisan dicks on committees than actually doing their jobs of accountability. But maybe I’m just getting cynical about the current state of affairs in federal politics.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A fundamental misunderstanding of the profession

Posted on by

Because this is sometimes a media criticism blog, it’s time once again to look askance at some particularly poor reporting choices by a particular CBC reporter. He has developed quite a pattern and reputation for writing stories about judicial appointments which are skewed toward a certain predilection for creating moral panics, and this really false notion that people are essentially buying judicial nominations with party donations, which is both absurd and not how the system works. And along the way, he mischaracterised comments made by the then-president of the Canadian Bar Association, which I had to go about correcting.

In this particular instance, he is remarking that a new judicial nomination Quebec is a lawyer who argued the case on behalf of opponents of Bill 21 in the province (and didn’t win because the judge noted that the provincial government pre-emptively applied the Notwithstanding Clause). But the entire framing of the story and its implicit narrative is that this is a political appointment for the intention of either tweaking at François Legault, or of signalling federal opposition to the law, which is again absurd, and a completely bizarre understanding of how things work in the legal system.

Let me offer this reminder: lawyers make arguments on behalf of their clients. They don’t need to believe those arguments or subscribe to the beliefs of their clients—they simply need to argue on their behalf. The fact that this lawyer argued on behalf of these clients in opposition to this law should be immaterial to the fact that he applied to be a judge, and it should not be a determining factor in the decision to appoint him. But it does fit the narrative that this particular reporter likes to portray about how judicial appointments work, and the fact that the gods damned CBC is letting him spin this particular narrative and not squashing it for being both wrong and unprofessional is troubling, and makes me wonder what the hell is going on with their editorial standards.

Continue reading →

QP: Litigating the Kabul evacuation

Posted on by

The Liberal benches were a little over two-thirds full, the opposition benches a little more full than that, and both Trudeau and his deputy were present (Freeland having previously being scheduled to only attend virtually but she was present in the flesh). Erin O’Toole led off, script on his mini-lectern, and he insisted that the government had two years to evacuate our interpreters and workers in Afghanistan, quoted a CSIS report, and railed at the government’s failure. Trudeau insisted that they stood by Afghanistan, and noted their commitment to resettle 40,000 Afghans. O’Toole noted that 1,215 Canadians left in Afghanistan when evacuation operations ended, and Trudeau praised the work to get as many Afghans and Canadians out of the country as possible in August. O’Toole read scoffing remarks from script, and complained that the election was called, while Trudeau reminded him of the speed at which things happened in Afghanistan before once again praising the work of officials on the ground at the time. O’Toole switched to French, and he repeated his first question on the alleged two-year timeline, and Trudeau repeated about the work to get people out, and work with the international community to resettle 40,000 Afghans. O’Toole then read the scripted scoffing remarks in French, and Trudeau repeated his same answer.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he worried about a potential rule change that would see oil sands tailing ponds being dumped into the Athabasca River. Trudeau read a script about consultations on regulatory changes to ensure safeguards. Blanchet accused the government of being so much in the pockets of the oil and gas industry that it would cause the Conservatives an identity crisis, and a Trudeau read again that they were putting in strict water quality measures in the region.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, raised the coming fiscal update and the scourge of inflation, and then demanded the puzzling tools of immediate housing supply and lowering cellphone bills—a very curious notion that ignores the causes of this current bout of inflation. Trudeau read a script about what they planned to talk about in the fiscal update. Singh repeated the question in French, and got the French version of the same script.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An insubstantial gong show of a French debate

Posted on by

So, that was the French “Commission Debate.” Honestly, they should just burn this whole format down. The questions from “ordinary Canadians” are the kind of bullshit that TV executives think that people will spoon up (in spite of the stone-faced eleven-year-old unimpressed with the leaders pandering to him). Getting talent from each of the participating partners to ask questions is branding nonsense that adds little, especially when these same journalists can ask questions of the leaders in media availabilities daily. Packing in a list of topics that needs to be choreographed to the second means that the moment a leader started to get on the ropes about something, oops, time was up, next topic. Ridiculous.

With this in mind, it was another night of no real winners or losers, because it was just so insubstantial. Sure, Erin O’Toole choked on the child care question, but will it matter? Who knows? Same with Singh getting hit with the assertion that Jeff Bezos is in the United States and not Canada, or Annamie Paul getting a stake through the heart with the Greens having lost their raison d’être. They were good lines for the journalists who asked them, but will that actually have an effect? Doubtful. I can’t believe that they’re still trying to make “why are we having an election?” an issue in week four, and I still can’t believe that Justin Trudeau refuses to point out that Parliament was toxic and dysfunctional and couldn’t pass legislation for five months. And that he hasn’t called out the disingenuous “we need to work together” entreaties when these were the same leaders whose MPs were engaged in procedural warfare. But hey, “happy warrior” and all of that. And now we get to do it all again in English tonight.

Meanwhile, here were some of my reactions watching it all unfold.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The “brother” meltdown

Posted on by

Because we’re in an election and it ramps up the absolute stupidity across the board, we had another so-called “gaffe” that made a bunch of people performatively lose their minds, and I can’t even, you guys.

In a press conference about the situation in Afghanistan, Maryam Monsef, the minister responsible for the status of women and gender equality and a former refugee from Afghanistan, who fled when she was a child, made a direct address to the Taliban about letting people out of the country, and used the term “brothers.” And people lost their gods damned minds. She was asked about it and said that the context was cultural and she absolutely considers them to be terrorists, and yet the insinuation persists that, somehow, she was using the term as being sympathetic to a group that is diametrically opposed to everything she is about. WTF.

https://twitter.com/ChrisGNardi/status/1430565362265907205

And I don’t think it’s beyond the pale to suggest that there was a racist or Islamophobic undercurrent in the media even questioning that she was somehow trying to be sympathetic to the Taliban. Because seriously, you think that somehow Monsef personally, or the Trudeau government, is going to be “soft on terror,” or some other bullshit like this? Are these the tropes by which we will repeatedly fall back into, because we have learned nothing over the past twenty years? Apparently not, especially when it’s all being done to put on a show. It’s pretty gross, you guys. Do better.

Continue reading →

QP: Green Lanterning the price of houses

Posted on by

With the prime minister still in Belgium, there were a lot more Conservatives than usual in the Chamber, which made for a louder day. As for the Liberal ranks, Mark Gerretsen was joined by Kate Young for possibly the first time since the Hybrid sittings began, but the imbalance between both sides of the Chamber was very noticeable. Erin O’Toole in led off in French, and from his script, he read about how Trudeau was apparently so preoccupied with becoming the “Dean of G7” and apparent celebrity meetings (of which there haven’t been any) while he ignored the job losses back in Canada. Chrystia Freeland replied by pointing out that the Conservatives have been using procedural tactics to delay debate on the budget implementation bill. O’Toole switched to English, to decry that a Toronto developer snapped up housing, thus driving up prices, for which Ahmed Hussen reminded him that the current government was doing more for affordable housing than the Conservatives ever did. O’Toole demanded that the government somehow lower housing prices before the summer — maybe using a Green Lantern ring? — and Hussen repeated that he had no lessons to take from the Conservatives. From there, O’Toole started slamming Harjit Sajjan, accusing him of stolen valour, and of being “buddies” with General Jonathan Vance, and Sajjan brushed off the allegations. O’Toole put on a performance of theatrical anger to demand Sajjan’s resignation, and Sajjan hit back by reminding O’Toole that his government still appointed Vance while he was under active investigation. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he demanded support for a motion to validate Quebec’s plan to unilaterally amend the constitution, for which David Lametti noted there are amending formulas and their proposal needed to ensure other rights were protected, which he got assurances about. Therrien railed about Section 45 — which is what the Quebec government has largely proposed — and Lametti spoke about clarifying the motion about Quebec being a nation in a United Canada.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP in French, and he demanded that the government not cut pandemic supports, to which Carla Qualtrough reminded him that the budget implementation bill will extend benefits. Singh switched to English to rail that there was still a cut to supports, and Qualtrough noted there are other supports available.

Continue reading →

QP: Saving our forestry sector from the Americans

Posted on by

For a Monday in the shadow of the discovery of that mass grace of Indigenous children in Kamloops, and there was once again but a single Liberal in the Chamber, and yes, it was once again Mark Gerretsen. Candice Bergen led off in person for the Conservatives, and she raised the discovery of the mass graves, and wanted an update on plans to find the identities of those children. Gary Anandasangaree responded after a delay, citing the funding commitments already made and made mention of work done with Indigenous leaders. Gérard Deltell repeated the question in French, and this time Marc Miller responded, saying that they are standing with the communities and will deliver the support they need. Bergen was back up, and she accused the government of being silent on American predations in the forestry sector, for which Seamus O’Regan expressed his disappointment in American actions, and his desire for a negotiated solution. Bergen derided the government’s actions on this as well as pipelines, for which O’Regan assured her they were looking out for all workers, including energy workers. Deltell then repeated the lament about softwood lumber in French, and O’Regan repeated his earlier response.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he demanded that federal workplaces in Quebec make French the language of work — and being very particular about it — and Pablo Rodriguez gave the flattering falsehood about French supposedly declining in Quebec (it hasn’t), and stated their commitment to protecting the French language. Therrien railed that the federal government simply wanted to extend bilingualism, which Rodriguez reassured him that they have worked to strengthen French across the country.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in a somber tone, raised the mass grave in Kamloops and demanded the government drop their lawsuits against Indigenous children and survivors, and Marc Miller assured him they have committed to compensation, and that they are committed to continuing the search for truth and devoting resources for doing so. Singh repeated the question in French, and Miller repeated his response in French.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ontario requests military assistance

Posted on by

We have reached the point in Ontario where things are so bad with the pandemic that the province has requested military assistance, and arrangements have been made for three medical assistance teams to be dispatched by today, along with other Red Cross personnel. As well, nine healthcare professionals from Newfoundland and Labrador, including the premier’s wife, are also being flown to Ontario by means of military transport.

But what is Doug Ford and his murderclown regime doing to help the situation? Absolutely nothing! They voted against another attempt at getting paid sick leave implemented, and they are keeping their focus solely on the border, rather than their need to enforce quarantine measures locally. (Oh, and it’s not just Ford balking at paid sick leave – every premier is doing it, even those in the Maritimes who have had relative success in containing the virus so far).

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1386359274415214598

Meanwhile, there is a bit of good news in that a Federal Court judge refused to grant an injunction to end the hotel quarantine programme, saying it will go to a full hearing in June, and saying that the infringements on freedoms are reasonable in the public health context. Granted, we have enough people who can’t seem to pick a lane between demanding stricter border measures while also demanding an end to hotel quarantines, but since when has consistency been the strong point of political parties or MPs?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Launching a laughable climate plan

Posted on by

With much fanfare – and a moving backdrop that was dizzying to watch – Erin O’Toole rolled out his much-ballyhooed climate plan yesterday morning, and it was…underwhelming. And bizarre. Replacing climate rebates with a special “savings account” that can only be used to purchase “green” items like bicycles and high-efficiency furnaces? Yeah, that’s not an improvement, you guys. And lo, it’s not winning O’Toole any plaudits in his own party either, with caucus members telling media that they were essentially blindsided by this, and many feel it’s a betrayal, and a sign that he has no credibility because he’ll say anything to get elected. And they probably have a point.

Here is some reaction to the news, with additional threads from Nic Rivers and Jennifer Robson.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1382694545398317066

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1382716424087605252

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1382722697159925764

Meanwhile, I have a beef with CBC’s coverage of the issue, because they insist on framing the existing Liberal carbon price as a tax – which it’s not because it doesn’t go into general revenue, and the Supreme Court of Canada said this – but they insisted on calling the Conservative plan a “levy,” when it’s the exact same gods damned mechanism as the existing Liberal plan that just recycles the revenues differently. You can’t call one a tax and the other a levy because that is massively misleading. It places a wholly negative frame around the Liberal plan and not the Conservative one when, again, it’s the same mechanism. “Taxes” come with particular preconceived notions around them, in particular the gem about “taxes are theft,” and so on. CBC’s editorial decision to use this framing device biases the conversation and perceptions around the programmes, which is a very big problem.

Continue reading →