Saw that. I pay attention to what she says. We’re also still well short of enough information to assess. None of this is stuff PM Carney will be blind to, and he knows he’s very specifically trying to rebuild credibility with the private sector.
Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???
- Thread starter Altair
- Start date
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 8,251
- Points
- 1,210
her account tends to spin things a bit with assumptions, we very much dont know what the framework for this SWF will be like so its premature to speculate on whats funding it
- Reaction score
- 8,404
- Points
- 1,260
Use of the word 'panicking' seems a bit of overkill, no?
- Reaction score
- 12,150
- Points
- 1,040
If by "Canadians" he means "all Canadians", there'll have to be a lot less squeeze for aboriginal Canadians.
An easy way for Canadians to share in profits is to buy stock.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 47,649
- Points
- 1,160
BCRIC (Brick) shares enter the chat...
The British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation, or BCRIC (pronounced "brick"), was a holding company formed under the government of William R. Bennett. The company took over ownership of various sawmills and mines that had been bought and bailed out by the government. The name was eventually changed to Westar Group Ltd.
Because of significant investment in a North Sea oil play by a subsidiary, Westar Petroleum, and bad timing in a mining investment by another subsidiary, Westar Mining, the company ran into financial trouble. Investors saw their thousands of dollars dwindle to pennies.
British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation - Wikipedia
I follow her and will generally take in her analysis. But..... MLI is hardly independent. And I've definitely seen her have some sketchy and ideologically motivated takes before.
HavokFour
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,952
- Points
- 1,040
Rogers Communications offering buyouts to half its work force
It’s the telecom sector’s largest round of buyouts in recent years amid slowing growth
www.theglobeandmail.com
Hmm. Let's take a look at what the CRTC has been up to lately.
CRTC takes action to help deliver more choice of affordable Internet services - Canada.ca
Today, the CRTC is finalizing its approach to help ensure that Canadians benefit from new choices and greater affordability of high-speed Internet services.
CRTC takes action to help Canadians more easily manage their Internet and cellphone plans - Canada.ca
The CRTC is making it easier for Canadians to manage their Internet and cellphone plans, and to switch to new offers that best meet their needs.
CRTC takes action to prevent bill shock and help Canadians understand their options - Canada.ca
The CRTC is helping Canadians make informed choices about their Internet and cellphone services.
Looks like the CRTC is listening to the people and is doing something about the BS that RoBelus has been subjecting Canadians to for years.
I'm finding it very hard to sympathize with the company. Hopefully those packages are good and juicy for those that take them.
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 8,251
- Points
- 1,210
Id agree, and the fact over the last 10 years ive gone from $80 a month for 40gb of data to $35 a month for 100gb shows the CRTC is workingArchiveRogers Communications offering buyouts to half its work force
It’s the telecom sector’s largest round of buyouts in recent years amid slowing growth
Hmm. Let's take a look at what the CRTC has been up to lately.
CRTC takes action to help deliver more choice of affordable Internet services - Canada.ca
Today, the CRTC is finalizing its approach to help ensure that Canadians benefit from new choices and greater affordability of high-speed Internet services.www.canada.ca
CRTC takes action to help Canadians more easily manage their Internet and cellphone plans - Canada.ca
The CRTC is making it easier for Canadians to manage their Internet and cellphone plans, and to switch to new offers that best meet their needs.
CRTC takes action to prevent bill shock and help Canadians understand their options - Canada.ca
The CRTC is helping Canadians make informed choices about their Internet and cellphone services.
Looks like the CRTC is listening to the people and is doing something about the BS that RoBelus has been subjecting Canadians to for years.
I'm finding it very hard to sympathize with the company. Hopefully those packages are good and juicy for those that take them.
- Reaction score
- 6,971
- Points
- 1,160
As with most issues there are two sides to the story. Bell and Rogers have been spending billions of dollars to replace their legacy copper infrastructure with fibre optics. The CRTC then makes them allow their smaller competitors to use that infrastructure to sell internet services directly to customers.ArchiveRogers Communications offering buyouts to half its work force
It’s the telecom sector’s largest round of buyouts in recent years amid slowing growth
Hmm. Let's take a look at what the CRTC has been up to lately.
CRTC takes action to help deliver more choice of affordable Internet services - Canada.ca
Today, the CRTC is finalizing its approach to help ensure that Canadians benefit from new choices and greater affordability of high-speed Internet services.
CRTC takes action to help Canadians more easily manage their Internet and cellphone plans - Canada.ca
The CRTC is making it easier for Canadians to manage their Internet and cellphone plans, and to switch to new offers that best meet their needs.
CRTC takes action to prevent bill shock and help Canadians understand their options - Canada.ca
The CRTC is helping Canadians make informed choices about their Internet and cellphone services.
Looks like the CRTC is listening to the people and is doing something about the BS that RoBelus has been subjecting Canadians to for years.
I'm finding it very hard to sympathize with the company. Hopefully those packages are good and juicy for those that take them.
These smaller companies are then able to undercut the majors because they don't have the expense of building and maintaining the network. No construction division, no warehousing for equipment, no R&D to ensure that upgrades don't cause system instability, no maintenance department to deal with poles, fibers and cabinets that get damaged daily (never mind the thousands of man hours required to repair damage from major wind and ice storms, etc.). And of course there's all the support and management overhead that goes along with these things.
Because their competitors that don't have all of these up front expenses (and the financing required to fund them) they can undercut the pricing of the majors forcing them to drop their prices to stay competitive which cuts profit even further.
I work for a company that does telecom construction and maintenance and can tell you that the industry has been devastated by the cuts (these ones by Rogers are only the latest in a series of cuts by Bell and Rogers in recent years). Two years ago our company had 800 employees. We're now down to 300 and change. Not only have the majors seriously cut back on their fibre builds but they have squeezed their contractors on pricing to the point that many have gone out of business.
Canada's a big country and unfortunately that means that infrastructure is expensive to build and maintain.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 20,147
- Points
- 1,260
Sounds like coercion to me.
“We will run a strong candidate against you in the next election” is not coercion. Neither is anything else she describes.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 20,147
- Points
- 1,260
There's more than that in the video. Including telling the MP it would be beneficial for her riding for her to join the LPC.
Sounds like it might actually be bordering on bribery.
- Reaction score
- 636
- Points
- 810
I would say incentivize vs. coerced. To be honest though, is it not an MPs job to represent their riding in a way that best provides for their constituents? Call it pork barreling or whatever you want, it has been the way of politics since the beginning. I would draw the line at any offers that see an MP personally gain from crossing the floor when there is no real benefit for their riding. I could even be convinced in saying that if you are offered an immediate cabinet position, that would be a bribe, because the increase in salary personally benefits the individual.
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 8,251
- Points
- 1,210
Without knowing what those benefits could be, its hard to say. However bribery has very strict definitions for a reason, even offering cabinet and committee positions to cross the floor is not bribery.
It may have a strict legal definition but its definition in one's mind is considerably different. Now maybe our minds don't know the dictionary very well but it is still the way we, the commoner, think. Just saying.......
ArmyRick
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 4,108
- Points
- 1,160
Bottom line, its unethical and stinks.
Yes, I watched it. That was the 'anything else she describes' I referred to.
If we're speaking in legal terms, 'bribery' has a specific definition in the criminal code. I don't see it. 'It will be good for your riding if you join the government' does not, to me, appear to even remotely meet what the criminal code lays out.
Crown would need to be satisfied that party affiliation is a 'thing done by them in their official capacity'.
The word 'corruptly' also has specific meaning, and sets a very high bar; it's one of those easily overlooked until you recognize every word in a statute has meaning, and that it's a standalone element of the offence. Once you look at how case law treats that word generally (unsurprisingly I didn't find case law on bribery of MPs specifically), you see that it sets apart coduct very specificallyt and intentionally 'evil' to the will of Parliament (I'm paraphrasing R. v. Brown, 1956 CanLII 156 from the Ontario Court of Appeal) - https://canlii.ca/t/g15xf.
If one were to argue that a vague assertion that it would be 'good for the riding' could be legally 'corrupy' constitute bribery, well you've just criminalized every legislative deal that attracts support of a reluctant MP by offering riding-specific benefits. Clearly that's not the will of parliament.
Now I'm not a lawyer, just a cop who's done some work in the corruption realm, but to my amateur eye, and with a bit of a case law dig, I don't see the elements of the offence of bribery met.
Anyone wanting to argue ethics, principle, etc- have at 'er. That just bring sus back full circle to the same dicussion we've been having about floor crossing, Westminster system, independence of MPs and such that we've been having all along. Sticking with what I sort of know a little bit, I don't see anything remotely criminal in this. And, the usual tiresome reassurance I always seem to have to offer - yes, that would be the case regardless of the party(ies) in question and the direction of a floor crossing.
I don't see why Carney is pursuing more crossings unless it is to deliberately undermine Poilievre and cause chaos in the conservative party.
As it stands he can only afford to be missing a vote or two (i.e., the votes of individual MPs) on any bill the opposition fights. It's not just about bills passing, but about amendments and things like that. A lot more work goes into caucus management and keeping the backbenchers in check when your majority is razor thin. Add a few seats, and any individual leverage by a single MP or by just a couple of them mostly goes away.
Similar threads
