Roundup: The disingenuous framing of a committee report

Posted on by

As you may have heard, the Heritage Committee released their long-awaited study on suggested ways to help the local media landscape in Canada. And I’m not here to talk about that, however, but rather how the narrative got completely spun into “Netflix tax!” or “Internet tax!” which wasn’t exactly what they were proposing either. Still, it became a convenient cudgel by which to try and bash the government with.

And that’s the bigger problem with this whole affair – that a committee report is being used to paint the government when it’s backbenchers who are on the committee. That separation between government (meaning Cabinet) and a committee of the legislature is important, and conflating the two is being wilfully disingenuous and makes the problem of not understanding how our parliament works even worse.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/875529614218731523

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/875530069086744577

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/875380786563862530

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/875402337665331200

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/875403159463768066

Paul and Aaron both have some very valid points. When the opposition frames it as “Netflix tax!” it’s sadly how most media will report it as well, and I didn’t see a lot of corrections going on about what the report actually said, and that’s a problem. But Aaron also has the point about how the media loves to jump on differences of opinion in parties, but when the parties themselves frame the issue, the media often gets swept up in those narratives.

Remember when there were those Conservative backbenchers trying to float some backdoor abortion legislation or motions that the government distanced themselves from but the NDP screamed bloody murder about hidden agendas and so on? This is not far from the same thing. And they know they’re being disingenuous, but they’re doing it anyway, no matter how much they’re actually damaging the perceptions of the institution.

That said, I could be really mean and point out that it may be hard for the Conservatives to tell the difference between backbenchers on a committee and the government seeing as during their decade in office, they essentially turned the committees into branch plants of the ministers’ offices with parliamentary secretaries ringleading the show and completely destroying their independence…but maybe I won’t.

Good reads:

  • There is a procedural showdown over the attempt to split the Infrastructure Bank from the budget bill after the Senate Speaker ruled the motion out of order.
  • Bill C-16 on trans rights passed the Senate yesterday, and is now on its way for royal assent. Here’s John Ibbitson on LGBT advances and the backlash we’re seeing.
  • The government is putting forward a small number of Standing Order changes that won’t include changes to QP (which they will continue); the NDP will vote against it.
  • The bill to create the national security committee of parliamentarians passed committee in the Senate without amendment.
  • MPs have rejected Senate amendments to Bill S-3 on removing gender discrimination from the Indian Act, but the Senate may yet push back.
  • Catherine McKenna says it’s “only fair” that Saskatchewan and Manitoba be excluded from the carbon fund as long as they don’t sign the agreement.
  • Scott Brison warns that the Phoenix pay fiasco could hurt IBM’s reputation. (I know IBM has it in writing they told the government not to build it the way they did).
  • A lack of funds and new appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board means that the backlog for claimants is now hitting 11 years.
  • The border pre-clearance bill has finally reached committee study, but likely won’t be finished before the Commons rises for the summer.
  • Debates over the grammatical changes in the national anthem bill continue apace in the Senate.
  • The NDP are accusing the government of lying about increasing HIV programme funds, when it sounds like they just haven’t worked through all approvals yet.
  • The plan is to spend $2.5 billion to keep our submarine fleet operational until 2030, which is probably cheaper and easier than a new procurement process at this point.
  • The departure of a fourth staffer from the MMIW Inquiry renews concerns about the whole thing going off the rails.
  • Here’s a look at why Supreme Court of Canada Justice Malcolm Rowe can’t sell his house in Newfoundland, and why it’s part of a broader problem.
  • Andrew Scheer gave an Economic Club speech, where claimed believes in the free market (despite all evidence to the contrary) while offering no policy details.

Odds and ends:

Tristin Hopper calculates what else the Liberal deficits could buy.