Tag Archives: Broadcasting

QP: The person not in charge didn’t make a request

Posted on by

For proto-PMQ day, all of the leaders were present for the first time in a while, so that made for a nice change of pace. Candice Bergen led off, script on her mini-lectern, and she raised the testimony of the RCMP Commissioner at committee, saying she did not request the use of the Emergencies Act, even though she found it helpful. (Note that she would not have been the one to request it because the RCMP was not the police of jurisdiction). Justin Trudeau read a statement about the police needing the tools and that they now had the inquiry to review what happened. Bergen insisted that the use of the Act was an overreach and the prime minister was trying to cover it up. Trudeau dropped the script and extemporaneously stated that the Conservatives seem to be pretty nervous that the inquiry will uncover their complicity in keeping the occupation going. Bergen pivoted to the rising cost of living, or the line-ups at airports and Service Canada office, and tried to paint him as out of touch by pointing out that he doesn’t buy his own groceries or pump his own gas—never mind that as leader of the Official Opposition, she also gets a chef and a driver. Trudeau recited the list of benefits the government has been enriching for people. Luc Berthold took over in French, declared the prime minister to be a “master of disinformation” and decried the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Trudeau read the powers that were needed, and that there was an inquiry underway. Berthold then accused the prime minster of doing nothing about the cost of living and demanded a break on gas taxes, to which Trudeau read that if Conservatives really cared about affordability, they wouldn’t delay the budget implementation bill.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he raised their Supply Day motion yesterday to replace the daily prayer in favour of a moment of daily reflection, insisting that this was related to the “British Monarchy,” and demanded to know how the prime minister would vote on it. Trudeau listed the things that people were more concerned about than this issue. Blanchet tried to pin Trudeau down on it, and he called this out as a desperate attempt to find wedges to exploit.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he raised the price of gasoline before demanding new taxes on oil companies to pay for social programmes. Trudeau reminded him that they already raised taxes on the wealthiest one percent and indexed benefits to inflation, and that the NDP had voted against that at the time. Singh repeated the question in French, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

QP: Stop spreading information!

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau back in the House of Commons after his visit to Kyiv, only one other leader was actually present, which is curious in and of itself. Candice Bergen led off, with her script in front of her, and she decried the former Bill C-69, noted that the Alberta Court of Appeal declared it to be unconstitutional, and demanded the government repeal it. Trudeau read a script that noted the Act created stability after the previous government gutted environmental assessments (and simply turning everything to litigation), and stated that they would appeal that decision. Bergen pivoted to gasoline prices and demanded Action, but Trudeau was not done with the Impact Assessment Act. He noted that the same Alberta court found the national carbon price unconstitutional until the Supreme Court of Canada told them it was. Bergen then decried that the Canadians were suffering and that this government was raising taxes every year, and then demanded that the prime minister “stop spreading information.” Trudeau replied that he would indeed keep spreading information, especially about things like climate rebates. Luc Berthold took over in French, and accused the government of misinformation, insisting that the prime minister has not helped people, to which Trudeau repeated the points about climate rebates in provinces that participate. Berthold decried the rising prices in the grocery store—ignoring that the main cause of those rising prices is drought—and Trudeau read that they were helping by means like the Canada Child Benefit, which is indexed to inflation.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he accused the government of trying to anglicise Quebec by not applying the province’s language Charter. Trudeau read that their bill to modernise the Official Languages Act would protect French in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. Therrien was not mollified and decried this supposed anglicisation, and Trudeau repeated his same script.

Alexandre Boulerice led for the NDP, and in French, he bemoaned profits in the oil sector and executive compensation, demanding the government do something. Trudeau reminded him that they already raised taxes on the wealthy and were adding taxes on big banks. Rachel Blaney repeated the question in English to demand the companies pay, to which Trudeau read the English version of the same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Your Star Wars Day grades are in

Posted on by

It is now around day seventy-one of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and they have been concertedly targeting train stations and rail infrastructure, ostensibly in retaliation for all of the weapons being sent to Ukraine, and the hope to cut off those supply lines. It has also been noticed that Russia’s missiles have been changing from smarter, guided weapons to “dumb” bombs, likely because of supply challenges, so that also could be giving clues as to the state of Russia’s forces. Here is a recounting of what happened during the bombing of the theatre in Mariupol. Over in the EU, the European Commission president proposed a policy to phase out all Russian oil within six months—but not Russian gas, which is also an issue for much of Europe.

https://twitter.com/olex_scherba/status/1521530176030625792

Closer to home, it was Star Wars Day, and there were mostly terrible entries this year. Some of them were appalling. Granted, none quite as bad as that badly animated Grogu that Erin O’Toole made during his leadership campaign, for which the person who did it needs to have their ass removed, but still. Incidentally, neither Candice Bergen nor Doug Ford participated this year.

(The only reason Horwath merited a one is because this is the episode where the opening crawl begins with “The dead speak!” and well, it’s apropos).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Faux concern over a decades-old system

Posted on by

We’re now on or about day forty-seven of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Ukrainian forces are digging in and preparing for a renewed Russian offensive on the eastern and south-eastern portions of the country. UK prime minister Boris Johnson visited with president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv over the weekend, to show his support and solidarity in person. Elsewhere over the weekend, Ukraine was trying to ensure humanitarian corridors out of the Donbas region for Ukrainians to evacuate in advance of the coming Russian onslaught in the region.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1512858863728570369

https://twitter.com/NikaMelkozerova/status/1513190467743236103

Closer to home, we are being subjected to a bunch of nonsense around Canadian content regulations in the context of Bill C-11, which updates the Broadcasting Act to now include streaming platforms like Netflix or Disney+. The particular nonsense? The notion that the CRTC will define what qualifies as Canadian. Erm, except they have been doing this already. They’ve had a well-defined point system for what counts as CanCon since 1984. Nineteen gods-damned eighty-four. This is not new. Extending broadcast regulations to streaming platforms changes absolutely nothing about what counts as Canadian content, because the rules are platform neutral. For decades, production companies needed a 6/10 on the CanCon scale to qualify for tax credits. None of this is new.

The problem, however, is that in the debates over C-11 (and its predecessor in the previous parliament, Bill C-10) you had Conservative MPs trying to make this an issue (and Rachael Thomas, who was then Rachael Harder, was particularly vocal about this). She kept trying to propagate this insane notion that somehow these rules should be in the legislation, which is bonkers because that shouldn’t be the job of Parliament, nor is legislation responsive in the way that regulation is. We have arm’s-length regulators like the CRTC for a reason, which is to de-politicise these kinds of decisions. Sure, everyone comes up with supposedly scandalous examples of why certain things which may sound Canadian on the surface isn’t considered Canadian under the CanCon rules (such as The Handmaid’s Tale series), and it’s only until you look at the points system and think through the rules that you realise that these examples really aren’t that scandalous. The whole point is to ensure that our industry isn’t just a branch plant for American productions who can do it cheaper and get tax credits up here. It’s to ensure that there are incentives for things that are actually Canadian-led and produced, and under Canadian creative control, to get made. You can argue that the rules need to be updated, but let’s not pretend that there is anything new here (and really, The Canadian Press deserves a rap on the knuckles for this kind of framing of the issue).

Continue reading →

Roundup: The competing pre-budget narratives

Posted on by

We are now on or about day forty-two of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the talk of the day was president Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s address to the UN Security Council, where he recounted (with video) the extent of Russia’s atrocities in towns like Bucha, and demanded war crimes tribunals, and more importantly, massive reform of the Security Council in order to strip Russia of its veto powers. That, of course, is far easier said than done, particularly because the major powers won’t play if they don’t get additional powers, and Russia is a nuclear power. So we’ll see what happens next (which may be nothing).

Closer to home, we are now one day away from the budget, so expect a lot of narratives about the expectations, whether the government should spend more or cut back, though I find there to be some problems with some of the assumptions therein. For example, when it comes to spending, I’m not sure why things like more money for housing or the investment in dental care would be classified the same as subsidies to industries or so on. Is an expansion of the social safety net the same as expansionary fiscal policy that would ordinarily be used to create jobs or growth (which is less relevant right now given that we are sitting around full employment)? I’m not sure they’re the same, but they seem to be treated as much in some of the pieces circulating in the Discourse right now.

At the same time, we should also be realistic about what the budget can and cannot do, such as combatting inflation. In spite of facile narratives that government spending is driving inflation, that’s not showing up anywhere in the data—what is driving it has a lot more to do with the world price of oil (which is directly impacted by the sanction on Russia as a result of their invasion of Ukraine), and the fact that there were droughts in food-producing regions including Canada, thus limiting food supplies and driving up costs, and that the invasion is going to make it worse as Ukraine was considered the breadbasket of Europe (and elsewhere), and if they can get crops planted this year, there are problems with the Russians having targeted ports. Add to that the rising cost of housing (which is largely a problem of supply driving by craven municipal governments who can’t authorize zoning changes or increase density because they’re afraid of NIMBYs and/or are in the pockets of developers), and you wind up with a whole lot of things that the federal budget can’t really do much about. Not that there won’t be an effort to put all of the weight on the federal government regardless, because that’s how we roll, apparently.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A strange definition of dictatorship

Posted on by

We’re now on or about day thirty-five of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russian forces appeared to be pulling back from Kyiv, allegedly to give more space to peace talks, not that anyone believes Russia (nor should they). It could mark a more concentrated effort by Russian forces to “liberate Donbas,” which some say could be a face-saving measure for Putin. As part of the peace talks, Ukraine floated the idea of making Canada a security guarantor to the proposal of neutrality, and not hosting any military troops or bases from other alliances such as NATO, so that’s something. In the meantime, here is a look at why Russia is taking such heavy casualties (and why that is unlikely to deter them).

Closer to home, we have a major problem with disinformation that is being pushed by MPs, particularly Conservative ones. This week, MPs Brad Redekopp and Rachael Thomas declared that Justin Trudeau is a “dictator,” and that they were being absolutely serious about it. This, like Andrew Scheer declaring that Trudeau is the world’s greatest threat to liberty, is absolutely gobsmacking, but part of an increasing pattern of rhetoric that is dangerous to our democracy because it is so corrosive to both accepting election results, and faith in government writ-large, regardless of party.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1508917840333709317

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1508917842607054853

This metastasises into the full-blown endorsement of conspiracy theories, and it’s a problem that is currently plaguing MPs, as that (fairly shite) Senate bill on developing a framework for a guaranteed basic liveable income has senators’ mailboxes and social media being flooded with both conspiracy theories and disinformation about this bill, but also panicked seniors who are being told that they will be denied their pensions and benefits if they are insufficiently vaccinated or the likes. It’s a real problem, and too many MPs (and a handful of senators) have been feeding into this disinformation environment for the sake of scoring a few points, and they really need to stop. No good comes of this, and they’re causing longer-term damage that will be incredibly hard to overcome.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Accountability for transfers is not micro-management

Posted on by

We are now in day thirty-one of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and things are going badly enough for Russia that the Ukrainians are starting to counter-attack, not only pushing Russian forces further away from Kyiv, but also other areas, which has the possibility of making Russia pay a high enough price that they could be willing to accept some kind of negotiated settlement and withdraw. Maybe. We’ll see, but it’s a good sign nevertheless that Ukraine is able to take these measures. Elsewhere, it sounds like about 300 people were killed when the Russians bombed the theatre in Mariupol, and the city is digging mass graves, while some 100,000 people remain trapped there as the Russians turn the city to rubble.

Closer to home, the federal government announced a one-time special transfer of $2 billion to provinces to help them with their surgical backlogs as a result of COVID, but they want some conditions of a sort, and cited five areas of focus for upcoming healthcare talks: backlogs and recruitment and retention of health-care workers; access to primary care; long-term care and home care; mental health and addictions; and digital health and virtual care. And some provinces, predictably, are balking at this because they think this is federal “micromanagement” of healthcare when it’s nothing of the sort. They simply need assurances that provinces are going to spend this where they say they’re going to, because we just saw Doug Ford put some $5.5 billion in federal pandemic aid onto his bottom line, and giving out rebates for licences plate stickers in a blatant exercise in populist vote-buying rather than using that money where it was intended—the healthcare system.

https://twitter.com/journo_dale/status/1507478370300628996

More to the point, provinces are insisting that they are unanimous that hey want unconditional health transfers that will bring the federal share of health spending up to 35 percent, but that’s actually a trap. They are deliberately not mentioning that in 1977, provinces agreed to forego certain health transfers in exchange for tax points, which are more flexible, and that increasing to 35 percent will really be a stealth increase to something like 60 percent, because they’re deliberately pretending that they don’t have those tax points. On top of that, provinces were getting higher health transfers for over a decade—remember when the escalator was six percent per year, and what was health spending increasing at? Somewhere around 2.2 percent, meaning that they spent that money on other things. They should have used it to transform their healthcare systems, but they chose not to, and now they cry poor and want the federal government to bail them out from problems they created, and are blaming the federal government for. It’s a slick little game that doesn’t get called out because the vast majority of the media just credulously repeats their demands without pointing to the tax points, or the fact that they spent their higher transfers elsewhere, or that Doug Ford sat on that pandemic spending, as other provinces did to balance their budgets (Alberta and New Brunswick to name a couple). So no, they do not need these transfers to be unconditional, and the federal government would be foolish if they acceded to that kind of demand.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1507418761912983561

Continue reading →

Roundup: A growing humanitarian crisis

Posted on by

We are now on day fourteen of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and some of the big concerns are the growing humanitarian ones—not only the inability to safely get civilians out of cities under bombardment, but the fact that in some of those cities, particularly Mariupol, people are trapped with no electricity, little food, running water, or medical supplies. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed the British Parliament via video, and called on them for even tougher sanctions against the “terrorist state” Russia. The US has decided to ban all Russian oil and gas, while corporations like McDonald’s and Starbucks have decided to suspend operations in Russia (though more likely because the ruble is nearly worthless and not something they want to be doing business in).

Justin Trudeau was in Latvia for NATO meetings, where he announced that Canada’s mission there would be extended for several more years. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg also made the point of warning Russia against attacking any supply lines supporting Ukraine within NATO territory, citing that it would trigger Article 5. Poland also floated the idea of sending fighter planes to a US/NATO base in Germany to then somehow send to Ukraine, but the Pentagon nixed the idea as unworkable.

All of this talk, of course, leads to yet more questions about military spending in Canada, and that “two percent of GDP” target, which is a very poor metric.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Arrests begun as overwrought debate underway

Posted on by

Debate on the emergency orders began yesterday with all of the leaders staking out their positions. And I will note that there is a legitimate argument from the Conservatives that the Emergencies Act shouldn’t have been invoked—but then they take argument that Trudeau didn’t do enough beforehand to deal with the situation, never mind that the Ottawa Police are the police of jurisdiction, that Doug Ford did virtually nothing to help never mind that this was well within his jurisdictional purview, and of course, they argue that Trudeau caused this by being mean to the extremists who organised this whole thing, and that he hasn’t capitulated to their demands. And thus, a good point is lost in the fog of utterly dishonest partisan posturing. It should also be noted that civil liberties groups are going to court to oppose the Act’s imposition, but their otherwise valid points are divorced from the reality that this is not a peaceful or legal protest—it’s an event organized by anti-government extremists. This is not a good faith protest, it’s an illegal occupation, and that colours events.

With this in mind, the House of Commons will be sitting all weekend in order to debate the emergency order the fact that they will be sitting almost entirely around the clock over the long weekend means that they have speaking slots for virtually every single MP, which is egregious and overkill. If anything, it’s the height of parliamentary narcissism. Yes, this is an unprecedented action, but you do not need every single MP to stand up and read a prepared speech that parrots the talking points that their party leader has decided upon. That’s not debate, it’s not edifying, and it’s just an exercise in providing clips for MPs’ websites and social media channels. It defeats the purpose of what Parliament is about, and debases the point of debate (not to mention that everyone is already burned out from the past three weeks of insanity and this robs the employees, staffers and most especially the interpreters of the long weekend that they all needed). If they haven’t made up their minds on the imposition of the emergency orders by end of day tomorrow, then maybe public life isn’t for them.

Update: Sittings in both Chambers were cancelled due to the ongoing police action, so we’ll see when they resume. The point stands, however.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Complacency versus the hard work of democracy

Posted on by

Things are fraught in Ottawa, tempers are short. A lot of stuff that has been barely under the surface is blowing up. David Reevely has some thoughts about where we find ourselves, and why, and he’s pretty dead-on about it.

Continue reading →