Tag Archives: CanCon

Roundup: Boxing in the Conservatives on abortion

Posted on by

It is approximately day seventy of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russian forces appear to be storming the steel plant in Mariupol, after a handful of civilians were evacuated and made it to Kyiv-controlled areas. As well, UK prime minister Boris Johnson addressed the Ukrainian parliament (and I can’t wait for the usual suspects in this country to start demanding Justin Trudeau to do the same, just because).

Closer to home, that US Supreme Court leak about the potential overturning of their abortion jurisprudence has galvanized politicians in Canada in a number of ways. For the Bloc, they decided to engage in mischief by moving a unanimous consent motion after Question Period about a woman’s right to choose, which was explicitly designed to box the Conservatives into a corner, and they dutifully marched into it—right after Candice Bergen sent out orders to the caucus not to discuss it. Of course, several MPs made their comments on their way into the West Block, while most of the leadership candidates made their feelings known.

This raises questions as to whether this could happen in Canada, and it’s theoretically possible, but not under the current configuration of the Supreme Court of Canada. Of course, the more likely course is for a future government to attempt to criminalise it via the Criminal Code, which they have been attempting to in piecemeal form, either via “sex-selective abortion” legislation, or bills that give rights to foetuses, which undermines the Canadian legal jurisprudence that rights begin at birth. The bigger problem in Canada is uneven access, whether between rural and urban areas within a province, or between provinces, particularly in places like New Brunswick and PEI, and the fact that the federal government has been fairly impotent when it comes to clawbacks of Canada Health Transfers related to not providing this service (which Conservatives don’t insist on federally, but Liberals do, when they are in power). I also think it’s an issue that this “feminist federal government” simply refunded the clawbacks from New Brunswick when the pandemic began so that they couldn’t be cast as the bad guy, instead of being seen to stand up for principles and for access. And lo, we may soon need to be providing access to Americans who come to Canada for the procedure, and that may cause capacity challenges, depending on the province. So we have our challenges, but they’re different ones from the US.

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: Closure, and false hope

Posted on by

The government followed through on their plans to invoke closure on the assisted dying bill yesterday, and with the support of the Bloc, they had final debate and a vote, which passed, sending the amended bill back to the Senate. (The NDP, incidentally, voted against it simply because they refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the Senate). Because the government only accepted a couple of the Senate amendments, and modified others, it will require another vote in the Other Place, but it is most likely that they will allow the bill to pass in time for the court-imposed deadline.

There have been a lot of disingenuous comments about this bill. Certain disability advocates have insisted that this makes it easy to kill them, which it doesn’t, and these advocates ignore that other people with disabilities have requested assisted dying and won in the courts – which is why this bill exists. Many of those advocates are trying to re-litigate the case they lost at the Supreme Court that allowed for the assisted dying regime to be created in the first place, which isn’t going to happen – that decision was unanimous and the Court is not going to revisit it. As well, one of these amendments puts a two-year time limit on the mental health exclusion so that more guidelines can be developed. That exclusion is almost certainly unconstitutional, and the government knows it – but again, there is a cadre of disingenuous commentary, including from some MPs, that this would allow anyone with depression access to assisted dying, which is unlikely in the extreme, and more to the point, it conflates other mental illnesses with depression, and it stigmatises mental illness by excluding it, effectively undoing years of trying to treat mental illness like any other illness.

When I tweeted about this last night, I got a lot of pushback from a certain segment that coalesced around the narrative that the government would not provide supports for people with mental illness but would let them kill themselves; and furthermore, they tried to further say that the government that voted against pharamcare was doing this. There is a lot to unpack in those statements, but there are a few things to remember. One of them is that most disability supports, as well as treatment for mental health, are both in provincial jurisdiction, so the federal government can’t offer more supports for them. Hell, they can’t even simply send $2000 per month to people with disabilities – as the NDP are demanding – because they don’t exactly have a national database of people with disabilities (and they had a hard-enough time kludging together a special pandemic payment through use of the flawed disability tax credit). They do have jurisdiction over the Criminal Code, which is what this legislation covers.

As for the pharmacare bill, we’ve already covered repeatedly that it was unconstitutional and unworkable, and would not have created pharmacare, as the NDP claimed (while the government is already at work implementing the Hoskins Report). But as we’ve seen here, they sold a bill of goods to these people, and gave them false hope as to what they were doing. They lied to vulnerable Canadians to score cheap political points. The sheer immorality of that choice is utterly shameful, but this appears to be what the party has reduced itself to. I sometimes wonder how their brain trust sleeps at night.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Some key differences

Posted on by

There wasn’t a winner in the US election declared before this blog post was put to bed, but I will make a couple of points about why elections in this country are not such a gong show. Number one is that we have an arm’s length federal elections agency that administers elections, whereas the Americans let each state run their federal elections, resulting in an inconsistency in rules and even methods – some states using only electronic voting machines, others using paper ballots, and there being a confusion around mail-in ballots, not to mention that the fact that we have more than enough polling stations so that lines are rarely more than ten minutes, if that. In Canada, we have arm’s length quasi-judicial processes to draw riding boundaries that have virtually eliminated gerrymandering, whereas political considerations have created such skewed, gerrymandered districts in the US, and their Supreme Court refuses to do anything about them. Attempts to disqualify voters in Canada have been struck down or punished electorally, whereas it’s a voter suppression tactic in the US with hugely racial overtones. And more than anything, we have a monarch and a governor general who act as a constitutional fire extinguisher if everything goes awry in the results. We’re pretty damn lucky to live here, in a functional democracy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Coronavirus case in Canada

Posted on by

We can expect a bunch of questions around the first two suspected cases of coronavirus being treated in Toronto when the Commons returns for Question Period tomorrow, and it’s a question of how much we’ll see any kind of politicking being played around it. The line is that we’re not expecting an outbreak in the country – but we’re already at a situation where the suspected case was symptomatic on a flight so that means tracking down the other passengers.

Over the past week, we’ve seen a lot of interviews with former officials, political or bureaucratic, who dealt with SARS and MERS, and they insist that lessons have been learned in Canada, even though we don’t know how this coronavirus will compare. That said, the Ontario government already slashed Toronto Public Health’s funding, so that just may come around to bite them in the ass.

Amidst this, Matt Gurney is decidedly more pessimistic about the preparations and says that the facts we know around this suspected case mean that the system didn’t work, and that’s going to be a problem going forward. He has a point, but we’ll have to see how the response changes in the days ahead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fiscal update and actuarial context

Posted on by

Finance minister Bill Morneau released his fall economic update yesterday, and it showed that while the economy was doing well – fairly strong growth, very strong job creation (November’s numbers notwithstanding) and wage growth – the deficit was going to get a lot bigger unexpectedly. The reason for it, however, was largely ignored by all of the commentariat, both media and partisan, because the kneejerk response in Canada about any finance story is about the size of the deficit, end of story. The real reason – that low interest rates had forced a hefty actuarial adjustment for government pension plans – was inconvenient for them to force a narrative onto, so they just ignored it and clutched their pearls some more, crying “The deficit! The deficit!” and the Conservatives continued to cheerlead a “made-in-Canada” recession by cherry-picking some very selective economic data that was to the exclusion of the broader trends, because narrative. Here’s economist Kevin Milligan to explain some more.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1206632527244300288

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1206633499391709187

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1206634678662250496

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1206635967479566337

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1206637216039964672

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1206639670798340096

I would add that while the Conservatives like to rail about how our unemployment figures compare poorly to other countries, it’s a bit of a fool’s errand because we don’t all measure unemployment the same way, and not all of our economies work the same way. Canada has had record low unemployment in recent months, to the point where economists say we are have been at what is essentially “full employment” – in a statistical sense, not to dismiss that there are regions where it’s still a problem, but essentially there’s not a lot of room for more job growth in the economy. But hey, why let reality get in the way of the narrative, right?

In terms of analysis, John Geddes delves into the notion of “endless deficits” and finds that, shockingly, it’s not a cut-and-tried issue, but the real issue is complacency. Certain bank economists think that because the shift in the deficit is on pension obligations, it could force the Bank of Canada to act sooner if there were an economic downturn. Heather Scoffield wonders what kinds of budget promises that Morneau will have to abandon given the bigger deficit figures if they don’t want to lose their debt-to-GDP anchor.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Stuck on the Norman questions

Posted on by

Yesterday’s somewhat bizarre Question Period, with the Conservatives focusing on a single question around Vice Admiral Mark Norman, certainly got the attention of media outlets, but it wasn’t all positive news, given how they it was also pointed out how they were lacking in any kind of prosecutorial style or killer instinct around it. It was just repetitive. Many of the points they made also didn’t seem to land – such as saying the PM had already “tried and convicted” Norman when he remarked that the courts would sort it out before Norman had even been charged – something that they are trying to use to insinuate that the whole affair is politically motivated.

As a reminder, Norman’s lawyers are looking for records from PMO, PCP, DND, the Department of Public Services and Procurement Canada, the Department of Justice, the Treasury Board, and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and that the documents being demanded include cabinet minutes, briefing materials and memos, and some ask for all forms of communication including emails and Blackberry messages. Those have all been deemed Cabinet confidence, which the Canada Evidence Actallows government to keep secret – the danger there, however, being that the court could decide that if the government doesn’t turn them over that the trial isn’t a fair one, and they could dismiss the case. As I remarked in my QP recap, I think the possibilities exist that some form of access could be negotiated that could mean a court-appointed officer could examine them to determine what is relevant as they do in cases of national security-related secrecy (like terrorism trials or people being held on security certificates), because the laundry list being demanded by Norman’s defence could very well be a fishing expedition and they want as broad a swath as possible to try and find something, anything, of use. (It’s also likely that the information is not only Cabinet confidence, but also commercially sensitive, which adds new layers of complication).

The other interesting fact that is still playing out is the fact that another public servant has been named as an alleged leaker, but he has yet to be charged, and this fact is making the Conservative suspicious that this is making Norman out to be a political scapegoat. Or rather, that’s the claim they’re making as they put on their dog and pony show about trying to make this into some kind of a cover-up, but we have nothing to point to this one way or another – just innuendo, which is enough to make political hay out of.

Continue reading →

QP: Getting better terms – really!

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was off in Toronto meeting business leaders, Andrew Scheer was present in QP, fresh off the plane from his trip to India. Sheer led off, reading his concerns about Canadian ISIS fighters being caught by Kurdish forces, and demanded that they be brought to justice. Bill Blair responded saying that they were taking the issue seriously, and were gathering evidence to ensure that they can be prosecuted. Scheer got up and lied about the government offering poetry classes to returning foreign fighters, to which Blair retorted that the previous government brought no returning fighters to justice either. Scheer switched to French to rail about the terms of the New NAFTA, to which Chrystia Freeland assured him that they got a good deal for Canada and listed people who praised the deal. Scheer insisted that the government capitulated on a number of fronts but didn’t get movement on steel and aluminium tariffs, and Freeland replied that this was Monday morning courage, and that they said she was being too tough in negotiations. Scheer retorted that they had a case of Sunday night panic and capitulated, to which Freeland said that the party opposite now wanted to capitulate on steel and aluminium tariffs, which they would not do. Guy Caron was up next and demanded faster action on climate change and to stop using half-measures, to which Dominic LeBlanc said that they had a coherent plan to fight climate change and to grow the economy. After another round of the same, before Rachel Blaney reiterated the question in English, and LeBlanc repeated his assurances in English. Blaney tried one more time, and LeBlanc gave his assurances with a little more punctuation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: All abuzz about Netflix

Posted on by

It’s probably not a big surprise that the story for which the most ink (physical or digital, take your pick) was spilled yesterday were the culture policy changes that Mélanie Joly announced, punctuated by the grand announcement that Netflix had committed to spending half a billion dollars over five years on Canadian productions. But in there was also news that there would be no big bailout for the news media in this country, and there would be some funding boosts for the Canada Media Fund, the Canada Music Fund and the Canada Book Fund, and a creative export strategy, along with previously announced reforms of the Copyright Board.

Suffice to say, there’s a fair amount of grumbling from traditional broadcasters that Neflix is essentially getting away with murder, not bound by the same CanCon obligations of traditional broadcasters, nor are other Internet giants like Google and Facebook being asked to contribute to the same content creation funds that traditional media are. And there is some pretty legitimate concerns about this announced Netflix deal because it’s pretty opaque – Netflix will continue to be able to operate as a black box when it comes to their subscriber data, and while Sean Casey went on Power & Politics to insist that the $500 million was new money (given that Netflix had previously told Parliament that they were already spending “hundreds of millions of dollars” in Canada), it really doesn’t seem like that’s anything new given that previous statement. Netflix also says that the money isn’t coming from the recent rate-hike in Canada, but that’s not washing with a number of people. The Financial Post has a fairly comprehensive look at the announcement here, including the fact that the announcement seems to leave a lot of the heavy lifting into the future, which probably shouldn’t be a surprise.

I do think it should be incumbent upon us to remember that Netflix has not been a net benefit to the cultural sector in Canada. The late Denis McGrath used to refer to them as a “parasite” on the Canadian broadcast sector because they put no money into the production of shows that they streamed, encouraging the cord-cutting that starved the very platforms who produced those shows that they later streamed of funding. It’s a complex problem, and a handful of Netflix originals aren’t going to be the panacea for the Canadian film and television industry. If anything, it may hasten the decline.

Continue reading →