Reviews and recommendations are unbiased and products are independently selected. Postmedia may earn an affiliate commission from purchases made through links on this page.
Some legal and political interests in Windsor, Ont., are thankful Bill C-10 — an amendment to the Broadcasting Act — hasn’t passed in the Senate, and say it needs more assessment and clarity on key issues such as the role of the CRTC, and how collected fees would be distributed.
Bill C-10, the first legislation of its kind since 1991, was designed to regulate web giants by holding them to the same standards of traditional broadcasting companies. Last week, the Senate adjourned for the summer, leaving the prioritized piece of legislation, in limbo.
Jon Liedtke, host of Rose City Politics, a local podcast which covers municipal politics, said the aims of the bill are laudable, but plenty of questions need to be answered.
Through changes in between House of Commons readings, the bill became contentious, raising concerns about censorship from media experts, including a former head of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
“I’m not at all concerned about how a lot of people have been talking about this legislation in terms of the censorship of it. It’s just more so, what are the actual business indications?” said Liedtke.
Liedtke wondered how an increase in fees for social media giants would affect independently run businesses and how the money collected would be distributed among Canadian content producers.
The bill was introduced in November 2020 as a means of promoting Canadian producers and creators. It’s aim was to ensure digital streaming services pay their fair share, which would be redistributed back into Canadian production and cultural funds. It also paved the way for a certain amount of Canadian content to be distributed and discoverable on the companies’ websites.
“There is the concern that with new fees coming in for the Canadian content system, will that money that’s coming in, find its way again to one of the traditional broadcasters?” said Liedtke.
As an independent Canadian producer, Liedtke said he would like to see large subsidies pulled from major media companies and focused on independent content creators.
“It would be nice to just have an open playing field, allow them to be in business, allow us to be in business, but through that massive subsidization that keeps going on, it’s tough to be able to build up anything,” he said.
“There’s only so many dollars that businesses can afford to spend and if we’re allowing for the government to keep subsidizing major players, you know, their reach just keeps getting bigger and bigger and it’s harder and harder for the smaller person to get involved.”
The bill brought forward necessary updates regarding more representation of diverse communities such as Indigenous, LGBTQ, racialized communities, accessibility for those with disabilities and inclusiveness of both official languages and minority languages said Pascale Chapdelaine, an associate professor of law at the University of Windsor with expertise in consumer, privacy and cyber laws.
Her greatest concern is the process in which Bill C-10 was managed.
“For the adoption of a bill that impacts Canadian culture, expression, support for creators, the broadcasting industry, this needs to be done in respect of our democratic process, and ensure that proper debate takes place.”
Relief from MP bill didn’t pass
Conservative Essex MP Chris Lewis said he is glad Bill C-10 did not pass in the Senate.
“I sit on the justice committee as well. We listened to many witnesses, much, much testimony and at the end of the day, it’s a very flawed bill. Truthfully, it’s written very poorly and the Liberal government really wasn’t open to having any conversation about what amendments we could bring forward to it.”
Bill C-10 passed third reading in the House of Commons at approximately 1:30 a.m. ET on June 22. It was highly favoured by Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québécois MPs, but Conservatives opposed it.
“Bill C-10 is about fairness,” Windsor-Tecumseh Liberal MP Irek Kusmierczyk, said in a statement. “For decades, Canadian radio and TV stations were required to support and make financial contributions to our culture. However, the same rules do not apply to internet-based services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, YouTube and Spotify.
“Canadian artists and broadcasters have been waiting years for the Broadcasting Act to be modernized. Bill C-10 proposes to level the playing field for everyone.”
Much of the criticism revolved around the impact it would have on user-generated content, and the removal of Section 4.1 of the bill.
Under Section 4.1, the bill would have exempted user-generated content posted on social media sites from being held accountable to the CRTC rules and regulations.
Earlier this spring, that section was removed, sparking controversy and raising concerns over the powers of the CRTC and infringement on freedom of speech.
When asked about the reasoning behind the removal, the heritage minister argued the section was not necessary and there were enough safeguards in place.
Chapdelaine said more clarity is needed around this issue to gain public consensus on the bill.
“Personally, I think the government needs to pay attention to those concerns. Law is a matter of interpretation. It’s rarely absolutely cut and clear, so if there is enough concern, while there are different views and there are different approaches on the possible effects that Bill C-10 may have, it would be worth making sure that those concerns are being addressed.”
Chapdelaine also points out the act in its current form gives a certain amount of powers to the CRTC within parameters.
“Bill C-10 would enlarge those powers, especially with respect to internet undertakings, so we need to ensure that CRTC has enough flexibility in light of constant technology, market and other changes without those powers being too broad and they need to be limited by important safeguards.”
Chapdelaine suggests more protections of the viewers’ personal data could be added.
“What about the personalization practices by internet platforms? The bill does not address this.”
She hopes the bill is eventually passed, but after more debate and improvements to address public concerns.
Politics: The Minders and Mandarins of Capitalism – The Wall Street Journal
James R. Otteson’s “Seven Deadly Economic Sins” (Cambridge, 305 pages, $27.95) is a fine effort to introduce readers to the basic principles of market economics. The hamartiological framing—the “sins” are bad assumptions about how markets work—is part of the author’s effort to make the subject more engaging than a typical treatise on economics. It works. Mr. Otteson, a professor of business ethics at Notre Dame, writes with an apt combination of casual wit and rigorous logic.
I only regret that the book had to be written at all. There was a time in this country’s history—if the reader will allow a bit of declinist gloom—when America’s political class understood by instinct that wealth in a market economy comes about by voluntary exchanges in which all parties benefit. We do not live in such a time. About half of this country’s high-level elected officials appear to believe that some Americans have money because they took it from other Americans (the rich got rich “on the backs of workers” is a common trope). And so it is left to scholars such as Mr. Otteson to spell out the difference between zero-sum and positive-sum economic relationships.
A transaction based on extraction or theft is zero-sum (1 – 1 = 0). A transaction based on a mutual exchange is positive-sum (1 + 1 = 2). Wealth in most societies before about 1800, he reminds us, was based on the former model; wealth in market economies is based on the latter. What we need is someone able to explain to our well-intentioned politicos that the wealth they want to reallocate came about from mutually beneficial positive-sum transactions and not from zero-sum extraction. The way to diminish poverty and aid the disadvantaged is therefore not to punish positive-sum exchanges by taxation, but to allow more of them.
Other chapters in the book treat the “Good Is Good Enough Fallacy,” or the idea that every beneficial end is worth pursuing by all available means; the “Progress Is Inevitable Fallacy,” or the idea that a certain level of prosperity is guaranteed no matter what we do; and the “Great Mind Fallacy,” or the idea “that there is some person or group that possesses the relevant knowledge to know how others should allocate their scarce time or treasure.”
This latter point isn’t new—you can read the gist of it in Friedrich Hayek’s essay “The Use of Knowledge in Society” (1945) or Thomas Sowell’s book “Knowledge and Decisions” (1980)—but Mr. Otteson helpfully elucidates it in terms of individual experience. The experts may know that high-sugar carbonated drinks are on balance bad for your health, but they cannot know if you, in your circumstances, should or shouldn’t have a Coke. Most people would agree with that observation, but it is remarkable how many government policies are premised on its antithesis. City bans on unhealthy habits, state subsidies for favored industries, tax breaks meant to encourage virtuous behavior—these and a thousand other state-backed strategems assume the authorities and their experts understand immeasurably complex circumstances that they can’t possibly understand. But the alternative—allowing the people who do understand them to make their own decisions, even if they’re wrong—isn’t so satisfying to our governmental minders.
“The Power of Creative Destruction” (Belknap/Harvard, 389 pages, $35), translated by Jodie Cohen-Tanugi, is a full expression of the Great Mind outlook. Not that the authors—Philippe Aghion, Céline Antonin and Simon Bunel, all associated with the Collège de France—are socialists or militant redistributionists. They are mandarins. They recognize that you can’t pay for the modern welfare state or enjoy high levels of prosperity without robust economic growth. But capitalism, in their view, is constantly menacing itself and requires the aid of sage policy makers to prevent its collapse.
The authors are heavily influenced by the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter. In “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy” (1942), Schumpeter contended that capitalism was doomed by its own logic. The capitalist system depends on a constant succession of entrepreneurs dislodging established firms—a process he called “creative destruction.” But eventually, he saw, yesterday’s innovators become today’s monopolists and learn to use the levers of power to prevent further innovation. Growth diminishes; a dissatisfied public demands welfare-state protections and restrictions on entrepreneurial activity; and capitalism, deprived of growth, slowly transmutes into socialism.
Clearly some parts of that analysis are valid, although Schumpeter was mistaken, in my view, to think of capitalism as a “structure” that can’t adapt to the demands placed on it by an intermittently irrational public. Mr. Aghion, Ms. Antonin and Mr. Bunel share Schumpeter’s overdefined understanding of capitalism. “Capitalism must reward innovation,” they write, “but it must be regulated to prevent innovation rents”—rents meaning profits accruing to incumbent firms—“from stifling competition and thus jeopardizing future innovation.”
And what sort of regulations do they think will encourage innovation, foster competition and save capitalism from itself? You may have guessed already. Industrial policy: tariffs and other protections, subsidies to viable industries and firms, “investments” in R&D and higher education, and so on. What capitalism needs, if I may put their argument in my own words, is more public officials ready to heed the advice of centrist academic economists.
The book is rife with charts and graphs, and the authors cite a bewildering array of highly specialized studies. Much of this technical argumentation strikes me as overdone. I appreciate, for instance, the conclusion that lobbying and barriers to entry are likelier than innovation and competition to aggravate inequality. But people who think markets worsen inequality are committed to an unfalsifiable ideology and won’t be moved by any combination of graph-packed quantitative studies.
Love and death in a utopian community, the remorseless business of slavery, a passion for peacocks, updating Sir Gawain and more.
“The Power of Creative Destruction” is an impressive book in its way, but the authors don’t acknowledge the—to me—obvious objection. Once you afford governmental bodies the power to manage the economy, you also give established firms the tools with which to insulate themselves from competition. Wouldn’t it be easier and more effective to deprive incumbent firms of any special privileges and let them figure out how to survive? Then again, if we did that, we wouldn’t need so many mandarins.
Book review: Border politics serve up racism, human exploitation – Vancouver Sun
Border & Rule: Global Migration, Capitalism, and the Rise of Racist Nationalism
Harsha Walia | Fernwood Publishing (Halifax and Winnipeg, 2021)
$27 | 320pp
Borders are far more than lines on paper.
As local organizer, activist and scholar, Harsh Walia demonstrates in her passionately felt, deeply researched and closely reasoned new book, Border and Rule, that borders can serve as lethally intricate mechanisms of imperialism, colonialism, racism, sexism and class exploitation.
They work to divide workers and undermine international solidarity, while inscribing cartographies of privilege and oppression on the long-suffering face of the Earth.
And yet in mainstream discussions, borders are only questioned when heart-rending images of migrant children huddling miserably in U.S. border holding pens or drowned on the shores of the Mediterranean inspire brief and self-congratulatory spasms of outrage and pity among comfortable observers on the “right” side of the borders.
Walia, who has spent much of her adult life doing the hard work of organizing solidarity activity and saving lives of those threatened with deportation back to the dangers they are fleeing, is understandably dismissive of such liberal responses. She points out that centuries of imperial conquest, colonial occupation and gendered, racist segmentation of the workforce have set the stage for the current global crisis, which saw over 80 millions of our sisters and brothers driven forcibly from their homes last year, according to the United Nations, while hundreds of millions more have been forced to migrate by climate disasters, poverty and famine. Such disasters are, Walia persuasively argues, not so much “natural” as created by economic and social relations (aka predatory and racialized capitalism and a world order designed to serve the needs of the rich over the needs of the rest of us).
Walia’s analysis is dense and complex, and her language occasionally overburdened with abstraction. But even where her thought is difficult, it is always worth the time it takes to grasp.
This is a remarkable book that reflects a lifetime of activism and reflection on the author’s part — Walia has been in the news lately, resigning as executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association after a controversial social media post on arson committed at several Catholic churches. Still, this book is rich with learnings for us all.
Her core argument, that “a political and economic system that treats land as a commodity, Indigenous people as overburden, race as a principle of social organization, women’s caretaking as worthless, workers as exploitable, climate refugees as expendable and the entire planet as a sacrifice zone must be dismantled,” will challenge and inspire readers.
Tom Sandborn crossed a border to live in Vancouver in 1967. He welcomes your feedback and story tips at firstname.lastname@example.org
Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion delivered straight to your inbox at 7 a.m., Monday to Friday by subscribing to our Sunrise newsletter here.
CLICK HERE to report a typo.
Is there more to this story? We’d like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email email@example.com.
Jason Kenney's longing for Alberta's pre-COVID politics – iPolitics.ca
Pandemic? What pandemic?
In Premier Jason Kenney’s Alberta, the pandemic isn’t just retreating, it has been defeated.
“Such a joy to connect with Albertans during Canada’s first major event after the pandemic,” said a jubilant social media post last week from Kenney after he visited the Calgary Stampede.
Saying “after the pandemic” was no slip of the keyboard. Kenney chose his words carefully, including being sure to point out the Stampede was the “Canada’s first major event.”
Alberta was the first province to lift virtually all pandemic restrictions on July 1; the first to get more than 70 percent of eligible citizens vaccinated with one dose; and, now, the first province to declare we’re in a post-pandemic world.
This is Alberta exceptionalism, Kenney style.
And, boy, does Kenney need to be seen as exceptional these days. His popularity plummeted during the pandemic – from a high of about 60 per cent in support in 2019 to around 30 per cent now, according to the most recent polls.
The pandemic, of course, is not over – as health experts are quick to point out.
The number of cases and hospitalizations have fallen dramatically in Alberta (and other jurisdictions) thanks to vaccinations, but the pandemic is still with us, even if it is a shadow of its former self.
At the same time, countries including France are re-imposing restrictions as the number of Delta-variant cases surge and experts talk ominously of a fourth wave among the unvaccinated.
Ironically, Kenney’s optimistically misleading view of Alberta being in an “after the pandemic state” might actually put the province at risk of enduring more variant cases. The province’s vaccine rollout, doing so well just weeks ago, has stalled. After hitting 70 per cent of Albertans with their first dose a month ago, the rate has increased by a trickle to just under 75 per cent despite the government announcing a vaccine lottery with cash prizes and exotic vacations.
There are a multitude of reasons for the slower uptake including lack of access to clinics in rural areas and suspicion of the vaccines — but you have to think that Kenney talking about the pandemic in the past tense has some people wondering why they’d bother to get a shot now.
Therein lies a Catch-22 for Kenney among his Conservative supporters who have rankled at pandemic restrictions from the beginning.
Tell them the pandemic is over and they’ll see no reason to get vaccinated. Tell them the pandemic is not over and he’d have to maintain pandemic restrictions, further aggravating his conservative base.
For the base, the big issue is politics, not pandemics.
Right-wing voters are disappointed in Kenney, not just because he imposed what they considered draconian COVID-19 measures, but because he backed off on his war with the federal Liberal government during the pandemic.
Well, that war is back on.
Kenney is holding a referendum vote this October, in conjunction with Alberta’s municipal elections, asking Albertans if they want the federal equalization program scrapped. Never mind that it’s a federal program paid for by federal tax dollars, Kenney is arguing that equalization is unfair to Alberta (even though Kenney himself was part of the Harper federal cabinet that amended the equalization formula a decade ago).
Kenney has dusted off the anti-Trudeau rhetoric, once again accusing the prime minister of “openly campaigning against Alberta” in the last federal election, even though the federal government bought the Trans Mountain pipeline and has committed to twinning the pipe so Alberta can get more energy products to the West Coast for shipment internationally.
But Kenney is loath to give his political nemesis any pats on the back. This reluctance reached petty heights, or lows, on July 7 when the prime minister held a news conference in Calgary with Mayor Naheed Nenshi to formally announce the city’s $5.5-billion Green Line LRT project. Neither Kenney nor anybody from the Alberta government attended the news conference even though the province is kicking in $1.5 billion.
Kenney’s office said the announcement was just a rehash of previous announcements. That’s true – but when has a politician ever shied away from re-announcing projects when there are headlines to grab?
Kenney apparently didn’t want to be seen helping boost Trudeau’s profile on the eve of a possible federal election.
On a more practical front, Kenney’s anti-Trudeau feelings could prove costly to Alberta’s parents, particularly those in the large urban centres, who are keen on the federal government’s $30-billion plan for a $10-a-day daycare system.
Both British Columbia and Nova Scotia have signed on to plans tailored to their provinces and Alberta insists it is in negotiations, but Kenney’s initial response in April was to dismiss the federal plan as a “nine-to-five, government-run, union-operated, largely-urban-care” system. Predictably, the Alberta government is also upset with the federal government’s plan announced this week to begin consultations on a “Just Transition” plan to help Canadian workers energy workers get ready for a future less dependent on fossil fuels.
“The federal government’s intention to hastily phase out Canada’s world-class oil and gas industry is extremely harmful to the hundreds of thousands who directly and indirectly work in the sector, and will be detrimental to Canada’s economic recovery,” said Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage Tuesday in a deliberate misreading of Ottawa’s intent.
But that’s the tone of the Alberta government in 2021 when it comes to dealing with the federal Liberals: partisan, pugilistic and plain ornery.
It’s a throwback to 2019 before the pandemic hit.
In that respect, Kenney is right. Politically speaking, Alberta is indeed in a post-pandemic world.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.
Investing inside a corporation: what you need to know – MoneySense
Calgary real estate predicted to moderate this year, with hot spring demand – Calgary Herald
Art exhibits return to Callander’s Alex Dufresne gallery – BayToday.ca
Silver investment demand jumped 12% in 2019
Europe kicks off vaccination programs | All media content | DW | 27.12.2020 – Deutsche Welle
Iran anticipates renewed protests amid social media shutdown
Business17 hours ago
Global outage affecting websites of airlines, banks, tech firms now fixed – Globalnews.ca
News24 hours ago
Global Affairs Canada 'engaging' with staff in Austria following reports of 'Havana syndrome' symptoms – CTV News
Politics23 hours ago
Jason Kenney's longing for Alberta's pre-COVID politics – iPolitics.ca
Media22 hours ago
Current's 2021 Public Media Salary Survey – Current
Tech15 hours ago
OnePlus Nord 2: An impressive 5G phone at an affordable price – CNET
Health20 hours ago
Among Fully Vaccinated, Breakthrough Covid-19 Infections Are More Common Than Previously Thought: Does It Matter? – Forbes
News23 hours ago
Unmarked grave findings in Canada prompt reckoning among U.S. churches – CBC.ca
Science22 hours ago
DeepMind puts the entire human proteome online, as folded by AlphaFold – Yahoo Movies Canada