Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

A tiny spark of hope in another soul-crushing round of CRTC hearings: Peter Menzies

Published

9 minute read

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Peter Menzies

It was as if the internet — the most democratizing, weird, wonderful, frightening and important technological development in communications since the printing press — had never been invented.

Earlier this month, halfway through answering a question from the House of Commons Industry committee, Annette Verschusen abruptly removed her headphones, stood up, unplugged, and walked out.

It was shocking.

And yet, in a rascally sort of way, I admired it. Yes, yes, the former head of Home Depot Canada and the chancellor of Cape Breton University recently had to resign as chair of Sustainable Development Technology Canada and is under investigation by the Ethics Commissioner for approving hundreds of thousands of dollars in Green Fund grants to her own company, NRStor Inc. But still, who among us hasn’t fantasized about acting out in similar fashion when the blinding light of revelation strikes and it suddenly dawns on you: “WTF am I even doing here? I don’t need this shit.”

And, in your fantasy, you just get up and leave. Like Verschusen did.

I confess I once harboured a similar impulse towards the end of an arduous Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) hearing along the lines of the three-week-long epic that concluded Dec. 8.

Part of my despair was likely due to being tired. Everyone who appears before a CRTC panel (I was a Commissioner for a decade) deserves one’s full attention and there are thousands of pages of required reading in the weeks leading up to and in the evenings during a hearing.

Then there’s the hearing room. Seemingly designed by Dante Alighieri to sap the will to live from those condemned to work within it, the room’s about the size of an elementary school gym. There are no windows or art and the ambiance complements the soulless mid-century Soviet architectural style of Gatineau’s public buildings.

But — and I hesitate to confess this — it was the relentless rent-seeking that made my mind wander during breaks and impishly imagine what would happen if I just unplugged my laptop, got up, walked out through the crowds, got a cab straight to the airport and never came back. Because eventually, most CRTC hearings devolve into two broad categories. One is a series of presentations from large, protected and profitable companies explaining the dire consequences if they don’t get their way. The other is a seemingly endless parade of well-meaning groups begging for the large companies’ money lest their roles as cultural saviours are diminished. It’s predictably tiresome, tedious and exhausting. But the stakeholders know that commissioners come and go on a regular basis, so no cause to worry about them getting wise to the game.

I was reminded of that inappropriate thought while monitoring the final week of this most recent hearing. When I wasn’t watching, I was reading transcripts and experiencing it all in a mildly PTSDish sort of way.

This hearing was the first of three scheduled to implement the Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11) which amended the Broadcasting Act for the first time since 1991 in order to “modernize” it by — absurdly, in my view — defining the internet as broadcasting and putting it lock, stock and barrel under the authority of the CRTC, which was first formed in 1968 to make sure Anne Murray and Terry Jacks got fair play on the radio airwaves.

This first phase — in which offshore streamers such as Netflix and Disney+ made their regulatory debut — was supposed to be about three things:

  • Defining the cutoff line — $10 million, $25 million or $50 million in annual revenue — the CRTC would use to study which companies must buck up and fund Canadian content;
  • Deciding how much those companies would have to pay;
  • Determining how many different funds should get the loot and how many groups would be involved — BIPOC, Indigenous, LGBTQ2S, etc.

It wasn’t the debilitating boredom of it all that was the most difficult to overcome. Nor was it the acronym-laden banter between the panel and stakeholders that rendered the discourse incomprehensible to ordinary Canadians. And while the manner in which consumers’ interests were disregarded was beyond frustrating, that wasn’t the worst part.

The seriously soul-crushing aspect was that this hearing looked, sounded and felt exactly like CRTC broadcasting hearings have looked, sounded and felt for 30 years.

It was as if the internet — the most democratizing, weird, wonderful, frightening and important technological development in communications since the printing press — had never been invented.

It was a funereal procession of grim-faced presenters from large, often outrageously profitable domestic companies involved in providing telephone, mobile, internet, cable and broadcasting crying woe are we, declaring the industry to be in “crisis,” demanding “urgent” relief from their regulatory burdens and threatening the jobs of thousands of workers should they not get their way. They even got the ball rolling on a whole new fund for local news production lest democracy die. Because, without them, of course it will.

This was followed by a chorus line of vested interests explaining how important it is for the regulator to ensure lotsa cash flows in their direction lest the nation’s creative aesthetic dies under the jackboot of American cultural imperialism. And — OMG! — whatever happens don’t make me have to move to Hollywood. You know, like poor old Ryan Reynolds did.

There were, to be fair, bright parts when the companies and workers that have built success on the internet politely explained, with respect, that what the CRTC was talking about makes no sense in 2023. None whatsoever. Some even begged the panel of Commissioners to please “do no harm.”

Welcome as something — anything — “modern” was during what otherwise was a bad acid flashback to decades past, it was not enough to revive any sense of optimism. At least not until YouTuber J.J. McCullough — the penultimate presenter — showed up.

In words everyone can understand, he said that we are in “a time when there’s a huge thriving sort of forward‑looking modern youthful wing of the Canadian cultural economy and cultural space in the form of online content creators who are often very entrepreneurial, very self‑directed people that have started from very little and have become very successful.”

And that there is concern with “the idea that those people are perhaps in some way like a problem that now needs to be solved in order to sort of subsidize people that, you know, god bless them, are sort of clinging to perhaps a dream of success in a medium that there just isn’t market or public demand for any more.”

It offered a small flicker of hope that, somehow, the 21st century and all its possibilities might yet survive the CRTC’s smothering embrace.

Then again, as the saying goes, it’s the hope that kills you.

Peter Menzies is a senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, past vice-chair of the CRTC and a former newspaper publisher.

Alberta

Alberta government can soften blow of Ottawa’s capital gains tax hike

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

Several wealthy and successful industrialized countries (Switzerland, New Zealand, Singapore) and several U.S. states (including Texas, Alaska, South Dakota, Wyoming) impose no capital gains taxes. Of course, Alberta competes with these U.S. states for investment.

Earlier this year, the Trudeau government increased the inclusion rate on capital gains over $250,000 for individuals and on all capital gains realized by corporations and trusts. This tax hike will almost surely have a negative impact on investment and entrepreneurship, but the Smith government can lessen the blow in Alberta.

In simple terms, capital is money invested in an asset—e.g. a business, factory, intellectual property, stock or bond—to create economic benefit. A capital gain occurs when that investment is sold for more than its original purchase price.

Prior to the tax hike, half the value of a capital gain (50 per cent) was taxed by the government. Trudeau increased this “inclusion rate” to 66 per cent—and that has real economic consequences.

Why? Because capital gains taxes impose comparatively large costs on the economy by reducing the reward from productive activities such as savings, investment, risk-taking and entrepreneurship, which are essential for strong economic growth. Capital taxes are among the most economically damaging forms of taxation for this very reason—they reduce the incentive to innovate and invest.

Take an entrepreneur, for example, who’s deciding whether or not to risk their own capital to provide (and profit from) a new technology, product or service. The higher the capital gains tax, the lower the potential reward from this investment, which means they will be less inclined to make the investment or perhaps undertake the investment elsewhere (another country, for example) in a more tax-friendly environment. Less investment means less innovation, job creation, wage growth and ultimately lower living standards. In other words, Trudeau’s capital gains tax hike will not only hurt Canadians with capital gains but other Canadians who benefit from the knockoff effects of investment.

Largely due to this problem, several wealthy and successful industrialized countries (Switzerland, New Zealand, Singapore) and several U.S. states (including Texas, Alaska, South Dakota, Wyoming) impose no capital gains taxes. Of course, Alberta competes with these U.S. states for investment.

Previous federal governments also understood the disincentive that comes with capital gains taxes. In 2000, the Liberal government of Jean Chretien meaningfully reduced the tax rate applied to capital gains stating that we must “introduce tax measures that encourage entrepreneurship and risk taking.”

Today, fortunately, the Smith government can take action.

When governments tax your capital gain, they include a share of the gain in your personal income and it is taxed at your personal income tax rate. The Alberta government could simply add a step in the tax return process for Albertans to remove capital gains from the provincial income tax calculation. As a result, the capital gains tax would only apply to the federal portion of your income taxes.

The Alberta government doesn’t have to sit back and accept Trudeau’s capital gains tax hike. Eliminating capital gains taxes from the provincial income tax in Alberta would send a powerful message to potential entrepreneurs, investors and businessowners that the province is open for business—and that benefits all Albertans.

Continue Reading

National

Trudeau’s $9 Million Condo Scandal: Elites Party in New York While Canadians Struggle at Home

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

From The Opposition News Network

By Dan Knight

It’s no secret that Justin Trudeau and his Liberal cronies love to live large. But this latest scandal? It’s a new low, even for them. We’re talking about a $9 million luxury condo—yes, you heard that right—on Billionaire’s Row in New York City, bought for a Trudeau-appointed diplomat while millions of Canadians are barely scraping by.

What’s worse? Trudeau himself seems to be right at the heart of this.

Let’s break down the facts that emerged during Meeting No. 137 of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO), and you’ll see exactly how Trudeau’s government, under the watchful eye of his loyal minister Mélanie Jolie, pulled this off.

The Timeline of Trudeau’s Elitist Condo Scheme:

1. February 2023: Tom Clark, a former journalist and long-time friend of the Liberal elites, is appointed by Trudeau’s government as Consul General in New York. A cozy appointment, no doubt, for someone with deep ties to the Liberal establishment.

2. April 27, 2023: The Prime Minister himself—yes, Justin Trudeau—drops by Clark’s old New York residence for a dinner. Imagine the wine flowing and the conversation going, all while the rest of Canada is dealing with a collapsing economy, skyrocketing inflation, and an ongoing housing crisis.

3. April 28, 2023: The very next day, Trudeau and Clark are seen together in a motorcade cruising the streets of New York City. What exactly were they discussing? A new condo perhaps? It’s hard to believe that this kind of luxury real estate plan wasn’t at least mentioned during their cozy ride.

4. Spring/Summer 2023: Global Affairs Canada—overseen by Trudeau’s trusted Minister Jolie—suddenly identifies problems with the old residence. That’s right, just a few months after Trudeau’s visit, the decision is made to start looking for a new, more luxurious residence. Coincidence? Hardly.

5. April 17, 2024: An email from Global Affairs states that Tom Clark was instrumental in giving the green light for the purchase of the $9 million condo. The deal is pushed through, and the taxpayer is stuck with the bill.

6. July 12, 2024: The media finally breaks the story about the purchase of the $9 million luxury condo on Billionaire’s Row, one of the most expensive neighborhoods in New York. Public outrage begins to grow as details about this opulent purchase come to light.

7. July 25, 2024: A bogus correction is issued by Global Affairs, claiming that Tom Clark was not involved in the purchase. Conveniently, this correction comes one day after this very committee ordered documents on Clark’s involvement. Sound fishy? It should.

Clark’s Cozy Deal and Trudeau’s Role

Here’s what we know: Trudeau’s government made a $9 million purchase for Tom Clark, a man with deep ties to the Liberals, shortly after Trudeau himself visited Clark’s old residence. Now, emails show Clark was directly involved in the decision to buy the new place, but when he appeared before the committee, he suddenly couldn’t remember any involvement. Instead, he passed the blame onto Global Affairs Canada.

Now, here’s where it gets worse. Documents show that Clark was instrumental in the decision to buy this opulent residence. Emails from within Minister Mélanie Joly’s own department reveal that Clark himself gave the “green light” on the purchase. But when Clark appeared before the committee, he suddenly had a case of selective amnesia, denying any involvement in the decision. According to him, it was all Global Affairs Canada’s doing. He claims he was just an innocent bystander, touring the property “out of curiosity.”

Are we really supposed to believe that? This is a man who, for decades, worked in media and is well-versed in how power operates. The idea that Clark wasn’t aware of the optics or didn’t say a word when shown this mansion is laughable. What’s even more convenient is that a “correction” from Global Affairs magically appeared one day after the committee requested documents about Clark’s involvement. They want us to believe that all of this is just a coincidence, a bureaucratic hiccup. Sure.

But let’s not forget who runs Global Affairs—none other than Minister Mélanie Jolie, one of Trudeau’s closest allies. Jolie has twice appointed Clark to key roles: once as head of an advisory committee recommending appointments to CBC, and then again as Consul General in New York. And it’s Jolie’s department that now seems to be covering for Clark in this scandal, issuing a correction that conveniently contradicts their own internal emails.

So, who’s responsible? The buck stops with Minister Jolie—and ultimately with Justin Trudeau.

The Real Problem: Trudeau’s Elitism and Out-of-Touch Government

While Tom Clark is now enjoying his luxurious $9 million condo—complete with swimming lanes, golf simulators, and some of the most expensive appliances money can buy—ordinary Canadians are lining up at food banks, barely making rent, and trying to survive in Trudeau’s broken economy.

Let’s break down just how absurd this situation is: for this $9 million palace, Clark pays a laughable $1,800 a month. Meanwhile, the actual cost of living in a place like that? Around $42,000 a month. The difference? You, the Canadian taxpayer, are picking up the tab for Clark’s personal playground while you struggle to pay your bills.

And let’s be clear: Clark wasn’t some innocent bystander in this. He toured the condo, saw the luxury, and didn’t once think to say, “Hey, maybe this is too much, especially when people back home can’t even afford to live.” Why? Because this is the Trudeau mindset. The elites deserve the best, and the rest of us? We can pay for it.

Why Jolie Must Testify

This scandal goes straight to the top. Mélanie Jolie must come before the committee and explain how her department managed to spend $9 million on a condo for one of Trudeau’s buddies. She needs to answer for the emails that say Clark was involved, even though they’re now trying to claim he wasn’t. And, most of all, she needs to explain why this government continues to indulge its inner circle while Canadians suffer.

It’s time for real accountability. Trudeau and his ministers cannot continue to dodge these scandals, pretending like they have no part in the decisions being made. Minister Jolie needs to testify, and the Canadian public deserves answers. After all, you’re the ones paying for it.

This isn’t just about one condo; it’s about a government that’s lost touch with reality, that believes it can spend your money however it likes, with no consequences. The Liberals claim to care about the middle class, but when it comes down to it, they’re more interested in living large—and making sure their friends do too.

Minister Jolie, it’s time to step up and explain why you let this happen. Canadians are watching.

You can subscribe for free to The Opposition with Dan Knight, but for the full experience, you’ll need to upgrade your subscription.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight

Continue Reading

Trending

X