Connect with us

Business

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

Published

5 months ago

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.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Addictions / 53 mins ago

City of Toronto asks Trudeau gov’t to decriminalize hard drugs despite policy’s failure in BC

Environment / 2 hours ago

Climate Alarmists Want To Fight The Sun. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

International / 3 hours ago

U.S. birth rate hit record low last year, signaling surge in childlessness

Business

When politicians gamble, taxpayers lose

Published on May 5, 2024

By

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Jay Goldberg

Trudeau and Ford bragged about how a $5 billion giveaway to Honda is going to generate 1,000 jobs. In case you’re thinking of doing the math, that’s $5 million per job.

Politicians are rolling the dice on the electric vehicle industry with your money.

If they bet wrong, and there’s a good chance they have, hardworking Canadians will be left holding the bag.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier Doug Ford announced a $5-billion agreement with Honda, giving another Fortune 500 automaker a huge wad of taxpayer cash.

Then Trudeau released a video on social media bragging about “betting big” on the electric vehicle industry in Canada. The “betting” part of Trudeau’s statement tells you everything you need to know about why this is a big mistake.

Governments should never “bet” with taxpayer money. That’s the reality of corporate welfare: when governments give taxpayer money to corporations with few strings attached, everyday Canadians are left hoping and praying that politicians put the chips on the right numbers.

And these are huge bets.

When Trudeau and Ford announced this latest giveaway to Honda, the amount of taxpayer cash promised to the electric vehicle sector reached $57 billion. That’s more than the federal government plans to spend on health care this year.

Governments should never gamble with taxpayer money and there are at least three key reasons why this Honda deal is a mistake.

First, governments haven’t even proven themselves capable of tracking how many jobs are created through their corporate welfare schemes.

Trudeau and Ford bragged about how a $5 billion giveaway to Honda is going to generate 1,000 jobs. In case you’re thinking of doing the math, that’s $5 million per job.

Five million dollars per job is already outrageous. But some recent reporting from the Globe and Mail shows why corporate welfare in general is a terrible idea.

The feds don’t even have a proper mechanism for verifying if jobs are actually created after handing corporations buckets of taxpayer cash. So, while 1,000 jobs are promised through the Honda deal, the government isn’t capable of confirming whether those measly 1,000 jobs will materialize.

Second, betting on the electric vehicle industry comes with risk.

Trudeau and Ford gave the Ford Motor Company nearly $600 million to retool a plant in Oakville to build electric cars instead of gasoline powered ones back in 2020. But just weeks ago, Ford announced plans to delay the conversion for another three years, citing slumping electric vehicle sales.

Look into Ford’s quarterly reports and the danger of betting on electric vehicles becomes clear as day: Ford’s EV branch lost $1.3 billion in the first quarter of 2024. Reports also show Ford lost $130,000 on every electric vehicle sold.

The decline of electric vehicle demand isn’t limited to Ford. In the United States, electric vehicle sales fell by 7.3 per cent between the last quarter of 2023 and the first quarter of 2024.

Even Tesla’s sales were down 13 per cent in the first quarter of this year compared to the first quarter of 2023.

A Bloomberg headline from early April read “Tesla’s sales miss by the most ever in brutal blow for EVs.”

There’s certainly a risk in betting on electric vehicles right now.

Third, there’s the question of opportunity cost. Imagine what else our governments could be doing with $57 billion?

For about the same amount of money, the federal government could suspend the federal sales tax for an entire year. The feds could also use $57 billion to double health-care spending or build 57 new hospitals.

The solution for creating jobs isn’t to hand a select few companies buckets of cash just to lure them to Canada. Politicians should be focusing on creating the right environment for any company, large or small, to grow without a government handout.

To do that, Canada must be more competitive with lower business taxes, less red tape and more affordable energy. That’s a real recipe for success that doesn’t involve gambling with taxpayer cash.

It’s time for our politicians to kick their corporate welfare addiction. Until they do, Canadians will be left paying the price.

Continue Reading

Business

WEF panelist suggests COVID response accustomed people to the idea of CBDCs

Published on May 5, 2024

By

Central Bank of Bahrain governor Khalid Humaidan

From LifeSiteNews

By Tim Hinchliffe

When asked how he would convince people that CBDCs would be a trusted medium of exchange, Bahrain’s central bank governor said that COVID made the digital transformation ‘something of a requirement’ that had ‘very little resistance.’

Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) will hopefully replace physical cash and become fully digital, a central banker tells the World Economic Forum (WEF).

Speaking at the WEF Special Meeting on Global Collaboration, Growth and Energy Development on Sunday, Central Bank of Bahrain governor Khalid Humaidan told the panel “Open Forum: The Digital Currencies’ Opportunity in the Middle East” that one of the goals of CBDC was to replace cash, at least in Bahrain, and to go “one hundred percent digital.”

Humaidan likened physical cash to being an antiquated “analogue” technology and that CBDC was the digital solution that would hopefully replace cash:

“I thank this panel and this opportunity. It forced me to refine my thoughts and opinions where I’m at a place comfortably now that I’m ready to verbalize what I think about CBDC,” said Humaidan.

If we think cash is the analogue and digital currency is the form of digital – CBDC is the digital form of cash – today, clearly we’re in a hybrid situation; we’re using both.

We know in the past when it comes to cash, central bankers were very much in control with all aspects of cash, and now we’re comfortable to the point where the private sector plays a big role in the printing of the cash, in the distribution of the cash, and with the private sector we use interest rates to manage the supply of cash.

The same thing is likely to happen with CBDC. Yes, the central bank will have a role, but at some point in time – the same way we don’t call it ‘central bank cash’ – we’re probably going to stop calling it central bank digital currency.

“It’s going to be a digital form of the cash, and at some point in time hopefully we will be able to be one hundred percent digital,” he added.

When asked how he would convince people that CBDC would be a trusted medium of exchange, Bahrain’s central bank governor said that people were already used to it and that COVID made the digital transformation “necessary” and “something of a requirement” that had “very little resistance.”

“Right now, many of our payments are digital. The truth is, I said that we’re in a hybrid model; there’s less and less use of cash,” said Humaidan.

I think from predominantly digital with a little physical, I think the transition to fully digital is not going to be a stretch.

People are used to it, people have engaged in it and certain circumstances did help. Its adoption rates increased because of COVID.

“This is where contactless started to become something of a necessity, something of safety, something of a requirement, and because of that there is very little resistance; trust is already there,” he added.

Meanwhile, European Central Bank president Christine Lagarde has been going around the world telling people that the digital euro CBDC would not eliminate cash, and that cash would always be an option.

Speaking at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Innovation Summit in March 2023, Lagarde said that a digital currency will never be as anonymous as cash, and for that reason, cash will always be around.

“Is it [digital euro] going to be as private as cash? No,” she said.

A digital currency will never be as anonymous and as protecting of privacy in many respects as cash, which is why cash will always be around.

If people want to use cash in some countries or in some transactions, cash should be available.

“A digital currency is an alternative, is another means of payment and will not provide exactly the same level of privacy and anonymity as cash, but will be pretty close in terms of complete neutrality in relation to the data,” she added.

A WEF Agenda blog post from September, 2017, lists the “gradual obsolescence of paper currency” as being “characteristic of a well-designed CBDC.”

Last year at the WEF’s 14th Annual Meeting of the New Champions, aka “Summer Davos,” in Tianjing, China, Cornell University professor Eswar Prasad said that “we are at the cusp of physical currency essentially disappearing,” and that programmable CBDCs could take us to either a better or much darker place.

“If you think about the benefits of digital money, there are huge potential gains,” said Prasad, adding, “It’s not just about digital forms of digital currency; you can have programmability – units of central bank currency with expiry dates.

You could have […] a potentially better – or some people might say a darker world – where the government decides that units of central bank money can be used to purchase some things, but not other things that it deems less desirable like say ammunition, or drugs, or pornography, or something of the sort, and that is very powerful in terms of the use of a CBDC, and I think also extremely dangerous to central banks.

The WEF’s Special Meeting on Global Collaboration, Growth and Energy Development took place from April 27-29 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

“Saudi Arabia’s absolute monarchy restricts almost all political rights and civil liberties,” according to D.C.-based NGO Freedom House.

In the kingdom, “No officials at the national level are elected,” and “the regime relies on pervasive surveillance, the criminalization of dissent, appeals to sectarianism and ethnicity, and public spending supported by oil revenues to maintain power.”

Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.

Continue Reading

Trending

X