Leave it to Justin Trudeau to further degrade Canada-India relations - "If Canada-India bilateral relations were in the deep freeze after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s gaffe-ridden visit to India in 2018, following last weekend’s G20 summit in New Delhi, they are now officially in the Arctic tundra. The G20 was a perfect opportunity for Trudeau and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to reset the relationship. But it was not to be. The first early warning sign was the perplexing news that Canada had put a “pause” on the on-again-off-again trade negotiations with India just days before the summit, which we first learned about from the Indian high commissioner to Canada, not the Canadian government. Warning bells rang again when, at a press conference in Singapore ahead of the G20, Trudeau said that he was going to raise foreign-interference allegations with Modi, setting a hostile tone even before stepping foot in New Delhi... At the summit itself, Canadians saw images of an uncomfortable handshake, in which Trudeau pulled away from Modi. Trudeau also opted to skip the official leaders dinner, a serious faux pas that was widely — and correctly — seen as a snub to his host. Trudeau struck no major deals and was all but peripheral to the main business of the summit — and largely invisible, except for a few photo opportunities with other western leaders... Unfortunately, rather than taking a strategic, realpolitik view of India, the Trudeau government appears to see India principally through the lens of domestic diaspora politics. Sikh-Canadians have been loyal Liberal voters over the years, and their concentration in key ridings in the Toronto and Vancouver areas makes them far more consequential than their small percentage of the population would suggest. Ignoring the bigger picture, Trudeau has consistently played to the diaspora gallery when it comes to India. In 2018, Jaspal Atwal, a British Columbia man convicted and jailed for attempting to murder a visiting Indian state minister, ended up on the official invitation list for a private reception hosted by Trudeau on his India trip. Recall, too, when speaking to a group of Sikh-Canadians in November 2020, Trudeau said that he supported the farmer protests in India, which had jammed up the highways in and around New Delhi for months. The protesters were largely Punjabi Sikhs and, pointedly, Trudeau made his remarks on a day celebrating the founder of the Sikh religion. Indian officials took umbrage, seeing this as attempted interference in their domestic political affairs. His poor showing at the G20 is yet another sorry chapter in Trudeau’s mishandling of what could, and should, have been an important bilateral relationship, apparently prioritizing partisan electoral calculations over Canada’s global strategic interests."
Philippines receives climate finance commitment from Canada - "The UNDP said the Philippines is included as part of a total international climate finance commitment by Canada of $5.3 billion."
Clearly taxes need to go up to fund more social spending, and only heartless conservatives disagree
Federal minister accuses some premiers of holding Canada back - "Boissonnault pointed specifically to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe and New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs. All three have said in recent weeks they will defy, or have considered defying, federal environmental regulations. But Boissionnault's concerns went beyond his government's environmental policies. He also attacked new rules in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick that require parental consent for a student under 16 to have their name or pronoun changed in school."
Clearly, if you disagree with the liberal agenda and federal overreach, you are backward
Half of private Canadian journalism could now be government supported - "the Trudeau government announced that it had reached an agreement with Google that would see the tech giant pay $100 million annually to Canadian news outlets under the Online News Act... “We’re pretty close, by my estimation, to a 50 percent wage subsidy on journalist salaries up to $85,000 per year,” says Rudyard Griffiths, executive director of The Hub... “What does it mean long term when as much as half of the newsroom costs of private media organizations, not the CBC, will be paid for by government support?” asked Griffiths. “This likely is not going to be positive for the ongoing challenges that mainstream media is facing in terms of declining public trust in the very news and information that they produce.” Trust in Canadian news media has noticeably declined in recent years. According to one survey, the share of Canadians who reported that they trusted the news most of the time fell from 55 percent in 2015 to 40 percent in 2023. Griffiths says this declining trust is unlikely to be reversed when half of newsroom costs are being subsidized by the federal government and large technology firms like Google. “They’re paying half of the bills of the very newsrooms that are extensively there to investigate them, challenge them, and report on their policies and prescriptions for society,” says Griffiths. Appearing before the committee as a witness, Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-Commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, stated that any funds raised for media outlets through the Online News Act would mainly benefit legacy media organizations. “The parliamentary budget officer tells us 75 percent of the money goes to the broadcasters, radio, and television largely based on the way it was structured,” said Geist, noting that media in Canada is dominated by a handful of large organizations. “Personally, I think it was a mistake to think that, at a minimum, if the goal was to support the core and what we would think of as newspapers or digital publishers. And that’s where the focus of the legislation ought to have been.”"
‘No actual legal, logical, or moral case’: Five Tweets reacting to Ottawa’s agreement with Google - "Macdonald-Laurier Institute senior fellow and regular Hub contributor Peter Menzies described the agreement as a “surrender” on the part of the government that avoided a “catastrophic Google shutdown.” That Google’s annual payment is about $72 million less than the government had set out in its draft regulations in September may be viewed by some as evidence of Ottawa’s ultimate compromise."
Andrew Coyne 🇺🇦🇮🇱 on X - "There is no actual legal, logical or moral case for forcing Google to underwrite the Canadian media. It’s strictly opportunistic: 1. Google has a lot of money. 2. We want some. 3. Make them give it to us."
As news is still shared on Facebook, Instagram, Meta may yet be regulated: St-Onge - "Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge has signaled that she would like to see Meta regulated under the Online News Act, as social-media users find loopholes to share news on its platforms... Users have also found other ways to share news stories on Facebook and Instagram, by direct messaging news links, sharing screenshots of articles and shortening news links so they can appear on stories, which are photos and videos that disappear after 24 hours... Meta said it doesn't believe the law applies to private messaging services, so it said users can still send news links through direct messages."
When you didn't understand how internet links work, and are now doubling down with an even more epic misunderstanding of how the internet works. Maybe now Facebook will just withdraw from Canada instead
Opinion | News Publishers Are Fighting Big Tech Over Peanuts. They Could Be Owed Billions. - The New York Times - "The Canada-Google deal sets an important precedent: It prevents Google from influencing which media businesses survive and fail." Apparently the government influencing which media businesses survive and fail is good
The government guts the Online News Act in an attempt to fix a mess of its own making - "The government this morning released the final Online News Act regulations, effectively gutting the law in order to convince Google to refrain from blocking news links in Canada and to fix some of the legislative mistakes that have been apparent from the start. While proponents of the law will point to the $100 million contribution from Google as evidence of success, privately most in the industry and government acknowledge the obvious: Bill C-18 was deeply flawed and a massive miscalculation that has created far more harm than good. Canadian Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge seemingly agrees as she was willing to make changes that were derided by the government throughout the legislative process. Indeed, by the time St-Onge took over the file that was a challenging salvage job, Meta’s $20 million in news deals were lost and blocked news links on Facebook and Instagram were a reality. The prospect of the same happening with Google was too much for the industry and the government since the lost deals would have been at least double that amount (many believe in the $40-50 million range) and lost news links in search would have been catastrophic... The $100 million from Google is likely to yield relatively little new money after subtracting $20 million lost from Meta, an estimated $50 million from existing Google spending is folded into the new funding model, and $5-6 million to cover administrative costs of the new system. In other words, the entire Canadian news industry picks up roughly $25 million in new money, set against lost links on Facebook and Instagram and lost investment in the sector due to regulatory uncertainty. That is disastrous and helps explain why the deal also comes with the government’s increased bailout for newspapers with the expanded labour journalism tax credit and the expectation that the CRTC will use Bill C-11 to funnel more money to broadcasters to cover news costs. The relatively small amount of new money also helps explain why the government has directly engaged in determining how it will be allocated. While its Bill C-18 pitch changed over time—from payments for links to levelling the bargaining playing field—it ends with a simple shakedown. Google has money and this tax-like approach forces them to pay up to make the contentious policy battle go away. The government had claimed that it would not become directly involved in either negotiating payments or determining how the money would be allocated. It was—in the words of Rodriguez—merely setting the table for the two private sector sides to reach a deal with mandated arbitration lurking in the background. Today’s final regulation discards both claims and overhauls the law, adding a Google-specific regulation that specifically grants it an exemption from arbitration in return for the $100 million payment and a specific reference that the payment is not about payments for links. The Google-specific provision is exhibit A for the absurdity of the legislation as it literally creates a singular exception for one company... The combined effect of this regulation should be obvious: excluding some smaller and ethnic outlets altogether while reserving most of the remaining money for larger entities such as Torstar or Postmedia who employ more journalist-adjacent personnel. I suspect many of the smaller players could see this coming, but they’ve been tossed under the bus in the effort to send more money to bigger outlets who stood to lose the most from Bill C-18 (and who incidentally lobbied the most for the legislation). While not in the regulations, added to the mix is a battle to become the new fund manager."
It's the end of an era for news—the industry can either adapt or die - "Since the turn of the century, there have only been two alternatives for legacy news organizations: adapt or die. While there has been some evidence of success in terms of the former, public policy support has ignored new ideas in favour of propping up the ones everyone knows won’t make it. The results have ranged from inconsequential to catastrophic... it’s just as unlikely journalism can find salvation in the arms of Canada’s heavily regulated broadcasting industry. For it, with exceptions acknowledged, the provision of news has always been primarily a regulatory obligation and not a core business proposition. Broadcasters are in the business of entertaining people with music, drama, chat, and related programming and have long acknowledged there is little or no money in them for news. All too often, it’s just regulatory rent... there is increasing evidence to suggest that the more the public becomes aware of direct government funding to journalism organizations, the less likely it is to trust those organizations and label reporters as toadies... It is one thing to have a public broadcaster. But today’s CBC is not that. It has evolved into a publicly funded commercial broadcaster and online content provider. Even its radio content, while broadcast free of advertising over the air, is repurposed to build online audiences and revenue in direct competition with news startups and legacy media attempting to transition into vibrant digital platforms. No industry can survive, let alone prosper, when the government subsidizes one commercial entity—in this case with $1.2 billion annually—to the detriment of all others."
How the CRTC could kill Netflix in Canada—All in the name of 'modernizing' broadcasting - "the CRTC’s idea of “modernizing” broadcasting appears heavily weighted in favour of applying its 1990s way of doing things to the online world of 2023. If that’s the case, the Commission is entirely unprepared to deal with the harsh truth that offshore companies don’t have to play by its rules. For decades, primary CRTC hearing participants have been dependent on the regulator. In the case of broadcasters like CTV and cable companies such as Rogers, their existence is at stake. Without a license, they are done. Which means they have to do what the Commission wants. But if the regulatory burden the CRTC places upon the offshore streamers doesn’t make business sense to them, they are free to say, “Sorry Canada, the juice just isn’t worth the squeeze. We’re outta here.” This is most likely to occur among the smaller, niche services at the lower end of the subscription scale. The CRTC has to date exempted only companies with Canadian revenues of less than $10 million. Any company just over that line would almost certainly not bother to do business in Canada —a relatively small and increasingly confusing market—if the regulatory ask is anything close to the 20 percent commitment being suggested... Too much burden without benefits would make it far cheaper for many to leave and sell their most popular shows to a domestic streamer or television network. The Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11), which led to this tussle, was originally pitched as making sure web giants “contribute” their “fair share.”"
The CRTC said it would leave podcasts alone. Turns out that was a myth - "what the CRTC denounced as “myth” in the spring has become a “fact” in the fall. It has kicked open the door to the regulation of online content, if not directly then by proxy through the platforms that deliver the work of podcasters to their audiences. It is a bureaucratic master stroke."
Canada has a serious fiscal challenge looming as the federal debt explodes - "Federal finances are under increasing strain from slowing economic growth, expanded affordability measures, new social programs (such as dental care), massive subsidies for battery plants, and, perhaps most important of all, rapidly rising interest rates. In fact, the monthly interest costs of the federal government are now at an all-time high. The latest available data for August shows federal interest costs exceeded $4.3 billion, surpassing the previous record of $4.03 billion set in December 1995. It’s more than double the pre-COVID amounts, as I illustrate below. And it’s the fastest acceleration in interest costs in recorded history... Excluding the COVID-19 years, which are obviously an exception, it would be an over $20 billion increase over last year. That’d be the largest increase since the financial crisis. And controlling for the health of the economy (using what’s called the “cyclically adjusted budget balance”), it would be the largest deficit, as a share of the economy, since 1995... the situation abroad is even worse. Based on the latest data compiled by The Economist, the U.S. federal deficit is set to reach 5.7 percent of GDP this year, equivalent to roughly $165 billion in Canada. Borrowing in the Euro area is 3.4 percent. The U.K. is 3.9 percent. Indeed, of all the countries it tracks—developed and developing alike—only three expect a surplus: Australia, Denmark, and Norway... The federal government’s 2023 budget was based on a 10-year interest rate of approximately three percent. That may now have to increase by half a point, which could increase borrowing costs by several billion per year for the foreseeable future. And if rates stay higher for longer, as many (including the Bank of Canada) now expect, the government’s debt levels may not be sustainable... Federal debt that grows faster than the economy is not sustainable... What can Canada do? As I’ve noted before, sticking with the government’s own previous plans would be a good start. Ratcheting up spending plans with every single budget is an important reason why we’re in this situation"
Don Martin reacts to Canada's fiscal update - "And lest we forget, as debt servicing charges and health-care costs achieve an ugly budgetary equilibrium, this red-ink burden is not one to be borne by the current crop of parents and grandparents. The borrowing of today will be paid with high interest by the kids who become the taxpayers of tomorrow. For squandering their hard-earned income tax on the questionable expenses we have incurred, they are owed a proactive apology."
Damn conservatives and austerity! We need to spend more on social welfare!
Canada is not broken but Ottawa is definitely broke - "In her economic update Tuesday, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland just couldn’t help taking a swipe at Leader of the Opposition Pierre Poilievre when she declared: “Canada is not and has never been broken.” In the early 1990s, Canada did come close to needing IMF assistance, but Liberal finance minister Paul Martin’s 1995 budget pulled us back from the abyss by cutting program spending 20 per cent and putting the country back on a path towards balanced budgets. We did receive short-term finance from the IMF during the currency crisis of 1962, but we have never reneged on public debt, unlike hapless Argentina, which has defaulted nine times since its independence in 1816. Canada may not be broken but the federal government is all but broke and is clearly running out of steam... the finance minister predicts, debt as a share of GDP will fall ever so gently to 39 per cent over the following four years. I am quite skeptical about five-year forecasts, especially from a government that over eight years has failed to keep any deficit and debt promises. The 2015 election commitment to cap the deficit at $10 billion is long gone. So is the promise to keep the debt/GDP ratio from rising. Even before the pandemic, federal debt was creeping back up to over 30 per cent of GDP. After eye-popping spending during COVID, any plan to return to pre-pandemic levels has been ditched. Instead, we just accept debt at 40 per cent of GDP and move on. And if a recession hits, you can bet your bottom dollar — which may be the only dollar you have left — that federal debt/GDP will reach a new plateau, also never to be reversed... Economic updates used to be just that, reports on how things are going, but increasingly they are mini-budgets that introduce new measures. With the Liberals sinking in the polls, housing affordability is the focus. But with higher interest rates and more stringent climate and other regulations adding to construction costs, it is unclear how much more housing supply will grow even with the new measures... The housing plan wasn’t the only focus in the economic statement. To address affordability and climate change, the current government takes pride in its pyramid of budget-busting subsidies for clean energy and regulations dictating private-sector behaviour regarding such things as “junk fees” and grocery prices. There’s also GST relief for psychotherapists and more generous subsidies for journalists and news organizations. (I suppose I should bend a knee to the minister and doff my cap.) What’s missing in the statement? It barely mentions the country’s poor productivity performance. And you will word-search in vain for “tax reform,” “general tax relief” or “deregulation” aimed at spurring private sector investment. No mention is made that accelerated tax depreciation for capital investment, introduced in 2018, is being phased out beginning January 1st, which will discourage private investment, including in housing construction. Instead, the Liberal economic plan is all about more government, not less, to grow the economy. Without the private sector, that’s not going to work."
Of course, the left just keeps calling for more social support and spending, and they think it can all be financed by money printing and debt. If the country defaults on debt, that will be proof that "capitalism has failed"
Justin Trudeau on X - "We need more women in politics and at decision-making tables. Because throughout our country’s history, progress has been made when women’s voices have been heard. To everyone at @EqualVoiceCA who is committed to making that happen: Thank you. Let’s keep working on that together."
Alex Pierson on X - "You fire every strong woman at your table who stands up to your decisions. 🤷♀️"
LILLEY: Trudeau votes against more guns for Ukraine; is he pro-Putin? - "If we used Trudeau’s standard, every single one of these MPs, including Trudeau himself, would be considered to have taken the side of Russia. That’s a ridiculous assertion but so too is Trudeau’s claim that the Conservative Party has abandoned Ukraine and sided with Russia. This is simply Trudeau trying to play ethnic politics to try and increase his support amid plummeting poll numbers. That he would stoop this low shows how truly desperate the Trudeau Liberals have become."
Rahim Mohamed: Liberals doing their best to make sovereignty act look like a masterstroke - "It will indeed be an uphill battle (if not a total suicide mission) for the Liberals to sell Canadians on a $54-billion push to fully decarbonize the nation’s electricity grid in little more than a decade — particularly with a double-digit increase in demand for electricity expected over the same time period. Albertans, who currently rely on carbon-based sources for 90 per cent of their electricity, should be feeling especially skittish about this accelerated timeline. (The Alberta government has shrewdly rolled out a series of TV ads depicting power outages taking place during Christmas dinners, hockey games, and other inopportune times.)... Smith herself has conceded that her use of the act here is more symbolic than substantive but the gesture could galvanize other provinces or, at the very least, keep the pressure on courts to uphold the letter of the Constitution."
YOU SAID IT: Fear policy - "When it appeared Stephen Harper would win the election, the Liberals put out ads warning Canadians that he would put soldiers in their streets. Now, with Trudeau tumbling in polls, they are claiming the Poilievre Conservatives support Vladimir Putin! Like the little boy crying wolf, Liberals cannot use the policy of fear to save them with Canadians struggling because of Trudeau’s radical ideologically driven policies."
Poll suggests widespread dissatisfaction with Trudeau government
Opinion: Canadians face 40 years of stagnant incomes – government’s economic strategy is failing - The Globe and Mail - "In the five years to 2019, Canada’s real GDP per capita growth was an anemic 0.5 per cent per annum. Since 2019, it has been the fifth-weakest of 38 OECD countries – and per capita GDP growth has even turned negative over the past year... in per capita terms the Canadian economy is shrinking by 2 per cent year-over-year. Canada is one of the few advanced countries where real incomes are lower than before the pandemic... Several of the government’s core policy beliefs are misguided. The first is that freewheeling government spending, untethered by the defined limits of a credible fiscal anchor, is not “consumption” but rather “investment” that raises real incomes. The data say otherwise. A related belief is that government programs are what entice companies to become more innovative and productive, rather than signals from well-functioning, competitive product markets and discerning customers. The government has relied on households and business taxpayers to fund subsidies for preferred recipients and has massively expanded the bureaucracy without much to show for it other than shrinking the relative size of the private sector. That is a recipe for a low-productivity, low-wage economy. A third belief is that “ever-increasing” immigration is an economic panacea. The academic literature overwhelmingly finds that the level of immigration has a negligible or neutral overall impact on indicators that determine a country’s living standards: labour productivity, real wages, the employment rate, the population’s age structure and, crucially, GDP per capita. Ramping up immigration to fill low-wage jobs instantly increases demand for things that take years to build, such as housing (especially rentals), roads, schools and hospitals. We have no idea how provinces and municipalities can be expected to quickly address the needs of 800,000 extra temporary residents arriving in the past two years – people they did not know were coming – along with 920,000 additional permanent residents. Our concern is compounded by the revelation that Statistics Canada has undercounted – by one million – the number of temporary residents already here. The federal government’s immigration strategy is like believing Christmas dinner will be made easier if you invite more people because they can help with the washing up. “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble, it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so,” wrote Mark Twain. Demonstrably, federal policies are yielding “prosperity-free” economic growth. We believe Canada needs an economic policy agenda focused on raising average living standards. The country would benefit from modest (and co-ordinated) fiscal and monetary policy restraint to dampen inflation, alongside a productivity-focused agenda to expand the economy’s supply-side capacity, expedite business investment and innovation, scale domestic firms and ensure Canada can supply the world with responsibly produced natural resources and manufactured goods. This will require overdue reforms to our inefficient tax and regulatory systems. Such a policy agenda would aim to cool demand and enhance supply, bringing them into balance. Critically, this would lift rather than reduce or stagnate average real incomes, as is happening under the federal government’s current approach."
