LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

Traffic backs up along Highway 401 in Toronto in an undated photo.

What a cheap political stunt. The federal government’s decision Monday to impose its own environmental assessment on the Ontario government’s proposed Highway 413 is nothing more than a transparent attempt to curry favour with environmental groups ahead of this summer’s expected federal election.

The proposed 413 is typically described as “controversial” because it will take up farmland, require some Greenbelt land and cross numerous waterways.  And yet, it would be difficult to build a new highway anywhere in Ontario without taking up land and crossing waterways. It would seem to be inherent in the very concept of building a highway.

Is the real problem where the highway is, or that it is a highway? Highways, as you know, carry cars. Cars, of course are bad. There is even a line of thinking that says fewer roads would mean fewer cars. So stopping a highway, any highway, anywhere, has to be good, right?

And yet, there’s a nagging problem. Toronto and the GTA receive well over 100,000 immigrants a year. Those people need somewhere to live and that housing demand contributes to the continual outward expansion of the areas around Toronto. It’s not reasonable to add that many people and cars every year and still expect the same highway network to be able to serve them. The geographic expansion makes it difficult for transit to meet more than a small portion of the demand.

The federal government is typically content to leave those problems to the provincial government, right after the feds congratulate themselves for boldly increasing immigration targets. There is nothing wrong with immigration but it demands aggressive expansion of both housing and ways of getting around the ever-expanding Toronto megalopolis.

That’s where Highway 413 comes in, unless you are federal Environmental Minister Jonathan Wilkinson. When the minister looks at a proposed highway, he doesn’t see the problems it might solve, just the ones it might cause.

In the case of the Highway 413 project, the minister received a request to get involved from the environmental law group Ecojustice, on behalf of Environmental Defence. A second request came from the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. In all, the feds received 1,670 comments on the planned highway, 90 per cent of them negative.

Facing such awesome pressure, the minister was obviously compelled to act. Wilkinson said that various federal departments had “identified clear areas of federal concern.”

This is where some real political creativity was required. How does a provincial highway become a federal concern? Meet the Western Chorus Frog, surely the only western thing the Trudeau government cares about. The feds have determined that building the highway might have adverse impacts on this federally-listed species at risk, as well as negative effects on the Redheaded Woodpecker and the Rapids Clubtail, which is a small dragonfly. These three species are only protected on federal lands, but what the heck, close enough.

Aboriginal groups expressed concern that the highway could interfere with traditional fishing, hunting and gathering of native medicines, surely core activities in the Milton and Vaughan areas.

Also, there is a critical cultural aspect. Federal land managed by the CBC in Milton would only be about 50 metres from the right of way. It is not clear how this proximity might endanger the CBC or affect its traditional news gathering activity.

Now, the federal government can’t say for sure that any of these things would be an actual problem, only that they might be. All these dire effects could be mitigated but the feds want to get deeply involved, just in case the highway-happy provincial government doesn’t give due weight to these concerns.

Rest assured, the federal assessment process will rely on “science, evidence and Indigenous knowledge,” Wilkinson said, although it’s not altogether clear what will happen if science and evidence reach a different conclusion than Indigenous knowledge.

Not that it will necessarily matter. Monday’s announcement is of the type that delivers full value on the day it is made. Now, Liberal candidates can say their party is standing up for the environment and Indigenous peoples. Short-term political gain will be made whatever happens to the highway in the long run.

Here’s what’s worrying, though. What power does any province have to meet the critical transportation needs of its citizens if the federal government is potentially willing to block such a major project for purely political reasons? The fact that this federal government is prepared to do it while citing “evidence and science” just makes the hypocrisy complete.

Randall Denley is an Ottawa political commentator, author and former Ontario PC candidate. Contact him at randalldenley1@gmail.com


Politicians and bureaucrats, within a few days last March, turned uncertain science on the COVID-19 virus into a global economic shutdown.

For over a year, Canadian governments have responded to the COVID pandemic with the same lockdowns and restrictions, but are they really the best approach? Anthony talks to Dr. Jennifer Grant, a microbiologist and infectious diseases physician at UBC, about why we’ve taken the path we have and whether we can do better. Recorded April 15, 2021.

Subscribe to Full Comment on your favourite podcast app.

#distro


Prime Minister Justin Trudeau listens to a question during a news conference in Ottawa on April 30, 2021. The attempt by the Liberal government to regulate the internet through Bill C-10 needs to be stopped, writes Rex Murphy.

The all-knowing Liberals put up a tactical white flag when the national storm of who-the-hell-do-you-think-you-are swept over them concerning their attempt to regulate the internet.

Debate on a Conservative motion related to Bill C-10 was shut down, though the Liberals said Monday the bill will now be amended so social media posts are not regulated. What is more galling and more threatening than the bill itself however, is the set of mind behind it.

The bill may die or be weakened. The thinking that spawned it will remain.

C-10, an attempt to put a pillow over the free expression of all Canadians, didn’t pop up gopher-like out of the policy burrow of a second-tier Cabinet minister. Quite the contrary. This nefarious nugget was obviously the product of the top-rank philosophes of the Prime Minister’s Office, that sensorium of the whole Liberal party, from which emerges guidance and wisdom to elevate the lives and labours of ordinary Canadians, all set out with the confidence of a closed-minded pope.

And who are the great thinkers who birth such a creature? Why they are a band of intellects unmatched since the days of ancient Greece when Plato founded his academy, and young Socrates and his buddy Aristotle were offering home tutorials at the bargain rate of a drachma a syllogism. Their business card was terse: You learn; we earn. The wokemeisters in the PMO and the Wokemeister-in-Chief, Justin Trudeau, haven’t reached the business card stage, but post-power, you may be sure they will. There are Oprah shows to come, and star invitations to Davos and the IPCC yet to be forwarded in gilded envelopes with computer-generated handwriting.

Attend to this. This retrograde and democracy-denying bill emerged from the heights, out of the thin altitude where the prime minister dwells, and wherein the various wizards and shamans, the praetorian guard of top advisers, hatch their schemes, knit their plots, and advance the Leader’s dearest notions.

Only a PM and a bunch that carry the delusion they are all-wise and ever-right, that they alone and only they, should have rule and command over the thoughts and opinions of a whole nation, could have conceived Bill C-10. Could have put their lawyers to work composing it, then waltzed into Parliament to put it on the Order paper in the first place.

What 21st-century government, aware of speech and thought control in the great and cruel totalitarian governments of the past century, and their cruel brethren of the 21st — Communist China, sinister North Korea, Iran — every tyranny or dictatorship on the globe — would wish to ape and mirror the central characteristic of all such regimes?

All of them ruled and rule today by censorship, monitoring citizens’ thoughts and writing, even private conversation. Speech controls breed a nation of spies.

Bill C-10 may be a kitten-mischief compared with the hideous savageries of full-blown tyrannies. But great oaks out of little acorns grow. Beware the seedlings of thought and speech control. Which is another way of saying do not let governments even toy with the fundamentals of democratic understanding and the absolutes of democratic practice.

Here’s another observation: a government that yearns to censor, to pry and oversee the speech and thought of its citizens, doesn’t trust its citizens. And believes therefore it has a right to herd them into holding opinions that their wiser, smarter and obviously more progressive government tells them they must have. It’s a marvellous instance of political conceit.

Their “reasoning” preceding the drawing up Bill C-10, may easily be imagined. It would go something like this:

“Well, they (meaning the citizenry) elected us (meaning the Liberal party). And we, therefore being superior beings, now have the right to bring them up to our standards of respectable thought and acceptable opinion. We will wipe clean the moral blackboard. And lay out for the voters what the voters are allowed to say, and what they must say. Call it Cuba in a cold climate.

“We will also then apologize for their forebears, for those morally-numb pioneers who built the house of iniquity we know as Canada. We will deplore every past prime minister who was sadly neither as tolerant nor as knowing as we, Deo gratias, are. Going ahead as progressives, let us insist on the right to declare the ideas Canadians should have, and put a block on those they cannot be allowed to have. And let us be grateful that this is the one administration, the first since 1867, with the wit and moral savvy to recognize what was deficient in all who went before us. All of course save one.”

There, in speculative and imagined dialogue, is the voice of the mindset behind C-10. And the mindset is more dangerous than the bill: an assertion that this government knows what’s best and has the right to impose its ideas of what is right on everyone else. This is the new religion of woke.

They may have suspended the charge up the hill to put C-10 into law. But they have not unroped themselves from the attitudes and intentions behind it. The mindset behind C-10 is more consequential than the bill which issued from it. That this band of woke virtuecrats understand themselves as better, more clever and ever how entitled to impose all the imperatives of their virtue commandments on you.

I’ll end with the words of one who was previously vice-chairman of the CRTC,

Peter Menzies

. C-10 “doesn’t just infringe on free expression, it constitutes a full-blown assault upon it and, through it, the foundations of democracy.” Well said, Mr. Menzies.

National Post

The big issues are far from settled. Sign up for the NP Comment newsletter, NP Platformed — the cure for cancel culture.


House prices are soaring faster in Canada than any other developed country  an average of 25 per cent since February of 2019  but most politicians and the industry is oblivious to the downsides

If you are curious about why many

Canadian housing analysts are despairing

over the way politicians are doing virtually nothing to rein in the country’s runaway housing prices, the answer is concealed in the dictums of global capitalism.

Even while some global analysts are noting that house prices are soaring faster in Canada than any other developed country — an average of 25 per cent since February of 2019 — the industry is generally enjoying COVID’s unexpected firing up of the market.

The pandemic’s effect on surging housing prices is being celebrated by many neo-liberal business leaders, bankers, developers and politicians. But while capitalism is a powerful force, often beneficial, this is a time when it is hurting ordinary people.

While home ownership becomes increasingly out of reach of the Canadian middle-class, especially in places such as Vancouver and Toronto, financiers and their allies retain their over-riding rationale for loving it when prices rise. It fits their philosophy.

Residential housing makes up the largest chunk of the world economy. With a global value of about $200 trillion, homes are collectively worth about three times as much as all publicly traded shares. That’s why some say the real estate industry is too big to fail.

Related

Before digging into Canadian specifics, it’s worth examining how the West’s underlying economic tenets are lead by

neo-liberals

, who revere economic growth because it creates jobs, stimulates spending, and boosts profits.

Neo-liberals cherish the concept of freedom. Free thought.

Free speech.

Free markets. Too bad if some are hurt when the chips fall, supposedly freely, where they may.

Neo-liberals preach supply and demand too. When something is scarce, prices go up. If you can’t afford something, you should try harder to get it. Or entrepreneurs should build more of it.

Neo-liberals also stand up for

economic globalization

, the free international movement of goods, services, technology, information, financial capital, and so-called “human capital.” In that way, neo-liberals aren’t fans of borders.

All these capitalist principles are featured and defended every week in

The Economist

, the venerable Britain-based international news magazine with more than 1.6 million subscribers (including me).

The Economist covers the globe with witty writers, sophisticated researchers, and exemplary statisticians. It is explicitly pro-liberty and basically neo-liberal.

Here’s what The Economist had to say in this month’s special feature on the global housing market:

“’

Don't stop me now:' House prices are going ballistic. Policymakers need to keep their heads

,” read its editorial headline.

The Economist argues that politicians shouldn’t be too concerned about what it estimates to be an overall five-per-cent increase in housing prices in the world’s 25 most well-off countries during the pandemic, even if it is the quickest rise in a decade.

They believe the run is fuelled by cheap interest rates and fiscal stimulus brought in to combat the pandemic’s potential downturn — as well as by people who have not lost their jobs, can work out of their homes, and want to move into less-congested dwellings. You could call them the “haves”.

The Economist also believes global banks are strong enough to withstand a sudden drop in prices and a jump in mortgage defaults after housing prices crest, which it suggests will be soon. Those outside the market could get their satisfaction, it adds, when developers build more housing supply. While tenants wait, the news outlet says, they should not be coddled with rent controls, because they restrict the free market.

 The Economist says, out of all well-off countries, danger signs are flashing the most about the price of housing in Canada.

However, even The Economist notes that, out of all well-off countries, danger signs are flashing the most for Canada, as well as for New Zealand and Australia.

One of its charts, titled “Through the Roof,” shows Canadian house prices have grown faster than all the developing countries it ranked — by an astonishing 270 per cent since 2000.

The news magazine even reluctantly noted Canada is one country that could be moving into a dreaded housing bubble, and prices may soon burst. It quotes Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem warning of “excess exuberance.”

Since it serves an international readership, The Economist has an excuse for not explaining more about what is happening to Canadian housing, especially since U.S. housing is up by “only” 11 per cent since February of last year.

It can’t be blamed for not emphasizing that in the same period prices have catapulted

25 per cent in Ontario, 17 per cent in B.C.

, and 27 per cent in Powell River. Even though they have risen “just” seven per cent in Greater Vancouver, the average price of a dwelling here is now more than $1 million.

The Economist’s neo-liberal values also keep it sanguine about how housing prices rise

because of growth in population through immigration

, while recognizing “even among high-immigration countries, Canada stands out.” And since it is a cheerleader for globalization, it just overlooks how

hidden foreign ownership

plays an over-sized role in Canada’s big cities.

The Economist’s financial writers, in addition, are also not concerned that household debt might be growing out of control as many buyers purchase properties they can’t afford, either for themselves or as speculators. But its editors might have missed that household debt in Canada is now twice the average of all G7 countries.

Perhaps The Economist can be let off the hook for its oversights. But that doesn’t mean

politicians in Ottawa and elsewhere in Canada,

most of whom are neo-liberals without realizing it, can remain oblivious to how this philosophy is dismantling communities and the dreams of the have nots, especially young people.

dtodd@postmedia.com


Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjan.

Fears of a Chinese attack on Taiwan are growing; Russian troops have massed on Ukraine’s border; both countries are “pre-positioning” for any future conflict by launching cyber-attacks, according to the most recent official risk assessment. Yet, as these threats evolve, Canada’s military leadership is said to be petrified, in every sense of the word, by the sexual misconduct crisis that has engulfed the armed forces.

“It’s turmoil. Every senior uniform person has got their head down and is just hoping for the best,” said one person with intimate knowledge of the Department of National Defence. “It’s as bad, if not worse, than the Somali affair (the 1993 military scandal) and the decade of darkness that derailed the Defence department after it. It’s a big worry from a national security point of view.”

The navel-gazing at an operational level is matched by a malfunctioning political response.

The Conservative Party introduced a motion on Monday calling for Justin Trudeau to fire his chief of staff, Katie Telford, for failing to inform the prime minister about the allegations of serious sexual misconduct levelled at former Chief of the Defence Staff Jonathan Vance. They accuse her of orchestrating a cover-up, even though there is no evidence that she knew for sure the allegations against Vance were sexual in nature.

However, we do have compelling evidence that Harjit Sajjan, the defence minister, was told by the former military ombusdman, Gary Walbourne, that he had received a complaint of inappropriate sexual behaviour against the chief of the defence staff. “Those were my exact words,” he told CTV Question Period’s Evan Solomon on Sunday.

Sajjan says Walbourne didn’t reveal the substance of the allegations against Vance in their meeting and that, in any case, the nature of the complaint “does not matter” compared to the action that was taken subsequently (a curious response, since the allegation landed with the Privy Council Office, where it withered and died. Walbourne was contacted by PCO but didn’t feel comfortable providing details because he didn’t have the consent of the complainant).

It is inexplicable that the Opposition is focusing its fire on Telford when it is clear that this is Sajjan’s mess.

The minister’s appointment was always an accident waiting to happen, given Vance was his superior when the two men were in Afghanistan. Vance was commander of the Canadian Task Force in Kandahar when Sajjan completed his second and third tours in Afghanistan as an intelligence officer in the Canadian reserves. As one veteran put it when considering Sajjan’s subsequent appointment as Vance’s political master: “That’s awkward. Odd in the extreme. It tied them together.”

This affair seems a straightforward case of the minister doing his old boss a solid favour, by turning a blind eye when he should have acted. Vance was in charge of rooting out the sexualized culture in the military that had resulted in former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps recommending in her 2015 report that the Forces create an independent centre for accountability for sexual assault and harassment. Not only did Vance resist implementing that central recommendation, he was subsequently accused of personal impropriety.

Sajjan’s partiality seems to be an open and shut case of a minister failing in his duty of accountability.

The minister is a brave man – he was judged by Brigadier-General David Fraser to be the “best single intelligence asset” he had in the Afghan theatre. He is highly regarded among his colleagues for being extremely dedicated and loyal, especially to the prime minister.

That loyalty was tested in 2017, when Sajjan erroneously claimed to be “the architect” of Operation Medusa, the land battle between the Taliban and NATO in 2006. He was forced to concede he made a mistake and was obliged to apologize 11 times in one question period, which must be some kind of record.

Trudeau reciprocated his loyalty then.

But in politics, devotion cannot be blind and it is clear that the buck should stop with the minister. He had the power to investigate any matter connected to “discipline, administration or functions of the Canadian Forces” under the National Defence Act, yet he failed to do so.

We will probably never know how much weight, if any, Vance’s connivance in the removal of vice-chief of the defence staff, Mark Norman, carried in Sajjan’s decision to hear no evil and see no evil, far less to speak of evil.

He is left to preside over a department where Vance remains under investigation; his successor, Admiral Art McDonald, has also stepped aside “voluntarily” over unspecified allegations; while the acting CDS Lt. Gen Wayne Eyre and deputy minister of defence, Jody Thomas, are busy creating a new internal organization to handle sexual harassment complaints. Meanwhile, the government has attempted to deflect criticism by appointing another former Supreme Court justice, Louise Arbour, to carry out a second review that will doubtless reach the same conclusions as Marie Deschamps six years ago.

Sajjan cut a desperate figure in question period, trying to pin responsibility for Vance’s appointment on former prime minister Stephen Harper. The minister asked how the Conservatives could have appointed him as Canada’s most senior soldier when he was subject to a probe by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (it did not yield enough evidence to lay charges and Vance assured Harper that there was nothing further he needed to know). None of that absolves him for failing to act when the allegations were raised by Walbourne.

The Opposition should resist the temptation to score cheap political points by going after Telford and, instead focus on the national interest – the removal of Sajjan and the appointment of a minister with the moral authority to cauterize this wound. The appointment of a female chief of the defence staff and the immediate implementation of the 10 recommendations of the Deschamps report would go a long way toward effecting a culture change. This is not tokenism. There are senior contenders who merit serious consideration for the post – Lt. Gen Frances Allen, a former director general of cyberspace, was appointed vice-chief last month and Lt. Gen Jennie Carignan has just been named chief of professional conduct and culture.

Dragging the culture of Canadian Forces into the third decade of the 21st century is an imperative. But Canada’s military cannot afford to be looking inward, as the world gets more dangerous by the day.

• Email: jivison@postmedia.com | Twitter:


If there's one thing which annoys Canadian conservatives, (and lots of things do) it's how the media seems to treat Prime Minister Justin Trudeau with kid gloves.

How many times have you heard a disgruntled conservative say something along the lines of "Imagine the media reaction if Harper had done that"?

And actually, I think, there's something to this complaint.

Yes, journalists might occasionally raise an eyebrow or two at Trudeau's various misdeeds and scandals SNC-Lavalin, WE Charity, blackface, etc. — but they rarely exhibit the kind of over-the-top outrage which they exhibited towards Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper whenever he got embroiled in some sort of alleged wrongdoing.

Remember the Mike Duffy scandal?  At the time, the media treated it as if it was the greatest governmental offense since the Watergate hotel got burglarized.

By contrast, the media tends to downplay or eventually forgive Trudeau's misbehaviour.

So, what's going on here?  Why can't the media stay mad at Trudeau?

Some might argue the media is simply infested with Liberal partisans, but I'd argue it's actually something more, something deeper.

In my view, the media tends to be more reverent and deferential towards Trudeau because they don't view him as a regular politician; rather they see him as a kind of secular progressive saint.

OK, I know that sounds crazy, but hear me out.

My point is, whether wittingly or not, Trudeau has basically come to personify the political orthodoxy of the world's cultural, corporate and media elites, making him a living symbol of trendiness.

Name any trendy cause or issue that's celebrated and embraced by the Establishment, and you'll find Trudeau to be its most ardent and vocal champion: feminism, wokism, globalism, environmentalism, Black Lives Matterism and whatever other cause is currently being promoted in Hollywood or on University campuses.

He rarely goes off script.

So, in a sense Trudeau transcends ordinary politics; his values, his views, his morals all make him the embodiment of what the ruling classes consider a "perfect leader", he's what the Establishment hopes will be the future.

As a result, the media doesn't judge Trudeau in the same way it evaluates ordinary mortal politicians.

In other words, they don't rate the prime minister on mundane stuff like job statistics or on the size of the deficit or on the efficacy of his COVID vaccine procurements or how many scandals have erupted on his watch.

Trudeau is evaluated not on what he does or on what he accomplishes but on what he represents.  (The same thing could be said, by the way, about American President and perennial media darling, Barack Obama.)

As long as Trudeau continues to represent a progressive ethos, the media will always shy away from being too critical of him, because otherwise they might come across as being on the "wrong side of history."

In short, journalists would rather give Trudeau a pass than look unfashionable.

Also, important to note, is that the media's sanctification of Trudeau's moral agenda directly impacts Canada's Opposition parties, as it makes them less likely to openly oppose Canada's Liberal messiah.

Consider, for instance, how during federal elections the NDP seems to pull its punches when dealing with Trudeau, preferring instead to hammer away at the Conservatives.

It doesn't matter that this approach is strategically unsound since New Democrats and Liberals are actually fighting over the same voter turf, all that matters is the NDP doesn't want to be tarnished in the media as "helping the Conservatives."

Heck, even the Conservatives seem reluctant to get too aggressive when going after Trudeau.

Indeed, under the leadership of Erin O'Toole, the Conservative Party has seemingly altered its principles, so it can prove to the media that it can be just as hip and progressive as Trudeau when it comes to issues like fighting climate change.

Unfortunately, for both the NDP and Conservatives, I sincerely doubt they'll ever woo the media away from Saint Justin.

Photo Credit: Celebcandle.com

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Guilbeault speaks with the media in the foyer of the House of Commons on Feb. 3, 2020 (CP/Adrian Wyld)

Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law

Government legislation tends to attract a wide range of responses. Some bills grab the spotlight and become sources of heated debate for months, while others fly under the radar screen with few Canadians taking notice. Until recently, Bill C-10, the government's Broadcasting Act reform bill, fell into the latter category. Introduced last November as part of Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault's mission to "make web giants pay", the bill was steadily and stealthily working its way through the Parliamentary process with only a few days of "clause by clause" review left before a final reading and vote in the House of Commons.

Yet last week, the bill was thrust onto the front page of newspapers across the country with the public seizing on an unexpected change that opened the door to government regulation of the Internet content posted by millions of Canadians. The change involved the removal of a clause that exempted from regulation user generated content on social media services such as TikTok, Youtube, and Facebook. The government had maintained that it had no interest in regulating user generated content, but the policy reversal meant that millions of video, podcasts, and the other audiovisual content on those popular services would be treated as "programs" under Canadian law and subject to some of the same rules as those previously reserved for programming on conventional broadcast services.

The backlash undoubtedly caught the government by surprise, particularly since the policy change garnered little discussion at committee. As the public concern mounted, Guilbeault retreated to his standard talking points about how the opposition parties were unwilling to stand up to the web giants. The arguments fell flat, however, since the new rules were directly targeting users' content, not the Internet companies. Further, the public reaction pointed to a government increasingly out-of-step with the public, which may support increased Internet regulation, but not at any cost.

READ MORE: Attention web giants: ‘Recess is over’

The fact that the Liberal government was open to regulating millions of TikTok and Youtube videos was a reminder of how unrecognizable its digital policy approach has become in recent years. The party was elected in 2015 on a platform that promised to entrench net neutrality, prioritize innovation, focus on privacy rather than surveillance, and support freedom of expression. Most of those positions now seemingly reflect a by-gone era.

It is still anxious to demonstrate its tech bona fides, but now progressive policies appear to mean confronting the "web giants" with threats of regulation, penalties and taxes. Cultural sovereignty has replaced innovation as the guiding principle, which has meant the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry (ISI) has been replaced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage as the digital policy lead.

And so for the past 18 months, Guilbeault has been handed Canada's digital policy keys. In Guilbeault's eyes, seemingly everything is under threat—Canadian film and television production, a safe space for speech, the future of news—and the big technology companies are invariably to blame.

Few would dispute that an updated tech regulatory model is needed, but evidence-based policies are in short supply in the current approach. For example, the use or misuse of data lies at the heart of the power of big tech, yet privacy reforms have been curiously absent as a government priority. Indeed, Bill C-11 was promoted by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau last November as legislation to give Canadians greater control over their personal information, but under newly named ISI Minister François-Philippe Champagne, it has scarcely been heard from again.

The government has similarly done little to address concerns about abuse of competition, the risks associated with algorithmic decision-making, or the development of a modernized framework for artificial intelligence. Years of emphasis on the benefits of multi-lateral policy development and consensus-building were unceremoniously discarded in the recent budget in order to commit to a digital services tax in 2022 that could spark billions in tariff retaliation. In fact, the U.S.-Canada-Mexico Trade Agreement that the government trumpeted as a major success story restricts Canada's ability to even establish a new liability regime for technology companies.

With many of the most important policy options either foreclosed or ignored, the government has instead placed its largest bet on Guilbeault's promise to take on the web giants through a three-headed policy approach: broadcast regulation, online harms rules, and mandated payments for linking to news articles. While Guilbeault argues that the common thread between these initiatives is countering the big tech threat, scratch below the surface and the real commonality—as well as the bigger threat—is the implications for free speech in Canada.

The free speech risks associated with Bill C-10 have now become common knowledge. Despite a warning from Heritage officials that removing the safeguards on user generated content for Internet companies would mean that "all programming on those services would be subject to the Act", the government went ahead and voted to give the CRTC extensive regulatory powers over the everyday communications practices of an entire generation.

But the problems with Bill C-10 don't end there. Guilbeault has consistently made questionable claims about the content of the bill and how it compares to other jurisdictions. He told the House of Commons that the bill contains economic thresholds (it doesn't), that it excludes news (it doesn't), that it won't affect Canadian ownership requirements (it will), that the entire process will be completed by the end of the year (it won't), and that it is similar to the approach implemented in Europe (it isn't). These are not inconsequential misstatements.

Bill C-10 may have stirred up public opposition, but it isn't likely to even be Guilbeault's most controversial bill. That award goes to the much-delayed online harms legislation, which Guilbeault promised to introduce months ago. He initially talked about his desire to combat all manner of online harms, ranging from hate speech to "hurtful" comments, but the scope of the bill has been gradually dialled down, with the emphasis now on illegal speech such as child pornography and terrorism content.

Since that content is already illegal, new legislation may be of limited utility. However, Guilbeault has promised that his legislation will target content and Internet sites and services anywhere in the world provided it is accessible to Canadians. The obvious implications—much discussed in Internet circles in Ottawa—is that the government plans to introduce mandated content blocking to keep such content out of Canada as a so-called "last resort". This suggests requiring Internet providers to install blocking capabilities, creating new regulators and content adjudicators to issue blocking orders, dispensing with net neutrality, and building a Canadian Internet firewall. If Canadians are unhappy with regulating user generated content, wait until they see the higher Internet bills that result from funding new content blocking equipment.

If that wasn't enough, his forthcoming bill is also expected to mandate content removals within 24 hours with significant penalties for failure to do so. The approach trades due process for speed, effectively reducing independent oversight and incentivizing content removal. Just about everyone thinks this is a bad idea, but Guilbeault insists that "it is in the mandate letter." In other words, expert opinion and the experience elsewhere doesn't matter. Instead, a mandate letter trumps all. If this occurred under Stephen Harper's watch, the criticism would be unrelenting.

In fact, one of the reasons that the government finds itself committed to a dubious policy is that it did not conduct a public consultation. Guilbeault has admitted the public has not been consulted, which he has tried to justify by claiming that it can participate in the committee review or in the development of implementation guidelines once the bill becomes law. This alone should be disqualifying as no government should introduce censorship legislation that mandates website blocking, eradicates net neutrality, harms freedom of expression, and dispenses with due process without having ever consulted Canadians on the issue.

Further down the road lies part three of Guilbeault's plan, namely making social media companies pay for news. Guilbeault has called linking to news articles without payment "immoral" even as he has bought advertising on Facebook and regularly links to news articles on his own feed. There is room for debate on whether payments are appropriate—media companies post articles themselves on the sites and benefit from referrals, while Facebook only posts brief excerpts rather than entire articles—but there is no doubt that the government intervention has stalled the possibility of negotiated solutions. Moreover, Guilbeault's close alignment with the media sector has made some reluctant to criticize the minister, providing a paradigm example of the free speech risks that can come from government intervention in an independent press.

When looking at the shift in the government's approach, I recently lamented that it has become the most anti-Internet government in Canadian history. That may have once been a badge of honour for Guilbeault, but after the Bill C-10 backlash and the public re-assertion of the importance of free speech online, there may be a significant political cost to being at odds with the views of millions of Canadian Internet users.

The post The real consequences of Steven Guilbeault's battle with the web giants appeared first on Macleans.ca.


People rally outside the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C., February 19, 2021.

It’s been a tough few months for some of the world’s top apparel brands.

After repudiating cotton allegedly produced with forced labour from China’s Uyghur minority, firms like Nike, Adidas and H&M have faced a

sharp backlash

in the country, imperilling their access to the lucrative market.

Canada’s leading clothing brands, on the other hand, are not exactly sticking their necks out on the issue.

Some told the National Post recently they do not source or have taken steps to avoid sourcing cotton made with forced labour in the Xinjiang region, but only one has joined an

international association

of manufacturers addressing the issue. None have signed a

human-rights consortium

‘s pledge to take verifiable action in the area.

Companies surveyed by the Post offered broad statements of principle on the topic, but few details about their supply chains in China, or criticism of the country for allegedly coercing Uyghurs into textile work.

One Canadian firm with a growing presence in the China market, Vancouver-based Lululemon Athletica, did not respond to repeated queries about where ingredients for its products originate.

Mehmet Tohti, a Uyghur-Canadian activist, said he takes Canadian manufacturers’ assurances about the issue with a grain of salt.

“Many companies are deeply afraid to talk openly,” said Tohti, citing the recent blacklisting of Western brands in China. “Secondly, there is a huge benefit from forced labour for a company, because you can get the products cheap.”

No Canadian manufacturer has signed a

“call to action”

developed by the Coalition to End Forced Labor in the Uyghur Region, noted Lori Waller of Above Ground, an Ottawa-based labour-rights group. The manifesto requires brands to eschew any products made in Xinjiang or other workplaces that exploit Uyghur workers.

“It’s really not enough to simply ask suppliers to sign statements that none of their products contain this,” she said. “You need to do some work to verify.”

Meanwhile, little action appears to have flowed from a new

set of federal rules

designed to counter the use of forced labour in Xinjiang and elsewhere, federal officials indicate.

Human rights groups, the United Nations, journalists and others have documented a broad campaign of repression against the Muslim Uyghurs, including a network of re-education camps believed to hold a million or more people.

Amid reports of forced sterilization and rape in the camps, Canada’s House of Commons, the U.S. and other nations have labeled the actions genocide.

There is also growing evidence that Uyghurs are being compelled to work for meagre pay in factories and in the Xinjiang fields and mills that produce 20 per cent of the world’s cotton. One in five clothing items sold in the West includes such textile, the Uyghur forced-labour coalition estimates.

The Post asked six of Canada’s best-known clothing brands if they had investigated whether their supply chains involved forced labour in China, whether they had concerns on that front and if they were removing any suppliers involved in such work in Xinjiang.

Most cited codes of conduct and other policies that insist on fair labour practices from their suppliers. Few answered the questions directly; one not at all.

The media-relations office at Lululemon, which already has 50 yoga-wear stores in China and has said it wants to expand there, failed to respond to five emailed requests for comment.

Others were somewhat more forthcoming.

Canada Goose, whose CEO recently said China is an “increasingly crucial” market for the parka manufacturer, requires all of its suppliers, “no matter where they are in the world,” to sign a supplier code of conduct barring use of forced labour, the firm said through an outside public-relations firm. The statement did not mention Xinjiang.

Roots, which has 26 “partner-operated” stores in China and two in Hong Kong, said it does not source “any product directly from the Xinjiang” and requires direct suppliers to certify an absence of forced labour, said spokeswoman Kristen Davies

. Meanwhile, it continues to “actively review” its supply chain.

Joe Fresh, the cheap-chic fashion line owned by Loblaws, “reached out to vendors for a commitment that they will not use cotton from the Xinjiang region,” said Loblaws spokeswoman Catherine Thomas.

Aritzia “does not manufacture in China’s Xinjiang region and is in full compliance with all trade regulations,” said vice president Renee Smith-Valade. It is also the only one of the companies that belongs to the

Better Cotton Initiative

, a non-profit that has spoken out about forced-labour in Xinjiang.

Hudson’s Bay, which has several private-label clothing brands, “does not use factories in, or source cotton from, Xinjiang,” stated spokeswoman Tiffany Bourre.

But Penelope Kyritsis of the Washington, D.C.-based

Workers Rights Consortium

said statements like those of the Canadian companies are little more than rhetoric until they sign on to something like the call to action and vigorously verify their commitments.

“So I couldn’t tell you with satisfaction that their supply chains are free of Uyghur forced labour,” she said.

The new federal regulations implemented last July bar imports of products made wholly or in part from forced labour. They require companies that do business in Xinjiang and get help from the government’s Trade Commissioner to sign a Xinjiang integrity declaration. And they ban exports that could be used in human rights abuses, like Beijing’s omnipresent surveillance of Uyghurs.

Asked repeatedly if any imports have so far been banned, officials from Global Affairs Canada (GAC) and Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) said only that the government is working on the issue.

CBSA is responsible for intervening based on research conducted by Employment and Social Development Canada, but it’s not an easy task, said agency spokeswoman Jacquie Callin.

“There is no visual clue for a Border Services officer to understand the labour standards by which a particular import was produced,” she said. “It takes research, coordination and diligence amongst all stakeholders to establish reliable and actionable sources of information.”

But Waller said there is much that Canada could do now, primarily by making use of work already done by the United States: It has

barred numerous Chinese products

from entering the U.S. because of suspected involvement of forced labour, including a blanket ban on cotton and tomatoes from Xinjiang.

“From everything that we’re hearing so far, it’s still very much in the stage of figuring out how to enforce it,” said Waller about Ottawa’s efforts.

Unless Canada quickly follows the American lead, it risks being used as a “backdoor” by China for getting banned forced-labour products into the U.S., warned Tohti.

One Canadian company has signed the Xinjiang integrity declaration and others are “conducting their due diligence” before signing, though none can be identified for commercial-confidentiality reasons, said a GAC spokesman.

As for rejecting export permits for products that could be used in rights abuses, department officials said only that aggregate information on various types of permit denials is contained in the annual report on Export of Military Goods to be tabled May 31.

But that document offers almost no information on why permits are denied, and none on the export product itself.


Alberta Premier Jason Kenney leaves the Alberta Legislature on April 8, 2021.

There are many things a government with a severe crisis on its hands probably shouldn’t do. Leaving town is one of them.

In a Sunday move with no compelling logic behind it, the UCP

unilaterally suspended two weeks of the legislature session

, arguing that there’s a health risk.

“Having MLAs return to Edmonton from all over the province after constituency week is no longer prudent,” government house leader Jason Nixon said in a statement.

“Suspending proceedings is the right thing to do as case counts increase.”

NDP Leader Rachel Notley said the government has “gone into hiding.” She branded Premier Jason Kenney personally as “a coward.”

Perhaps the shutdown is meant to signal more severe COVID-19 measures across society, coming soon.

But only last week Kenney’s secret cabinet committee voted down a recommendation to close restaurants and patios. Would they overturn that just a few days later?

Notley also said Kenney isn’t crazy about being in the same room with his MLAs.

There may be something to that. These days, the premier seems to face two opposition legislature parties — the NDP and half of his own caucus.

But the shutdown may be pretty much what it seems, a symbolic gesture to show Albertans the seriousness of the COVID crisis.

The province has now moved into top spot in all of Canada and the U.S. for infections per 100,000 people.

Sunday's count of new cases — 1,731 —

was down from

more than 2,400 the day before

. But weekends are almost always lower because testing slows.

We could know by the end of this week whether COVID in Alberta is peaking or still surging. The politicians and health officials are surprised by its current power — and very nervous.

Kenney went on a Twitter tear Sunday against the people who staged an anti-masking rodeo event in Bowden.

“Not only are gatherings like this a threat to public health, they are a slap in the face to everyone who is observing the rules to keep themselves and their fellow Albertans safe,” he said.

The reason for the high COVID-19 numbers, the premier added, “is precisely because too many Albertans are ignoring the rules we currently have in place.”

Kenney was instantly reminded that patios are still open, thousand are jamming into malls, and people who openly flout the rules are scolded but seldom punished.

Whatever the reasons for the legislature shutdown, public health in the building itself can’t be a major one.

Nixon said there are no cases among legislature staff or MLAs. Chamber meetings are held with masking rules and plenty of space between MLAs.

Many meetings were already being done remotely without cancelling sittings in the legislature itself. Cabinet and committee meetings will be entirely virtual as well.

Normally, a decision like this would require an adjournment motion and a vote in the house. But the UCP earlier brought in changes to standing orders to allow a unilateral, vote-free shutdown.

 The Alberta Legislature in Edmonton on Nov. 5, 2020.

Responding to the shutdown, the Opposition laid on rhetoric that’s extreme even for these divisive times.

Notley said “the NDP adamantly opposes Jason Kenney’s cowardly decision to flee the legislature while critical public health measures such as paid sick leave have not been enacted, and the government’s larger response flounders.

“The premier has now run and gone into hiding. He’s a coward.

“He’s running from his own caucus. This is a government in complete meltdown — you can’t have them in the same room together.”

Now, they won’t even be in the same legislature together.

But will Albertans in general be upset because the daily shouting match ceases for two weeks?

Maybe not. Solutions are what matter today.

The UCP is scrambling to find some, with striking lack of success.

Don Braid's column appears regularly in the Herald

dbraid@postmedia.com

Twitter:

@DonBraid

Facebook:

Don Braid Politics