Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault announced last week the Trudeau government wants to enforce Canadian content regulations for platforms like Spotify and Netflix, and is looking at Australian-style regulations requiring platforms like Facebook to compensate news outlets whenever a news outlet’s link is shared there.
Both of these proposed regulations are silly.
For Canadian content, the Trudeau government seems hell-bent on applying outdated regulations to innovative tech platforms like Netflix and Spotify. These platforms are successful because they provide consumers what they want in terms of video and audio content. It seems quite paternalistic for the government to interfere, and require that these companies produce Canadian content, regardless of whether there is consumer demand for it.
This is problematic because CanCon regulations forcibly tell consumers that they want, or are required, to consume Canadian content, and then force companies to create content based on that false assumption. I, of course, want Canadian artists and content creators to do well and thrive, but I also know that the Canadian media/entertainment space is mature enough to stand on its own two feet. It would be better for Canadian success to be a result of meeting consumer demands and not the result of a government decree.
Supporters of CanCon regulations say these regulations are required to “protect Canadian culture and the people who produce it”, but who exactly are we protecting Canadian culture and its producers from? If Canadian content isn’t successful in the domestic market, that is because it isn’t appealing to the demands and wants of Canadian consumers. It is backwards for the government to meddle to try and shield Canadian creators from the wants of domestic consumers.
If legislators want to actually listen to the demands of Canadian consumers, they’d know that Canadians like Netflix and Spotify just how they are, and that intervention isn’t needed. Plus, we already have a taxpayer funded outlet to protect Canadian culture and its creators: the CBC. Is the $1 billion the CBC receives not enough to provide a home for Canadian content? Do we really need to be forced to pay for Canadian content as both taxpayers, and in the private sector? I don’t think so.
Beyond content, the heritage minister’s comments regarding social media platforms having to pay news outlets to share web links are just as misguided. In an interview with Radio-Canada, Minister Guilbeault suggested that Canada is looking at following Australia’s lead, and creating regulations that would force a platform like Facebook to pay news outlets every time one of their web links is shared. That means that when you or I share an article, let’s say from the Toronto Star, Minister Guilbeault thinks that Facebook should be forced to compensate the Star, despite the fact that Facebook is acting as a free lead generator. This genuinely leaves me scratching my head as to why this is a good idea. Media outlets make their money in two ways: advertising dollars linked to views or through subscriptions. Being able to freely share a news story on social media drives traffic to these news outlets, which is exactly how they make their advertising money and solicit subscribers.
It is bizarre for the federal government to mandate that Facebook compensate newspapers for driving web traffic to their website and sending them free leads. This desire to have the government further protect the media industry becomes even more strange when you consider that the industry is already subsidized by taxpayers at the tune of $600 million dollars.
And if Australia has shown us anything, following through with this type of legislation would be disastrous for consumers, for newspapers, and for society at large. In response to the regulations down under, Facebook stopped allowing for users to share news links on their platform.
This hurts consumers because it means that news won’t be available on social media at all, where most of us consume it. This is a net negative for society because less news availability ultimately means poor media literacy, which certainly isn’t good. And lastly, this is terrible for newspapers because it eliminates their ability to reach online audiences via social media, which reduces traffic and their ability to generate subscribers.
Rather than enforce outdated regulations on Netflix and Spotify, legislators should listen to Canadian consumers. In regards to the offer of additional regulations, with all due respect Minister Guilbeault, thanks, but no thanks.
David Clement is a columnist for the Western Standard and the North American Affairs Manager with the Consumer Choice Center
WAGNER: Kenney needs to follow Moe’s lead in putting someone in charge of provincial autonomy file
Michael Wagner writes that Scott Moe’s appointment of an MLA responsible for the autonomy file should be replicated in Alberta.
Shortly after an election that saw surprisingly strong support for the new independence-minded Buffalo Party, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe assigned his new legislative secretary the task of exploring how his province could “exercise and strengthen” its powers within Canada. This legislative secretary, MLA Lyle Stewart, explained that “there is more work to do in standing up for Saskatchewan’s interests within Canada.”
Moe has already joined other premiers in launching a legal challenge to Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax, replaced the federally appointment firearms officer with a provincially appointed one, establishing trade offices in Asia, and is discussing provincial control over immigration. The legislative secretary can focus on how to build on these initiatives. Having an official charged with this responsibility sends a message that Saskatchewan is fed up with the status quo and is serious about considering new measures.
Appointing an MLA responsible for exploring provincial autonomy is a good idea and one that should be emulated by Alberta Premier Jason Kenney. Last year he appointed the Fair Deal Panel to gather input from Albertans about their views on how to improve the province’s position within Canada. The panel conducted its work and released its report, which many – including one MLA on the panel – saw as being weak. Appointing an MLA dedicated to working on this file would demonstrate that the premier is serious about addressing the ongoing challenges Alberta faces from the federal government and the prime minister’s hostility to the energy industry.
If he really wanted to up his game, Premier Kenney could borrow ideas from a proposal advanced by retired University of Alberta political scientist Leon Craig. In an August 2019 article for C2C Journal entitled, “Alberta Needs A Minister Of Independence Preparation,” Professor Craig recommended creating an entire government department with the responsibility to develop a plan for an independent Alberta. As he explains, “Since declaring independence would involve major changes in how governmental business is done, it is not a step to be taken without having thoroughly thought through the practical difficulties and prepared accordingly. Thus we need a cabinet minister charged with that responsibility – the Minister of Independence Preparation (MIP).”
Needless to say, that would be a bridge too far for Premier Kenney. However, establishing a ministry, or an agency within an existing ministry, to plan and implement the best recommendations of the Fair Deal Panel (as a starting point) would be a meaningful and effective way to demonstrate that Alberta will no longer passively accept the status quo.
This new ministry could be charged with developing blueprints for establishing an Alberta provincial police force, enacting provincial control of tax collection, and creating an Alberta Pension Plan.
If Trudeau continues to block opportunities for Alberta to develop and export its petroleum products, the ministry could expand its work into developing proposals for an independence referendum and establishing contacts with foreign governments that may be sympathetic to Alberta’s plight. Public information sessions about the process outlined in the Clarity Act could be initiated to create widespread discussions among Albertans about options for the province’s future.
Of course, whether Premier Kenney was to appoint a legislative secretary for this purpose – or create a ministry – the obvious person for the job would be Cypress-Medicine Hat MLA Drew Barnes. Barnes has distinguished himself as an outspoken advocate for Alberta, more so than any other sitting MLA.
Unfortunately, it’s unlikely that any such position or ministry will be established in the near future. Were he to do so, Premier Kenney could show he is serious about changing Alberta’s relationship with the rest of Canada, fire up his increasingly disenchanted base, put meaningful pressure on Justin Trudeau, and drive the NDP into apoplectic summersaults. That sounds like a winning combination to me.
Michael Wagner is a columnist for the Western Standard. He has a PhD in political science from the University of Alberta. His books include ‘Alberta: Separatism Then and Now’ and ‘True Right: Genuine Conservative Leaders of Western Canada.’
LETTER: Trump is undermining democracy
A reader says that Trump intentionally lies to destabilize and undermine the people’s trust in their public institutions.
Trump has a lot of media savvy, and his strategy is to continue to engage and manipulate the media, to make sure the cameras are on him – not Biden.
He does that by constantly baiting the media with all kinds of lies and claims a hungry media readily responds to like he was throwing them small chunks of political ‘raw meat’ because he knows the media will respond by promoting, speculating, and arguing credibilities and probabilities for days, sometimes weeks, depending on how ‘juicy’ it is, and he will continue to scream – ‘I never lost’ – till he is a shadow on the horizon:
He will forever insist he won the election while insisting Biden is stealing it.
He will continue to scream fraud and fake till he dies.
He will continue to feed the media and the public misinformation to destabilize and undermine the people’s trust in their public institutions, including the democratic process.
He is a very sick boy.
CATHCART: Know your rights on mandatory facemasks
“In short, the local municipal governments are on shaky legal ground in imposing mask by-laws. Businesses in mandatory-mask municipalities are only enforcing what they are told to do, and businesses that voluntarily impose mask requirements have a right to do so as private, non-government entities, with several “human rights” caveats.”
Anyone who has left their house in recent months knows that the rules on mandatory face masks are hardly uniform. In some places there are no masking requirements at all. Some stores insist on masks, some do not.
Only in situations where the requirement to wear a mask is forced on an individual by a government body, or by a government order or law, does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply. That is, if a business is not required by government to enforce the wearing of facemasks – but does require them of their own accord – the Charter does not apply.
A store doesn’t have to follow the Charter, they aren’t the government. However, they are required by law to comply with the applicable provincial human rights code. Businesses and private companies are legally allowed to require that employees, customers, clients, or visitors to their premises wear face masks. Stores and companies have a general right to refuse service to anyone, provided that they still comply with human rights legislation. Businesses cannot discriminate based on grounds like race, religion, creed, physical disability, mental disability, etc.
If someone is unable to wear a mask because of a mental disability, such as claustrophobia, a business would be engaging in illegal discrimination if it denied services to such a person for not wearing a mask, and did not provide some form of reasonable accommodation.
A requirement to wear a mask as a condition of employment, or as a condition to receive a service, may be discriminatory toward people with exemptions. If a business denies such a person service or employment because they refuse to wear a mask, that denial may form a legally valid basis for a human rights complaint.
Some people refuse to wear a mask for religious reasons. Other people cannot or should not wear masks because of various medical and health conditions. Many of the municipal bylaws are worded broadly enough to exempt those with “health concerns” or ” health conditions”, including mental conditions like claustrophobia. Laws must not disproportionately punish the vulnerable who are unable to wear masks.
There are jurisdictional questions regarding mask bylaws, as well. Cities have no inherent jurisdiction to enact laws because they are entirely creatures of statute: their power is delegated from provinces through legislation. If a province has chosen not to enact mandatory masking requirements, then what empowers a municipality to do so? The answer may well be “nothing”.
Despite the poor drafting of mask bylaws and jurisdictional and constitutional issues, a legal challenge to them is not guaranteed to be successful. Hard data now demonstrates that the virus has a survivability rate of 99.98 per cent, but the mask requirements remain.
If a store or service accommodates non-mask wearers with curbside pickup, online shopping, or some other alternative, a provincial human rights commission would likely rule that sufficient accommodation has been provided.
An individual is typically not required to disclose his medical condition to any store, service, restaurant or facility, provide proof of exemption, or discuss religious beliefs. Individuals are not required to prove that they have a mask exemption.
If asked to wear a mask, you can reply, “I can’t wear a mask.” A store or company can ask if you have a doctor’s note due to ignorance of the law, however, you are under no legal obligation to provide a note, discuss your medical condition, or get into detail about why you cannot or will not wear a mask. The exception to this is if you file a Human Rights Complaint. You are likely going to be required to provide proof as part of the complaint process.
The mask exemption cards that are circulating on the internet are merely symbolic. While some stores may accept them because they look like an “official” piece of paper, they have no legal weight.
Legally, the question of mask bylaws remains circumstance-dependent and uncertain. Scientists and doctors disagree on the benefits of masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Ultimately, the constitutionality of requirements to compel non-medical masks can only be determined by a court after it considers all factors, including the fundamental rights of liberty, security of person, freedom to make ones’ own medical decisions, and the right to control ones’ own body and bodily integrity.
Some insist that masks are like seatbelts, and since the government requires seat belt use as a precaution, it also ought to require mask use. The comparison between face-masks and seatbelts is a poor one, however. Seatbelts are extensively standardized, factory- and crash-tested and customized for each age group, weight, model of car, etc. Non-medical masks and fabric masks are not tested, standardized or even customized, and there are zero studies on the safety of masks for children, or long-term wearing of masks for eight hours or more a day, seven days a week. Further, seatbelts do not interfere with an individual’s breathing, or cover one’s face, which is a fundamental and personal part of existence, and also involves the most visible part of human identity.
No one can physically force you to cover your face in a free country, however you may have to shop in stores that welcome all customers regardless of disability or condition. Stores may choose to enforce the mask bylaw on their premises, but customers will likewise choose not to spend their hard-earned money in that store. In this economy, can stores afford to turn away customers?
Importantly, medical offices, hospitals, and nursing homes are the most difficult places to exercise a mask exemption. These are places full of sick people, where the risk of catching any kind of cold, flu or virus is high and can result in death. However, Alberta Health Services produced a COVID information instruction sheet which clearly stated: “No patient shall be denied service in AHS because they cannot or will not wear a mask.” This has since been removed from the original website.
In short, the local municipal governments are on shaky legal ground in imposing mask by-laws. Businesses in mandatory-mask municipalities are only enforcing what they are told to do, and businesses that voluntarily impose mask requirements have a right to do so as private, non-government entities, with several “human rights” caveats.
Know your rights.
Marnie Cathcart was a reporter and journalist for more than 15 years and is Director of Communications at the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
Kenney brings in ‘minimum’ COVID restrictions; avoids full lockdown
Alberta reduces deficit by nearly $3 billion; debt now $97.4 billion
CTF demands Horgan reduce size of B.C. cabinet
EXCLUSIVE: CN Rail to send emergency propane shipments to Quebec
EXCLUSIVE: Teamsters union could block emergency propane shipment to Quebec
ANDRUS: Trudeau has bet double-or-nothing on Freeland to pacify with West
Sign up for the Western Standard Newsletter
News4 days ago
Legal action vowed if Calgary put into COVID-19 lockdown
News4 days ago
Edmonton extends mask bylaw by full year
Opinion5 days ago
CATHCART: Know your rights on mandatory facemasks
News5 days ago
Calgary police raid poker game, telling players who informed on them
News5 days ago
Edmonton police blame Liberal gun grab for rise in shootings
News2 days ago
Calgary cops arresting COVID-19 patients who refuse to isolate
News2 days ago
Iveson to step down as Edmonton’s mayor
Opinion5 days ago
LETTER: Government employees are the new privileged class