A wise government would say they made a mistake, and walk away, fixing stupid things they've done (see also the gun buyback). Their inability to do that is deeply troubling. Doubling down on stupid or ineffective things is not a "success". As for the CRTC, I still don't understand why it exists.
I think I remember hearing about the need to get rid of or reform the CRTC about when this new fangled thing called the 'information highway' was taking off. Since then, lots of calls for it to go.
The bureaucracy is interested in a) themselves; b) controlling what the population of Canada does, watches, thinks, etc. so that c) the bureaucracy can continue and expand.
The CRTC is/has been irrelevant for years, I expect I think/thought they are not clever enough to be part of the communist conspiracy.
I am beginning to suspect that I have been too optimistic about the morality of our public service. The floor crosses have proven that they are whores, just the price needs to be negotiated.
All that is to say... I stand corrected. As you say, the CRTC is far more malicious than simply not caring.
Carole, I respectfully submit that for many of our public employees they are simply that: public employees. I further submit (again, with the greatest of respect) that we absolutely do have quite a number of folks who are correctly called public servants in that they are absolutely dedicated to serving the public, both the public in the sense of the entire population of Canada but also the individuals on whose behalf they might be working on a particular file, etc.
The problem, as I see it, is quite simply that the number of public employees is vastly greater than the number of public servants and the employees are swamping the servants with their cynicism and do as little as possible approach.
Make no mistake, we DO have many public servants; just not nearly enough. But we have far, far too many public employees.
Has anyone ever gone to a public institution whether it's municipal, provincial or federal and seen a sign posted that reads something like: "If you abuse our frontline workers, you will be asked to leave and if you keep it up, we'll arrest you." The reason for those signs in every public space is because we have the most inept leadership of any so called developed nation and rather than improve outcomes and do better on behalf of all Canadians, they find it easier to blame us inessentials. Those signs should be part of the oath of public office...
I certainly have seen such signs, but not only in government and government related institutions.
I absolutely agree that better leadership would / should / could result in better outcomes that would / should / could bring less abuse of front line staff. However, however, however.
Frequently people expect miracles. Particularly in medical and medical related settings; miracles in terms of outcomes, miracles in terms of service, yada, yada, yada ... And, of course, miracles not only in medical, etc. areas but in so many instances of daily life.
I absolutely contend that just ever so many folks are insistent that they have rights - "I HAVE RIGHTS, DAMMIT! - but very, very few people accept - or even think about - that having rights entails having responsibilities.
So, yes, better leadership should result in better service, better outcomes, etc. but self awareness should result in the idea that we have responsibilities. Responsibilities to maintaining our own health to assist in preventing illness; responsibilities to wait our turn in the damned lineup at the Motor Vehicle department or the grocery store or wherever.
Put differently, as a society we are selfish and expect that the world revolves around US and to hell with anybody else. So, our expectations and demands on those front line workers are often entirely unreasonable. And, of course, those front line workers don't always encourage us to bring out our best behavior.
So, to put it yet again differently, yes, you are right, but it is, it really is, complicated.
This is all so boring. Bill C-11 was the product of political party coalition members looking for their interests to be served. I bet the Canadian Association of Broadcasters wrote most of the bill's text.
The problem is those interests manifest almost entirely in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver where government grants, or funds wrested from American companies, underwrite the salaries of the people working in those industries. I get it. The problem is the old saw that they are essential to 'telling Canadian stories'. Just no. Anyone with a cellphone can post Grandma's birthday party or junior's first hockey game to YouTube or Facebook. For better or worse, these are the record of Canadian life. Your brave film detailing the struggles and triumphs of X, or holding to account those you don't agree with, are not. Do not conflate art with industry.
C-11 is a conduit of redistribution, not an essential part of national sovereignty, but don't tell Radio-Canada that.
Hells yes on Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and what the hells, Ottawa. It really amazes me that Canadians allow this kind of back assward thinking from their government. I got nothing.
No surprises here - look at the efficiency of the Air Travel Complaints, the military equipment procurement, the passport fiasco etc. These people would screw up an anvil.
Not yet, but as soon as that Carney majority happens, substack will be banned in Canada and everyone who has written something negative about the liberals will have their bank account frozen.
I spent some 45 years working for regulators (the CRTC, the old Canadian Transport Commission) and in the industries that they regulate. I now believe that there should be no regulation, apart from allocation of scarce resources such as spectrum, and interconnection of networks (if the private sector fails, which it hasn't done yet). Other policy objectives should be met by carefully designed subsidies from general government revenues, minimizing distortions and enssuring that politicians have some skin in the game.
Put bluntly, the regulator doesn't know enough to do a proper job, doesn't have the tools, and doesn't have the courage to be truly independent so as to pursue the broader public interest (as opposed to narrow special interests who have the money to invest in regulatory processes).
Canadian Content requirements and associated subsidies for "telling our stories" have been around for 70 years, and haven't got much to show for it. I can pull up a streaming service like Netflix or Prime and find a large number of foreign-produced shows that provide compelling viewing. Heck, there are a couple of streaming services *dedicated* to British programming! Has our CanCon regime produced anything comparable?
The one thing CanCon has been good for is subsidizing a relatively small group of people who apparently don't have the chops to make it in the commercial market. They're the ones who squeal and scream every time there's a perceived threat to this funding or broadcast obligations. I'm pretty sure what's left of commercial radio would breathe a sigh of relief at not having to program and track their percentage of Canadian content; TV networks might get slightly better ad revenue if they didn't have to sell time for unpopular Canadian dreck they're obligated to carry.
As for the rest of us, we'd quit having to pay an invisible tax on our entertainment choices to subsidize the production of something we don't want and don't watch. At least with supply managed dairy, I may be overpaying for milk, but it's my choice to buy it. CanCon is basically like charging you extra at the grocery store for every item, and dropping off a supply-managed brick of flavorless cheese on your doorstep every week whether you want it or not.
Getting rid of cable TV, using a VPN, and finding alternative sources for news has improved my understanding of how truly awful the Canadian federal government is at everything they try.
"No, grandson, it wasn't particularly acceptable and was never at all grand. I have just been telling you fairy tales to put you to sleep. Like all the Canadian voters."
Having dealt with CRTC from a distance in a work context—that organization does not seem fit for purpose. Even if the goal is telling stories of this land and some folks think that desirable: by the time it gets through all the layers of bureaucracy and then into the hands of the broadcasters in question, it doesn’t look how one would imagine.
Which suggests it's true purpose is not what it says on the tin.
Haven't Matt and Jen repeatedly said that government institutions have been repurposed by the operatives who have access to them, to effect desired outcomes by way of obfuscating the process and keeping responsibility as opaque as possible?
This isn't conspiracy theory, it's just the fact of the 'principal-agent problem'. 'Look at that well-funded thing with lots of staff (i.e. clients)! Just think of the things I could do with that! It's ok! My self-interest is totally aligned with the public-interest! Because my values are Canadian values!
The CRTC - just another of the many examples of government overreach, bureaucratic bungling and empire building that so infest Canada much to our detriment.
It's all one big grift, and as so much of what comes out of Ottawa, it's a grift to feed "Quebec's unique culture." Anglos just have to live with it (or ride along.)
A wise government would say they made a mistake, and walk away, fixing stupid things they've done (see also the gun buyback). Their inability to do that is deeply troubling. Doubling down on stupid or ineffective things is not a "success". As for the CRTC, I still don't understand why it exists.
Absolutely. The CRTC is a dinosaur. Has been a dinosaur for 20 years, the bureaucracy in Ottawa is only interested in themselves, not Canadians.
I think I remember hearing about the need to get rid of or reform the CRTC about when this new fangled thing called the 'information highway' was taking off. Since then, lots of calls for it to go.
Carole, I respectfully disagree with you.
The bureaucracy is interested in a) themselves; b) controlling what the population of Canada does, watches, thinks, etc. so that c) the bureaucracy can continue and expand.
The CRTC is/has been irrelevant for years, I expect I think/thought they are not clever enough to be part of the communist conspiracy.
I am beginning to suspect that I have been too optimistic about the morality of our public service. The floor crosses have proven that they are whores, just the price needs to be negotiated.
All that is to say... I stand corrected. As you say, the CRTC is far more malicious than simply not caring.
Carole, I respectfully submit that for many of our public employees they are simply that: public employees. I further submit (again, with the greatest of respect) that we absolutely do have quite a number of folks who are correctly called public servants in that they are absolutely dedicated to serving the public, both the public in the sense of the entire population of Canada but also the individuals on whose behalf they might be working on a particular file, etc.
The problem, as I see it, is quite simply that the number of public employees is vastly greater than the number of public servants and the employees are swamping the servants with their cynicism and do as little as possible approach.
Make no mistake, we DO have many public servants; just not nearly enough. But we have far, far too many public employees.
Has anyone ever gone to a public institution whether it's municipal, provincial or federal and seen a sign posted that reads something like: "If you abuse our frontline workers, you will be asked to leave and if you keep it up, we'll arrest you." The reason for those signs in every public space is because we have the most inept leadership of any so called developed nation and rather than improve outcomes and do better on behalf of all Canadians, they find it easier to blame us inessentials. Those signs should be part of the oath of public office...
Weeelllllllllll, yesssssss ..... kinda.
I certainly have seen such signs, but not only in government and government related institutions.
I absolutely agree that better leadership would / should / could result in better outcomes that would / should / could bring less abuse of front line staff. However, however, however.
Frequently people expect miracles. Particularly in medical and medical related settings; miracles in terms of outcomes, miracles in terms of service, yada, yada, yada ... And, of course, miracles not only in medical, etc. areas but in so many instances of daily life.
I absolutely contend that just ever so many folks are insistent that they have rights - "I HAVE RIGHTS, DAMMIT! - but very, very few people accept - or even think about - that having rights entails having responsibilities.
So, yes, better leadership should result in better service, better outcomes, etc. but self awareness should result in the idea that we have responsibilities. Responsibilities to maintaining our own health to assist in preventing illness; responsibilities to wait our turn in the damned lineup at the Motor Vehicle department or the grocery store or wherever.
Put differently, as a society we are selfish and expect that the world revolves around US and to hell with anybody else. So, our expectations and demands on those front line workers are often entirely unreasonable. And, of course, those front line workers don't always encourage us to bring out our best behavior.
So, to put it yet again differently, yes, you are right, but it is, it really is, complicated.
"Wise government." There's something never seen in Canada...
Not since Lester Pearson anyway....
Except he's the guy who hired a 46 year old out of work lawyer...
So what? Before Trudeau became leader, he did a lot of good things. Once in charge, the wheels somewhat fell off.
This is all so boring. Bill C-11 was the product of political party coalition members looking for their interests to be served. I bet the Canadian Association of Broadcasters wrote most of the bill's text.
The problem is those interests manifest almost entirely in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver where government grants, or funds wrested from American companies, underwrite the salaries of the people working in those industries. I get it. The problem is the old saw that they are essential to 'telling Canadian stories'. Just no. Anyone with a cellphone can post Grandma's birthday party or junior's first hockey game to YouTube or Facebook. For better or worse, these are the record of Canadian life. Your brave film detailing the struggles and triumphs of X, or holding to account those you don't agree with, are not. Do not conflate art with industry.
C-11 is a conduit of redistribution, not an essential part of national sovereignty, but don't tell Radio-Canada that.
Hells yes on Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and what the hells, Ottawa. It really amazes me that Canadians allow this kind of back assward thinking from their government. I got nothing.
No surprises here - look at the efficiency of the Air Travel Complaints, the military equipment procurement, the passport fiasco etc. These people would screw up an anvil.
Sheep led by…sheep.
.... rats. Sheep eat only grass, rats eat anything, including humans and human economy. Just look at the "Liberals", leftists.
Don't forget tax reform. Where is it? However, many more federal sheep have been hired directly or through contract.
Military l think, will be going to Quebec and Ontario firms because that is how this is done in Canada.
Let them all die. Canadian media is mostly (at least) government-subsidized propaganda now anyway.
Let the CRTC die too. Better yet, take it behind the barn and shoot it.
There. Are those comments going to land me in jail for inciting hate?
Probably not Mongoose. You're Anonymous.
Only by name. I'm pretty sure someone smart enough can find me.
Not yet, but as soon as that Carney majority happens, substack will be banned in Canada and everyone who has written something negative about the liberals will have their bank account frozen.
That's a very scary proposition
All the cool kids will be in the maple leaf gulag. And it will be coed, because everyone can claim to be trans.
I’m this close to self-IDing as an indigenous-trans-female-black-gay-furry to get my due.
Another sac of Idiot King Trudeau's garbage keeps festering.
As always, Peter, good writing with just the right amount of (well deserved) snark.
LOL! It's just all so Liberal. Regulate and stifle investment, pontificate and blame the victims. New boss, same as the old boss.
If it moves, tax it. If it keep moving, regulate it and if it stops moving, subsidize it.
The idea that regulations are screwing this up in the first place are way too far above those bozos heads.
Dang and here I was waiting for those Beachcombers and Junior Forest Rangers reruns.
I’m waiting for Quentin Durgens,MP
I want black and white TV's to make a comeback.
Thank you, once again, Mr. Menzies.
I spent some 45 years working for regulators (the CRTC, the old Canadian Transport Commission) and in the industries that they regulate. I now believe that there should be no regulation, apart from allocation of scarce resources such as spectrum, and interconnection of networks (if the private sector fails, which it hasn't done yet). Other policy objectives should be met by carefully designed subsidies from general government revenues, minimizing distortions and enssuring that politicians have some skin in the game.
Put bluntly, the regulator doesn't know enough to do a proper job, doesn't have the tools, and doesn't have the courage to be truly independent so as to pursue the broader public interest (as opposed to narrow special interests who have the money to invest in regulatory processes).
Canadian Content requirements and associated subsidies for "telling our stories" have been around for 70 years, and haven't got much to show for it. I can pull up a streaming service like Netflix or Prime and find a large number of foreign-produced shows that provide compelling viewing. Heck, there are a couple of streaming services *dedicated* to British programming! Has our CanCon regime produced anything comparable?
The one thing CanCon has been good for is subsidizing a relatively small group of people who apparently don't have the chops to make it in the commercial market. They're the ones who squeal and scream every time there's a perceived threat to this funding or broadcast obligations. I'm pretty sure what's left of commercial radio would breathe a sigh of relief at not having to program and track their percentage of Canadian content; TV networks might get slightly better ad revenue if they didn't have to sell time for unpopular Canadian dreck they're obligated to carry.
As for the rest of us, we'd quit having to pay an invisible tax on our entertainment choices to subsidize the production of something we don't want and don't watch. At least with supply managed dairy, I may be overpaying for milk, but it's my choice to buy it. CanCon is basically like charging you extra at the grocery store for every item, and dropping off a supply-managed brick of flavorless cheese on your doorstep every week whether you want it or not.
Bob and Doug and hosers were the result of the Canadian content rules back in the day as I recall.
Getting rid of cable TV, using a VPN, and finding alternative sources for news has improved my understanding of how truly awful the Canadian federal government is at everything they try.
When people realize who gets 50% of the funds to serve 22% of the population then they realize who the grift is for.
"......or has time rewritten every line?"
"Tell me another story about how Canada turned to pieces & broke apart, Grandpa. Was it really ever as grand as you have described?"
Omnia habuimus et dedimus
"No, grandson, it wasn't particularly acceptable and was never at all grand. I have just been telling you fairy tales to put you to sleep. Like all the Canadian voters."
And, yes, it was all given away.
Not a direct question but, is CPAC the only network that televises committee hearings? Would the government benefit if those weren’t televised?
The best place to watch committee meetings is Northern Perspective.
Ryan and Tanya, the hosts of the show, are great at explaining what is going on.
Having dealt with CRTC from a distance in a work context—that organization does not seem fit for purpose. Even if the goal is telling stories of this land and some folks think that desirable: by the time it gets through all the layers of bureaucracy and then into the hands of the broadcasters in question, it doesn’t look how one would imagine.
Which suggests it's true purpose is not what it says on the tin.
Haven't Matt and Jen repeatedly said that government institutions have been repurposed by the operatives who have access to them, to effect desired outcomes by way of obfuscating the process and keeping responsibility as opaque as possible?
This isn't conspiracy theory, it's just the fact of the 'principal-agent problem'. 'Look at that well-funded thing with lots of staff (i.e. clients)! Just think of the things I could do with that! It's ok! My self-interest is totally aligned with the public-interest! Because my values are Canadian values!
Sound familiar?
Ahhh Socialism, sigh. So rewarding. Just makes you warm all over.
The CRTC - just another of the many examples of government overreach, bureaucratic bungling and empire building that so infest Canada much to our detriment.
With, like virtually all government initiatives, relentless momentum
It's all one big grift, and as so much of what comes out of Ottawa, it's a grift to feed "Quebec's unique culture." Anglos just have to live with it (or ride along.)