Mediaboss Marketing

And let me tell you, the West will not forget.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Thats a quote from a western Canadian who, speaking to a Toronto newspaper shortly after Alberta and Saskatchewan joined Confederation in 1905, lamented that, The people of the West will never rest until they get provincial autonomy on the same terms as the older provinces. We want control of our own timber, of our own minerals, of our own lands. More prescient words had not been uttered since the death of Nostradamus.

At the time, the lengthy debate in Parliament over how to carve Alberta and Saskatchewan out of the North-West Territories, lest a single mega-province become too powerful, mainly centred on education rights namely, whether schools should be church-run or secularized.

But the federal government also chose to retain control over natural resources in the newly created provinces, ensuring they had fewer rights than the original members of Confederation. This proved a constant source of tension, especially since Ottawa was supposed to compensate them for the lost resource revenue, but ended up keeping much of the money for itself.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

But the West never forgot.

Those resources were given to provinces without ever asking one Indian if it was OK to do that or what benefits would the First Nations expect to receive by Canada consenting to that arrangement, said Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte Chief Donald Maracle.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Rescind the act, the natural resources transfer act, said Brian Hardlotte, grand chief of the Prince Albert Grand Council. Thats what were asking you, minister. To which Lametti responded by committing to looking at that.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

What Lametti actually said was: I take from Chief Brian, also from Chief Don Maracle the point about the natural resources transfer agreement. Youre on the record for that. I obviously cant pronounce on that right now, but I do commit to looking at that. It wont be uncontroversial, is the only thing I would say, with a bit of a smile.

For anyone who has spent any length of time listening to politicos, its clear that statement is politicese for, Im not going to take any action, but of course I would never say so out loud.

Had premiers Smith and Moe actually bothered to listen to what the minister said, they surely would have known that. It should also be apparent that rescinding the natural resource agreements would not be as simple as repealing an act of Parliament, since they are enshrined in the Constitution, a document that was made far more difficult to amend following its patriation in 1982.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Twitter, of course, is not exactly known as a forum for making reasoned arguments based on well-researched opinions. Its a digital arena in which slightly evolved monkeys fling excrement at one another and pretend as though theyre active members of a 21st-century version of ancient Greeces public square. I wish I could say I expect more from our elected officials, but that would be disingenuous.

The premiers over-the-top reactions were at least in keeping with the political personas theyve been trying to cultivate, with both taking steps to at least appear to be defending their provinces from federal over-reach. But pretending to be fighting a federal government that would, or even could, attempt to remove the Prairie provinces constitutional rights does nothing to further the cause of provincial autonomy.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

In fact, First Nations now have a greater ability to gain a financial interest in, and profit off of, resource developments within their territories and pipelines that run across their lands than ever before.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The only things preventing First Nations from further profiting off their natural resources is opposition within their own communities, as we saw during the railway blockades of 2020, and the federal Liberals war on fossil fuels, which has made Canada a less attractive place to invest and made it virtually impossible to develop new oil and gas or pipeline projects.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

A century ago, Ottawa was all-too-happy exploiting the Wests bountiful resources while ensuring the region would never become strong enough to challenge the power base in Central Canada. Today, the federal government has no qualms about ensuring those same resources benefit no one, to further its ideological climate objectives.

As was the case in 1905, the real threat to western prosperity is the centralized government in Ottawa. It would be far more useful for the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Prairie First Nations to find ways to work together to assert their right to use their resources to create economic prosperity and a better future for their people.

See the article here:
Jesse Kline: Liberals are the threat, not the solution, to Indigenous resource prosperity - National Post

On October 19th, 2022 four leading intellectuals gathered with Harpers Magazine editor Christopher Beha for a discussion on classical liberalism. While all agreed with the premise that liberalism is increasingly under attack, up for debate was whether the liberal paradigm was worth saving at all.

The speakers included Patrick Deneen, known for declaring liberalisms failure, Francis Fukuyama, known for declaring in the early 90s that liberalism had won for good, Christian socialist Cornel West, and libertarian economic historian Deirdre McCloskey. The line-up lacked one particular perspective, however: that of the conservative liberal; one who is classically liberal in a political and economic sense but culturally conservative.

Each of the four participants defined liberalism differently. Fukuyamas liberalism is about a fundamental recognition of individual rights, based on a presumption of basic equality of dignity in connection with modern science. To Deneen, liberalism rejects the idea that human beings have a telos, or an end, that we have a nature, and that the first is given to us by the second. In Deneens account, liberalism is a break with the classical tradition, as represented by Aquinas and Aristotle.

The battle lines are drawn, apparently: Fukuyama is for liberalism, Deneen against it. West, in contrast, is more nuanced; he praises liberalism for recognizing indispensable rights and liberties, but faults it for turning a blind eye to economic and military oppression. Finally, McCloskey provides the most straightforward defense of liberalism, defining it as equality of permissions.

At this point the reader may expect the three liberals to gang up on the one anti-liberal. Not so. The liberals concede several crucial points to Deneens anti-liberalism. McCloskey would agree with Patrick (Deneen) that liberalism is a rebellion againstwell, against the church. This is a striking claim from McCloskey, who is better known for insisting on the basic compatibility of what she calls bourgeois virtues with traditional morality.

While it is certainly true that all liberal thinkers would oppose the domination of the state by a single church, it is not the case that all liberals rebelled against religion. Alexis de Tocqueville, for example, believed that religion was essential, and that keeping it separate from government would encourage its sustainment. So did Adam Smith.

Deneen then exploits the differences of opinion among his interlocutors, claiming that Untrammeled liberty in economic and social spheres results in deep social and political cleavages. Populist anti-liberalism is blowback to the excesses of liberalism.

Its hard to find much evidence to support Deneens story. As Oren Cass wrote in 2019, market fetishism does not provide the basis for U.S. economics or public policy it is not as if a bunch of market fundamentalists have actually cut back government provisions. Instead, government regulation has continued to increase year after year, even under administrations verbally committed to deregulation. American liberty persists, but is hardly untrammeled.

And still, Fukuyama affirms Deneens account. In so doing, Fukuyama errs empirically and philosophically. Empirically, he blames financial deregulation for the 2008 economic crisis. This overlooks numerous complicating factors: the governments role in generating the housing bubble the preceded the Great Recession of 2008, and the long series of financial bailouts preceding the 2008 crisis that encouraged risky lending.

In rejecting economic liberalism, Fukuyama hopes to preserve political liberalism. He thinks that a system of equal individual rights can survive under increasing government control of the economy. But as McCloskey notes, liberty is liberty is liberty. In the real world, its not possible to cleanly separate economic liberty from other forms of liberty. All human behavior involves economic decision-making and financial accounting, even charity and religion. To increase government control over individual economic decisions is to increase government control over all decisions.

McCloskey, the remaining economic liberal, fails to challenge Fukuyama and Deneens economic narrative. Instead, she focuses on a more tangential, but still important point about Milton Friedmans conception of the social responsibility of business.

Deneens argument suffers from numerous other flaws, which the other speakers fail to rebut. He laments the lack of appreciation for order and hierarchy in liberalism, but then sides with mob rule against legal restraint. Deneens political thought is not workable in theory or practice.

He cagily says that theres always going to be some exercise of authority. This is surely true, but it does not discount the fact that there are degrees of authority. Deneen tries and fails at eliminating the difference between liberty under the law and oppression under an authoritarian regime. Deneen presented so many openings for the liberals to exploit, and yet they failed to decisively act.

This was not a good showing for liberalism. What went wrong? The most significant problem was the absence of the conservative strain of liberalism.

Conservative liberalism is a core tradition in Western thought, critical to the development and sustainment of the American experiment in liberty. And while McCloskey did cite Adam Smith, she might have noted his warning that society will crumble absent reverence for those important rules of conduct which is naturally enhanced by the belief that the Deity will finally reward the obedient and punish the transgressors of their duty. If Smith is correct about morality and religion, then a liberalism that explicitly rejects the traditional foundations of moral law is destined to collapse. Fortunately, hyper-rationalistic liberalism is not the only brand of liberalism available.

Conservative liberals have included Ronald Reagan, Friedrich Hayek, Frank Meyer, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Edmund Burke. In the present day, Samuel Gregg is a rare example of this tradition. Harpers therefore cannot be faulted for omitting conservative liberals from the discussion. They merely mirrored the broader discourse.

To be sure, the idea of classical liberalism is still frequently cited. Classical liberalism, however, does not precisely denote conservative liberalism, since it is a broader tradition of thought. Increasingly classical liberalism used by disaffected men and women of the left who still value free speech and economic growth. This is a welcome development, but it cannot substitute for conservative liberalism.

John Stuart Mill was a classical liberal, if anyone was. Yet as Friedrich Hayek noted, Mills work suffers from the cult of the distinct and different individuality. And as usual Mills false conception of individualism eventually led him towards economic collectivism. Unlike Mill, a conservative liberal will recognize that social restraint is a necessary condition for liberty, as are faith, family, tradition, and ethical formation.

Conservative liberalism is a nuanced, practical approach to politics. It holds competing ideas in tension. This brand of liberalism is not, and likely never will be, an object of mass appeal. Nevertheless, without a cadre of conservative liberals to influence public opinion and policy in a more prudent and gradual direction, consistent with human nature, all attempts to save liberalism will fail, and deservingly so.

Visit link:
A Liberalism Worth Saving: What's Missing From the Debate Over Liberalism - Providence Magazine

Its taken the Liberal government two tries and more than two years to get Bill C-11 through the legislative process. If the Senate doesnt fight the government on removing a number of amendments senators previously added to the bill, Bill C-11 could receive royal assent shortly after Parliament comes back from break next week.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

But once the bill is law, that doesnt mean we know how the government will actually regulate online streaming, whether its from big studio content to homemade video blogs . It actually means the work on the specifics is just beginning.

Bill C-11 sets up the CRTC to regulate streaming platforms like Netflix and YouTube. The idea is that under new rules, theyll have to participate in the Canadian content system the way traditional radio and TV broadcasters and cable providers have had to.

Digital platforms are now exempt from that system, which requires broadcasters to spend 30 per cent of their revenue on Canadian content, and cable and satellite TV providers to contribute five per cent of their revenues.

The legislation doesnt get into the details of how the CRTC will bring digital platforms into the system, but the Liberal government will provide more specifics in a document called a policy direction.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The government could use the policy direction to address the most controversial parts of the bill, namely the powers the CRTC will have over user-generated content, such as videos posted on YouTube or TikTok by digital creators and everyday Canadians.

We dont know yet.

The government isnt releasing the policy direction until after the bill becomes law. Laura Scaffidi, a spokesperson for Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez, said the government wants to work in collaboration and will consult with all interested stakeholders before issuing a policy direction on Bill C-11 to the CRTC.

For the first version of the bill that died on the order paper when the 2021 election was called, the government did release a draft ahead of time. It told the CRTC to ensure digital platforms contribute appropriately to supporting and promoting Canadian programming and Canadian creators.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

That was before the government removed the original exemption for user content from the bill, sparking a wave of controversy which slowed down the passage of the legislation for two years.

So it will be important to watch this time what the policy direction has to say about user content.

Under the bill as it stands, the CRTC wont have the power to control what Canadians post or choose to watch online. But it will have regulatory authority over recommendations the movies, TV shows, videos and music platforms like Netflix, YouTube or Spotify suggest to their users.

The idea is that the CRTC will use that power to force platforms to promote what it deems to be Canadian content, ensuring that it is more easily discoverable by users.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

An amendment the Senate added to the bill would have excluded social media content, but that was rejected by Rodriguez. The government said at the time it rejected the amendment because it would have affected the governments ability to publicly consult on, and issue, a policy direction to the CRTC to appropriately scope the regulation of social media services with respect to their distribution of commercial programs.

Scaffidi said in the statement: User-generated content uploaded onto YouTube will not be captured by this bill. Only platforms that broadcast commercial content are in scope.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Some opponents point to freedom of expression concerns and say a government regulator has no business picking and choosing what content Canadians are presented with when they use a digital service.

Several prominent creators have said they are worried that it will harm digital creators themselves. If the CRTC forces platforms like YouTube or TikTok to highlight their content to users in Canada who arent interested in it, the algorithms could then downrank that content globally, which is a market where many make the majority of their income.

Previous CRTC chair Ian Scott has said the regulator could mandate algorithmic outcomes, such as requiring more Canadian content. It wont interfere with algorithms themselves the bill says the CRTC cant require the use of a specific algorithm.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

But the idea that a government regulator could look directly at the constantly-changing algorithms used by tech giants, some of which might operate in a black box, and require specific changes in real time, probably isnt a realistic option.

CRTC chair Vicky Eatrides has promised the CRTC will listen to the opinions of Canadians while it considers how to implement the legislation.

The CRTC will launch a public consultation, but it remains to be seen how easy it will be for the public to participate. Asked for more information about what that process will look like, including whether the regulator will take any steps to make it easier for Canadians to take part, a CRTC spokesperson declined comment until the bill becomes law.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

CRTC proceedings are public, but arent always user-friendly. The language can be technical and lawyerly, the website can be confusing to navigate, and process is often dominated by those used to the environment, such as lawyers working for telecom or broadcast companies or a few specific advocacy groups.

Canadians will have a chance to submit written comments to the consultation. A proceeding of this significance will also almost certainly involve a public hearing. If previous CRTC hearings are any guide, thats likely to be two or three weeks in which CRTC commissioners gather in a windowless hearing room in Gatineau, Que. to hear from interested parties.

You can expect the proceeding to run the gamut from hours of incredibly technical discussions to potential fireworks between key witnesses and the commissioners questioning them.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

A 2014 proceeding looking at the future of TV saw previous CRTC chair Jean-Pierre Blais clash with Netflix when that company refused to hand over requested information. Industry-watchers (and the assembled media) will be keeping an eye for more dramatic moments between commissioners and platforms resistant to some of the proposed regulations.

The previous policy direction told the CRTC it expected the regulator to wrap up the process in nine months an ambitious timeline given the regulators proceedings can take years from start to finish.

But even then, CRTC decisions can be appealed, including in the Federal Court of Appeal. If a party has a problem with the decision the regulator ends up issuing, and its appeal is accepted by the courts, the final outcome may not be settled for years to come.

View post:
Liberals' controversial online streaming bill could soon be law. Here's what to expect - National Post

The 2011 federal election seemed to have fundamentally changed Canadian politics. And maybe it did. Just not quite in the way it was imagined.

In theory, that vote heralded the arrival of a new political era. The Liberal Party's day was done the broadly centrist institution that dominated Canadian politics in the 20th century was no longer fit for purpose. Canada would finally become more like its sister democracies, with a clear contest between a distinct party of the political right and a distinct party of the left. The future seemed to belong to the Conservatives and the NDP.

Then things changed again, as they are wont to do. Foremost among those unforeseen developments was Justin Trudeau's election as Liberal leader, which happened 10 years ago this week.

In the short term, Trudeau's mere presence breathed a bit of new life into the lungs of a prostrate party. In time, it also gave the party a new sense of direction. If the worst thing that could be said about the Liberal Party was that it represented the "mushy middle," the best thing that could be said about Trudeau's early leadership is that he made the party less mushy.

He announced that he would support the legalization of marijuana. He declared that his party would take a strict pro-choice position in favour of abortion rights. He unceremoniously ejected Liberal senators from the party's parliamentary caucus. And then he laid out a party platform that did not include a commitment to balancingthe federal budget.

Each of these moves like Trudeau's own decision to seek the party leadership was met with some level of consternation and skepticism. But four years after the party was given up for dead, the Liberals won 184 seats and Trudeau became prime minister.

What has taken shape since then is the most active and activist generation of Liberals to hold power since Lester B. Pearson's government in the 1960s.

In 2011, when Michael Ignatieff was leading the Liberals, the party platform outlined $8.2 billion in new investments spread over two years. In 2015, Trudeau's platform covered $149.8 billion over four years. The words "racism," "gender" and "reconciliation" don't appear at all in the 2011 platform. Those words appeared 28, 46 and 19 times in the Liberal party's 2021 platform.

Some of those changes in language and emphasis might simply reflect thechanging times ("reconciliation" had not really entered the popular lexicon when the Liberal platform was written in 2011). But they also reflecta leader and a party that have tried enthusiastically to speak to emergingdemands and issues.

On his 10th anniversary as leader, Trudeau's government maybe closer to the end of its time in office than the beginning. Much of the shine has come off the famous son of Pierre Trudeau.But the Liberals remaincompetitive in public opinion polling and comfortably ahead of the NDP.

One way to read the events of the past 10 years is to conclude that the post-2011 theories of realignment turned out to be broadly correct that the party system did polarize, with the Liberals shifting to become the dominant party of the left.

There may be something to that, at least in the short term. But it's also possible to overstate how much the Liberals have moved leftward. The Liberals remain far less inclined than New Democrats to talk about class or heap scorn upon the rich and powerful.

Despite major new social investments, the Liberals still seem reluctant to create new federally run programs. Dental care is only happening because the NDP demanded it, while Liberal interest in pharmacare has waned.

Even when you consider trends infederal spending, the Liberals' leftward lurch seems more like a nudge. As a share of GDP, federal program spending in 2023-24 is projected to be merely on par with what it was in the late 1980s, when Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government was in office.

In electoral terms, it's also possible to conclude that Trudeau'selection victories have merely dressed upwhat is actually a long-term decline in the Liberal Party's standing.

The ceiling on Liberal support does seem to have been dropping gradually since Mackenzie King's Liberals received 51.3 per cent of the vote in 1940. Louis St. Laurent topped out at 49.2 per cent, Pierre Trudeau at 45.4 per cent, Jean Chrtien at 41.2 per cent. WhileTrudeau won a majority in 2015,the Liberalscould only draw 39.5 per cent of the vote.

If the ceiling falls any further, it will be hard for a future Liberal leader to stand up.

But the same is broadly true of the Conservative Party a party that has its own existential challenges. John Diefenbaker's Progressive Conservatives won 53.6 per cent of the vote in 1958 and Mulroney got 50 per cent in 1984. Stephen Harper's Conservatives couldn't get more than 39.6 per cent.

In a system that includes both a durable NDP and a resilient Bloc Qubcois (and a Green Party of some sort),it might simply be very difficult for any party to routinely capture much more than 40 per cent of the vote.

Sothe Liberals probably won't be able to dominate this century like they did the last one (from 1896 to 2006, the Liberals governed for 80 years). When they do govern, they might have to work more often with other parties (as they are now).

Ten years after Trudeau became the 13th leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, there is a new complaint that the party is now not mushy enough.

Political polarization is worth worrying about. Taken to extremes, it can breed the sort of tribalism that makes a democracy difficult to manage. And it's very possible that the next Liberal leader will decide that Trudeau took the party too far to the left. Economic or political circumstances might require the Liberal Party toshift just as it has in the past.

It's also possible that the political centre isn't, or wasn't, quite where it was thought to be.And while some pundits might prefer moderation, other Canadians might fairly want progress to happen faster than a more centrist approach would allow.

Any Liberal who aspires to win elections might also note that while the Liberal vote has eroded, the combined Liberal-NDP vote has consistently hovered around 50 per cent for the last 40 years peaking at 59.2 per cent in 2015 and only once dropping below 46 per cent (in 2008). And on an issue as central as climate change, Conservative voters are much less enthusiastic about government action.

But the ultimate lesson of the 2011 election and the last 10years is that the future is very hard to predict and that political success depends on both a little bit of luck and an ability to adapt.

See more here:
The strange death and rebirth of the Liberal Party under Trudeau - CBC.ca

Well, that didnt take long.

The ink wasnt even dry on Judge Janet Protasiewiczs victory over Daniel Kelly in the race for a seat on Wisconsins Supreme Court on April 4, when liberal groups started lining up their actions to bring to the court. The justice-elect has already weighed in on a number of topics to assure victory.

Among the first actions of note was covered at length in the Sunday, April 9 Wisconsin State Journal story, Dems eye new district mapping. The story stated that the liberal group Law Forward was working with other groups to file a lawsuit in the late summer or early fall, to challenge the current legislative maps. The new justice will take her seat on the high court on Aug. 1, which will set the timing for this action.

People are also reading

The story notes, its difficult to predict on what basis the maps could be disputed now, according to Dustin Brown, a University of Wisconsin Law School senior attorney. I would imagine the substance of a suit to challenge the current maps wouldnt matter to the newest justice. No need for proof of standing whether the litigants have skin in the game or any need to put together a substantive argument, because Protasiewicz already widely opined that the maps are rigged. No need for any lower court rulings or proceedings, just determine the maps arent appropriate, and redraw them. Justice Protasiewicz knows best. Certainly in plenty of time to plan for the 2024 election cycle.

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin directly threw in more than $8 million into her campaign. According to an April 5 HuffPost story Protasiewicz has promised to recuse herself from cases involving the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. There would be no way possible for her to hear a redistricting case with objectivity, as shes indebted to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. It will be interesting to see if she actually follows through with any recusals, or tries to somehow justify her presence in politically-charged cases, and there will be plenty of those with a full liberal agenda. The Democrats made a huge investment to produce dividends for their cause.

In a Strict Scrutiny podcast, referred to in the State Journal story, liberal justice Rebecca Dallet implied the redistricting process would entail the justices acting like chefs in drawing their own maps rather than restaurant diners choosing predrawn maps from a menu. Dallett further stated, we could actually have those maps drawn in a way that was fair. Does that mean Justices Dallett, Protasiewicz and the other liberals will carve up the state to their liking, and call it fair?

It is worth noting the maps Law Forward intends to challenge on some yet-to-be-determined rationale have already been reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the her dissenting opinion in the most recent redistricting case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, liberal Justice Janet Karofsky said, I hope that we will permit a politically insulated federal court to manage the task. What happens if Protasiewicz doesnt get her way?

Redistricting is not the only item on the to-do list of what will now be a very activist-driven Supreme Court. Judge Protasiewicz essentially based her campaign on one sole topic abortion. It was at the center of every message. Nothing else mattered.

Allegations brought forth by the Wisconsin Right Now website that Protasiewicz was abusive to her elderly husband in a brief marriage and that she used racial epithets when describing certain people whom she encountered in proceedings didnt impact supporters. Her conduct as a judge, with controversially light sentencing, along with taking in gobs of money from out of state and Wisconsins Democratic Party didnt matter. What mattered is that she openly supported abortion, making her own personal views very public. The message was used as a sledgehammer to drive progressives to the polls. The sledgehammer worked.

Once again, conservatives, Republicans, and other like-minded folks were faced with a very contentious primary, from which former Dan Kelly emerged. Liberals had made sure the path was clear for their anointed candidate, and made sure her personal views were well known by all those who stepped into the voting booth.

Like all those on the right, I was certainly disappointed by last Tuesdays election results, but the cause marches on to the next battles in every corner of the state and the nation. We cannot be dissuaded, cannot be moved from our core principles, and we will press on. The next chapter in Wisconsin politics is now underway.

Frostman lives in Baraboo: scfrostman@gmail.com.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

View original post here:
Scott Frostman: Liberals get to work with progressive judicial agenda - WiscNews