Month: May 2016

Sometimes events take place deep inside the Ottawa political culture that are telling indications of where a political party is heading. While these events often play out in press events, the House of Commons, and other public venues, they are often missed by the general population but give keen observers insight into the future.

Today, Aaron Wherry from the CBC writes a very good piece on the use of time allocation motions in the House of Commons. Wherry is no stranger to this topic having written articulately on the issue previously in Macleans.

Time allocation, also known as Standing Order 78, or closure motions, are typically introduced by the governments of all stripes to limit debate on a government bill. Also typically, these motions are introduced by the government to cries of foul behaviour and the death of democracy by opposition parties of all stripes. While they have never been introduced by the NDP, and are consistently bemoaned by the NDP, we don’t have any data points on how they would behave if they were the government for obvious reasons.

Outside of Ottawa, perhaps even outside of Wherry and myself, there are few people paying attention to the Liberals’ new found re-discovery of time allocation motions. The Liberals made much use of Standing Order 78 when last in power, and the Conservatives were legendary addicts to closure motions.

The reader may rightfully ask ‘So what?’ at this point. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives do it in government, and every party complains about it when it is done to them in opposition. This is clearly not news.

But it is. As I alluded to at the outset, this could be an indicator of issues to come for keen observers.

Immediately after the recent federal election, our research professionals fanned out across the country to conduct research on why people voted the way they did and what they expect from the government. Our research report can be found here.

One of our key findings was that voters expected this government to behave differently than what they perceived to be the insular previous government. They had little knowledge of specific policies proposed by Trudeau and, frankly, did not care to know. What voters we spoke with were focused on was the way in which Trudeau would govern. They were, and are, looking for a different approach.

‘Canadians expect better, and Trudeau promised better. They want to see respect restored to governing. They want collaboration. There is a strong desire for consultation.’
— Back to the Future — Ensight Canada’s Post Election Research

Trudeau campaigned on running a more accessible, open and transparent government, and this pledge struck a chord with voters. Canadians told us they crave a government that is more civil and less exclusive, and they will be watching Trudeau closely on this issue.

Unlike Harper, who believed he would be judged on how many of his promises he could accomplish, Trudeau will be judged on his behaviour in implementing change.

Liberals constantly, and consistently, stood in their place in the House of Commons and complained about time allocation motions. Their protestations worked. Canadians now see various mundane procedural motions such as closure, prorogation, and in camera meetings as negatives in politics due in large part to the Liberals themselves in opposition. Ironically, as they use these same legitimate tactics themselves, it is their own success in driving their message then that will cause them problems now.

To date, the Liberal talking points have been ‘they did it too’ or ‘we do it less’. From a political point of view these messages are a dangerous tactic. Like a refrain from The Who song ‘Meet the new boss, same as the old boss’, it only serves to hurt the very core of the brand that brought Justin Trudeau to 24 Sussex — that he is different than the guy they just booted out.

At the end of the day, will a time allocation motion cause the government to be defeated at the polls? No. Time allocation motions are a legitimate part of our system, just as prorogation and closed door committee meetings. I support the need for them and the use of them regardless of the party in power. What we are seeing, however, is a party that is transitioning from the true believers in the third party adjusting to the realities of governing. How they make that adjustment now will set the stage for how they are judged later.

And the name of that song from The Who?

‘Won’t Get Fooled Again’

As part of its internship program, Navigator asks its interns to write a blog post about the intersection of communications and an area of personal interest. First up, resident sports fan Lewis Krashinksy.

The sport’s world is no stranger to scandal. From Kobe Bryant, to Tiger Woods, to the NFL’s frequent troubles, you would think every athlete would be prepared to handle a crisis. However, unlike politicians, celebrities and corporate leaders –who have issues managers, publicists and outside consultants on staff –it isn’t standard practice for the average professional athlete. It’s standard for your superstar athlete (like a Lance Armstrong) but for an average infielder or a promising draft pick in the NCAA, not so much.

On April 22, Major League Baseball shocked Toronto Blue Jays fans by announcing first basemen Chris Colabello’s 80-game suspension for using a banned performance-enhancing drug. Just six days later, ten minutes before the start of the 2016 NFL draft, a video of top-prospect Laremy Tunsil taking a bong hit surfaced online. The video of Tunsil went viral and questions of his character abounded. He was a consensus top-five projected pick before the draft, who ended up being picked thirteenth, despite the fact that his ability to play football has not changed. But, his slide from the fifth draft pick to the thirteenth cost him roughly $8 million.

If you look up the definition of crisis communications in a textbook, you’ll find it defined as the management of an individual or organization’s relations with, and approach to, the media during a time of intense attention, speculation and outrage. In the school of hard knocks, it’s defined as how you respond to a physical and virtual mob of journalists after you have done something to generate the public’s ire. The consequences can be rather painful. For example, it only took one week of intense media coverage for then Governor of New York Elliot Spitzer to resign after the New York Times reported his ties to a prostitution ring. For professional athletes, the consequences are different. With Colabello, it’s missing games, for Tunsil it’s plummeting in the draft rankings. Regardless of whether you’re a politician or an athlete, when crisis hits, you need a plan.

In general, professional athletes tend to have a bank of goodwill with the public. Colabello, in particular, had a heartwarming underdog story of working his way up after seven seasons in Independent League Baseball and an unimpressive turn with the Minnesota Twins, suddenly hitting his stride with the Blue Jays. However, Colabello only has one good partial season to bank on, so he has little insurance to withstand the consequences of this crisis.

Colabello and his advisors tried to make the best out of a challenging situation. After the story broke and media attention exploded, Colabello did not make himself available to the press immediately. He released a brief statement through the MLBPA explaining his side. This was a sound play. Media scrums can be intimidating and, if you’re not used to them, they can quickly spiral out of your control. It’s a journalist’s job to ask tough and direct questions; Colabello’s job is to hit baseballs. Had he faced the press in a scrum immediately, it would not have been a fair matchup.

Instead, several days later, he gave a lengthy, well-prepared interview with a single journalist from Sportsnet. This allowed him and his team to develop answers to the toughest questions, practice delivery, and let attention on the story abate, at least marginally. At minimum, Colabello was able to deliver a comprehensive and consistent response. He essentially denied that he knew he was taking drugs. The verdict? A hung jury. Opinion is split between those those who think Colabello is a cheater and others who think he’s just stupid. Not exactly a home run, but it could have been much worse.

Laremy Tunsil’s situation got worse after the NFL entry draft. His Instagram account was hacked with photos of an alleged text conversation between Tunsil and John Miller, Assistant Athletic Director at his alma mater, Ole Miss. The conversation involved Tunsil asking Miller to pay his family’s rent, which would violate NCAA rules.

However, unlike Colabello, Tunsil does not have to defend the ‘integrity of the game’ or face teammates and judgements of betrayal. Tunsil’s crisis has a more personal aspect, involving family, his private life, and ad hominem evaluations. But, Tunsil suffered by not having a thoughtful crisis response plan. On the night of the draft and in the immediate days after, Tunsil spoke to several reporters and answered questions without anything resembling a strategy. Unlike Colabello, Tunsil didn’t actively lie—or at least that’s the perception— and he even seems to be the victim of betrayal himself. But there remains a lingering smell of scandal. Thankfully for Tunsil, whether or not the scandal hangs around will probably hinge more on his performance with the Miami Dolphins than his response to the press.

Both Colabello and Tunsil stand in stark contrast to a professional athlete who has managed the international spotlight her entire career and is in the midst of a scandal of her own. Maria Sharapova did something rare in sports: she admitted to doping. That alone was enough to set her response apart from the now routine denials that come from athletes caught up with PEDs. At the time, it seemed like she handled the situation with a perfect response plan. Coming forth herself rather than speaking through representatives, she accepted the allegations head-on and accepted the consequences. The drug (meldonium) wasn’t banned until Jan. 1, 2016, so Sharapova’s use of the drug wasn’t an issue until this year. She claims she began taking it as a teen at the advice of her physician, for health reasons unrelated to competition, and that she only recently became aware that it is a banned substance. Her management of the situation was praised, with competitors like Serena Williams stating it took ‘a lot of courage.’

But, as is the case with politicians and celebrities, some scandals have many lives. New details have come to light related to Sharapova’s case. The entire national under-18 Russian hockey team was pulled from the world championships for using the same drug and there are rumblings of state-sponsored doping. Consequently, some feel Sharapova lied and that her drug use was calculated. Others feel that the International Tennis Federation is using her as an example. In the past, tennis authorities have been criticized for lax or selective rules on doping. Sharapova’s age and declining tennis game make her an easier target to demonstrate that the sport takes doping seriously than a young athlete at the height of their career. Sharapova is the world’s highest-paid female athlete and her suspension is a high-profile case.

So where does this leave the superstar? For starters, tennis is not her only line of business. She has her own ‘Sugarpova’ line of candy, clothing and accessories. Following the doping scandal, her Nike, TAG Heuer and Porsche sponsors dropped her, but she is a brand in her own right. This month, she attended the MET Gala, a major event for fashion and celebrities. Despite increased media scrutiny from the drug scandal, she isn’t hiding. Instead she is putting herself front-and-centre in ways that can benefit her other ventures. She is taking charge of the narrative and changing the conversation. While Colabello and Tunsil don’t have their own brands they can fall back on, the tactic still applies.

Sharapova is giving the media other things to talk about besides her scandal and using the attention to highlight different parts of her image. Colabello and Tunsil could do the same, be it charitable events, community engagement or a winning season. Either way, both can take a lesson from the tennis star: no matter the scandal, with careful planning, there’s always a way forward.

2016 is already shaping up to be a milestone year for Canadian talent online. Drake’s new album Views sold a record 600,000 copies in the first 24 hours of its release. In March, Justin Bieber became the first (Canadian) artist ever to hit 10 billion views on YouTube. Even the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau received his own measure of viral YouTube fame when he surprised everyone with an explanation of quantum computing, garnering over 1.4 million views on the platform.

Not only are Canadians making their mark on the online realm, we also happen to be the most voracious and consummate users of digital content. The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) Factbook shows Canadians are more likely than Americans to watch online video and spend more time doing so. Seventy-four per cent of the Canadian population streams video, versus 63 per cent of people in the United States, plus we watch 43 per cent more minutes of video than our American counterparts. And when it comes to streaming our favourite tunes, more than half of Canadians claim they stream their music videos on YouTube, according to a 2015 CRTC report.

With a growing number of users ‘cutting the cord’ (or at least thinking about it) on cable services, Canada’s content providers and the Canadian government are starting to pay attention to what Canadians are watching online, and some with more trepidation than others. While Canadian users have welcomed the online world with open arms for many years, some critics would say Canada’s biggest broadcasters have been slow to embrace the digital age.

CanCon Review

On April 23, Heritage Minister Melanie Joly announced the government is undertaking a massive review of existing Canadian content (CanCon) rules. For industry watchers, this comes as an unprecedented and politically-driven process that could halt Canadian regulators’ ongoing efforts to deregulate the broadcasting and telecommunications industries in their tracks. A review of this size has not been undertaken since 1991, more than 25 years ago, before YouTube or Netflix ever existed. At the time, the lofty goal was to “encourage the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity.”

The review will look at overhauling the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and the Broadcasting Act to include digital content under Heritage Canada’s purview. Current Canadian content rules mandate a certain percentage of all broadcasting content must include Canadian programming and broadcast companies must contribute financially to its production. For instance, 35% of the popular music played on commercial radio stations between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. must be Canadian content — which is why you probably hear Justin Bieber and Drake more often than not on these channels.

Internet experts and advocates have largely stayed silent in the wake of the big announcement, and not because it was announced on a lazy Saturday morning. The consultations are at such an early stage and there is so little information on what the new government’s approach will be that many are taking a ‘wait and see’ attitude. Even so, some of the questions on the pre-consultation public survey are a dead giveaway that the government may be seriously considering extending CanCon to the digital world.

What we do know about the Liberal government’s digital policy is sparse. The election platform made a few token references to ‘open data’ and investing in Canada’s cultural and creative industries, but largely threw out Marc Garneau’s 2011 digital policy. The Liberal Party of Canada has traditionally been a virulent defender of CanCon rules, but in many ways, Joly has a blank slate to re-write Heritage Canada’s mandate over the CRTC.

In line with other department-wide reviews, Heritage Canada is hoping to go beyond special interests and industry players in this consultation to get at the heart of what Canadians actually expect from their digital content. In her statement, Joly pointed out: ‘We strongly believe in the importance of consulting Canadians across the country to help us shape this process.’ A grassroots approach to this review is perhaps the best way for the government to ensure average Canadians have a say on a tightly-regulated, top-down industry.

The Canadian Internet

There have been few technologies that have challenged national borders and identity the way the Internet has. After the Gutenberg press, no other system of communication has helped instigate everything from political revolutions to overnight viral cultural sensations.

Some countries have come to view the Internet with suspicion, even as a threat to political stability, or something meriting a base level of government oversight. Some have tried to put a fence around it and give it ‘national borders’, by either filtering or censoring the online content their citizens receive. All this to say, the Internet is not a uniform entity across countries. The Internet that North Americans see, or even Canadians for that matter, is very different than the one experienced in other parts of the world.

So is there a Canadian Internet?

If there was, we would need to assume it has adopted or would adopt many of the characteristics and principles we value as Canadians. For example, some would characterize the Canadian Internet as an open and equalizing tool, one that encourages innovation, creativity, and respect for diversity of identity and opinion. The Canadian Internet would not necessarily serve government or corporate interests, but those of civil society and the Canadian people writ large.

Other Internet advocates would expect fairness to be a key feature of Canada’s online landscape, where certain content would not be prioritized or blocked out over other content for political or business purposes. This principle is usually known by another name — net neutrality.

Finally, some experts would want the Canadian Internet to strike a balance between the intellectual property rights of creators and the ownership rights of consumers over the content they purchase — a nod to the fundamental tenets of the classical liberal tradition: respect for the rule of law and property rights.

A Canadian Digital Renaissance

Even if Canadians do have the power to reign in such a powerful tool and re-shape the way digital content is produced in this country, more thought must be given to the future than to the past where such regulations are concerned or merited. As they currently stand, are Canadian content rules the best way to encourage Canadian artists and innovators to flourish online in a new digital renaissance?

Looking to the experts, we can piece together some foundational answers. A 2011 joint study by the OECD, Internet Society, and UNESCO found that ‘there is a strong correlation between the development of network infrastructure and the growth of local content’. In short, countries with developed Internet infrastructure, and who reported competitive local prices for Internet access, had substantially more developed local content online. Clear laws and regulations on telecommunications and intellectual property were also important factors that could enhance local content, according to a 2014 Internet Governance Forum report, with the caveat that those same rights should not inhibit local content creation by imposing unreasonable and costly barriers to access.

What experts seem to be getting at is there is a middle ground where local content does not need to be shielded from foreign influence if there are base-level supports, such as competitively priced and developed Internet infrastructure, as well as balanced intellectual property rights. Moreover, Canadian content producers will need to focus on quality over quantity when becoming and remaining competitive online. In a world where five-second ads are symptomatic of the online user’s attention span, content creators can only succeed in a realm where they are given the tools to stand out to a wider audience, rather than have their audience narrowed for them through archaic broadcasting rules.

To some extent, the CRTC has already taken steps in de-regulating CanCon rules to help content producers find the resources to compete in the digital age. For instance, relaxing CanCon rules for daytime TV and ignoring digital content producers in the 2014 Let’s Talk TV discussions helped creators beef up their original content budgets. Even Canada’s entry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership promises to break down market access barriers not just for foreign-produced content, but also open up new doors for made-in-Canada online forays.

At the end of the day, tightening up digital content rules in the CanCon overhaul is the least helpful avenue for ensuring the survival of Canadian content ‘that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity.’ Like many other savvy online users, Canadians have demonstrated they will be resourceful in accessing the content they want. Efforts would be better directed towards perfecting online Canadian content through a competitive market rather than shutting out the universe of creative exchange online.