Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - June 19, 2012, Winnipeg, Manitoba C M Y K PAGE A6 EDITORIALS WINNIPEG FREE PRESS, TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 2012 Freedom of Trade Liberty of Religion Equality of Civil Rights A 6 COMMENT EDITOR: Gerald Flood 697- 7269 gerald. flood@ freepress. mb. ca winnipegfreepress. com G REEK voters on the weekend reluctantly accepted the need to swallow the bitter economic medicine they were offered in order to preserve their currency union with Western Europe. Their decision brightened prospects that European bankers and governments will soon deal with the loss of confidence and contraction of credit that are now blocking the economic growth of Canada's European trading partners. Stock and bond markets, which were already anticipating a satisfactory result in Greece, were little affected by the election result. Investors immediately turned their attention to the larger problem of insolvent Spanish banks. But the verdict in Greece showed the public there was shrewdly assessing the options and not merely lashing out at the governments and bankers who landed them in their current pickle. The issue in the Greek election was whether the country would carry out the tax increases and brutal spending cuts an unelected interim government promised on their behalf last year in return for Europesponsored refinancing of the insolvent Greek government and banks. The left- leaning Syriza party, runner- up in the inconclusive May elections, proposed to keep the euro as Greece's national currency with one hand but, with the other, reject the tax increases and spending cuts. Syriza placed second once again on Sunday with 27 per cent of the vote while the conservative New Democracy party won 30 per cent of the vote with a plan to accept the austerity package. Voters recognized they could not both have their cake and eat it. The Greek vote echoed the June 1 referendum result in Ireland, where voters approved a European fiscal treaty that imposes public spending discipline in return for European emergency funding. Both countries now suffer severe unemployment resulting from years of reckless borrowing and profligate spending. The Greeks, like the Irish, know they must live within their restricted means. They have also concluded their economic future, in good times and in bad, lies in Europe and its common currency. The European Union, which is an association of sovereign states, some of which share a common currency, has not yet figured out a good way of supervising the finances of its members and sharing the costs those that run into trouble incurred. The Greek government was lying about its economic strength and its government revenues for many years before its collapse was recognized, and even now its true condition is a matter of conjecture. The Greek election may mark a step toward greater transparency. The nascent liberal democratic movement in Egypt appears effectively dead. Two lethal blows came in a tacit military coup last week and with this weekend's election of the Muslim Brotherhood's presidential candidate. Unofficial results of the runoff show Mohammed Morsi, who champions Islamic rule in government, edging out former Mubarak crony Ahmed Shafiq. The question now, as the army surrounds parliament, is whether the people's will can make any difference in the country that once seemed the Arab world's best chance for democracy. The Supreme Court of the Armed Forces, after dissolving a fractured parliament only elected in January, passed a series of constitutional measures seizing legislative power just before the voting began. The reformists who ousted the Mubarak regime last year failed to coalesce, to give real choice to Egyptians looking for a real change. About half the electorate stayed home last weekend. The military council quickly assured Egyptians it would share power with the new president and a reconstituted parliament, but that is unlikely given the veto it will hold over any future elected body. Having dallied with reform, Egyptians have followed the lure of stability and tradition from two hardline parties. The familiar is a tough place in Egypt and politics there, and in the region, are set to get harder yet. Q UEBEC CITY - In an era of austerity and budget cuts, Canadians are going to have to make some painful decisions about how our government spends, especially for expenses made in the name of national identity and culture. The CBC was created as a national radio broadcasting system in the 1930s, and has since developed into a media empire in its own right. With operating costs taxpayers heavily subsidize and in the age of the Internet and subsequent changing media consumption, what is the point of having a national broadcaster? Do we really need the CBC anymore? Here are six reasons why the CBC is irrelevant. Peter Mansbridge: In 1988, Knowlton Nash stepped down from his anchor position with the CBC in order to keep Peter Mansbridge from leaving the network to take a job in the United States. Twenty- four years later, he still hasn't left. His booming, distinctive cadence might be reassuring for other balding baby boomers, but for anyone under 40, his presence is a symbol of the generational lethargy keeping young people from meaningfully participating in the national discourse. Although George Stroumboulopolous, former MuchMusic VJ, is being groomed as a successor, the process appears from the outside about as enjoyable ( and consequential) as passing a kidney stone. Old media/ new media divide : When the CBC was established, Canada did not have a national flag and could not amend its Constitution without the consent of Great Britain. For crying out loud, we didn't even have Newfoundland. In this context, a national broadcaster seems like a justified expense, simply in order to be able to conceive of a grouping of people across such a vast distance as a nation. Seventy years later, this is no longer the case. The Internet has made Whitehorse, Winnipeg, Kahnawake and Kelowna next- door neighbours overnight ( not to mention Bogota and Mumbai). Moreover, television and radio are just not as important to a younger generation raised by multimedia. What the CBC seems unable to comprehend is that, in the new- media age, its experience actually counts against it. A model of centralized, widely diffused programming based on a vague notion of public interest that tries to satisfy everyone ends up pleasing no one. Furthermore, trying to adapt an outdated model to an incompatible new medium such as the Internet is a formula for losing money, with taxpayers picking up the tab. Hockey Night in Canada: I realize this is going to be a tough sell, but hear me out. The CBC has happily perpetuated the stereotype that Canada= Hockey, but to what end? More and more Canadians are showing interest in " non- Canadian" sports such as rugby, American football and soccer. The NHL is a largely American- owned organization that treats Canadians as a devoted, almost foolishly loyal financial base - a role that Canadians have been only too happy to play. It's not as if we're getting a lot in return. In 2012, all Canadian teams were eliminated after the first playoff series. The league is losing millions of dollars trying to keep a hockey team in the desert even as fans from Quebec City cross borders by the thousands to fill empty American arenas to no avail. Don't get me started on why southern Ontario can't get another hockey team - maybe one that actually has a chance of winning the Stanley Cup. Lazy television programming : Why are they still broadcasting episodes of This Hour Has 22 Minutes from the 2008 general election? Who the #@*$ watches Coronation Street ? And what is Ron James doing on national television? The last time I saw his show, the biggest cheers came when he left the stage. Institutional agenda: As a governmental agency, the CBC has a wide- ranging mandate to promote national identity. In more practical terms, their first priority is securing and protecting their sources of funding. This makes for awkward relationships with governments, whom they are supposed to hold accountable, despite the fact these people are the ones signing their cheques. As an institution that came of age during the Trudeau era, the CBC's notion of national identity has in many ways never moved on. This makes for a portrayal of Canada tied to high public spending and centralized government. This institutional bias cannot help but carry over into its coverage and programming. I do not question the sincerity of those who work for the CBC in fulfilling its mandate, or that they have contributed to a sense of national unity through their work. I do question whether their approach is the best one possible, or is fair to taxpayers. Their ability to influence public opinion puts them in a position where they can only be in a conflict of interest. Again, I am not calling into question their motivation, but simply pointing out when an institution simultaneously has the duty to define, and at the same time to promote culture, they will have difficulties distinguishing between the two. Jian Ghomeshi's intros to Studio Q: Just stop, bro. Nelson Peters is a law student at Universit� Laval in Quebec City. B OB Rae is a serious man, and as a serious man, could see the leadership of the Liberal party is no place for serious men. Whatever other factors went into his decision not to run for leader, surely among them must have been a frank judgment that he could not win. A party that is preparing to throw itself at Justin Trudeau is not a serious party. Can the Liberal party survive? Of course it can. But there is every possibility it won't. Those who still see the necessity of a third national party in Canadian politics ( fourth, counting the Greens) would do well to start contingency- planning for that event. Survival in its present form would require the party to reinvent itself to a quite extraordinary degree. Indeed, as I've written before, it would have to redefine what it means to be a centrist party. This is not so much because the centre of Canadian politics has disappeared - the muchdiscussed polarization - as that it has been occupied. The Conservatives, whatever their recent initiatives, are well to the left of where they were a decade ago, while the NDP had moved some considerable way to the right even before it chose Tom Mulcair as its leader. To make space for itself on this landscape, then, the Liberal party would have to show an unaccustomed boldness and sureness of purpose: a willingness to go where the other parties would not go, but where expert opinion and the national interest would advise, whether this placed it on the right or the left on any given issue. That would be its stamp, its brand: the bold party, the tell- it- like- it- is party, the party that did the right thing. The problem with this advice, I now realize, is it's a fantasy. There's just no evidence the party is in anything like that frame of mind, or is likely to be. The premise that a party with nothing to lose would be liberated to take risks would seem to have been disproven. The two- year window it gave itself to choose a new leader was supposed to afford time for reflection and reinvigoration. Instead, it looks very likely to have been time wasted. The convention earlier this year offered the membership a chance to take control of the party. Instead, they punted. Any lingering hopes of the leadership race becoming the forum for a fundamental rethink dwindle by the day. I can't see Rae, whatever his other qualities, as having led that transformation. Even less can I see it happening under Trudeau. Indeed, for the people championing his accession, that's the point. It's just another bit of expedience, another lunge for short- term advantage, in the hope that genetics, good looks and a French surname can win them a few seats in Quebec. As no doubt it can. But after? Does the party really think it is going to rebuild out of Quebec? Splitting the province four ways with the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives, while conceding the West, yet again? There are other prospective candidates, of course. But those inclined to make the changes the party needs have little chance of winning, while those with the chance lack the inclination. The exceptions are, at this point, mostly theoretical. John Manley's blunt talk and free- market views would offer an attractive mix of change and continuity. And Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney's entry would obviously turn over the whole chessboard. But I can't see either man going for it. So it would seem advisable for third- partyists ( tri- partisans?) to be readying, at the very least, a Plan B. If, that is, the Liberals should prove incapable of saving themselves, it may be time to start thinking seriously about a new party. The Liberals have always prided themselves on being a big tent. But a big tent with very few people in it becomes a problem. Part of the party's inability to strike out in a bold new direction I think stems from very real differences over policy. Until its recent decline, those differences did not need sorting out: Power soothed all. Now they do. The catalyst for this may prove to be the unceasing efforts on the party left to promote a merger with the NDP. I've argued against this before, in part because it would split the party. But perhaps that is what now recommends it. Left- Liberals would be free to pursue that particular fantasy ( their role in such a merger would be roughly equivalent to that of the Progressive Conservatives in the current Conservative party). And the right? If there is a coalition in Canadian politics more unwieldy than the Liberals, it is the Conservatives: Less an alliance than a contradiction, between economic libertarians championing relentless change, and social conservatives whose raison d'�tre is their hatred of change. It has been the formula for conservative success for decades, but that does not mean it is not ripe for the plucking. The more natural modern coalition, it seems to me, is between economic liberals ( in the European sense) and social liberals; between free marketers and environmentalists ( it's all about minimizing waste), between advocates of consumer power and voter power. There are free marketers who vote Conservative only because they have to - who are uncomfortable with their so- con bedfellows, dismayed by the party's indifference to environmental issues and appalled by its assault on parliamentary democracy, but who can find no other party they trust on the economy. Perhaps it is time they were offered one. Andrew Coyne is a national columnist for Postmedia News. Greeks reach verdict Egypt wounded Do we really need the CBC anymore? By Nelson Peters If the Liberals can't save themselves... ANDREW COYNE A_ 06_ Jun- 19- 12_ FP_ 01. indd A6 6/ 18/ 12 7: 46: 10 PM ;