I'm a pensioner boomer who supports the CBC (for all its faults) as well as public health care, though I would not put up lawn-signs to prove it. I basically agree with all the rest of your piece, but find your little slam at people like me to be stupid and unnecessary. You're underlining your own credibility.
Why does everyone make the assumption that nothing on this planet can function without the United States involvement in it? Other countries have surveillance abilities and almost all of us have now realized the United States is an enemy and is just as bad as Russia is.
Every other Western Democratic country in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Pacific countries are all working as hard as they can to remove United States from their security systems.
And we are learning how to go it alone without any involvement of the USA at all.
The USA is not in charge of NATO. The USA is not in charge of the five eyes group. Up until this point in time they have been the biggest supplier of surveillance information, but that doesn’t mean we can’t go it alone.
And I can pretty much guarantee that all of those other countries out there are considering how to get the United States out of the Five Eyes group, out of NATO, out of everything that they have any impact on. Because keeping them involved in anything at this point in time is like having a traitor in the heart of your government who is going to expose every secret you have to the real bad guys and the Americans at this point in time are the real bad guys!
How does this apply to continental defence?. The US is the only practical partner. Plan for the day when they break it up, sure. But the US armed forces, who surely regard all the noise as pointless, will continue co-operating until ordered to stop.
The k you for this info and insight. I'm a bit miffed by the snide reference to boomers. THIS boomer is all in on increasing defence capacity and on disentangling from (untrustworthy) American relationships. Yet I love healthcare and (often) the CBC, though I have no lawn signs my friend.
Although Canada is committed to the risky F-35s (and accompanying computer systems), it seems to me that we should start budgeting now for a switch to European systems, say, in a decade. We might even start to consider resurrecting our own military production whether in aircraft or other area as we can't rely entirely on Europe any more than on the USA going forward.
Thanks for this thoughtful and reasoned post (says a pensioned-up boomer lol). I’ve been grappling with this very point, more from the perspective of looming naval acquisitions, and you have synthesized the issue(s) precisely.
Have you seen the Norwegian tv show “The Oil Fund? It’s on PBS, streaming. Very funny. The American ambassador turns up in a limo regularly to tell the fund investment guru what America will and won’t accept. There’s a decidedly mafia boss feel about it. Seems this could be an opportunity to get out from under that relationship by cooperating with Nordics and Europe on defence, and commonwealth. Conservative parties in Commonwealth countries are likely to undermine this, so would rather stick with Nordics who have more experience and caution in dealing with big aggressive neighbours. Good to keep in mind, as John Manley pointed out recently, that things like health care, CBC, safety net etc build national cohesion, which is a strength. Not an accident that these Nordic countries score highest on democracy indexes, quality of life, and apparently economic success. Sweden has more billionaires per capital than America says a BBC video - not sure that is a great measure of success if what is currently going on in the US is anything to go by. Ballistic missiles, nuclear umbrella ☂️ seems to be the way to go. The latest thing🥺
Jane, I was with you until you dropped the reference to the CBC into your commentary!
Please pardon my (obviously biased!) antipathy to that organization but I cannot accept any organization telling me what I should and should not think. I simply do not believe that telling me what to think is a good way to "... build national cohesion ..."
I know, you might well consider me to be a one issue or otherwise oriented individual and you can have that perspective if you wish. I, on the other hand, in a free society am able to have my perspective.
How do you think the CBC tells anyone how to think? I have been a fan of CBC for the last 75 years and have never thought I was being told what to think. I am quite capable of deciding what I think, perhaps you are easily influenced?
Well, LS, I stopped watching CBC when I noticed that their selection of topics and individuals interviewed/spokespeople always seemed to criticize conservative values or Conservatives.
I am not a Conservative - not at all! - but I do like to understand various views. The "conservative" voices that I did hear seemed to me to be caricatures and were presented for only minor portions of available time whereas the non-conservative voices always were presented as "reasonable" folk with "real" concerns and had more presence, not at all like the "unreasonable" more rightish voices.
More to the point, from time to time I had specific knowledge about particular stories and I realized the facile way in which a complicated story was presented with no commentary that the particular thing was complicated and had many important facets that should go into discussion of the particular issue(s).
Of course, I found that some of the presenters were more prone to the "oversimplification" of issues than were other presenters. Oh, and those presenters were also the ones who had prominent roles at the Ceeb, so, well, their presence kinda, possibly, maybe, certainly led to certain "foregone" conclusions in reportage.
So, I simply stopped watching / listening.
Oh, and I have not been a fan for 75 years but at age 74 I have been an observer of the network for many, many decades.
I understand, sorry didn’t see this answer. I have had similar experiences. I think anyone who has specific knowledge (I am no expert) finds the media falls short. It is one of the pleasures of Substack to find people with deep knowledge of a certain subject writing about it. Have you read Philip’s O’Brien? The CBC undoubtedly has weaknesses. I enjoyed it more when it was a home for passionate nerds like Lister Sinclair and Max Ferguson, but it tries for balance, and it’s not Fox News, for which we can all be grateful.
I have not had the pleasure (I expect) of reading Philip O'Brien; I will have to see if I can find him.
Clearly, the CBC is not the Ceeb of Sinclair or Ferguson and, actually, that is fine. Wonderful as they were, time does move on and we who might remember their names are becoming far fewer - again, fine as that is the natural progression.
My problem is not the lack of Sinclair or Ferguson but the fact that as near as I can tell, there is no modern equivalent there. Or, to quote Gertrude Stein, "There is no there there" at least in the sense that the modern CBC has so driven off it's watchers and listeners that there is not much of an audience at all.
Pierre Poilievre wants to "defund" the CBC and I actually support that. It is not that I want to kill the institution (although there are days ...) but by "defunding" and concurrently telling the CBC to raise it's own money the CBC will have to listen to the folks who watch / listen and to actually appeal to those folks sufficiently. In turn, I would hope that would cause the CBC to cut out ever so much of it's bureaucracy, sell off real estate, yada, yada, yada, and to then put out a product that people will find appealing. And then, with luck, THAT resulting CBC can be a national institution that binds the country.
I hold no truck for PP but I think his "vision" (at least as I understand it) is a better future for the CBC than a continuation of the current model.
The problem with your argument here is that you assume the CBC content it’s producing isn’t what its viewers/listeners want because it’s not what you like. I happen to like and respect the content in general. I’m proud of the CBC as a Canadian institution.
At most maybe what’s needed, if they don’t already do this, is some marketing group studies to see how their content aligns with viewer/listener goals in different parts of the country. Regional differences are to be expected and should be accommodated.
Find out what changes are appropriate.
Forcing it to raise money through funding campaigns won’t make its content any better. The CBC still IMO fills an important institutional role in Canada and should get some government funding as one of its sources.
As to bureaucracy, an objective comparison of CBC vs similar major public and private organizations would be a better place to start than just presuming it’s poorly structured.
I’m all for encouraging efficiency and financial probity but like to know the measures are objective and reasonable.
Absolutely, can’t win them all. Worth keeping in mind that democracies with national broadcasters are stronger. For us when there’s a hurricane or wildfire they are always on the job, even more important in very remote regions. We’re a big country.
John, it was the CBC that Jane mentioned so that is the institution to which I objected. I could object to other media outlets but, as I say, that is the one that she mentioned.
I represented global American companies which thought of themselves as being global companies first and American second. Many of these global companies were incorporated in multiple jurisdictions where the directors and top officers who were not American. Some of these global companies had divisions which were focused on the defence industries. Right now, the kleptocrats in the White House are only rewarding their cronies, who are not be interested in supporting their competitors.
There may be global American companies who understand that there is far more business to be had outside of the United States, and may be willing to reorganize their operations to take them out of the United States and out from under the scrutiny of Musk, Theil , Trump and other kleptocrats controlling the White House. Alternatively, some of these companies might be interested in redomiciling to avoid the political and economic fallout from being incorporated or based in a failing state. (The maritime industry has seen fleets of ships and their owners redomicile for just such considerations.)
Corporate behaviour is governed by calculations of profit and risk. The Commonwealth and the EU may end up being the beneficiaries of defence production expertise those global corporations involved in the defence industries decide that the market in the Commonwealth and in the EU is larger and more profitable than that in Trump's America.
Of course, these calculations will be done behind closed doors and after private consultations with representatives of various governments and with lawyers. Migrating companies to another jurisdiction will also take time and planning. The good news is that many of these global companies' shares are held by large financial institutions, which are already feeling the effects of Trump economics and not in a good way. So all this is a way of saying Canadian defence may have alternatives to scale up quickly enough.
What about the other important info in that Times article? Ripping up Canada-America agreements pertaining to the Great Lakes, not recognizing the international border, etc.
Just picked this up. Maybe we’ll find out how the defence contractors feel about losing business. The F-35 may turn out to be really bad idea.
“… Janis Kluge with the German Institute for International and Security Affairs says that American defense contractors are about to lose billions in business from Europe after the US disabled jamming equipment in F-16s and is withholding maintenance and parts for systems already purchased: “US weapons have become toxic,’
Pensioned-up boomer, CBC supporter and public health care defender here. No problem with foreign intelligence as long as the RCMP isn’t running it and it isn’t used against dissidence that doesn’t threaten security.
Canada has a defence presence in larger embassies in the form of military attachés. There were, and may still be, first secretaries without listed responsibility (political, economic, cultural etc.) who I understood to be with CSIS Actively gathering intelligence as opposed to receiving it from local agencies and passing it on may not have been part of their duties. That can be a fine distinction though.
I'm a pensioner boomer who supports the CBC (for all its faults) as well as public health care, though I would not put up lawn-signs to prove it. I basically agree with all the rest of your piece, but find your little slam at people like me to be stupid and unnecessary. You're underlining your own credibility.
If indeed, Trump is a Russian asset, or at least a "useful idiot", as reliable sources have plausibly argued, then all bets are off!!!
Why does everyone make the assumption that nothing on this planet can function without the United States involvement in it? Other countries have surveillance abilities and almost all of us have now realized the United States is an enemy and is just as bad as Russia is.
Every other Western Democratic country in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Pacific countries are all working as hard as they can to remove United States from their security systems.
And we are learning how to go it alone without any involvement of the USA at all.
The USA is not in charge of NATO. The USA is not in charge of the five eyes group. Up until this point in time they have been the biggest supplier of surveillance information, but that doesn’t mean we can’t go it alone.
And I can pretty much guarantee that all of those other countries out there are considering how to get the United States out of the Five Eyes group, out of NATO, out of everything that they have any impact on. Because keeping them involved in anything at this point in time is like having a traitor in the heart of your government who is going to expose every secret you have to the real bad guys and the Americans at this point in time are the real bad guys!
How does this apply to continental defence?. The US is the only practical partner. Plan for the day when they break it up, sure. But the US armed forces, who surely regard all the noise as pointless, will continue co-operating until ordered to stop.
The k you for this info and insight. I'm a bit miffed by the snide reference to boomers. THIS boomer is all in on increasing defence capacity and on disentangling from (untrustworthy) American relationships. Yet I love healthcare and (often) the CBC, though I have no lawn signs my friend.
Although Canada is committed to the risky F-35s (and accompanying computer systems), it seems to me that we should start budgeting now for a switch to European systems, say, in a decade. We might even start to consider resurrecting our own military production whether in aircraft or other area as we can't rely entirely on Europe any more than on the USA going forward.
Thanks for this thoughtful and reasoned post (says a pensioned-up boomer lol). I’ve been grappling with this very point, more from the perspective of looming naval acquisitions, and you have synthesized the issue(s) precisely.
This pensioned-up Boomer heartily agrees! 😁
It's a real possibility that the 4 eyes will not include USA.
Instead of kicking Canada out of NORAD, NATO & FIVE EYES, bench the US instead and substitute in Ukraine.
or Poland?
Have you seen the Norwegian tv show “The Oil Fund? It’s on PBS, streaming. Very funny. The American ambassador turns up in a limo regularly to tell the fund investment guru what America will and won’t accept. There’s a decidedly mafia boss feel about it. Seems this could be an opportunity to get out from under that relationship by cooperating with Nordics and Europe on defence, and commonwealth. Conservative parties in Commonwealth countries are likely to undermine this, so would rather stick with Nordics who have more experience and caution in dealing with big aggressive neighbours. Good to keep in mind, as John Manley pointed out recently, that things like health care, CBC, safety net etc build national cohesion, which is a strength. Not an accident that these Nordic countries score highest on democracy indexes, quality of life, and apparently economic success. Sweden has more billionaires per capital than America says a BBC video - not sure that is a great measure of success if what is currently going on in the US is anything to go by. Ballistic missiles, nuclear umbrella ☂️ seems to be the way to go. The latest thing🥺
Nope think that’s an underhanded attempt to kill a vital institution
Jane, I was with you until you dropped the reference to the CBC into your commentary!
Please pardon my (obviously biased!) antipathy to that organization but I cannot accept any organization telling me what I should and should not think. I simply do not believe that telling me what to think is a good way to "... build national cohesion ..."
I know, you might well consider me to be a one issue or otherwise oriented individual and you can have that perspective if you wish. I, on the other hand, in a free society am able to have my perspective.
How do you think the CBC tells anyone how to think? I have been a fan of CBC for the last 75 years and have never thought I was being told what to think. I am quite capable of deciding what I think, perhaps you are easily influenced?
Well, LS, I stopped watching CBC when I noticed that their selection of topics and individuals interviewed/spokespeople always seemed to criticize conservative values or Conservatives.
I am not a Conservative - not at all! - but I do like to understand various views. The "conservative" voices that I did hear seemed to me to be caricatures and were presented for only minor portions of available time whereas the non-conservative voices always were presented as "reasonable" folk with "real" concerns and had more presence, not at all like the "unreasonable" more rightish voices.
More to the point, from time to time I had specific knowledge about particular stories and I realized the facile way in which a complicated story was presented with no commentary that the particular thing was complicated and had many important facets that should go into discussion of the particular issue(s).
Of course, I found that some of the presenters were more prone to the "oversimplification" of issues than were other presenters. Oh, and those presenters were also the ones who had prominent roles at the Ceeb, so, well, their presence kinda, possibly, maybe, certainly led to certain "foregone" conclusions in reportage.
So, I simply stopped watching / listening.
Oh, and I have not been a fan for 75 years but at age 74 I have been an observer of the network for many, many decades.
I understand, sorry didn’t see this answer. I have had similar experiences. I think anyone who has specific knowledge (I am no expert) finds the media falls short. It is one of the pleasures of Substack to find people with deep knowledge of a certain subject writing about it. Have you read Philip’s O’Brien? The CBC undoubtedly has weaknesses. I enjoyed it more when it was a home for passionate nerds like Lister Sinclair and Max Ferguson, but it tries for balance, and it’s not Fox News, for which we can all be grateful.
I have not had the pleasure (I expect) of reading Philip O'Brien; I will have to see if I can find him.
Clearly, the CBC is not the Ceeb of Sinclair or Ferguson and, actually, that is fine. Wonderful as they were, time does move on and we who might remember their names are becoming far fewer - again, fine as that is the natural progression.
My problem is not the lack of Sinclair or Ferguson but the fact that as near as I can tell, there is no modern equivalent there. Or, to quote Gertrude Stein, "There is no there there" at least in the sense that the modern CBC has so driven off it's watchers and listeners that there is not much of an audience at all.
Pierre Poilievre wants to "defund" the CBC and I actually support that. It is not that I want to kill the institution (although there are days ...) but by "defunding" and concurrently telling the CBC to raise it's own money the CBC will have to listen to the folks who watch / listen and to actually appeal to those folks sufficiently. In turn, I would hope that would cause the CBC to cut out ever so much of it's bureaucracy, sell off real estate, yada, yada, yada, and to then put out a product that people will find appealing. And then, with luck, THAT resulting CBC can be a national institution that binds the country.
I hold no truck for PP but I think his "vision" (at least as I understand it) is a better future for the CBC than a continuation of the current model.
The problem with your argument here is that you assume the CBC content it’s producing isn’t what its viewers/listeners want because it’s not what you like. I happen to like and respect the content in general. I’m proud of the CBC as a Canadian institution.
At most maybe what’s needed, if they don’t already do this, is some marketing group studies to see how their content aligns with viewer/listener goals in different parts of the country. Regional differences are to be expected and should be accommodated.
Find out what changes are appropriate.
Forcing it to raise money through funding campaigns won’t make its content any better. The CBC still IMO fills an important institutional role in Canada and should get some government funding as one of its sources.
As to bureaucracy, an objective comparison of CBC vs similar major public and private organizations would be a better place to start than just presuming it’s poorly structured.
I’m all for encouraging efficiency and financial probity but like to know the measures are objective and reasonable.
Absolutely, can’t win them all. Worth keeping in mind that democracies with national broadcasters are stronger. For us when there’s a hurricane or wildfire they are always on the job, even more important in very remote regions. We’re a big country.
Why single out the CBC in a biased media universe???
John, it was the CBC that Jane mentioned so that is the institution to which I objected. I could object to other media outlets but, as I say, that is the one that she mentioned.
Don’t watch CBC. Problem solved.
I represented global American companies which thought of themselves as being global companies first and American second. Many of these global companies were incorporated in multiple jurisdictions where the directors and top officers who were not American. Some of these global companies had divisions which were focused on the defence industries. Right now, the kleptocrats in the White House are only rewarding their cronies, who are not be interested in supporting their competitors.
There may be global American companies who understand that there is far more business to be had outside of the United States, and may be willing to reorganize their operations to take them out of the United States and out from under the scrutiny of Musk, Theil , Trump and other kleptocrats controlling the White House. Alternatively, some of these companies might be interested in redomiciling to avoid the political and economic fallout from being incorporated or based in a failing state. (The maritime industry has seen fleets of ships and their owners redomicile for just such considerations.)
Corporate behaviour is governed by calculations of profit and risk. The Commonwealth and the EU may end up being the beneficiaries of defence production expertise those global corporations involved in the defence industries decide that the market in the Commonwealth and in the EU is larger and more profitable than that in Trump's America.
Of course, these calculations will be done behind closed doors and after private consultations with representatives of various governments and with lawyers. Migrating companies to another jurisdiction will also take time and planning. The good news is that many of these global companies' shares are held by large financial institutions, which are already feeling the effects of Trump economics and not in a good way. So all this is a way of saying Canadian defence may have alternatives to scale up quickly enough.
What about the other important info in that Times article? Ripping up Canada-America agreements pertaining to the Great Lakes, not recognizing the international border, etc.
Just picked this up. Maybe we’ll find out how the defence contractors feel about losing business. The F-35 may turn out to be really bad idea.
“… Janis Kluge with the German Institute for International and Security Affairs says that American defense contractors are about to lose billions in business from Europe after the US disabled jamming equipment in F-16s and is withholding maintenance and parts for systems already purchased: “US weapons have become toxic,’
Pensioned-up boomer, CBC supporter and public health care defender here. No problem with foreign intelligence as long as the RCMP isn’t running it and it isn’t used against dissidence that doesn’t threaten security.
Canada has a defence presence in larger embassies in the form of military attachés. There were, and may still be, first secretaries without listed responsibility (political, economic, cultural etc.) who I understood to be with CSIS Actively gathering intelligence as opposed to receiving it from local agencies and passing it on may not have been part of their duties. That can be a fine distinction though.
https://substack.com/@calluramichael491850/note/c-104413660?r=1ii73h&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
I always appreciate it when a post not only describes the problem, but also suggests solutions. Well done.
Now I wonder how the message gets to the people who can make changes, not just us over 70's.