"Russians At War": Follow the Money | Politics 2
Why Canadian political parties won't 'follow the money' unpacking the creation and distribution of "Russians At War" using taxpayer dollars?
It's not in their interest.
The Election
Canada is entering a federal election campaign whenever the current Liberal minority government fails to secure a non-confidence vote in the House of Commons.
When will this happen? Either when the Liberals decide its politically advantageous to lose a non-confidence vote, or when someone on the Government side gets the math wrong. It's day by day. When they lose, what happens to following Canadian taxpayer money of the documentary "Russians At War" and its distribution throughout Canadian festivals like the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) or the Windsor International Film Festival (WIFF)?
Nothing, more or less.
Breakdown
Petitions
First, anything currently active in Parliament related to "Russians at War" and funding, such as the Parliamentary petition sponsored by Conservative Member of Parliament James Bezan, dies on the order paper the minute the election is triggered.
In response to my question to the Table Research Branch at the House of Commons, this is what they stated:
"According to the House of Commons Electronic Petitions Guide and Terms of Use “The?dissolution?of Parliament (the period between the end of a Parliament and the start of a new Parliament after a general election) terminates the e-petitioning process. The petitions website closes at dissolution and all e-petitions not yet presented to the House are closed, and the obligation for the government to respond to all petitions also lapses. All petitioners will receive an email informing them of the status of their petition. Should a petitioner wish to pursue an issue in the form of an e-petition in the next Parliament, they must start the?process?anew approximately three weeks after the general election, when the petitions website reopens. Any signatures gathered prior to dissolution may not be reused; signatories who wish to support a similar petition in the new Parliament will have to sign again.”
This means that the Bezan electronic petition ceases to exist. After the general election, any Canadian can start a new process, but they should find a newly elected and sworn Member of Parliament from any political party to agree to take it on once the process and website is open approximately 3 weeks after the election. It means starting from scratch to build momentum and signatures to demonstrate public desire to conduct a review of the funding of "Russians At War", and, possibly to expel Russian diplomats from Canada.
Caretaker Convention
Second, once an election is called, then Canada applies the 'caretaker convention'. The Government of Canada website explains this:
"In Canada’s form of democratic government, the legitimacy of the Government flows from its ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. Following the dissolution of Parliament for an election, however, there is no elected chamber to confer confidence on the Government. Given this fact, and that the Government cannot assume that it will command the confidence of the House after the election, it is incumbent upon a government to act with restraint during an election period. This is the “caretaker convention”. By observing the caretaker convention, governments at the end of their current mandate demonstrate respect for the democratic will of the people.
The caretaker period begins when either the Government loses a vote of non-confidence or Parliament has been dissolved (either as a result of the Prime Minister asking for dissolution, or because of an election date set by legislation). It ends when a new government is sworn-in, or when an election result returning an incumbent government is clear.
Exercising “restraint” does not mean that government is prohibited from making decisions or announcements, or otherwise taking action, during the caretaker period. To the contrary, the routine operation of government must continue and necessary business must be transacted. In the event of emergencies, such as natural disasters, the government must have a free hand to take appropriate action to ensure that the public interest, notably the safety and security of Canadians, is preserved.
To the extent possible, however, government activity following the dissolution of Parliament – in matters of policy, expenditure and appointments – should be restricted to matters that are:
In determining what activity is necessary for continued good government, the Government must inevitably exercise judgement, weighing the need for action and the restraint called for by convention."
Following taxpayer funding of "Russians At War" given its high political presence in the media is not 'routine', nor is it 'non-controversial', and given other top of mind political issues like pharmacare, carbon tax, altering a CTV news clip of Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre littering mainstream media, the problem of "Russians at War" has drifted from news reporting. Therefore relative to the grand scheme of things newsworthy, it might be in the 'public interest', but its not 'urgent'.
Test 4 is tricky. The key here is that following the money for the film itself, as well as its Canadian taxpayer funded festivals, through all federal streams, (never mind trickling into provincial coffers and even the City of Toronto), gets messy. It means unpacking taxpayer funds appropriated by the Department of Canadian Heritage, for the Canada Media Fund via a service agreement with Telefilm Canada. It means unpacking the relationship between the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), its regulated broadcasters like TVO and BC Knowledge Network who signed contracts with "Russia at War" co-producers. It means delving into Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) funded tax credits to offset labour productions during film development. It means unpacking financial relationships with French public and private sector companies to create and produce this documentary using Canadian taxpayer dollars. It means understanding if any Canadian taxpayer dollars were used to fund potential illegal activities on the part of director Anastasia Trofimova breaking Canadian sanctions against Russia. It also means figuring out by Justice Canada what the legal ramification, if any, are in the flow of Canadian taxpayer dollars to support the director in her activities in Ukraine, and travelling to Russia, during the duration of her filming content within the Russian military.
And that is just for the film development itself, not including financial sponsorship of film festivals.
领英推荐
Test 4 requires that 'government activity ... should be restricted to matters that are: ...4. reversible by a new government without undue cost or disruption...". So, and given the above, is Canadian taxpayer funding for 'Russians at War' something that a new government can reverse without undue cost or disruption? Likely not. Here's why.
Decolonialization
On September 19, 2024, Yale history Professor Timothy Snyder spoke to the Helsinki Commission about decolonization. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f7N09kLFD4
What is key is that Professor Snyder believes that Western cultures have accepted, embraced and internalized Russian imperial thinking. That means that policy makers, politicians and people seem to think there is something 'special' about Russia. Its become embedded in our public institutional decision-making - through policies and politics - and importantly it's been reflected in our educational systems that has grown kids to think this way into adulthood.
This is very important for Canada.
Like funding "Russians At War".
No matter how much Ukrainian Canadians and Canadians oppose the hegemony of Russian imperial thinking, actions and war, the fundamental problem is that we, as a country including politicians and policy makers in all levels of bureaucracy, don't understand the Russian mindset and its imperialist drive.
This is why somehow, in our public discourse in Canada and the US, its okay for Ukrainians to be victims, because they alway have been. But the reality is that real victims include us, as Canadians, who refuse to acknowledge and recognize the reach and impact of Russian imperialism and colonial mindset on digital/social media, used as a weapon of destruction. Of Ukrainians and their ancestry across diasporas, and of Canadians who fail to understand their weapons.
Given the above, test 5 restricts matters which seeks agreement by opposition parties (in those cases where consultation is appropriate). How does this work when the Conservative Opposition party is challenging the current Liberal Government of Canada in daily non-confidence votes?
Where does this leave following and unpacking the money regarding Canadian taxpayer support for 'Russians at War' within the Government of Canada and federal departments?
In the best case scenario, on hold.
The worst case, shelved, dismissed or forgotten.
FORWARD
It's clear if the Government of Canada took this issue seriously, it would have publicly announced a review - or a forensic audit - of the money to unlock the process, decisions and rationale behind this funding and its support of "Russians at War". Doing it before losing a vote of non-confidence in the House of Commons would have sent a signal to Canadians and also to Russia that Canada takes this matter seriously. It didn't, yet.
Where does this leave Canadian taxpayers trying to understand how funding a propaganda documentary with their money happened, in an age of foreign election interference by countries like China, Iraq and Russia?
Fuming.
The Government of Canada still has a chance to come clean and publicly outline what it is going to do with the problem of using taxpayer money to fund "Russians At War" before an election. Setting aside political party interests to put Canada's interests first may be the way forward.
More importantly, forget political party interests. Who is willing to shift Russian imperial thinking embedded in our country?
Chrystia
Vision | Voice | Visuals mine