The Role of Environmental Sustainability in Business Resilience in the USA

However, this seeming change of heart is purely cosmetic, not only part of the pendulum of the PRC's external behavior, but also perfectly compatible with a parallel hardening of the CCP's worldview.The facts speak for themselves. While Beijing claims it wants to enhance relations with the West, evidence suggest a Chinese influence network attempted to tamper in the last two Canadian elections. It continues to use aggressive military tactics against its democratic neighbour, Taiwan. It lends material support to Russia in its brutal invasion of Ukraine while failing to tell world health authorities about the present COVID outbreak. Indeed, China holds the international community hostage on issues such as global warming by requiring the rest of the world to give in to some of its "core interests," which include the genocidal treatment of an ethnic minority, the erosion of Hong Kong's freedoms, and the annexation of a peaceful democracy next door.It is not impossible, in fact, that hardliners in Beijing purposefully exploited the spy balloon that sailed over the continental United States last week to make it virtually certain that Blinken's visit to China, and hence the potential of de-escalation, would be derailed.Furthermore, Xi has unshakeable ambitions and, as Biden famously stated, lacks a democratic bone in his body. The president for life, who is highly ideological, possibly megalomaniac, and impatient with any counsel that does not match his philosophy, has surrounded himself with sycophants following last fall's Party Congress. This further undermines the assumption that Beijing has seen the light and decided to change its ways.

This also implies that being polite to Beijing is 

a futile effort. By engaging with the PRC as if we were dealing with a regular party-state, there is little, if any, prospect of empowering more liberal voices inside the CCP, which could eventually take the party in a more benign direction. Those voices have been silenced, intimidated, or imprisoned.Simply put, if we approach Beijing with the foolish notion that we are dealing with a regime really committed to improved behavior, we will only empower the Party and create more opportunities for it to continue destroying the global order.That is not to argue that we should ignore the PRC—we cannot—but we should be clear about what it is up to and what its aims are, and be aware that the gentler tone is really a tactical ploy.Pierre Poilievere wants to defund the CBC. Not all of it; only English television and the English news network. He proposes that the French and English radio services remain intact. "Send me $20 and I will save you a billion" is what he says in his fundraising ads. His arithmetic skills are low, but his attack is smart.The potential savings are not even close to one billion. Cable fees and advertising fund the news network's operations. There is no government funding involved. The billion dollars in state subsidies (1.25 really) are customarily split 60/40 English/French and 80/20 TV/radio, leaving only 750 million for English services, with radio receiving 20%. Thus, only 600 million dollars are spent on English television, not the billion that Poilievre asserts.

Poilievre's method is ingenious

despite his lack of mathematical ability. Unlike his predecessors, he specifically targets English TV rather than CBC/Radio-Canada as a whole. Why? Because it is the weakest of the services. Radio-Canada's TV station, Ici Tele, has a 25 percent prime-time share, followed by Ici Radio (17%), English radio (17%), and English TV (5%). For more than a decade, English television audiences have shrunk. It is now a service with hardly no viewers, and the content is very old.As audience numbers decline, so does public support for the program. This isn't particularlyshocking. Why would Canadians care about or want to protect English television since it is no longer relevant in their lives? Why would they invest their political capital in a service that is irrelevant to them?The difficulties with English television are not new. At the turn of the century, its proportion of prime time had been declining for 30 years. In 2004, its share had dropped to its lowest point ever. There was widespread doubt about whether it could be restored.Beginning in 2005, a new approach was implemented centered on producing Canadian entertainment that Canadians wanted to see. This was seen as a radical and potentially impossible undertaking. There were also concerns that CBC would be "dumbed down". The concept was inspired by the BBC's famous statement, "Audiences are everything to us". (Full disclosure: I was the head of English television at the time.)

The strategy included two components

First, it was necessary to eliminate shows that no one was watching. The performing arts block (basically ballet on TV) was eliminated; coverage of increasingly obscure arts awards (ranging from the Urban Music Awards to the Gillers) was discontinued; and historical documentaries masquerading as drama (endless Canadian political figures from the distant past) were dropped. The rule was simple: if no one is watching a show, it must end.Second, new series were created that followed the TV norms that English Canadians preferred. Little Mosque on the Prairie, Heartland (now in its 16th season and still on the network), Dragon's Den (now in its 17th season), Battle of the Blades (which drew an astonishing 3 million people), The Rick Mercer Report, and the list goes on. The new shows significantly increased English television audiences. Its all-Canadian prime-time roster propelled it to the number two network in the country, trailing only CTV's primarily American schedule.