MediaPolicy.ca

June 21, 2022

en français

The House of Commons will send the Online Streaming Act to the Senate where Conservative Senate Leader Leo Housakos’ tweet (above) heralds one last furious lap around the legislative oval for Bill C-11.

If I had the ear of Canadian Senators, here is what I would tell them.

First, if it was ever in question, maintain that Senatorial chill. It will be an improvement on the debate so far. 

This won’t be the first time Senators have been handed a controversial C-Bill filibustered by the Official Opposition to get public attention and then expedited by a Government using closure with majority support.

Bill C-11 was reviewed by Heritage Committee MPs for 20 hours over ten sittings with more than 50 witnesses. And that’s not counting all the Committee time spent on its forerunner C-10 in 2021.

At the end of those meetings, which included four sittings of undisguised filibustering, Conservative Committee vice-chair John Nater said (a) he wanted to schedule another 20 witnesses and (b) he would not agree to amend and return the Bill to House for Third Reading until after the Committee put aside C-11 to conduct an inquiry and complete a report on the incident concerning Hockey Canada. 

That put clause-by-clause amendments (of which Mr. Nater would submit more than 120) into the late Fall. On that timetable C-11 would pass —to recall Mr. Nater’s own word— “eventually.”

The Conservatives’ goal was and remains to force the Liberals to walk away from their Bill’s provisions relating to videos and music streaming on hosting platforms, while messaging to voters about freedom of expression and censorship. 

Throughout the Committee proceedings there was nary a hint of a side conversation to find a compromise which I suggested in a previous post is well within reach.

In the end the Conservatives gave the Liberals a binary choice: wait out an indefinite filibuster or capitulate to CPC demands. Instead the Liberals joined with the Bloc and NDP to end the filibuster and surrender nothing.

That meant a single day in Committee for amendments, a political farce by any measure. There were at least 150 amendments on the table. Nevertheless in a thirteen-hour sitting on June 14^th, forty-two amendments to the Bill were approved. Many were unanimous.

That much Senators already know. What about substance of the Bill?

The majority of the forty-two approved amendments were not contentious, inserted into the Act’s clause on the objectives of national broadcasting policy.

Many amendments tabled by groups supporting the Bill did not make the cut: for example, the local news amendment recommended by the CRTC and the government’s own expert panel was voted down by both Liberals and Conservatives.

The sticking points were the four signature amendments sought by the Conservatives.

They got their first, drawn from their 2021 election platform: the repeal of $120 million in annual Part II fees paid by broadcasters to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. 

Their second ought to have fallen like ripe fruit off the policy tree but did not: a minimum revenue threshold below which Internet broadcasters would be exempted from regulation. If Senators don’t fix that, the CRTC will.

Next came the hard part: amendments to delete sections 4.1, 4.2 and 9.1(1)(e). That meant ousting CRTC regulation of any uploads to YouTube, TikTok and Facebook; as well as prohibiting “discovery” orders to promote Canadian music or videos if that would require the platforms to tweak their recommendation algorithms. Those were key sections in the Bill and deleting them was a dealbreaker for the other parties.

In the theatre that the Committee proceedings became, the Conservatives accused Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez and outgoing CRTC Chair Ian Scott of contradicting each other and obscuring the meaning of section 4.1. The Minister told Canadians that “platforms are in, users are out” while Scott acknowledged that both the current Broadcasting Act and Bill C-11 would allow the CRTC to “regulate” user programming.  

In the interest of clearing that up, here are the facts.

The current legislation is technologically neutral and makes no distinction between conventional and Internet broadcasting platforms. Instead of tabling C-10 or C-11, the federal cabinet could have opted to issue a policy directive to the CRTC reversing the Commission’s 20-year exemption of Internet broadcasting platforms and provide a regulatory road map similar to Bill C-11.  

That is what Scott meant when he said the current Act already gives the CRTC free rein over Internet hosting platforms and user programming. The new Bill makes that existing CRTC power explicit but also instructs the Commission in section 4.2 to draw a regulatory boundary between “commercial” and non-commercial programming, and also take into account “direct and indirect revenue.” 

YouTube has been the main focus of debate. The hosting platform’s channels are a mix of programming formats: an additional platform for long-form video from linear broadcasters; music streaming services; aggregated channel menus (we used to call that “cable TV”) but mostly niche video content posted by “YouTubers” competing for audiences via the platform’s proprietary recommendation algorithm. 

The Liberals (and anyone else in their right minds) have zero interest in micro-regulating 160,000 Canadian YouTubers and their thousands of short-form videos. That is why section 4.2 gives the CRTC the discretion to exempt non-commercial programming while YouTube has the right to appeal to the courts if they get it wrong.

While there is criticism that section 4.2 lacks specifics and leaves too much room for the Commission to define “commercial” and quantify “revenue,” not one of C-11’s opponents have offered a more fulsome version. There has been only one demand: exclude YouTube and all other hosting platforms from regulation forever. Pointe finale.

The policy case for Bill C-11’s regulation of commercial programming on hosting platforms is twofold.

Right now, YouTube’s music uploads and streaming services compete head-on with Canadian radio. This is a policy no-brainer: quite reasonably You Tube has publicly agreed to regulation of its music services.

As for video content, in the long term (if such a thing exists for the Internet) YouTube may evolve into a major distribution platform for commercial video falling into the priority genres of Canadian news, sports, and entertainment we currently see and hear on linear platforms. The policy question is why would an important broadcasting technology of the future be permanently excluded from the Act?

But to cut through the fog of war on section 4.2, it is helpful to turn the spotlight on the word “regulate.”

Up until now the word “regulate” has been used too loosely in the C-11 debate. 

In the current Broadcasting Act, “regulating” content includes at least these four major points:

• Who makes or pays for Canadian content? The Act empowers the CRTC to determine which media companies write cheques to production funds or make CanCon themselves. For Internet broadcasting, Bill C-11 imposes contributions on platforms and expressly excludes users. That is why section 4.2 refers to user programming on hosting platforms: so the Commission knows what programming revenue to count for the purpose of calculating CanCon contributions from the platforms. 

• What kind of CanCon programming is supported by regulated funding or spending? The CRTC establishes priority categories of Canadian content, for example News and Drama. But as for YouTube being affected, section 9(6) of Bill C-11 expressly prohibits the CRTC from applying any such genre regulation to hosting platforms. This was pointed out to Heritage MPs by the CRTC’s General Counsel on June 1^st but seems to have flown under the radar. There will be no CRTC programming goals or quotas for YouTube.  

• Oversight of programming content: The CRTC has historically taken a light touch to oversight of programming containing abusive comment, misinformation, discriminatory stereotypes, or age-inappropriate content. Its authority to do so is rooted in the section 3(1)(g) requirement that programming be “of a high standard.” Crucially section 3(1)(g) cannot apply to hosting platforms because Bill C-11 amends it to require “control” of programming and then in section 2.2 deems YouTube not to possess that programming control. That is why claims of Bill C-11 “censorship” are categorically false.

• The discovery and promotion of Canadian content: The CRTC has always required radio and TV companies to showcase home grown programming and Canadian artists. Bill C-11 applies this to all Internet broadcasting platforms including YouTube although section 9.1(1)(e) prohibits the Commission from ordering a specific change to recommendation algorithms. 

That means the fury over C-11 boils down to discoverability of Canadian video content and the role that hosting platforms’ recommendation algorithms play in that.

Which brings us to the “backfire” argument raised by Google and Canadian YouTubers.  

The concern is that Canadian YouTubers’ videos may be ignored or disliked if a CanCon recommendation algorithm pushes their niche content to millions of Canadians who have no interest in that niche. If the existing YouTube algorithm is indeed that badly designed, viewer disinterest could result in YouTubers’ videos being “buried.”

You would have to be empathy-depleted to ignore YouTubers’ fears given that a quarter of them are trying to make a living from their channel. My own view is that it would be surprising if YouTube’s algorithm engineers, who possess reams of data on individual viewing preferences, were unable to figure out a solution to such a massive misfiring of their recommendation tool. At the very least we ought to give the CRTC its opportunity to conduct the expected public consultation on discoverability and recommendation algorithms before any discoverability requirements are imposed or rejected.

But to reach the harbour where Senators might be allowed to coolly appraise C-11, it would be helpful if both the Liberals and Conservatives reconsidered their political messaging.

So far Conservatives are committed to the heat-seeking narrative of “freedom” and “censorship.” It is grist for a summer membership drive, so it’s unlikely to change. But maybe they will have second thoughts.

As for the Liberals, the Minister’s assurance that “platforms are in, users are out” isn’t getting much traction judging from the one-way traffic against C-11 on social media. 

Even though a public opinion poll in early May suggested solid support for the government’s approach, the Conservatives are trying to change that. The Liberals appear serenely disengaged on C-11, as if they can get out their message through ParlVu and CPAC. Most Canadians are not going to study the text of the Bill and 900-word news stories are unlikely to zero in on the legal nuances of “regulate.”

The Liberals raised expectations of YouTubers three months ago when they vowed in the House to issue a Ministerial policy directive that would “not include digital first creators” in regulatory contributions or discoverability. The Liberals never revisited that commitment in Committee and the Minister never released a draft CRTC Policy Directive that might have taken the air out of the Conservative ginned up accusations of censorship.

Here’s a proposal for a summer project for the Minister: publish a draft policy directive exempting YouTuber videos from discoverability regulation for the next five years. 

It might make the Senate’s work a little easier.

20 juin 2022

La Chambre des communes a transmis la Loi sur la diffusion continue en ligne au Sénat, où le tweet du chef des conservateurs au Sénat Leo Housakos (ci-dessus) annonce un dernier round acharné, au sein de cette assemblée, pour le projet de loi C-11.

Si les sénateurs canadiens voulaient bien m’écouter, voici ce que je leur dirais.

Tout d’abord, si tant est qu’il ait plané un quelconque doute à ce sujet, gardez votre calme très sénatorial. De quoi rehausser le ton du débat tel qu’il a été mené jusqu’à présent.

Ce ne sera pas la première fois que les sénateurs se voient remettre un projet de loi C controversé pour lequel l’opposition officielle fait de l’obstruction afin d’attirer l’attention et qui est ensuite adopté de façon accélérée par un gouvernement qui utilise la clôture par appui majoritaire.

Le projet de loi C-11 a été examiné par les députés du Comité du patrimoine pendant 20 heures réparties sur dix séances, avec plus de 50 témoins. Et c’est sans compter tout le temps passé sur le C-10 par le Comité en 2021.

À la fin de cette période, qui a inclus quatre séances d’obstruction non déguisée, le vice-président du Comité conservateur, John Nater, a déclaré (a) qu’il voulait programmer 20 autres témoins et (b) qu’il n’accepterait pas d’amender et de renvoyer le projet de loi à la Chambre pour la troisième lecture tant que le Comité n’aurait pas mis de côté le C-11 pour mener une enquête et rédiger un rapport sur l’incident concernant Hockey Canada.

De quoi repousser l’examen des amendements article par article (dont M. Nater soumettrait plus de 120) à la fin de l’automne. Selon cet échéancier, le projet de loi C-11 serait adopté, pour reprendre les mots de M. Nater, « éventuellement ».

L’objectif des conservateurs était et demeure de forcer les libéraux à renoncer aux dispositions de leur projet de loi relatives à la diffusion de vidéos et de musique sur les plateformes d’hébergement, tout en adressant aux électeurs des messages sur la liberté d’expression et la censure.

Tout au long des travaux du comité, il n’y a eu aucune allusion à une conversation parallèle pour trouver un compromis qui, comme je l’ai suggéré dans une publication précédente, est tout à fait possible.

En fin de compte, les conservateurs ont placé les libéraux devant un choix binaire : attendre la fin d’une obstruction indéfinie ou capituler face aux exigences du CPC. Au lieu de cela, les libéraux se sont joints au Bloc et au NPD pour mettre fin à l’obstruction parlementaire et ne rien céder.

Ce qui a signifié une seule journée en Comité pour les amendements, une farce politique à tout point de vue. Il y avait au moins 150 amendements sur la table. Néanmoins, au cours d’une séance de treize heures le 14 juin, quarante-deux amendements au projet de loi ont été approuvés. Beaucoup ont suscité l’unanimité.

Cela, les sénateurs le savent déjà. Qu’en est-il de la substance du projet de loi?

La majorité des quarante-deux amendements approuvés n’étaient pas litigieux, insérés qu’ils étaient dans la disposition de la Loi sur les objectifs de la politique nationale de radiodiffusion.

De nombreux amendements déposés par des groupes soutenant le projet de loi n’ont pas été retenus : par exemple, l’amendement relatif aux nouvelles locales recommandé par le CRTC et le groupe d’experts du gouvernement a été rejeté par les libéraux et les conservateurs.

Les points de friction étaient les quatre amendements majeurs demandés par les conservateurs.

Ils ont obtenu leur premier, tiré de leur programme électoral de 2021 : l’abrogation des 120 millions de dollars de droits annuels de la partie II versés par les radiodiffuseurs au Trésor.

Leur deuxième amendement aurait dû tomber comme un fruit mûr de l’arbre politique mais ce n’a pas été le cas :un seuil de revenu minimum en dessous duquel les diffuseurs Internet seraient exemptés de la réglementation. Si les sénateurs ne règlent pas cette question, le CRTC s’en chargera.

Puis est venue la partie difficile : les amendements visant à supprimer les alinéas 4.1, 4.2 et 9.1(1)(e). Ce qui signifiait exclure la réglementation par le CRTC des téléchargements sur YouTube, TikTok et Facebook, ainsi qu’interdire les ordres de « découverte » visant à promouvoir la musique ou les vidéos canadiennes si cela oblige les plateformes à modifier leurs algorithmes de recommandation. Il s’agissait de parties clés du projet de loi et leur suppression a été un facteur de désaccord pour les autres partis.

Dans le théâtre que sont devenus les travaux du Comité, les conservateurs ont accusé le ministre du Patrimoine Pablo Rodriguez et le président sortant du CRTC Ian Scott de se contredire et d’obscurcir le sens de l’article 4.1.Le ministre a déclaré aux Canadiens que « ce sont les plateformes qui sont à l’ordre du jour, pas les utilisateurs », tandis que M. Scott a reconnu que la Loi sur la radiodiffusion actuelle et le projet de loi C-11 permettraient au CRTC de « réglementer » la programmation des utilisateurs.

Afin d’éclaircir ce point, voici les faits.

La législation actuelle est technologiquement neutre et ne fait aucune distinction entre les plateformes de diffusion conventionnelles et Internet. Au lieu de déposer le projet de loi C-10 ou C-11, le Cabinet fédéral avait la possibilité d’émettre une directive de politique à l’attention du CRTC dans le but d’annuler l’exemption des plateformes de diffusion sur Internet accordée par le Conseil pendant 20 ans et, si le Cabinet choisissait de le faire, de fournir une feuille de route semblable aux dispositions du projet de loi C-11.

C’est ce que M. Scott voulait dire lorsqu’il a affirmé que la loi actuelle donnait déjà au CRTC le champ libre pour contrôler les plateformes d’hébergement Internet et la programmation des utilisateurs. Le nouveau projet de loi rend explicite ce pouvoir existant du CRTC, mais demande également au Conseil, à l’article 4.2, de tracer une frontière réglementaire entre la programmation « commerciale » et la programmation non commerciale, et de tenir compte des « revenus directs et indirects ».

Les chaînes YouTube d’aujourd’hui sont un mélange de formats de programmation : des vidéos de longue durée provenant de diffuseurs linéaires; des services de diffusion de musique en continu; des menus de chaînes agrégées (que nous avions coutume d’appeler « télévision par câble »), mais surtout du contenu vidéo de niche publié par des « vidéastes web » qui se disputent les audiences via l’algorithme de recommandation propriétaire de la plateforme.

Les libéraux (et toute autre personne saine d’esprit) n’ont aucun intérêt à micro-réglementer 160 000 vidéastes web canadiens et leurs milliers de vidéos de courte durée. C’est pourquoi l’article 4.2 donne au CRTC le pouvoir discrétionnaire d’exempter la programmation non commerciale, tandis que Google conserve le droit de faire appel aux tribunaux s’il se trompe.

Bien que l’on reproche à l’article 4.2 de manquer de précision et de laisser trop de place au Conseil pour définir le terme « commercial »et quantifier les « revenus », aucun des opposants au projet de loi C-11 n’a proposé une version plus précise ou plus complète de cet article. Il n’y a eu qu’une seule exigence : exclure à jamais toutes les plateformes d’hébergement de la réglementation, pointe finale.

L’argument politique en faveur de la réglementation de la programmation commerciale sur les plateformes d’hébergement par le projet de loi C-11 est double.

À l’heure actuelle, les services de téléchargement et de diffusion en continu de musique de YouTube sont en concurrence directe avec la radio canadienne. Il s’agit là d’une évidence politique : de façon tout à fait raisonnable, YouTube a accepté publiquement la réglementation de ses services musicaux.

Quant au contenu vidéo, à long terme (si tant est qu’une telle notion existe pour l’Internet), YouTube pourrait devenir une plateforme de distribution majeure pour les vidéos commerciales relevant des genres prioritaires des nouvelles, du sport et du divertissement canadiens que nous voyons et entendons actuellement sur les plateformes linéaires. La question politique est de savoir pourquoi une technologie de radiodiffusion importante de l’avenir serait exclue de façon permanente de la loi.

Mais pour dissiper la confusion qui règne, dans le feu de l’action, à propos de l’article 4.2, il est utile de braquer les projecteurs sur le mot « réglementer ».

Jusqu’à présent, le mot « réglementer » a été utilisé de façon trop vague dans le débat sur le projet de loi C-11.

Dans l’actuelle Loi sur la radiodiffusion, « réglementer » le contenu englobe au moins ces quatre points principaux :

1. Qui fabrique ou paie le contenu canadien? La Loi habilite le CRTC à déterminer quelles compagnies médiatiques font des chèques aux fonds de production ou réalisent elles-mêmes du contenu canadien. Pour la diffusion sur Internet, le projet de loi C-11 impose des contributions aux plateformes et exclut expressément les utilisateurs.C’est pourquoi l’article 4.2 fait référence à la programmation des utilisateurs sur les plateformes d’hébergement :ainsi, le Conseil sait quels revenus de programmation il doit comptabiliser pour calculer les contributions au contenu canadien provenant des plateformes.
2. Quel type de programmation de contenu canadien est soutenu par un financement ou des dépenses réglementés?Le CRTC établit des catégories prioritaires de contenu canadien, par exemple les nouvelles et les dramatiques.Mais pour ce qui est d’affecter YouTube, l’article 9(6) du projet de loi C-11 interdit expressément au CRTC d’appliquer une telle réglementation des genres aux plateformes d’hébergement. Cette interdiction a été signalée aux députés du Patrimoine par l’avocat général du CRTC le 1^er juin, mais il semble qu’elle soit passée inaperçue.Il n’y aura pas d’objectifs ou quotas de programmation du CRTC pour YouTube.
3. Surveillance du contenu de la programmation : le CRTC a toujours fait preuve de légèreté dans la surveillance des émissions contenant des commentaires abusifs, de la désinformation, des stéréotypes discriminatoires ou du contenu inapproprié pour l’âge. Ce pouvoir lui est conféré par l’article 3(1)g), qui exige que la programmation soit « de haut niveau ». Élément crucial : l’article 3(1)g) ne peut s’appliquer aux plateformes d’hébergement, en effet le projet de loi C-11 le modifie pour exiger le « contrôle » de la programmation, puis, à l’article 2.2, considère que YouTube ne possède pas ce contrôle. C’est pourquoi les allégations de « censure » du projet de loi C-11 sont catégoriquement fausses.
4. La découverte et la promotion du contenu canadien : le CRTC a toujours exigé des compagnies de radio et de télévision qu’elles mettent en valeur les émissions locales et les artistes canadiens. Le projet de loi C-11 applique cette exigence à toutes les plateformes de diffusion sur Internet, y compris YouTube, bien que l’alinéa 9.1(1)(e) interdise au Conseil d’ordonner une modification spécifique des algorithmes de recommandation.

Cela signifie que la fureur suscitée par le projet de loi C-11 se résume à la possibilité de découvrir du contenu vidéo canadien et au rôle que les algorithmes de recommandation des plateformes d’hébergement jouent à cet égard.

Ce qui nous amène à l’argument du « retour de flamme » soulevé par Google et les vidéastes web canadiens.

Ils craignent que les vidéos des vidéastes web canadiens soient ignorées ou ne fassent pas l’objet de « J’aime » si un algorithme de recommandation de contenu canadien impose leur contenu de niche à des millions de Canadiens qui n’ont aucun intérêt pour cette niche. Si l’algorithme actuel de YouTube est effectivement si mal conçu, le désintérêt des spectateurs pourrait entraîner l’« enterrement » des vidéos des vidéastes web.

Il faudrait être dépourvu d’empathie pour ignorer les craintes des vidéastes web, étant donné qu’un quart d’entre eux essaient de vivre de leur chaîne. Pour ma part, je pense qu’il serait surprenant que les ingénieurs en algorithmes de YouTube, qui possèdent des tonnes de données sur les préférences de visionnage individuelles, ne parviennent pas à trouver une solution à un dysfonctionnement aussi massif de leur outil de recommandation. À tout le moins, nous devrions donner au CRTC l’occasion de mener la consultation publique prévue sur la découvrabilité et les algorithmes de recommandation avant d’imposer ou de rejeter toute exigence de découvrabilité.

Mais pour en arriver au stade où les sénateurs pourraient être autorisés à évaluer froidement le C-11, il serait utile que les libéraux et les conservateurs reconsidèrent leurs messages politiques.

Jusqu’à présent, les conservateurs se sont engagés dans le narratif en quête d’attention de la « liberté » et de la « censure ». Il s’agit d’une source d’inspiration pour une campagne d’adhésion estivale, il est donc peu probable qu’il y ait du changement à ce niveau. Mais peut-être y réfléchiront-ils à deux fois.

Quant aux libéraux, l’assurance du ministre selon lequel « ce sont les plateformes qui sont à l’ordre du jour, pas les utilisateurs », n’a pas beaucoup de poids à en juger par le trafic à sens unique contre le C-11 sur les réseaux sociaux.

Même si un sondage d’opinion réalisé au début du mois de mai laissait entrevoir un soutien solide à l’approche du gouvernement, les conservateurs tentent de changer la donne. Les libéraux semblent désengagés en ce qui concerne le C-11, et ce, en toute sérénité, comme s’ils pouvaient faire passer leur message par ParlVu et la CPAC.La plupart des Canadiens ne vont pas étudier le texte du projet de loi et il est peu probable que des reportages de 900 mots se concentrent sur les nuances juridiques du terme « réglementer ».

Les libéraux ont suscité des attentes chez les vidéastes web il y a trois mois lorsqu’ils ont promis à la Chambre d’émettre une directive ministérielle qui « n’inclurait pas les premiers créateurs numériques » dans les contributions réglementaires ou la découvrabilité. Les libéraux ne sont jamais revenus sur cet engagement en comité et le ministre n’a jamais publié un projet de directive d’orientation du CRTC qui aurait pu faire taire les accusations de censure lancées par les conservateurs.

Voici une proposition de projet d’été pour le ministre : publier un projet de directive politique exemptant les vidéos des vidéastes web de la réglementation sur la découvrabilité pour les cinq prochaines années.

De quoi faciliter quelque peu le travail du Sénat.



June 18, 2022

Bill C-11 the Online Streaming Act is likely to pass Third Reading in the House of Commons early next week after the Liberals teamed up with the Bloc and the NDP to impose closure on the Conservative filibuster.

The Heritage Committee passed 42 of about 150 amendments submitted by MPs (approximately 120 submitted by the Conservatives) and I offer a brief inventory here.

One amendment that didn’t make the cut was the NDP-submitted proposal for local TV news recommended by both the CRTC and the government’s expert panel, voted down by the Liberals themselves. I wrote about the urgency of that amendment here.

The Online News Act C-18 (the “FaceGoogle pay-for-news” legislation) will return in the fall Parliamentary session. It has passed Second Reading and now moves on to the Heritage Committee. There has been industry muttering about whether Facebook is planning to aggressively shed news content from its Feed and what that means for legislation like C-18. US commentator Joshua Benton is a long time opponent of FaceGoogle legislation and has an interesting take on it all.

Benton’s view might be tempered by the latest industry metrics on news viewership over social networks published by Oxford Reuters. The same study has data about news audience disengagement that left me slightly queasy.

The Competition Bureau has filed its pre-hearing rebuttal to Rogers and Shaw on the Bureau’s application asking the Competition Tribunal to block the $26 Billion merger. The Globe coverage is here.

Bureau Chief Matthew Boswell’s litigation blood is up it seems, as he offered this zinger: “[The deal] will result in a transfer of wealth from low- and moderate-income groups in society to the respondents, whose shareholders include ultra-rich members of the family ownership groups of these companies.”

And here is something that just popped into my Inbox: the CRTC has announced it will release its ruling on the long expired CBC license this coming week.

Updated and Breaking: The Globe is reporting that Rogers has negotiated the sale of the Shaw wireless division Freedom Mobile to Québecor for $2.85 billion, likely removing the last regulatory obstacle to its $26 billion merger.

June 16, 2022

Heritage Committee MPs pulled a near all-nighter on June 14th voting on more than one hundred amendments to Bill C-11 after the Liberals, Bloc and NDP passed a House motion ending the Conservative filibuster.

The Committee’s report back to the House for Third Reading includes 42 approved amendments.

Here are some significant amendments:

• The Canadian ownership clause was redrafted to affirm overall Canadian control of the private broadcasting system: the government’s proposed language was porous and appeared to allow foreign-controlled media to outgrow the Canadian-owned system.

• Canadian broadcasters were relieved of their collective burden of $120 million in annual “Part II fees” paid to the consolidated revenue fund, a major demand of the broadcasting companies and a plank in the Conservative election platform. A big win for the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.

• Amendments were made to the broad objectives of the Act (the “Broadcasting Policy for Canada”) strengthening the role of independently-owned Canadian film production companies who supply 75% of the CanCon aired by broadcasters, no doubt in anticipation of large American streamers making CanCon here in the future.

• Specific amendments were approved directed at the CRTC’s regulatory power to define Canadian content by specifying the importance of Canadian producers retaining copyright and long term exploitation of program rights. The Heritage Minister has promised to give the CRTC directions to review the rules for Canadian content which means the Commission will be looking at whether foreign programmers (e.g. Netflix) are going to control the copyright over their own contributions to CanCon programming.

• A series of amendments were passed emphasizing the general importance of community programming; programming for official minority language groups; and also programming, viewing access, and production opportunities for Black, racialized, disabled and other marginalized communities.

Few of the other major amendments touted by the different industry groups and commentators were accepted. Not all were put forward by Heritage MPs of course, but of those that were, here are some notable misses:

• No amendment to eliminate or curb the CRTC’s regulatory oversight of user-generated programming on hosting platforms was accepted. The only relevant amendment that went through was NDP MP Peter Julian’s proposal to subject the CRTC’s discretion to regulate or exempt such programming to a freedom of expression standard (which is currently in the general objectives of the Broadcasting Act).

• No amendment was accepted to set a revenue-threshold on the size of online broadcasters that will be regulated (although it is likely the CRTC will develop one, relying on its past history of imposing revenue-based regulatory exemptions).

• No amendment was adopted on “discoverability” —which raises the issue of recommendation algorithms— of Canadian programming.

• The NDP amendment to strengthen funding of local news was defeated by the Liberals and Conservatives.

• The Independent Broadcasters Group —-the industry association representing Specialty channels seeking carriage on cable TV— did not get the amendment it sought extending the Commission’s dispute resolution powers from cable to online undertakings. The IBG did obtain an amendment appearing to confirm the CRTC’s regulatory powers to “order” online undertakings to carry specialty channels on their service in a manner “similar” to the existing Commission rules for Canadian cable companies.

There is a helpful article in the Globe and Mail, here.

The revised C-11 is here:

June 13, 2022

CRTC commissioners have asked for a mandate to save local radio and TV news. Parliament must give it to them in C-11.

The stack of amendments waiting for Heritage MPs tomorrow no doubt includes the proposal Unifor submitted on local news [Disclosure: as Unifor’s Media Director from 2013-2021 I submitted a similar amendment to the Committee on Bill C-10].

The Unifor amendment mandates the CRTC to boost funding for local news by realigning existing industry cross payments flowing from broadcasting distributors (BDUs) to broadcasters.

Bill C-11 adds the option of tithing matching cross subsidies from foreign streaming platforms as part of their new obligations to support Canadian news, sports and entertainment, keeping in mind that Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez expects a $1 billion injection of cash value into the Canadian broadcasting system as a result of C-11.

Everyone —especially the Canadian public– agrees local news is at the core of our Broadcasting Act. While not indisputably the legislation’s first priority, it ranks at the top with Canadian drama and programming in the languages of our founding and Indigenous nations.

The authors of the 2020 “pre-C11” report of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review (BTLR) were emphatic about local news. Writing two years ago, before the pandemic, they said the financial plight of local news required action:

With the decline in BDU revenues averaging 1.5 per cent per year since 2014, the funding mechanisms currently in place are likely to be less effective over time. Conventional television stations — typically the bedrock of audiovisual spending on news and an important source of local news — have not been profitable since 2012 [see chart above]; they have lost over $600 million in revenues between 2013 and 2018. Revenues for radio have also been declining….

There is little doubt that the current model for supporting news is not sustainable. The traditional news industry in Canada, as in many countries around the world, is facing a crisis, which has serious implications for Canada’s democratic system and social values.

And so BTLR Recommendation #71 says:

We recommend that the CRTC consider that some or all of the levies on media aggregation and media sharing undertakings contribute to the production of news content. These contributions would be directed to an independent, arm’s length CRTC-approved fund for the production of news, including local news on all platforms. We further recommend that the CRTC consider redirecting a greater portion of the levy currently paid by broadcasting distribution undertakings to this same fund for the production of news.

The Report reflected a consensus about the importance of local news. It is the community hall where we see, hear and learn about each other. It’s where professional journalists hold power to account and provide fact-based reporting.

Despite the overwhelming case for saving local news, it’s often the case that significant regulatory change doesn’t attract unanimous support within the industry because some players fear losing funding in a zero sum game while some of the large media companies don’t operate enough local stations to make the BDU-to-broadcaster cross-subsidy worth their while.

Among Canadian media companies, only Bell is prepared to champion the Unifor amendment (CTV is the country’s biggest local TV provider with 36 out of 90 local stations).

Sadly, we almost had the local news funding problem sorted out ten years ago.

In the early ‘00s the cracks in the business model for local news began to show: broadcaster profit margins were dropping. The smaller the market, the more likely its local station was losing money.

The CRTC devised a solution. In 2008 it created the Local Programming Improvement Fund (LPIF) ——a $60 million news fund aiding “non-metropolitan” local stations —transferring cable profits to small and mid sized local TV stations. The fund was underwritten by a new levy of 1% of annual BDU revenues.

The 1% levy was on top of the 5% cable operators were already paying to support Canadian drama and community cable stations. Like those other obligations, LPIF was an industry cross subsidy moving from the more profitable BDUs to the less profitable broadcasters. 

Around the same time, the cash-squeezed broadcasters sought to put an end to the cable companies’ free lunch, earning subscriber dollars from station signals taken from local TV towers without compensating the broadcasters, especially in large metropolitan areas left untouched by the LPIF.

After saying no to the broadcasters twice, in 2009 the CRTC agreed to force the BDUs to the table to negotiate “fee for carriage” (FFC) payments to the broadcasters.

But before implementing its FFC order, the CRTC asked the courts to confirm it had the jurisdiction to order compensation in the first place. In December 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada said no and struck down FFC in a 5-4 split decision because of conflicts between the Broadcasting and Copyright statutes. Ironically the broadcasters found themselves cross subsidizing the wealthier BDUs with their free content.

But at least the broadcasters still had LPIF money to sustain their small and mid sized stations?

No such luck. By 2012 the industry had consolidated: the big cable and telco companies had splashed out millions to buy specialty channels and local stations. Bell and CTV. Rogers and City. Shaw and Global. Québecor and TVA. They became “vertically integrated” (VI) media companies with presumably a limitless ability to cross subsidize local news and Canadian drama from their cable and specialty profits.

Somewhere in this time frame the consumer-crusading Harper cabinet turned against the four-year old LPIF levy that cable companies had made a line item on Canadians’ monthly bills.

In July 2012 the Commission killed the LPIF news fund, ruling that vertically integrated media companies would just have to absorb the losses in local news, “innovate” (a signal for job cuts that soon followed) and keep ladling money from one side of the business to the other as a condition of keeping their licenses for overall TV operations. 

Asked to reconsider in the Commission’s 2015 “Let’s Talk TV” proceedings, Harper’s new CRTC Chair Jean-Pierre Blais was unmoved so far as the VI local stations were concerned.

Instead Blais made two tweaks to the regulation of local news. He allowed the VIs to defund their community stations and reallocate the money to their local stations; and he abolished the CRTC’s Small Market Local Programming Fund and recreated it as an independents-only news fund available to about 20 stations not owned by VIs.

But as for a dedicated stream of funding or cross subsidy for the vast majority of local news stations —-70 out of 90 are owned by the VIs—- not a penny.

That’s how things stand in 2022: an inexplicable regulatory asymmetry in which there is little relief for money-losing news journalism but a 4% revenue tithe supporting Canadian drama.

More to the point, our broadcasting economics have only gotten worse for conventional TV, meaning local news, as these 2020 CRTC statistics on PBIT/EBITDA margins demonstrate:

When asked by the Liberal government for advice on a new Broadcasting Act in 2018, the CRTC recommended “supporting television news production through increased access to subscription revenues,” advice that would be repeated by the BTLR Report eighteen months later.

It would be wishful thinking that the CRTC will venture forward on something so bold without an affirmative response to their recommendation.

It’s up to MPs from all parties to say yes.

June 11, 2022

The Conservative filibuster of the Heritage Committee hearings on C-11 continued throughout the week. CPC committee vice-chair John Nater MP served notice the filibuster would continue into the Fall. I wrote about that here.

Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez spoke to the Committee (he was denied the previous week by the filibuster) and revealed some new information about the $1 Billion injection of foreign streamer cash his Department projects.

The Liberal, Bloc and NDP MPs remained tellingly serene throughout the week and on Friday morning the Liberals responded with a closure motion introduced into the House of Commons providing for one nine-hour day of Committee debate (June 14^th) on amendments —-Committee meetings normally last two hours—- before C-11 is returned to the Commons for Third Reading. 

With C-11 as a springboard, the Conservatives kicked off a summer membership recruitment campaign with a rhapsodic video starring Andrew Scheer MP entitled “I’m not sure how long the government will let this video stay up.”

The tragedy of the filibuster after 10 days of Committee hearings is that the amendments, some of which I profiled in Monday’s post, will receive inadequate debate and be available only to Canadians who tune in to ParlVu. 

I also had a volley and response debate with C-11 critic Leonard St. Aubin that began with my proposal to split the difference on regulating user generated programming but ended up being a discussion of the conundrum of Canadian broadcasting economics. Mr. St-Aubin’s first and second replies are here and here.  

Enough of C-11 for today and on to the FaceGoogle Bill C-18: you can read a typically incisive article from former CRTC Chair (former Competition Bureau Commissioner, former federal judge, etc.) Konrad von Finckenstein itemizing all the things he think might go wrong with the Bill.

For Rogers-Shaw followers, there is an excellent business feature published this morning in the Globe and Mail covering Québecor CEO Pierre-Karl Péledeau’s bid to buy Freedom Wireless and emerge as a fourth national wireless carrier.

June 9, 2022

Yesterday’s meeting of Heritage Committee MPs charged with reviewing the Online Streaming Act C-11 was again filibustered by the Conservative party.

Liberal MP Chris Bittle kicked off the two-hour session with a motion to commence clause by clause consideration of amendments on June 13th and, upon finishing C-11, move on to the Conservative motion to investigate whether Hockey Canada used public funds in settling a sexual assault lawsuit.

Conservative MP John Nater —-the Tories’ Committee Vice Chair— opposed the motion and, as a signal of the CPC’s intentions of indefinite filibuster, announced that he had another “twenty witnesses” he wants to call on C-11 in addition to the approximately 30 that have been questioned over the last three weeks.

NDP MP Peter Julian proposed a compromise of assigning the next two Committee days to Hockey Canada and then resuming C-11 and Hockey Canada “simultaneously.”

The Conservatives rejected that and filibustered the remainder of the afternoon without any clear path for the Committee over the remaining two weeks of the Parliamentary session.

June 7, 2022

COMMENTARY: California, Canada and C-11 – a response to Leonard St-Aubin

June 6, 2022

Minister Pablo Rodriguez returned to the Heritage Parliamentary Committee this afternoon to answer questions about the Online Streaming Act Bill C-11 after a Conservative filibuster last week left him cooling his heels.

While there was the expected Parliamentary jousting over C-11’s provisions governing hosting platforms like YouTube and TikTok, Heritage MPs and Canadians following the Bill got some other information they had been waiting for.

First, the Minister is not going to unveil a “draft” cabinet policy directive which would give guidelines to the CRTC on the implementation of C-11. He told MPs he would issue the Directive after all amendments are made to the Bill and Royal Assent is granted.

Second, the Minister cited a revised dollar figure for the Canadian content contributions expected under C-11 from foreign online platforms, putting the figure at $1 Billion annually. This is an increase from the $830 million figure cited by the previous Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault in 2021. Rodriguez explained the increase as a result of additional foreign streamers entering the Canadian market, in particular Disney Plus and Apple TV.

Sitting next to the Minister, Assistant Deputy Minister Thomas Owen Ripley clarified that $900M of the $1 Billion is the expenditure value of the Canadian content the foreign platforms would be obliged to produce. The remaining $100 million would be cash contributions to be distributed through production funds to Canadian-owned media companies.

Bloc MP Martin Champoux raised the profile of one of C-11’s sleeper issues —-so far, user generated programming has sucked most of the oxygen out of Committee debate— which is the ability of Canadian programming services like OutTV or APTN to access carriage on foreign online distribution platforms like Roku, Apple TV or Amazon Prime.

The problem appears to be that C-11 does not completely map over programming access rules binding Canadian cable operators to American online distribution platforms entering the Canadian market. My post from earlier today gives more background: the problem is that C-11 lacks the teeth to deal with foreign platforms that might deny access to Canadian channels.

The Minister’s answer to Champoux was intriguing as he cryptically replied there were problems “with our American counterparts.” A similar question was put to Ripley but his response was cut off in mid-sentence because of time allocation.

The Hill Times published a story this morning in which APTN CEO Monika Ille raised the same access issues and expressed her disappointment that APTN was not given an opportunity to appear before the Committee.

Expect to hear more on that.

Finally and inevitably, not long after the Minister finished answering MPs’ questions, the Liberals renewed their motion from last week to set a deadline for starting the “clause by clause” consideration of C-11 amendments.

The Conservatives reignited their filibuster by moving and speaking to a motion in which C-11 would be put on hold until the Committee conducts hearings and writes a Report in response to the recent House motion requesting an investigation of allegations that Hockey Canada covered up a sexual assault committed by junior hockey players in 2018.

When NDP MP Peter Julian proposed dealing with the Hockey Canada file after C-11 was completed, CPC MP Rachael Thomas told Julian he was “re-victimizing the victim.”

A series of speeches from Conservative MPs used up the final 45 minutes of the two hour committee meeting until adjournment.

June 6, 2022

As a public service to our community of Bill C-11 watchers, I have collected proposed amendments from as many sources as I could. The following is a curated short list.

These organizations or individuals posted their amendments online or were kind enough to send them to me:

• ACTRA
• Professor Sara Bannerman
• BCE (Bell)
• Coalition for Diversity of Cultural Expressions (CDCE)
• Canadian Media Producers Association (CMPA)
• Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB)
• Forum for Research and Policy in Communications
• Independent Broadcasters Group (IBG)
• Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
• Unifor
• YouTube
• I also include proposed amendments from Len St. Aubin published in an article in Cartt.ca
• Amendments from former CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein

All of the political parties except the Conservatives committed to submitting their C-11 amendments to the Clerk of the Heritage Committee on June 3rd, so not all of these amendments will necessarily go forward (unless adopted by the Conservatives who are not submitting amendments at this time).

1. Broadcasting Economics:

• BCE: Authorize the CRTC to devise regulations incentivizing the sharing of content distribution between foreign and Canadian broadcast undertakings.

3(1)(s.1) foreign broadcasting undertakings should

(i) make their programming available to Canadian programming undertakings pursuant to contractual arrangements on reasonable terms; and

(ii) be encouraged to partner with Canadian undertakings in the distribution of their programming throughout the Canadian broadcasting system

5 (2) The Canadian broadcasting system should be regulated and supervised in a flexible manner that

(i.1) Ensures foreign broadcasting undertakings make their content available on reasonable terms to Canadian broadcasting undertakings; and

(i.2) Foreign broadcasting undertakings are incented to partner with Canadian broadcasting undertakings in the distribution of foreign programming in Canada.

• Leonard St. Aubin: An amendment following after paragraph 5(2)(h) to ensure that CRTC regulation:

(i) recognizes that market forces, competition, and the increased choice of programming made available over the internet, contribute to achieving the broadcasting policy objectives in subsection 3 of this Act, and therefore ensures that regulation is demonstrably required, efficient and proportionate to its purpose.

• Canadian Association of Broadcasters: Abolish Part II Broadcaster Fees, not just for Online Undertakings.

11(3.1) The only fees that may be established with respect to a broadcasting undertaking [delete: that may be carried on without a licence] shall be fees that relate to the recovery of the costs of the Commission’s activities under this Act.

• Friends/CMPA: As recommended by the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Review Report, restore the CRTC’s pre-2016 Terms of Trade policy regulating commercial relationships between Independent Producers and Broadcasters.

9 (1) Subject to this Part, the Commission may, in furtherance of its objects,

(i) require any broadcasting undertaking entering into commercial arrangements with independent Canadian producers or independent Canadian broadcasting undertakings to enter into and adhere to collective terms of trade…

2. Scope of regulation over online undertakings (Streaming Services and Hosting Platforms):

• St. Aubin (and others: Peter Menzies and Konrad von Finckenstein):  Consistent with the government’s repeated mantra, amend Bill C-11 so that it applies only to online streaming services with a significant presence in the Canadian market — more than $150 million in Canadian revenues.

• Von Finckenstein: A variant on the proposal above, limiting the regulation of online streaming services based on the number of Canadian subscribers.

10 (2) The Commission may exercise its powers requiring registration of online undertakings under s.10(1) and its powers to impose conditions under s.9.1 only in respect of online undertakings that

a) in the Commission’s demonstrable opinion compete with licenced broadcasters

b) charge a subscription fee or offer their programs for free but with embedded advertising, and

c) have in excess of 400,000 subscribers.

• St. Aubin:  Unequivocally exclude user-generated content, and restrict CRTC regulation of social media (hosting platforms) to imposing a reasonable financial contribution to support CanCon, and gathering information and data necessary for that purpose.

• YouTube: Restrict section 4.2 (the CRTC’s authority to regulate user generated programming) to full-length commercial music.

• FRPC: Eliminate all regulation of user-generated programming unless it is uploaded by a broadcaster:

2) Despite subsection (1), this Act applies in respect of a program that is uploaded as described in that subsection if the program is uploaded to the social media service by a broadcaster.

3. Access of Canadian Programming Services to Foreign Online Distribution Platforms.

• IBG/Friends: Eliminate the exemption of online undertakings from a variety of statutory provisions dealing with programming services’ access to and mandatory carriage on online distribution platforms (the online equivalent of cable and satellite), wholesale code rules regulating commercial negotiations between programming services and broadcasting distributors, and the availability of dispute resolution through binding arbitration.

From the IBG backgrounder:

Currently, the Commission has the authority to regulate the “carriage of any foreign or other programming services by distribution undertakings”. But, this authority is limited to established “distribution undertakings” – i.e. cable and satellite not online distributors to cover activities such as ensuring local television services are distributed locally; providing access to distribution platforms for multicultural Canadian programming services; providing access to distribution platforms for independent programming services; ensuring fair treatment of services and subscribers during disputes (e.g. the “standstill rule”); and providing for consumer protections… 

The dispute resolution tool is essential to resolving gatekeeping issues in the broadcasting distribution environment – whether it is a programming service seeking to access a key platform on fair terms; or a distributor seeking access to key programming content. These issues are endemic in any network environment including the Internet. The CRTC should have the same authority to resolve disputes in an online environment as it does currently for distribution undertakings. 

1.                     Changes to proposed section 9.1 regarding the distribution of specified services:

9.1(1)(h)          a requirement for a person carrying on a distribution undertaking or an online undertaking that provides the programming services of other broadcasting undertakings to carry, on the terms and conditions that the Commission considers appropriate, programming services specified by the Commission;

                        Purpose:  To enable the CRTC to ensure that specified Canadian apps and services are offered on online platforms. With this change, new section 9.1(1)(i), 9.1(9) and 9.1(10) could be removed or modified.

                        As an alternative, the existing provisions could be retained, and the Commission provided with explicit authority to set terms for online distribution where good faith negotiations have failed (as follows)

9.1(10)            The Commission may facilitate those negotiations at the request of either party to the negotiations and, notwithstanding paragraph (1)(i), if no agreement is reached determine terms and conditions for carriage that the Commission considers appropriate.

2.                     Changes to proposed section 9.1 regarding the general oversight of online distributors:

9.1(1)(l.1)        the carriage of any foreign or other programming services;

                        Purpose: To enable the CRTC to establish carriage conditions that apply to types of programming services in an online distribution environment (e.g. local services, multicultural services, independently owned services, minority language services) and to provide for other general regulatory oversight of online distribution.

3.                     Changes to the CRTC’s existing dispute resolution authority to reflect online distributors:

10(1)(h)           for resolving, by way of mediation or otherwise, any disputes arising between programming undertakings and distribution undertakings broadcasting undertakings concerning the carriage of programming services originated by the programming undertaking; 

                        Purpose: To ensure that the CRTC has authority to intervene in disputes regarding the carriage of programming services in an online environment.

4. Discoverability of User-Generated Content.

• YouTube: Amend article 9.1 to exclude regulation of recommendation algorithms.

• PIAC: Amend section 3(1)(r) authorizing the CRTC to require discoverability of Canadian content by online undertakings to exclude “dynamic discoverability,” i.e. recommendations. Just provide a banner space or portal designated as Canadian content:

s. 3(1)(r), which states: “online undertakings shall clearly promote and recommend Canadian programming, in both official languages as well as in Indigenous languages, [delete following text] and ensure that any means of control of the programming generates results allowing its discovery.” 

• Bannerman: We need provisions expressly authorizing CRTC to demand platforms collect (not just provide) data, so they can’t deflect requests for relevant data on discoverability:

9 (1) (n) the collection and provision to the Commission […] 

9 (1) (o) the collection and provision to the Commission […] 

9 (1) (o) (v) information related to discoverability; and [NEW] 

• ACTRA: C-11 introduces a restriction on the ability of the CRTC to regulate discoverability in subsection 9.1(8). Restricting the ability of the CRTC to require the use of a specific algorithm or source code raises the spectre of opposition by online undertakings to reasonable measures proposed by the CRTC on the grounds that the outcome sought by the CRTC can only be accomplished by way of a specific algorithm or source code change. This could defeat the fundamental objective of the section. Given the CRTC would have no access to a platform’s source code, it would be in no position to contest such an argument. To avoid such a scenario, ACTRA would prefer to see this limitation removed.  In the alternative, ACTRA suggests amending the language of subsection 9.1(8) to stipulate that CRTC orders must be outcomes-based, rather than algorithm-based. 

5. Canadian Ownership and Control.

• ACTRA/Friends/CDCE/IBG/FRPC: Tighten up Canadian ownership language which is still loose because it exempts foreign broadcasting undertakings from Canadian ownership without the previous requirement that our broadcasting system, overall, is predominantly Canadian. This could be loose enough for a major expansion of American broadcasting in Canada, possibly by purchasing one of our major networks (Fox North).

 FRPC:

Bill C-11	FRPC Proposed amendment
3(1)(a) the Canadian broadcasting system shall, with the exception of foreign broadcasting undertakings providing programming to Canadians, be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians;	3(1)(a) the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians,  (a.01) foreign undertakings may provide programming to Canadians but shall at no time be permitted to own and/or control a majority of the broadcast undertakings in Canada

ACTRA:

3(1)(a) the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians; 

(NEW) (b) where a foreign broadcasting undertaking provides programming to Canadians, the Commission may establish such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, as necessary to ensure it contributes appropriately to the achievement of the objectives of this Act; 

Friends/IBG:

3(1)(a)             the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians, recognizing that the Canadian broadcasting system includes foreign broadcasting undertakings that also provide programming to Canadians; shall, with the exception of foreign broadcasting undertakings providing programming to Canadians, be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians;

CDCE:

(a) the Canadian broadcasting system, with the exception of foreign broadcasting undertakings providing programming to Canadians, shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians, recognizing that the Canadian broadcasting system includes foreign broadcasting undertakings that also provide programming to Canadians; 

6. Making Use of Canadian talent and resources.

• ACTRA/Friends/CDCE/FRPC: Eliminate the two-tier obligations created for domestic versus foreign undertakings with respect to employment of Canadian talent and media workers. Restore the existing language requiring predominant use of Canadian talent and resources. (C-11 provides a lower standard for foreign undertakings with other provisions indicating they can make up for it with cash contributions).

ACTRA/Friends/CDCE:

3(1)(f) each broadcasting undertaking shall make maximum use, and in no case less than predominant use, of Canadian creative and other resources in the creation, production and presentation of Canadian programming, and shall contribute significantly to the creation, production and presentation of Canadian programming to the greatest extent that is appropriate for the nature of the undertaking; 

FRPC:

3(1)(a.1) each broadcasting undertaking shall contribute to the implementation of the objectives of the broadcasting policy set out in this subsection.

3(1)(f) each Canadian broadcasting undertaking shall employ and make maximum use, and in no case less than predominant use, of Canadian creative and other human resources to create, produce and present programming,

3(1)(f.1) each foreign online undertaking shall  (a) make maximum use of Canadian creative and other human resources to create, produce and present Canadian programming, and  (b) take into account the linguistic duality of the market they serve;

• CAB: There must be a single standard for domestic and foreign undertakings at a lower standard (“significant contribution”):

3 (1) It is hereby declared as the broadcasting policy for Canada that  (f) each [Delete:Canadian] broadcasting undertaking, shall [delete: employ and make maximum use, and in no case less than predominant use, of Canadian creative and other human resources] make a significant contribution to the creation, production and presentation of Canadian programming, unless the nature of the service provided by the undertaking, such as specialized content or format or the use of languages other than French and English, renders that contribution impracticable, in which case the undertaking shall make an appropriate contribution;

7. Trade Compliance, Film Production Funds and Copyright

• Von Finckenstein: In order to avoid trade retaliation from the United States, ensure that foreign streaming platforms are able to access any film production fund to which they contribute, which means waiving the “Canadians only” rule for ownership of copyright.

10 (3) Notwithstanding the particular terms of any fund, registered online broadcasting undertakings qualify for all the benefits available from any fund to which they contribute pursuant to a condition imposed by the Commission, regardless of whether they are Canadian or foreign owned or controlled.

8. Local News.

Unifor/Bell: give CRTC the express power to require contributions from all broadcasting undertakings, including online undertakings, to an independent fund for news journalism, taking into account local presence and broadcasting staffing:

Amend section 11.1(1) as follows:

The Commission may make regulations respecting expenditures to be made by persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings for the purposes of

… 

(d) developing, financing, producing or promoting local news and information programming, including through contributions made by distribution undertakings either to a related programming undertaking or by distribution undertakings or online undertakings to an independent fund. In making regulations for the distribution of these contributions, the Commission shall take into account the local presence and broadcast staffing of the programming undertaking.

[BCE amendment adds “regional” and “national” to “local” news]

9. CRTC Administration:

• CDCE: Preserve cabinet appeals and include appeals from CRTC “orders,” not just licensing conditions (foreign undertakings will not be formally licensed under C-11).

28 (1) If the Commission makes a decision [delete: under section 9 to issue, amend or renew a licence], the Governor in Council may, within 180 days after the date of the decision, on petition in writing of any person received within 45 days after that date or on the Governor in Council’s own motion, by order, set aside the decision or refer the decision back to the Commission for reconsideration and hearing of the matter by the Commission, if the Governor in Council is satisfied that the decision derogates from the attainment of the objectives of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1). 

• FRPC: Expand the definition of a CRTC “decision” to include Commission regulations and policies that make rulings on licenses and orders almost moot.

• FRPC: A “prove it” approach to taking into account the “administrative burdens” (cost) of regulation to broadcasting undertakings.

C:11: (g) is sensitive to the administrative burden that, as a consequence of such regulation and supervision, may be imposed on persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings, and

(g) considers evidence that costs of regulation and supervision of persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings are unreasonable, and

• FRPC: More information should provided by the CRTC in its annual reports.

(vi) notices of violation issued under section 34.8 of the Broadcasting Act in relation to contraventions of any of subsections 42(1) to (4) and (7), 43(1) to (3) and 44(1) to (3) and (6) of the Accessible Canada Act.

(b) the broadcast year, including

(i) statistics describing the implementation of section 3 including but not limited to

1(a) total and first-run hours and numbers of Canadian and non-Canadian programs broadcast by each element of the system during the year

1(b) total and first-run hours and numbers of first run of Canadian programming broadcast in English, in French or in Indigenous languages by each element of the system during the year

1(c) expenditures on Canadian programming broadcast in English, in French or in Indigenous languages by each element of the system during the year

2. total and first-run hours of news, including hours allocated to local news, by each element of the system during the year

3. numbers of Canadian and foreign broadcast undertakings operating in Canada and whether they are licensed, exempted from licensing, registered or other

4. full-time or equivalent employment numbers by each class of broadcasting undertaking including online undertakings and by type of employment (production, technical, sales and promotion and administration)