The News Rundown

Foreign streamers must pay into fund to boost Canadian content, CRTC says

Canada's telecoms and broadcasting regulator, which is supposed to make decisions on telecoms companies for the greater good of Canada and Canadians, just released a controversial ruling that would see online streaming services operating in Canada required to contribute five per cent of their Canadian revenues to support the domestic broadcasting system.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC for short, introduced the measure in the same circle as the Online Streaming Act, which requires online streaming services like Netflix, Disney+ and Hulu to operate under conditions set by the CRTC, in order to promote Canadian stories and music to the broadcasting sphere.
This is one of Justin Trudeau's signature policies that has now borne fruit, in the sense that the CRTC is now following the government's goal of making foreign streamers pay more in taxes to operate in Canada.
According to the CRTC, the money will be used to boost funding for local and Indigenous broadcasting, and funding will also be directed to French-language content and content created by official language minority communities, as well as "content created by equity-deserving groups and Canadians of diverse backgrounds" according to the statement.
While some believe that the CRTC's decision is a good one, others have valid criticism that Canadians will be the ones ultimately paying the price for the government's oversight, either literally through increased prices, or figuratively through companies cutting back services or leaving Canada entirely.
You might well wonder why companies such as Netflix, Spotify, and Apple should have to fund broadcast news reporters—including those employed by Bell and Rogers—as none of them produces news. No doubt the executives of those and other companies are pondering the same and calculating the global cost of compliance with such a demand. Because, as Canadians learned from the debacle of the Online News Act, “the world is watching” and whatever demands global companies concede to in one country could very well be replicated in others. So, if they agree to fund news in Canada, why wouldn’t the U.S. expect them to do the same there? Or, say, India? And how much would that cost?
Moreover, if you were an executive at Spotify—a company whose highest net profit ever was 5 percent—and you were being asked to cough up that same amount in Canada, what would you do? Stay and pay or pack your bags?
Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa described the streamers’ dilemma like this: “The streaming companies themselves will rarely, if ever, be eligible for the money they are required to pay, creating an obvious inequity of mandated payments without benefits. In fact, their existing contributions, which notably include massive film and television production investment in Canada, are entirely ignored.”
Geist says that "this week’s Bill C-11 streaming ruling acts as if consumers, competition, and affordability are irrelevant issues that are at best someone else’s concern. The result is that Canadians have been largely removed from broadcasting and Internet policy at the regulator, expected to pay up and shut up."
The leading advocate of the film, television, and streaming industry in the world, the Motion Picture Association, said that it was disappointed with the CRTC’s decision. The association said that global studios and streaming services have spent over $6.7 billion annually producing content in Canada made by Canadian production companies, investing more than the CBC, Canada Media Fund, and Telefilm combined.
This decision will make it less likely that companies will invest in Canadian productions, of which Toronto and especially Vancouver are filmmaking hotspots. With less revenue, productions may also head elsewhere.
Federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Franco Terrazzano also criticized the Liberals almost immediately on Tuesday, warning that taxpayers would feel the pain amid a cost of living crisis. He said: “The federal government should be doing everything it can to make life more affordable and that means cutting taxes, not imposing new ones. Canadians have every reason to worry this new tax will mean higher prices to stream their favourite music, movies, and TV shows.
That the CRTC sees no problem with ignoring the views of the public who navigate a challenging process to participate cuts to the very legitimacy of its decision making. The word “consumer” does not appear even once in the decision. The costs associated with its decision are not considered, the competition impact is not considered, and the views that the Commission heard from the public are not considered. The CRTC once said it wanted to place Canadians at the centre of the broadcasting system. With this decision, Canadians have been removed not only from the centre, but this CRTC has removed them entirely other than leaving them to ultimately foot the bill.
The mainstream media has been championing all the people who praise the CRTC's decision, but do not look into what the impacts of the decision will actually have on Canadians. We will have to see if these companies see a continued business case for being in Canada altogether.
Supplementals:

Much of the news this week in Alberta has focused around the water main break in Calgary and subsequent reaction. There will be time in the future to look into what happened and why something so catastrophic can happen in 2024.
One thing that wasn’t talked about this week was a back and forth on auto insurance in the province.
A new report by Oliver Wyman and Nous Group that was commissioned by the Alberta Treasure and Finance Board says that a public auto insurance company could save drivers ~$700 in premiums yearly and in the long run be cheaper to operate.
The report also suggests that Alberta adopt a no-fault system like other provinces which would provide universal coverage for injury and vehicle damage.
No-fault models don’t use litigation to recover costs, instead each persons insurance is responsible for compensating them after an accident.
Premier Danielle Smith says that there will no government run insurance in the province.
To move to the public provider the province would pay anywhere between $100m and $500m ins tart up costs and would be needed to provide an initial $2.3b in capital to cover claims.
Moving to a government-run insurance system would also cut down provincial tax revenue by an estimated $163 million to $171 million per year.
The province does have plans for auto insurance when the fall session of the legislature comes.
Smith outlined the two possibilities.
First she said that there will be an option introduced in the fall where drivers will be able to opt into a no-fault system at a lower cost.
Secondly, she said what many Albertans hope for, she said, “there are lots of Albertans who are prepared to pay the extra dollars so that if they do end up – heaven forbid – in a terrible accident, they can hold someone accountable through the legal process.”
She also said that the free-enterprise system needs more insurance players and the province needs to get there and that profits of the insurance companies need to be paid back to those who pay the premiums.
She also demonstrated her understanding of the field saying on her weekly talk radio show that under a no-fault system “there is a schedule of payments when you get into an accident so if this happens to you then you’ll get this compensation.”
She also said what any Albertan who has had to navigate the claims system knows: there are very limited injuries that allow you to go to court.
The province is consulting with a survey that is open until the end of June where you can share your opinions on auto insurance including on accountability and how you feel about the right to sue other drivers who may have injured you.
What many people may not know is that if a driver has no insurance your options are very limited and if this is something that has tripped you up before, now’s the time to make it known in the survey.
Alberta is the only province in Canada that offers private auto insurance. Every other province has a system that is government run. That has been a hallmark of Alberta and while it hasn’t always provided the lowest of costs it is part of Alberta.
How that system works, what drivers can do if they’re injured, and the number of players all has an impact on how low prices can go.
The survey is open until June 26 and can be found in our show notes. If you have a success story or story of failure about Alberta insurance, share it in the survey and be part of the discussion this government seems keen to foster.
Supplementals:

Jogger clipped by fast-moving e-bike on E&N Rail trail

This week's BC story will be a bit of an odd one, as it pertains to just one of the municipalities in Greater Victoria, but it does show how Canada's cities need to evolve carefully as we look at how we get around, and how those cities provide clean and fast ways of travelling in and through different areas, as people go to work, school, get groceries or run errands.
Victoria, it should be said, has named itself the cycling capital of Canada. It's a lofty title that is backed up by facts; a 2021 Statistics Canada finding that the city has the highest percentage of people who bike to work in Canada — 5.3 per cent, and that over 95% of VIctorians live within 500 metres of a bike route.
Biking infrastructure is very commonplace within British Columbia's capital, and oftentimes there are plenty of safe options for walkers, joggers and bikers to get around the city, in many places, options that are well away from accidents that may be caused by cars and other forms of faster transportation.
Collisions do happen on the crowded bike paths too, which can cause issues for those trying to use alternative transport options.
This week, a jogger was taken to hospital after being clipped by an electric bicycle Wednesday night on the E&N mixed use trail. A nearby resident who did not want to be named estimated the e-bike was travelling about 40 kilometres an hour when the collision happened about 7:15 p.m.
So even on bike paths, collisions can happen, and oftentimes are just as damaging as a collision with a car. Even so, bike paths to get around are used far more than riding on city streets where a collision with a car is much more likely.
This is why it may have surprised many people who use cars to get around, that Saanich, Greater Victoria's most populous municipality, lowered the speed limits on major car routes from 50km/h to 40km/h.
This was actually a unanimous decision made by council last fall that went unheralded by local media. First to be targeted were around a dozen of what Saanich calls Type B streets — those with a continuous yellow centre line. The initiative was inspired by Vision Zero, adopted in Sweden in 1997, which aims to reach zero road fatalities through better road design, speed reduction and other measures.
Saanich council describes Vision Zero as such: "Vision Zero is an ambitious goal to eliminate all traffic injuries and fatalities while ensuring safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all road users. This includes people who walk, ride a bike, take a bus or drive. Vision Zero is a new paradigm for road safety that recognizes that human error is inevitable and a systems-based approach is needed to address multiple factors affecting road safety including speed limits, road design, education and awareness for road users, enforcement, and vehicle safety."
A city report said slower speeds contribute to improved comfort for pedestrians and cyclists, less noise and less severe outcomes when collisions occur. Collisions with vulnerable road users at 30 km/h or less correlate with a 10 per cent probability of death, compared with a 30 per cent probability of death at 40 km/h or 85 per cent at 50 km/h.
Municipal councils do have the authority to set speed limits on roads under their jurisdiction, under the Motor Vehicle Act of BC. The default speed limit for municipal streets in B.C. is 50 km/h. Saanich is recommending the default speed be set at 30 km/h for Type A streets — those without a continuous yellow centre line or those where a bikeway exists or is proposed.
Speed limits on Type A streets are expected to be tackled later this year. The Type A portion of the speed-reduction plan is a bigger project, with as many as 5,500 new speed-zone signs needed due to the number of residential streets involved. An early budget estimate suggests it could cost $5.6 million.
Saanich’s program follows the City of Victoria’s initiative launched last year that has staff starting to erect new speed-limit signs on side streets. Victoria has a new default speed limit of 30 km/h on neighbourhood roads. The city will start by extending the 30 km/h zone around some schools and parks, to a full day from the now 8am-5pm limit.
The issue with simply reducing speed limits on roads that only cars take, as it does not increase the ability for alternatives to be used. While Saanich can cite the increased safety of collisions at lower speeds, it doesn't really matter if bikes don't use those streets in the first place.
All reducing speed limits on main arterial roads does is cause people to be in their cars longer, which actually increases greenhouse gas emissions. Without also redesigning roads to be more friendly to bikes and buses, people will not abide by the new rules and just continue at the same rate of speed they were before.
All this is to say that simply reducing speed limits is a cop out on what the actions to reduce collisions and fatalities would actually be. That is, giving people more of a reason to use alternative methods of transport, not just punishing people for using cars when alternatives don't exist.
Supplementals:

Firing Line

Some Canadian politicians are ‘wittingly’ participating in foreign interference

The foreign interference inquiry tabled most of what we knew and completely destroyed any semblance of of integrity in what the federal government and former special rapporteur David Johnston had to say on the matter of foreign interference.
This week we have another update on foreign interference that is nothing but shocking.
Years back before any inquiry and any leaked documents and any CSIS reports, this podcast made the allegation that it felt like our government and certain MPs were compromised by foreign countries.
This week we have confirmation that this has happened and a number of federal politicians have knowingly and wittingly worked with foreign hostile countries to interfere in Canada’s democracy.
Wittingly of course means that the people in question knew what they were doing and they knew that it was wrong.
This revelation came from the National Security Agencynd Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians or NSICOP.
The redacted report shows interference by the likes of China, India, and Iran. It also says that China successfully interfered in the 2019 Liberal nomination contest in Don Valley North and had a significant impact on Han Dong b being selected as the party’s candidate.
The report also points to several activities the undisclosed number of parliamentarians engaged in. They include soliciting political support from foreign missions, accepting money or favours from diplomats, revealing their colleagues’ positions one issues so that foreign operatives can pressure them, and providing information learned in confidence from the government to a known intelligence officer of a foreign state.
In one case, a parliamentarian allegedly provided confidential government information to “a known intelligence officer of a foreign state.”
David McGuinty who is chair of NSICOP said it remains unclear as to what the RCMP is doing in relation to this and if there will be charges.
It remains unclear who we are talking about and whether they are MPs or senators or both but names come to mind for both.
The names will not be released, this was straight from Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc.
ALL parties have requested the names be released. Even the NDP and Greens have said that the names should be released.
The government is offering to brief opposition party leaders who obtain the necessary security clearances on the classified intelligence.
NDP leader Jagmeet Singh and Green Party co-leader Elizabeth May are taking the government up on the offer while Yves’Francois Blanchet is considering it.
Pierre Poilievre has refused classified briefings on foreign interference, claiming it would restrict his ability to speak publicly on the issue.
At this point we know the situation is worse than was alluded to last year and worse than the inquiry has alluded to but I don’t think anyone truly appreciated how compromised this federal government is.
The redacted report can be found online and is linked in our show notes. The media of course as is tradition has also been silent about one key aspect of this report.
The intel community observed that the manipulation of traditional media to disseminate propaganda in independent news publicans happened regularly as well as spreading disinformation to promote their agendas and challenge Canadian interests.
The report notes that China was the most capable in this context and directly engaged with Canadian media executives and journalists to interfere in Canadian media content.
It is noted that China paid media outlets to publish articles without attribution, sponsored media travel to China, and pressured journalists IN CANADA to withdraw articles and created fake social media accounts to spread disinformation.
This part of the story is what was not talked about and is found on page 16 of the report.
We’ll leave it up to you, the listener, to decide what’s more damning: the fact that parliament and potentially cabinet is compromised or the media has been influenced and didn’t report on it.
The foreign interference registry that is being talked about is one way of combatting influence but if individual parliamentarians are themselves interacting with hostile powers wittingly, we have a bigger problem.
We’re also not going to be able to rely on the mainstream media to get to the bottom of it as they appear to be compromised as well.
Canada needs help. Now.
Supplementals:

Quote of the Week

"This week’s Bill C-11 streaming ruling acts as if consumers, competition, and affordability are irrelevant issues that are at best someone else’s concern. The result is that Canadians have been largely removed from broadcasting and Internet policy at the regulator, expected to pay up and shut up." - Michael Geist on this week’s CRTC ruling.

Word of the Week

Wittingly - to do something when you are fully aware of what you are doing and what its consequences will be.

How to Find Us
Westerncontext.ca

westerncontext.ca/subscribe

westerncontext.ca/support

twitter.com/westerncontext

facebook.com/westerncontext

Show Data

Episode Title: Compromised Canada

Teaser: The CRTC taxes 5% of streaming giants’ revenues, the UCP asks the public for input on auto insurance, and speed limit reductions in BC show the need for careful city planning. Also, Canadian parliamentarians could be compromised by foreign powers.

Recorded Date: June 8, 2024

Release Date: June 9, 2024

Duration: 52:51

Edit Notes: None

Podcast Summary Notes

Duration: XX:XX