While the details of the bill maybe needs another iteration, I feel the spirit of the bill makes sense to me, and I think the issues around it should be discussed.
Legislature hasn't caught up with the internet.
> The CRTC will develop and implement regulations to ensure that both traditional and online broadcasting services, including web giants, offer meaningful levels of Canadian content and contribute to the creation of Canadian content in both official languages
That's generally been what the CRTC does, it makes sure that broadcasters have enough Canadian made content compared to non-canadian made content, and to also make sure it has content in both official languages, as well as to help support and promote content from minorities. And that the content meets some expected standards, like not advertising things to children or medical that aren't allowed in Canada.
> Protection of children.
> Restrictions against hate speech.
> Protection of national production and national culture.
> Right of reply.
> Restriction on the quantity of advertising, of ad for certain products (tobacco, pharmaceutical drugs), and on product placement
These are the regulations currently applied to broadcasters.
The problematic ones for the internet would probably be the first two. The last three, I think most people would be quite happy to see more enforcement around for internet platforms.
Now for the first two, you can argue that the fine line between protecting children and hate speech could be used to censor anything that opposes the current ruling party. This greatly depends if you believe in Canada's institutions as fighting for democracy and liberty, which I think is more common in Canada, or if, like most Americans, you believe in the government institutions as constantly being the enemy of democracy and liberty and something the citizen need to constantly take upon themselves to watchdog.
That said, I believe there are other checks and balances that can be put in place here. As long as there would be mechanisms to challenge rulings, and that all such regulations was still done transparently. And that there were relatively unambiguous guidelines. And that there were still clear ways to publish things on the internet that are bad for children and hateful but wouldn't fall under broadcasting regulations, such as say your own website, email, downloadable content, etc.
In any case, I'm not here to spin my opinion of this, I'm not sure exactly what the reasonable set of rules and regulations should be here. But I'm just saying I think it needs to be discussed. Most people probably don't know that broadcasters currently must abide by this regulation, and that internet streaming platforms don't have too. So I think educating about these and discussing what regulation makes sense and what doesn't needs to happen.
> it makes sure that broadcasters have enough Canadian made content compared to non-canadian made content, and to also make sure it has content in both official languages, as well as to help support and promote content from minorities.
To me this is completely bizarre, not unlike old soviet censors looking at movies and deciding what was “soviet enough” to get the approval from the bureaucracy. Disney and Marvel made billions of dollars simply making content people want to watch and pay for, why not simply do the same and compete in the marketplace? Imagine how ridiculous it would be if there were quotas on iPhone sold so that BlackBerry still had a legally mandated market share.
So Drake would get subsidies for being a Canadian minority but the government would try to limit the air-time given to Lil Nas (one, if not the first openly gay mainstream black rapper)… Tax dollars are paying for this?
Culture and Media is inherently political, to me it makes sense to make sure that the media reporters, the opinion pieces, and the cultural heritage and lineage remains mostly in control by Canadians for Canadians, and that all Canadians get an equal representation, which considers and encourages minority groups to have a voice.
That doesn't mean that you block and censor media and culture from other countries to reach Canadians. A broadcaster is not a publisher. A broadcaster is inherently a curator, it's a promoter and censor in its own right. If you're the biggest distribution channel, but you are in control of choosing what content gets the most or best "air time", which is what a broadcaster does, you have an outsized control and impact on what content reaches Canadians and what content doesn't.
That means Disney could buy all Canadian TV and radio stations from money they acquired in the US market, and just decide to only broadcast US news, opinions, media, music and film, etc.
Or it means that Canadian broadcasters could choose to do the same because they make more money from big budget American productions than Canadian productions. But it seems wrong to me to say that news, media, and culture should all be driven and optimized purely on what makes the most money, and not on any other dimensions, such as cultural heritage and diversity, equal opinions and voices from Canadians of various groups and affiliations, etc.
Similarly, for online broadcasting, it means what does YouTube decide to recommend you? What do they decide to promote or show first in a search result? You'd want regulations to make sure that YouTube considers what's best for Canadians, by making sure it's equally showing Canadian content from various Canadian groups, and not that it's just demoting and making all Canadian voices and content hard to find while instead only recommending content that is optimized for clicks, revenue, outrage, or representing American, or Russian, or other foreign nations or groups.
That doesn't mean banning foreign content, it just means it can't get priority over Canadian content in broadcasts. You also can still sell and distribute it in Canada without problems.
> That means Disney could buy all Canadian TV and radio stations from money they acquired in the US market, and just decide to only broadcast US news, opinions, media, music and film, etc.
If people want to consume Canadian content, they'll simply switch to a different station. The free market is always right!
> Or it means that Canadian broadcasters could choose to do the same because they make more money from big budget American productions than Canadian productions
Why not simply step up their game and make content that people want to watch? They are free to sell it on the US market as well.
Radio stations in Canada already are required to have a portion of their content be "Canadian". And other than ads it is actually one benefit of getting away from listening to radio and switching to streaming services. You're able to go listen to what you want, not some forced content you hear all the time. Some stations who play things like the top hits will play Canadian songs quite a bit and it just gets boring.
I recall Netflix had a deal with the government where they commit xyz amount of money to producing content for their platform made in Canada. I have no problem with things like this as I have no obligation to watch that content. If that Canadian content happens to suck then I just won't watch it. But if Netflix instead had to artificially make me see this content more when I go to browse for a show that would be frustrating. Just like if Spotify had to have their curated playlists have xyz percentage of Canadian content. I don't want what I listen to being tailored based on first the country of origin and then second whether or not I will like the song.
I feel like these policies are happening because of pressure from big media companies in Canada. These companies are losing profit to American companies because now they are actually forced to compete and their average-to-meh tier content just isn't as passable anymore when people actually have options.
I get your sentiment, but it also seems like you don't care for Canadian culture and identity, history, and everything, and would be happy seeing it eventually die out in favor of American culture or some other.
Free market is nice, but applying it to culture is saying you're okay to see your culture lose to another. At the same time, how can a country of a small population win a culture content war against one of multiple time its size with much more capital.
The way you talk about being forced to compete, I feel you're assuming that news, media, talk shows, music, movies, and all that are somehow not also incorporating values and morals that reflect a culture. And that there shouldn't be any desire to make sure that Canadian values, morals and historical lineage is still represented in content broadcasted to Canadians.
Now personally, I value Canadian culture and identity, and I want to see it grow and prosper and still be represented in broadcast reaching Canadians. That doesn't mean blocking foreign content, but I think it's fair to make recommendations, search results, and other such promotional mechanism prioritize a certain amount of Canadian content when accessed from Canada. And even more so, I think it's a good idea if it should make sure to always include a little bit of First Nation material, a little bit of French Canadian material, etc., to give proportional representation to our minority groups as well, and support their culture and heritage too.
As a Canadian consumer, it means that if you truly didn't like Canadian content, maybe you'd need to explicitly seek out non-canadian content, or non-canadian content recommendations. I could see it be an explicit opt-out setting, or having to explicitly switch to the American or some other endpoint.
Maybe I'm patriotic, but ya, I do value those things. And I would want the default in Canada for broadcasters to prioritize a certain amount of Canadian content with proportional representation to our various minority/majority groups.
The other commenter put it better than I would. But Canada is so multi-cultural there really isn't one "Canadian Culture". Most of our "Canadian content" is no different than American content, it just happens to be filmed in Canada. But even a lot of American shows do a lot of filming in Canada.
There is really no "Canadian music" either, it's really just the same as American music. But it isn't just American content I get exposed to. I also get exposed to a lot of other content from all around the world.
Take the recent culturally popular hit on Netflix "Squid Game". Should Netflix be forced to show me something from Canada instead of promoting Squid Game simply because they are legally forced to? Shouldn't they be showing me something they think I will like regardless of where it came from? In fact Netflix does exactly this and does suggest content that is even in other languages with English dubs or subtitles.
Instead of being forced to listen or watch subsidized Canadian content I am able to watch whatever would interest me the most from anywhere in the world. In my opinion your view is an old style view that applies to a less connected version of the world. With how connected we are now and how easily I can see content from across the world it feels like an old fashioned approach to do what you are suggesting. And it feels extra silly with just how much more multi-cultural Canada has become.
I'm taking a view that is about giving all Canadians the right to free speech and to be heard by other Canadians. Not one that is about the consumer and for them to have the most interesting and entertaining content at the cheapest price.
That means that if Canadians are looking to broadcast a message or values or some of their history and culture or any idea, either through a news report, an opinion piece, a talk show, a story told as music or a movie, etc. Well they should be able to do so without having to win the free market and outcompete everyone else even foreign broadcasters or content makers.
That means, reserve them a little bit of "air time" to give their message a chance to reach other Canadians. This is their right to free speech, to be heard and be considered as Canadians by other Canadians without intermediary controlling their narrative or financial and other interests playing into it.
You don't have to make all of it just that, 60% or 70% can still just be free for all free market pure consumer driven of what makes money versus what doesn't. But to reserve a fraction of that, like 30%, for Canadians looking to reach other Canadians through broadcast I think that's a great thing as a society and we need to make sure there are ways for them to do so that are protected by our institutions.
And that's also why sometimes some of those programs will even get grants, to help them produce the content. It's about preserving people's right to have a voice in our society, even the poors.
> There is really no "Canadian music" either, it's really just the same as American music.
What’s interesting is that you can see the quotas the government place on radio stations as a form of subsidies. Meaning that, according to the government, Justing Bieber signing about “Georgia Peaches” and consuming drugs in California counts as Canadian Music and Culture (he was born in Canada).
> Take the recent culturally popular hit on Netflix "Squid Game". Should Netflix be forced to show me something from Canada instead of promoting Squid Game simply because they are legally forced to?
Rent-seekers seem to think so! Why try to innovate and compete in a fair marketplace when you can simply have special rules that your content has to be promoted?
> Rent-seekers seem to think so! Why try to innovate and compete in a fair marketplace when you can simply have special rules that your content has to be promoted?
This is missing my point, because you are reducing the content to a mindless product of consumption.
The point of promoting and prioritizing Canadian content is not financially motivated. It is politically motivated.
The point is to safeguard free speech and the right to be heard of Canadians within Canadian society.
That means that first nations should have a proportional spot in broadcasts. If they represent 5% of all Canadians, then all broadcast should include 5% of their speech, ideas, and culture, which let their voices, opinions, values, morales, and heritage be spoken and heard through the content, be it news media, opinion pieces, talk shows, stories, etc.
> Free market is nice, but applying it to culture is saying you're okay to see your culture lose to another.
If people want to keep it alive, they’ll simply consume it. If you can’t sell it without having to subsidize it and make special laws to force people to watch it, maybe the people already made their choice.
> And even more so, I think it's a good idea if it should make sure to always include a little bit of First Nation material, a little bit of French Canadian material, etc., to give proportional representation to our minority groups as well, and support their culture and heritage too.
Weren’t the state media making blatantly racist “historical documentary” (with taxpayers money) a few years ago? [0-4] Are people ok with this?
I get the minority content but aren’t the French Canadians notorious for buying and consuming their own culture? I work with a few French Canadians who’s been here in the bay for decades and even their kids (born here in America) watch French Canadian content (on TikTok no less!). No need to subsidize it, they just seek it because they want to watch it.
When you make something that’s worth it, people simply watch it. That’s why Parasite won an Oscar.
I mostly replied my thoughts on your other comment. But let me add that again, it isn't about French Canadians having their own content for themselves. That's again the view that's very consumer/provider capitalist driven. It is about them having a voice that reaches other Canadians, including non French Canadian ones.
So in this case, yes, I'm taking a societal view, it's showing respect, interest and that we're all listening to each other to make the best society, and giving everyone an outlet.
So you can easily say, ok, let 60% of all content be pure consumer/producer free market driven. But reserve a 40% to make sure Canadians of all circle of life and background have a voice that can reach other Canadians.
And that would also include having voices for Ontarians, yes even truckers, or anyone else who shows interest to broadcast content, they can go to the CRTC and ask for a spot, which they'd be granted proportionally, even if their content isn't a money maker that could survive the free market.
> It is about them having a voice that reaches other Canadians, including non French Canadian ones.
Does it actually?
Not that long ago we basically got a completely different sales and marketing team for that region; we were advised to basically treat it as it’s own thing. From my visits it’s quite… insular. I recall their newspapers having news from the province on the front page, then a page about the US and then Canadian/International news.
> And that would also include having voices for Ontarians, yes even truckers, or anyone else who shows interest to broadcast content, they can go to the CRTC and ask for a spot
Ahh, so they have to go vet their content and opinion to a government official before getting a government approved broadcasting right. First amendment as long as you get the government’s approval!
I'm curious what you think of an ombudsman? Do you just see them as seeking any chance to abuse their power and seek authoritarian authority and oppress your rights as well?
In a democracy, the government technically works for you, you elect it, you can choose to not re-elect them, and as part of that system some institutions are in place to protect your rights. Like ombudsman, the CRTC is an institution whose mandate is to protect voices of Canadians on broadcasts that reaches Canadians.
The CRTC is not a sensor, and cannot choose what programs the broadcasters choose to air or not, it can simply dictate that it has to air some amount of Canadian content, and that it has to promote and advertise some amount of it.
The goals of it is to make sure various Canadians have a propertionally equal air time. That's its mandate.
I'm not sure what exactly you distrust in that, a free market will govern who gets air time based on profit, revenue, and market power/consolidation. This isn't what Canadians want, they want to have a mechanism that protects their rights to broadcast themselves, even if it doesn't fit Big Media's business model of maximized revenue, or their own political leanings. So they created an institution to govern that, and make sure that within the free market, there is still guaranteed room for them to broadcast.
P.S.: First amandment is a US thing. Canada has a Charter of rights and freedoms, and it's section 2(b) which says:
> (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
Legislature hasn't caught up with the internet.
> The CRTC will develop and implement regulations to ensure that both traditional and online broadcasting services, including web giants, offer meaningful levels of Canadian content and contribute to the creation of Canadian content in both official languages
That's generally been what the CRTC does, it makes sure that broadcasters have enough Canadian made content compared to non-canadian made content, and to also make sure it has content in both official languages, as well as to help support and promote content from minorities. And that the content meets some expected standards, like not advertising things to children or medical that aren't allowed in Canada.
These are the regulations currently applied to broadcasters.The problematic ones for the internet would probably be the first two. The last three, I think most people would be quite happy to see more enforcement around for internet platforms.
Now for the first two, you can argue that the fine line between protecting children and hate speech could be used to censor anything that opposes the current ruling party. This greatly depends if you believe in Canada's institutions as fighting for democracy and liberty, which I think is more common in Canada, or if, like most Americans, you believe in the government institutions as constantly being the enemy of democracy and liberty and something the citizen need to constantly take upon themselves to watchdog.
That said, I believe there are other checks and balances that can be put in place here. As long as there would be mechanisms to challenge rulings, and that all such regulations was still done transparently. And that there were relatively unambiguous guidelines. And that there were still clear ways to publish things on the internet that are bad for children and hateful but wouldn't fall under broadcasting regulations, such as say your own website, email, downloadable content, etc.
In any case, I'm not here to spin my opinion of this, I'm not sure exactly what the reasonable set of rules and regulations should be here. But I'm just saying I think it needs to be discussed. Most people probably don't know that broadcasters currently must abide by this regulation, and that internet streaming platforms don't have too. So I think educating about these and discussing what regulation makes sense and what doesn't needs to happen.