Business
Will U.S. streaming companies play ball with the CRTC?: Peter Menzies
From the MacDonald Laurier Institute
By Peter Menzies
Domestic streamers have to live with the rules the CRTC comes up with, not so when it comes to global streamers
The fundamental weakness in Canada’s Online Streaming Act will be exposed for all to see on Nov. 20, when the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) comes face-to-face with American streaming companies.
For the first time, the regulator will be dealing with companies that, if they don’t like the rules and the financial burden the CRTC imposes, are free to leave the country.
To be clear, neither Netflix, Disney+ nor any other company has yet suggested they are prepared to quit Canada. There have been no threats to do anything similar to what Meta did and Google might – stop carrying news – in response to the Online News Act. But there is nothing that compels foreign companies from continuing here if CRTC decisions make it no longer sensible for them to do so.
That shapes the conversation in a way that the commission, which commences a three-week-long hearing Nov. 20 involving 127 intervenors, isn’t accustomed to. Throughout its history, the primary players in CRTC procedures have always been captives of “the system” – domestic companies that depend for their existence on a commission license or rely upon the regulator’s decisions for their sustenance. They may not like the rules the CRTC comes up with, but they have to live with them.
Not so when it comes to global streamers that, as it turns out, are global.
Netflix’s base here is robust – 6.7 million subscribers – but that is just 10 per cent of its U.S. audience and only 2.8 per cent of its global subscriber base. According to its submission to the CRTC, it has already invested $3.5-billion in film and TV production since launching here in 2010 – roughly equivalent to the Canada Media Fund’s spend over the same period. And, it claims, people are 1.8 times more likely to view a Canadian production on Netflix than on TV. Let that sink in.
Disney+ makes similar arguments. It has 4.4 million Canadian subscribers out of a global total of about 147 million (down significantly this year). It points out that it has invested $1.5-billion in Canada, which is one of its top four production markets. As it gently states in its submission to the CRTC: “We encourage the commission to adopt a modernized contribution framework and a revised, modern definition of a ‘Canadian program’ that provide sufficient incentives for global producers and foreign online undertakings to continue to bring large-scale productions to, and make capital investments in, Canada.”
Large domestic companies that have been forced by regulation to contribute to the production and airing of certified Canadian content, meanwhile, argue for their “burden” in that regard to be reduced and shifted onto the backs of foreign companies.
In its submission, BCE Inc., which has a current profit margin of 21.2 per cent, describes the broadcasting system as in crisis, accuses streamers of having “contributed precious little to the Canadian system” and calls for its contributions to be reduced from 30 per cent to 20 per cent of the media division’s revenue – a figure it believes should be applied to all offshore streamers with more than $50-million in Canadian revenue.
BCE Inc. goes on to argue that if the commission takes its advice and forces the streamers to pay 20 per cent of their revenue directly into Canadian content funds, an additional $457-million – growing to $678-million by 2026 – will pour into the pockets of ACTRA, the Writers Guild and others involved in the creation of certified Canadian TV and film content.
And that, right there, is where Netflix, with a profit margin of 13 per cent clears its throat. Politely but firmly, it says the CRTC appears to have already made up its mind that streamers should be paying into funds and “submits that this is not an appropriate starting point.”
The decade prior to the introduction of the Online Streaming Act was by far the most prosperous in the history of the Canadian film and television industry, including in terms of Canadian content production.
Most of that growth took place beyond the reach of the CRTC, which was in charge of an increasingly irrelevant system upon which many legacy companies had grown dependent. But instead of fostering what was working, the government chose to sustain what wasn’t.
So now, as with the Online News Act, it’s playing at a table where it no longer holds all the cards.
Peter Menzies is a senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, a former publisher of the Calgary Herald and a previous vice-chair of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).
Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein
Alex Epstein
This is the kind of integrity we need from industry—and from Congress.
Dear Chairman Smith and Chairman Crapo:
We, the undersigned American energy producers and investors, write to voice our principled support for full repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) energy subsidies, including subsidies that would appear to be to our firms’ and industry’s benefit. This is the only moral and practical path forward if we are to truly unleash American energy.
In recent weeks, Congress has been embroiled in battles over which, if any, of the IRA energy subsidies to cut. Lobbyists representing every corner of the energy landscape, including trade groups that many of us are part of, are jockeying to preserve their own piece of the pie, claiming that it is uniquely valuable.
We have oil lobbyists fighting to keep carbon capture and hydrogen subsidies, solar and wind lobbyists fighting to keep solar and wind subsidies, biofuel lobbyists fighting to keep biofuel subsidies, and EV lobbyists fighting to keep EV subsidies.
If this continues, we will likely preserve most if not all of the subsidies, which, deep down, everyone knows are not good for America.
The fundamental truth about subsidies is very simple. For any product, including energy, a subsidy is just a way of taking money from more efficient producers—and from taxpayers—and giving it to less efficient producers. The result is always less efficient production and therefore higher costs or lower quality for Americans.
The most egregious example of subsidies’ destructiveness is the IRA’s solar and wind subsidies, which pay electric utilities to invest much more money in solar and wind than they otherwise would, and thus much less in coal and gas than they otherwise would. Ultimately this means higher electricity prices and certainly less electricity reliability for Americans.
The IRA subsidies’ devastating harm to American energy is more than enough to compel us, as energy producers, to oppose them.
But their harm goes far beyond energy, as they will dramatically increase our debt and ultimately undermine every aspect of our economy.
A central Congressional priority is to curb the national debt during the upcoming budget reconciliation exercise. But according to credible estimates, the IRA will cost over $1 trillion over the next decade and trillions more after that. Worse, the IRA subsidies are expected to misallocate, into uncompetitive business and jobs, $3 trillion of investment by 2032 and $11 trillion by 2050. That’s a disaster for our economy, and for real job opportunities.
Clearly, the right thing to do is to eliminate all these subsidies. When lobbyists say that these subsidies are essential for America, what they’re really saying is that their backers have made investments in projects that have no near term cost-effectiveness and that are totally dependent on indefinite subsidies to sustain themselves.
Most people know the truth, but are afraid to say it due to institutional pressures. Too many Congressmen are afraid of alienating trade groups. Too many trade groups are afraid of alienating their large and vocal members who have made investments hoping for indefinite subsidies. All the while, too few are talking about freedom.
That’s why we invite our colleagues to do the right thing: level with the American people, say that we made a mistake, and that those who built subsidy-dependent businesses took on the kind of risk that we do not want to reward.
Keeping the IRA subsidies—despite all the evidence that they benefit only special interests at the expense of America—risks making our nation ever more like Europe, where industries do not succeed by providing the best value to consumers, but by providing the best favors to politicians. That’s not the America we want to work in.
Sincerely,
Bud Brigham, Founder, Atlas Energy Services and Brigham Exploration
David Albin, Managing Partner, Spectra Holdings
Adam Anderson, CEO, Innovex International
Thurmon Andress, Chairman and CEO, Andress Oil
Don Bennett, Managing Partner, Bennett Ventures LP
Greg Bird, CEO and President, Jetta Operating Company
David de Roode, Partner, Lockton
Andy Eidson, CEO, Alpha Metallurgical Resources
Matt Gallagher, President and CEO, Greenlake Energy
Mike Howard, CEO, Howard Energy
Justin Thompson, CEO, Iron Senergy
Ed Kovalik, CEO, Prairie Operating Company
Thomas E. Knauff, Executive Chairman, EDP
Lance Langford, CEO, Langford Energy Partners
Mickey McKee, CEO, Kodiak Gas Services
Mike O’Shaughnessy, CEO, Lario Oil and Gas Company
D. Martin Phillips, Founder, EnCap Investments LP
Karl Pfluger, midstream executive
David Rees-Jones, President, Chief Energy
Rob Roosa, CEO, Brigham Royalties
Bobby Shackouls, Former CEO, Burlington Resources
Ross Stevens, Founder and CEO, Stone Ridge Holdings Group
Kyle Stallings, CEO, Desert Royalty Company
Justin Thompson, CEO, Iron Senergy
Mike Wallace, Partner, Wallace Family Partnership
Ladd Wilks, CEO, ProFrac
Denzil West, CEO, Admiral Permian Operating
Bill Zartler, Founder and CEO, Solaris Oilfield Infrastructure
Additional signatories (email [email protected] to add yours):
Jimmy Brock, Executive Chairman, Core Natural Resources
Ted Williams, President and CEO, Rockport Energy Solutions LLC
To make sure as many politicians as possible see this letter, help us by sharing on Twitter/X and tagging your Congressmen! Congress is currently undecided about what to do about the IRA subsidies, so now is the moment to make your voice heard.
“Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein” is my free Substack newsletter designed to give as many people as possible
access to concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on the latest energy, environmental,
and climate issues from a pro-human, pro-energy perspective.
Share Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein
Business
Possible Criminal Charges for US Institute for Peace Officials who barricade office in effort to thwart DOGE
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By
The Department of Justice is exploring potential criminal charges against former U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) officials who attempted to block the Trump administration’s leadership changes at the federally funded think tank Monday, a senior DOJ official told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
The official, who requested anonymity, told the DCNF the DOJ is examining whether certain USIP actions — such as the removal and destruction of internal and external door locks — created illegal fire hazards. The official also flagged the widespread distribution of internal flyers instructing USIP staff not to cooperate with incoming Trump administration officials as potentially obstructive conduct. The DCNF was the first to report on USIP’s internal flyer campaign and destruction of door locks.
“Eleven board members were lawfully removed, and remaining board members appointed Kenneth Jackson acting president,” Anna Kelly, White House deputy press secretary, previously told the DCNF. “Rogue bureaucrats will not be allowed to hold agencies hostage. The Trump administration will enforce the President’s executive authority and ensure his agencies remain accountable to the American people.”
The inquiry — which remains in its early stages, the official emphasized — follows a contentious standoff Monday after former USIP leadership tried to block the installation of Kenneth Jackson, who President Donald Trump appointed as the institute’s new president on March 14. The Trump administration determined the institute had failed to comply with a Feb. 19 executive order requiring federally funded organizations like USIP to scale operations down to their bare statutory minimums, triggering a leadership shakeup the institute attempted to resist.
USIP leadership began preparing for a confrontation weeks before the executive order was issued. A Feb. 6 internal document exclusively obtained by the DCNF outlined plans to deny building access to outside officials and reasserted the institute’s discretion over security systems and facilities. Flyers with the names and photos of Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) officials were posted throughout the building, instructing staff to report their presence and avoid conversation.
After Jackson and other DOGE officials arrived on March 14 with law enforcement and a copy of Trump’s order, they were turned away by USIP’s legal counsel, sources previously told the DCNF. Over the following weekend, USIP leadership escalated its resistance — terminating its private security firm, disabling internet and phone systems and resorting to walkie-talkie communication inside the building.
DOGE officials returned Monday to find the building locked down and staff barricaded on the fifth floor. USIP officials called the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), sources previously told the DCNF, who only later arrived at the request of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C. after reports of obstruction by institute staff. MPD entered the fifth floor through emergency stairwells and removed former USIP President George Moose and other senior officials from the premises.
While a federal judge declined to issue a restraining order halting the leadership transition Wednesday, she sharply criticized DOGE’s cooperation with law enforcement, despite the circumstances surrounding USIP’s refusal to comply.
The DOJ official did not specify which individuals were under investigation or when a decision on charges might be made.
Where To Draw The Line: Is Carney’s Daughter Off-Limits to Media?
Poilieve introduces “Canada First Shovel-Ready Zones” pre-approved areas to build mines, data centres, pipelines, LNG plants and more
Trump says Carney would be ‘easier’ to deal with than Poilievre as Canada’s prime minister
Al Gore Attempts To Keep The Sinking Climate Crisis Ship Afloat
-
Alberta2 days agoLeading proponent of Alberta Independence predicts provincial referendum in 2025
-
Economy2 days agoLatest dire predictions about Carney’s emissions cap
-
Business1 day agoTrump Tariffs are not going away. Canada needs to adapt or face the consequences
-
Business1 day agoA Look at Canada’s Import Tariffs
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoIt’s on! Federal Election called for April 28
-
COVID-191 day ago10 Shocking Stories the Media Buried This Week
-
Business7 hours ago
Possible Criminal Charges for US Institute for Peace Officials who barricade office in effort to thwart DOGE
-
David Clinton1 day agoYou’re Actually Voting for THEM? But why?