Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

The CRTC said it would leave podcasts alone. Turns out that was a myth

Published

6 minute read

From the MacDonald-Laurier Institute

This article originally appeared in the Hub.

By Peter Menzies, October 4, 2023

It’s clear the regulator is about to draw podcasts into its warm embrace.

The CRTC has backtracked on its promise to leave podcasts alone.

On May 12, the federal regulator stated in its “Myths and Facts” release that concerns it would regulate content such as podcasts were a “myth” and the “fact” of the matter was that “a person who creates audio or video content or creates a podcast, is not a broadcaster under” the Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11).

That “fact” didn’t live long. It expired September 29 when, in its first decisions since being granted authority over the internet, the CRTC changed lanes.

While it was careful to state that podcasters themselves don’t have to register with the Commission, the web-based platforms that make podcasts available must do so. Indeed, podcasters may not be broadcasters, but very much as predicted by the legislation’s critics, the CRTC has found ways to bring them into scope anyway.

It decided that podcasts constitute “programs under the Broadcasting Act, given that they are comprised of sounds intended to inform, enlighten or entertain.”

The regulator’s decision further explains that while podcasters may not be broadcasters, the transmission of podcasts over the internet most definitely “constitutes broadcasting” which makes those entities that platform podcasts into cable companies.

So while the CRTC concedes that while “the Broadcasting Act does not give the Commission a mandate to regulate creators of programs” it nevertheless makes clear that its powers do cover “those services that are involved in the broadcasting of programs, which are referred to as broadcasting undertakings.”

Is your head spinning yet?

The legal contortions continue throughout the decision, but the clear takeaway, the bottom line, is that, while it keeps insisting it doesn’t intend to regulate the content of podcasts, it is very concerned about the content of podcasts and if it can’t legally regulate them, it’ll make sure someone else does it for them.

Paragraph 223 of its decision makes it clear the CRTC is about to draw podcasts into its warm embrace.

Without information about online undertakings that transmit or retransmit podcasts, it would be more difficult for the Commission to ensure the achievement of the objectives of … the Broadcasting Act, which relate to, among other things, providing a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern, and (that) the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should be varied and comprehensive, providing a balance of information, enlightenment and entertainment for people of all ages, interests and tastes.

In other words, what the CRTC denounced as “myth” in the spring has become a “fact” in the fall. It has kicked open the door to the regulation of online content, if not directly then by proxy through the platforms that deliver the work of podcasters to their audiences.

It is a bureaucratic master stroke.

Here’s what will follow.

The list of intervenors presenting at the CRTC’s public hearing coming up in late November indicates the panel of commissioners will hear from a number of groups that will explain the extent to which they are under-represented and funded. So, a possible outcome of this will be that services that carry podcasts will have to fund podcasters who, on their own, haven’t been able to find an audience.

Just as likely is that platforms will be regulated to ensure podcasts designated by the CRTC are given priority visibility/discoverability online over undesignated podcasts through the manipulation of algorithms. These are likely to be podcasts by Indigenous, BIPOC and LGBTQ2S creators.

As erstwhile CRTC Chair Ian Scott told the Senate committee studying Bill C-11 in 2022:

Instead of saying, and the Act precludes this, we will make changes to your algorithms as many European countries are contemplating doing, instead, we will say this is the outcome we want. We want Canadians to find Canadian music. How best to do it? How will you do it? I don’t want to manipulate your algorithm. I want you to manipulate it to produce a particular outcome. And then we will have hearings to decide what are the best ways and explore it.

This was reinforced in an exchange Scott had with Senator Pamela Wallin, who suggested proponents of the bill were parsing their words and that:

You won’t manipulate the algorithms; you will make the platforms do it. That is regulation by another name. You’re regulating either directly and explicitly or indirectly, but you are regulating content.

To which Mr. Scott replied: “you’re right.”

The CRTC has now confirmed what it denied mere months ago when it was parroting then-Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez’s talking points.

It will make sure podcasts and any other internet content it can capture is regulated.

Peter Menzies is a Senior Fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, a former newspaper executive, and past vice chair of the CRTC.

Business

Federal government gets failing grade for fiscal transparency and accountability

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Last week, Yves Giroux, the Parliamentary Budgetary Officer, raised a rarely-talked-about issue with the federal government—that is, the release of important fiscal documents is being delayed further and further each year. While at first glance this may not seem like a big deal, it’s a sign of declining transparency—an issue all Canadians should care about.

According to Giroux, the Trudeau government’s failure to yet release this year’s federal public accounts—which will report the final numbers for the 2023-24 fiscal year—“goes against fiscal transparency and accountability” that Canadians should expect.

While budgets outline the government’s plan for spending and revenue each year, the public accounts tell us whether or not the government actually stuck to this plan. Typically, the federal government releases the public accounts in October. Yet we’re entering December and last year’s federal finances remain in question.

Provinces also release public accounts, and though they have in the past displayed a similar tardiness, this year every provincial government has released their public accounts well before the federal government.

Why is this important?

Parliamentarians are expected to make important decisions that affect revenues and spending, yet many of them currently do not have the necessary information to make decisions on behalf of their constituents. Moreover, the federal government makes important commitments—referred to as “fiscal anchors”—to help ensure the sustainability of Canada’s finances. The public accounts are a critical tool for both elected officials and the public to hold government accountable to those commitments. Simply put, these fiscal documents are how we determine whether or not the government is actually staying true to its promises.

Some observers claim the Trudeau government may be intentionally delaying the release of this year’s public accounts to avoid this scrutiny. In its 2023 fall update, and again in the 2024 budget, the government promised to hold the 2023-24 deficit to $40.0 billion. Yet a recent report from the PBO suggests the deficit will instead be $46.8 billion. Since the government might be forced to deliver bad news, Giroux suggested it could be delaying the release “to find a more appropriate time where it gathers less attention.” Those are not the actions of a transparent and accountable government.

The issue of delayed fiscal releases is not limited to the public accounts. The Trudeau government has also released federal budgets later than usual. For example, this year it released the 2024 federal budget on April 16. The budget presents the fiscal plan for the upcoming fiscal year that begins April 1, meaning the federal government didn’t release its plan until more than two weeks after the fiscal year had started. In fact, three of the last four budgets from the Trudeau government have been released after the fiscal year started.

Similarly, the Trudeau government has also heretofore failed to release this year’s fall economic statement, which provides a mid-year update on the government’s budget plan. Again, the government has pushed this release later into the year compared to the past. From 2000 to 2014, no fiscal update was released later than November 22. Yet the Trudeau government has delayed the release of this update into December twice so far (in 2019 and 2021).

Canadians should expect their federal government to release important fiscal information in a timely and transparent manner. Unfortunately, transparency and accountability don’t appear high on this government’s list of priorities.

  • Jake Fuss

    Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute
  • Grady Munro

    Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

 

Continue Reading

Automotive

Federal loan to struggling EV automaker under fire

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

All-electric automaker Rivian Automotive announced on Monday that it received a “conditional commitment” for a $6.6B loan from the U.S. Department of Energy.

If finalized, the loan would be used to aid in the construction of a $5B Rivian plant just outside Atlanta, Georgia.

Politicians from both sides of the aisle were quick to react to the announcement of additional funding going to what they’ve labeled a “failing company.”

“Biden is forking over $6.6B to EV-maker Rivian to build a Georgia plant they’ve already halted,” said Vivek Ramaswamy, who will be leading President-Elect Donald Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency, along with Elon Musk, CEO of X and Tesla Motors. “One ‘justification’ is the 7,500 jobs it creates, but that implies a cost of $880k/job which is insane. This smells more like a political shot across the bow at Elon Musk and Tesla.”

With its first plant currently operating in Illinois, the California-based vehicle startup company officially closed on the 1,800-acre lot in Georgia in Nov. 2023.

Acquired to be the location for a second “next-generation manufacturing facility” producing upwards of 400,000 vehicles a year, the company halted construction plans earlier this year after financial troubles. Over the course of the year, shares in Rivian have dropped about 50%, while the Michigan-based Center for Economic Accountability labeled the project the “Worst Economic Development Deal of the Year” for 2022.

Georgia also promised over a billion dollars in incentives for the company, The Center Square previously reported.

Rivian said the loan will accelerate the company’s “growth and leadership of electric vehicle design” as well as benefitting the electric vehicle industry throughout the United States.

“This loan will help create thousands of new American jobs and further strengthen U.S. leadership in EV manufacturing and technology,” said Rivian founder and CEO RJ Scaringe in a statement. “This loan would enable Rivian to more aggressively scale our U.S. manufacturing footprint.”

The funding will come from the Department of Energy’s Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program, which has also historically loaned both General Motors and Tesla money.

Jo Jorgensen, the 2020 Libertarian candidate for president, called out the loan.

“Electric vehicle startup Rivian Automotive has snagged up to $6.6 billion in funding from the U.S. government to grow its production capability,” she said. “Related news-Rivian is ranked among the worst brands for reliability in 2024. Per usual, our federal government is leading the race to the bottom!”

Earlier this month, the company’s quarter three financials signaled even more financial troubles for Rivian.

In the third quarter, it had a negative gross profit of $392 million, producing only 13,157 vehicles and “delivering” only 10,018. That means the company had a loss-per-vehicle of nearly $40,000.

“They should at least be required to get to positive gross margin with existing models before being given billions for future models,” Musk said of the loan announcement.

While Rivian promises the Georgia factory “will add billions of dollars in positive economic impact for Georgia,” Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican, pushed back on that.

“I can tell you right now Georgians do not support Rivian and are sick and tired of seeing tax dollars handed over to this failing company, federal and state,” Greene said.

It was recently announced that Greene will be leading a congressional subcommittee dedicated to working with DOGE and rooting out “every penny of waste and abuse.”

Greene said that the Rivian loan is “the exact type of insanity that we have to stop.”

Elyse Apel is an apprentice reporter with The Center Square, covering Georgia and North Carolina. She is a 2024 graduate of Hillsdale College.

Continue Reading

Trending

X