Business
The government surrenders to reality with rewritten Online News Act—and pleases no one: Peter Menzies
From the MacDonald Laurier Institute
By Peter Menzies
The shakedown of Meta and Google didn’t go as planned—but now they’re eyeing other lucrative targets.
There were some long faces in the news industry last week when Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge rolled out the final terms of her surrender to reality.
Media executives who once campaigned for the Online News Act with sugar-plum visions of Big Tech cash dancing in their heads were left to deal with some pretty serious lumps of coal. After years of effort to procure what they once fancied would be hundreds of millions of dollars annually from web giants, all St-Onge could bring down the chimney was a bump up in Google’s spend to $100 million.
How much the mother of all search engines was already paying to publishers is unknown, but in-the-know estimates tend to range from $30-$50 million. Splitting the difference at $40 million would mean the industry—newspapers, broadcasters, and online platforms—wound up with $60 million in fresh cash, give or take.
That’s less than the Lotto Max jackpot Rhonda Malesku of Kamloops and Ruth Bowes of Edmonton shared last summer. A lot of money for Rhonda and Ruth for sure, but for an entire industry it’s a drop in a leaky bucket.
Then there’s the fact the Act resulted in Meta blocking all news links in Canada on Facebook and Instagram. Again, the exact cost is unknown but the social media company had been spending $18 million on journalism supports plus—and here is the killer—Meta estimated it had been sending $230 million a year worth of referrals to news websites.
Even if Meta is only half right, that still leaves the news industry many tens of millions of dollars worse off. If Meta’s estimate is accurate—and no one has really debunked it—the scenario is a lot uglier.
This is what happens when you make things up.
The Act was rooted in the make-believe premise that “web giants” were profiting from “stealing” news. Legislation was designed on that basis to force Big Tech to “negotiate” commercial deals and share those profits with all news organizations.
In the end, as Michael Geist has detailed, that charade of “compensation” was dropped as the government, desperately afraid Google would follow Meta’s lead, posted regulations that essentially rewrote the Act to suit the search engine and, as an aside, puzzle lawyers. All that the media were able to salvage from the hustle was a fund they wound up fighting over like street urchins in a soup kitchen.
Here, St-Onge actually did something sensible. Her original plan was to have the fund distributed solely on a per journo basis. In other words, if there are 10,000 journalists, $100 million would turn into $10,000 per journo, never mind whether they are paid $35,000 or $150,000. The problem with that is that one in three Canadian reporters works for CBC, which is not in mortal peril. The next highest is Bell Media, whose parent company made $10 billion last year. Meanwhile, the Toronto Star is hemorrhaging at a rate of $1 million a week, small centres are becoming news deserts, and Postmedia’s stable of zombie newspapers continues to, well, zombie on.
Broadcasters would have consumed 75 percent of the loot and the vast majority of the cash would wind up with companies for whom news is not a primary aspect of their operations.
St-Onge changed that to cap private broadcasters’ windfall at 30 percent, with CBC limited to 7 percent.
That means 63 percent of the money will go to operators in the greatest peril which, for a fund resulting from a need to address industrial poverty, is at least rational.
Still, there was grumbling.
“Well, this is disappointing—sure wasn’t expecting a cap on broadcasters’ access to compensation,” Tandy Yull, vice president of policy and regulatory affairs for the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, posted on LinkedIn.
“Hey, Universe! More needs to be done to support Canadians’ most important providers of news, local radio, and television stations, who are facing significant—even existential—declines in advertising revenue,” she added.
Yull went on to stake broadcasters’ claim to government assistance currently reserved for newspapers and online-only media: the Journalism Labour Tax Credit and the Local Journalism Initiative.
And of course “our democracy demands that we explore these and other options—soon.”
She may not have long to wait.
Broadcasters opened up a fresh lobbying for loot campaign just last month when the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) held a hearing to launch the implementation of the Online Streaming Act.
Supposedly about funding Canadian entertainment programming, the concept of a news fund was introduced early and repeated often.
Commissioners appeared happy to embrace well-worn lines about a news “crisis” that needs “urgent” attention to prevent—cue the tympany—the death of democracy. And they did so without needing to be persuaded there was any rational reason for creating a fund which, logically, makes no more sense than taxing cinemas to pay for newspapers. Nor were any concerns raised about impacts on entrepreneurship and online innovators.
“Local news is in crisis and requires immediate intervention,” Susan Wheeler of Rogers, which made $7.12 billion last year, told the panel.
“A fundamental outcome of the modernized contribution regime must include new mechanisms to provide long‑term financial support for high‑quality Canadian‑produced broadcast news from credible outlets,” she said, calling for 30 percent of money raised from foreign online streaming companies to be directed to a news fund “accessible by all private TV and radio stations producing news.”
The humiliating squabbling over the remnant scraps of the Online News Act clearly wasn’t the end of the Great Canadian Quest for other people’s money.
So maybe the shakedown of Meta and Google didn’t quite work out. But Spotify, Disney+, and Netflix? They have money. Let’s mug them instead.
It’s not like anything bad could happen. Right?
Peter Menzies is a Senior Fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, a former newspaper executive, and past vice chair of the CRTC.
Business
Canada Scrambles To Secure Border After Trump Threatens Massive Tariff
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Jason Hopkins
The Canadian government made clear its beefing up its border security apparatus after President-elect Donald Trump threatened to impose sweeping tariffs against Canada and Mexico if the flow of illegal immigration and drugs are not reined in.
Trump in November announced on social media that he would impose a 25% tariff on all products from Canada and Mexico unless both countries do more to limit the level of illicit drugs and illegal immigration entering into the United States. In response, Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with the president-elect at his residence in Mar-a-Largo and his government has detailed what more it’s doing to bolster immigration enforcement.
“We got, I think, a mutual understanding of what they’re concerned about in terms of border security,” Minister of Public Safety Dominic LeBlanc, who accompanied Trudeau at Mar-a-Largo, said of the meeting in an interview with Canadian media. “All of their concerns are shared by Canadians and by the government of Canada.”
“We talked about the security posture currently at the border that we believe to be effective, and we also discussed additional measures and visible measures that we’re going to put in place over the coming weeks,” LeBlanc continued. “And we also established, Rosemary, a personal series of rapport that I think will continue to allow us to make that case.”
Trudeau’s Liberal Party-led government has pivoted on border enforcement since its first days in power.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) — the country’s law enforcement arm that patrols the border — is preparing to beef up its immigration enforcement capabilities by hiring more staff, adding more vehicles and creating more processing facilities, in the chance that there is an immigration surge sparked by Trump’s presidential election victory. The moves are a change in direction from Trudeau’s public declaration in January 2017 that Canada was a “welcoming” country and that “diversity is our strength” just days after Trump was sworn into office the first time.
While encounters along the U.S.-Canada border remain a fraction of what’s experienced at the southern border, activity has risen in recent months. Border Patrol agents made nearly 24,000 apprehensions along the northern border in fiscal year 2024 — marking a roughly 140% rise in apprehensions made the previous fiscal year, according to the latest data from Customs and Border Protection.
“While a change to U.S. border policy could result in an increase in migrants traveling north toward the Canada-U.S. border and between ports of entry, the RCMP now has valuable tools and insights to address this movement that were not previously in place,” read an RCMP statement provided to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “New mechanisms have been established which enable the RCMP to effectively manage apprehensions of irregular migrants between the ports.”
Trudeau’s pivot on illegal immigration enforcement follows the Canadian population growing more hawkish on the issue, public opinion surveys have indicated. Other polls also indicate Trudeau’s Liberal Party will face a beating at the voting booth in October 2025 against the Conservative Party, led by Member of Parliament Pierre Poilievre.
Trudeau’s recent overtures largely differ from Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, who has indicated she is not willing to bend the knee to Trump’s tariff threats. The Mexican leader in November said “there will be a response in kind” to any tariff levied on Mexican goods going into the U.S., and she appeared to deny the president-elect’s claims that she agreed to do more to beef up border security in a recent phone call.
Trump, who has vowed to embark on an incredibly hawkish immigration agenda once he re-enters office, has tapped a number of hardliners to lead his efforts. The president-elect announced South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem to lead the Department of Homeland Security, former acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Tom Homan to serve as border czar and longtime aide Stephen Miller to serve as deputy chief of staff for policy.
Automotive
Electric-vehicle sales show modest spark
From Resource Works
Fuel-powered cars still outsell EVs in Canada by almost 7:1
While the federal government pushes electric vehicles (and other zero-emission vehicles), Canadians seem to be somewhat less enthusiastic about them.
Ottawa calls them all ZEVs and says: “Canada is committed to decarbonizing the country’s transportation sector and becoming a global leader in ZEVs. As such, the Government of Canada is aiming for 100% of new light-duty sales to be zero-emission by 2035.”
However, even with rebates offered by Ottawa and eight provinces and territories, Canadians are proving a little reluctant to make the switch—especially to pure battery-only electric vehicles (EVs).
For example, in the second quarter of this year, Statistics Canada reported sales of 511,173 new motor vehicles, the largest number since the third quarter of 2019, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Of those 511,173 vehicles, 445,231 (87.1%) were traditional carbon-fuel cars, vans, and light trucks. Meanwhile, 65,733 were EVs (12.9%). Thus, fuel-powered cars outsold EVs by a ratio of 6.8 to one.
Among the 65,733 EVs sold, 48,511 were pure battery-only vehicles, while 17,222 were hybrid models with both electric and carbon-fuel drives.
This is not quite what Ottawa had hoped for.
(Incidentally, 51.6% of all new EV registrations were in Quebec, followed by Ontario at 21.9%, and British Columbia at 18.5%. In the Statistics Canada survey, the numbers for BC also include the territories.)
When market research company J.D. Power surveyed new-vehicle shoppers in Canada, respondents who said they wouldn’t consider an EV cited high prices, concerns about travel range, and challenges with charging the battery as key reasons.
J.D. Ney of J.D. Power notes that mainstream vehicle buyers are less wealthy and more practical, making them harder to persuade to switch from gas-powered cars.
“If I make a mistake buying an EV or it doesn’t suit my lifestyle, that’s a $65,000 problem. It’s the second-biggest purchase that most Canadians will make. And so, I think they are rightfully cautious.”
As of March 1 (the latest figures available), Canada had 27,181 public charging ports located at 11,077 public charging stations across the country.
Of those 27,181 charging ports, 22,246 are “standard” Level 2 chargers, while 4,935 are fast chargers.
This means Canadians with battery-electric vehicles often face challenges finding an available public port, and, if they do find one, it could take hours to recharge their car from low to 100%. Most ZEV drivers opt instead to “top up” their batteries, but even that can take many minutes.
The availability of fast chargers in Canada is on the rise, with EV manufacturer Tesla adding more “superchargers” that can be used by non-Tesla owners if their vehicles are equipped with the right plug-in adapter or if the owners purchase a suitable adapter.
Electric vehicles are also improving their range, with some models now able to travel as much as 800 km before needing a major recharge. The average range is 435 km, although some older ZEVs still have ranges in the low hundreds.
Potential ranges drop, however, in Canadian cold weather. Some EVs can lose up to 30% of their range in freezing temperatures, and charging times can also increase in the cold.
The concerns and caution of customers have resonated with EV manufacturers.
As CBC News reported: “Just a few years ago, carmakers were investing billions of dollars into their electric lineups and pledging they would soon stop building gas-powered cars.
“But customers aren’t going fully electric as quickly as predicted, so many companies are making adjustments to better meet demand.
“General Motors has scaled back its electric vehicle production this year and will build an estimated 50,000 fewer EVs. Ford is shifting its strategy, stalling plans for an electric SUV and building a hybrid version instead.
“These companies are still losing money on EVs. Despite all that, the carmakers insist they’re still committed to the cause.”
In April, Honda announced plans to invest $11 billion in electric vehicle and battery plants in Ontario. The project aims to produce 240,000 EVs annually, with production expected to begin in 2028.
At the same time, construction of a $7-billion EV battery plant in Quebec could take up to 18 months longer than originally planned, according to the Quebec government.
Production at the Northvolt plant was slated to begin in 2026 to compete with Chinese-made batteries. However, while construction continues, a review by Northvolt could result in a reassessment of the timetable. This review followed Northvolt’s bankruptcy filing in the U.S.
Here in Canada, Ottawa began in August imposing a 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs. The aim is to protect the domestic EV market from inexpensive Chinese imports. But President-elect Donald Trump proposes a 25% tariff on all imports from Canada, including Canadian-made EVs and parts. This is causing huge concern for firms planning to build EVs and/or EV parts in Canada for export to the U.S.
Returning to EVs: The federal government’s goals are for 20% of new cars sold to be ZEVs by 2026, 60% by 2030, and 100% by 2035.
Carmakers, however, have said those goals won’t be achievable unless Ottawa does more to boost charging infrastructure and address EV affordability.
“We have all of the ingredients for Canada to succeed in this sector,” says Brian Kingston, president of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association. “I’m convinced we’ll continue to see growth in EV adoption, but we do have to address some of those barriers to demand.”
-
Opinion1 day ago
CBC on Trial: CBC CEO Catherine Tait Faces Brutal Takedown in Canadian Heritage Committee Hearing
-
COVID-191 day ago
Study showing ‘high likelihood’ of link between COVID vaccines and death republished in peer-reviewed journal
-
COVID-191 day ago
New book edited by Naomi Wolf exposes Pfizer’s ‘crimes against humanity’
-
Alberta1 day ago
The Alberta energy transition you haven’t heard about
-
Dr John Campbell1 day ago
Cancer cure experiences
-
Business2 days ago
The Health Research Funding Scandal Costing Canadians Billions is Parading in Plain View
-
Energy2 days ago
Is Canada the next nuclear superpower?
-
espionage1 day ago
Shock interview reveals big names connected to international paedophile network