Opinion
US Superbowl commercials or local news – what’s more important to you?
Do you know that prior to 2 years ago, you couldn’t watch the Superbowl complete with those amazing Superbowl commercials in Canada. Before that, you had to wait, maybe catch them online, or the next morning on a local newscast. I know, it seems like ancient history. In our thirst for entertainment and information that is widely available “on demand”, we are testing the limits of a terrestrial television system designed decades ago.
The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear the case of Bell Media/CTV and the NFL as it relates to the CRTC’s decision to exempt the Superbowl broadcast from the rules of “simultaneous substitution”. Called ‘sim-sub’ for short, it is the practice of blocking of US commercials on Canadian TV channels and in their place substituting national and local Canadian commercials. It’s been around since the rise of cable delivery in our country as a way to protect the exclusive licenses that Canadian TV companies have when they purchase the rights to a US network program and air it in Canada. These revenues help offset the cost of local news operations which generally are resource-heavy, low-margin, and in some cases, heavily subsidized programs.
In 2016 the CRTC made an exception to the sim-sub rules, allowing cable & satellite companies to dispense with the practice for Superbowl. Only the Superbowl. Why? Because the CRTC received tons of complaints for years from people who wanted to watch the big budget US Superbowl ads but couldn’t because the Canadian broadcast was full of ads for Tim Horton’s. You know what I mean.
This is in the news now because the Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear the case being made by CTV and its parent company Bell Media, along with the NFL. They make very good points relative to policy and regulations around this long-standing practice. They negotiated a long term deal with the NFL based on buying the “exclusive rights” to the game and paid big money. And then the CRTC changed the rules.
Here’s some background. The Canadian TV system works, complete with its local newscasts and Cancon rules worked because for years, revenue was generated and profits derived largely by purchasing Canadian rights to first-run US network programs and broadcasting them, generally in primetime, in “simulcast” with the originating US station. You know… you think you’re watching Lucifer on FOX 28 KAYU only to realize you’re watching CTV when a commercial break comes on. You’re a bit confused, then the show ends and suddenly you’re watching FOX 28 again. No, it’s not you. It’s the system. This practice protects the Canadian TV station’s exclusive rights by blocking all other signals and inserting the Canadian channel over top of them.
Still with me? Ok… now in the case of the Superbowl, the system changed with no apparent warning.
The Superbowl is widely watched, but its for the commercials, as evidenced by the many complaints the CRTC received every year. In their zeal to satisfy the masses and quell the complaints, the Commission in effect sacrificed CTV’s exclusive right to broadcast the game in Canada, and killed their ability to recoup the massive rights fees they’ve paid.
What happened next? The Superbowl arrived on a variety of US cable channels, complete with the must-see commercials. And CTV, the only company that actually paid for the exclusive rights to broadcast the program in Canada, was out of luck. The Superbowl was featured on a number of channels and CTV’s audience took a beating. The value of their commercials went down considerably. Why? Because of the US channels with the high-budget US ads. The tsunami of production value, A-list talent and of course, those Budweiser horses proved irresistible.
So off they all go to the Supreme Court to sort it out. Bell Media will surely argue that the loss of revenue from a show like Superbowl directly impacts the funds available to create local newscasts, pay staff, and generate profit for shareholders.
Bell said in a statement it is pleased that the Supreme Court will hear the appeal:
“We look forward to advancing our argument that a broad range of Canadian creators, producers, advertisers and businesses have been negatively impacted by the original decision.”
So what do you think? Is watching US commercials in the Superbowl more important than preserving the regulatory framework that protects our local over-the-air TV system across the country? Because the two really are inextricably linked. By eroding the ability for a Canadian program rights-holder to recoup their investment, as the CRTC did by making an exemption of Simsub rules for Superbowl broadcasts, it strikes right to the heart of funds available to produce local news programming.
So now the greater question is just how important is local TV in today’s world of digital communication, on demand viewing, tablets, phones, PVR’s, and social media? Audiences and revenues for local Canadian TV stations have been under increasing pressure for years, and few cities realize this more than Red Deer.
While not related to Superbowl advertising, the one local TV station here closed its doors and quit broadcasting in 2009. When it closed, I’m told by a former Commissioner that not a squeak was heard at the CRTC from this local community- not a letter or comment. So was the station even missed? Many will remember (or not) when it was for a short period of time called E! Entertainment, all in an effort to find inexpensive programming. Ultimately it didn’t work. CKRD, RDTV, E!, CHCA- it had many aliases, but ultimately struggled to drive enough revenue to continue operating. That was 9 years ago, and many of the factors that led to its closure have only accelerated since then.
Do you watch local TV news from the remaining stations in Edmonton and Calgary? Are these institutions still important, or would we all rather just watch US commercials and US TV shows and say goodbye to the notion of local TV news programming here in Canada? How have your habits changed? Do you care? Because you really can’t have it both ways for very long.
Lloyd Lewis is President of Todayville, INC. He was VP/GM of CTV Edmonton from 2005-2015 and GM of RDTV Red Deer from 1997 to 2000. He worked in the local television industry for 35 years.
Business
Canada’s attack on religious charities makes no fiscal sense
This article supplied by Troy Media.
By Lee Harding
Ottawa is targeting the charitable tax status of faith-based groups. The fallout could hit every Canadian community
The possibility that Canadian religious organizations will lose their charitable status has never been more real.
On Jan. 6, Parliament’s Standing Committee on Finance recommended numerous changes, including Recommendation 430: “Amend the Income Tax Act to define a charity, which would remove the privileged status of ‘advancement of religion’ as a
charitable purpose, meaning faith-based organizations could lose access to tax benefits.”
The B.C. Humanist Association, a secular advocacy group, has long advocated for removing religion as a stand-alone charitable purpose. That idea is reflected in Recommendation 430. Before adopting such a proposal, the finance committee should have reviewed a study published last November by Cardus, a Canadian think tank focused on faith, civil society and public policy.
The Cardus study examined 64 Christian congregations in various provinces to assess the socio-economic value of their impact. It suggested that congregations make an $18.2-billion socioeconomic contribution to Canadian society, well in excess of tax exemptions and rebates equal to $1.7 billion. The net positive result of $16.5 billion—a “halo effect”—is more than 10
times the value of the tax exemptions.
The implications are clear: society will be worse off if the loss of religious charitable status leads to a drop of more than 10 per cent in donations to affected charities. Why risk it?
When congregations unravel, society follows in ways that go beyond mere economics. As Cardus explains, churches often provide space, often at no cost or below-market rates, for cultural and artistic events, recreation and sports, education, social services and other community activities. They also deliver addiction recovery, counselling and mental-health support, child care, refugee sponsorship and settlement services for newcomers, education and food banks.
Whether institutionally or personally, helping people is often an integral extension of religious belief. A 2012 Statistics Canada study found that the 14 per cent of Canadians who attend church weekly offer 29 per cent of the nation’s volunteer hours and provide 45 per cent of all charitable donations.
No party has explicitly endorsed removing charitable status for religion. But the Bloc Québécois, NDP and Liberals dominated the committee recommendation to remove religion as a charitable purpose. The Conservative Party, which held a minority on the committee, was alone in opposing it outright.
Randy Crosson, executive director of Freedoms Advocate, is organizing a national pushback. In a speech given Oct. 1 to the Regina Civic Awareness and Action Network, he said the recommendation was a “shot across the bow” to gauge public reaction.
“This isn’t just about donors losing tax receipts. It’s about churches losing buildings, staff losing jobs, and ministries being forced to shut down due to reduced donations. This is a direct threat to the future of faith in Canada, and it’s happening fast,” Crosson explained in an online video.
Crosson said religion enjoys less participation and more opposition than in previous decades. Church attendance has slumped since the pandemic, and some Canadians continue to criticize churches for their historical involvement in residential schools.
The Quebec government has also pursued a strongly secular approach to public policy. In 2019, Quebec’s Bill 21 used the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to ban public servants from wearing religious symbols, such as hijabs, turbans or crucifixes. In August, Quebec’s secularism minister, Jean François Roberge, said that the “proliferation of street prayer is a serious and sensitive issue” and promised to bring legislation to ban it.
That’s why Crosson is urging religious leaders to launch a three-part campaign.
“First, an open letter drafted with legal and faith leaders to show government and the media the real value of the church in Canadian society. Second, mass signatures. We need churches, leaders and individuals to sign the letter,” Crosson says in a video appeal. “And third, a national documentary based on the open letter. This will be released publicly and spread through churches, media and social platforms.”
The Frontier Centre for Public Policy has also come out publicly against the proposed change. A report by Senior Fellow Pierre Gilbert entitled Revoking the Charitable Status for the Advancement of Religion: A Critical Assessment makes a case for the status quo, pointing to benefits such as those mentioned above.
For now, at least, the idea is on hold. A published email response by Liberal MP Karina Gould, the chair of the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Finance, said the charitable status of faith-driven non-profits will not be revoked in the Nov. 4 budget.
That’s good news. Faith is a big motivator of charity, and it’s hard to see how a less charitable society is a better one. If governments want to balance the books, they should rein in spending, not put faith-based charities at risk.
Lee Harding is a research fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country
Bruce Dowbiggin
Get Ready: Your House May Not Be Yours Much Longer
As political scientist Philip Kaufman explains, “If you keep saying you are on stolen land, don’t be surprised when judges give it away to the natives you said you stole it from.”
“At Dodger Stadium on Monday night, singer JP Saxe re-wrote the lyrics of O Canada. The Toronto pop singer swapped the official “our home and native land” for “our home on native land.”
All things considered the land acknowledgement by Saxe (born Jonathan Percy Starker) is pretty tame stuff in today’s climate where some Canadians are suddenly learning they may not own their homes. But like Justin Trudeau washing “genocidal” Canadian laundry at the UN Saxe’s stunt at the Series is just another sign that Canada’s clever folk remain all-in on humiliating themselves in front of the world over reconciliation.
The latest acknowledgements go beyond an off-key pop singer toying with a song lyric. Just ask citizens of Richmond, B.C. which has sent a letter to residents warning that their property may not belong to them. This after a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled the Vancouver Island First Nation have won back fishing rights and title for part of the land its ancestors used as a summer home in British Columbia’s Lower Mainland— despite opposition by two other Indigenous communities.
The gormless BC NDP government, which brought on the crisis by refusing to legally challenge native demands in the Blueberry River dispute, says it’s monitoring the Richmond file, admitting “owning private property with clear title is key to borrowing for a mortgage, economic certainty, and the real estate market.” But no promises, folks.
Naturally the locals are not amused. One Richmond property owner, who says he’s owned and paid taxes on his home since 1975, has been told by his lender they won’t be renewing his mortgage after First Nations land claim.

The Eby government settlement— called by Bruce Pardy “an existential threat to the future of his own province”— is part of a wave of claims both written and oral gaining momentum across the nation. As we wrote in August, “Among those properties in question is the Vancouver International Airport in Richmond, B.C.. How slick is that? A Carney government that ran on protecting Boomers’ primary residence cashboxes has now managed to put the entire notion of fee simple home ownership at risk.
As blogger Liam Harlow writes, “Indigenous people will now have an unprecedented, parallel title to private property in that area, a legal first of its kind in a court declaration. This title is declared a ‘prior and senior right to land,’ implying a stronger claim, with the court fundamentally asking “what remains of fee simple title after Aboriginal title is recognized in the same lands?”
It doesn’t stop there. Under UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) the UN will hold any properties acquired “in trust” for all “aboriginals” as they bicker among themselves for supremacy. Whether Canada’s natives will actually get the land, they will have served as a convenient vehicle for the progressive Left to expand its jurisdiction.
The glass half full on reconciliation holds that Canada’s politicians negotiate a fee with the new native owners to stay on these properties. (Good luck getting a mortgage with the Haida Gwai as co-owners on title.) The glass half empty is your equity goes bye-bye. The decision shocked many earnest Elbows Up types who had no idea their elected governments had fumbled the ball this way.

This is the culmination of decades of federal Liberal acquiescence on the Indigenous file, incompetence highlighted by Trudeau’s pandering visit to a graveyard that contained no alleged murdered babies. Or his refusal to re-open the main rail lines in 2020 when natives blocked the CP tracks.”
Citizens losing their homes in legal disputes should lead every newscast in the nation. Good luck sparking debate on these onrushing crises. As members of the B.C. legislature discovered when they were fired by their party for articulating a few inconvenient facts on reconciliation. The paid-off media, meanwhile, are too obsessed with Trudeau dating celebrity Katy Perry.
The reconciliation fatwa imposed by the Canadian Left powers the ludicrous ongoing spectacle over the Rez School graves. Based on verbal tradition alone, the prime minister of Canada staged pictures with teddy bears when there has never been a murder charge or a family searching for a dead child ever registered in Canada.
Multi-million dollar payouts by the Canadian government to investigate graves produced no evidence of any bodies— mostly because no effort was made. Evidence shows that children in Rez schools might have had a lower mortality rate from TB than those children in their residences. Or even in the general public.
Anyone challenging this reconciliation orthodoxy is fired from teaching positions, expelled from mainline political parties and banned from polite society. No one in Laurentian media seems willing to touch the hot skillet. No wonder polling in 2024 showed 60 percent of Canadians still believe the genocide claim.
Using this blank cheque indigenous radicals demanded land acknowledgements before meetings, political rallies and sports events. To which Woke Canada has caved. A bill in the BC legislature to ban acknowledgements “that deny the sovereignty of the Crown within British Columbia or that attribute collective guilt to individuals based on race, ancestry or the actions of Canadian historical figures” was quashed (88 of 93 MLAs voting no) The MLA behind the bill, Dallas Brodie, was instructed by a fellow PC MLA to get on the “right side of history.”
Meanwhile activists are in classrooms repeating the sanctity of land acknowledgements, ignoring that these lands had turned over many times in tribal warfare. To take just one example, the Comanche used the horse to go from a Canadian tribe to conquering multiple tribes and civilizations across the continent, stealing land and enslaving women and children. But new history mandates that it was their “ancestral” land. The pattern is repeated across North America.
Canadian liberals shrug at this as all just words and theatre. But as political scientist Philip Kaufman explains, “If you keep saying you are on stolen land, don’t be surprised when judges give it away to the natives you said you stole it from.” The BC NDP government’s guilt trip is now producing land claims across the country with warning home owners that, guess what, you may not own your home, either. Like this aboriginal challenge over lands in western Quebec.
There may be better ways to inspire radicalism among normally placid Canadians than kicking people out of homes they’ve bought, but for the moment we can’t think of any. And that’s nothing to sing about.
Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, his new book Deal With It: The Trades That Stunned The NHL And Changed hockey is now available on Amazon. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his previous book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org . His 2004 book Money Players was voted sixth best on the same list, and is available via brucedowbigginbooks.ca.
-
International2 days agoBiden’s Autopen Orders declared “null and void”
-
Internet1 day agoMusk launches Grokipedia to break Wikipedia’s information monopoly
-
Business24 hours agoCanada heading into economic turbulence: The USMCA is finished and Canadian elbows may have started the real fight
-
Business2 days agoCanada has given $109 million to Communist China for ‘sustainable development’ since 2015
-
Business1 day agoBill Gates walks away from the climate cult
-
Opinion2 days agoBritish Columbians protest Trump while Eby brings their province to its knees
-
MAiD2 days agoStudy promotes liver transplants from Canadian euthanasia victims
-
Business23 hours agoFord’s Liquor War Trades Economic Freedom For Political Theatre





