The fallout from Bill C-11 has been the subject of several posts this week, including the demands from a wide range of services for exceptions to the law and warnings from streaming services such as PBS and AMC that they may block the Canadian market due to the regulatory burden imposed by the law. While those stories focus on the availability of services and content in Canada, a new Variety report points to another negative impact from the bill: less film and television production in Canada, at least in the short term. Throughout the Bill C-11 debate, there were concerns that the large streamers might pause their productions in Canada given the uncertainty over whether they would “count” for the purposes of new CRTC imposed contribution requirements. In other words, the bill could initially lead to less investment in Canada.
Post Tagged with: "crtc"
Foreign Internet Streaming Services Warn CRTC Its Bill C-11 Regulations May Lead to Blocked Content or Services in Canada
The Bill C-11 process featured a marked divide on the implications for consumer choice. While Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez claimed it would lead to increased choice (a claim he re-iterated this week in Banff), critics of the bill argued that the opposite was true, namely that the bill would likely lead to fewer services entering the Canadian market or streamers reducing content choices. The net effect – contrary to government claims – would be to impact what Canadians could watch. With the CRTC’s Bill C-11 consultations now underway, foreign streamers are warning that they may block services from Canada or reduce the scope of their content libraries due to the regulatory requirements or burden. This notably includes mainstream streamers such as PBS and niche services such as AMC’s ALLWAYSBLK.
The Fight for Bill C-11 Exemptions Begins: From Adult Content to UFC Fight Pass, Groups Tell CRTC They Want Out
The debate over Bill C-11 was marked by a massive effort from digital creators to urge the government to exclude user content regulation from the scope of the legislation. While Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez misleadingly insisted that user content was not covered by the bill, it took a policy direction to the CRTC (which is still in draft form) after the bill was passed to make that a reality. Many other groups stayed on the sidelines during the Bill C-11 debates, choosing to instead to wait for the CRTC process to make their concerns known. That started this week with the CRTC’s Bill C-11 consultations on registration requirements and potential exemptions (a post on my submission here) with a myriad of well-known streaming services calling on the regulator to establish additional exclusions from Bill C-11’s requirements.
Members Only: My Submissions to the CRTC’s Bill C-11 Consultations on Regulatory Thresholds and DMEO Transition
The CRTC’s deadline for the first two Bill C-11 consultations passed yesterday after the Commission rejected extension requests from a wide range of groups. Given the limited time – there was just a single workday from when the CRTC issued its rejection until the deadline – I submitted brief comments (2023-139, 2023-140) focusing on two concerns. First, the very short timeline for submissions did not allow for completion of research into the questions posed by the CRTC, including the appropriate threshold for regulation of Internet streaming services. I argued that the approach may have excluded many interested stakeholders from fully participating in the consultation. Second, I took issue with the CRTC’s framing of the consultation, which it said was “industry focused”, a signal that the consumer related issues raised by regulatory thresholds (including consumer choice and service costs) were viewed as irrelevant by the Commission.
That concern was amplified yesterday as the Canadian Media Fund, which receives public funding, literally gave a trophy to Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez for passing Bill C-11 and CRTC Chair Vicky Eatrides delivered remarks at the Banff World Media Festival in which consumers and the broader public were nowhere to be found. Speaking of implementing Bill C-11, Eatrides stated:
The Draft Bill C-11 Policy Direction: Canadian Heritage Implicitly Admits What It Spent Months Denying
The government released its long-promised draft policy direction on Bill C-11 to the CRTC yesterday. The policy direction is open for public comment until July 25, 2023, after which the government will release a final version that gives the CRTC guidance on its expectations for how the bill will be interpreted. While Canadian Heritage was at pains to emphasize that the draft direction includes instructions that the “CRTC is directed not to impose regulatory requirements on online undertakings in respect of programs of social media creators, including podcasts”, the draft directive confirms that the government misled the public for months on the scope of Bill C-11 and highlights the problem with the CRTC’s rushed effort to establish regulations before the draft policy directive is final. I plan to file a submission by the deadline, but in the meantime offer several thoughts.
Recent Posts
Debating the Online Harms Act: Insights from Two Recent Panels on Bill C-63 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act 
AI Spending is Not an AI Strategy: Why the Government’s Artificial Intelligence Plan Avoids the Hard Governance Questions 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 198: Richard Moon on the Return of the Section 13 Hate Speech Provision in the Online Harms Act 
Tweets Are Not Enough: Why Combatting Relentless Antisemitism in Canada Requires Real Leadership and Action
