A new streaming bill is close to becoming law in Canada. Here’s how it works
A bill that will update Canada’s laws around broadcasting for the first time in the internet age is one step away from becoming law and impacting popular streaming platforms.
Bill C-11, also known as the Online Streaming Act, creates a framework to regulate digital streaming platforms like Netflix, Disney+ and Spotify, and would require them to contribute to the creation and promotion of Canadian content. The bill passed its third reading in the Senate last month with 26 amendments. It will be up to the House of Commons to decide which of those changes to keep before passing the bill into law.
Canadian creative unions, including the Writers Guild of Canada and Canadian Media Producers Association, are generally supportive of the bill, but have some concerns that its language could create a two-tiered system that would mean Canadian broadcasters are being held to higher standards than foreign streamers. Meanwhile, Canadian content creators on sites like YouTube and TikTok are concerned about how the bill will impact them.
With Bill C-11 so close to the finish line, here’s how it will work.
What is the point of Bill C-11?
Since 1968, the Broadcasting Act has set a series of goals for Canada’s broadcasting system, including that it should strengthen Canada’s cultural fabric, and that it should make use of Canadian talent.
To do this, the country has rules that define what counts as Canadian programming and how much of it Canadian TV and radio broadcasters have to play. They must also contribute financially to the development and promotion of Canadian content.
Right now, those rules don’t apply to online broadcasters like Netflix, Disney+ and Spotify, which are earning money in Canada without being required to reinvest in Canadian content.
Bill C-11 wants to give new power to the country’s broadcasting regulator and extend the current broadcasting policy to the digital realm.
According to Vass Bednar, executive director of McMaster University’s Public Policy in Digital Society program, Canada is doing its best to extend its cultural values and expectations to digital platforms.
“And instead of building a whole new vehicle to do that, we’re trying to use the one that we have already, which is the CRTC,” she said.
Who defines Canadian content?
Bill C-11 doesn’t define what counts as Canadian content on the internet, or say how much Canadian content a foreign streaming service needs to have.
That task would fall to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), an independent organization that regulates and supervises Canada’s broadcasting system.
It’s the CRTC’s job to make and enforce rules that achieve the goals of The Broadcasting Act. Bill C-11 updates what those goals are, and gives the CRTC new powers to achieve them.
For example the CRTC defines Canadian content for different types of media. There are different rules for television productions than there are for songs.
What changes is C-11 trying to make?
The Broadcasting Act was last updated in 1991, before the internet and streaming changed how we consume much of our entertainment.
Bill C-11 brings the CRTC into the internet age, giving the regulator the authority to impose conditions on how online streamers support Canadian content and contribute to production funds, as well as ensuring Canadian programs and films show up in search results.
It also includes a clause that would require foreign online streamers to make use of Canadian creative talent. It would be up to the CRTC to define exactly what that looks like.
Alex Levine, the president of the Writers Guild of Canada (WGC), says when foreign streaming platforms became available in Canada, it meant less money for traditional broadcasters here, which means less investment in creating Canadian programming.
“We have 25 per cent of the actual work for Canadian screenwriters that we had in 2014 in terms of number of episodes created,” he said.
According to Levine, the concerns are even more pronounced for writers than they may be for other Canadians working in film and television production.
“We only work on Canadian content. We don’t work when, for example, Netflix or HBO decides to shoot a show here.”
Without the bill, Levine says market forces mean Canadians “will see a world reflected back to them that is determined by studio executives in Los Angeles and not by Canadian artists.”
C-11 and foreign broadcasters
While supportive of the bill overall, the WGC is concerned about a clause that would make foreign broadcasters subject to different rules than their Canadian equivalents.
The current Broadcasting Act has language that requires Canadian broadcasters to make “in no case less than predominant use” of Canadians in making and presenting content.
Bill C-11, would keep that language, but also require foreign online broadcasters to make the “greatest practicable use” of Canadians and contribute to the production of Canadian programming.
The clause concerns Reynolds Mastin, the CEO of the Canadian Media Producers Association (CMPA), who noted in a statement that as the bill currently stands, Canadian companies are being held to a higher standard than foreign streamers.
“This stands in direct opposition to the government’s stated objective to level the playing field and support Canadian creators and companies,” he said.
“Allowing foreign companies to use fewer Canadian creators will negatively impact Canada’s cultural industry.”
Senator Paula Simons says Canada’s trade obligations may prevent the government from being able to make foreign streamers follow the same rules as Canadian broadcasters.
“What C-11 has tried to do, and what we’ve tried to do with various amendments is to strike a balance,” she said. “I think for each streamer there will be a different deal struck and there will be a different way that they can contribute.”
How does it impact online creators?
There has been a lot of discussion surrounding how Bill C-11 might impact user-generated content from creators on sites like TikTok or YouTube.
The bill would allow the CRTC to create discoverability rules to ensure Canadians are able to see Canadian content online.
Some creators are worried that if those rules extend to social media sites, it may mean that their videos are shown to people who wouldn’t be interested in them, which they argue could hamper their success, since many user generated sites reward creators based on positive engagement.
“I’m looking at it saying, ‘Well, am I going to be able to realize my dream or my vision for my content?'” says Hamilton-based TikToker Nathan Kennedy, who has more than half a million followers on the platform and visited Ottawa last year to express concerns about the bill.
Some Senate amendments were tweaks to language about user generated content.
“Some of our anxieties were realized and passed with the Senate,” Kennedy said. “And so that was validating in a sense, to say that we’re not just like making this up.”
In November then-CRTC Chair Ian Scott told a senate committee studying the bill that it wouldn’t allow the regulator to manipulate algorithms to achieve its goals, and that it wasn’t interested in doing so anyway.
“The CRTC’s objective is to ensure that Canadians are made aware of Canadian content and that they can find it,” he said.
“I wish to assure you and Canadians more broadly that the CRTC has no intention of regulating individual TikTokers, YouTubers or other digital content creators.”
Those With Rare Diseases Need to Wait, as Usual
Science has developed the ability to research, develop and create functional cures for many of our so-called “incurable diseases”, but having the ability to do something and actually doing it are two different things. Medicine has always suffered from a problem with “knowing-doing”. It is the difference between what a doctor actually does for a patient and what can be done with all that we know. Developmental breakthroughs in medicine are allowing doctors to do things they never could imagine before. Sometimes these break-thoughts don’t fit into businesses/governmental financial or regulatory systems, meaning that it can take a long time for patients to actually benefit, a time many patients may not have.
The National Institutes of Health in America invest more than $40 Billion in biomedical research each year, and the private sector twice as much. The discoveries are valued by all, but why is it so hard to use these discoveries?
Science’s ability to engineer medicines has far outpaced how these medicines are actually built, tested, and put into human beings. Artificial Intelligence has assisted the community by mapping the human genome in efforts to cure various diseases. The US Government defines rare diseases as those that affect fewer than 200,000 people in America. Some affect only a handful of people. There are over 7000 different rare diseases, with more than 30 million people in America diagnosed with one of them. That is 10% of the US population. So improving how society can find and care for these patients could have a great impact. Problem is that the health system is not flagging enough people with these diseases, while many individuals don’t even know what disease they may have, or that they indeed have a disease. A.I. steps up front to assist in the recognition, tracking, analyzing, and identifying of these patients through computer-programmed systems. Put one’s symptoms into the machine, and often voila, a point from which a doctor can begin his medical investigation and treatment. A diagnostic odyssey in each individual case.
Artificial Intelligence has a prominent place within our health system, including helping design new treatments, helping predict which treatment is better for which patient, and screening for rare diseases with suggested diagnoses to boot. Why are many with rare diseases often left out in the cold, to search on their own for a cure? Money! Simple.
Who makes medicines, and invests millions in treatments and research for diseases? Pharmaceutical Firms.
What are they but profit centers for investment bankers, massive corporations, and a financial structure centered upon the shareholder, and not the average joe? Solutions can be found, but the willingness to spend way beyond what a firm can make in profits needs to be there. Sure our DNA is constantly changing, and evolving biologically. Making a drug that cures cancer, may cure some, but certainly not all forms since each person is unique, their biology specific to that person. Many doctors realize that their methods are much like witch Doctors, forever experimenting with the specific individual’s condition.
Our Health system is tied to our financial system. That is the root of it. So long as the doctors, hospitals, and researchers are tied to profit (our financial system) the necessary technology, research, and investment will not be found for those with rare diseases. I have a disease that has no cure. My immune system is attacking the tissue in my mouth. It is sorely painful, personally transformative, and damn if you could find a doctor who is a real expert in the field. Since it is rare, the institutions of the industry will not find proper medicine for its management, let alone its cure. I live with it, and the disease manages the way I eat, what I eat, how I clean my teeth, how I sleep, and interact with my partner too. This disease can transfer to another. Great eh!
For those of you who have or know of someone who has a rare disease, all I can say is to be patient. The present-day financial and healthcare systems need to change drastically, with governmental intervention in all aspects of research, planning, and manufacturing of medicines. Out of the hands who care for themselves, and hopefully into the hands of those who care about you and those you love.
Canada is set for its largest alcohol tax increase yet. Here’s what to know
Canadians could soon be paying around a quarter more for a 24-pack of beer thanks to the largest increase yet to a federal tax on alcohol.
The “escalator tax” is set to increase by 6.4 per cent on April 1 unless a change is announced before then, such as when the federal budget is revealed on March 28, according to food distribution professor at Dalhousie University, Sylvain Charlebois.
Charlebois told Global News that the tax, which was introduced in 2017, was designed to automatically increase over time based on the rate of inflation to avoid renegotiating it too often.
Given the amount of inflation Canada has experienced recently, the tax is now set for its biggest increase ever, he noted. Last year, the tax went up 2.4 per cent.
And while a penny a beer might not sound like much of a hike, industry experts say it’s one more factor pushing up costs for producers and distributors that’s likely to have ripple effects on what consumers pay.
Breaking down the cost increase
Charlebois predicts the tax will increase the price of a single beer by one cent, while the finance ministry told Global News in a statement that the amount would be three-quarters of a cent. Charlebois said that the price increase would be visible immediately after the tax is scheduled to be implemented on April 1.
Beer Canada told Global News in a statement that the tax increase will bring up the price of a 12-pack by 10 cents. For a 750 ml bottle of wine, the price could increase close to three cents, according to figures from the Canadian Revenue Agency.
In a statement to the Canadian Press, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) said that a 750 ml bottle of a spirit of 40 per cent alcohol by volume (ABV) may increase 70 cents. Charlebois said that the tax may have a smaller impact on the price of craft beer since it is lower volume and usually at a higher price, but could affect larger manufacturers more.
The tax could have a ripple effect on costs, as well.
Beer Canada said since the tax is a production tax imposed on the brewer at the point and time of production, “it is then magnified by other fees and taxes imposed by distributors, retailers, and provinces, including sales taxes,” making the impact on a 12-pack likely closer to 20 cents.
Along with other inflation factors, beer retail prices are projected to rise 10 per cent in 2023, according to the organization.
Beer Canada notes there has been a 60-per cent increase in barley prices, 40-per cent increase in packaging costs, and a doubling of freight costs.
Industry group Restaurants Canada told Canadian Press it estimates the tax increase will cost Canada’s food-service industry about $750 million a year, with the average casual dining restaurant expected to pay an extra $30,000 towards alcohol.
The carbon tax is also set to increase April 1 to $65 a metric ton of carbon from $50, which Charlebois said could impact alcohol prices as well since most producers do not have completely green supply chains. In addition, provinces individually typically increase their tax on alcohol, as well.
Overall, the escalator tax alone will amount to an extra $125 million a year that Canadians will pay to the government.
“It’s just one tax people don’t need right now,” Charlebois said. “It doesn’t seem like much, but it’s more that the tax burden is only increasing.”
“It’s a lot of pressure,” he added.
Industry calls for no tax increase
There is still the possibility the tax could be scrapped, Sylvain said, as lobbyists are moving against it.
Beer Canada says that Canada has the highest alcohol taxes among G7 nations, with about half the cost of a typical can of beer going to taxes, while up to 80 per cent of a bottle of alcohol is taxed, according to Spirits Canada.
The organization is calling on the federal government to freeze current alcohol taxes until inflation reaches closer to the Bank of Canada’s two per cent target.
“It’s do or die time in terms of action,” CJ Hélie, president of Beer Canada, told Global News. “April 1 is right around the corner and the question will be, does the government’s actions live up to their commitment.”
On March 22, MPs voted 170 to 149 in favour of a motion calling on the government to cancel the alcohol tax increase, sponsored by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.
Helie told The Canadian Press that the escalator tax used to be “digestible” when it was around two per cent, but with more than triple the usual increase, it should now be reconsidered.
“When inflation is through the roof, we need to rethink this automatic formula,” Helie said. “The industry is already in dire straits. Using a rigid formula in a time like this is unacceptable.”
— with files from The Canadian Press
© 2023 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.
Principal resigns after Florida students shown Michelangelo statue
A principal of a Florida school has been forced to resign after a parent complained that sixth-grade students were exposed to pornography.
The complaint arose from a Renaissance art lesson where students were shown Michelangelo’s statue of David.
The iconic statue is one of the most famous in Western history.
The 5.17m (17ft) statue depicts an entirely naked David, the Biblical figure who kills the giant Goliath.
The lesson, given to 11 and 12-year-olds, also included references to Michelangelo’s “Creation of Adam” painting and Botticelli’s “Birth of Venus”.
Principal Hope Carrasquilla of Tallahassee Classical School said she resigned after she was given an ultimatum by the school board to resign or be fired.
Local media reported that Ms Carrasquilla did not know the reason she was asked to resign, but believed it was related to the complaints over the lesson.
They also said Ms Carrasquilla had been principal for less than one year.
In an interview with US outlet Slate, the chair of the school’s board, Barney Bishop III, said that last year the principal sent a notice to parents warning them that students were going to see Michelangelo’s David – but that this wasn’t done this year. He called it an “egregious mistake” and said that “parents are entitled to know anytime their child is being taught a controversial topic and picture”.
“We’re not going to show the full statue of David to kindergartners. We’re not going to show him to second graders. Showing the entire statue of David is appropriate at some age. We’re going to figure out when that is,” Mr Bishop said.
On Thursday, Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, moved to expand a law that banned public schools from teaching sexual education and gender identity.
Teachers who violate the law face being suspended or losing their teaching licences.
The David was completed by Michelangelo between 1501 and 1504. It was instantly hailed as a masterpiece, with Renaissance artist Giorgio Vasari saying the David “surpassed” any statue that had ever existed before.
Queen Victoria gifted a copy of the David to the South Kensington museum – later the V&A – in 1857. When she first saw the cast, she was apparently so shocked by the nudity that a fig leaf was commissioned to cover up the genitalia.
The V&A’s website says that the leaf was kept “in readiness for any royal visits, when it was hung on the figure using two strategically placed hooks.”
20th century Japanese poster art – in pictures | Art and design – The Guardian
Putin and his allies love buying art. To help us win the war in Ukraine, we should confiscate it – The Guardian
Judge Ron DeSantis By His Actions – The Atlantic
Silver investment demand jumped 12% in 2019
Iran anticipates renewed protests amid social media shutdown
Search for life on Mars accelerates as new bodies of water found below planet’s surface
Investment16 hours ago
First Republic Bank Stock: Why I Am Sticking To My Investment (NYSE:FRC)
Investment17 hours ago
The A.I. boom could also give a boost to these investing trends. How to play it
News23 hours ago
Biden visit: Trump calls Canada-U.S. deals ‘horrible’
Business16 hours ago
Thousands without power after Ontario windstorm
Sports22 hours ago
Despite 17 birdies, Rory McIlroy needs two trips to ‘friendly’ No. 18
News19 hours ago
Canada is set for its largest alcohol tax increase yet. Here’s what to know
Health19 hours ago
HPHA to close COVID, cold and flu clinics
Media16 hours ago
Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access