Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Navigating the country’s telecommunications landscape a tricky task: Peter Menzies

Published

2 years ago

6 minute read

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Peter Menzies

On the telecom side of things, the CRTC’s long-standing focus on the fundamental issues of access and affordability is far more tangible than the ethereal cultural ambitions that have swamped the broadcasting boat

Canada’s communications policy playing field is more uncertain today than it has been in decades.

The cause is primarily the Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11), which attempts to “modernize” the Broadcasting Act by defining all internet-based audio and visual content as “broadcasting.” Promoted by a series of heritage ministers as a simple matter of ensuring that streaming companies support Canadian content, the act has alarmed a thriving community of unregulated online creators while causing targeted offshore operators to question how they can continue operating in Canada.

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) chair Vicky Eatrides, appointed last January, is clearly feeling pressure to implement Bill C-11 as quickly as possible. Following a series of rushed preliminary processes that made it challenging for many companies in the regulatory “rookie” category to participate, the CRTC’s first public hearing is scheduled for Nov. 20.

It involves 127 intervenors, is scheduled to last three weeks, and Eatrides hopes to have initial decisions made by the end of 2024.

With all her staff’s hands to the pumps on that file, Eatrides has shut down dealing with new licensing matters in the traditional broadcasting fields of television and radio for at least two years. All TV licences up for renewal this year were administratively renewed until 2025 (Bell has filed a court appeal). All of those expiring next year were renewed as is until 2026, and the radio industry was informed the CRTC won’t accept applications in that genre for at least two years, putting it in a regulatory cryo-chamber.

Meanwhile, active broadcasting files have been triaged to the extent that they are backed up, in some cases for years, leaving those involved without the decisions they need. The renewal of the CBC’s licence, for instance, remains incomplete 33 months after the CRTC’s public hearing into the matter.

On the telecommunications side, life is much more steady as she goes. Early in July, the CRTC laid out what it described as a more streamlined and flexible manner for determining wholesale access rates with the goal of fostering competition. But these matters are rarely dealt with swiftly, and incumbent companies affected by this new—and, to many, refreshing—approach have a long track record of being able to drag things out.

Competitor access rates is a matter that has preoccupied the CRTC for a decade; the rates have wavered back and forth since at least 2016, and the lack of regulatory certainty has had a debilitating impact on smaller service providers. The largest of those—TekSavvy—threw in the towel early this summer and put itself up for sale.

The management of so-called mobile virtual network operator rates, particularly relevant in the shadow of Quebecor’s purchase of Freedom Mobile, has moved along efficiently. This is another positive sign involving an area in which the CRTC is attempting to foster competition with increased regulatory certainty. When it comes to the telecom side of things, the regulator’s long-standing focus on the fundamental issues of access and affordability is, while complicated in terms of implementation, far more tangible than the ethereal cultural ambitions that have swamped the broadcasting boat.

Two other matters are worth watching.

The first—the CRTC’s role in overseeing negotiations as foreseen in the Online News Act—may evaporate. Meta has moved out of the business of carrying news in Canada, with disastrous consequences for those in the business of creating it. News Media Canada, the industry’s lobbying arm, is now asking the government to bow to Google’s demands before it does the same.

That could mean significant legislative amendments which could eliminate the CRTC’s role entirely. Seeing as the commission has already delayed decisions on which news organizations would qualify until late 2024, this would be a welcome relief.

The second will be whether the CRTC, when dealing with the likes of Disney and Netflix next month, realizes what’s at stake. The United States-based companies aren’t interested in contributing solely through official funds while all the commission appears to want to talk about is how much they should pay and to which funds.

Neither has threatened, as Meta and Google did with Bill C-18, to disconnect Canada if they don’t get the outcomes they need.

Not yet, anyway.

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

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Alberta / 2 hours ago

Alberta judge sides with LGBT activists, allows ‘gender transitions’ for kids to continue

Alberta / 6 hours ago

Why the West’s separatists could be just as big a threat as Quebec’s

Business / 8 hours ago

Massive government child-care plan wreaking havoc across Ontario

Business

Massive government child-care plan wreaking havoc across Ontario

Published on June 30, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

It’s now more than four years since the federal Liberal government pledged $30 billion in spending over five years for $10-per-day national child care, and more than three years since Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government signed a $13.2 billion deal with the federal government to deliver this child-care plan.

Not surprisingly, with massive government funding came massive government control. While demand for child care has increased due to the government subsidies and lower out-of-pocket costs for parents, the plan significantly restricts how child-care centres operate (including what items participating centres may purchase), and crucially, caps the proportion of government funds available to private for-profit providers.

What have families and taxpayers got for this enormous government effort? Widespread child-care shortages across Ontario.

For example, according to the City of Ottawa, the number of children (aged 0 to 5 years) on child-care waitlists has ballooned by more than 300 per cent since 2019, there are significant disparities in affordable child-care access “with nearly half of neighbourhoods underserved, and limited access in suburban and rural areas,” and families face “significantly higher” costs for before-and-after-school care for school-age children.

In addition, Ottawa families find the system “complex and difficult to navigate” and “fewer child care options exist for children with special needs.” And while 42 per cent of surveyed parents need flexible child care (weekends, evenings, part-time care), only one per cent of child-care centres offer these flexible options. These are clearly not encouraging statistics, and show that a government-knows-best approach does not properly anticipate the diverse needs of diverse families.

Moreover, according to the Peel Region’s 2025 pre-budget submission to the federal government (essentially, a list of asks and recommendations), it “has maximized its for-profit allocation, leaving 1,460 for-profit spaces on a waitlist.” In other words, families can’t access $10-per-day child care—the central promise of the plan—because the government has capped the number of for-profit centres.

Similarly, according to Halton Region’s pre-budget submission to the provincial government, “no additional families can be supported with affordable child care” because, under current provincial rules, government funding can only be used to reduce child-care fees for families already in the program.

And according to a March 2025 Oxford County report, the municipality is experiencing a shortage of child-care staff and access challenges for low-income families and children with special needs. The report includes a grim bureaucratic predication that “provincial expansion targets do not reflect anticipated child care demand.”

Child-care access is also a problem provincewide. In Stratford, which has a population of roughly 33,000, the municipal government reports that more than 1,000 children are on a child-care waitlist. Similarly in Port Colborne (population 20,000), the city’s chief administrative officer told city council in April 2025 there were almost 500 children on daycare waitlists at the beginning of the school term. As of the end of last year, Guelph and Wellington County reportedly had a total of 2,569 full-day child-care spaces for children up to age four, versus a waitlist of 4,559 children—in other words, nearly two times as many children on a waitlist compared to the number of child-care spaces.

More examples. In Prince Edward County, population around 26,000, there are more than 400 children waitlisted for licensed daycare. In Kawartha Lakes and Haliburton County, the child-care waitlist is about 1,500 children long and the average wait time is four years. And in St. Mary’s, there are more than 600 children waitlisted for child care, but in recent years town staff have only been able to move 25 to 30 children off the wait list annually.

The numbers speak for themselves. Massive government spending and control over child care has created havoc for Ontario families and made child-care access worse. This cannot be a surprise. Quebec’s child-care system has been largely government controlled for decades, with poor results. Why would Ontario be any different? And how long will Premier Ford allow this debacle to continue before he asks the new prime minister to rethink the child-care policy of his predecessor?

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Canada Caves: Carney ditches digital services tax after criticism from Trump

Published on June 30, 2025

By

From The Center Square

By

Canada caved to President Donald Trump demands by pulling its digital services tax hours before it was to go into effect on Monday.

Trump said Friday that he was ending all trade talks with Canada over the digital services tax, which he called a direct attack on the U.S. and American tech firms. The DST required foreign and domestic businesses to pay taxes on some revenue earned from engaging with online users in Canada.

“Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately,” the president said. “We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period.”

By Sunday, Canada relented in an effort to resume trade talks with the U.S., it’s largest trading partner.

“To support those negotiations, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, announced today that Canada would rescind the Digital Services Tax (DST) in anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States,” according to a statement from Canada’s Department of Finance.

Canada’s Department of Finance said that Prime Minister Mark Carney and Trump agreed to resume negotiations, aiming to reach a deal by July 21.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Monday that the digital services tax would hurt the U.S.

“Thank you Canada for removing your Digital Services Tax which was intended to stifle American innovation and would have been a deal breaker for any trade deal with America,” he wrote on X.

Earlier this month, the two nations seemed close to striking a deal.

Trump said he and Carney had different concepts for trade between the two neighboring countries during a meeting at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, in the Canadian Rockies.

Asked what was holding up a trade deal between the two nations at that time, Trump said they had different concepts for what that would look like.

“It’s not so much holding up, I think we have different concepts, I have a tariff concept, Mark has a different concept, which is something that some people like, but we’re going to see if we can get to the bottom of it today.”

Shortly after taking office in January, Trump hit Canada and Mexico with 25% tariffs for allowing fentanyl and migrants to cross their borders into the U.S. Trump later applied those 25% tariffs only to goods that fall outside the free-trade agreement between the three nations, called the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Trump put a 10% tariff on non-USMCA compliant potash and energy products. A 50% tariff on aluminum and steel imports from all countries into the U.S. has been in effect since June 4. Trump also put a 25% tariff on all cars and trucks not built in the U.S.

Economists, businesses and some publicly traded companies have warned that tariffs could raise prices on a wide range of consumer products.

Trump has said he wants to use tariffs to restore manufacturing jobs lost to lower-wage countries in decades past, shift the tax burden away from U.S. families, and pay down the national debt.

A tariff is a tax on imported goods paid by the person or company that imports them. The importer can absorb the cost of the tariffs or try to pass the cost on to consumers through higher prices.

Trump’s tariffs give U.S.-produced goods a price advantage over imported goods, generating revenue for the federal government.

Continue Reading

Trending

X