Connect with us

Business

The government surrenders to reality with rewritten Online News Act—and pleases no one: Peter Menzies

Published

8 minute read

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.

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

Business

Carney’s carbon madness

Published on

CAE Logo Dan McTeague

Well, we are in quite the pickle.

In nine plus years as prime minister, Justin Trudeau has waged a multi-front war on the consumption and production of hydrocarbon energy, and, with that, on our economy, our quality of life, and our cost of living.

Trudeau zealously pursued and implemented anti-energy policies, most infamously the consumer Carbon Tax, but let’s not forget his so-called ”Clean Fuel” regulations; his Industrial Carbon Tax; his proposed emissions caps; his Electric Vehicle subsidies and mandates; Bill C-59, which bans businesses from touting the environmental positives of their work if it doesn’t meet a government-approved standard; and various other pieces of legislation which make the construction of new pipelines nearly impossible and significantly reduces our ability to sell our oil and gas overseas.

Every one of these policies can be traced back to the pernicious Net Zero ideology which informs them, and in which Trudeau and his bosom buddies — Gerald Butts, Steven Guilbeault, Mark Carney, etc — remain true believers.

And yet, despite those policies contributing to his party’s collapsing poll numbers and Trudeau’s unceremonious ouster, the Liberals are on the verge of naming as his replacement Mark Carney, one of the very Trudeau consiglieri who got us into this mess in the first place!

Now, Carney is currently doing everything in his power to downplay and dance around those aspects of his career which voters might find objectionable. He’s making quite a habit of it, in fact. And on the energy file, he’s being especially misleading, walking back his long-time support of the Carbon Tax — he’s said it has “served a purpose up until now” — and claiming that he intends to repeal it, while finding other ways to “make polluters pay.

This is nonsense. In fact, Carney is a Carbon Tax superfan, and, if you listen to him closely, his actual critique of the Trudeau tax isn’t that it has made it more expensive to heat our homes, gas up our cars, and pay for our groceries (which it has.) It’s that it is too visible to voters. His vow to “make polluters pay” means, in fact, that he intends to “beef up” Trudeau’s less discussed Industrial Carbon Tax, targeting businesses, which will ultimately pass the cost down to consumers.

He’s even discussed enacting a Carbon tariff, which would apply to trade with countries which don’t adopt the onerous Net Zero policies which he wants to force on Canada.

That’s just who Mark Carney is.

And, unfortunately, Donald Trump’s tariff threats have provoked a “rally round the flag” sentiment, enabling the Liberals to close the polling gap with the Conservatives, with some polls currently showing them neck-and-neck. Which is to say, there is a possibility that, whenever we get around to having an election, anti-American animus could keep the Liberals in power, and propel Carney to the top job in our government.

This is, in a word, madness.

Let us not forget that it was the Liberals’ policies — especially their assault on our “golden goose,” the natural resource sector — which left us in such a precarious fiscal state that Trudeau felt the need to fly to Mar-a-Lago and tell the newly elected president that a tariff would “kill” our economy. That’s what provoked Trump’s “51st state” crack in the first place.

Access to U.S. markets will always be important for Canadian prosperity — they, by leaps and bounds, are our largest trading partner, after all — but without the Net Zero nonsense, we could have been an energy superpower, providing an alternative source of oil and natural gas for those countries leary about relying for energy on less-environmentally conscious, human-rights-abusing petrostates. We could have filled the void created by Russia, when they made themselves a pariah state in Europe by invading Ukraine.

In short, we might have been set up to negotiate with the Trump Administration from a position of strength. Instead, we’re proposing to double-down on Net Zero, pledging allegiance to a program which will make us less competitive and more likely to be steamrolled by major powers, including the U.S. but also (and less frequently mentioned) China.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! And all in the name of nationalism.

Here’s hoping we wise up and change course while there’s still time. Because, in the words of America’s greatest philosopher, Yogi Berra, “It’s getting late early.”

Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.

Dan McTeague

Support Dan’s Work to Keep Canadian Energy Affordable!

Canadians for Affordable Energy is run by Dan McTeague, former MP and founder of Gas Wizard. We stand up and fight for more affordable energy.

Donate Now

Continue Reading

Business

Tariffs by Tuesday: Trump Says There Is ‘No Room Left’ For Any Negotiations On Postponing Tariffs On Mexico, Canada

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Nicole Silverio

President Donald Trump said Monday that there is “no room left” for any negotiations on postponing tariffs on Mexico, Canada or China in response to their handling of the immigration and fentanyl crisis.

Trump initially planned to impose 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada and a 10% tariff on China over its role in allowing illegal immigration and fentanyl to pour into the U.S. in record numbers. After postponing these tariffs for a month after Mexico and Canada caved to his requests, the president said he has fully made up his mind to officially impose these tariffs this upcoming Tuesday.

“No room left for Mexico or for Canada. No, the tariffs [are] all set, they go into effect tomorrow,” Trump said. “And just so you understand, vast amounts of fentanyl have poured into our country from Mexico and as you know, also from China where it goes to Mexico and goes to Canada and China also had an additional 10 [percent], so it’s 10 + 10, and it comes in from Canada and it comes in from Mexico and that’s a very important thing to say.”

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here. Thank you!

WATCH:

Trump postponed the tariffs on Feb. 3 after Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau caved to his requests by increasing their efforts to tackle illegal immigration and fentanyl. Sheinbaum deployed 10,000 National Guard soldiers to the U.S.-Mexico border while Trudeau invested $1.3 billion to crackdown on illegal migration and appointed a “Fentanyl Czar” to oversee a $200 million effort against the drug.

The president announced in a Feb. 27 Truth Social post that he planned to double the tariffs on China to 20% and move forward with the tariffs on Mexico and Canada over the “very high and unacceptable levels” of drugs pouring into the U.S.

“We cannot allow this scourge to continue to harm the USA, and therefore, until it stops, or is seriously limited, the proposed TARIFFS scheduled to go into effect on MARCH FOURTH will, indeed, go into effect, as scheduled,” Trump said. “China will likewise be charged an additional 10% Tariff on that date. The April Second Reciprocal Tariff date will remain in full force and effect. Thank you for your attention to this matter. GOD BLESS AMERICA!”

These three countries are being slapped with tariffs as the U.S. suffers a fentanyl epidemic, with over 21,000 pounds of the deadly drug being seized at the southern border in the fiscal year 2024, according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Border agents have seized over 5,400 pounds in the 2025 fiscal year thus far.

At the U.S.-Canadian border, officials encountered over 11,000 pounds of drugs in the 2024 fiscal year and over 3,200 pounds have so far been seized in the 2025 fiscal year, according to CBP data. Over 60,000 pounds and 55,000 pounds of drugs were seized in the 2022 and 2023 fiscal years.

U.S. border officials also encountered over 8.5 million migrants at the southern border during the four fiscal years of former President Joe Biden’s administration. Border crossings at the northern border skyrocketed with over 198,000 encounters and nearly 19,000 arrests occurring in the 2024 fiscal year.

Continue Reading

Trending

X