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.

Up Next

Oh For Truck’s Sake – a KinderMorgan Story

Don't Miss

When black roofs cost more and most negatively affect our health, why are we installing them?

Lloyd Lewis

www.todayville.com

President Todayville Inc., Honorary Colonel 41 Signal Regiment, Board Member Lieutenant Governor of Alberta Arts Award Foundation, Director Canadian Forces Liaison Council (Alberta) musician, photographer, former VP/GM CTV Edmonton.

Follow Author

41 Signal Regiment trains for winter survival at CFB Wainwright

Central Alberta / 2 years ago

Local artist records original song for Remembrance Day with video showcasing Red Deer’s military history

Community / 3 years ago

Glenn Anderson adds some colour to the “Day of Golf”

2025 Federal Election

Will Four More Years Of Liberals Prove The West’s Tipping Point?

Published on April 3, 2025

Bruce Dowbiggin

The 1997 political comedy Wag The Dog featured a ruling president far behind in the polls engaging Hollywood to rescue his failing ratings. By inventing a fake war against Albania and a left-behind “hero”— nicknamed Shoe— the Hollywood producer creates a narrative that sweeps the nation.

The meme of hanging old shoes from the branches of trees and power lines catches on and re-elects the president. In a plot kicker, the vain producer is killed by the president’s handlers when he refuses to stay quiet about his handiwork. The movie’s cynicism over political spin made it a big hit in the Bill Clinton/ Monica Lewinsky days.

In the recent 2024 election the Democrats thought they’d resurrect the WTD formula to spin off senile Joe Biden at the last minute in favour of Kamala Harris. Americans saw through the obvious charade and installed Donald Trump instead.

You’d think that would be enough to dissuade Canadians who pride themselves on their hip, postmodern humour. But you’d be wrong, they don’t get the joke. Wag The Carney is the current political theatre as Liberals bury the reviled Justin Trudeau and pivot to Mark Carney. If you believe the polling it might just be working on a public besotted by ex-pat Mike Myers and “Canada’s Not For Sale”.

As opposed to Wag The Dog, few are laughing about this performative theatre, however. There are still two debates (English/ French) and over three more weeks of campaign where anything— hello Paul Chiang—can happen. But with Laurentian media bribed by the Libs— Carney is threatening those who stray— people are already projecting what another four years of Liberals in office will mean.

As the most prominent outlier to Team Canada’s “we will fight them on the beaches…” Alberta’s premier Danielle Smith is already steering a course for her province that doesn’t include going to war with America on energy. She asked Trump to delay his tariffs until Canadians had a chance to speak on the subject in an election April 28. Naturally the howler monkeys of the Left accused her of treason. She got her wish Wednesday when Canada was spared any new tariffs for the time being.

Clearly, she (and Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe) have no illusions about Carney not using their energy industry as a whipping post for his EU climate schemes. They’ve seen the cynical flip in polls as former Trudeau loyalists hurry back to the same Liberal party they abandoned in 2024. They know Carney can manipulate the Boomer demographic just as he did when he called for draconian financial methods against the peaceful Truckers Convoy in 2022.

Former Reform leader Preston Manning is unequivocal: “’Large numbers of Westerners simply will not stand for another four years of Liberal government, no matter who leads it.’“ So how does the West respond within Confederation to protect itself from a predatory Ottawa elite?

Clearly, the emissions cap— part of Carney’s radical environmental plans— will keep Alberta’s treasure in the ground. With Carney repeating no cancellation of Bill C-69 that precludes building pipelines in the future, the momentum for a referendum in Alberta will only grow. The NDP will howl, but there will be enough push among from the rest of Albertans for a new approach within Canada.

In this vein Smith even wants to approach Quebec. While it seems like odd bedfellows the two provinces most at odds with the status quo have much in common . “This is an area where our two provinces may be able to coordinate an approach,” Smith wrote this week. That could include referendums by the middle of 2026.

Perhaps the best recipe for keeping the increasingly fractious union together is a devolution of power, not unlike that governing the United Kingdom. While Westminster remains the central power since 1997, there are now separate parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that put power closer to the citizen, so that local factors are better recognized in decision making.

With so little uniting the regions of the country any longer, devolution might provide a solution. What form could decentralization take within Canada? A Western Canada Parliament could blunt predatory federal energy policies while countering the imbalances of Canada’s equalization process. Similar parliaments representing Quebec, the Atlantic provinces, Ontario and B.C. would protect their own special interests within Canada. Ottawa could handle Canada’s international obligations to defence, trade and international cooperation.

While the idea is fraught with pitfalls it nonetheless remains preferable to a breakup of the nation, which four more years of Liberals rule under Mark Carney and the same Trudeau characters will likely precipitate. Smith’s outreach case would be the beginning of such a process.

None of this would be necessary were the populations of Eastern Canada and B.C.’s lower mainland remotely serious after snoozing through the Trudeau decade. The OECD shows Canada’s 1.4% GDP barely ahead of Luxembourg and behind the rest of the industrialized world from 2015-2025. As we’ve said before the Boomers sitting on their $1 million-plus homes are re-staging Woodstock on the Canada Pension and OAS. As with Wag The Dog, they’re not getting the joke.

When the Boomers award themselves another four years of taxapalooza and Mike Myers and the other “Canada Not For For Sale” celebs head south to their tax-avoidance schemes how will the Boomers say they’ve left Canada better off for anyone under 60? We’ll hang up and listen to your answer on the TV.

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.

2025 Federal Election

Highly touted policies the Liberal government didn’t actually implement

Published on April 3, 2025

Todayville

From The Audit

State capacity is the measure of a government’s ability to get stuff done that benefits its population. There are many ways to quantify state capacity, including GDP per capita spent on health, education, and infrastructure versus outcomes; the tax-to-GDP ratio; judicial independence; enforcement of contracts; and crime rates.

But a government’s ability to actually implement its own policies has got to rank pretty high here, too. All the best intentions are worthless if, as I wrote in the context of the Liberal’s 2023 national action plan to end gender-based violence, your legislation just won’t work in the real world.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to The Audit

So I thought I’d take a look at some examples of federal legislation from the past ten years that passed through Parliament but, for one reason or another, failed to do its job. We may agree or disagree with goals driving the various initiatives, but government’s failure to get the work done over and over again speaks to a striking lack of state capacity.

The 2018 Cannabis Act (Bill C-45). C-45 legalized recreational cannabis in Canada, with a larger goal of regulating production, distribution, and consumption while reducing illegal markets and protecting public health. However, research has shown that illegal sales persisted post-legalization due to high legal prices and taxation. Studies have also shown continued use among children despite regulations. And there are troubling indicators about the overall impact on public health.

The 2021 Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act (Bill C-12). The legislation aimed to ensure Canada achieves net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 by setting five-year targets and requiring emissions reduction plans. However, critics argue it lacks enforceable mechanisms to guarantee results. A much-delayed progress report highlighted a lack of action and actual emissions reductions lagging far behind projections.

The First Nations Clean Water Act (Bill C-61) was introduced in late 2024 but, as of the recent dissolution of Parliament, not yet passed. This should be seen in the context of the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act (2013), which was repealed in 2021 after failing to deliver promised improvements in water quality due to inadequate funding and enforcement. The new bill aimed to address these shortcomings, but a decade and a half of inaction speaks to a special level of public impotence.

The 2019 Impact Assessment Act (Bill C-69). Passed in 2019, this legislation reformed environmental assessment processes for major projects. Many argue it failed to achieve its dual goals of streamlining approvals while enhancing environmental protection. Industry groups claim it created regulatory uncertainty (to put it mildly), while environmental groups argue it hasn’t adequately protected ecosystems. No one seems happy with this one.

The 2019 Firearms Act (Bill C-71). Parts of this firearms legislation were delayed in implementation, particularly the point-of-sale record keeping requirements for non-restricted firearms. Some provisions weren’t fully implemented until years after passage.

The 2013 First Nations Financial Transparency Act. – This legislation, while technically implemented, was not fully enforced after 2015 when the Liberal government stopped penalizing First Nations that didn’t comply with its financial disclosure requirements.

The 2019 National Housing Strategy Act. From the historical perspective of six years of hindsight, the law has manifestly failed to meaningfully address Canada’s housing affordability crisis. Housing prices and homelessness have continued their rise in major urban centers.

The 2019 Indigenous Languages Act (Bill C-91). Many Indigenous advocates have argued the funding and mechanisms have been insufficient to achieve its goal of revitalizing endangered Indigenous languages.

The 2007 Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA). Designed to protect whistleblowers within the federal public service, the PSDPA has been criticized for its ineffectiveness. During its first three years, the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (OPSIC) astonishingly reported no findings of wrongdoing or reprisal, despite numerous submissions. A 2017 review by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates recommended significant reforms, but there’s been no visible progress.

There were, of course, many bills from the past ten years that were fully implemented.¹ But the failure rate is high enough that I’d argue it should be taken into account when measuring our state capacity.

Still, as a friend once noted, there’s a silver lining to all this: the one thing more frightening than an inefficient and ineffective government is an efficient and effective government. So there’s that.

Subscribe to The Audit

The fact that we’re still living through the tail end of a massive bout of inflation provides clear testimony that Bill C-13 (COVID-19 Emergency Response Act) had an impact.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.