I noticed in the Star a comment from Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault, denying that these changes will lead to an increase in subscriber fees for consumers to pay for the new Canuck programming requirements. He claims most of them are 'already producing the content anyway,' a statement I find highly dubious.

Yep, when did any company get hit with millions of dollars in higher costs and eat that loss without making their customers foot the bill? Sure, happens all the time...(said no one, ever.)

The other possibility is that some services could just pull out of Canada altogether. CBS All-Access, for example, has already sold most of its best original programming (like "Star Trek: Discovery," "The Twilight Zone" and "The Good Fight") to Canadian stations. It may not be worth their time to spend all that money on Can Con just to maintain what I'm convinced is already a small subscriber base in the Great White North.  

Toronto Star: Liberals propose law forcing Netflix, Spotify and others to support Canadian content

mace wrote:

It is one thing to make more Canadian content available and display it prominently. Hopefully, I still have the choice not to consume it.

[sarcasm]They can't force you to watch it - yet. But given nearly every government's mania about Canadian content, I wouldn't be surprised if they're working on it (like that famous scene from Clockwork Orange!)[/sarcasm]

radiokid wrote:

Honestly...   I think the approach of forced percentages, and forced listening/watching of Canadian is so out of touch with the needs and wants of Canadians.   This is a voting issue for me and I will vote against the liberals on this issue.  I hope companies decide to fight back and not just take it.      I don't have an issue making the content available and putting money into a fund to support it, but this forced play/view approach needs to stop on current media, and not start on digital media.   I should have the right of what I want to watch, and listen to and not be told by the government.   

Bravo! I know there will be many here who disagree, but while the argument about Canadian content helping the country's music industry is admittedly a good one, there is still one undeniable factor - Canadians, for the most part, simply don't watch it on TV or their computers.

<rant>You can argue over and over again about how important it is for "Canadians to view their own stories," but for decades, the ratings have shown we're just not watching. It is, to be blunt, an unconscionable waste of money to prove a point about our "history." Forcing these regulations on foreign businesses is a sure recipe for a) higher rates for consumers as those costs get passed on or b) some of the streaming services selling off selected shows to Canadian cable stations and then exiting the country.

Want Disney+ or Apple TV? Sorry Canada, we're not spending millions on shows no one will watch and you're not a big enough market for us to do it, so we're taking our ball and going home. 

Sure, there are some shows that prove the exception, like Schitt's Creek or SCTV. But those are few and far between and might have gotten licencing elsewhere because of their quality. For every one of those, there are the "Heartlands," the "Kim's Convenience," "The Trouble With Tracy" and "Don Messer's Jubilee." On forever and low rated, relatively speaking. 

I'm not going to spend thousands of dollars on a new couch I don't need or want and have no place for just because it was "made in Canada". When it arrives, what do I do with it? Leave it out on the lawn? To me, that couch is the equivalent to forced Can Con.

Let the marketplace decide. It's almost never wrong. And while I have no problems with them regulating hate speech or disinformation (which is tricky in itself) I would say to the government in the strongest possible words: Keep your damned sticky fingers off of my Internet! You don't know what you're doing and you're only going to screw up a good thing.  </rant> 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread, already in progress. Paterson1, over to you to tell me how completely wrong I am!

Why Bill C-10 Will Mean a CRTC-Approved Netflix Service, Reduced Consumer Choice, and Less Investment in Canadian Culture

paterson1 wrote:

Why is it whenever cancon comes up it is always referred to as being "forced"?  You don't have to watch anything you don't want to.

I'm not sure I ever said viewers were being forced to watch Can Con. If so, let me clarify: the companies involved are being "forced" to turn out material they likely would never produce for any other reason than political coercion. That concerns me a great deal. Plus under this new Bill, they will be forced to endlessly and prominently promote these shows, under possibility of a fine. 

That's not only Draconian, in my mind, but also sounds vaguely like something a Banana Republic (not the store!)  would order. Do as we say or the force of government comes down on you. That's just horrible when it comes to what amounts to controlling media.

Remember how outraged Canadians were a few weeks ago when the Chinese Ambassador threatened Canadians in Hong Kong if we didn't tow the line here? Or when they passed an almost unbelievable law that said any citizen of any country could be prosecuted by China if they dared to criticize their government? I admit it's not even close to being the same thing, but my point is that when governments mandate other countries or foreign companies to do something or else, it's pretty outrageous.    

paterson1 wrote:

Disney or Apple TV may leave if they need to spend millions of dollars on programming that nobody watches or wants.  Both of these companies are spending millions and producing programming here already.

Yes, they're using our crews and studios to make their shows, because as you rightly point out, it's cheaper here and our talent is top notch. But it's not designated as Can Con, and so now they have to spend even more money to produce programs they had no intention on making just to satisfy some rabid government decree that makes them look good. Not in my name, thank you.   

paterson1 wrote:

And who are any of us to claim what the public will watch or wants. That is quite an arrogant statement to make.

Actually I would argue this is the most provable of my statements. The ratings tell the tale. Yes, they have a small but loyal audience. But in the grand scheme of things, nobody is really watching, especially on the CBC. And it's been that way for as long as I can remember, with rare exceptions like Hockey Night In Canada or the old Wayne & Shuster specials.   

paterson1 wrote:

By the way CBC's  Heartland is shown in 119 countries around the world.

 
Of course it is. In the U.S., it airs on an all religious channel, TCT, that no one watches. It's also very cheap to acquire, which means it's great filler. That doesn't make it a good show or very watchable.  

paterson1 wrote:

Cancon does not mean every show is about Mounties and seals. And the Canadian productions currently in the roster for all of these streaming services are available around the world.  Even programs that deal in Canadian themes and stories. We like to use the term of letting the market decide...looks like the market is already doing this.

And I would argue that with certain exceptions, the market would not miss any of these make-work shows if they disappeared. They are forced to make them despite the fact, the audience is limited. That makes no financial sense and no other business would ever be asked to do something like this.  

paterson1 wrote:

Most of the steaming services and new media know that the free lunch is over here and other countries like Australia, UK, France, Germany and others.  The days of paying no taxes and skimming off billions every year with no investment are over.

Now here is where we really part company. Who the hell is the Canadian government to tell foreign companies what they must produce? Hmm, where do they do that? China and the old Soviet Union come to mind. I don't want to live in a place where free enterprise is no longer free. This is how it starts. It's rarely how it ends.  

paterson1 wrote:

To their credit most of these companies realize this and have been investing in Canadian productions, offices, studios, employees for the past few years.

Ah, but that's producing shows in a cheaper place, which is good for Canada. It's NOT Canadian content. No one is forcing them to produce anything here. It just makes good business sense to do it here.  

paterson1 wrote:

The government's proposed legislation is being made to ensure that there is a commitment and that these investments continue. Also to level the playing field for traditional media.   That is just good and fair business and policy.

We will have to agree to disagree. While I fully support Canadian studios and crews make a bundle on foreign investments, it should never, ever come at the point of a gun - or in this case, the point of huge fines. I invite you to read media lawyer Michael Geist's criticism of this proposed new law I posted earlier. He makes some great points. Here's the link again. 

Why Bill C-10 Will Mean a CRTC-Approved Netflix Service, Reduced Consumer Choice, and Less Investment in Canadian Culture

Why shouldn't Netflix, Amazon etc who collect hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from Canadians not have to reinvest some of that money in Canada for the production of Canadian content, employing Canadians? 

BTW, I remember watching an Alberta produced entertainment show on which the hosts regularly complained about CanCon - which made me wonder at the time whether those idiots realized that if it wasn't for CanCon they wouldn't have a job? 

Michael Geist makes some interesting points.  However his piece is full of assumptions and a few errors.
  
He is concerned the proposed changes will lead to market confusion.   The proposals are not etched in stone and will have further input from the companies in question. Yes initially there could be some market confusion which always tends to happen until things get worked out.    But Geist's way to avoid market confusion seems to be to do nothing and leave everything the way it is.  That's not going to happen.

Geist is also acting and talking like Canada is in a vacuum on this which is incorrect.  Other countries are wrangling with the same issues.  However since we live next door to the US and speak the same language, have a similar culture, the uneven playing field has hit us harder in some ways.  Canada will likely end up doing something very similar to what the UK, France and Australia do.

He seems to think that  Canadian networks have a huge regulatory competitive advantage with simsub, foreign ownership rules, must carry regulations and a few others.  Other countries have similar regulations, to protect local broadcasters and service areas including the FCC.  Yes the CRTC gives preference to Canadian stations and broadcasters and attempts to protect their marketplace and viability.   So I am not sure what his beef would be with this, since this is common everywhere.

A lot of the productions produced here that Geist talks about in fact are cancon.  Again cancon does not always mean stories set and about Canada and Canadians.  Canadian companies investing in productions, that feature Canadian actors, shot here with local crews all count towards a production being classified as Canadian. 
 
Global's new suspense/drama Departure is not set in Canada, and has a more international storyline.  The show so far is a hit for Global (1.2 million viewers) and is cancon since the show is shot primarily here and has a large Canadian cast.  Global is one of the main investors in the show, but the show itself is not centred on Canada.

Heartland was carried on the CW for years and is currently streaming in the US on Amazon Prime.   I don't believe we would know if the other 116 countries where the show runs would be considered filler as you say.  I would doubt it, since the program is going into it's 14th season.  You or I may not think the show is good or watchable, but obviously many people do.

You are right most people likely wouldn't miss most of the Canadian shows that are offered  but that could be said of 75% of all programs.  Calling them make work projects is a stretch since some are very good and that's why most are playing internationally.

Talking about CBC ratings, yes they are not very good.  However have you seen the ratings for CBS, Fox, NBC and ABC over the past three years?  How low can they go? Does this mean that their programs are not very good or unwatchable?  Pretty sad when a scripted show in the US get renewed with 3 million or less viewers (roughly equivalent to 300,000 viewers in Canada).  Yes I know CBC is mostly funded by the taxpayer, but they are not the only network with crappy ratings.

To radiokid- CBC radio is pretty much 100% Canadian right now and CBC TV is 80-85% Canadian.  For TV this is one of the reasons for their poor ratings, and they do carry some specialized programming and a lot of children's and learning programming every morning until noon. These are not big draws for viewers but part of the mandate. 

CBC Music which seems to be getting traction in ratings is mostly Canadian music likely about 80% cancon or more.

paterson1 raises excellent points as he/she/it often does.

Yet, can't agree with many of the other opinions here.  I find them out dated and irrelevant to the topic at hand... online streaming services.  Sure, i get that in the olden days, you would be "forced" to watch CanCon on CBC, CTV, etc. or listen to it on radio.  But the fact is, online, you're free to click on whatever content appeals to you.  If you don't want to watch a Cancon doc on how to cook seal blubber or traverse the peterborough lift lock, then don't click on it.  you're not "forced" into watching anything.  get over it.

However, i do understand the argument that any Cancon legislation will likely trickle down into what i'm going to pay per month for netflix or amazon prime.  netflix raised their rates last month, and i downgraded my subscription as a result.

but hey, as long as i still get borat and stranger things and the mandalorian,,, or Cancon letterkenny, baroness von sketch, and trickster, i'm still paying for the content i want to see.  you'd be amazed at the number of movies and tv shows i DON'T watch on the streaming services, so why would a few extra Cancon icons bother me.  i'll skip over those as quickly as i do for all the other crap that doesn't interest me.

Last edited by splunge (November 6, 2020 10:32 pm)

RadioActive wrote:

You want to impose rules on culture over TV and radio stations in the Great White North? I don’t like it, but fine. That’s your right. But don’t think for a moment you should have the God-given right to impose that edict on another country. If I were the streaming services, I’d tell Canada to get lost, only in much stronger language.

If I travel to another country, I'm obligated to follow that country's rules.

I agree that can-con is logistically complicated in an era where communications technology is becoming increasingly and arguably irreversibly globalized. And CanCon might seem to deny Canadians the ability to access information and other content from outside Canada's borders. And access would be uneven - content streamed online might potentially be restricted but would my print subscription to the New York Times or Wired be Canadianized? It gets complicated.

But we can't or at least shouldn't reasonably argue that a foreign company doing business here should be able to follow only its home country's rules, or perhaps no rules at all, in its operations here, regarding - say - air/water emissions, or hate speech, or human rights, labour code, etc?

What's needed is to set sights on what should be the goal - protecting and promoting Canadian culture and enhancing its reasonable ability to compete and thrive in a globalized environment. And building and enhancing infrastructure to handle that. There may be a role for carefully configured CanCon rules. How about 100% CanCon for federally funded organizations such as CBC? The NFB does some good work - how about enhancing that organization and mandating CBC to air NFB productions? And working on other mechanisms...

CBC needs to be fully and properly funded and not forced to rely on ratings and advertising for revenue, nor subject to political pressure (threats of cuts etc). And where CBC might be needed for basic coverage in a remote region of the country where private services are unavailable or unwilling, CBC could be funded to operate a satellite/cable services, or grants could be available to private companies (presuming there would otherwise be little or no business case).

We also need to remember that the arts have taken an especially massive hit from the response to COVID.