I know it’s hyperbole, but calling Mr D a show “Canadians are unwilling to watch” when it attracts between half a million and a million viewers an episode is silly. The idea that a network could make Game of Thrones if only it were freed of the horrible constraint of having to make Mr D is likewise ridiculous — and, frankly, a terrible move from a business perspective. At its very best, Game of Thrones had just over double the audience of Mr D in Canada but also cost $15 million per episode. That’s more than the budget of a full season of Mr D.
There's not a single clause in Bill C-10 that compels anyone's speech. And anyone who cares about freedom of expression and programing that serves Canadians better should fully support Bill C-10's provisions.
Are you able to explain how and, even better, provide examples of how similar provisions, anywhere at anytime, have ever done immeasurable harm? In Canada, the consequences of CanCon have been 'immeasurable' good.
Sure. Over the past 10 years the Canadian film and television industry, spurred by investment from streamers, has grown by 80% and the past two years for which there are numbers were the best ever for investment in certified Cancon. It was the lack of regulation that led to that prosperity. C-10 now introduces a period of uncertainty - it could easily take up 5 years, maybe more, before the regulatory process is concluded on this - that will suppress that investment. There will be fewer jobs in the Canadian film and television industry as a result. A lot fewer. Although those with interests most deeply vested in the current structure and the linguistic politics will probably be just fine
Thank you for this. There's nothing, I can see, in your comment to support the notion that Bill C-10 will cause any 'immeasurable harm' at all. In fact, it seems to me you're making a very strong case in favour of the provisions in Bill C-10. Clearly, 'investment from streamers' has never been impeded by CanCon, a government requirement.
But, perhaps I'm missing something. As you're raising what is so for an unfounded fear with no precedent anywhere in the world that I'm aware of, could you, for my benefit at least, invent a plausible scenario based on C-10 what the CRTC might reasonably do that would cause the 'immeasurable harm' you fear? What do you fear the CRTC doing, based on its history, with the provisions in C-10? If you can be specific, that would be helpful.
I am glad others are writing on this now and even more need to. The bill will do a great deal of harm and the only opposition the CPC is raising about it is that it doesn’t go far enough
I know it’s hyperbole, but calling Mr D a show “Canadians are unwilling to watch” when it attracts between half a million and a million viewers an episode is silly. The idea that a network could make Game of Thrones if only it were freed of the horrible constraint of having to make Mr D is likewise ridiculous — and, frankly, a terrible move from a business perspective. At its very best, Game of Thrones had just over double the audience of Mr D in Canada but also cost $15 million per episode. That’s more than the budget of a full season of Mr D.
There's not a single clause in Bill C-10 that compels anyone's speech. And anyone who cares about freedom of expression and programing that serves Canadians better should fully support Bill C-10's provisions.
C-10 will do immeasurable harm to a once-thriving industry. It’s very sad.
Are you able to explain how and, even better, provide examples of how similar provisions, anywhere at anytime, have ever done immeasurable harm? In Canada, the consequences of CanCon have been 'immeasurable' good.
Sure. Over the past 10 years the Canadian film and television industry, spurred by investment from streamers, has grown by 80% and the past two years for which there are numbers were the best ever for investment in certified Cancon. It was the lack of regulation that led to that prosperity. C-10 now introduces a period of uncertainty - it could easily take up 5 years, maybe more, before the regulatory process is concluded on this - that will suppress that investment. There will be fewer jobs in the Canadian film and television industry as a result. A lot fewer. Although those with interests most deeply vested in the current structure and the linguistic politics will probably be just fine
Thank you for this. There's nothing, I can see, in your comment to support the notion that Bill C-10 will cause any 'immeasurable harm' at all. In fact, it seems to me you're making a very strong case in favour of the provisions in Bill C-10. Clearly, 'investment from streamers' has never been impeded by CanCon, a government requirement.
But, perhaps I'm missing something. As you're raising what is so for an unfounded fear with no precedent anywhere in the world that I'm aware of, could you, for my benefit at least, invent a plausible scenario based on C-10 what the CRTC might reasonably do that would cause the 'immeasurable harm' you fear? What do you fear the CRTC doing, based on its history, with the provisions in C-10? If you can be specific, that would be helpful.
Lots of data in here https://cmpa.ca/press-releases/cmpas-profile-2019-highlights-economic-capacity-of-canadian-media-production-industry-before-covid-19/
And here http://www.cmcrp.org/growth-and-upheaval-in-the-network-media-economy-in-canada-1984-2019/
I am glad others are writing on this now and even more need to. The bill will do a great deal of harm and the only opposition the CPC is raising about it is that it doesn’t go far enough