Lobbying

Independent TV producers before heritage committee

2010-11-22T12:46:00.000-08:00

Some independent broadcasting and production companies appeared before the House heritage committee last Thursday to talk about the impacts of vertical integration (when large communications companies own both the pipes and the content). Here's their introductory remarks.
---

Independent Broadcast Group/ Le groupe de diffuseurs indépendants

Presentation to:

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (CHPC) /

Comité permanent du patrimoine canadien (CHPC)

November 18, 2010

The impacts of private television ownership changes and the move towards new viewing platforms

[Check against delivery]

Suzanne Gouin:

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.

We are here today as members of the Independent Broadcast Group/Le groupe de diffuseurs indépendants (IBG/GDI), which is an association of independent Canadian broadcasters.

Let me introduce you to the member representatives who are here today: I am Suzanne Gouin, Présidente-directrice générale of TV5 Québec Canada and I am joined by Martha Fusca, President of Stornoway Communications, from ZoomerMedia, Television, Bill Roberts, President and Monique Lafontaine, VP Regulatory Affairs and by the IBG’s legal counsel, Joel Fortune.

For efficiencies’ sake, we have joined forces and combined our presentation as an association with Stornoway’s as an individual company.

We will first say a few words about independent broadcasting, and then move on to the substantive question you are examining.

Independent Broadcasting

Canada has a rich linguistic and cultural heritage and that heritage is reflected by independent broadcasters, including IBG’s members.

IBG’s members offer programming for Canadians from all conceivable backgrounds, in English, French, Aboriginal and many other languages, including Cantonese, Mandarin, Russian, Hindi and Punjabi to name a few, and for every age group and interest.

Independent broadcasters often have the mandate to provide programming that isn’t found on mainstream commercial services. Independents provide content and editorial diversity and contribute directly to the free expression that we expect to find in their media and that makes our democracy function. We also create and support jobs in the cultural industries in every region of Canada and, as small and medium enterprises, spur innovation and growth in the economy.

Defining “Independent Broadcasting”

Before going further, let me explain what we mean by “independent” broadcasters. An “independent” broadcaster is a broadcaster that is not owned by a corporate group that also owns a cable, satellite or telephone network. Why is this distinction important?

It is important because the cable, satellite and telephone companies are the gatekeepers to Canada’s broadband networks that all broadcasters need to access to reach Canadian audiences.

Subject only to a few rules set by the CRTC, these carriers decide what channels Canadians get to watch on TV and other “new media” screens. Just as importantly, these carriers largely control the marketing of programming services – for example, how they are packaged, the retail price, channel placement and how aggressively they are marketed. Last, even while they have all this power, these carriers compete directly with independent broadcasters for viewers and programming since they also operate a large number of their own TV services.

So, ownership of the distribution networks is critically important. If you own the large distribution networks, then the services you own get access, and they are marketed so that they reach a large number of Canadians and prosper. If you don’t own the networks, if you are an independent broadcaster, then you are in a much different position.

Martha Fusca:

Without Regulation, Vertical Integration Will Damage Independent Broadcasting

Our message today is direct:

Increased ownership concentration and cross-ownership between programming services and cable, satellite and telephone networks, can do great harm to independent broadcasters. Swift and pro-active regulatory action is needed to mitigate this harm.

Increasing Ownership Concentration and Cross-ownership of Networks

Canada is reaching a level of ownership concentration that has not been seen before. If BCE’s acquisition of CTV is completed – then the owners of Canada’s four largest cable companies and two largest telecom companies (Bell and Telus) will control:

at least 90% of all Canadian cable and satellite subscribers.
97% of mobile phone customers.
All four national conventional television networks (which includes TVA, which is distributed nationally under a CRTC requirement).
66% – of Canada’s analog and “Category 1” specialty channels. (These are the channels that have benefited the most from direct CRTC support and regulation.)
83% of the total revenue generated by TV in Canada – including both distribution and broadcasting activities.
In excess of 90% of all residential internet customers in their markets.

We know that this committee is examining the move towards new viewing platforms together with changes in ownership in the TV industry. It is fair to say that probably all independent broadcasters are looking at all viewing platforms to grow their businesses and to reach Canadians in all technologies.

But, television broadcasting remains, by far, the most important viewing platform, and it is also the generator of the same content that Canadians want to watch on line. Also, as you can see from the overlapping ownership of broadcasting networks and emerging viewing platforms, like mobile and the Internet, concentration of ownership is just as significant an issue for accessing the new networks as it is for broadcast distribution networks.

This concentration of ownership represents an enormous challenge for independent broadcasters – both for broadcasting and for new modes of distribution. This is why adequate regulatory checks and balances need to be built into the system.

But the Response has been De-regulation Not Better Regulation

But, the CRTC has moved in the other direction. The CRTC has removed a number of important rules that were intended specifically to ensure that Canadian specialty and pay television services get fair access to distribution networks. The end result of this deregulation is that BDUs will have the ability, and every incentive, to give pride of place to their own broadcasting services and to non-Canadian services.

Independent broadcasters look at these coming changes and are concerned about their ability to maintain a meaningful presence in the system, and even for their survival.

“9(1)(h)” Status and Independent Broadcasters

One way to ensure that Canadians continue to have access to important and diverse Canadian TV services is for the CRTC to use section 9(1)(h) of the Broadcasting Act. Section 9(1)(h) permits the CRTC to require cable and satellite BDUs to distribute certain services as basic level services or on other terms and conditions. Some independent broadcasters have applied to the CRTC to become “9(1)(h)” services as a response concentration of ownership and deregulation.

9(1)(h) services reach a large number of Canadian homes through Canada’s largest BDUs. Consequently, they have to meet high Canadian content and other obligations.

Regrettably, the CRTC announced at the end of this past summer that it was going to impose a moratorium on hearing 9(1)(h) applications until after June 2012 at the earliest. It is important for the Committee to appreciate that some 9(1)(h) applications were filed two-and-a-half years ago. This means that it will be four-and-a-half years from filing when they are finally heard by the CRTC.

Bill Roberts:

The CRTC’s moratorium came as a complete shock and was directly contrary to what the CRTC had stated was its plan. IBG members and others filed applications, or had planned to file them, based on the understanding that they would be heard shortly after filing, but certainly before September 2011 – which is the digital transition date for the industry and the date when the new deregulated regime will come into effect.

The moratorium is deeply unfair and potentially harmful to diversity in the broadcasting system.

First, we question how a moratorium can be in the public interest, and consistent with the Broadcasting Act. To be approved, by definition, a 9(1)(h) service has make an exceptional contribution to the Canadian broadcasting system and meet strict criteria.

Second, the moratorium comes at a critical time. We have already explained how the CRTC has decided to remove many of the rules that used to ensure diversity in the system and how concentration of ownership has intensified across broadcasters and networks. Now is exactly the time the CRTC should use all of the other tools at its disposal, like 9(1)(h) orders for exceptional services, to counterbalance deregulation in other areas and the negative effects of industry consolidation.

Third, the moratorium is especially harmful to independent broadcasters. If independents are going to make meaningful contributions to Canadian broadcasting and diversity, they need regulated carriage terms to reach a wide enough audience.

Fourth, the moratorium requires us to put our business plans on hold, even while the CRTC continues to add new non-Canadian services for distribution in Canada and is permits the cable and satellite companies to bring forward applications for their own digital specialty, pay and Video-on-demand channels.

Fifth and last, independent broadcasters more than anyone rely for survival on transparent, predictable and timely regulation. This change of direction by the CRTC has been anything but and has left us and our business partners questioning the CRTC’s priorities.

Even more troubling, even when most 9(1)(h) applications were being held back by the CRTC for the past two-and-a-half years, the CRTC has moved some to the head of the line, given them a public hearing and granted 9(1)(h) orders. Similarly, the CRTC decided to hear Quebecor’s application for special distribution status for its cable news channel this past fall, even though it had already told the industry that applications similar to Quebecor’s wouldn’t be considered until 2011, at the earliest. Finally the CRTC has just announced another application that it will consider in which the applicant requests an extension of a 9(1)(h) order that isn’t even set to end, under its current term, until 2015.

The effect of this fast tracking of some applications and dismissal of others is that the CRTC is making decisions about what programming to licence and not to licence without holding public hearings. These are troubling precedents.

IBG is urging the CRTC to reconsider its moratorium.

The Vertical Integration Hearing

You are aware that the CRTC intends to look at some issues related to vertical integration at hearings scheduled for next May.

The outcome of those hearings will be of the utmost significance to the independent broadcasting sector.

IBG and others will encourage the CRTC to put in place pro-active regulatory measures to offset the unprecedented power of vertically integrated companies.

It is early days yet, but the CRTC seems focused mostly on refining its generic “undue preference” rule. In practical terms, what this means is that independent broadcasters will have to complain to the CRTC, on a case-by-case basis, and ask for fair and equitable treatment by cable and satellite networks every time the independents face discrimination.

You can appreciate why this kind of approach will not work. It is very difficult for a small player to complain about a very large player in the industry when the smaller player depends on the large player in so many ways.

What the industry needs instead are clear rules, understood in advance, that will ensure that independent broadcasters get fair access and distribution by their large, vertically integrated competitors.

Recommendations

Our recommendations for the Committee are the following:

1. There should be political and regulatory recognition that Canada's small, independent and niche TV broadcasters provide a valued and unique service to the Canadian broadcasting system, in particular with regard to diversity of voices and ownership;

2. The CRTC should hear all the pending 9(1)(h) applications by small and independent TV broadcasters before the August/September 2011 digital switch over, and for the Commission to enforce a carriage status quo until that process and its decisions have been rendered public; and

3. The Standing Committee should explore how the CMF can better assist and acknowledge the particular contributions of Canada's small and independent TV broadcasters

Suzanne Gouin:

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman and Committee members, we have presented to you some of the realities that face independent broadcasters today and we have tried to be as direct as possible.

Unless regulatory action is taken, the increasing concentration of ownership among television broadcasters and the networks that carry their content, will do great harm to independent broadcasters and to the diversity these broadcasters bring to Canadians.

New app to work with direct voter contact programs?

2010-08-26T07:02:00.000-07:00

A Wire Report story by Jonathan Migneault today takes a peak at a new mobile campaign app being developed by a former Tory staffer.

It's set for launch this September on time for a number of municipal elections.

Is this designed to sync with direct voter contact programs? Methinks yes (if I was to guess).

Jacob Glick points out that the Google Latitude app could also be used for campaigning.

Here's a bit of background from a previous Hill Times story on direct voter contact programs, which can create demographics at the household level.

--

Tories building database for Quebec
Province was excluded from direct voter contact program in the last run
By Simon Doyle
Published October 8, 2007
Conservatives are pointing to their electoral successes in the Quebec byelections as evidence of the effectiveness of the party's get-out-the-vote organization and the potential power of a new voter database being built for Quebec.

Tom Flanagan's new book, Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power, says Quebec was excluded from the Conservatives' "elaborate, centrally supervised" direct voter contact (DVC) program in the 2005-06 national campaign. DVC programs can be expensive to run, and are used by all established political parties to build databases of voters, identify demographic statistics and top voter issues by polling district or postal code. The databases may be "populated" with information collected through contact with the electorate by phone calls, door-to-door visits, email or mail.

Databases may be initiated with information gleaned from the Elections Canada voters list, but the database is expanded through contact with voters in campaign. For instance, a canvasser knocks on a door and talks to someone who says that he or she is a Liberal voter considering a move to the Conservatives, and that their greatest concern is pulling out of the war in Afghanistan. The canvasser records that "voter identification data" for storage in a central database, what the Conservatives call their Constituency Management Information System. Parties use the information to determine the most significant issues, voters and poll locations in their target ridings, to target voters and get out the votes that count.

"You have the information you collect, and dump it into Big Brother," one Conservative said, who requested anonymity. "Part of it is figuring out who is with you, who is against you, and who are switchers."

Prof. Flanagan, former campaign manager for Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) and a political science professor at the University of Calgary, writes in his book that he conducted two experiments with DVC in Quebec before the 2005-06 election campaign, neither of which resulted in a full DVC program for the province, however.

The Conservatives employ Responsive Marketing Group, a Toronto-based telemarketing company, to do its voter-contact work and to help build the hundreds of thousands of records that go into its database, according to Prof. Flanagan's book. The company also conducts work for the Ontario Progressive Conservatives.

The advantage of the database is to develop statistics that are more sophisticated than regular demographic breakdowns, by postal codes, on religion, language, age, and sex. The strategy for the Tories is to find potential voters even in polling areas where the demographics suggest there would not be any Conservative voters. The more contact the campaign team has with the electorate, the more sophisticated the database becomes.

As Prof. Flanagan describes it in his book, "Direct voter contact is like a snowball rolling down a hill. Once you get it started, it keeps getting bigger and bigger as lists are extended within ridings and new ridings are brought into the program."

The Conservative Party is said to have strong data on the West and Ontario. The party is developing a program for Quebec, and the byelections were seen as something of a successful trial.

...

How bout a Cat 2, Sun TV?

2010-07-15T19:18:00.000-07:00

I just obtained a copy of the CRTC's letter to Sun TV, confirming what everyone expected and denying them a Category 1. Here's a pdf copy. The text is below.

And here's a recent story The Wire Report did on what other all-news services thought about the application.

--

5 July 2010

Peggy Tabet,
Director, Regulatory Affairs, Broadcasting,
Quebecor Media Inc.,
612, St-Jacques St.,
15th floor, South Tour,
Montreal, Quebec
règlementaires@quebecor.com

Re: Application #2010-0931-6 to obtain a licence to operate a Category 1(A) service

Dear Ms. Tabet,

This is with reference to your application for a broadcasting licence to operate a national English-language Category 1 specialty service. It is noted that Category 1 services will be known as Category A services as of 1 September 2011.

On 31 March 2010, the Commission issued Broadcasting Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-198. In that bulletin, the Commission announced that it will not consider applications for new Category A services before October 2011. The Commission also stated that, at that time, it will re-examine the appropriateness of licensing new Category A services in the context of a digital environment, and that it did not expect to receive applications for new Category A services before that time.

On the other hand, the Commission announced in Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2009-562 (BRP 2009-562) that it is prepared to consider applications for broadcasting licences to operate competitive news specialty services. In that policy, the Commission invited new entrants to file their applications, and set out the standard conditions of licence that will apply to competitive news services. The standard conditions, as amended in BRP 2009-562-1, are set out in the appendix to this letter.

In your application, you state that the proposed service would be unlike the all-news channels already licensed; that it will be “an Information & Analysis channel, a completely new genre in Canada.” It is noted, however, that news and analysis are sub-categories of the information programming category, and that in your proposal, news would be broadcast throughout the day. It is also noted that in promotional material, the proposed service is referred to as the Sun TV News Channel.

Furthermore, the proposed conditions of licence set out in your application are very similar to those set out in BRP 2009-562 for competitive news services. Therefore, it would appear to be a relatively straight-forward process for your proposal to be amended to be an application for a licence to operate a competitive news service, which could be considered without delay.

-2-

Alternatively, there would appear to be no regulatory provisions that prevent the existing SUN TV station (CKXT-TV/CKXT-DT) from being operated as an information television service. In fact, such a programming approach could be implemented without regulatory approval by the Commission.

Should you, however, insist that your application be considered as a Category A application, you will have to wait until after October 2011 when the appropriateness of licensing new Category A or revisiting existing Category A services will be considered.

If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me at ---.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Peter Foster
Director General
Television Policy and Applications

Appendix:
Standard conditions of licence for competitive news services

1. (a) The licensee shall provide a national, English- or French language specialty programming service that shall consist of mainstream national news and information programming. The licensee shall provide updated news reports every 120 minutes.

(b) Programming may be drawn from all program categories set out in Schedule I of the Specialty Services Regulations, 1990, as amended from time to time.

(c) The licensee shall devote no more than 10% of all programming broadcast during the broadcast month to programming from the following categories: 7, 7(d), 7(e), 8(b), 8(c).

2. During each broadcast year, the licensee shall devote not less than 90% of the broadcast day to Canadian programming.

3. (a) Subject to subsections 3(b) and 3(c), the licensee shall not distribute more than 12 minutes of advertising material during each clock hour.

(b) Where a program occupies time in two or more consecutive clock hours, the licensee may exceed the maximum number of minutes of advertising material allowed in those clock hours if the average number of minutes of advertising material in the clock hours occupied by the program does not exceed the maximum number of minutes that would otherwise be allowed per clock hour.

(c) In addition to the 12 minutes of advertising material referred to in subsection 3(a), the licensee may broadcast partisan political advertising during an election period.

(d) The licensee shall not distribute any advertising material other than national paid advertising.

4. The licensee is authorized to make available for distribution an upgraded version of its service in high definition (HD) format, provided that not less than 95% of the video and audio components of the upgraded and standard definition version of the service are the same, exclusive of the commercial messages and of any part of the service carried on a subsidiary signal. All of the programming making up the 5% allowance shall be provided in HD format.

5. The licensee shall caption 100% of its programs over the broadcast day, consistent with the approach set out in A new policy with respect to closed captioning, Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2007 54, 17 May 2007.

6. In accordance with Accessibility of telecommunications and broadcasting services, Broadcasting and Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-430, 21 July 2009, the licensee shall:
• adhere to the quality standards on closed captioning developed by television industry working groups, as amended from time to time and approved by the Commission; and

• implement a monitoring system to ensure that, for any signal that is closed captioned, the correct signal is captioned, the captioning is included in its broadcast signal and this captioning reaches the distributor of that signal in its original form.
“Original form” means, at a minimum, that the captioning provided by the licensee reaches the distributor unaltered, whether it is passed through in analog or in digital, including in high definition.

7. The licensee shall provide audio description for all the key elements of information programs, including news programming. For the purposes of this condition of licence, “audio description” refers to announcers reading aloud the textual and graphic information that is displayed on the screen during information programs.

8. The licensee shall adhere to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Equitable Portrayal Code, as amended from time to time and approved by the Commission. However, the application of the foregoing condition of licence will be suspended if the licensee is a member in good standing of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.

9. The licensee shall adhere to the Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children, as amended from time to time and approved by the Commission.

10. The licensee shall adhere to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ CAB Violence Code, as amended from time to time and approved by the Commission. However, the application of the foregoing condition of licence will be suspended if the licensee is a member in good standing of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.
For the purposes of these conditions, “broadcast day” and “clock hour” shall have the same meaning as that set out in the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 1987.

More on Balanced Copyright For Canada

2010-06-21T08:20:00.000-07:00

So there's been a few questions (read Geist on it here) about who is behind the new "grassroots" campaign Balanced Copyright for Canada. TVO's Jesse Brown, host of Search Engine, noted on Twitter last week that he searched a number of the names on the site's member list before it was taken down--and found that many of them worked in the sound recording industry (mostly the big labels). I contacted Jesse for some of the names he saw and who they worked for.

Here's the members he passed on to me: Graham Henderson (CRIA); Steve Kane (Warner); JP Boucher (Interscope); Madelaine Napoleone (Universal); Burt Gidaro (EMI); Robert Bolton (Warner); Doug Raaflaub (Warner Music); Rodney Murphy (SOCAN); Laine Pond (Warner); Derek Hauser (Sony); Velma Barkwell (Sony); Daniel Devlin (Sony).

I've also heard on good authority that consultants/lawyers James Gannon (McCarthy Tétrault), Barry Sookman (McCarthy Tétrault) and Don Hogarth (Hogarth Communications) were on the original members' list.

--
UPDATE: The organization sent me an email Monday afternoon saying people will be available for interviews when it rolls out its advisory board. The email noted:

We plan to roll out our advisory board, soon. But I can tell you the advisory board includes the singer-songwriter and independent recording producer Loreena McKennitt and Stephen Sohn the executive producer of Degrassi: The Next Generation and Instant Star.

Astroturf spottings

2010-06-21T06:29:00.000-07:00

Here's a copy of the column on astroturf in today's HT, in case you don't subscribe.
---
Grassroots lobbying is the new bling, but make sure it's real

By Simon Doyle

Is it a genuine grassroots lobbying campaign, or is it astroturf? It's not always so easy to tell.

"Astroturf" was being tossed around last week to describe a new copyright lobby group called Balanced Copyright for Canada, which is calling on Canadians to "Take action and be heard" in support of the government's Bill C-32, the Copyright Modernization Act.

But the group's website doesn't say who it represents, other than noting that "artists, other content creators and the people who invest in them have the right to be compensated for their creations."

The organization initially displayed a list of members' names on its website, but after critics began asking questions about them, it was removed.

TVO's Search Engine host Jesse Brown noted on Twitter last week that, while the member's list was still up, he conducted searches on the names and found that many of them worked for the major music labels.

Is it astroturf? Could be.

Astroturf—just as the term metaphorically suggests—signifies a fake grassroots campaign that in reality is contrived by powerful industrial lobbies and interests.

In the world of lobbying, grassroots is the new bling. If elected politicians start to think that the public, and local, grassroots organizations are leaning a certain way on an issue, they're going to take an interest. Votes are at stake.

The trend is happening partly because grassroots organizing is easier than ever. Online social networking tools and communications technologies are opening opportunities for public organization, communication, and mobilization.

In the old days, campaigners had to work street corners with petitions. They had to carpet bomb neighbourhoods with mailings and flyers, and telephone people at home for donations and calls to action. Today, a campaigner can get the job done with a creative blog, Facebook and Twitter accounts, form emails, a few catchy YouTube videos, and some clever messaging. Sit at your desk and hope it goes "viral."

Recognizing the trend, business lobbies are trying to demonstrate that they can go grassroots too.

Last summer, as American public relations firm Bonner & Associates lobbied the U.S. Congress on climate change legislation, it sent key members of the legislature 13 phony letters purporting to be from local, nonprofit groups, such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

The controversy raised "astroturfing" to new levels. As the Associated Press revealed at the time, the firm didn't own up to the phony letters until after an important vote in the House of Representatives.

Far from representing grassroots organizations, Bonner & Associates was hired by a firm working for a coal industry association, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. The firm acknowledged the phony letters, blaming a temporary employee, who was fired.

Here in Canada, astroturf has caught on. Two sides of a classic business lobby spent good sums of money last summer trying to convince decision-makers in Ottawa that they had the public onside.

For months, Canadian broadcasters carried on a public fight with cable and satellite providers over the issue of fee-for-carriage—whether the cable and satellite companies should pay broadcasters for carrying free, local, over-the-air signals.

The campaigns went grassroots, or, one might say, astroturf. CTV launched a massive "Save Local TV" campaign last year to encourage the public to write to the CRTC and, according to the website savelocaltv.org, "alert Canadians of impending closure of most Local TV Stations across Canada." The "Who we are" section of the site said they were "a group of likeminded people trying to help our community."

The cable and satellite companies retaliated with an equally sensational grassroots campaign, called "Stop the TV Tax." Rogers Communications identified its campaign website, stopthetvtax.ca, as a "portal for citizen engagement."

Elected MPs in Ottawa may want to be a little more vigilant in their evaluation of lobbying campaigns. Normally this isn't so difficult.

One MP, a member of the much-lobbied House Finance Committee, told me there's a big difference between receiving 400 form emails and a single letter in which a constituent "pours their heart out."

But there are grey areas between real grassroots and astroturf. Legitimate grassroots campaigns can be spearheaded by pressure groups with special interests.

Animal rights groups, for example, have successfully used gruesome images of the Canadian seal hunt to mobilize public action against it.

So politicians have to do a bit of research to determine the real level of public concern with an issue. How slick or well-funded is the campaign? Are profit margins affected?

Last summer, some U.S. Democrats alleged that the protest and town hall disorder over President Barack Obama's healthcare reforms were the work of special interest groups backed by corporate funding.

Here in Canada, I'm not so sure the public cared deeply—at least initially—about the CRTC's decision on fee-for-carriage. Until recently, I think the general public's understanding of "fee for carriage" had more to do with the retail price of a new baby stroller.

Simon Doyle is the editor of The Wire Report in Ottawa, covering broadcasting, telecom, and new media. He can be reached at sdoyle@thewirereport.ca.

news@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times

The bill to launch a thousand lobbyists

2010-06-01T18:00:00.000-07:00

Here's the announcement that just came through the press gallery. I removed the exact locations and phone numbers to avoid ruffling any feathers.
Notice the media lockup is also in Montreal--and it was just announced this evening. Is this an attempt to bypass the press gallery? Probably!
--
Government of Canada Moves to Modernize the Copyright Act
MONTRÉAL, June 1, 2010 — The Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, and the Honourable James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, will deliver brief statements and answer media questions shortly after the introduction a bill to modernize the Copyright Act. In advance of the bill’s introduction, members of the media will be able to attend a technical briefing and lock-up.
Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Lock-up and technical briefing for media
Location:--
Room: --
Montréal, QC
Time: 1:15 p.m. (accredited media registration for lock-up and technical briefing)
1:30–3:00 p.m. (lock-up — media only)
Media are asked to confirm their participation in advance of the lock-up by calling --
Ministerial statements
Time: 3:30 p.m.
Location:
Electronic Arts Inc.
--
Montréal, Quebec
A question and answer session with ministers will follow.
Once the media lock-up has begun, no one will be allowed to leave the room or contact his/her office until the embargo is lifted. Journalists will be required to sign an undertaking to respect the release arrangements.
Wireless communication devices such as cellular phones, BlackBerrys, personal digital assistants or any other removable wireless communication devices (including modems, air cards and wireless microphones) will not be allowed in the lock-up area.
For further information, please contact:

Lobbying explained by H&K

2009-12-12T14:47:00.000-08:00

Have a look at this pretty clever ad from Hill & Knowlton.

Now here's an interesting argument

2009-11-18T12:50:00.000-08:00

In the CRTC hearings on fee-for-carriage, Radio-Canada is arguing that the distributors (cable and satellite co's) have higher profit margins than the oil and gas companies. Radio-Canada says distributors are sitting comfortably with profit margins of 25.3 per cent and oil and gas companies with 17.4 per cent. The average business' profit margin? Just 8.7 per cent.

Remember all the bad headlines about record profits for some oil companies last year? Do the broadcasters have a new strategy? A focus on profit margins? Demonizing their opponents?

---------

Vincent Brousseau-Pouliot

LA PRESSE

(Gatineau) Isolée parmi ses pairs, Radio-Canada a pris les grands moyens afin de convaincre le CRTC de lui accorder des redevances sur les revenus des abonnements du câble: comparer les câblodistributeurs aux pétrolières.

Durant son exposé hier matin devant le CRTC, Radio-Canada a fait valoir que les câblodistributeurs au pays ont une marge de profit plus élevée (25,3%,) que les pétrolières et les entreprises de gaz naturel (17,4%), selon les chiffres de Statistique Canada. «Il y a une perception que certaines industries au Canada font des marges de profit importantes. Cette industrie (les pétrolières) en est une. Lorsqu'on fait la comparaison, on constate que les câblos ont une marge de profit encore plus spectaculaire que les industries (les pétrolières) que vous pensez qui font déjà beaucoup d'argent», dit Hubert Lacroix, PDG de CBC/Radio-Canada.La comparaison fait sourire les dirigeants de Bell, qui disent avoir perdu 2,2 milliards de dollars avec la distribution télé par satellite (Bell Télé, anciennement ExpressVu) depuis sa création en 1997.

«Radio-Canada n'a pas inclus nos pertes comme distributeur de télé par satellite, et je ne serais pas surpris que les profits des câblos incluent leurs autres activités sur le câble comme la téléphonie et l'internet», dit Mirko Bibic, chef des affaires réglementaires de Bell. Vérification faite, les chiffres de Radio-Canada comprennent l'ensemble des profits des câblos, en incluant la téléphonie résidentielle et l'internet.

Durant leur présentation, les dirigeants de Radio-Canada ont tiré à boulets rouges sur le câblodistributeur Rogers, un concurrent de Bell qui a fait valoir son opposition à toute forme de redevances aux chaînes généralistes la veille devant le Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications du Canada (CRTC). «Rogers dit que le modèle des chaînes généralistes n'est pas brisé, mais les chaînes spécialisées de Rogers avait une marge de perte de 18% avant la récession», dit Hubert Lacroix.

La société d'État fédérale a rappelé au CRTC un vieux litige impliquant Rogers et iCraveTV, qui distribuait les signaux de Rogers - dont les chaînes généralistes - gratuitement sur l'internet. Rogers aurait fait valoir au tribunal américain que les pratiques de iCraveTV étaient illégales et diminuaient la valeur de ses services de câblodistribution. «En 2000, quand quelqu'un voulait prendre les signaux de Rogers et les distribuer au public sans faire payer d'accès, Rogers n'a eu aucune difficulté à trouver une valeur au signal de ses chaînes généralistes, dit Hubert Lacroix. Nous sommes confiants qu'avec un peu de réflexion, Rogers pourrait faire la même chose aujourd'hui.»

La réflexion de Radio-Canada, elle, est déjà complétée: les chaînes généralistes doivent obtenir leur juste part des revenus des abonnements du câble, d'abord par le biais de négociations puis d'un processus d'arbitrage au CRTC en cas d'échec des pourparlers. Radio-Canada fait valoir que les câblodistributeurs canadiens ont généré des profits de 2 milliards l'an dernier, contre 8 millions pour les chaînes généralistes privées. «Les chaînes généralistes sont de loin les plus populaires au Canada, dit Hubert Lacroix. Ça ne fait aucun sens que ces chaînes ne reçoivent aucune compensation pour ce qu'elles amènent au système télévisuel canadien (...) La solution est simple. Les stations de télévision locales devraient avoir accès aux revenus d'abonnement.»

Radio-Canada isolée

Dans ces audiences sur la question des redevances du câble, la société d'État fédérale se retrouve isolée. Les câblodistributeurs comme Rogers, Bell, Cogeco et Shaw et les chaînes spécialisées s'opposent à toute forme de redevance, alors que leurs concurrents généralistes au petit écran, Quebecor et V, ne veulent pas que Radio-Canada ait accès aux redevances en raison de son financement public.

Outre la question des redevances, Radio-Canada s'attaque à une autre chasse gardée des câblodistributeurs: la composition du câble. Radio-Canada suggère au CRTC d'instaurer un service de base moins cher que les offres actuelles des câblos. Ce service de base comprendrait toutes les chaînes généralistes et quelques chaînes spécialisées. Selon ce système, les consommateurs pourraient choisir chaque chaîne spécialisée individuellement, sans être obligée de payer pour un bouquet de chaînes. Ce système sera particulièrement avantageux pour les consommateurs qui écoutent encore la télé avec leurs «oreilles de lapin» (antennes hertziennes analogues), qui ne fonctionneront plus à compter de 2011.

L'exposé de Radio-Canada a impressionné certains des neuf commissaires du CRTC qui passeront l'automne à étudier la question des redevances du câble. «Votre présentation était excellente, elle résume bien la situation. C'est clair que votre problème n'est pas cyclique», dit le commissaire Timothy Denton.

Le grand patron de Radio-Canada, Hubert Lacroix, a toutefois eu droit à un contre-interrogatoire serré de Konrad von Finckenstein, un ancien juge de la Cour fédérale qui préside le CRTC depuis janvier 2007.

Le président du CRTC a notamment suggéré à Radio-Canada que leurs redevances soient la moitié de celles des chaînes généralistes privées, soit la proportion des revenus télé de Radio-Canada tirés de la publicité. Une idée rejetée par le PDG de Radio-Canada, Hubert Lacroix. «Nous sommes dans la même situation que les chaînes généralistes privées, dit-il. Nous voulons être compensés pour la valeur de notre signal dans le cadre d'une négociation. Nous ne voulons pas de traitement spécial, nous voulons être traités comme tout le monde.»

Malgré ses questions incisives, Konrad von Finckenstein s'est dit «impressionné» par la présentation «très claire» de Radio-Canada. Pour une deuxième journée consécutive, il a toutefois suggéré aux chaînes généralistes et aux câblos de s'entendre entre eux. «Je préférerais sanctionner une entente», dit-il.

--------

MARGE DE PROFIT

Câblodistributeurs 25,3%

Pétrolières et entreprises de gaz naturel 17,4%

Moyenne des entreprises canadiennes 8,7%

Entreprises manufacturières 6,3%

Note: Données fournies par Radio-Canada au CRTC

Source: Statistique Canada

--------

LE TOP 10 DES COTES D'ÉCOUTE

Marché francophone du Canada

- TVA 27,1%

- RADIO-CANADA18,4%

- V (TQS) 7,9%

- RDS 8,5%

- Télé payante 3,4%

- Séries+ 3,4%

- Canal D 2,6%

- Canal Vie 2,4%

- Télétoon 2,1%

- Z-Télé 1,9%

Note: Les chaînes généralistes sont indiquées en caractères gras.

Source: Données fournies par Radio-Canada au CRTC

--------

PROFITS

(en millions de dollars) 2003/ 2004 /2005 /2006 /2007 /2008

Chaînes généralistes privées: 299/ 233/ 242/ 91/ 113/ 8

Chaînes spécialisées: 285/ 414/ 556/ 573/ 648/ 686

Source: Données fournies par Radio-Canada au CRTC

Commish's new guidance on 'improper influence'

2009-11-08T20:25:00.000-08:00

On Nov. 6, the federal Commissioner of Lobbying quietly released new guidance on what constitutes "improper influence"--the essence of Rule 8 of the Lobbyists Code of Conduct.

What does this mean? What's new? Far as I can tell, the Commissioner, Karen Shepherd, has released an official opinion stating that registered lobbyists can violate the Code and put public office holders in a conflict of interest by taking part in "political activities." In my estimation this includes political fundraising or campaign work.

Rule 8 of the Lobbyists Code of Conduct says lobbyists "shall not place public office holders in a conflict of interest by proposing or undertaking any action that would constitute an improper influence on a public office holder."

Now the Commish has clarified what it means to exert "improper influence." The new guidance says that lobbyists can put public office holders in a conflict of interest not only through the "demonstration of interference" with the public duties of public office holders, but also if their actions create a "reasonable apprehension of an apparent conflict of interest." A pretty broad interpretation.

That means the following activities, taken verbatim from the Commissioner's new guidance, are, umm, bad:

the provision of a gift, an amount of money, a service, or property without an obligation to repay;
the use of property or money that is provided without charge or at less than its commercial value, and;
political activities.

It's worth repeating that "political activities" and the provision of "a service" are mentioned above. And the guidance concludes with: "Lobbyists should endeavour to conduct themselves in the highest ethical manner thus avoiding situations which could create a real or apparent conflict of interest for a public office holder."

At any rate, Lobbying hears that this notice is creating a bit of a stir in Ottawa's lobbying community.

Also interesting is that the new guidance came on the heels of ethics complaints from Democracy Watch related to a fundraiser that a lobbyist held for Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt.

Breaking the Lobbyists Code of Conduct is not a violation of the Lobbying Act or any other law. As the Commissioner's FAQs state, "Breaches of the Code of Conduct do not carry fines or jail sentences, but the results of any investigation by the Commissioner must be tabled before both houses of Parliament. There is no limitation period preventing the Commissioner of Lobbying from investigating breaches of the Code of Conduct."

In other words, the Code is enforced under a kind of "name and shame" principle. Violate it and your name is dragged through the mud after an offence is published in a report to Parliament.

For further reading, here's an extended rationale for the Commissioner's new guidance.

Lobbying on copyright? See the HT special

2009-11-02T16:37:00.000-08:00

Just about every consultant lobbyist I know in Ottawa represents at least one client on copyright. So you should find a worthwhile read in The Hill Times' policy briefing on Communications and Intellectual Property.

Here's my contribution to the section, below.

----
Introducing a copyright bill is kind of like swatting at a beehive with a big stick
By Simon Doyle
The Hill Times
Nov. 2, 2009

MONTREAL—Copyright policy was forever messy. Now it’s getting messier.

The last time the government conducted major chang- es to the Copyright Act was in 1997. About 80 different organizations lobbied the government and Parlia- ment. Reflecting on the passage of the amending legislation, Bill C-32, and the temporary war zone it creat- ed, former Heritage minister Sheila Copps called it the most lobbied bill in the history of Parliament.

There has always been a lot of money at stake in copyright. A new intellectual property right tends to mean a win for one group and a loss for another. But copyright is no longer an exclusive industrial policy. It affects a wider spectrum of players, such as photographers, web
designers, musicians, consumers, tech companies, writers, publishers, professors, computer scientists, and teenagers on their laptops. Now the public wants rights too.

So the policy file gets lobbied more and more. In 2001, the gov- ernment held a public consultation on copyright policy not unlike the one conducted this year. And like the 1997 amendments, the 2001 consultation was a bloody mess. One-hundred and twenty-three organizations, including trade associations, pressure groups, and corporations, put their cases to the government. On top of that, the government received 547 submissions from individuals (234 of which were modeled on a form letter).

Today, the Industry Department tells me that this summer’s copyright consultations drew 143 sub- missions from organizations.That’s almost 150 pressure groups, corpo- rations, associations and other orga- nizations battling for their interests and proposals to change the law.

What’s more noteworthy is the dramatic rise in public participation.The department says it received 8,012 submissions from individuals this summer (5,769 of which were modelled on eight dif- ferent form letters).

Oh but the irony: with all the pressure for federal action on copyright reform, the government would rather not touch it. There are too many players pushing in too many directions.

When governments deliver initiatives, they want “wins.” They want their policies to grow their political capital, and if not grow it, spend very little of it. Copyright reform involves international legal frame- works, and so many lobby groups, companies, organizations, and now the public, that—in the words of one copyright lobbyist I know—“it’s a no-win for any government.”

Introducing a copyright reform bill is kind of like swatting at a beehive with a big stick. In all likeli- hood, you’re going to get stung.

It’s a primary reason—along with a rapidly changing techno- logical environment, a series of minority governments, and com- plex international dimensions— that explains why we haven’t seen any government move seriously on copyright reform since 1997. That same year, Canada signed and committed to implement two internet treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organiza-
tion, but those changes to the law haven’t happened.

It’s easier to hang back and continue to study the issue, as the gov- ernment did this summer. Delay the legislation until the late spring and maybe an election campaign will erase the need to table a bill at all.
It’s my guess that if Langevin Block tables a copyright reform bill, it won’t do so until the House nears the summer recess. The government won’t have to deal with the fervent reaction of the copyright lobby while the House is in session—not to mention the headaches that would be created by a parliamen- tary committee study of legislation.

Sheila Copps knows that experience. As Heritage minister in 1996, she witnessed first-hand the committee study of Bill C-32, when the Canadian Association of Broadcasters waged an intensely local lobbying campaign of MPs.

Local radio stations across the country told MPs that the bill’s new neighbouring rights provi- sion—which would charge radio stations new copyright fees to compensate music composers, producers, and performers— would result in local layoffs and the closure of stations. The bill divided the Liberal caucus and the Industry and Heritage ministers such that, according to Copps, the PM had to step in to resolve it.

Although the CAB campaign didn’t result in major changes to the neighbouring rights provision, it caused significant acrimony and drama, particularly at the House Heritage Committee. In December 1996, during the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-32, the committee’s two Reform members, Jim Abbott and Hugh Hanrahan, accused the government of playing tricks to force the bill through committee quickly. Opposed to the neighbour- ing rights provision, among other items in the bill, they stormed out of the committee room and boycotted the rest of the proceedings.

All of this was in 1996 under Chrétien’s majority government. It’s not something a minority gov- ernment wants to deal with.

It will take either some significant leadership on the part of the Prime Minister, a majority government, or both, before Canadians see serious legislative initiative on copyright reform.

For now, the Conservative government, I’m sure, has been contemplating the swatting-at- the-beehive phenomenon. It’s why we’ll probably continue to see fur- ther study of copyright reform and another bill that dies on the Order Paper with the dissolution of Par- liament—just like Bill C-60 in 2005 and Bill C-61 in 2008.

But there’s a silver lining to the copyright mess.The more Canadians study, fight, harangue, and wring one another’s throats over the issue, the more likely we emerge from it with a copyright law that finds the right balance.

-30-

How's your swing

2009-10-28T10:56:00.000-07:00

Holy meetings Canwest!

2009-10-28T08:41:00.000-07:00

Canwest Global has been busy.

According to the lobbyist registry, the company had 15 meetings between late August and late September with Cabinet ministers, ministerial staff, and senior government officials. All of them were to discuss the broadcasting industry.

Do a search for "broadcasting" in the registry and you'll see that there's lots of lobbying going on in this area. You'll also see that Canwest is leading in meetings.

Whatever they're discussing, this is a full-court press. The company appears to be targeting ministers from a wide array of regions, including Industry Minister Tony Clement, Transport Minister John Baird, Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt, Environment Minister Jim Prentice, and Minister of State for Sport Gary Lunn.

I'm not trying to suggest these meetings are part of the intense lobbying on fee for carriage. They could be. They could also be about Canwest's general troubles and restructuring efforts.

Having said that--it is interesting to note that several of the meetings took place before Sept. 17, when the government announced its request that the CRTC study and report on fee for carriage. According the registry, Canwest officials met with Prentice on Sept. 11, and held separate meetings with Baird, Clement, and Raitt on Sept. 15. The same day, the company met with Neil Bouwer, a senior official at the Privy Council Office, Conservative MP and parliamentary secretary Dean Del Mastro, and Liberal MP Keith Martin.

Tracking the air war

2009-10-25T13:54:00.000-07:00

By now I'm sure you've all heard about campaigns saying that "Local TV matters" or that we have to "Stop the TV tax."

Well, following the Conservative government's request that the CRTC study fee for carriage and take into consideration "the views of the general public" on the matter, the broadcasters and distributors have declared war on one another via Internet and advertising campaigns, each seeking to rally public opinion in their favour and mobilize the public to write into the CRTC.

This is a major lobbying offensive by both sides, and I'm curious as to who is winning the air war--or at least leading in ads. The campaign is sure to be intense between now and the closing of public comments on Nov. 2.

So I'm making a call to all "citizen journalists" out there to report the ads they see on television:

the time, date and location of the ad;
the television program;
the network;
the nature of the ad;
your name and city.

You can post reports below. If, for whatever reason, you prefer to remain anonymous, email me your report and I'll keep your name private.

I'll make the first report: I saw two back-to-back ads this morning (Oct. 25) at about 11:45 a.m. on CTV's Question Period. One was a "Stop the TV tax" ad, followed by a "Local TV matters" spot.

There ya go. We'll see if this turns up anything.

No more political fundraisers. Remember?

2009-10-22T13:54:00.000-07:00

Remember this story below? Former registrar Michael Nelson made it pretty clear that fundraisers were to be no more.

Today we find a related ethics complaint from Democracy Watch.

---

"No more political fundraisers for lobbyists, says federal lobbyists registrar"
By SIMON DOYLE
The Hill Times
Published March 3, 2008

Canada's federal Lobbyists Registrar Michael Nelson has delivered a stern warning to federal lobbyists, saying that they "place themselves in jeopardy" of breaching the Lobbyists Code of Conduct if they are both registered to lobby and working on political fundraising or electoral campaigns.

"The registrar has a strong view that registered lobbyists should not work on federal political campaigns, as they place themselves in jeopardy of breaching the code, and the registrar feels pretty strongly about that," Landon Stewart, a spokeswoman for Mr. Nelson, told The Hill Times in an interview.

The opinion comes on the heels of a Feb. 18 Federal Court decision that supported a previous decision by former ethics counsellor Howard Wilson, who did not view political fundraising by registered lobbyists as a breach of the Code of Conduct, an ethical rulebook for lobbyists. Mr. Nelson previously said he would not comment on the issue while it was before the courts, but added that he takes a broader view of the Code of Conduct than his predecessor, Mr. Wilson.

"This is big news," Guy Giorno, an expert in the federal lobbying law (who is also working on the Conservatives' national campaign team), told The Hill Times last week. "It may be that he didn't want to interfere with the court proceedings, and now that the court proceeding is done, the registrar can actually state the position that he believes in."

Mr. Giorno added: "I think it's a great position going forward. I think it's the right decision."

In a follow-up email, Ms. Stewart said the registrar expressed the same opinion to lobbyists in advance of the 2006 general election. She clarified that registered lobbyists could be in breach of the code for either political fundraising or political campaign work.

"Care should be exercised in all cases," she wrote. "The possibility of a breach would logically increase in instances where there is a connection between the current lobbying assignment(s) of the lobbyists and the beneficiary of the political campaign work that the lobbyist is performing, be it a party, or an individual."

Ethics-in-government advocacy group Democracy Watch filed a court application in November 2006, asking the Federal Court to review a decision of the former ethics counselor, Mr. Wilson, in the case of lobbyist and former Liberal MP Barry Campbell. Mr. Wilson's decision said that Mr. Campbell had not broken the Code of Conduct when, in 1999, as a lobbyist for APCO Canada and several financial sector clients, he organized a fundraiser for then-Liberal MP Jim Peterson, secretary of state for financial institutions, raising about $70,000.

Mr. Nelson's office supported Mr. Wilson's decision in the case involving Mr. Campbell. Although the registrar would not comment on the case while it was before the courts, in a letter to Democracy Watch in October 2006, Mr. Nelson said that after interviews with key individuals and an examination of pertinent documents relating to the fundraiser, he did not find that Mr. Campbell had broken Rule 8 of the code, which says that "lobbyists shall not place public office holders in a conflict of interest" by proposing or taking any action that constitutes "improper influence."

However Mr. Nelson also said he intended to interpret the code more broadly than his predecessor, Mr. Wilson. "It would be unfair to retroactively impose my approach to enforcement of the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct upon lobbyists who operated under the previous approach to enforcing the Code," he wrote.

The Lobbyists' Code of Conduct sets out ethical rules for lobbyists. Although there are no penalties for breaking the code, it is viewed as a "name and shame" form of accountability because the Registrar of Lobbyists publicly reports breaches to Parliament.

Lobbyists in recent times have found themselves in trouble for working on political or fundraising campaigns while they are lobbying. In November 2006, then-Heritage ministerBev Oda (Durham, Ont.) faced criticism after news reports revealed that Charlotte Bell, vice-president of regulatory affairs at CanWest Global Communications Corp., helped plan a $250 per-person fundraiser for Ms. Oda in Toronto, where then-Industry Minister Maxime Bernier (Beauce, Que.) was also invited to speak. The Industry and Heritage ministers together develop copyright, telecom, and broadcast policies.

Amid the criticism, Ms. Oda cancelled the planned fundraiser, and said she had not realized Ms. Bell was a lobbyist. Since then, the federal Conservative Party has also instituted a policy that bans federal lobbyists from working on its national campaigns.

Duff Conacher, coordinator of Democracy Watch, said Mr. Nelson's comments are too vague to have any meaning, and that the registrar must issue an official interpretation to enforce the rules, called an interpretation bulletin. "He has to, or it doesn't mean anything. A statement from his spokesperson means absolutely nothing," Mr. Conacher said.

Hugh Scott, president of the Government Relations Institute of Canada, considered the voice of the federal lobbying industry, said the association advises lobbyists to abide by the opinions of the registrar. Lobbyists who work in-house for associations or companies should avoid affiliations with parties, he said, because they must represent their industry or sector to all political parties. Consultant lobbyists who work on political campaigns, however, should simply follow the advice of the registrar.

"It's as simple as that," he said, pointing to Capital Hill Group's Herb Metcalfe, who stopped working as a registered lobbyist while he does political work for Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, Que.) "He's trying to follow the current culture in legislation, as much as possible," Mr. Scott said.

Ms. Stewart wrote last week that registered lobbyists who work on political campaigns could be in breach of various sections of the code, including its principles on transparency, conflict of interest, and confidentiality. "Lobbyists need to read the entire code and take appropriate measures. Some lobbyists have already de-registered in anticipation of working on a potential election campaign. For them, it seemed the prudent action to take," she said.

The Feb. 19 Federal Court decision, handed down by Justice Orville Frenette, found that Mr. Nelson's decision was a "reasonable" one when he supported the opinion that Mr. Campbell had not broken the code.

Mr. Campbell, president of Campbell Strategies in Toronto, applauded the prompt court decision, which was issued just a month after it was heard in a Toronto courtroom. "It agrees with the interpretation of the registrar, that things were done properly," Mr. Campbell said. "Peterson and I have effectively been vindicated by this judgment, and it's about time." Mr. Campbell went on to add: "It basically says to them [Democracy Watch], 'Enough is enough.'"

But Mr. Conacher said he hopes to appeal the court decision because he views it as flawed. "He makes factual errors, legal errors, and does not explain in any way, shape or form, how it's possible that the registrar's ruling is reasonable," Mr. Conacher said of Justice Frenette's decision. "He just says it is."

The court ruling also forces Democracy Watch to pay the legal fees of Mr. Campbell and the government because the court application "caused the respondents to incur substantial costs to defend themselves," the decision said.

Mr. Conacher said that awarding costs to the respondents came as a blow to Democracy Watch, a non-profit organization. "It will be a blow, especially when it's made on a basis that's wrong," he said. "It's just crazy, what can I say. It's just so hard to have clear ethics rules enforced."

---

For those who missed it: Alberta regs

2009-10-22T13:28:00.000-07:00

For those who missed it (e.g., me), the Alberta legislature proclaimed its new Lobbying Act into force on Sept. 28. That makes a tally of six provinces that have lobbying regulatory regimes (Alberta, Quebec, Ontario, BC, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador).

Fasken Martineau has prepared a handy briefing on the new law.

Always register ... or not

2009-10-20T09:13:00.000-07:00

Is arranging a meeting a registrable lobbying activity? Under normal circumstances, yes. Lobbyists tend to say, when in doubt, register. Then again, if it's just one meeting about a proposal to build a mega-yacht international marina in Victoria, maybe it's not strictly necessary under the law--especially if the lobbyist doesn't recall arranging the meeting and all he did was offer strategic advice. Hmm.

This just in ... kind of

2009-10-19T13:09:00.000-07:00

Received by tip: Charles King, formerly with Earnscliffe, has taken up a post at Shaw Cable as VP of government relations. Indeed, it's listed right here on the website of GRIC, where King is president (i.e., not king). And after a little searching, I see Cartt.ca reported it on Oct. 1! There ya go.

Moves to H&K

2009-10-19T08:07:00.000-07:00

Elizabeth Roscoe, a senior official with the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, is joining Hill and Knowlton's Ottawa office. Roscoe worked on Stephen Harper's 2006 transition team and at one point her name was popularized in Harper's so-called "Roscoe amendment."

Is H&K expanding? Hill and Knowlton Canada, with Tory lobbyist Goldy Hyder as general manager and senior VP, also recently hired Roch Charron and Chris Vivone.

Search is on at MPAA

2009-10-19T05:55:00.000-07:00

Dan Glickman, chairman and CEO of the high-powered MPAA, confirms he is leaving in September 2010 (Variety, Politico). Contenders for the job include Rep. Harold Ford Jr., Disney lobbyist Richard Bates, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Rep. Howard Berman.

Lobbying for ... Sudan

2009-10-17T11:28:00.000-07:00

Of all the clients not to lobby for ... I think the government of Sudan might be one.