Power, Profiteering, Plutocracy and CRTC Decision 1000-121

Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2021-281

Intervention by Keith M. Mahar, September 11^th 2021

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission:

Chairperson Ian Scott
Vice-Chairpersons: Dr. Caroline J. Simard & Christianne Laizner
Commissioners: Ellen C. Desmond, Alicia Barin, Monique Lafontaine, Joanne T. Levy, Nirmala Naidoo & Claire Anderson.
Secretary General Claude Doucet
Senior General Counsel Stephen Millington
Scott Hutton Chief of Consumer, Research and Communications

I am filing this intervention as a private citizen and in good faith to address the application by Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers) to acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of Shaw Communications Inc. (Shaw).

It is a matter record that I am a former broadcasting industry insider with knowledge of the subject-matter presented in this document.

Furthermore, I request standing to appear as an intervenor at the public hearing in order to expand on the issues and facts presented in this intervention.

For the record, I strongly oppose the application by Rogers, as the corporation possesses undue influence in Canada, and its excessive power has been exploited to the detriment of citizens, consumers, its competitors, and the democratic process itself.

Regulatory Capture

As evidenced by documents incorporated into this intervention, Rogers has been a direct beneficiary of the regulatory capture of the CRTC for more than two decades.

To start, it is helpful to consider my intervention in context of the recent decision by the Commission to reverse its 2019 decision to lower wholesale Internet rates charged by the largest carriers like Bell and Rogers to their smaller competitors.

I fully support the current efforts by OpenMedia, TekSavvy, Ontario Big City Mayors (OBCM) and the thousands ordinary Canadians to hold the CRTC to account and force it to implement the lower wholesale Internet rates, as originally scheduled.

On a positive note, this CRTC backflip has served to raise public awareness of one direct potential cost of regulatory capture; the price of services to consumers.

OpenMedia asserts: “While our government is busy proposing new Internet regulators, they’ve allowed the interests and views of Big Telecom to fully capture our existing telecom regulator, the CRTC.”[1]

Professor G. William Domhoff acknowledges that regulatory agencies are often controlled by the corporate entities that they are entrusted to regulate and regulatory capture is one of the means used by wealthy elites to dominate government and obtain “subsidies and procedural rulings that are in their short-run interests.”[2]

For the purpose of resolving this specific regulatory issue, it is extremely helpful that the OBCM adopted a motion to urge “the federal cabinet, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and Innovation, Science and Technology Minister Francois-Phillippe Champagne to overrule the CRTC’s reversal and immediately implement the 2019 rates order.[3]

However, another potential cost of regulatory capture is unfair competition.

TekSavvy’s Andy Kaplan-Myrth is dead on when he states that the system has been “gamed” to benefit powerful vested interests.

“Today’s CRTC decision is a tombstone on the grave of telecom competition in Canada” said Andy Kaplan-Myrth, TekSavvy’s VP of Regulatory & Carrier Affairs “Canada’s largest and most profitable telecom companies have successfully gamed the system with impunity. As competitors begin to exit the market, Canadian consumers will pay the price”.[4]

Unfortunately, cabinet ministers are part of “the system” and share responsibility for it being gamed against smaller competitors in the Canadian telecom industry.

One researcher, commissioned by Friends of Canadian Broadcasting (Friends), noted in 2004 that in terms of the Commission’s composition that, “the appointment process remains vested with the Prime Minister, who directly appoints every CBC Board member and CRTC Commissioner.”[5]

In fact, there is a specific regulatory scheme which substantiates that the Commission has been totally captured by vested interests; the system has been gamed; successive prime ministers are part of the problem; the application by Rogers is not in the public interest; and Canadians are entitled to a public inquiry.

Ironically, the issue involves a retail cable rate reversal decision made by the CRTC before the Internet was an integral part of everyday life for citizens.

Understanding this one particular regulation enacted by the CRTC is central to comprehending the case of corruption being addressed in this intervention. For the sake of brevity, this subordinate law is hereinafter referred to as “Regulation 18(6.3)”.[6]

Regulation 18(6.3)

Millions of cable subscribers were totally unaware that they were legally entitled to basic cable rate reductions starting on 1 January 1995, totaling approximately $600 million over the initial five-year period.

Regulation 18(6.3) ensured that they never got their rate reductions and done in a manner which reinforces the assertion by Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz that: “Those at the top have learned how to suck out money from the rest in ways that the rest are hardly aware of – that is their true innovation.”[7]

Regulation 18(6.3) permitted cable monopolies to avoid giving the rate reductions if they simply voluntarily donated 50% of the scheduled rate reduction for each of their subscribers to a fund, one designed to subsidize the operations of production companies with non-repayable grants–in other words free money to private companies.

It is important to stress that Friends of Canadian Broadcasting (Friends) strongly urged the CRTC not to enact Regulation 18(6.3) and warned that the Commission would pay an extremely high price “if” the regulation “was properly understood by consumers.”

Friends of Canadian Broadcasting considers the Commission’s proposal a breach of faith with seven million Canadian households. If properly understood by consumers, the proposed action will fan general public mistrust of an important public institution, and thereby threaten public support for broadcast regulation in general, and the public good which that regulator has been designed to contribute.

Along with many other public interest groups, Friends asked the Commission in March 1993 to ensure a contribution from the cable industry’s very substantial profits for such a purpose. Instead the Commission chose to impose a ‘tax’ upon cable subscribers to promote Canadian programming — with the cable monopolies anointed as tax collectors. We have publicly described this stance as one whereby the CRTC is “enabling the industry to pick the pockets of its captive subscribers for this purpose.”

We doubt the Commission’s authority to impose such a tax. We also doubt the Commission’s authority to establish arms-length agencies to collect and dispense cable subscribers’ funds for production purposes.[8]

• Appendix 1 is a copy of the submission to the CRTC by Friends.
•  

Consumers were not given an opportunity to understand Regulation 18(6.3), as the CRTC permitted the cable companies to collect the Regulation 18(6.3) fees under a false pretence, a deceptive method of collection that I have publicly described as “government-regulated fraud.”[9]

In addition, Regulation 18(6.3) was inequitable and Rogers subscribers paid the highest cost for the regulatory scheme.

For example, each basic cable subscriber in Newmarket, Ontario paid a premium of $5.04 in January 1996 for Regulation 18(6.3), simply because Rogers made a voluntary donation of $2.52 to the Cable Production Fund.

As a result of that ‘voluntary donation’, these subscribers paid $22.65 for cable that month instead of $17.61,[10] a premium of over 28%.

Furthermore, these ratepayers were not notified by Rogers about Regulation 18(6.3) or its cost or that the company was pocketing $2.52 for doing nothing for the $5.04 premium except transferring $2.52 to the Cable Production Fund.

To add insult to injury, they had been notified by Rogers that the $5.04 premium was to partially pay for equipment that was required to provide their basic cable service.

The Regulation 18(6.3) saga is an illuminating demonstration of how the power of large companies in the broadcasting industry can be used to manufacture information asymmetry in their own self-interest, by producing ignorant citizens who are unable to protect their own legal, financial and democratic rights.

As the federal election is in process, I trust that Canadian politicians are well aware of how important media companies are to the success or failure of their respective campaigns.

Profiteering in Canada

I’ve researched and written two reports specifically about Regulation 18(6.3) and its aftermath. However, I still do not know which commissioners actually voted to adopt the highly unorthodox regulation because that information is kept secret by the CRTC, unless a commissioner opts to publish their name with a dissenting opinion.

• Appendix 2 is a copy of my former intervention to the CRTC in 2007: “Profiteering in the Name of Culture”.
• Appendix 3 is a copy of my report in 2015: “One Media Law: A case study of regulatory capture, systemic corruption and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’[11] (hereinafter referred to as “One Media Law”).

The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau

Five years ago, I sent information and documents about Regulation 18(6.3) to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and requested that he initiate a public inquiry into related evidence of long-term systemic corruption at the CRTC.[12]

• Appendix 4 is a copy of the open letter that I sent to Canada’s current prime minister.

In addition, I also notified CRTC Chairperson Ian Scott about my allegations of corruption, shortly after Mr. Trudeau appointed him to the Commission, and requested that he provide me with specific information related to the matter; which he did not provide.[13]

I appreciate that Friends posted copies of my open letter to the prime minister and One Media Law online.[14]

Mr. Trudeau never acknowledged receipt of my open letter and documents that were delivered to his office by FedEx, as requested.

Nor did Mr. Trudeau initiate a public inquiry, as requested.

To the contrary, the Trudeau government recently introduced Bill C-10 to increase the authority of the CRTC in Canadian society.

For the record, Mr. Trudeau is not the first prime minister to turn a blind eye to the evidence of regulatory capture and systemic corruption at the CRTC.

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper

On my behalf, lawyer Paul Armarego sent information respecting my allegations long-term systemic corruption at the CRTC to four politicians (Stephen Harper, Gilles Duceppe, Jack Layton and Jim Harris), during the 2006 federal election.[15]

In his correspondence, Mr. Armarego addressed the existence of an unpublished regulatory decision (hereinafter referred to as “CRTC Decision 1000-121”) and CRTC File 1000-121.

• Appendix 5 is a copy of Mr. Armarego’s submission to the politicians, on my behalf.

As documented, my allegations included the following:

• the CRTC adopting apparently illegal regulations to enable corporations to overcharge several million Canadians for basic cable television service;
• the CRTC permitting cable television companies to misrepresent the purpose of fees to consumers;
• false and misleading testimony by senior CRTC officials to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage;
• the CRTC distributing false and misleading information to journalists;
• evidence that millions of consumers being legally entitled to rate reductions and retrospective rate refunds; and
• Canadian Heritage participating in the distribution of funds to private production companies that were obtained from consumers under false pretence.

Mr. Harper did not reply to Mr. Armarego respecting this matter.

However, after Mr. Harper became prime minister he appointed former CRTC commissioner Beverley Oda–who had direct prior knowledge of Regulation 18(6.3)–as the minister responsible for oversight of the ‘independent’ quasi-judicial regulatory tribunal.

On 27 March 2006, CRTC File 1000-121 was destroyed along with all of the documents stored in the file at that time.[16]

CRTC officials have repeatedly refused to identify why CRTC File 1000-121 was destroyed at that particular time or who initiated the destruction of the file and documents.

On 7 February 2008, I testified at a CRTC public hearing. Although I was given 15 minutes for my presentation by Commission Rita Cugini, who was chairing the proceeding, I required less than three minutes to say what I wanted recorded on the public record.

Good afternoon.  The Commission has been provided with my research report, “Profiteering in the Name of Culture.” Included with this report are a number of documents, one being a submission that I spearheaded by Cablewatch [sic][17], which was filed with the CRTC on May 20th, 1996, as well as a related decision made by the CRTC on June 25th, 1996, a highly unorthodox decision that has never been made public.  It concerns the authority of the CRTC to require Canadians to pay a surcharge on the cost of cable TV in order to subsidize private cable television and production companies.

The CRTC ruled on June 25th, 1996 in its unpublished decision, that Parliament had granted the Commission the authority to require consumers to pay a surcharge to fund subsidies to cable television and production companies.

However, at the same time, the CRTC also ruled that the consumers being required to pay the subsidies were not entitled to notice that they were being required to pay subsidies to the companies, or the monthly cost of the subsidies that they were being required to pay to the companies.

This undemocratic regulatory scheme has continued to the present day.  A conservative estimate of the redistribution of wealth under this program is more than $1.3 billion dollars since January 1995.

The CRTC has refused to provide me with additional information to enable a more precise amount to be calculated, but the information does exist and is available to the Commission.

This is the third time that I have appeared before the CRTC to address this issue. It is still my position that Canadian consumers were deliberately misled, that influential corporations were unjustly enriched, that several government policies were violated by the CRTC, and that Canadians are entitled to be told the truth about this company subsidy program.

I am here to simply direct your attention to the documents that I have placed on the public file and ask you to put an end to this deceptive practice.

I strongly recommend a judicial review of this issue.

Furthermore, CRTC legal counsel Shari Faisher [sic][18] notified me last August that the Commission had destroyed the unpublished decision on March 27th, 2006.  Ms Faisher [sic] refused to identify who at the Commission had authorized the destruction of the unpublished decision or why it had been destroyed at that particular time.

Weeks before the decision was shredded, my legal counsel notified Stephen Harper, Gilles Duceppe, Jack Layton and Jim Harris of the unpublished decision, where it was contained in File 1000-121 as evidence of potential illegal activities related to the companies’ [sic][19] subsidy program.

Earlier today I launched the website “Mediascam.com”, the purpose of which is to raise awareness of this outstanding issue for interested parties.

I thank you for the time and I am open to any questions.

Thank you.[20]

Despite the fact that I had submitted copies of the 20 May 1996 submission by Cable Watch, explaining in detail the genesis of CRTC Decision 1000-121, and a copy of CRTC Decision 1000-121 to the CRTC as part of its consultation process,[21] Commissioner Cugini stated on the public record that the Commission had no knowledge of the subject-matter and clumsily alleged that CRTC Decision 1000-121 did not exist, while seemingly contradicting herself at the same time.

Thank you, Mr. Mahar, for your submission and your presentation here today.

For the record, you do refer to this unpublished decision a number of times, both in your presentation [sic] and here this afternoon.  An unpublished decision is not a decision.  A decision is not a decision until it is published.

None of us was [sic] at the Commission in 1996, so I don’t know what the genesis of this letter is, or why this decision was never published, but it is not a decision until it is published.  I just wanted to put that on that on the record.[22]

That same evening, I wrote and issued a press release that was distributed by CNW and picked up by Reuters and a number of other news sources.

Since I wanted journalists to read the online copy of the submission by Mr. Armarego, I used an outdated figure for the cost of Regulation18(6.3), $1.2 billion, because I did not want journalists to be confused. Moreover, it was correct anyhow, as the cost was more than either $1.2 billion or $1.3 billion.

In any event, my campaign resulted in debate the following day in the House of Commons

On 8 February 2008, Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) stated in the House of Commons: “We are talking about more than $1.2 billion owed to Canadians. Would the government tell us why ordinary Canadians are overpaying for cable services and why the government has done diddly-squat to stop it?”[23]

Ms. Davies did not proceed with her line of questioning after the Hon. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage, CPC) misled Parliament, saying: “We referred the issues to which she is referring to the CRTC.[24]

The Honourable Paul Martin.

On 6 September 2004, I provided information and documents respecting the case of systemic corruption to Prime Minister, while the public inquiry into the federal government sponsorship program and government corruption related to the Liberal Party of Canada was a particularly popular topic in the country at that time.

• Appendix 6 is a copy of my submission to then Prime Minister Paul Martin.

In the submission, I identified in that my former campaign to raise public consciousness of Regulation 18(6.3) had been interrupted by severe mental illness.

Despite the identified cost of corruption in the sponsorship program being far less costly, and significantly better value for money than the Regulation 18(6.3) company subsidy program, no action was taken by the Martin government to address the identified wrongdoing.

The Right Honourable Jean Chrétien

It is a matter of record that I started to publicly campaign in March 1995 for an investigation into the CRTC forcing unaware citizens to cross-subsidize the cable industry’s capacity to offer future services on the Internet, specifically addressing that the scheme was “a direct transfer of wealth from the public to these privileged corporations.”

Canadian consumers are being overcharged for cable television in order to raise revenue to pay for the development of the information highway, an asset to be owned by major corporations. …

There are three fundamental objections to the CRTC agenda to finance the information highway by permitting customers to be overcharged for services.

First, this tax is invisible to consumers. Canadians should not be exposed to such a deceptive method of taxation.

Second, Canadians are not the direct beneficiaries of their own taxation. We are being charged inflated prices by companies protected from competition to pay for an infrastructure that will be owned by these same business interests. This action results in a direct transfer of wealth from the public to these privileged corporations.

Third, Members of Parliament have not been informed fully of the CRTC’s information highway agenda. As a result, it never has been debated in the House of Commons, and Canadians remain unaware of the subject matter. Therefore, no elected official is accountable for the tax, its cost,

its regressive nature or its beneficiaries.

Since MPs do not know about this new tax, they cannot protect our financial interests, resulting in “taxation without representation” and undermining democracy.[25]

Furthermore, I was able to generate debate in the House of Commons about the ‘hidden tax’ agenda later that same month, with questions directed to then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien about Regulation 18(6.3) and the CRTC’s hidden tax agenda.[26]

Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

On January 1, 1995 the CRTC launched an innovative tax grab on Canadian cable subscribers. It ignored its previous decision to issue a rebate to consumers which would have caused cable rates to decrease. Instead, half of the money will go to line the pockets of cable giants such as Rogers.

Why will the Prime Minister not protect the interests of Canadian consumers by getting rid of this hidden tax?

For some reason, Mr. Chrétien opted to not personally answer the questions that were directed to him at that time.[27]

With the notable exception of Liberal MP Dan McTeague, there was no political will by elected representatives in the Chrétien government to address the CRTC’s hidden and anti-democratic ‘tax’ on millions of Canadians.

As a result of the failure of the Chrétien government to address the governance issue, I assembled a talented pro bono legal team (Christopher K. Leafloor, Neil Milton, J. Blair Drummie), and initiated a strategic legal proceeding against Rogers.

The objective was to establish that cable subscribers were legally entitled to written notice of Regulation 18(6.3), its monthly cost, and retroactive refunds. However, Rogers did not want the Ontario Court (General Division) to rule on the legal issue. Instead, Rogers wanted to protect the right of the CRTC to determine the matter.

Rogers subsequently won a motion on jurisdiction in Mahar v. Rogers Cablesystems Ltd., stopping the court from ruling on the legal merit of my case. Justice Sharpe ruled that I had to first request the CRTC to rule on my right of prior written notice from Rogers to charge the Regulation 18(6.3) fee, and if unsatisfied with the decision by the CRTC, I had the right to appeal any such decision to the Federal Court of Appeal.

Rogers requested the Justice Sharpe to order me to pay its $55,485 legal costs. Instead, the judge designated me as a public interest litigant, and made a precedent-setting decision on costs in my favour – one that continues to influence costs jurisprudence in public interest cases in the world – ruling that I did not have to pay any costs to Rogers. Justice Sharpe wrote in his decision that my case was “brought on a bona fide basis” and “raised a genuine issue of law of significance to the public at large.”[28]

• Appendix 7 is a copy of Mahar v. Rogers Cablesystems Ltd.

Getting the CRTC to make a decision on the legal right of Canadian cable subscribers to get written notice about Regulation 18(6.3) was akin putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
I anticipated that the CRTC was either going to automatically rule against me or try to bury any such complaint altogether.

In addition, there were several serious administrative law issues for the CRTC to be held accountable for respecting Regulation 18(6.3).

Consequently, my legal counsel and I started working on a single complaint of unlawful activities against all of the cable television companies collecting Regulation 18(6.3) fees under false pretence, and against the CRTC itself.

On November 28, 1995 – Mr. Leafloor, Mr. McTeague and I conducted a Parliament Hill press conference to address that a complaint was being submitted to the CRTC, alleging that the CRTC and cable companies had broken the law.

That same day, the complaint was filed to the CRTC under the name Cable Watch Citizens’ Association (Cable Watch).

The Commission subsequently established CRTC File 1000-121to deal with the Cable Watch complaint that the CRTC, Rogers, Shaw and other corporations had violated the law with respect to Regulation 18(6.3) and that millions of Canadians were legally entitled to refunds.

Two days later, the Minister of Canadian Heritage was urged by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) to “swiftly” establish an independent review of the Cable Watch complaint.

We are in receipt of the complaint filed by Cable Watch, an organization founded by Keith Mahar, a cable subscriber from Ontario.

Mr. Mahar’s complaint sets out a number of allegations concerning the decision made by the CRTC following the Structural Public Hearing for the cable industry in June of 1993. These allegations raise issues as to the procedural correctness of the decision which are serious and potentially important for the cable industry as a whole, and cable consumers.

While we advance no position with respect to the merits of the jurisdictional concerns contained in the complaint, we believe they are of such importance that the government should swiftly take steps to initiate an independent review of Mr. Mahar’s complaints and to take appropriate action if necessary.[29]

A quarter of a century–and billions of dollars redistributed to powerful and privileged corporations– later, Canadians are still waiting for the independent review requested by PIAC on 28 November 1995.

CRTC File 1000-121

Following are copies of the key documents formerly stored in File 1000-121 and destroyed by an unidentified person at the CRTC on 27 March 2006

• Appendix 8 is a copy of the Cable Watch complaint of unlawful to the CRTC,
  filed pursuant to s. 12 of the Broadcasting Act on 28 November 1995.
• Appendix 9 is a copy of correspondence from the CRTC to Rogers CCTA,
  dated 8 March 1996.
• Appendix 10 is a copy of correspondence from the CRTC to Rogers,
  dated 22 March 1996.
• Appendix 11 is a copy of correspondence from CCTA to the CRTC,
  dated 22 March 1996.
• Appendix 12 is a copy of a 6-page submission from CCTA to Cable Watch,
  dated 29 March 1996.
• Appendix 13 is a copy of a 7-page submission from Rogers to Cable Watch,
  dated 29 March 1996.
• Appendix 14 is a copy of correspondence from Cable Watch to the CRTC,
  dated 1 April 1996.
• Appendix 15 is a copy of correspondence from Cable Watch to the CRTC,
  dated 15 April 1996.
• Appendix 16 is a copy a copy of correspondence from Cable Watch to the CRTC,
  Dated 20 May 1996.
• Appendix 17 is a copy of a 101-page submission from Cable Watch to the CRTC, dated 20 May 1996.
• Appendix 18 is a copy of CRTC Decision 1000-121 from the CRTC to Cable Watch, dated 25 June 1996.

CRTC Decision 1000-121 ruled that the CRTC and cable companies were innocent of unlawful activities and Canadian cable subscribers were not legally entitled to any more information about Regulation 18(6.3) that they had already been given.

I am requesting that the Commission re-establish CRTC File 1000-121 and return these documents to their proper place in that file.

Furthermore, I am not alleging any parties have engaged in criminal activity in relation to these matters, as that it is the role for a public inquiry or the Federal Court of Appeal to determine.

Application by Rogers

In my opinion, and based on my knowledge of the facts addressed in this intervention, if ever a media company did not deserve to get approval to increase its excessive power and undue influence in Canada, it is Rogers.

Furthermore, approval of the application by Rogers may not even be unlawful, as Section 3(1)(d)(i) of the Broadcasting Act declares: “It is hereby declared as the broadcasting policy for Canada that the Canadian broadcasting system should serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada.” [30]

I am looking forward to being permitted by the CRTC for the opportunity during its public hearing in November to expand on exactly why approval of the application by Rogers is contrary to the public interest.

Disclosure

Finally, five years ago, the world-leading expert on the stigma of mental illness sent an open letter to Prime Minister in relation to my pursuit of a public hearing into evidence of long-term corruption at CRTC.

In that open letter, Distinguished Professor Patrick W. Corrigan stated to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau:

If you choose to initiate an investigation into the company subsidy scheme as requested by Mr. Mahar, there inevitably will be media coverage of his public interest campaign to address this issue, including his personal experience of severe mental illness and recovery. Knowledge of Mr. Mahar’s story will serve to challenge the stigma of mental illness, raise awareness of recovery, and inspire hope for people with mental health problems and their families.[31]

• Appendix 19 is a copy of Professor Corrigan’s open letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

It is my sincere hope that the CRTC will no longer try to thwart my pursuit of securing a public inquiry into this affair using dirty tactics.

Furthermore, if anyone thinks that they are capable of stopping me from telling Canadians the truth about this scandal, and wants to somehow turn this task into a type of contest of wills, I’m your huckelberry.

That being said, it is not in the public interest to bet against recovery.

Only a bona fide fool would think that I am not going to start using Twitter @1activist to inform interested parties when additional relevant documents are posted on keithmahar.com.

Keith Mahar

[1] https://openmedia.org/article/item/internet-sos-openmedia-2021-federal-election-platform (retrieved on 10 September 2021)

[2] G. William Domhoff (1979). The Powers That Be: Processes of Ruling Class Domination in America. New York: Random House, p.25.

[3] Trevor Terfloth & Ellwood Shreve, ‘TekSavvy praises Big City Mayors’ resolution asking cabinet to overturn

CRTC decision’, Chatham Daily News, 16 August 2021, p. A19.

[4] https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/crtc-decision-will-kill-telecom-competition-guarantees-even-higher-prices-teksavvy-834247755.html (retrieved on 10 September 2021).

[5] Abigail Friendly, ‘Process and Criteria in Public Broadcasting Governance: Appointments to CBC and CRTC’, August 2004, p.2.

[6] Subsection 18(6.3) of the Cable Television Regulations, 1986: SOR/94-133. Enacted into law on January 25, 1994, Canada Gazette, Part II, Vol. 128, No. 3, p.995, at pp.999-1000.

[7] Joseph Stiglitz (2013). The Price of Inequality. New York: Penguin Group, p. 40.

[8] Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, “Program Fund for Canadian Programming”, 17 September 1993, pp.1-2.

[9] Keith Mahar, “Canadian Television Fund: A Convenient Deception”, Canada Free Press, 13 June 2008. https://canadafreepress.com/article/canadian-television-fund-a-convenient-deception (retrieved on 11 September 2021).

[10] Correspondence to Keith Mahar from Betty MacPhee, CRTC Access to Information and Privacy Co-ordinator, 19 January 1996. Reproduced in One Media Law and Profiteering in the Name of Culture. Copy of correspondence available on request.

[11] Keith Mahar (17 August 2015) One Media Law: A case study of regulatory capture, systemic corruption and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. A copy will soon be available on keithmahar.com.

[12] Open Letter and documents sent electronically by Keith Mahar to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on 18 February 2016. Paper copies delivered by FedEx on 22 February 2016, signed for by P. Paul at front desk reception. Receipt never acknowledged despite request.

[13] Email from Keith Mahar to CRTC Chairperson Ian Scott on 1 October 2018. Response by CRTC Senior Legal Counsel Shari Fisher
on 15 October 2018. Copies available upon request.

[14] https://friends.ca/explore/article/a-case-study-of-regulatory-capture-systemic-corruption-and-the-crtc/ (retrieved on 11 September 2021)

 [15] On behalf of Keith Mahar, submission sent by Paul Armarego to Stephen Harper, Gilles Duceppe, Jack Layton & Jim Harris
on 5 January 2006. Copy of submission and appendices available on request. A copy will be available on keithmahar.com.

[16] On 11 October 2007, CRTC Legal Counsel Shari M. Fisher confirmed to Keith Mahar that CRTC File 1000-121 was destroyed on
27 March 2006 and that “no documents related to the file remain” and that “there are no materials of documents that reference Cable Watch Citizens’ Association or Cabe Watch in our Documentation Centre.” For some unidentified reason, the CRTC lawyer considered it necessary to copy her brief email response to six other officials at the Commission: John Keogh; Bernard Montigny; Robert A. Morin; Valeria Dionne; Tina Maisonneuve; Sylvie Locas. A copy of the email is available upon request and will be made available on keithmahar.com.

[17] Ibid., “Cable Watch”, p. 180.

[18] I said Shari “Fisher” in my presentation, not “Faisher”. The official transcript of the CRTC proceeding on 7 February 2008 is wrong. https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/transcripts/2008/tb0207.htm, (retrieved on 11 September 2008, pp.179-182). 15237-48.

[19] Ibid., Commissioner Cugini should have used the word “company”, as in “the company subsidy program”, 15249-51.

[20] Ibid., 15237-48.

[21] https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/ListeInterventionList/Documents.aspx?ID=58182&Lang=e (retrieved on 11 September 2021)

[22] Ibid., 15249-51.

[23] Hansard. (8 February 2008). Parliament of Canada. Oral Question Period, No. 047.  https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/39-2/house/sitting-47/hansard (retrieved on 11 September 2021)

[24] Ibid.

[25] Keith Mahar, “CRTC forces public to pay for building information highway”, The Toronto Star, 17 March 1995, p.A19.

[26] Hansard (30 March 1995) Parliament of Canada, Oral Question Period, No. 180, 11299. https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/35-1/house/sitting-180/hansard#CRTC (retrieved on 11 September 2021)

[27] Ibid.

[28] Mahar v. Rogers Cablesystems Ltd. (1995), 25 O.R. (3d) 690 (Gen. Div.).

[29] A copy of the request by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre to the Hon. Michel Dupuyon 28 November 1995 is available upon request. A copy will be posted on keithmahar.com.

[30] Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11

[31] Open Letter by Distinguished Professor Patrick W. Corrigan to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, 22.3.2016, p.2.