OPINION: What should communications policy look like under a Carney government?

With the federal campaign over, effort is shifting from predicting the election’s outcome to what a Liberal government under Mark Carney might actually do. Communications policy is no exception, and absent the more central focus seen in previous elections there is room for speculation. But the two major forces driving voting decisions this election offer a clear path forward for the new government’s approach to communications policy, one that rests on a foundation of sovereignty and competition. Communications policy was not a headline of Carney’s platform, and details were scarce aside from boosting CBC/Radio-Canada funding, digital infrastructure investment, and action against the most severe of online harms. Liberals were not alone in this. Though the Conservative platform promised an “oligopoly review” and the Green's pledged to “break up telecom monopolies,” the handling of U.S. President Donald Trump, efforts to address the housing crisis, and a gamut of tax cuts consumed the most electoral oxygen. But if there ever was an election where communications policy deserved time in the spotlight, it was this one. Canadians continue to struggle under a cost-of-living crisis and continue to pay outsized rates for connectivity. More recent and existential, the souring of our relationship with the U.S. throws cold water on a core assumption of our approach to communications policy: that American platforms operate independent of U.S. national interests. Voters’ preferences reflected this, with the cost of living and the Trump administration forming the top issues influencing voting decisions, largely split along generational lines. The assumption that Canada can treat the global companies deeply integrated into our communications infrastructure as neutral conduits has crashed into the reality of the U.S. government’s newfound erratic posture to allies. The seating chart of the Trump inauguration spoke volumes, and although the U.S. appears to be staying the course on its own antitrust efforts against Big Tech, the stage is set for deeper collaboration or coercion between the U.S. administration and major tech platforms. Look no further than Elon Musk’s role as head of DOGE, Meta Platform Inc.’s Mark Zuckerberg’s repeated overtures to the White House, and Amazon’s backtracking on its plan to break out tariffs on customer bills. So, what then should a Carney government’s approach to regulation be? First, there are important pieces of unfinished business from the previous parliament that should be quickly resurrected and improved upon. An excellent starting point would be strengthening and passing the enhanced privacy and cybersecurity protections of C-26 and C-27. Added to this mix should be an explicit focus on preserving communications sovereignty, keeping Canadian data and internet traffic within Canada, support for alternatives to American providers across the communication system, and a firm stance against the acquisition of infrastructure stakes by American investors. But despite this well-earned wave of anti-American sentiment, there are lessons to be learned from our neighbours when it comes to use of competition as a tool for rebalancing our communications landscape. Departing from an approach that has focused on redistributing the spoils of monopoly, Canada should put its newly strengthened competition policy to work and pursue legislation to break open economic bottlenecks across the communications sector. For the federal government this means standing behind the Competition Bureau’s challenge of Google’s online advertising dominance, likely to incur rebuke from the Trump administration despite their effectively parallel case. It also means continuing to learn from challenges to gatekeepers in peer jurisdictions. These range from Epic Games’ successful antitrust case against Apple’s app store monopoly to legislation like Senator Mike Lee’s AMERICA Act which would prevent conflicts of interest in the online advertising market. A communications policy focused on protecting sovereignty and competition benefits from the self-reinforcing feedback loop between the two goals. That a foreign company has been able to censor Canadian news outlets is unacceptable, especially in the context of a more belligerent American state. Recognizing these platforms as important communications channels with obligations to ensure Canadian news is accessible supports a greater diversity of voices while asserting our ability to shape our own information environment. To that end, C-18 should be replaced by must-carry and non-discrimination rules for Canadian content with news industry supports generated through more generally applied revenue raising tools like the Digital Services Tax. While the foundation of C-18 was a correct understanding of the imbalance in the bargaining power between news organizations and online advertising monopolies, it did little to change that balance. The test of Canada’s communications policy going forward should be whether it reinforces our sovereignty while bringing competition to monopolized markets. While protecting our sovereignty is a national issue, Canada is not facing the task alone. The work to mitigate the vulnerability of our communications system to coercion is shared by countries around the world. Just like with the Digital Services Tax, Canada’s efforts to reassert control can be buttressed with the support of likeminded countries and blocs like the European Union. Rather than an us-versus-them approach that would see us fall victim to our familiar domestic monopolies, a more sovereign Canada will collaborate more closely with a diverse set of allies that share the common purpose of sovereign and competitive communications systems. Well before the second Trump administration, Canadian policy-makers understood that effective communications policy was foundational to our sovereignty. While a rude awakening, the changing relationship with the U.S. is an opportunity to revisit the assumptions that have left our country dependent and vulnerable to coercion. The Carney government should take that opportunity. Keldon Bester is the executive director of the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project (CAMP) and a fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI). The Wire Report welcomes submissions of opinion pieces from outside contributors who are knowledgeable on the subject matter discussed. For more information on what should be included with opinion piece submissions, click here: hilltimes.com/submit-an-article. Submissions can be sent to editor Hannah Daley at hdaley@thewirereport.ca. To see previous opinion piece submissions, click here: thewirereport.ca/tag/opinion/.

OPINION: What should communications policy look like under a Carney government?

Opinion |
By Keldon Bester
| May 7, 2025

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

OPINION: What should communications policy look like under a Carney government?

Opinion | By Keldon Bester | May 7, 2025

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Key Liberal ministers and parliamentary secretaries re-elected, NDP counterparts shut out in election

OPINION: Safeguarding Canada’s sovereignty, economy, democratic institutions depends on strengthening our cybersecurity posture

Rogers urges next federal government to ‘encourage’ investment in Canada; eying potential for third-party investment in sports assets

Parties differ on plans for CBC, digital policy in federal election platforms

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Opinion |
By Keldon Bester
| May 7, 2025