References: - Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Part 1, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, subsection 2(b) "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" -- [ LINK ]

References: - Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Part 1, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, subsection 2(a) "freedom of conscience and religion"; subsection 2(b) "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication", and subsection 2(d) "freedom of association" -- [ LINK ]

References: - Under the Canada Corporations Act ( 1970, c. C-32 ), media entities can be formed (just like any other corporation is formed) either under PART I: CORPORATIONS WITH SHARE CAPITAL or under PART II: CORPORATIONS WITHOUT SHARE CAPITAL -- [ LINK ]

Peer Review Comments: Media ownership is more highly concentrated in Canada than it is almost anywhere else in the industrialized world. Almost all private Canadian television stations are owned by national media conglomerates, and because of increasing cross-ownership, most newspapers are owned by the same corporations that own television and radio stations. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) waived its former rules against broadcasting companies owning newspaper assets, which allowed CanWest Global to purchase many of the Hollinger papers, for example.

The CRTC rarely denies the acquisition applications, so smaller outlets that face financial difficulties are often acquired by larger companies. So, although the CRTC does not prevent print media entities from setting up, small companies have little chance of survival.

See: - Marc Edge, "Big Media's Big Showdown", The Tyee, 17 September 2007, [ LINK ] - Canadians for Democratic Media: [ LINK ]

References: No print media licenses are required.

References: No license is required.

References: No license is required.

References: -The responsible Cabinet minister under section 5 of the Radiocommunication Act (R.S., 1985, c. R-2) -- [ LINK ] -- and the responsible Cabinet minister under section 69.3 (and the entire federal Cabinet under section 12) of the Telecommunications Act (1993, c. 38) -- [ LINK ]" target="_blank">[ LINK ] -- and the entire federal Cabinet under sections 26 and 28 of the Broadcasting Act (1991, c. 11) -- [ LINK ]" target="_blank">[ LINK ] -- have the power to not only set the policy framework conditions for, but also to approve or to reject orders with regard to, broadcasting companies, radio stations and telecommunications companies made by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

- Each of the above-mentioned Acts contains details about the fairly involved application process that anyone wanting to broadcast must go through in order to receive a license to broadcast from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), including broad policy frameworks in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act (1991, c. 11) -- http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/showtdm/cs/B-9.01 -- and section 7 of the Telecommunications Act (1993, c. 38) -- http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/showtdm/cs/T-3.4

- See also for details on broadcast licenses: [ LINK ])=en&pagename=CBSC_ON%2Fdisplay&c=Regs

Peer Review Comments: The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Canada's broadcast regulator, is very particular in giving priority to Canadian television programming and banning specialty channels like HBO. This has led to a surge in TV-signal theft over the last few years, a problem that is costing the broadcasting industry millions of dollars in lost revenue. (In the spring of 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that unauthorized reception of satellite signals is illegal.)

Also, if an American TV program is being broadcast simultaneously on locally received American and Canadian stations, the Canadian feed will be broadcast on the American channel. Critics have denounced this as a direct attack on freedom of expression.

Peer Review Comments: To avoid over-concentration of the press, the merging of press groups is under the control of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

Peer Review Comments: Media ownership is more highly concentrated in Canada than it is almost almost anywhere else in the industrialized world. Almost all private Canadian television stations are owned by national media conglomerates, and because of increasing cross-ownership, most newspapers are owned by the same corporations that own television and radio stations. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) waived its former rules against broadcasting companies owning newspaper assets, thus allowing CanWest Global to purchase many of the Hollinger papers, for example.

The CRTC rarely denies the acquisition applications, which have been controversial; stations in smaller markets have frequently had their local news programming cut back or even eliminated.

See: - Marc Edge, "Big Media's Big Showdown", The Tyee, 17 September 2007, [ LINK ] - Canadians for Democratic Media: [ LINK ]

Peer Review Comments: CRTC is a governmental body that regulates TV and radio licenses and holds meetings to decide if and under what conditions a license should be granted.

References: - There is a right of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal under section 31 of the Broadcasting Act (1991, c. 11) -- [ LINK ]

- There is a right of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal under various sections (with regard to offences and prosecutions of the Radiocommunication Act (R.S., 1985, c. R-2) -- [ LINK ]

- There is a right of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal under section 64 of the Telecommunications Act (1993, c. 38)

References: - There is a fairly involved application process that anyone wanting to broadcast must go through in order to receive a license to broadcast from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), including broad policy frameworks in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act (1991, c. 11) -- [ LINK ] -- and section 7 of the Telecommunications Act (1993, c. 38) -- [ LINK ] -- and in various sections of the Radiocommunication Act (R.S., 1985, c. R-2) -- [ LINK ]

- The CRTC's application workload (mainly dealing with mergers and takeovers in the broadcast media industry in the past seven years or so, and also with several broad policy issues (e.g. regulation of the Internet) means that applications for new or changed licenses often take several months (for example, most recently, the applications for satellite broadcasting licenses)

-See for details "As TV Industry Enters Shakedown, Bureaucrats Need A Shake Even More" Deirdre McMurdy Ottawa Citizen, Aug. 29, 2007, p. A5

References: - There is a fairly involved application process that anyone wanting to broadcast must go through in order to receive a license to broadcast from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), including broad policy frameworks in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act (1991, c. 11) -- [ LINK ] -- and section 7 of the Telecommunications Act (1993, c. 38) -- [ LINK ] -- and in various sections of the Radiocommunication Act (R.S., 1985, c. R-2) -- [ LINK ]

- The CRTC's application workload (mainly dealing with mergers and takeovers in the broadcast media industry in the past seven years or so, and also with several broad policy issues (e.g. regulation of the Internet) means that applications for new or changed licenses often take several months (for example, most recently, the applications for satellite broadcasting licenses)

- The CRTC usually holds hearings in the national capital area before issuing new licenses and requires applications to include a detailed business plan that is costly to produce, as it must demonstrate a market for the broadcaster (necessitating market research) and all other financial details.

References: - The Internet in Canada has essentially a completely open registration system (for domain names) and regulation system (for Web site content) under the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA -- [ LINK ] ) and access to content published online is not restricted.

Peer Review Comments: In Canada, there has been a focus on "government-facilitated industry self-regulation." Canadian ISPs have started to filter content hosted outside of Canada, despite regulatory uncertainty in the area. See OpenNet Initiative, "Internet filtering in the United States and Canada": [ LINK ]" target="_blank">[ LINK ] http://opennet.net/research/regions/namerica

References: - The Internet in Canada has essentially a completely open registration system (for domain names) and regulation system (for Web site content) under the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA -- [ LINK ] ) and the government does not censor citizens creating content online (except, as noted in the details about this indicator, restrictions on content that violates intellectual property rights, involves direct calls to violence (or hate); or violates obscenity laws (pornography)).

Peer Review Comments: Government censorship only occurs in the case of defamatory libel or dangerous incitations to violence, such as the case of Kimveer Gill, which took place in Dawson College (Montreal) and resulted in the death of one person on September 13, 2006. The police removed his video, which was located on a web site.

References: - Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Part 1, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, subsection 2(a) "freedom of conscience and religion"; subsection 2(b) "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication", and subsection 2(d) "freedom of association" -- [ LINK ]

- The Charter right set out above is limited by Canadian provincial libel and slander laws (they are provincial because of the split of jurisdictional powers under the Canadian Constitution between the federal, provincial and territorial governments) and the common law of libel and slander -- generally the laws and the common law allow for not only the defence of truth, but also the defence of "fair comment" (which essentially allows for negative, derogatory opinions to be expressed as long as they are fairly based on facts) and privilege (the importance of reporting the information outweighs the possibility that the reputiation of a person or entity may be somewhat damaged by the publication of the information.

See for details the article on libel law the following Web page -- [ LINK ]

Peer Review Comments: For instance, anything said on occasions such as public meetings, legal or legislative sessions is privileged and, therefore, can be reported no matter how damaging.

Peer Review Comments: In a unanimous decision on 13 November, Ontario's Court of Appeal said news media carrying out "responsible journalism in the public interest" is now a defense against libel and slander suits. The ruling was deemed a major victory for free expression in Canada. See Tracey Tyler, "Court gives media new latitude", Toronto Star, 14 November 2007 Also see Canadian Journalists for Free Expression press release: [ LINK ]

- The Adscam sponsorship scandal and the Gomery Commission Inquiry into the scandal changed media attitudes with regard to political donations (as government money was flowed to political parties through the sponsorship program).

References: - The government regularly restricts investigations by the media into corruption-related issues by denying information that the media (and the public) have a clear, legal right to see and obtain under the federal Access to Information Act (R.S., 1985, c. A-1) -- [ LINK ]

See the annual reports of the federal Information Commissioner for details -- [ LINK ]

- The federal Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2006 instituted a new system in which reporters were required to submit their names in advance for government news conferences if they wanted to ask a question, and the government official would then select questioners from the list (thereby essentially censoring questioning by the media). In the past, a member of media (changing each news conference) would oversee news conferences and select questioners without government interference.

See for details "Tories Seem To Favour 'Friendly' Reporters in Wake of Terror Sweep" Allan Woods, National Post, June 6, 2006, p.A6 [NOTE: "Tories" is the informal name for the Conservative Party in Canada]

- These and other practices by the federal government, along with other factors (mainly court cases challenging journalists' right to keep sources confidential) led international press freedom organization Reporters Without Borders to criticize Canada and its press freedom ranking of 16th in the world in 2006 -- [ LINK ] [ LINK ]

- In addition, there is an ongoing pattern of the media self-censoring stories about corruption-related issues, in particular simply not covering, or downplaying corrupt or unethical activities by federal politicians, political staff, Cabinet appointees and government employees and/or their corrupt or unethical relationships with lobbyists, and how the government watchdogs (especially the Ethics Commissioner and the Registrar of Lobbyists) address complaints about such unethical activities and relationships.

For example, see the information contained in the following Democracy Watch news releases and the media coverage received at the time as listed on the following Democracy Watch Web page -- [ LINK ]

- With regard to the former Ethics Counsellor's handling of several complaints between 2000 and 2004 (NOTE: the media regularly called the Ethics Counsellor the "Ethics Czar" or "Ethics Watchdog" even though, in fact, the Ethics Counsellor had no investigative powers, nor any power to make rulings, and only advised (and usually defended) the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers when ethics complaints were filed) -- [ LINK ]

- With regard to the former Ethics Commissioner's handling of several ethics complaints between March 2004 and April 2007 (NOTE: the media regularly downplayed the Ethics Commissioner's complete lack of expertise (no legal training, no experience in law enforcement or quasi-judicial positions) and failed to cover the Commissioner's refusal to rule on several completely valid complaints (refusals that allowed politicians to continue corrupt or unethical activities) -- [ LINK ]" target="_blank">[ LINK ] [ LINK ]

- With regard to the federal Registrar of Lobbyists' handling of several ethics complaints since March 2004 (NOTE: the media regularly downplayed the Registrar's complete lack of expertise (no legal training, no experience in law enforcement or quasi-judicial positions, and failed to cover the Registrar's ongoing refusal to comply with a Federal Court order to rule on several completely valid ethics complaints (refusals that allowed politicians and lobbyists to continue corrupt or unethical activities) -- http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsSep2905.html [ LINK ]

Peer Review Comments: In theory, the Access Information Act permits access to documents related to the activities of the government. But in practice, especially since the new conservative government of Stephen Harper came into power, access to information has been so slow that it is not available when needed. In the case of the report by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation about how bituminous oils affect the environment in Alberta and about the increasing exportation of oil to United States, it took reporter Guy Gendron one and a half years to the obtain the information. However, by law, the government is required to provide such information within 30 days.

Peer Review Comments: Canada slipped two points this year in RSF's world press freedom index, to 18th. See [ LINK ]

References: There is no public evidence that Canada's federal (national) government censored at pre-publication stage any corruption-related media stories.

- As it is possible to register a domain without disclosing your identity, it is possible to be a print media company in Canada through the Internet and not disclose your ownership.

References: - Under the Canada Corporations Act (1970, c. C-32 ), media entities can be formed (just like any other corporation is formed) either under PART I: CORPORATIONS WITH SHARE CAPITAL or under PART II: CORPORATIONS WITHOUT SHARE CAPITAL, and in either case their legally required annual filings with the federal government must detail their owners (if they have share capital/shareholders) or board members (if a non-profit corporation owns the publication) -- [ LINK ]

- As it is possible to register a domain without disclosing your identity, it is possible to be a print media company in Canada through the Internet and not disclose your ownership.

References: - There is a fairly involved application process that anyone wanting to broadcast must go through in order to receive a license to broadcast from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), including broad policy frameworks in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act (1991, c. 11) -- [ LINK ] -- and section 7 of the Telecommunications Act (1993, c. 38) -- [ LINK ] -- and in various sections of the Radiocommunication Act (R.S., 1985, c. R-2) -- [ LINK ]

- To obtain a license, a broadcaster must include in the application details concerning the ownership of the broadcast company (many of which are publicly traded companies, and so also list their ownership under the requirements of security laws in Canadian provinces).

References: - Report Card on Canadian News Media by the Canadian Media Research Consortium -- [ LINK ]/english/reportcard2004/01.html" target="_blank">[ LINK ]

Homepage for the Consortium is http://www.cmrcccrm.ca

- There is no law requiring Canada's media to adhere to strict, professional practices in their reporting (no law such as the "Fairness Doctrine" that used to be law in the United States), and no other law other than libel and slander laws in Canadian provinces and court rulings on the common law of libel

See for details the article on libel law the following Web page -- [ LINK ]

- There is no effective enforcement of media companies' internal codes, as all codes are "enforced" by either internal company ombudsmen, or press councils in each province, whose members are chosen by the press.

See for details -- [ LINK ]

or the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC), which was created by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) [ LINK ] --

- As a result, as the Report Card on Canadian News media showed, Canadians are very concerned about balance and fairness of the news media in Canada, and also about reporter bias and accountability of the media.

References: - The only extensive study of media coverage (newspaper only) during the 2005-2006 federal election campaign concluded that media coverage overall was fair.

See 2006 Canadian Federal Election Newspaper Analysis by the Media Observatory of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada -- [ LINK ]

- The leader of one political party (the Green Party of Canada) that did not have a incumbent candidate, but had registered candidates in almost all of the 308 electoral districts (known colloquially in Canada as "ridings") was not allowed by the consortium of broadcast companies that control the televised and radio debates between party leaders to participate in the debate -- even though the leader of another party (the Bloc Québecois) that had many incumbent candidates but only registered candidates in one province in Canada, was allowed to participate in the debate.

- Some major newspapers in Canada have a persistent bias in terms of which parties they support in editorial board editorials leading up to election voting day (for example, the National Post supports the Conservatives, the Toronto Star supports the Liberals).

- In addition, the media exaggerated very minor swings in polls in the two months leading up to the election (all the swings were within the margin of error) and failed to mention the percentage of undecided voters in almost all of these stories.

See a summary at: [ LINK ]

Peer Review Comments: Local media tend to play favorites when reporting on electoral campaigns. For example, in Montreal's western ridings (historically liberal strongholds) the liberal candidates are generally in the media spotlight.

References: - While some questions are always raised about the coverage provided by the federal-government-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC -- [ LINK ] ) and its French-language equivalent Radio Canada ( [ LINK ] ), there is no concrete evidence that the media coverage of federal political parties by the CBC and Radio Canada is unequal or unfair.

- Under the Canada Elections Act, all federally registered political parties are charged the same advertising rates in between elections, and also get free TV and radio broadcast time during federal election campaign periods allocated by the Broadcast Arbitrator (an official of the Elections Canada agency) based upon the number of seats held by each party in the House of Commons, the percentage of vote received by each party in the previous election, and the number of candidates each party has registered for the current election.

See details at: [ LINK ])=e&textonly=false

- There are no state-owned print media entities in Canada.

References: - Review of Canadian Journalists for Free Expression website -- [ LINK ]

In the past year, no journalists investigating corruption have been imprisoned.

Peer Review Comments: Even if no journalists have been imprisoned, a few have been in court because they refused to give their informants' names. Protection was granted to those informants, but the law was tested.

References: There were no documented cases of journalists being assaulted during the specific study period for their work covering corruption issues.

References: There were no documented cases of journalists being killed because of their work covering corruption-related issues during the past year.