The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is in the midst of a lively two-week hearing. The target? Canadian content (CanCon) regulations. While this hearing is crucial, it is timely. Debates about the comparative financial obligations of streaming services and traditional broadcasters continue to rage. Wendy Noss, the president of MPA-Canada, spoke passionately to the commissioners. She encouraged them to free up the big streaming platforms to conduct their investments in Canadian content with more flexibility.
In her testimony, Noss explained that the current regulations only focus on Canadian broadcasters. These broadcasters have an established record of producing and promoting only Canadian content. She further underscored the important distinctions between these domestic broadcasters and large, multinational global streaming services that operate everywhere.
“The existing framework was set up for Canadian broadcasters who only made content in Canada, and only showcased that content in Canada, and that is just fundamentally different than the kind of high quality, international framework for those who are running global services.” – Wendy Noss
Noss maintained that streaming services should not be required to pay for certain things with hard and fast rules. She made the point that these platforms are actually a major source of investment in Canadian content. This strategy fits nicely with their peculiar business model.
“With respect, right now the services are unregulated. So … any investments that they’re making in Canada, they’re making by virtue of business decisions that make sense for their individual services.” – Wendy Noss
Last year, the CRTC mandated that streaming services contribute five percent of their annual Canadian revenues to a fund dedicated to producing Canadian content. By comparison, large English-language broadcasters are mandated by law to spend 30 percent of their revenues on Canadian programming. This gap, Noss maintained, should prompt critical questions. It calls into question the fairness and equity in how various forms of media establishments are treated.
Corus Entertainment has been advocating for the CRTC to impose the same monetary requirements on traditional broadcasters and online streaming platforms. They think that all actors in this media environment should play their part to support the Canadian content ecosystem.
This hearing occurs within a broader climate of increasing trade tensions between Ottawa and Washington. U.S. business groups and technology companies including Axios have repeatedly warned that any changes to CanCon rules would harm trade relations. What’s more, earlier comments by U.S. President Donald Trump have obfuscated the issue. He promised to slap a 100-percent tariff on all film shoots produced abroad.
Noss noted that the role of “showrunner” has gained prominence in recent years, reflecting changes in the production landscape that necessitate updated regulatory frameworks. She stuck it to the CRTC for trying to modernize outdated, useless regulations while making little more than a token effort to broaden CanCon criteria.
“Adding just a few positions to a more than 40-year-old list ignores today’s modern production landscape.” – Wendy Noss
She further emphasized the need to acknowledge how distinct the operational realities are for foreign online services versus Canadian broadcasters. Noss noted that requiring foreign platforms to pay the same amount as domestic platforms is just not practical. He highlighted the difficulties of their international business.
“The contribution standard applied to Canadian broadcasters is much greater and reflects their existing obligations.” – MPA-Canada
The CRTC’s ongoing hearings reflect a critical juncture in Canada’s media landscape, as the commission seeks to balance the need for promoting Canadian content while navigating complex trade relationships with international partners. The results of these conversations will undoubtedly shape what the media environment—with legacy and new media companies coexisting—looks like in the United States.
