The CRTC is asking the wrong question about "Canadian Content"

Don't let the election distract you from what the CRTC is up to.

On March 25th, the CRTC announced it had postponed its hearings on the implementation of the modernized Broadcasting Act, citing the federal election call as the reason. While the delay is ultimately a welcome development, it stems from a procedural consideration—not the more pressing substantive one. The hearings—particularly those focused on redefining “Canadian Content” (CanCon)—are proceeding on a flawed foundation. The CRTC and industry stakeholders are preoccupied with fine-tuning the definition of CanCon, a designation that unlocks significant public funding and regulatory advantages. Yet few are pausing to ask the deeper, more essential question: does the CanCon regime actually fulfill its core purpose of fostering a meaningful and cohesive Canadian national identity?

With the passage of the Online Streaming Act, foreign platforms like Netflix, Disney, and Apple have been brought into the regulatory fold—significantly raising the financial stakes. As a result, industry players are jockeying for position.

The Canadian Media Producers Association wants more money and more regulatory protection for its members including mandated terms of trade to provide the commercial leverage that Canadian producers cannot secure in the open market. Domestic broadcasters—Bell, Rogers, Corus—seek rules that cement their dominance and grant automatic certification to any production produced or commissioned by a Canadian broadcaster. Quebecor insists simply that foreign streamers be denied CanCon certification as a general rule. Netflix, Disney, Apple, Paramount, and Amazon argue against financial and regulatory burdens and in favour of flexibility around how they produce CanCon. ACTRA, the performers’ union, wants funding for a Canadian “star system” (seriously!) and to block non-union productions. Finally, the Indigenous Screen Office, the Black Film Office, the Disability Screen Office, the Racial Equity Screen Office, and the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Coalition are all demanding segregated funding for their respective constituencies. The list goes on and on.

The entire process represents a self-serving exercise driven by industry insiders hell-bent on protecting their own interests. The real question isn’t how to redefine CanCon—it’s whether the system works at all. If the Canadian content regime cannot be shown to demonstrably benefit the nation, then there are bigger problems than any narrow definitional change can fix.

---

This article originally appeared in the 3 April, 2025 edition of The Hub and can be found at https://thehub.ca/2025/04/03/need-to-know-beware-the-bait-and-switch-of-campaign-promises/.

---