The Hearings Have Begun. The Thinking Has Not.
The CRTC’s CanCon review has turned into a parade of self-interest and political theatre. Once again, no one is asking the only question that matters: does any of this work?
On April 3rd, I published my first article on this platform. I warned that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) hearings on Canadian Content (CanCon) risked becoming a process more concerned with procedure and optics than with asking the hard, necessary questions about whether the CanCon system is actually working.
All Talk, No Questions
After monitoring the first six days of hearings, it is clear that my concern was not cynical. (OK, maybe it was a little bit cynical – but it was also prophetic!) The proceedings thus far have confirmed what anyone familiar with the structure of Canadian cultural regulation could have foreseen: the debate has centred entirely around who gets what, with little attention paid to whether the entire system delivers anything of real public value.
Rather than beginning with a fundamental question about whether the CanCon regime is actually achieving its goals, the CRTC structured the hearings around definitional criteria, contribution formulas, and certification requirements. This approach signaled to stakeholders that their job was not to assess the effectiveness of the system, but to argue for a more favourable share of the existing system’s privileges and funding streams.
No surprise … that’s exactly what they’re doing.
The Same Old Tired Routine
From Telefilm to Quebecor, ACTRA to the Indigenous Screen Office, almost every presentation has, so far, followed the same template: (i) assert the cultural importance of your constituency; (ii) argue for automatic certification or earmarked funding; (iii) avoid any critical discussion of impact or measurable results; and (iv) blame competitors for the system’s current shortcomings.
Take the following two examples which plainly demonstrate this strategy …
The Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB), in its May 14th presentation, opened with the familiar claim of cultural indispensability, invoking the broadcasting sector’s long-standing role in delivering Canadian programming “that reflects the diversity and complexity of Canada.” But the pitch quickly turned transactional. The CAB demanded a regulatory reset in light of foreign streaming competition and called for easier access to funding while ignoring any assessment of broadcasters’ own measurable contributions. The presentation offered no substantive framework for evaluating the cultural or economic return on this support, only a reaffirmation of broadcasters’ entitlement. Meanwhile, it cast streaming platforms as the freeloaders, absorbing Canadian audience attention while sidestepping responsibilities – a framing that obscures the broadcasters’ own decades-long insulation from market competition and the benefit of government subsidy and support.
Quebecor’s May 21st submission sang from the same songbook. It praised its own francophone programming as a cornerstone of “cultural sovereignty,” while citing declining ad revenues and calling for regulatory relief and earmarked funding. The proposed solution? Mandatory contributions from foreign platforms into a fund to support Canadian broadcasters – without any discussion of how that money would be tied to outcomes like performance, innovation, or audience engagement. Like the CAB, Quebecor sidestepped any meaningful self-assessment, declining to ask whether its commercial challenges might also be the result of internal factors such as structural inefficiencies or outdated programming strategies. Instead, blame was placed squarely on external players: Canada's public broadcaster and American streaming services.
Again, these are but two examples of a much broader pattern. We are witnessing sophisticated, well-resourced advocacy intended to preserve institutional advantage. What we are not seeing is any meaningful reflection on whether the status quo is delivering value. There’s been no willingness to ask whether decades of regulatory protection and preferential funding have led to the production of content that meaningfully resonates with Canadian audiences, fosters national identity, or sustains cultural distinctiveness in a global market. Instead, we are offered the usual complaint and entitlement, with any suggestions for reform positioned as outward-facing, never inward-looking.
The CRTC Has Lost the Plot
Now, I certainly understand that it’s not the role of entrenched stakeholders to raise questions around their own entitlements! But it is the job of the CRTC (and, by extension, the government that gives it marching orders) to ask whether a regulatory system that’s rooted in legislation from the 1950s remains capable of achieving its objectives in 2025.
And here, I’ll admit to my limited agreement with Richard Stursberg, a longtime fixture in Canada’s broadcasting ecosystem, whose May 15th Globe and Mail op-ed decried the CRTC’s “dilatory behaviour” which appears “designed to delay decisions and avoid controversy.”
While I agree that the Commission has been asleep at the switch, the real failure isn’t its reluctance to prop up the old system as Stursberg suggests – it’s the refusal to ask whether that system works at all. At no point in the hearing process has the CRTC asked the core question that should underpin any regulatory exercise: Is the Canadian content regime achieving its stated goals? There was no request, let alone any requirement, for hearing participants to provide evidence, data, or even anecdote demonstrating that CanCon is supporting the objectives of the Broadcasting Act. No exploration of how Canadians engage with or value this content. No attempt to measure cultural impact, social cohesion, identity formation … nothing.*
The Missing Question at the Heart of the Hearings
Instead, the Commission allowed (or designed?) the hearings to devolve, yet again, into arguments about allocations: who should pay what to whom, and who should be exempt. It is looking to redesign the funding mechanism without first establishing what the system is supposed to deliver – or why it exists at all. Is CanCon meant to create jobs? Preserve language? Support the development or maintenance of a national identity? Protect market share? No one knows. Least of all, it seems, the Commission – because it apparently never thought to ask.
* As part of its preparation for these hearings, the Commission contracted a public opinion survey from Phoenix Strategies (cost: $128,735.25). While perhaps intending to bring some democratic legitimacy to the hearing process, the design and methodology of the survey raise some serious concerns – which I’ll be exploring in a forthcoming piece. But suffice it to say: its usefulness as an indicator of public sentiment around CanCon is very much in doubt.
The CRTC’s main function is to provide sinecures for bureaucrats. It serves no useful purpose for the taxpayers who fund it.
The CRTC has become like health care or provincial wrangling about health care. Its adult day care and Canada has turned into one large colonized reserve with the Central Banker In Thief rolling out money we don't have in an attempt to forestall the inevitable crash until such time and he and his gang can loot the resources. We've all become barking seals looking for our fish treats.