By Doug Barrett, adjunct professor in the Arts, Media & Entertainment MBA Program at the Schulich School of Business
On June 3, Culture Minister Marc Miller scored an own goal on Canadian cultural sovereignty by announcing that the government will develop new policy directions to the CRTC to “adjust” the implementation of the Online Streaming Act, presumably by scrapping the requirement that foreign online undertakings make financial contributions to the production of Canadian programming.
This move — just 21 days after the CRTC decided to increase their financial obligation to the system — constituted a clear pre-emptive surrender to American demands apparently linked to the CUSMA trade agreement negotiations. It was pre-emptive because the decision was not part of the negotiations themselves, just a slap shot that fatally undermined the six-plus year process undertaken by the government and latterly the CRTC.
As a distraction from the surrender, the June 3 release announced $600 million per year in “immediate support to strengthen Canadian culture” without identifying the timing or details of such support. While it indicated that “additional details on these investments will be announced after consultation with the sector,” it failed to acknowledge that the CRTC has been formally and intensively consulting with all parts of the sector since the final passage of the Online Streaming Act in April of 2023.
Interestingly, the release indicated that the principal priority of the new CRTC policy directions is to keep streaming and broadcasting services affordable for Canadians. This is despite the fact that the affordability of these services is not referred to anywhere in the Online Streaming Act and, to my recollection, was not part of the CRTC’s long and detailed consultation process.
It’s also questionable whether the responsibility for consumer pricing is legally part of the minister’s job.
In a 2025 release, the Department of Canadian Heritage stated: “The Department’s mandate is set out in the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and centres on fostering and promoting Canadian identity and values, cultural development, and heritage … The Department supports arts and culture, heritage, celebrations, youth engagement, official languages, Indigenous languages and cultures, safe sport, and combatting racism and hate.”
To me, this sounds like an organized and focused cultural sovereignty strategy. That’s the actual job of the minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, not the regulation of consumer pricing.
Then there’s the Online Streaming Act itself, which states that “each foreign online undertaking shall contribute in an equitable manner to strongly support the creation, production and presentation of Canadian programming.” No ambiguity there about whether there is to be a contribution. The use of the term “equitable” requires context and so the subsequent direction to the CRTC on how to go about implementing the provisions of the Act states that:
“The Commission is directed to impose requirements on broadcasting undertakings that ensure that the Canadian broadcasting system — which is to be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians and includes foreign broadcasting undertakings that provide programming to Canadians — strongly supports a wide range of Canadian programming and Canadian creators. The requirements, both financial and non-financial, must be equitable given the size and nature of the undertaking and equitable as between foreign online undertakings and Canadian broadcasting undertakings.”
So, it’s clear that “equitable” is not to be about consumer pricing but about the balance between the obligations of Canadian undertakings and those of foreign online undertakings under the umbrella of Canadian ownership of the system. The recent CRTC decision did exactly what it was instructed to do and focused on that balance.
Given the clarity of the legislative requirements, how does the minister lawfully go about issuing a direction to the CRTC requiring it to scrap its recent decisions that accomplished exactly what the legislation and the existing government directions required it to do? Oops, we didn’t mean what we said? Please ignore the provisions of the Online Streaming Act that you, the CRTC, are legally bound to implement?
Does the government have to go back before Parliament to amend the Online Streaming Act to achieve this new objective? What are the politics of doing that? How long will it take? What happens to the just-issued CRTC decisions in the meantime?
There’s more. The CRTC is supposed to be an independent regulatory tribunal. In their first administrative law class, students learn that these institutions serve a critical function in a democracy by taking certain highly political functions out of the potentially influenceable hands of politicians. Without that independence, the issuing and regulating of broadcast licences and the broadcasting system could favour those with the most access to the political arena. Sound familiar?
For example, the Broadcasting Act specifies that no order may be made by the Governor-in-Council to the CRTC concerning the issuance of a licence to a particular person or concerning the amendment, renewal, suspension or revocation of a particular licence. Admittedly it is clear that this section applies only to licensed Canadian broadcasters and not to foreign online undertakings. But having said that, the CRTC has been given crystal clear legislative instruction to determine without interference what obligations will be borne by those streamers. And it has done the job it has been asked to do following extensive consultation and lengthy public hearings.
How does that square then with The Globe & Mail report that, “Ottawa is planning to engage in talks with foreign streamers and other stakeholders to determine ‘a more reasonable rate’ of contribution to Canadian programming.” To me, it fairly shouts that the government is acting as if the CRTC does not exist, and as if the Online Streaming Act and Broadcasting Act don’t exist. What then of the requirement that the CRTC be independent?
Early in his tenure, the minister appeared at this year’s annual Prime Time conference held by the Canadian Media Producers Association in late January. He spoke eloquently about the importance of Canadian stories and values and of the work he planned to do as minister to modernize the system. He emphasized though that there are some red lines that cannot and should not be crossed. And everyone in the room knew he was referring to the pending CUMSA trade negotiations. By pre-emptively surrendering to American demands even before talks have commenced, he has not only crossed those very lines but practically bulldozed them.
The Online Streaming Act and the Broadcasting Act are there for a reason. And the co-ordinated policy development and regulatory work of the CRTC guided by those pieces of legislation are key components of Canada’s capacity to maintain its cultural sovereignty. There is no doubt that the development discussed here weakened that sovereignty; it is gravely disappointing that the government of Canada has been such an active handmaiden to the exercise.
HIGH QUALITY JOURNALISM REQUIRES AN INVESTMENT.
Cartt.ca publishes breaking news, in-depth feature stories, analysis, and opinion geared specifically for those working in the cable, radio, television, and telecom industries in Canada.
Breaking news, top-notch analysis and commentary is posted as it happens while twice-weekly newsletters compile those stories and deliver them directly to more than 4,000 industry subscribers. Cartt.ca offers credible journalism for the industry professional.
