Tag: Online Streaming

The Online Streaming Act Was Already Complicated and Controversial Enough, But Now Quebec Enters the Fray (No Surprise: It’s Happened Before)

An illustration depicting a tug-of-war scenario, featuring a Canadian flag on one side and a Quebec flag on the other, symbolizing the cultural and political tensions between Canada and Quebec.

Tug of War Image: Shutterstock (modified)

Welcome to Canada, where the difficult can become the intractable when you add the inevitable additional ingredient of federal-provincial politics to any policy issue. Throw in the survival of the French language and Quebec culture in Canada and you have another classic Canadian drama. How to ensure that in protecting majority interests you don’t damage minority interests, or put another way, how to govern in the national interest without making a special exception for Quebec that will undermine the federation, especially now that some other provinces, such as Alberta, are playing the “Quebec card”. It has always been a delicate dance to keep the two linguistic groups rowing in the same direction, often accomplished by providing concessions to Quebec that have managed to meet its unique needs while maintaining provincial interoperability and minimum national standards. The latest challenge is broadcasting, or more specifically, streaming—which may or may not meet the definition of broadcasting.

It has been a well-established principle for decades that broadcasting in Canada is regulated by the federal government, although this was initially contentious (as it is once again). Perhaps not surprisingly, the original challenge came from Quebec which passed its own Broadcast Act in April 1929, before any federal legislation in the broadcast space had been enacted. A Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting had been established by the federal government the year before to examine British and US systems (one leaning heavily toward a national public broadcaster, the other taking the lightly regulated commercial broadcasting route). Quebec quickly seized the initiative before any recommendations were issued by passing its own legislation. The Royal Commission’s findings, known as the Aird Report after Chief Commissioner Sir John Aird, former President of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, were finally issued in November of 1929.

That report recommended a public broadcasting system and laid the foundations for the establishment of the CBC/Radio-Canada. The stock market crash and ensuing Depression delayed action, along with a change of government, but by 1931 the R.B. Bennett government was ready to act. Quebec further forced the issue by passing a provincial Radio Act relating to licensing of receivers and transmitters. The federal government then referred the jurisdictional issue of broadcasting to the Supreme Court of Canada which ruled, 3-2, that broadcasting was a federal responsibility under Section 92(10)(a) of the BNA Act on the grounds that broadcasting was an undertaking, like the telegraph, that extended beyond provincial boundaries. Quebec appealed, but the Privy Council in London upheld the Supreme Court’s decision. The Bennett government then established the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission (CRBC), the forerunner of both the public broadcaster, the CBC, and the broadcast and telecoms regulator, the CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission). Originally national broadcasting was in both official languages but to meet criticisms from Quebec, the CRBC launched French language programming unique to Quebec in 1934, marking the beginning of Radio-Canada’s French language service. An excellent summary of the history of Canadian broadcasting, produced by the Canadian Communications Foundation, can be found here.

Given the fractious history over who should regulate the airwaves, particularly given the importance of communications when it comes to cultural and linguistic identity, it is not surprising that differences have arisen with regard to streaming. The key question is whether streaming constitutes broadcasting. The federal regulator, the CRTC, has always maintained that mass communication transmitted digitally (new media) is a form of broadcasting although for many years it declined to regulate it on the grounds that there was no current need and that regulation might stifle innovation. In 1999, it issued a New Media Exemption Order, the main conclusion of which stated;

“…pursuant to subsection 9(4) of the Act, the Commission exempts persons who carry on, in whole or in part in Canada, broadcasting undertakings of the class consisting of new media broadcasting undertakings, from any or all of the requirements of Part II of the Act or of a regulation thereunder. New media broadcasting undertakings provide broadcasting services delivered and accessed over the Internet,…”

The Exemption Order was extended in 2009, but all that changed with the introduction in 2023 of the Online Streaming Act. That legislation amended the Broadcasting Act to specifically bring streaming content under the purview of the regulator, thus allowing the application of many provisions regarding streaming content, a number of them controversial. In particular it extends CRTC authority over foreign based streamers distributing programming in Canada. While the legislation gave authority to the CRTC (the Commission) to implement key parts of the Act, this will be a slow process as extensive hearings are required. Nonetheless, the Commission fired the first shot almost exactly a year ago, even before hearings had commenced, by requiring “base contributions” of 5% of Canadian revenues from (mostly foreign) streaming services for the creation of Canadian content, including funding to support local news broadcasting in Canada. This occurred prior to the CRTC’s review of how to define Canadian content, and determining who is entitled to claim a Canadian content credit for its creation. In the meantime, the foreign streamers have gone to Federal Court to fight the mandatory “contributions”, and so far not a nickel has been paid.

Another element of the CRTC’s deliberations will be deciding how to implement measures to ensure “discoverability” of Canadian content on streaming platforms. “Discoverability” in a broadcasting/streaming context goes beyond the plain English use of the word. Canadian Heritage (now the Ministry of Canadian Culture and Identity) has published a whole research paper on the technical aspects of discoverability. The paper offers a general definition (“…how content can stand out in order to reach an audience in a universe of hyper choice, where the catalogues of major cultural dissemination platforms offer tens of thousands of titles and products to users..”), but then goes on to point out the difference between content discoverability based on actions aimed at target audiences (such as highlighting certain content), and the use of technical tools or automated systems to showcase content and make it more findable (such as modifying or influencing algorithms). In short, it is a complex issue.

Discoverability was one of the most controversial and misinterpreted aspects of the Online Streaming legislation, then known as Bill C-11. Amendments introduced during the legislative process to encompass user-generated content, requiring that from a platform perspective it too be subject to the discoverability rules, were wildly and inaccurately criticized as internet censorship. Some groups purporting to represent the creative and user communities criticized the discoverability requirements as interfering with market forces and altering algorithmic results. But the Bill passed, including the discoverability requirements, the details of which remain to be established by the CRTC. While this process is underway, Quebec just threw a grenade into the room through the introduction of its own legislation, Bill 109, ”An Act to Affirm the Cultural Sovereignty of Québec and to Enact the Act Respecting the Discoverability of French-Language Cultural Content in the Digital Environment.”

Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa has described the Quebec bill as “unconstitutional, unnecessary and unworkable”, which is a pretty damning but largely accurate indictment. The problem that Quebec is trying to address, as MediaPolicy.ca blogger Howard Law has pointed out, is the “drastic underconsumption of French-language music on streaming platforms, a stunning 4.6 per cent of the top 10,000 song streams in Quebec, a province that is 80 per cent native French speakers.” Compare this to the French-language content requirements imposed by the CRTC on French-language radio stations. These stations must devote at least 65% of all popular music broadcast each week to French-language selections. The CRTC policy, whether it is Canadian content or French-language content, is based on the same premise; if you don’t require a minimum of Cancon/French-language content, the stations will default to non-Canadian, non-French language content. This will deprive Canadian anglophone and francophone artists of exposure and hinder development of “desirable” cultural content. And possibly contribute to weakening the French language in Quebec.

The cultural libertarians would say, so be it. If quotas are required to ensure that Cancon or French-language content gets consumed, then maybe it is not worth listening to or watching. Let the consumer decide (which is essentially how streaming works; the consumer chooses what to consume rather than consuming what is offered). The counter policy argument is that the content industry is so dominated by (take your pick; Hollywood, the major US labels, English language content, etc) that countermeasures are required to balance the playing field and ensure that local cultural content has a chance to breath before it is suffocated by the dominance of outsiders. In a society like Quebec, that represents roughly 7 million francophones in a sea of well over 350 million anglophones in North America, this is an especially critical issue. Will regulating discoverability requirements change the listening or viewing habits of Quebecois, especially young people. I have my doubts, but what is the alternative?

Governments regulate markets in many ways for the greater good, so why not cultural content? In Canada, the whole premise of broadcasting (going back to the 1920s and 1930s), and now streaming, has been to preserve and encourage Canadian voices, whether they be anglophone or francophone. How that should be done and who should do it has always been a tricky question and at times has required a delicate balancing act, sometimes between Canada and the United States, and sometimes between the Canadian federal government and Quebec. It would seem that we are in the midst of another one of those moments. Quebec’s desire to put its thumb on the scale to protect the French language is not new and should not be a surprise, although whether Bill 109 is constitutionally legal and, if it is, whether it will be effective, are valid questions. But we have been here before. As I said at the outset, welcome to Canada.

© Hugh Stephens, 2025. All Rights Reserved.

Smoking in Films: Governments Should Do What is Reasonable and Responsible (Indonesia Please Take Note)

Image: Shutterstock

I am a lifelong non-smoker, although this is more by luck than design. When the other kids were lighting up behind the school, I joined them. However, while some of them got over the feeling of nausea brought on by those first puffs and became hooked on nicotine for life (hopefully, to their “undying” regret), I was never able to get over the initial hurdle. I was lucky and claim no moral superiority. Today we all know about the public health consequences of smoking. Governments have developed a variety of policies designed to discourage smoking, from banning indoor smoking, to high taxes, to plain packaging, to health warnings and other educational efforts. This has had a high degree of success.

Yet despite a couple of generations of anti-smoking campaigns, smoking is still a reality in our society. Peoples’ motivations are different, and it is not for me to judge or preach. They are fully aware of the risks. Banning smoking would be about as effective as Prohibition was in reducing alcohol consumption. It had just the opposite effect. For this reason, proposals to make the sale and consumption of tobacco products illegal have understandably gone nowhere. The same is true for regulations that pretend smoking doesn’t exist. For better or worse, it does, and is a part of everyday life, today and in the past. And this brings me to the point of this little trip down the highways and byways of anti-smoking efforts; smoking and its relationship to filmed entertainment.

One cannot think of Humphrey Bogart without a fag hanging from his lips, a trail of smoke wafting across the face of his paramour of the moment. It would be impossible to reflect the atmosphere of a smoke-filled saloon in Dodge City without the presence of roll-your-owns. And what would W.C. Fields be without a stogie? However, it is not just historical films where smoking plays a part in creating the scene and depicting reality. Whether we like it or not, smoking is a part of the current scene (especially, it seems, in Europe). If any readers have sat recently in an outdoor café in Spain, France or Italy, you will know what I mean. I am not saying this is right; I am saying it is a fact of life.

This raises the question of how the film and TV industry should deal with the smoking issue. Should it pretend it doesn’t exist or should it deal with the issue responsibly? For decades the industry has grappled with this dilemma. The current approach is to eliminate smoking in children’s programming and issue clear warnings with respect to content aimed at more mature audiences while depicting smoking on occasions where it is necessary to convey the story. The filmed entertainment industry builds its product by telling stories that, for the most part, reflect the real world in one way or the other. Yes, there are films set on the planet of the apes, or in some future world, but most stories take place in a contemporary or historical setting. Being a reflection of society, at times filmed content depicts people smoking.

Depiction, however, has nothing to do with promotion. They are totally different.  Yet despite the difference, there are proposals from time to time in some countries–such as Indonesia at present–to deal with smoking as if it doesn’t exist. The draft regulations as currently framed would ban all scenes in filmed content that depict any smoking. This includes content produced by international streamers, such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO, Disney +, etc. This, I would submit, is a step too far—and completely unnecessary.

The draft regulation is in preparation for Indonesia’s accession to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control under the umbrella of the World Health Organization (WHO). Many countries in the Asia-Pacific region, and elsewhere, are already signatories. The treaty has been in force for about twenty years and is designed to coordinate international tobacco control efforts. According to the WHO, it has been an effective instrument in curbing what it calls a “global tobacco epidemic”. It is a worthwhile endeavour, worthy of support. The treaty was initially signed by 168 countries and now has 183 Parties, representing 90% of the world’s population. Indonesia is one of the few not to have yet acceded and the only one in Asia.

Accession and ratification requires compliance with the obligations of the Convention. These include restrictions on tobacco lobbying, demand reduction (taxes), protection from passive smoking, product regulation, packaging and labelling (health warnings), public awareness, advertising bans, addiction cessation programs, actions against smuggling and restricting sales to minors. These measures have all proven to be highly effective. Notably, there is no mention of depiction of smoking in films or TV programming nor any requirement to censor it.

However, Article 24 of the draft Indonesian Health Regulations regarding tobacco and electronic cigarette product safeguards prohibits the broadcasting, depiction, show or display of individuals “smoking, showing cigarettes, cigarette smoke, cigarette packaging, or any product relating to Tobacco and Electronic cigarettes in print media, broadcast media or information technology media related to commercial activities, advertisement or encouraging smoking.”

The draft regulation then goes on to say;

“The prohibition…includes streaming services that offer TV shows, movies, anime, documentaries, and other content accessible via internet-connected devices…Streaming services include Netflix, Disney+ Hotstar, WeTV, Viu, Iflix, Prime Video, GoPlay, CATCHPLAY+, MolaTV, Twitch, and others.”

Let’s remember that international (and domestic) streaming services are premium offerings directed at a willing, paying audience. A viewer has to “opt in” by paying a subscription. Moreover, content on the streaming platforms already complies with the anti-smoking limitations described above, such as warning labels and no exposure to children. If implemented, the Indonesian decree would require international streamers and their domestic distributors to edit all content to remove any and all depiction of smoking. Not only would this emasculate content that viewers have paid to watch, it is both impractical and unnecessary.

The draft regulation is not an accidental sideswiping of the streaming industry. It is aimed directly at it. It is hard to understand why. It already deals responsibly with smoking on screen. Implementing this measure would simply shift audiences to unedited pirate content, which is rampant in Indonesia.  

The relevant section of the WHO Convention is Article 13, covering tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. That article, along with its Interpretive Guidelines, requires acceding states to control advertising for tobacco products by prohibiting advertising that is false, misleading, or deceptive and by requiring health warnings on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. It also requires restrictions on incentives to purchase tobacco and prohibition, if legally possible, of tobacco sponsorship of international events and activities. Again, nothing about banning depictions of smoking.

The 28-page Guideline document goes into more detail. It raises the issue of tobacco in media, noting that the tobacco companies can get very creative when it comes to promoting their products, sometimes using “hidden forms of advertising or promotion, such as insertion of tobacco products or tobacco use in various media contents”. In other words, product placement. However, depiction of incidental smoking in films has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with product placement or tobacco promotion.

The Guidelines go on to list what the elements of a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising, sponsorship and promotion, as required by the Treaty, should cover;

■ all advertising and promotion, as well as sponsorship, without exemption;

■ direct and indirect advertising, promotion and sponsorship;

■ acts that aim at promotion and acts that have or are likely to have a promotional effect;

■ promotion of tobacco products and the use of tobacco;

■ commercial communications and commercial recommendations and actions;

■ contribution of any kind to any event, activity or individual;

■ advertising and promotion of tobacco brand names and all corporate promotion; and

■ traditional media (print, television and radio) and all media platforms, including Internet, mobile telephones and other new technologies as well as films

In other words, both traditional and non-traditional media should be subject to the ban on tobacco advertising and promotion. But this has nothing to do with incidental depiction.

Drilling down a bit further, there is a section dealing with depictions of tobacco in entertainment media, followed by Recommendations;

“Parties should take particular measures concerning the depiction of tobacco in entertainment media products, including requiring certification that no benefits have been received for any tobacco depictions, prohibiting the use of identifiable tobacco brands or imagery, requiring anti-tobacco advertisements and implementing a ratings or classification system that takes tobacco depictions into account.”

International streamers already comply with all these requirements, which explains why they have been able to continue to do business in all the countries that have signed on to the Convention, including the US which, although it has not become a Party, applies similar conditions.

The Indonesian regulation that would require streaming services to remove all depictions of smoking is excessive. While the goal of reducing consumption of tobacco products is laudable, to require the complete elimination of depiction, especially from streaming services, is using a sledgehammer to kill a fly, destroying the furniture on which the fly landed in the process. Appropriate, targetted regulation deals directly with the problem, avoiding unintended consequences and collateral damage. Regrettably, the current Indonesia draft regulations do not do that. By all means, fight tobacco consumption and stop the tobacco companies from finding loopholes. But do it in a way that is effective and reasonable.

© Hugh Stephens, 2024. All Rights Reserved.

The CRTC and Online Streaming: Money Now; Details Later

Photo: Author

The first shoe has dropped for foreign online music and video streamers in Canada, at least those generating more than $25 million a year in “contribution revenues” from the Canadian market. On June 4, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) announced it will be imposing “base contributions” of 5 percent of annual Canadian contribution revenues on streamers such as Netflix, Spotify, Amazon Prime, Disney + etc. as part of the implementation of the Online Streaming Act passed last year. (Canadian streamers associated with a Canadian broadcast entity, i.e. Crave, are exempt). The Act brings online streaming services under the regulatory purview of the broadcast regulator. The “base contributions” are to begin in the 2024-25 broadcast year, beginning September 1 of this year, and are expected to generate in the range of CAD$200 million annually. According to the Minister for Canadian Heritage, Pascale St. Onge, the levy is about “fairness in the system” and will be good for the streamers because it will create more content that will “most likely” go back on their platforms. So why are they not happy? (And they are not).

They are not happy because this is just the first shoe to drop, and while they now know the cost of this shoe, they don’t know what the other shoes are going to cost, what exactly those shoes will look like, or indeed whether they will be allowed to try them on. Because, you see, the rules about who can access the Funds that their money will be going into, and on what terms, have not yet been determined. Key decisions regarding the definition of Canadian content and who can own or control Canadian content (through holding the copyright) are a couple of years down the road. With those decisions could come other requirements, such as allocating a percentage of revenues to production of local content on top of the current “base contribution” to existing Funds, discoverability obligations, and possibly others.

With regard to the top-up of existing funding mechanisms, just about anybody who is anyone in film, TV or music will be lining up to get a share of the $200 million pie. The list includes (and I am not kidding) no less than 11 identified recipients named by the CRTC;  the Canadian Media Fund, the Independent Local News Fund, the Black Screen Office Fund, Certified Independent Production Funds supporting OLMC (Official Language Minority Communities), the Indigenous Screen Office Fund, FACTOR and Musicaction, a new temporary fund supporting local news production by commercial radio stations outside designated market, the Canadian Starmaker Fund and Fonds RadioStar, the Community Radio Fund of Canada, direct expenditures targeting the development of Canadian and Indigenous content and, last (and least, in terms of percentage of the funding from audio online undertakings), the Indigenous Music Office. Is anyone missing? What about the Punjabi Weather Network or the Lawn Bowling Broadcast Fund? This is micro-management gone wild.

The 5% contribution funding is divided up into various slivers, some larger than others, by the Solomons at the CRTC. As for the Minister’s optimistic belief that those making the contribution will “most likely” benefit from the content produced, I struggle to see how Netflix or Disney+ will get much out of the Independent Local News Fund (which is currently funded by Canadian cable platforms) or Francophone productions in British Columbia or Alberta. The argument, no doubt, is that this is the price for participating in the Canadian broadcast ecosystem, that now includes online streaming undertakings. Music streamers, on the other hand, will probably benefit from the development of more Canadian talent.

As a consumer of music and audio-visual content, I am also a participant in the broadcast ecosystem and already pay in various ways, through income and sales taxes, and streaming and cable (yes, I am still one of them) subscription fees. I have a hunch I am about to pay more. For several years now the AV streaming services have been on a spending spree in an attempt to grab market share. Profitability came second, but that is rapidly changing as the market matures. And that means subscription fees are going up. (Netflix is killing off the basic subscription I have had for a number of years and given me the choice of a slight price reduction if I put up with ads, or else face a roughly 50% increase in monthly subscription fees. I am still dithering). And this was before the CRTC dropped its latest bombshell. If the CTRC is going to take 5% or more of revenues, simple math tells you there are only a couple of ways to make that up, cut costs or raise prices. “Costs of doing business” inevitably get recovered from customers. If the price of supporting a viable content industry in Canada was limited to a 5% increase in my monthly subscriptions, I would gladly pay but I doubt that my contribution will be limited to 5%.

Ironically, the issue of whether the CRTC should regulate streamers was postponed for years in Canada because of aversion of what was referred to at the time as the “Netflix tax”. No-one knew for sure what that meant; it could have meant imposing sales taxes on a Netflix subscription (which has since been done), or it could have meant a levy on Netflix (which was the first streaming service to enter Canada) to fund Canadian content. But while people weren’t clear on what a Netflix tax was, they knew they didn’t like it. It became a symbol of piling yet one more nuisance fee onto consumers (“carbon tax” anyone”?) and while a small fee on a streaming subscription was unlikely to send anyone to the poor house, politicians from all parties outdid themselves by swearing to avoid any form of Netflix or internet tax.

Serendipitously, I have just finished reading Howard Law’s new book, “Canada vs California-How Ottawa Took on Netflix and the Streaming Giants”, a fascinating deep dive on Bill C-11, which became the Online Streaming Act, and its unsuccessful predecessor Bill C-10. (For those who don’t know, Howard also publishes a weekly blog, MediaPolicy.ca, another essential read for anyone interested in the Canadian media scene). Law devotes an early chapter to “No Netflix Tax 1999-2019” and then goes on to take the reader through the painful teething pains of Bills C-10 and C-11. The term “Netflix tax” has fallen out of use these days but the end result of the imposition of the CRTC “base contribution” on foreign streamers is really no different from an indirect tax.

Alternatively, if the streamers do not fund this new “base contribution” by raising prices to consumers, they will likely compensate for it by spending less elsewhere, i.e. on Canadian production, the very objective for imposing the contribution in the first place. According to MPA-Canada, in 2021-22 “foreign investment in production” (FIIP, a metric for international participation in the film and television production industry in Canada) contributed $875 million to production of Canadian content, about 13% of total financing for Canadian-owned content productions. (This is in addition to the much larger Foreign Location Shooting spend on US productions made in Canada). By comparison, the Canadian Media Fund contributed only 7% of total financing for Canadian productions. The foreign contribution to Canadian production was not far off the $1.09 billion spent by Canadian broadcasters on in-house production. A similar scenario exists in Australia, where the government is also exploring various options to require foreign streaming services to fund local production. Yet the streamers are currently the leading source of production funding for Australian adult drama. In Australia, streaming services invest more in this drama than public, commercial and subscription broadcasters combined, despite having no legal obligation to do so.

What does the US government think of the CRTC’s announcement? That will depend on how hard the foreign streamers push the US Administration to intervene, and right now it is not clear what they will do. Part of the issue is those other dangling shoes. The outcome might not be all that bad for the streamers if they are given fair access to the content they will be required to fund. After all, they need to spend on content to fill their pipeline. But the terms of what payback they will get from their required investments are not clear. A lot will depend on what amount of spend the Commission imposes on foreign streamers for production of Canadian content (Cancon), and how Cancon is defined.

Right now, the Canadian content definition is a complicated formula, set by different funding and regulatory bodies, as I outlined in a blog a couple of years ago,  (see “Unravelling the Complexities of the Canadian Content (Cancon) Conundrum”) and as Law outlines in his book. The core is the infamous points system, based on the nationality of key players in the production, plus amount of local spending. In addition, one of the current conditions for a production to be considered Canadian—and thus qualify for tax credits (funding)–is that the copyright and catalogue rights must be held by a Canadian (normally the producer) for a minimum of 25 years. However, the CRTC does not impose a copyright requirement when defining Cancon for broadcast quota purposes. Will this continue when the Commission finally gets around to addressing this issue? That shoe is still hanging there.

If the Cancon definition is tweaked in such a way that the foreign streamers are required to spend a set percentage of local revenues on Canadian content, but at the same time are excluded from being able to acquire such production (i.e. restricted to licensing content they have already invested in), this will be a problem. It is one thing to apply strings when a producer is applying for tax credits (AKA a subsidy). It is quite another to be required to fund production but be excluded from recouping a return on that investment in a way that makes most sense for the funder. With the Cancon definition shoe still dangling, trying to enlist the US Administration to bring pressure on Canada right now may not be the best strategy. Not that this has stopped some of the usual suspects, like the National Foreign Trade Council and the US Chamber of Commerce from weighing in. Their comments are no doubt a marker for future reference if needed. CUSMA/USMCA obligations need to be kept front and centre.

As I noted in an article last year, (“Could or Would the US Retaliate Against the Online Streaming Act (C-11) Now That it is Law?”), “the CRTC must be mindful that foreign streamers who contribute to Canadian productions need to be able to access, acquire and distribute them on an equal footing with Canadian streamers, who face no such limitations”. The CUSMA/USMCA trade agreement requires that cross-border digital services be dealt with on a national treatment basis, i.e. accorded no less favourable treatment than Canadian streaming services. The current proviso that exempts Canadian streaming services associated with a Canadian broadcaster from the 5% levy on revenues is not an auspicious start, but we will have to wait to see what happens.

Regarding the link between Cancon and copyright ownership, I know there are people in the industry in Canada whom I respect who argue this is very important to maintain cultural sovereignty. They feel strongly that it is essential for Canadians to hold the copyright in productions to avoid becoming just service producers. They have a point, although there are other considerations that need to be borne in mind. A Canadian producer should be able to hold the copyright (and assume the risk that the production may not be big earner in future) if they wish, or else assign it, take the money and move on to the next project without the government putting its thumb on the scale of commercial negotiations. And it is not unreasonable for those who provide the funding and invest in a project to be allowed to negotiate commercially on how the asset is exploited.

The CRTC’s June 4 announcement can be considered a down payment or perhaps a first shot across the bow, depending on how you want to look at it. We are in for months, if not years, of more consultations. The CRTC’s own announcements project consultations into 2026, well past the next election. There will be several more shoes to drop, and the political landscape could well change. In the meantime, the streamers will have to start paying into a mixed bag of Funds as directed by the CRTC. As for those all-important details about the regulatory framework, they will come later.

© Hugh Stephens 2024. All Rights Reserved.