Will the CRTC Decision Requiring US Streamers to Make Additional Financial Contributions to Canadian Production Lead to Retaliatory US Tariffs Impacting Other Sectors because of CUSMA’s Cultural Exception Clause?
Should Canada Rescind the CRTC Decision Now to Facilitate CUSMA Negotiations?
Summary
Since this is a long post on a complex subject, here is the very short version of my answers to these two questions, the Executive Summary if you will. On the first question, I posit that the CRTC decision is not a violation of the terms of CUSMA, and therefore Canada does not need to justify the CRTC measures by using the shield of the Cultural Exception, which if applied could legitimize US tariff retaliation. That is not to say that I agree with the CRTC decision in all its aspects, nor that the Online Streaming Act might not become a bargaining chip in the renegotiation of the Agreement. For the US to justify tariff retaliation on the basis that Canada was using the Cultural Exception as a shield would require a determination by a trade panel. That is most unlikely to happen. Given the general US disrespect for the CUSMA Agreement since the advent of Trump 2.0 and the way in which the US has ridden roughshod over the protections that the Agreement was supposed to provide, the niceties of its text seem largely irrelevant. US streamer’s hopes of securing protection under the CUSMA have been undermined by aberrant US trade policy. As for whether the Carney government should walk back provisions of the Online Streaming Act to facilitate CUSMA renegotiation, the Digital Services Tax climbdown illustrates well the folly of unilateral concessions. The US can wield a big stick, but Canada is not without cards to play. When you are playing with a master bluffer, don’t fold your hand early. That’s the short version. For more detail, read on.
The CRTC Announcement
Since the CRTC announced on May 21 that, among other requirements, it will increase the mandatory contribution to be made to Canadian productions by large foreign streamers (those generating in excess of $100 million annually in Canada) from 5 percent of their Canadian revenues to 15 percent, commentary—largely in the form of criticism– has come from all sides. The CRTC decision itself is not the easiest to understand even with its embedded graphic. The Motion Picture Association-Canada did not mince words;
“The Motion Picture Association strongly condemns the CRTC’s decision to impose unprecedented, unnecessary, and discriminatory investment obligations on American streaming services operating in Canada. This burdensome framework unfairly targets global streamers with requirements that directly violate Canada’s obligations under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).”
MPA-Canada and some individual streaming services have already challenged the initial five percent “downpayment” levy on the basis that the requirement for streamers to pay for local news (one of the allocations of the initial levy, not repeated in the new CRTC regulations) is a discriminatory measure exceeding CRTC authority because none of the streamers even produce news coverage. The plaintiffs also argue that the levy constitutes a tax, which is beyond the competence of the CRTC. Indeed, the taxation angle was repeated by Opposition Leader Pierre Polievre who accused the CRTC of imposing a tax that would ultimately be paid by Canadian consumers. He demanded that the Carney government overrule the CRTC, something the government says it does not have the authority to do. If pushed, however, it could of course amend or withdraw the legislation, the Online Streaming Act, that is behind the CRTC actions.
Others were also quick to criticize, including University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist who published the day after the CRTC announcement, pointing out that the Online Streaming Act is already in the crosshairs of the US in the lead up to negotiations to renew the CUSMA/USMCA. Indeed, US Ambassador Pete Hoekstra, who seems to be unable to fathom why Canadians might be upset at a US Administration that has routinely broken the rules it agreed to under Trump 1.0 with the renewal of NAFTA (not to mention the 51st state nonsense), immediately called the CRTC decision “making a bad situation worse”. Geist followed up with another post titled “From Levy to Liability: Why Canada Risks Facing Hundreds of Millions in Retaliatory Tariffs Due to the CRTC’s Online Streaming Act Ruling”.
Copyright Ownership Issues
Now, I am not here to try to justify the CRTC’s Canadian program expenditure announcement, which is a complicated beast. While I believe a legitimate argument can be made that participants in the Canadian broadcast space should be expected to support Canadian content and Canadian production to a certain degree, I have a problem with the requirement that prevents the funders from owning and exploiting, as they see fit, the product they have invested in. I know this view is not shared by many in the Canadian content industry. Part of the CRTC decision involves an obligation to spend 30 percent of their contribution on what is described as “enhanced partnerships”. This is CRTC-speak for production partnerships where Canadians hold the majority of the copyright in the programming.
This would seem to reverse the flexibility in defining Canadian Content (CanCon) that was introduced by the CRTC late last year. As I explained in a blog post last November, the revised CanCon definition outlined by the CRTC for broadcasting and streaming purposes allowed for up to 80% of the copyright in a production to be held by a foreign enterprise, subject to some other CanCon requirements such as the director and screenwriter both being Canadian. This was designed to encourage co-productions, and was a slight relaxation of the hardline rules that required foreign streamers to contribute to Canadian productions but then denied them the right to own and exploit the copyright (including distribution rights) in those productions. Now whatever flexibility that was introduced has been rolled back; at least one streamer production contribution dollar in three must be invested in a production where the rights are held by someone other than the funder, with that person having to be a Canadian. This is despite the fact that the production might have qualified as Canadian (story, director, location, music etc) in every other way. The purpose of the levy is clearly not to promote Canadian content but Canadian production.
Do the CRTC Measures Violate CUSMA Obligations?
While I, like Michael Geist and others, have concerns that the CRTC decision has flaws, and may be indeed become an additional irritant to be dealt with during the forthcoming CUSMA negotiations, my main quibble is with the argument that Canada will face millions in retaliatory tariffs under the CUSMA framework because of the CRTC mandated contributions. Prof. Geist and others are recycling the argument put forward by a US industry group, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), claiming that the CRTC decision violates the terms of CUSMA, specifically, Article 14.10 that refers to investment performance requirements;
“No Party shall, in connection with the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, or sale or other disposition of an investment of an investor of a Party… impose or enforce any requirement, or enforce any commitment or undertaking…to achieve a given level or percentage of domestic content”
CCIA argues, echoed by Michael Geist, that given this situation, Canada will therefore be required to defend its action by means of the Cultural Exception clause (Article 32.6). This is an “escape clause” that says;
This Agreement does not apply to a measure adopted or maintained by Canada with respect to a cultural industry.
Broadcasting meets the definition of a cultural industry. However, if the CCIA is right and Canada falls back on the Cultural Exception, this is itself a problem because in that case the US would be entitled to retaliate (take a measure of equivalent commercial effect) in any sector. In other words, the automotive, aluminum, steel, mushroom or maple syrup industries, or any other, could be lumbered with retaliatory US tariffs as a result of measures applied to US streamers that are discriminatory or otherwise non-compliant with CUSMA.
If the measures are non-compliant or discriminatory, that is. If they are not, Article 32.6, the Cultural Exception, does not apply and therefore there would be no grounds for the US to retaliate. (Not that the need to respect the terms of CUSMA would stop them, as I discuss below). In the past, I have argued that the Cultural Exception is not applicable. This is because Article 14.10 refers to investment (Chapter 14) whereas streaming services fall under a different chapter of CUSMA, cross-border trade in services (Chapter 15). National treatment (non-discrimination) applies to cross-border services, and the streamers are in fact treated more favourably than their equivalent Canadian streaming counterparts. You can read all about it here.
But what if I am wrong? My interpretation has not been tested in “trade court”, which in the case of CUSMA (Chapter 31) allows for a state-to-state dispute settlement process through establishment of arbitration panels. The US could call for such a panel but could also simply assert that Canadian actions were in contravention of the Agreement and that Article 32.6, the Cultural Exemption, applied. This would allow for the application of retaliatory tariffs. However, under the terms of the Agreement, Canada could challenge the US assertion, and so, in effect there could ultimately be a panel review to determine the outcome.
US Trade Actions to Date
That is how the Agreement is supposed to work, but that process is now effectively irrelevant given that the US has violated both its terms and spirit several times, basically arrogating to itself the right to do anything it pleases. The so-called “fentanyl” tariffs were the first such example, where the US imposed a 25 percent tariff on Canadian goods on the specious pretext that Canada was responsible for “the extraordinary threat posed by illegal aliens and drugs, including deadly fentanyl” which “constitutes a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)”, according to an announcement issued by the US Embassy in Canada. Quite apart from the fact the US is responsible for enforcing its own border security, not Canada or Mexico, Canada was the source of less than 1 percent (between 0.1 and 0.2 percent in fact) of illegal fentanyl flowing to the US. More fentanyl probably flowed the other way. The IEEPA tariffs were subsequently struck down by US courts as being an unjustified usurpation of the taxing power of Congress.
Not daunted, the Trump Administration has turned to other legislation, such as Section 232 of the US Trade Act of 1974, to impose tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminum, cars, furniture such as kitchen cabinets, and lumber on the basis that such imports threaten US national security. In addition, Canadian goods that do not have a CUSMA certificate of origin are subject to tariffs under Section 122 of the US Trade Act that deals with balance of payments issues. Then there is the Canadian financed Gordie Howe Bridge that the Trump Administration seems to want to keep in limbo because the owner of the competing bridge is a large Trump donor. I could go on, but the point is, the terms of the USMCA/CUSMA seem to exercise very limited restraint on the Trump Administration. Therefore, why would the Administration care whether Canadian measures imposing a levy on US streamers to fund Canadian productions fall under the Cultural Exemption or not? They don’t. If they want to impose a tariff, they’ll find a pretext.
Should Canada Rescind the CRTC Ruling to Facilitate CUSMA Renewal?
From a trade negotiating perspective, for Canada to roll back the CRTC decision now would be a tactical mistake. Look what happened to the planned implementation of a Digital Services Tax. Long planned, with an implementation date well publicized a couple of years in advance, and with the revenue already booked, the Carney government got cold feet and at the last minute cancelled the tax. This was supposedly to get CUSMA negotiations restarted. As I described it at the time, it was a “humiliating climbdown” to mark Canada Day, 2025. Yes, negotiations resumed for a few weeks until the US pulled the plug once again to signal its displeasure with Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s TV ads during the Super Bowl that enlisted Ronald Reagan to fight tariffs. The DST climbdown achieved nothing. That lesson appears to have been learned. The Canadian Government has made it clear it is not prepared to pay an “entry fee” to begin CUSMA discussions, and will not make concessions simply to get to the table. So, from a trade policy perspective, why should it pull the Online Streaming Act, or intervene with the CRTC?
This is not to say the CRTC got this decision 100 percent right. It is also not to say that, hypothetically, elements of the Online Streaming Act might not be on the chopping block as part of an eventual CUSMA 2.0 deal. That is assuming the US can be trusted to implement what it agrees to. As the smaller partner, Canada has always relied on the US sense of justice, respect for the rule of law and a willingness to surrender some sovereignty for greater overall economic and political security as reasons to expect that the US will honour what it agrees to. Under the Trump Administration, that faith has been shaken. The US streaming industry has every right to invoke the supposed protection of CUSMA and to seek protection under the Agreement. The problem is that the current US Administration has so brutally abused the CUSMA framework as to make it scarcely credible. The streamers are being sideswiped by the aberrations of US trade policy.
But back to the topic at hand. Will the CRTC decision on streaming lead to the imposition of hundreds of millions of dollars in retaliation by the US? Probably not, although such an outcome is not impossible. If it happens, it won’t be because of the Cultural Exception clause in CUSMA, but because the US can wield a big stick and will do so if it suits the mood in the White House at any given time. Canada, however, has some cards to play, to use a Trumpian analogy, and those cards (energy security, critical minerals, lower-cost inputs to US industry such as aluminum, specialty steel, and car parts) are important to the US. The Carney government is playing a waiting game on CUSMA negotiations and renewal. The decision on US streamers is just one more element in this high-stakes poker game. When you’re playing with a master bluffer, you don’t fold your hand before the game is over.
© Hugh Stephens, 2026.
