Latest news with #CanadianContent
CTV News
09-06-2025
- Business
- CTV News
Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content
A person browses a television menu showing icons for streaming services Netflix and Amazon Prime in a photo illustration made in Toronto on Friday, March 22, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Giordano Ciampini OTTAWA — Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.' It said the contribution requirement is 'inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues.' Apple also said the regulator 'acted prematurely' and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was 'equitable.' It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association—Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. It said in court documents that none of the streamers 'has any connection to news production' and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. 'What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money,' it said. 'That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production.' In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. 'While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services,' the broadcasters said. 'For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade.' A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. 'The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants,' the office of the attorney general said. 'Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters.' The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve 'an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain — shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden.' 'This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament' and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system. Anja Karadeglija, The Canadian Press
National Post
08-06-2025
- Business
- National Post
Apple, Amazon and Spotify challenging CRTC's Canadian content rules in court this week
Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. Article content The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. Article content Article content Article content The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Article content Article content In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. Article content In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Article content Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Article content Article content Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.' Article content Article content It said the contribution requirement is 'inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues.' Article content Apple also said the regulator 'acted prematurely' and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was 'equitable.' It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. Article content The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming.
Yahoo
08-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content
OTTAWA — Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be "equitable." It said the contribution requirement is "inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues." Apple also said the regulator "acted prematurely" and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was "equitable." It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association—Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. It said in court documents that none of the streamers "has any connection to news production" and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. "What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money," it said. "That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production." In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. "While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services," the broadcasters said. "For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade." A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. "The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants," the office of the attorney general said. "Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters." The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve "an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain — shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden." "This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament" and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 8, 2025. Anja Karadeglija, The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CBC
03-06-2025
- Business
- CBC
How will Canadian film and TV change if streamers don't pay into it?
For the past two weeks, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) held hearings to expand their definition of Canadian content. The CRTC also discussed how digital streamers in the country, such as Netflix and Disney+, should contribute a percentage of their Canadian revenue toward a Canadian content fund — something every other national broadcaster does. But the streamers don't want to pay. Today on Commotion, host Elamin Abdelmahmoud speaks with storyteller Jesse Wente, policy expert Vass Bednar, and showrunner Anthony Q. Farrell about what this lack of investment means for the future of Canadian content. We've included some highlights below, edited for length and clarity. For the full discussion, listen and follow Commotion with Elamin Abdelmahmoud on your favourite podcast player. WATCH | Today's episode on YouTube: Elamin: If we look at the current rules, large English language broadcasters have to contribute 30 per cent of their revenue — it's a pretty significant chunk — back into Canadian broadcasting programming. Last year, the CRTC ordered that streaming services, like Netflix, like Disney, like Amazon, have to pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to a fund to make Canadian content right here. So it's definitely not an even playing field by any stretch. To give people an example to wrap your head around it: you go to Disney+, the broadcaster. They carry Shōgun, right? Shōgun wins a historic amount of Emmys. That show is shot in this country, it's shot here in Canada. The streamer position, if I understand it correctly, is saying, "We'll invest in your industry on our own terms." Which is to say, "We'll shoot our shows here, but we won't necessarily make a show that is specifically Canadian," or that that money will necessarily have to stay in Canada. Vass, what's on the line if they don't pay an equal share? Vass: Higher barriers to entry for artists and creators, little to no investment in the next generation of content creators, a loss of voices and diversity and perspectives and richness. It's not just not paying into the system — it's also about control. I think [the hearing] is about being assertive and recognizing that there's a role for the state to make these markets more free and fair and tailor them in a way that works for Canada and is aligned with our values and what we care about for future generations. That's why I also come back to the element of control, and our algorithmic sovereignty in our everyday lives. I can't program my discoverability. I can't say on Netflix or on YouTube, "I'd like to see a certain proportion of Canadian content" or "Show me more films made by women." You're always dependent on their categorizations and what they're surfacing. So it really is about us versus digital forces and a data-driven context, where we're losing power — not just as Canadians, but we're losing power as consumers, too. In terms of our ability to choose what we enjoy, and what we support with our time and attention and our money, that's at risk too. Elamin: Anthony, the streamers already have so much power here. What does their stance in this position tell you right now? Anthony: Pardon the cuss, but that's malarky. The streamers are not here in Canada because they want to make Canada a better place. They're here because we're convenient. They're here because we're good at what we do. They're here because we are right beside America, who is the biggest exporter of content. We understand them. We can make shows similar to them. We can do a lot of those things for less of a price tag, right? They're here because we're good for them. So for them to say, "We're already putting money into the system"— yeah, you're doing that because it's helpful to you. What you should be doing, is you've got to play like everyone else. I have Disney+, I have Netflix, and as a TV writer, I also have cable. So my Rogers subscription, my money goes back into the system. My Netflix subscription, no money goes back into the system. And if people are cutting Canadian cable and just going to American streamers, how are we going to protect Canadian artists, to make future shows? And [the streamers] are saying, "We're giving all the key grips, and we're giving all the service production people money." Cool, but how are we going to be able to make more Canadian content, unless we're actually filling back up those coffers, right? So what [the CRTC] are asking for is not a lot, considering that they were suggesting five per cent, where other Canadian broadcasters are having to give 30. That's not a lot. You're already making money. It's not like we're taking money you don't have. It's based on your revenue. I think I understand the fight, because these big corporations are always going to be trying to figure out ways to keep their profits as high as possible… But I hope the CRTC is seeing all this, and we'll get a ruling in the next year or so, and we'll be able to build our business back up. Because it has been a struggle with the Canadian industry, over the last few years especially. So it'll be good to be able to get people working. Elamin: Right now, a show or a movie qualifies as CanCon based on who makes it and where it's made. That's interesting to me, because we're sitting a couple days after The Apprentice, the Donald Trump movie, won best picture at the Canadian Screen Awards. Famously, Donald Trump is not Canadian, and very few of the cast are…. That movie was made in conjunction with a Canadian production company, so it becomes a Canadian picture. One of the suggestions floated [at the hearing] was that to qualify as CanCon, a show would have to look and feel distinctly Canadian. I don't know what that means. Jesse, what are the pros and cons of expanding the definition to consider the Canadianness of a story here? Jesse: To understand Canadianness, I, like you, would struggle to understand what exactly that is. Beyond Anne of Green Gables as the most persistent Canadian storytelling, I don't know what else that would be, other than, I flash back to Score: A Hockey Musical. My approach to this has always been: I care much less about the what is being made and the storytelling, and I care much more about the who. For years, I've been advocating for Indigenous people to have space. And it wasn't so that they could tell a specific story, that wasn't the point. Because I don't know what stories Indigenous storytellers are going to want to tell, and I want them to have freedom. This is the point: the freedom to tell, whatever that looks like for them. The way the [CanCon] point system has worked — and this is true in music too — they would classify above the line talent. And what that means, is the folks who make the creative decisions: basically the producer, the writer, the songwriter, the artist. It matters less where it's made — although in music, it does very much matter where it was recorded — but it doesn't so much matter for that on film and TV. So we've famously made American movies, like X-Men movies and all of this stuff, in Canada for decades and decades. I think this always gets back to: what do Canadians want? Because the choice point is, ultimately, you could just become a service sector for America, which is what they do with China when it comes to their manufacturing. They outsource all the making of the thing to a different country, but all the money returns to America. And we already have a significant amount of the sector that already does that. We call it "service productions to the U.S." But what you don't necessarily get out of that is our own stories, and that's ultimately what we're asking for.
CBC
03-06-2025
- Business
- CBC
Is your favourite show CanCon enough? Here's why the definition of Canadian content may get a reboot
What's your favourite bit of CanCon? Maybe Schitt's Creek, which aired on CBC but also streamed on Netflix, comes to mind. Perhaps some iteration of Anne of Green Gables. Or maybe a classic David Cronenberg flick like Dead Ringers? These are all considered to be CanCon — shorthand for Canadian content, it refers to film and television productions made in Canada by Canadians. But maybe you have a favourite show like CBS's Tracker, which airs on Global TV in Canada. It's one of the most watched shows on broadcast and streaming according to the Nielsen ratings, a U.S.-based audience measurement system. It's filmed in British Columbia and employs Canadians, but it's not considered CanCon. That matters because broadcasters in this country have obligations to ensure that a minimum percentage of the content they distribute to viewers meets government CanCon requirements to ensure Canadian stories are available on Canadian TV screens or streaming devices. On-demand streaming changed the game, with global companies like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+ dominating the market. But they haven't been held to the same CanCon standards as traditional Canadian broadcasters, and the streaming companies say it's not realistic to expect them to do so. That's not necessarily something that's on the minds of viewers when they settle into the couch and reach for the remote or the laptop. So here's what you need to know about CanCon and the challenge of getting Canadian eyes on it. I just want to watch my shows. What do I care? Canada's broadcasting regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), is at a bit of a fork in the road when it comes to CanCon. The reason there are CanCon requirements is to ensure that Canadian stories and points of view don't get drowned out by the flood of content flowing in from the U.S. "We are a small market in a big world and we sit next to a very experienced, prolific producer of content," said Dave Forget, executive director of the Directors Guild of Canada. "There should be some shelf space for the Canadian stories so that Canadians can also see themselves in their own experience." In 2023, Canada's Online Streaming Act came into effect, updating broadcasting laws to include content streaming services. It meant that foreign streaming companies would not only have to promote or recommend Canadian programming on their platforms, but streamers making $25 million or more in Canada will have to start paying five per cent of their domestic revenue to support the production of Canadian media content. The CRTC estimates that the levy would raise around $200 million a year and said the funding would be used to boost local and Indigenous broadcasting. But now the CRTC is also looking into updating what it considers to be Canadian content. "Our goal is clear: to modernize the definition of Canadian content to reflect today's reality," said Vicky Eatrides, the CRTC's CEO and chairperson, during the start of public consultations last month aimed at reviewing what exactly constitutes CanCon, and to determine whether foreign streamers should be held to the same standards as traditional broadcasters in Canada. The public hearings in Gatineau, Que., spanned two weeks and wrapped up on May 27. WATCH | Breaking down the existing definition of CanCon and how it might change: Why the definition of CanCon might get a reboot 3 days ago Duration 3:57 So, how Canadian do series and movies have to be? While many south-of-the-border movies and shows may have been filmed in Canada, with Canadian crews and talent, it's not enough to be considered CanCon in the eyes of the CRTC. First, the film or show's producer has to be Canadian. Then, there's a 10-point system for key creative roles, and six out of 10 points are needed to meet the bar to be considered CanCon. For example, if the director or writer is Canadian, that gets you two points. But, between the director and the writer, at least one must be Canadian. That also goes for the top performers; one of the two leads must be Canadian. That counts for one point each. Other crew roles such as production designer, director of photography, editor and music composer count for one point each. Other rules apply for animated productions. On top of the point system, Cancon rules state that 75 per cent of production and post-production expenses have to go to Canadians or Canadian companies. The requirements have been loosened before. The CRTC reduced the minimum number of points needed from eight to six in 2016, something the commission said would allow more films to become eligible for certain funding programs. At last month's hearings, there was talk of actually increasing the number of points needed to 15, as well as whether a requirement to reflect Canadian cultural elements should be introduced. WATCH | Why Canadian films struggle at the box office despite international acclaim: Canadian films win awards but struggle at the box office 1 year ago Duration 2:03 So, what do Netflix, Disney+ and other streamers want? Canadian broadcasters, producers — and even artists — want the foreign streaming services, primarily the big U.S. ones many Canadians use, to meet minimum CanCon requirements like they do in order to maintain broadcasting licences and qualify for subsidies. Anthony Shim, a director whose credits include the critically-acclaimed 2022 independent film Riceboy Sleeps, admits it's a challenge to balance the freedom of creativity with the need to protect Canadian artists and storytelling — a goal he says should always be top of mind. Toronto-born writer, producer and director Anthony Q. Farrell, who has worked on series including The Office, the British series The Secret Life of Boys and CTV's Shelved, says the definition of CanCon is more important than ever. "Especially in a time where we're really focusing in on buying Canadian and taking care of our national voice, I think it's important that we … use our Canadian creatives to tell our stories," said Farrell, who provided recommendations at the CRTC consultations on behalf of the Writers Guild of Canada. He agrees that streaming companies "making money off Canadians" should be putting some of their profits back into distinctly Canadian film and television production. The streaming companies, however, don't see it quite the same way. They were collectively represented at the consultations by the Motion Picture Association of Canada, which argued that they're already an integral part of Canada's film and television production sector but that they shouldn't be held to the same content requirements as traditional broadcasters. Wendy Noss, the association's president, appeared at the hearings on May 16 and said the CRTC should make changes to its CanCon policies, including reassessing the number of points required in the 41-year-old CanCon points system, as well as re-evaluating which roles qualify for points. She said that before the CRTC imposes Canadian content requirements on foreign streamers, they need to "introduce meaningful flexibility in modernizing the definition of Canadian programs." "Broadcasting policies should be straightforward, sustainable and flexible to enable global producers to do what they do best: creating entertainment for audiences at home and worldwide," said Noss. The CRTC will hold further CanCon consultation hearings at a later date. But the big streaming companies are also set to battle the CRTC in court over the implementation of the Online Streaming Act. They filed an appeal last year, after the commission ordered global online streaming services to fork over five per cent of their domestic revenues to support the production of Canadian content. WATCH | Why some Canadian content creators are upset about the Online Streaming Act:
