The showdown in a Toronto courtroom this Monday highlights a dramatic collision between legacy regulators and the new media world. At the center of it all is a simple question: should companies like Netflix, Amazon, Apple, and Spotify be forced to pay into Canadian content and news funds — and if so, how much?
This isn’t a trivial policy dispute. It’s about fairness, equity, and whether regulators are trying to solve a very real problem — the struggles of Canadian news — by unfairly shifting the financial burden to companies that have neither a direct role in news production nor a longstanding place in the Canadian broadcasting ecosystem.
Let’s be frank. The CRTC’s 2024 order requiring streamers to contribute 5 percent of their annual Canadian revenue to Canadian content — and 1.5 percent to a fund for local news — is a dramatic policy change. Traditionally, Canadian broadcasters — companies that produce, air, and control much of the country’s media — were required to contribute to Canadian content and journalists because their profits came directly from Canadian signals. But Netflix, Apple, Amazon, and Spotify are not Canadian broadcasters; their businesses are platforms for delivery of a vast array of content, much of it produced elsewhere.
To suddenly apply the same financial obligations to these companies disregards their different roles in the media ecosystem. Furthermore, the CRTC’s policy unfairly singles out “foreign online undertakings”—those with annual Canadian revenue above $25 million—and lets all other companies off the hook. It’s hard to see how this is “equitable” in any reasonable sense.
Spotify’s view — that this requirement is a kind of tax — highlights a key legal and policy consideration. The CRTC’s power under the Broadcasting Act is to regulate broadcasting. To treat a service delivering content over the internet in the same way we regulate a traditional broadcaster signals a dramatic expansion of its powers — a move that many say crosses a legal boundary.
Meanwhile, Amazon makes a strong fairness point: if radio companies pay 0.5 percent of their revenue, and streamers pay 5 percent, it’s hard not to view that as arbitrary and punitive. Apple underscores this by noting it has very limited access to the funds its payments would produce. The companies are forced to contribute to a pool from which traditional Canadian media — their direct competitors — will benefit, without seeing much, if any, return.
Some will say this policy is meant to “level the playing field”—to make sure everyone contributes to Canadian culture and journalists. But the reality is more nuanced. The online platforms already invest in Canadian production; Netflix, for example, has filmed numerous productions in Canada, employing Canadian crews and talent. Furthermore, streamers face a profoundly different market reality. They do not control signals; their platforms are available on-demand, to a global audience; and their content portfolios are a mix of original and licensed material — not all of it destined for Canadian viewership.
Ultimately, the CRTC’s policy — however well-intentioned — disregards these distinctions. It prescribes a one-size-fits-all solution to a problem made by dramatic technological and market upheavals. It is a policy that not only fails to reflect the reality of how online services operate, but also risks stifling the industry’s ability to innovate and invest in Canadian stories.
If we want a thriving Canadian media ecosystem, we need policy responses that reflect a modern understanding of media delivery — not an outdated view anchored in the era of terrestrial broadcasting. The federal government and regulators should pursue a more tailored approach — one that considers the unique roles of streamers and their existing contributions — instead of adding a punitive levy that will undermine their ability to grow, innovate, and produce more Canadian content in the future.
The CRTC’s order may be well-intentioned, but it’s a blunt tool for a delicate policy challenge. It’s time to reassess and find a path forward that supports Canadian culture without unfairly shifting the financial load to companies that are already making substantial contributions in their own way.
