Jun 8, 2026 · 19 min · 5 segments
In the span of a few days last week, the government announced it was reversing the CRTC’s Online Streaming Act ruling, released its long-awaited national AI strategy, and kept pushing Bill C-22, the…
Michael GeistHostNo entities detected.
As I mentioned, I didn't have the chance to address it in an earlier episode, but in late May, the CRTC released its decision on the required contributions and discoverability requirements arising from the Online Streaming Act.
I stated, "Given the likely opposition from many stakeholders, it is virtually certain to lead to protracted trade and legal battles.
From the moment the government introduced Bill C-10 in twenty twenty, its goal was to impose regulatory obligations on internet streaming services, treating them as online broadcasters and mandating that they pay into the Canadian system.
This week's ruling puts a number on the payments, building on an earlier five percent interim levy with an additional ten percent in expenditure requirements.
The combined fifteen percent places Canada among the most expensive operating jurisdictions in the world for streaming services, with consequences that will undoubtedly affect consumer streaming prices.
Moreover, with the streaming services already challenging the interim five percent levy in court, they will undoubtedly challenge this one as well.
The US government, which has become increasingly vocal in its opposition to the Online Streaming Act, will view this decision as a provocation and escalate pressure on Canada to drop the legislation altogether.
Culture Minister Mark Miller appeared to hedge in his reaction to the decision, suggesting that the government sees the headaches that lie ahead." Well, less than two weeks later, the government killed the centerpiece of its own broadcasting policy, announcing plans to issue a new policy direction that will effectively override the CRTC's decision.
The reversal, which undoubtedly reflects the harm caused as part of the trade negotiations with the US, will come at a cost to taxpayers, as the government also promised a six hundred million dollar payout the audio and audio visual sectors to cover the anticipated lost revenues.
Now, governments do not move to unwind CRTC decisions within two weeks unless they've concluded that the decision just simply can't stand, and there's a procedural reason that it's being done this way.
The Broadcasting Act contains no review and vary power over the contribution and expenditure decisions, and the governor in council's review authority reaches only licensing decisions, so the government simply can't vacate the ruling.
It has to force the result through with a fresh policy direction of general application and what will be a new CRTC proceeding, with that six hundred million dollar payout to the sector serving as a bridge to keep the sector on side.
Miller framed the move entirely in terms of affordability and consumer choice, cautioning that the commission's requirements could be borne by Canadian consumers through higher prices.
Now, that risk has been obvious since the government introduced the legislation years ago.
In fact, it's close to word for word for the case that I made before the commission back in December twenty twenty-three, namely that consumer interests, competition, and affordability belonged at the center of broadcast and internet policy.
But we should notice what the release never mentions: CUSMA, trade, retaliation, or the United States.
The problem was that the CRTC's approach raised obvious trade risks and opened the door to massive tariff retaliation if the government relied on the cultural exemption in the trade agreement to press ahead.
It's worth unpacking for a moment the decision that will soon enough be effectively moot.
As part of the decision, the commission not only set the amount, but also dictated how the money was to be spent.
A minimum of thirty percent of qualifying Canadian programming expenditures flowing to enhanced partnerships, which were defined as productions in which a Canadian broadcaster or Canadian independent producer holds more than fifty percent of the copyright with a Canadian independent producer, in turn defined as a company in which the streamer holds less than thirty percent of the equity.Bottom line, the foreign streamer was required to spend the money, barred from owning the majority of what it funded, and blocked from controlling the producer that does.
While the opposition characterized the CRTC outcome as a tax, it was actually a regulation dictating how foreign capital had to be deployed in Canada and who would own the result.
That regulatory approach treads on dangerous ground because CUSMA's investment chapter contains a prohibition on performance requirements in Article 1410.
As I mentioned, I didn't have the chance to address it in an earlier episode, but in late May, the CRTC released its decision on the required contributions and discoverability requirements arising from the Online Streaming Act.
I stated, "Given the likely opposition from many stakeholders, it is virtually certain to lead to protracted trade and legal battles.
From the moment the government introduced Bill C-10 in twenty twenty, its goal was to impose regulatory obligations on internet streaming services, treating them as online broadcasters and mandating that they pay into the Canadian system.
This week's ruling puts a number on the payments, building on an earlier five percent interim levy with an additional ten percent in expenditure requirements.
The combined fifteen percent places Canada among the most expensive operating jurisdictions in the world for streaming services, with consequences that will undoubtedly affect consumer streaming prices.
Moreover, with the streaming services already challenging the interim five percent levy in court, they will undoubtedly challenge this one as well.
The US government, which has become increasingly vocal in its opposition to the Online Streaming Act, will view this decision as a provocation and escalate pressure on Canada to drop the legislation altogether.
Culture Minister Mark Miller appeared to hedge in his reaction to the decision, suggesting that the government sees the headaches that lie ahead." Well, less than two weeks later, the government killed the centerpiece of its own broadcasting policy, announcing plans to issue a new policy direction that will effectively override the CRTC's decision.
The reversal, which undoubtedly reflects the harm caused as part of the trade negotiations with the US, will come at a cost to taxpayers, as the government also promised a six hundred million dollar payout the audio and audio visual sectors to cover the anticipated lost revenues.
Now, governments do not move to unwind CRTC decisions within two weeks unless they've concluded that the decision just simply can't stand, and there's a procedural reason that it's being done this way.
The Broadcasting Act contains no review and vary power over the contribution and expenditure decisions, and the governor in council's review authority reaches only licensing decisions, so the government simply can't vacate the ruling.
It has to force the result through with a fresh policy direction of general application and what will be a new CRTC proceeding, with that six hundred million dollar payout to the sector serving as a bridge to keep the sector on side.
Miller framed the move entirely in terms of affordability and consumer choice, cautioning that the commission's requirements could be borne by Canadian consumers through higher prices.
Now, that risk has been obvious since the government introduced the legislation years ago.
In fact, it's close to word for word for the case that I made before the commission back in December twenty twenty-three, namely that consumer interests, competition, and affordability belonged at the center of broadcast and internet policy.
But we should notice what the release never mentions: CUSMA, trade, retaliation, or the United States.
The problem was that the CRTC's approach raised obvious trade risks and opened the door to massive tariff retaliation if the government relied on the cultural exemption in the trade agreement to press ahead.
It's worth unpacking for a moment the decision that will soon enough be effectively moot.
As part of the decision, the commission not only set the amount, but also dictated how the money was to be spent.
A minimum of thirty percent of qualifying Canadian programming expenditures flowing to enhanced partnerships, which were defined as productions in which a Canadian broadcaster or Canadian independent producer holds more than fifty percent of the copyright with a Canadian independent producer, in turn defined as a company in which the streamer holds less than thirty percent of the equity.Bottom line, the foreign streamer was required to spend the money, barred from owning the majority of what it funded, and blocked from controlling the producer that does.
While the opposition characterized the CRTC outcome as a tax, it was actually a regulation dictating how foreign capital had to be deployed in Canada and who would own the result.
That regulatory approach treads on dangerous ground because CUSMA's investment chapter contains a prohibition on performance requirements in Article 1410.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.