How will Canadian film and TV change if streamers don't pay into it?

CBC

2 days ago

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.