Is it time for Canada to undertake a communications sector regulatory review?
Eight years ago, the government appointed an external Panel to review Canada’s communication legislative framework. “The review examined issues such as telecommunications and content creation in the digital age, net neutrality and cultural diversity, and how to strengthen the future of Canadian media and Canadian content creation.”
The review panel’s final report, Canada’s communications future: Time to act, included many recommendations that led to legislative and policy changes. However, I’m not sure I see the report providing sufficient guidance for today’s environment.
To a certain extent, the report provided cover for initiatives the Trudeau government sought to undertake: the Online Streaming Act, the Online News Act and the controversial (and still un-passed) Online Harms Act.
All are problematic and all were predictably so. The Online News Act led Meta to pull all news links on its platforms because of the high cost of compliance. A court challenge could force a complete revisit of the Online Streaming Act. The US Trade Representative has already indicated concerns about these two acts. We’ll have to wait to see what will be contained in the next iteration of the Online Harms Act expected to be introduced this year.
The US government, in support of its technology giants, is stepping up pressure to dismantle the heavy handed funds being administered under the Online Streaming and Online News acts. In a Globe and Mail OpEd, former CRTC vice-chair Peter Menzies said that Canada should be prepared to sacrifice the Online Streaming Act in trade negotiations in order to save Supply Management:
Fortunately for the streamers – and very much as predicted by critics – the CRTC has become so mired in procedural muck that it has failed to fully implement the act, meaning there will be less to untangle if required. When the Online Streaming Act was passed in the spring of 2023, both then-heritage minister Pablo Rodriguez and CRTC Chair Vicky Eatrides expressed confidence the process would be complete by the end of 2024. Eight of the 11 decisions the latter has made so far concerning streamers have taken at least eight months; three took more than a year, and another decision based on a process that began in 2024 has been promised for early 2026.
[As an aside, I’d be interested in what Polymarket has to say about the likelihood of any of the online bills surviving 2026.]
There are other signs that the current ways of doing things at the CRTC just aren’t working. I’m not talking about the need for little changes here and there, tailoring along the edges. Canada’s regulator is still cloaked in regulations that were designed for a monopoly era, when broadcasting needed scarce spectrum licenses, when telephone companies and cable companies were separate, and the internet was still a twinkle in Al Gore’s eyes.
It isn’t the CRTC’s fault. The regulator can only play the cards they are dealt.
It isn’t just the internet that changed things, but streaming has further exposed the frailties of the current system. Only half of Canadian households now subscribe to TV services from their cable or phone company. Just a third of households still have a wireline phone. But there remain countless regulations and subsidy systems designed for the era when nearly every household had each of those services. (A couple weeks ago, the National Post had an entertaining tribute to the wireline phone, “Last call for the landline”).
In my December 1, 2025 newsletter, I referenced lengthy delays in the CRTC’s handling applications and releasing timely decisions. I wrote:
In July 2024, CPAC asked the CRTC for a $0.03 monthly rate increase. Its current $0.13 rate was set in 2018. On November 21, the CRTC decided to defer until some unspecified time in the future. A year and a half to make a non-decision. CPAC says the deferral jeopardizes its continuing operation. To their credit, Commissioners Scott and Abramson wrote a dissenting view appended to the Commission’s Decision, saying “given the pressures these exceptionally important services face today, we should decide today. Should something different be needed down the road, we can adjust down the road.”
Last month, Marc Miller, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages had to throw a temporary lifeline for CPAC while the CRTC kicks the can down the road.
You’ll also recall my post last October talking about Cogeco asking the Federal Court to order the CRTC to release a decision. There are lots of other stale files at the Commission. For example, a reader pointed me to a tariff application seeking to destandardize some TDM-based interconnection services, because no new customers had requested them for years. The application was filed on August 1, 2024 and the CRTC standard was to issue a determination within 45 business days. On October 15, the CRTC wrote to say “Commission staff is continuing its analysis of these applications. Consequently, they will not be disposed of by the 45th business day following receipt. However, the Commission intends to issue a decision by the end of 2024.” That self-imposed deadline expired 13 months ago.
As Peter Menzies wrote, “Despite a 50-per-cent staff increase since early this century, the overwhelmed CRTC has put broadcasters in a state of stasis through license auto-renewals, while other matters, such as disputes once efficiently resolved in months, are dragging on for several years, often at great commercial cost.”
In this environment, cross-subsidies, such as cable subscribers footing the bills to operate the National Public Alert System, and CPAC, are simply unsustainable.
As I have been writing for years, the government has been using the communications industries – telecom and broadcasting – as an off-the-books taxation system funding social programs that could – and should – be funded under the general budget. The current system was designed in a monopoly era, when we all got our phones from one company and our cable TV from another, and we had no other choices.
The US government, in support of its technology giants, is adding outside pressure to dismantle the heavy-handed funding framework established under the Online Streaming and Online News Acts.
With this in mind, perhaps it is time for the government to examine another communications policy and regulatory review.
Perhaps we should consider a new approach, starting with a fresh bolt of cloth, to custom-tailor a regulatory regime that properly fits the new era.
