Submitted by Rod Schween, President, Pattison Media
This week’s federal announcement will be welcomed by many as a sign that Ottawa understands the seriousness of the challenges facing Canadian media.
The government’s decision to provide significant support to the sector, alongside a directive to review aspects of the current regulatory framework, is an important signal. It reflects recognition that something in the system is not working as intended.
But recognition is not resolution.
The challenge facing Canadian broadcasting today is not simply a question of funding. It is a question of whether the system that has historically supported Canadian content, local news, and cultural expression is still functioning in a sustainable way.
For decades, Canadian broadcasting has operated on a straightforward principle. Those who benefit from access to Canadian audiences contribute to the creation and distribution of Canadian content and local journalism. That model has never been perfect, but it has provided a foundation for a distinctly Canadian system built on participation, contribution, and shared responsibility.
A sustainable Canadian broadcasting system has always relied on a simple and widely accepted principle: those who benefit from Canadian audiences contribute to Canadian storytelling. That principle remains just as relevant in a digital environment as it was in a traditional one, and it should continue to guide how the system evolves.
What has changed is the market.
A growing share of advertising revenue now flows to global digital platforms that operate outside the traditional contribution model. At the same time, domestic broadcasters continue to carry the primary responsibility for supporting Canadian programming and local news. The result is a structural imbalance. Revenue is shifting away from the system, while obligations remain within it.
At the same time, shifts in how content is distributed and monetized globally mean that more of the long term value in the system is moving away from those who create content toward those who control its distribution. Any sustainable system must account for that reality. That imbalance is at the heart of the current challenge.
Government support will help stabilize parts of the system in the near term, but it does not address the underlying issue. If anything, there is a risk that it shifts the focus away from fixing the system and toward replacing it.
Instead of reinforcing a system in which market participants support Canadian content, it may move us toward one where public funding fills a gap that government itself has acknowledged was intended to be funded through contributions tied to the implementation of the Online Streaming Act. This matters because it quietly shifts the system from one based on contribution to one increasingly based on substitution.
Broadcasters also need to speak with discipline. This is not the moment to argue for permanent dependency. It is the moment to argue for a system that works. The public will support fairness before it supports favouritism. It will support local news before it supports corporate rescue. And it will listen if the industry explains, clearly and consistently, that the goal is not to replace market funding with public funding, but to restore a framework in which Canadian broadcasting can sustain itself.
Just as important, the industry should not underestimate the reputational risk of this moment. For years, Canadian broadcasters have made the case, correctly, that our system is not built on subsidies, but on a simple principle: those who benefit from Canadian audiences contribute to Canadian content and local journalism. If that distinction is now blurred, and audiences come to believe that Canadian media is simply accepting a bailout, we risk alienating the very public whose trust we depend on. Credibility, once lost, is harder to rebuild than revenue.
ome will see this announcement as creating longterm stability for the sector. But it risks doing the opposite. Instead of reinforcing a system in which market participants support Canadian content, it may move us toward one where public funding fills a gap that was never meant to exist. That is not a sustainable model. It shifts the focus away from ensuring that global platforms contribute fairly, and toward government stepping in to replace that contribution.
Providing temporary stability while policy is refined may be necessary. But temporary support cannot become a substitute for fixing the underlying structure of the system.
That shift has broader implications. A system funded through participation is fundamentally different from one that depends on public support. Over time, greater reliance on government funding inevitably means greater exposure to policy decisions, budget priorities, and political cycles. That is not about intent. It is about structure. Canadian broadcasting has historically been strongest when it has operated within a stable, arm’s length framework that allows it to serve audiences and communities with independence.
The underlying issue remains unresolved. Revenue continues to move out of the Canadian system, while the obligation to invest in Canadian content and local news remains concentrated among domestic players. Until that imbalance is addressed directly, no level of public funding will fully stabilize the system.
Ottawa has made clear it sees the problem. The industry now needs to be equally clear about the solution. Public money may buy time, but it cannot, on its own, rebuild a sustainable Canadian broadcasting system. That requires a fairer market, timely implementation of policy, and a renewed commitment to the principle that those who benefit from Canadian audiences contribute to Canadian storytelling.
Canadian broadcasting needs short term stability. What it cannot afford is to replace a system that was built to sustain it.
