Two Canadian think-tanks are urging the CRTC to rethink its “outdated” broadcast regulations. In two separate reports released Wednesday, the Fraser Institute and the C.D. Howe Institute argued that broadcasters should no longer be required to fund Canadian programming.

Both studies argue that because over-the-top (OTT) programming services, such as Netflix, are not required to fund Canadian programming, there exists an unfair regulatory imbalance between traditional and online broadcasters. Unlike recently proposed changes to the E.U.‘s audiovisual rules, however, neither report argues that OTT services should face programming quotas or be required to contribute financially to local content.

Both institutes, while self-described as non-partisan, are typically known for more conservative viewpoints.

The Fraser Institute report argues that Canadian broadcasters should no longer be required to contribute 5% of their revenues to Canadian content creation, but rather, they should move to a free-market competitive model.

The Fraser Institute’s argument is essentially that the justification for a “protect-and-subsidize” model is flawed. Firstly, the report argues that there is little conclusive evidence to prove that Canadian entertainment programming supports a greater sense of national identity, one of the major reasons why the government subsidizes content, it says. Secondly, it argues Canada’s policies to promote the supply and consumption of Canadian content aren’t actually achieving their goals.

“The CRTC has itself acknowledged that much of the Canadian content that has been produced has not been well received by Canadian consumers. Indeed, part of its rationale for mandating a pick-and-pay option is to promote ‘better’  rather than ‘more’ Canadian content,” the report states.

Ultimately, the report says the government could still have a role in funding public service programming – documentaries, news programming and the like – through direct subsidies. Overall, however, the report argues for deregulating the traditional broadcast sector, stating that stronger market competition will “promote entrepreneurship on the part of Canadian producers of programming content.”

While the C.D. Howe Institute also says that the disparity in regulations facing traditional and online broadcasters is unsustainable, it does not argue that funding Canadian content should be stopped outright. Instead, the C.D Howe report argues that the Department of Canadian Heritage should be in charge of the promotion and financial support of Canadian content, not the CRTC.

Unlike the Fraser report, C.D Howe argues that the funding of Canadian content is in the public interest, but requiring broadcasters to fund programs that “may or may not be viewed by Canadians” isn’t the smart choice. Instead, general government revenues should be used to fund programming. It also argues that the government could then support broadcasters’ voluntary plans for engaging Canadians with Cancon.

“The Department of Canadian Heritage could, for example, provide support for plans depending on their proposed mix of Canadian news and public affairs, regional diversity, drama, amateur sports, documentary, personal interest, minority language and cultural programming,” the report states. “The government could ensure that its public support does not go toward programming that private companies would provide without subsidy, by setting a duration (say five years), after which the success of engaging with audiences could be assessed and funding for different distributors might be re-evaluated accordingly.”

Regardless of the methods, both institutes believe Canadian regulations must change to keep up (or catch up) with technological changes in the broadcast sector.

Image courtesy of Shutterstock

Updated at 1:49 p.m.