Skip to main content

Active CRTC Consultations

CRTC consultations on broadcasting and telecom rules that affect Canadians. Plain-English summaries and direct links to participate.

New to CRTC interventions? Read our plain-language guide.

Open for Comment

Open for CommentBTNoC 2025-274

CCTS Customer Awareness

Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation

Deadline

October 7, 2026

Launched: October 17, 2025

A complaints process only protects the people who know it exists. Television subscribers are the one group with no code requirement that their provider ever tell them — which is exactly the gap this proceeding could close.

Canadians can take unresolved telecom and TV complaints to the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services (CCTS), but only if they know it exists. CRTC-commissioned public opinion research found that just 2% of people with an unresolved complaint were told about the CCTS by their provider. The CCTS's own annual reports from 2015 to 2023 show that only 8% to 13% of the customers who reached it had learned about it from their provider.

The requirement to notify customers about the CCTS currently sits in the Wireless Code and the Internet Code. There is no equivalent requirement in the Television Service Provider Code. Every participating provider, TV included, is bound by the CCTS's own public awareness plan, but no CRTC code rule guarantees television subscribers will be told the CCTS exists.

The proceeding has a long procedural history. It launched on 17 October 2025. A group of providers — including Bell, Rogers, TELUS, Cogeco, Eastlink, SaskTel, Videotron, Freedom Mobile and Xplore — jointly asked the Commission to suspend it until a future codes-harmonization proceeding was finished. The CRTC suspended the proceeding in November 2025 to consider that request, then denied it on 23 April 2026 and reinstated the proceeding with a new structure: providers file their own proposals first, and the public then responds to what they proposed. Provider proposals were filed by 23 July 2026.

On 13 July 2026, at the CCTS's request, the Commission extended the remaining deadlines. Interventions are now due 7 October 2026 and replies 13 November 2026. This is a written process with no oral hearing, and anyone may file.

A second attempt to pause the proceeding was made on 20 July 2026: an industry association, two public interest groups and TELUS jointly asked that it be suspended until the Commission launches a broader review of the CCTS's governance, mandate and operations. On 24 August 2026 the Commission denied that request (2025-274-4), noting the proceeding had already been significantly delayed. The 7 October and 13 November deadlines stand.

One of our volunteers filed a comment in this CRTC case, as an individual.

Key questions before the CRTC
  • ·Should the code notification requirement be extended to television providers, whose code currently has none?
  • ·At what point in a complaint must a provider tell the customer about the CCTS?
  • ·Do the providers’ own proposals, filed in July 2026, actually fix the awareness problem?
Open for CommentTNoC 2026-47

Indigenous Broadband Fund Stream

Telecom Notice of Consultation

Deadline

December 1, 2026

Launched: March 18, 2026

Indigenous communities continue to face significant gaps in internet and mobile coverage. A dedicated funding stream is intended to close that gap with community-led design.

The Broadband Fund supports the build-out of internet and mobile services in underserved areas of Canada, with funding drawn from telecom companies. This proceeding develops an Indigenous-specific stream of the Fund, co-developed with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis communities, to address persistent connectivity gaps in Indigenous communities across the country.

On 17 September 2026 the Commission extended the deadlines (TNoC 2026-47-1), citing significant interest from Indigenous organizations, communities and governments. Interventions are now due 1 December 2026 and replies 2 March 2027.

Key questions before the CRTC
  • ·How should the Indigenous stream of the Broadband Fund be structured?
  • ·What governance and selection criteria should apply?
  • ·How should it interact with the existing Broadband Fund?

Hearing Scheduled

Hearing ScheduledBTNoC 2026-134

Harmonizing the Consumer Protection Codes

Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation

Launched: June 12, 2026Hearing: November 30, 2026

This is the once-in-a-decade rewrite of the rulebook governing your contract, your bill, and your ability to leave. Whatever protections are left out of the harmonized code will be absent for years.

The CRTC maintains four separate consumer codes: the Wireless Code for cellphone service, the Internet Code, the Deposit and Disconnection Code for home phone, and the Television Service Provider Code. They were written at different times and in different contexts, so the protections they give are inconsistent — even though most Canadians buy these services bundled together on one bill.

This proceeding would combine all four into a single Consumer Protection Code. The Commission has published a Working Document setting out a possible model for the merged code, along with a full list of questions for parties to answer.

The part that matters most for television subscribers is the extension question. Some protections currently apply to only one service. The Commission has said it will examine whether service-specific protections should be extended across a broader set of retail services — which is where a TV customer could gain rights that today exist only for internet and wireless customers.

One intervention on the record, filed by an individual subscriber, argues that a customer should not be charged for a discretionary television service they were never told about and never selected: it should be disclosed before purchase, itemized on the bill, and removable on request. A separate procedural request asked the Commission to put questions to the largest television ownership groups, since nobody outside the industry can currently say which services are included by default or what happens when a customer asks to remove one.

The deadline to file an intervention was extended to 14 August 2026 by BTNoC 2026-134-1 and has now passed. The proceeding continues: interventions are posted to the public record, a reply phase follows, and a public hearing begins 30 November 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Gatineau. The hearing can be attended in person or followed online.

Key questions before the CRTC
  • ·Which protections that currently apply to only one service should be extended to all of them?
  • ·Should a TV provider have to disclose, itemize, and remove a service the customer never selected?
  • ·Should any television-specific protections be kept television-only?

Awaiting Decision

Pending DecisionTNoC 2026-210

Locked Phones: Show Cause, and a Pause on the Unlocking Rule

Telecom Notice of Consultation

Launched: August 14, 2026

An unlocked phone is what makes it practical to switch providers or to use a local SIM abroad. This case decides whether selling phones locked for 60 days broke the rule, and the pause sets what every provider may do until the consumer codes are rewritten.

Since 1 December 2017 the Wireless Code has required that a phone a provider supplies for wireless service be provided unlocked, and that a locked phone be unlocked on request, at no charge.

On 22 April 2025, Bell and its Virgin Plus brand told Commission staff they would start selling phones locked for 60 days after purchase, citing fraud and robberies at their stores, and began the next day. On 28 November 2025 the Commission found the practice non-compliant and directed Bell to stop immediately, to unlock free of charge any phone still locked because of it, and to notify the customers affected. Bell asked the Commission to withdraw or reconsider that letter and to put it on hold. The Commission says the practice appears to have continued without interruption since 23 April 2025.

On 14 August 2026 the Commission ordered Bell to show cause why it should not be found in violation of the unlocking rules from 23 April 2025 to 14 August 2026, and, if it is, why penalties of up to $10 million for the company and up to $25,000 for its directors or officers should not follow. It also confirmed that its November letter is binding.

At the same time it paused the rule that phones be sold unlocked, for every provider, on three conditions: phones must unlock automatically within two business days of purchase, providers must unlock phones on request, and providers must make reasonable efforts to tell customers how long the lock lasts, what it means for them, and that they can ask for an unlock. The pause lasts until the consumer-code proceeding (BTNoC 2026-134) is decided, and providers using it must file their locking and unlocking figures on that proceeding's record by 30 October 2026. Whether phones should be sold locked in future will be considered there.

On 11 September 2026 the Commission extended the deadlines (TNoC 2026-210-1) after an individual pointed out that correspondence the notice described as being on the public record had not been posted; it was added on 26 August. Interventions closed on 24 September 2026. Bell's reply is due 5 October 2026, and a decision follows.

Key questions before the CRTC
  • ·Did selling phones locked for 60 days, from April 2025 to August 2026, violate the Wireless Code?
  • ·If so, should penalties follow, for Bell and for its directors or officers?
  • ·How is the two-business-day pause working for people who have bought phones since August 14?
Pending DecisionBTNoC 2025-227

Outage Consumer Protections

Telecom and Broadcasting Notice of Consultation

Launched: September 4, 2025Decision expected: Overdue — was expected summer 2026

Most Canadians depend on their internet and phone for work, school, banking, and emergencies. When service fails, customers should not have to fight for information or for a refund.

When the internet, phone, or TV goes down, Canadians often get little information from their provider and rarely receive a credit on their bill. This proceeding examines whether new consumer protection rules should require providers to give customers meaningful and timely updates during outages, and whether refunds or bill credits should be standard after a disruption.

The proceeding follows several large-scale outages affecting Canadian consumers and is part of the CRTC's broader Consumer Protections Action Plan. The comment period closed in late 2025 and a decision was expected in summer 2026; as of September 2026 the Commission has not yet ruled.

Key questions before the CRTC
  • ·Should providers be required to issue refunds or credits after outages?
  • ·What information should providers be required to share during outages, and how quickly?
  • ·How should these rules apply to smaller providers and resellers?
Pending DecisionBNoC 2025-52

Audio Content Framework

Broadcasting Notice of Consultation

Launched: February 20, 2025Hearing: September 18, 2025 – September 29, 2025Decision expected: 2026-Q2

Audio policy decisions made here will set the rules for how Canadian music is supported across radio, satellite, and streaming services for the next decade. The outcome affects what Canadian artists earn in royalties and how online platforms operate in Canada.

This proceeding examines the regulatory framework that supports the creation, presentation, and discoverability of Canadian and Indigenous music. It is the audio counterpart to a parallel review of Canadian programming definitions in the audio-visual sector.

The Commission is asking how the existing rules — built for traditional radio and satellite services — should be updated for online audio services that now reach most Canadians. This includes how Canadian musical selections are defined, how financial contributions to Canadian content funds should be allocated, and how discoverability obligations should apply to streaming platforms.

The hearing ran for five days in September 2025. The record closed on December 11, 2025 with final written submissions. A decision is expected in the second quarter of 2026.

Key questions before the CRTC
  • ·How should "Canadian musical selection" be defined for both traditional and online services?
  • ·Should online audio services contribute the same percentage of revenue to Canadian content funds as traditional services?
  • ·How should Canadian content discoverability be measured on streaming platforms?
Pending DecisionBNoC 2025-2

Sustainable Broadcasting System

Broadcasting Notice of Consultation

Launched: January 9, 2025Hearing: June 18, 2025 – July 4, 2025Decision expected: 2026

Decisions in this proceeding will shape what Canadians can watch, how their cable packages are structured, and what protections smaller programming services have against the largest distributors.

This proceeding examines five major issue areas in Canadian broadcasting: the effectiveness of existing regulatory tools including the Wholesale Code, market dynamics between programming and distribution, distribution and packaging requirements, the undue preference framework, and dispute resolution.

The hearing ran from June 18 to July 4, 2025 and received 480 interventions, with 78 parties appearing. The Commission is examining whether existing rules adequately protect consumer interests, independent programming services, and competitive markets in the face of online streaming and shifting market power.

A decision is expected in 2026 and could reshape how cable, satellite, and IPTV providers package and distribute Canadian programming services.

Key questions before the CRTC
  • ·Are existing regulatory tools, including the Wholesale Code, working as intended?
  • ·How should distribution and packaging requirements be updated?
  • ·How can the undue preference framework better protect independent services?
  • ·How should disputes between programmers and distributors be resolved?
Pending DecisionBNoC 2026-18

Canadian Programs Regulations

Broadcasting Notice of Consultation

Launched: February 2, 2026Regulations in force: Proposed for September 1, 2026, or on registration if later

The certification framework determines which productions count as Canadian programs for broadcaster content quotas and funding eligibility. Changes here directly affect what counts as Canadian on streaming services subject to CRTC contribution rules.

In November 2025, the CRTC published Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2025-299, setting out a modernized framework for certifying Canadian audio-visual programs. This proceeding consults on the actual regulatory wording that will give effect to that framework, including amendments to the Television Broadcasting Regulations, the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, and the Discretionary Services Regulations.

The new regulations are proposed to come into force on September 1, 2026, to align with the start of the broadcast year. Programs certified under the existing framework will continue to qualify, and applicants can request certification under the new framework once it takes effect.

Key questions before the CRTC
  • ·Is the proposed regulatory wording clear and workable?
  • ·Is the September 1, 2026 in-force date appropriate?
  • ·Are the consequential amendments to the existing regulations correct?
Pending DecisionTNoC 2026-31

CCTS Fee Structure

Telecom Notice of Consultation

Launched: February 13, 2026Decision expected: 2026

The CCTS is the only place Canadians can take an unresolved telecom or TV complaint when their provider will not fix it. Changes to its funding affect which providers participate and therefore which customers have access to the complaints process.

The Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services (CCTS) is the independent body that handles complaints from Canadian telecom and TV customers. The CCTS is funded by per-complaint fees charged to participating service providers.

This proceeding examines two preliminary CRTC views: that the CCTS's funding model may disproportionately burden small telecom providers, regional players, and new market entrants compared to large incumbents, and that providers may not have a meaningful mechanism to dispute the fees they are charged. The proceeding was triggered by a complaint from small provider InnSys, which was expelled from the CCTS in 2023.

The outcome could affect how the CCTS is funded, how easily small providers can participate, and indirectly how robust complaint protections are for Canadian telecom customers.

Key questions before the CRTC
  • ·Does the CCTS fee structure disproportionately burden small providers?
  • ·Should the CCTS have a formal fee dispute mechanism?
  • ·How would changes affect customer protection and competition?
Pending DecisionBTNoC 2025-94

Public Interest Participation Funding

Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation

Launched: May 12, 2025Decision expected: 2026

A CRTC decision is only as informed as the record before it. If public interest groups cannot afford to participate, the record skews toward industry. This proceeding determines whether ordinary Canadians' representatives can show up.

Participating in a CRTC proceeding can be costly. Public interest groups may need to commission expert research, conduct consumer surveys, or retain legal counsel. Until now, the rules governing how these costs are reimbursed have not been reviewed in over a decade.

This proceeding examines whether the existing framework — which relies on the Broadcasting Participation Fund for broadcasting matters and on a separate telecom costs award regime for telecom matters — adequately supports meaningful participation by Canadians in CRTC decisions. The Broadcasting Participation Fund stopped accepting new claims in October 2025 pending the outcome of this proceeding.

The decision will shape who can afford to participate in CRTC consultations going forward.

Key questions before the CRTC
  • ·Should there be a unified framework for both broadcasting and telecom proceedings?
  • ·How can interim funding — paid up front rather than reimbursed — be expanded?
  • ·What barriers do equity-deserving groups, Indigenous participants, and official language minority communities face?
Pending DecisionBNoC 2025-272

Accessibility of Programming Equipment

Broadcasting Notice of Consultation

Launched: October 16, 2025Decision expected: 2026

Accessible content does not help if a viewer cannot find or activate it. This proceeding addresses the equipment side of accessibility for Canadian TV viewers.

This proceeding focuses on the equipment and software used to access TV programming, rather than the programming itself. It examines whether set-top boxes, mobile apps, and streaming interfaces present unnecessary barriers for Canadians with disabilities — including issues like menu navigation, search functionality, and the discoverability of accessible programming.

This is a sister proceeding to existing CRTC work on closed captioning, described video, and audio description, which focus on the accessibility of the content itself.

Key questions before the CRTC
  • ·What barriers do Canadians with disabilities face when accessing TV programming through current equipment?
  • ·Should set-top boxes and apps be required to meet specific accessibility standards?
  • ·How should accessibility be measured and reported by providers?
Pending DecisionTNoC 2026-155

Show Cause on Device, SIM and Setup Fees

Telecom Notice of Consultation

Launched: June 30, 2026

This is the first real enforcement test of the switching-fee ban. The outcome decides whether a consumer protection that took effect in June has practical force, or whether it can be worked around with a renamed fee.

Telecom Regulatory Policy 2026-43 and section 27.04 of the Telecommunications Act prohibit fees charged for activating or modifying a service plan, along with any fee whose main purpose is to discourage customers from changing or cancelling their service. That prohibition took effect on 12 June 2026.

Within weeks, Commission staff learned that three national carriers had introduced new charges. Bell added a $40 device-handling charge for customers buying a phone with their wireless service. TELUS introduced a $15 fee for SIM and eSIM cards. Rogers introduced a $40 device setup charge in assisted channels, a $25 shipping charge for devices ordered online, and a SIM fee. The carriers argued the fees fall outside the ban because they relate to optional purchases rather than to the service plan itself. Bell confirmed to Commission staff that it would keep charging.

The Commission is requiring the three companies to show cause why these fees do not violate the Act and the policy. If it finds a violation, the companies must also show cause why administrative monetary penalties of up to $10 million each — and up to $25,000 for individual officers and directors — should not be imposed, and why a mandatory compliance order should not issue.

The proceeding was reopened. On 14 August 2026 the Commission issued TNoC 2026-155-2 ruling on procedural requests and setting new deadlines: interventions were due 31 August 2026 and replies 10 September 2026. The Forum for Research and Policy in Communications and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre had asked for a two-day oral hearing; Bell and TELUS opposed, and the Commission kept the process written, finding that oral evidence was not required for what it described as a single question about the interpretation of one statutory provision. The Commission also confirmed that the final reply stays with the three companies alone, on the basis that a greater degree of procedural fairness is owed to them given the nature of a show cause proceeding.

The comment period closed on 31 August 2026. Bell, TELUS and Rogers filed their final replies on 10 September 2026. The record is closed and a decision follows.

Key questions before the CRTC
  • ·Is a fee attached to an optional device purchase still an activation fee under the ban?
  • ·Should administrative monetary penalties be imposed?
  • ·Will customers who already paid these fees be refunded?
DecidedBNoC 2026-115

Indefinite Radio Licence Terms

Broadcasting Notice of Consultation

Launched: June 5, 2026Decision expected: Decided August 24, 2026 (Decision 2026-216)

A licence renewal is one of the few scheduled moments when the public can question a service and the onus sits on the licensee to justify itself. For a service you cannot tune away from and did not individually choose, it was the only such moment there was — and this decision removed it, while confirming on the record that the service’s obligations remain open to challenge at any time.

Amendments to the Broadcasting Act allow the CRTC to issue licences that do not expire. In the Modernization of Radio Processes Policy (BRP 2025-265), the Commission decided radio licences would no longer be granted for fixed terms. This proceeding implements that decision for licences that already exist, proposing to renew almost all of them indefinitely regardless of their current expiry date. Radio services operated by the CBC in English and French are excluded, as are developmental stations, which keep an initial five-year term.

For conventional AM and FM stations this is sensible housekeeping. Those stations answer to their markets daily: a listener who is not served tunes away, and advertising follows the audience. Removing renewal paperwork does not remove that accountability.

The appendix, however, lists 1,010 services, and not all of them are that kind of station. On review, 1,008 are over-the-air. The remaining two are national subscription-funded services: a satellite subscription service, and the only licensed pay audio service in Canada — the audio channels delivered inside cable and satellite television packages, whose licence expires 31 August 2027.

An individual subscriber intervened on that single entry, taking no position on the over-the-air conversions. The argument is that the pay audio service is different in kind. It has no over-the-air audience that can tune away, and unlike the satellite service its subscribers do not contract with it directly — it reaches them through the packages their television provider assembles. Neither accountability mechanism applies, which makes the scheduled renewal review the principal one that exists. The framework governing pay audio is also still undecided: the audio policy proceeding (BNoC 2025-52) closed its record in December 2025 and no decision has issued.

The relief sought is narrow: defer the term decision for this one service until the audio policy proceeding is decided; failing that, keep a fixed term; failing that, state expressly that conversion is without prejudice to later review of the service’s conditions of service. Excepting a small number of services is not novel — the Commission did exactly that for the CBC and developmental stations.

The record closed on 21 July 2026.

DECIDED. Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2026-216, issued 24 August 2026, renewed the listed licences for indefinite terms — the pay audio service included, effective 1 September 2027. The requested deferral and fixed term were not granted. The intervention was addressed in a dedicated section of the decision, and the third request was granted in substance: the Commission stated that the renewals "have no impact on the licensees’ conditions of service" and do not interfere with the pending audio policy review or any future proceeding — meaning every obligation attached to the service survives and can be challenged, changed, or enforced at any time, by application. Compliance concerns raised in interventions carry forward to a promised compliance process where "[i]nterested persons will have an opportunity to comment." The scheduled 2027 review is gone; accountability now depends on proceedings someone starts.

Key questions before the CRTC
  • ·What replaces licence renewal as a scheduled opportunity for public input?
  • ·When will the audio policy proceeding (BNoC 2025-52), undecided since December 2025, be decided?
  • ·When do the promised fall conditions-of-service consultation and compliance process actually launch?
Pending DecisionBNoC 2026-103

Corus Ownership Restructuring

Broadcasting Notice of Consultation

Launched: May 26, 2026Decision expected: 2026

Tangible benefits are the public’s share of a broadcasting transaction. Each exception granted on financial-hardship grounds shapes what future applicants will ask for.

Corus Entertainment operates Global News, 15 conventional television stations, 25 discretionary services, and 36 radio stations. It has applied for approval of a debt-for-equity recapitalization: lenders would forgive roughly $500 million in debt in exchange for 99% ownership of a new parent company that would own Corus and all its services. The transaction has already been approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Corus says the restructuring is necessary to address its debt load and keep its services operating. It is not requesting new licences or changes to its conditions of service.

It is, however, requesting an exception to the Commission’s tangible benefits policy, which normally requires a purchaser in a change-of-control transaction to direct a percentage of the transaction value into Canadian programming and community initiatives. Corus cites its financial position as grounds for the exception.

The comment period closed on 25 June 2026. A decision is pending.

Key questions before the CRTC
  • ·Should the tangible benefits policy be waived because of the applicant’s financial position?
  • ·Who exercises effective control of the licensed services after the transaction?
  • ·What commitments should attach to approval?

Get alerts when proceedings open

We monitor CRTC consultations and notify our list when new comment periods open for proceedings that affect Canadian consumers.

This joins the CBA email list. Every email has an unsubscribe link. How we handle your details.

Not an email person? Follow us on Facebook for updates and quick tips on dealing with your provider.

Last updated September 16, 2026. Proceeding status is maintained manually. View all open CRTC consultations at crtc.gc.ca.