A panel at the recent Western Association of Broadcasters (WABE) convention in Calgary revealed a consensus among media leaders from across the TV, film and radio sectors: the nation’s regulatory framework is dangerously obsolete and threatening the domestic industry’s survival.

Moderated by Broadcast Dialogue Editor Connie Thiessen, the discussion, “Navigating the Future: Regulation, Innovation, and the Canadian Media Landscape,” featured Steve Jones, President of Stingray Radio; Damian Petti, International Vice President for IATSE; Kirk Nesbitt, representing the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) Technical Steering Committee; and Adnaan Wasey, Calgary Film Commissioner.

Regulation trapped in the past

The general consensus among panelists was that the current regulatory structure, particularly the Broadcasting Act, is a relic that places a heavy burden on licensed Canadian broadcasters while allowing international streamers to operate with few restrictions.

“I think we’re being regulated when it’s 1985,” Jones told the room, criticizing the CRTC’s focus on outdated cultural mandates over economic reality. “We need to evolve our regulatory side to match up with some of the challenges that are in the industry space.”

Nesbitt agreed, noting the technical and financial consequences of the uneven playing field. He argued that the decline in revenues caused by regulatory disparity has led to “less capital available, less opportunity to try or be willing to invest in new technology.”

Jones said that regulatory inertia is having real-world impacts, citing the closure of local radio and TV stations and ongoing staff cutbacks, adding that as Stingray told September’s CRTC hearings on audiovisual content  “if the [Lac Mégantic] disaster happened today, I’m not sure that local radio stations would have had the power to respond at all, let alone in the timely way that community expects and the community needs and deserves.”

“The focus of the regulator being on such virtuous cultural issues versus protection of Canadian jobs is baffling,” Jones continued. “If the film sector, the TV sector, the radio sector loses jobs, it loses its ability to be the very best version of itself it can be. That’s detrimental to the Canadian media landscape, it’s detrimental to telling Canadian stories, every bit is detrimental as perhaps losing out on some of the cultural attributes…”

Petti, whose union represents 170,000 behind-the-scenes technicians, craftspeople, and artisans in the entertainment industry, voiced his concern about the Canadian production sector getting left behind.

“Regulation cannot keep up with the change that our industry is seeing right now. Now, more than ever, it’s globally competitive,” he said, adding that companies like Netflix see the federal five per cent “streaming tax” as a barrier to investment.

“We’re a little cynical about the ability of our government to put the genie back in the bottle and have control over this in a meaningful way,” said Petti. 

“Netflix is global. They’ll just go somewhere else,” he continued, noting that his union’s position is to “do no harm” to what he termed “a fragile ecosystem,” especially as other jurisdictions like the UK and Eastern Europe are aggressively courting production. 

Redefining Canadian Content for a global era

The panelists also agreed that the decades-old definition of Canadian Content (CanCon) is stifling quality and innovation. Jones argued that content should succeed based on merit, not entitlement.

“We fell in love with Squid Games, a Korean show, not because they were forced to spend 35% on Korean content, but because it was really good,” he asserted. “The more we continue to impose unreasonable quotas…we won’t make it great. Create a framework for creators to be great.”

Calgary Film Commissioner Adnaan Wasey supported the call for a broader view of Canadian Content, advocating for policy that fosters all types of creation, including podcasts and YouTube videos, as equally valid forms of media.

Jones said industry groups can no longer be afraid to be direct with the regulator.

“For years, groups were afraid to talk to the commission because they might not grant a licence…it was very much like, you know, a military tribunal when you’re in those rooms… we’ve been afraid to say the quiet parts out loud,” said Jones, who later added that the commission would benefit from having more programmers, rather than lawyers, among its ranks. “Industries risk going out of business because of these cumbersome, outdated regulations…but we cannot be afraid of our regulator. We cannot be afraid of saying the difficult things that need to be said.”