I’ve often talked about the glacial pace of regulation on the Telecom side of the CRTC. It turns out the Broadcasting side is faring no better.
For more than a year, Canada’s broadcasting and telecom sectors have been told that the CRTC is “building a house.” In May, CRTC Chair Vicky Eatrides described the Commission’s agenda as a careful construction project: laying foundations, erecting framing, ensuring the structure will last. Vice chair Adam Scott had used the same metaphor in his remarks to the Scotiabank TMT Conference, emphasizing patience, sequencing, and the importance of getting the architecture right.
But metaphors only work when they illuminate reality. Increasingly, this one obscures it. While the CRTC continues to talk about building a house, the industries it oversees are watching the neighbourhood burn.
The frustration has been documented (repeatedly) by the people who appeared before the Commission, expressing both urgency and optimism.
In early January of 2025, the CRTC launched a proceeding, The Path Forward – Working towards a sustainable Canadian broadcasting system. The oral hearing took place in June 2025; the paper filings were completed a year ago.
In a widely shared LinkedIn post, Steve Jones of Stingray Radio recounts appearing at the hearing “to plead for the modernization of content regulations at Canadian radio.” His summary is blunt: “One year later. Absolutely nothing has happened.” No modernization of CanCon definitions. No movement on ownership caps. No recalibration of exposure requirements. Not even minor progress. Eight more stations have gone dark in the meantime.
Rod Schween of Pattison Media echoes the same experience in a separate LinkedIn post. He says he arrived at the hearing with “cautious optimism,” believing the Commission understood the severity of the pressures facing broadcasters. Six months later, he heard the Chair’s house‑building metaphor. He says he is still standing outside the construction site asking the same question: “How long does it take to build a house?”
These are voices representing hundreds of stations, thousands of employees, and communities across the country relying on local media for emergency information, civic coverage, and cultural expression.
The CRTC’s glacial pace is actively harmful.
Steve Jones illustrated the contrast between technological change and regulatory inertia. He observed that in the year since the proceeding closed:
- Smartphones learned to communicate directly with satellites.
- AI learned to create and buy advertising campaigns.
- Car dashboards became global multimedia platforms.
Meanwhile, “Canada’s radio content and ownership rules didn’t move a millimetre.” Stations are still regulated by the number of AM and FM transmitters they own, as though those transmitters compete only with each other and not with a global ecosystem of unregulated digital platforms.
Technology is advancing in months, while the pace of CRTC regulation is measured in years. This mismatch is a structural failure, no different from the failed regulatory hypothesis I described in May, highlighting the investment consequences of regulatory uncertainty. Capital does not wait for proceedings. It does not pause for consultations, reconsiderations, or multi‑year sequencing exercises. It flows to jurisdictions where the rules are clear, predictable, and aligned with market realities.
Canada’s broadcasting and telecom sectors need a regulator that understands that the cost of delay is not theoretical. Regulatory uncertainty and delay can be measured in shuttered stations, reduced newsrooms, deferred and reduced investment, and diminished Canadian ownership.
A commenter on the Jones post said the CRTC “eliminated license renewals to free up staff to focus on more impactful policy changes. So annnnnny year now.” The joke lands because the underlying truth is clear: the Commission’s internal processes are not producing timely outcomes.
The CRTC speeches describe a careful, methodical construction project. But a house that takes too long to build is of no use if the intended occupants don’t survive long enough to move in.
Steve Jones says, “It is as if the house is on fire, and we’ve called 9‑1‑1… and been put on hold. For a year.”
Rod Schween is equally pointed: broadcasters are standing outside in the cold, waiting for the keys to a house that should have been finished long ago.
While the CRTC talks about framing and foundations, the broadcasting industry is talking about survival. These two conversations simply aren’t aligned.
Unfortunately, government operates under different pressures than business. Government studies, consults, reports, and eventually acts. But, eventually just isn’t good enough in today’s business environment. The business world can’t wait for Canada’s regulator to finish getting its house in order.
The fires are spreading while the Commission is still fiddling with blueprints.