OPINION: Direction vs. dictation — why the CRTC’s independence is worth protecting

In previous pieces, I have written about Canada’s cultural industry and the need to refocus it towards audiences. This time, I am doing the unusual: defending Canadian bureaucracy. This may not be the most promising way to begin an op-ed, but governmental machinery matters. Parliamentary committees, regulators, tribunals and the other institutions of government are important: they create the processes through which difficult questions can be considered, challenged and ultimately resolved before they become political crises. The CRTC is one part of that under-appreciated machinery, but it works only if the various components remain in their proper places. That is why there is a difference between governmental direction and governmental dictation. On Sept. 25, I submitted a Part 1 application to the CRTC because I believe the Government’s June 3 announcement regarding BRP 2026-95 and 2026-96 raises a serious question about the real or perceived limits of federal authority under the Broadcasting Act. On June 3, the government announced the Minister of Canadian Identity would direct the CRTC to review its recent decisions concerning Canadian broadcasters and online streamers. That announcement also indicated that the government intended to establish a new policy direction concerning implementation of the Online Streaming Act. This action created an unusual situation. The current policy direction had been issued in November 2023. The CRTC subsequently conducted its proceedings, considered the record, and released its decisions in May 2026. Those decisions contemplate further proceedings to establish tailored conditions of service. Looking at this record, the government is entitled to change policy directions. What it cannot do, absent statutory authority, is treat the rules it intends to change as though they have already been altered. That distinction matters because the Broadcasting Act provides specific mechanisms for government intervention. Section 28 gives the Governor in Council a specific power to set aside or refer back a CRTC decision where the commission has made a decision under section 9 to issue, amend or renew a licence, subject to the requirements in that provision. Importantly, BRP 2026-95 and 2026-96 were not decisions to issue, amend or renew licences. They were regulatory policy decisions establishing frameworks to be implemented through subsequent proceedings. Section 28 therefore does not provide the mechanism that can trigger the intervention announced on June 3. The Government has other available powers. Sections 7 and 8 of the Broadcasting Act establish a mechanism through which the Governor in Council can issue policy directions. But a policy direction becomes binding when it comes into force. An announcement that a new policy direction will be developed in future is not itself a new policy direction. What the government has effectively done, however, is to put a brake on an ongoing regulatory process. That is not a power the Government has been granted under the Broadcasting Act. I am sympathetic to the government’s position. It is dealing with significant international pressures and numerous competing priorities, and the minister himself acknowledged on Sept. 14 that he was in a “legislatively, morally and ethically difficult position because government should not be dictating to an independent organization.” Perhaps the government will be able to issue a new policy direction before the end of this fall but, if not, it will confront something of a bureaucratic labyrinth. Option one, the CRTC could proceed with its planned implementation proceedings while the government develops its new policy direction. Option two, the government could then introduce a new direction partway through those proceedings, potentially requiring additional work and creating even more uncertainty for broadcasters, producers and other interested parties. Option three, the CRTC could simply delay its proceedings while everyone waits for the release of a policy direction that does not yet exist. None of these options is particularly advantageous. The first two waste time and resources, while the third raises the fundamental issue of what statutory authority permits an independent, quasi-judicial regulator to defer its work because of an anticipated future federal direction. That is not merely a broadcasting question. In Vavilov, the Supreme Court emphasized that judicial deference to administrative decision-makers reflects respect for Parliament’s decision to entrust particular matters to specialized administrative bodies. It would be a curious result if courts are expected to respect the CRTC’s specialized statutory role while the executive is prepared to set that role aside whenever it disagrees with a prospective regulatory outcome. There is another useful consequence that the government should consider. An independent regulator provides a government with a valuable political buffer. The government establishes the policy framework, the regulator applies it, and regulated parties can challenge decisions through established regulatory and judicial processes. Everyone has a defined role and responsibility for the resulting decisions can be attributed accordingly. If a government can instead intervene after a decision it dislikes and effectively pause its implementation while developing a new policy direction, that buffer is reduced to ventriloquism. Future CRTC decisions become increasingly attributable to the government itself, whether the government ultimately agrees with those decisions or not. Lobbyists and lawyers should also take note. If political pressure can become a direct route around a regulatory decision, lobbying becomes a better alternative than the regulatory and judicial processes Parliament has established. Courts have laws and precedents they must apply; political intervention operates differently. If the former can be bypassed simply by persuading the latter to pause a decision, the function of regulatory proceedings will change considerably. My Part 1 application therefore asks the CRTC to determine and defend the legal basis for its independence. I am not asking the commission to oppose the government’s policy objectives. As noted above, the government is entitled to amend policy through the mechanisms Parliament has provided, and there is nothing inherently improper about deciding that an existing policy needs to change. My question is narrower: what mechanism, if any, presently authorizes the government to interrupt the CRTC’s implementation of its decisions before a new policy direction has been lawfully established? My application can be dismissed for a myriad of reasons, but it was important to register this concern for reasons of principle. If no one objected, what would that say about the importance of our creators, the production industry, the regulator or similar institutions? Moreover, sometimes bureaucracy is not the obstacle to getting things done. Sometimes, it can be what prevents us from getting the wrong thing done. John P. Roman is a governance, regulatory, and public policy executive who served as Director of Legal & Regulatory for the Canadian Communication Systems Alliance (CCSA). His work focuses on broadcasting and telecommunications policy, regulatory modernization, and governance in highly regulated industries. The positions and opinions expressed by The Wire Report columnists and contributors are solely reflective of the author’s perspective and do not necessarily reflect The Wire Report’s views or values.

OPINION: Direction vs. dictation — why the CRTC’s independence is worth protecting

Broadcast |
By John P. Roman
|September 30, 2026

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

OPINION: Direction vs. dictation — why the CRTC’s independence is worth protecting

Broadcast | By John P. Roman |September 30, 2026

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

OPINION: The CRTC needs a plan for fake public opinion

Film and video distribution industry revenues on the rise: StatsCan

She shoots! She scores! PWHL takes over Hockey Night in Canada on CBC

Related Stories

OPINION: The CRTC needs a plan for fake public opinion

CRTC approves sixth area code for southern Alberta

Liberals accused of violating CRTC independence in regulatory challenge

CRTC throws out Videotron Part 1 over Ottawa transmission lines

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Broadcast |
By John P. Roman
|September 30, 2026