FALZON: "If we don't drop our antiquated nationalism, we'll have nothing."

A version of this article was published in CARTT January 27, 2020.

It's moments away. The long-awaited announcement from the review panel for the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review (BTLR) is set to debut just before the Canadian Media Producers’ Association (CMPA) annual confab, Prime Time 2020.

Charles Falzon is Dean of Ryerson University Faculty of Communication and Design (FCAD) and former Chair of RTA School of Media. He’s produced more than 2000 hours of TV, garnering Gemini awards and Emmy nominations. 

A Canadian media icon, Falzon’s many firsts include being Founding Chair of CMPA (current CEO is Reynolds Mastin). He also served on the Expert Advisory Group for our last federal media inquiry, the 2016-2017 Department of Canadian Heritage Canadian Content in a Digital World/ Creative Canada Policy Framework. All of which and more make him a perfect source to help understand the imminent announcement.

As Policy Fellow in FCAD Audience Lab, I spoke with Dean Falzon about what’s at stake for Canadian media:

Berkowitz: As Founding Chair of the CMPA (then CFTPA, Canadian Film and Television Producers Association), you led a series of meetings with Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) in the early 1980’s that created our current point system. How do you see that process?

Falzon: We were pioneers. Independent content creation and distribution were new but we knew even then that the market would eventually be global and we needed to develop a system that would make us competitive.

I don’t think back to those days as being protectionist. I think of them as the start of an export era based on talent. Seeds were planted for what would inevitably be a very competitive future. People don’t remember that the point system was supposed to be flexible and nimble, giving Canadian talent an advantage while we catch up to the needs of a global milieu. Yes, it was about having Canadian content, but ultimately it was about Canadian talent that would eventually be world class and competitive.

Revising history, people think of it as about protecting Canadian culture. It was not. It was about ensuring as much money as possible stays in the Canadian system so content and talent could evolve. Content would rule. Culture would be a by-product of Canadian voices and perspectives. People would get work. Competition would lead to better talent,

which would lead to

better content and so on.

B: Did things change over time?

F: In my opinion, investments by government started clouding the issue. Bureaucracy and policy overshadowed creativity and the passion to reach an audience. People were asking “What does it mean to be Canadian?” and “What will get funding?” rather than “What works?” and “How do I connect with the audience?” What emerged was a bureaucratic agenda versus an audience and market agenda.

B: Are you saying policy emphasis on production impacted Canadian content?

F: Yes, success was measured by “Can you get something funded and can you get it produced?” rather than audience satisfaction and commercial success. That’s not absolute. Many producers and creatives were focused on audiences. Many did get into this business because they wanted to tell stories. Notable exceptions came out of this era such as Degrassi and Anne of Green Gables, still evergreen today. But overall, the system did not support creative development or export strategies. Our showrunners were often lawyers and bankers as opposed to the Hollywood approach where showrunners are writers.

B: 2010 and onward: What happened when digital media disruption kicked in?  

F: Suddenly there were no borders and the mentality of the audience changed too: They don’t want borders. Suddenly, a protectionist mindset became rather quaint. The question is: what do we have to build on?

We have a lot of great assets, great production crews and great individual talent. But our whole approach to creative industry has been for the most part, myopic and protectionist.

Suddenly we’re not prepared. We’re not prepared philosophically, with a broad talent pool that is commercially oriented, with government policies that are relevant, or with an economic model that is international in scope.

B: What are your thoughts on the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Review, slated to table their recommendations very shortly?

F: It’s all gloves off now. There are a lot of smart people who I believe get it. But the world has changed. Global trade in intellectual property is not something you can defend by being a small country saying this is what we want and we’re going to protect it. 

I accept that we need incentives and support. We need a public media distribution model and ways to ensure Canadian stories have a chance to be told. But the system we develop must be realistically interlinked with a global content marketplace. Audiences are more discerning than ever. We have a lot of catching up to do.

We are now in a different world.

Let’s get in the driver’s seat and be players

rather than be in denial.

From now on, the win has to be defined by what’s the win for the Canadian consumer, not the policy maker. It is about: “what does the Canadian consumer want?” The Canadian consumer wants to binge. The Canadian consumer wants news and great music and great entertainment now, any way they can get it.

Can we find opportunity in the global media ecosystem? We certainly can and many are despite the system. Can we turn it around and mitigate the downside? Of course. We have amazing talent and agile innovative entrepreneurs. Can we find a soft landing and a way to use our strengths? Yes. Broadcasters, producers, and government agencies need to pivot. What we said in 1969 or ‘79 or ‘89 about protecting Canadian identity through protectionism arguably didn’t work then. It certainly will not work now.

What will work is a system where financial incentives support quality, well-paid talent and development and stimulates private investment in an export based industrial strategy.

B: What’s at stake now?

F: If a new system doesn’t arise quickly, we will become a cultural satellite.

Unless we drop the

antiquated nationalism,

we’ll be left with nothing.

B: Dean Falzon, thank you so much. 

F: You are most welcome.