Canadian Heritage Committee on May 18th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Champoux, go ahead for two and a half minutes.

Thank you.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My question is for Mr. Scott or Mr. Hutton.

Part II is one of the concerns of broadcasters in general, in that we are talking about regulating digital businesses and traditional broadcasters feel that they have very heavy obligations. Licence fees are obviously part of that.

If, in Bill C‑11, an amendment were proposed to abolish part II fees, how would that be handled? How could this shortfall be offset? Would the new funds that would be generated by the contribution of online businesses be sufficient?

[Claude Doucet, Secretary General, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]

In fact, when we talk about part II licence fees, we are talking about funds that go directly to the government, as my colleague the chairperson said. This is a matter for the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Finance, because it is a source of revenue on that side.

The CRTC is the intermediary. That's the role we play.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Okay. So you don't necessarily have an opinion, because it wouldn't affect the way we regulate.

[Ian Scott]

It wouldn't affect our work, no.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Okay. That's fine.

Earlier, I started talking about Bill C‑18, and you told me that you were beginning to form an opinion on this bill. I imagine that you have studied it enough to tell us a little about eligibility. I had started to tell you about it earlier.

We get a lot of calls from companies that define themselves as news companies, but which are, apparently, excluded from this bill because they have somewhat more specialized fields of activity and journalistic coverage. Let's take the example of consumer magazines.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 30 seconds.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Do you find that the current framework of the bill is fairly well defined or do you feel that there is room for manoeuvre in admitting businesses that might not entirely fit the description we have in mind?

[Scott Hutton]

We too are still in the early stages of analyzing the ins and outs of the new legislation. However, there is a general definition that says it is to produce news and general news. This is in the bill at the moment. So it's essentially directed at that purpose.

As time goes on, as well as with open processes and public consultations, it's up to us to see and define what is general and what it refers to. Our analysis so far suggests that we are talking more about traditional news, as is generally accepted, and less about consumer-oriented information, as you were giving as an example.

There are also many programs in the Department of Canadian Heritage that subsidize periodicals or other forms of publication.

I think the interest here is in news, because it has never been subsidized by these other programs.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Absolutely. However, this has opened the door to a large number of companies creating pseudo-journalistic or somewhat specialized content that say they are experiencing the same problem and seeing their advertising revenues being sabotaged.

Don't you think this bill could have been a little broader and allowed for different categories?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Champoux, I'm sorry. The time is up.

[Scott Hutton]

That's not our role.

We regulate local news. That's our area of expertise. We've explained that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry.

I will go to Mr. Julian for two and a half minutes—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

A point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

—and then this is ended.

Yes, Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Chair, I think we got out of the rotation for questions. I didn't want to interrupt Mr. Champoux—I would have felt like I was photobombing his questions—

[A voice]

Oh, oh!

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

—but I do think it should have gone to two five-minute slots for the Conservatives and Liberals before going to 2.5 minutes for the Bloc and NDP. I'm happy to carry on with the 2.5-minute round and then come back to the five minutes for the Conservatives and Liberals.

Maybe the clerk could clarify that. I just don't want to see our members lose out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

If the committee is cool with that, I am fine to go for another 10 minutes after Mr. Julian is finished. We do have this room for an extended time to move into committee business.

Thank you.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

It goes to me, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, it goes to you.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Great. Thank you very much.

Mr. Scott, let me follow up questions that you didn't have time to answer the last time. First off, what lessons can we pull from the Australian example for Bill C-18? Second, how do we ensure that local media really benefits? Third, with regard to the process of negotiation, mediation and final offer arbitration, how long do you see that period, expecting that there is not necessarily a lot of co-operation from the web giants on that?

[Ian Scott]

The best way for me to answer that is that I have had considerable dialogue with my Australian colleagues. I'd suggest that their news environment is perhaps simpler than ours. It's certainly more concentrated than ours. It appears that it's been quite successful in driving players to commercial agreements, but a lot of the work that remains to be done is, if you will, preparing the sword in case negotiations don't work. They haven't had practical experience yet with arbitration and how long it takes where, as you described, commercial negotiations fail.

So we don't have a lot of information about that yet. We do know it well from the broadcasting side in terms of mediation and arbitration. Mediation goes on a long time, but that is because we're trying to avoid arbitration. Once we actually engage in arbitration, the processes are fairly efficient and straightforward. It's final offer arbitration: Put in your best offer and we choose one.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

How long is that process? If you're a local newspaper in Burnaby, how long is that process?

[Scott Hutton]

We can only use our current experience in broadcasting, where we do have set standards of service. I can't remember it exactly, but it is in the realm of 55 or 65 working days.