Canadian Heritage Committee on March 8th, 2021

[Jean-Stéphen Piché]

The act gives all of the tools to achieve that fairness.

Some of the applications will not necessarily be written in the legislation, but the application of it will either be in the direction...and applied by the CRTC. Not all of the elements of the levelling of the playing field are actually there. As Owen mentioned, we don't, for example, have quotas outlined in the application. That will come later.

With regard to the levelling of the playing field, the elements to architect the levelling of the playing field are in the legislation.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

So there is more work to be done through regulation, and of course the CRTC will interpret those regulations...based on what specifically?

[Jean-Stéphen Piché]

It's not “interpret”. If I said that word, that's not the word I meant to say.

They will apply the regulation, set the appropriate timeline to take into account the needs...their understanding of what's going on. They will run hearings to determine how that fairness needs to be applied. That's how it will be operating.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

With regard to the issues that still need to be decided and determined based on regulation, why is it not important for parliamentary oversight, and a discussion, at least, at this committee, about those issues—those issues that aren't covered in C-10 but will be covered by regulation?

Why wouldn't we discuss that here as parliamentarians, as representatives of the people?

[Jean-Stéphen Piché]

I believe they are important.

I will perhaps ask my colleagues to elaborate on the process by which the directive and the application by the CRTC will operate. I think it will shed a light on how it materializes.

Owen.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

As we know, the committee has requested a draft of the policy direction, which will give you a sense of how the minister intends to propose to the Governor in Council to communicate those objectives to the CRTC. That is the first thing. That will give you a line of sight into it.

We are proposing a more modern regulatory framework to guide the issuance of policy directions moving forward. If you look at Bill C-10, you can see that one of the changes we're proposing to make is actually that the issuance of a policy direction would be subject to a normal Canada Gazette gazetting process, whereby everybody will have an opportunity to make representations to government, for example, before that policy direction is issued. We see, moving forward, that we should actually institute a more modern regulatory approach to this that is transparent in terms of the government saying “our intention is to issue this kind of direction and we'd like reaction and stakeholder feedback”.

Once that direction is issued, it's indeed up to the CRTC to go through its normal regulatory processes, all of which provide opportunities for stakeholders to participate and make representation. That doesn't happen behind closed doors. That is an extension of the way the CRTC has operated for the last few decades in terms of stakeholders being able to go and make their case.

As we know, notwithstanding that we think that independence is important, there continues to be that ability for the government, if it feels that the CRTC is going in a direction that is not consistent with public policy objectives, to issue that policy direction that must be of general application. That's really important, because that stops this government from intervening, say, and targeting a specific media company or specific licensing decision or something like that. The government's role in this instance is to articulate broad policy objectives of general application.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Okay. Thanks. We're running out of time, and that was more than I thought I would get.

If I could follow up, though, on the modernization—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Aitchison, I apologize. You literally have one second left.

Ms. Dabrusin, you have five minutes, please.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to pick up a little on where the conversation was at about the policy directive and maybe get a better understanding for us about what it is and what is the process for it to be finalized. Could one of you help me with that?

[Jean-Stéphen Piché]

Absolutely. I will ask Owen to go through the key components and also the process, because there's a set process for how these things are done.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

For policy direction to be issued to the CRTC, it takes a decision by the Governor in Council on an order in council. That's the actual mechanism by which it comes to be, which means that the minister will have to take forward a proposal to his cabinet colleagues to be endorsed for that OIC to be issued.

If Bill C-10 is passed, as I alluded to in my previous response, we do foresee instituting a gazetting process, whereby there will be an opportunity for comments. We see it playing out as follows. Once Bill C-10 gets royal assent, I think the minister's intention is to issue that policy direction as quickly as possible. There will be a Canada gazetting process that he has to follow before that comes to be, again providing an opportunity for everybody to provide input if they so wish. The minister then will have to take forward that order in council package to cabinet to be endorsed, and then the order in council is ultimately issued, which then binds the CRTC moving forward.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Can you explain to me the process for people actually being able to put forward their comments, just to break that out?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Certainly. In a normal Canada gazetting-type process, what you would see is the publication of the intended regulatory instrument, so in this case you'd see a draft policy direction published. You'd have a timeline, in which stakeholders would have an opportunity to send comments or feedback on the proposed approach, and then those comments, that feedback, is typically, in many cases, published, so that everybody has a sense of the feedback that others gave. That's usually done in what's called part I of the Canada Gazette. The government reflects on all those things and determines if it needs to make any course corrections to the proposed approach, and then you have the finalization of the policy direction.

Kathy, is there anything you'd like to add on that?

[Kathy Tsui, Manager, Industrial and Social Policy, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage]

I think you have explained the process completely. I would just add that there is a provision in the act right now that requires the policy direction to be laid in front of both houses of Parliament during that gazetting process.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate your breaking it down a little bit more. Given that we will be seeing the draft shortly, it's helpful to understand the process.

The other question I had was about the changes made to increase representation under Bill C-10. Would you be able to help me better understand how this bill would change things to increase diversity, if we're talking specifically about indigenous people, racialized communities and people with disabilities?

[Jean-Stéphen Piché]

I will ask Owen and Kathy to outline.

Just to start, the legislation modernization includes a modernization of the language and even the communities identified. That's one major issue. Also, specified in the objectives is our support for a more diverse Canada and an understanding of indigenous communities. That's stated in there. Then you also have in the application of the legislation some clear objectives to achieve those results as well.

Perhaps you can elaborate on those points, Owen.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Very briefly, one of the changes being proposed to the policy objectives of the act, which again set the playground, so to speak, for the CRTC in terms of understanding the things that it should be seeking to do, is modifying an existing provision that talks about the programming employment opportunities arising out of the broadcasting system serving the needs and interests of all Canadians.

What we're proposing to do there is to specify that this includes those from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientation, gender identities and expressions, and ages. In addition to that, there are a couple of other changes that we're making to the policy objectives to speak to the importance of indigenous programming as well as a space for indigenous-owned and controlled media undertakings.

Then, as Jean-Stéphen alluded to, the minister's intention is to pick up on some of these themes in the policy direction to the CRTC to ensure that, moving forward, there are more meaningful and concrete results for creators, producers and media companies from those communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Champoux, the floor is yours for two and a half minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions are for Mr. Piché and Mr. Ripley.

In Bill C-10, the proposed paragraphs 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(h) talk about programming control.

Online broadcasters often hide behind complex algorithms for the programming they offer to their users. Are those undertakings considered responsible for their algorithms and their programming? In this situation, do you not feel that we should define who controls the programming a little better?

[Jean-Stéphen Piché]

I will let Mr. Ripley answer that.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Champoux.

We are still talking about the section of the act that defines the objectives of Canada's broadcasting policy. If, in the opinion of the CRTC, a company is considered a broadcaster, it becomes part of that system, and the paragraphs you quoted make it responsible for the content on its platforms, regardless of the way in which that content is provided to Canadians.

We are very well aware that companies like Crave, Netflix and Spotify use algorithms. It does not make them any less responsible for the content they are providing.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

The algorithm issue interests me greatly.

Do you intend to require these online undertakings to show more transparency with regard to their algorithms, given that they are often the secret to how they operate? Do you feel that the act will let us get to that point?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

That question will be dealt with in the process of making the regulations. If the CRTC wants to examine the question of discoverability and to determine the best way of presenting Canadian content, it will doubtless be asking questions about the way in which the algorithms work. It's not necessary to understand how they work technically, but it is necessary to understand their results and consequences, in the sense that we want to establish a system whereby these service providers will be required to present Canadian content better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much.

Ms. McPherson, go ahead for two and a half minutes, please.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank our three witnesses for joining us again today.

Very quickly, can you tell us how many newspapers closed in Canada between 2015 and 2021?