Canadian Heritage Committee on May 28th, 2021

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Ripley for that.

It's an interesting clause that Mr. Champoux puts forward. Many of us in the broadcasting field have often thought that the CRTC needs a deadline for renewals. We have seen, countless times, where you get the licence and then you walk away and don't do what was talked about in the licence. Then they'll come back in year six and look at the licence and make sure that they get the stamp for the next seven years.

I think we need some regulation of this. I don't think we need to give underlings and conventional broadcasters.... They have to be accountable to people, and I think the CRTC has to be accountable to people. To give a “we'll get back to you when you're doing something bad” isn't what I would do. I think there has to be a provision to look at everything in the CRTC's purview.

That's why, in a way, I don't know that I would support this, Mr. Champoux. I think the CRTC needs to be accountable not only to Canadians but to broadcasters and those online. Making sure that they have a deadline, whether it's five, four or seven years, gives the CRTC time to know that they're going to visit everybody. I think that's important. It's important for executives of Netflix and Amazon and all those companies to know that Big Brother is in fact looking over their shoulder—not every day, but there will be provisions here where they will sit down and look at what they've done over the past seven years.

That's just my thought. I think it's not only good for the public, but for the corporate world too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you.

I appreciate the comments by Mr. Champoux and Mr. Waugh.

When I look at what we're talking about with this particular bill about what the CRTC could be doing, we haven't defined a number of things, but they're going to be writing a lot of regulations that apply to a much broader spectrum than they have, figuring out who gets the money and who doesn't, and who gets Canadian content.

If we broaden this into what I believe is in this particular amendment, to the department, what are we talking about? Would you view that the number of people and involvement it would take to do this would broaden the terms of this particular legislation for the role of the CRTC?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Mr. Ripley.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Perhaps I'll just start by taking a step back and reminding the committee that Bill C-10 proposes transitioning from a licence-based model to what we have called a conditions of service type of model. The bill proposes that conditions of service, which could be through orders at proposed section 9.1, regulations at proposed section 10 or proposed section 11.1, not be necessarily time limited.

To Mr. Waugh's point, which is a good one right now, we know that licence renewal is the key point when the CRTC tends to turn its magnifying glass on a particular organization and look at compliance. Bill C-10 proposes a shift from that as well, in the sense that, as the committee knows, it's proposing the introduction of an administrative monetary penalty regime. That would allow the CRTC, at any point in time, to call a broadcasting undertaking before it if there's a question of compliance and potentially subject them to an AMP if they're found not compliant. The goal is also to shift the CRTC to a more regular kind of enforcement footing as opposed to waiting for seven years before a licence is up for renewal before it looks at some of those compliance issues.

Mr. Shields, indeed the bill does apply to a broader scope of undertakings, including online undertakings, as the committee knows well. The bill allows the CRTC to amend an order of its own motion or at the request of a party at any time. Again, the position is that, once an order's in place, it's not set in stone.

From that perspective, the amendment on the table, in proposed subsection 9.1(1.1), confirms what would already be the case—that the CRTC has the ability to amend an order. As I highlighted, it's proposed subsection 9.1(1.2), though, that suggests that the CRTC would be under an obligation to renew an order for a period not exceeding seven years. It again raises the question of whether it's workable or effective to require the CRTC to look at every single order that it may have on the books on a recurring seven-year basis, as opposed to identifying the biggest impact orders in terms of those that may need to be reviewed because of a change in technology, a change in business models or those kinds of things.

I hope that helps answer your question, Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Ripley, for your very helpful explanations.

I would like to underscore the fact that we are not asking the CRTC to systematically review its orders and take whatever action is needed to do so every seven years. In most instances, renewal could be automatic if there are no reasons to delay it, but it would be up to the CRTC to decide.

That being said, nothing in what we are proposing would prevent the CRTC from taking action at any moment. This occurred in 2004 in the case of CHOI-FM, a Quebec City radio station that had its licence renewed for a limited period, precisely because the CRTC had had to take action several times previously. Cautious action was therefore taken and a renewal for a shorter period was suggested as a way of telling the poor student to do the homework properly and get back on track.

That's exactly the approach we are proposing. I don't think that this amendment would represent an administrative burden for the CRTC, but rather enable it to monitor delinquents and ensure that everyone can be brought into line, for example by issuing orders for shorter renewal periods.

This amendment makes a lot of sense. The broadcasting players are used to this type of procedure. It simply establishes a level playing field for everyone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Seeing no further debate, I'm going to ask that we now go to a vote. This, of course, is on BQ-25.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

You seem to be quite excited about saying no to that one, Mr. Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

It's just that it's almost 3 p.m., Mr. Chair, and I'd like to let you adjourn the meeting for the weekend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Absolutely, sir.

I'm sure you will get unanimous consent for that.

I'll go to a vote on amendment BQ-25.

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

I think Mr. Regan is having computer issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I believe we have lost Mr. Regan. Unfortunately, we'll have to move on.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 2)

That leaves just one thing.

Folks, as a quick note before we adjourn, we'll call it to an end here and when we come back on Monday we'll start with amendment CPC-9.1, which has been a later addition. If you don't have that amendment, can you please contact the clerk?

We have endeavoured to find either extra time during the meetings or extra days. I'm afraid we have not been successful at all. The calendar is quite full, and of course, Friday becomes problematic for extending hours because of the services.

We will continue, but for this week it's not possible and it looks as though it won't be possible next week either. If we do get an opening, I'll make sure that it's with ample notice, as I've pledged to you before and I pledge to you again. Otherwise, we'll see you on Monday at 11, eastern time.

It was a great debate today, as always, and I thank you all.

The meeting is adjourned.