Canadian Heritage Committee on Sept. 23rd, 2024

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Yes, we could do that.

Do we need to suspend for that, or will you pick it up from him?

Mr. Champoux, could we have your subamendment in writing, please?

Ms. Lattanzio, here is what has happened with the video. We see you, and then we also have another block where you're not seen, but your hand is up. It's a technical issue we're having with the House of Commons, and that's what Mr. Champoux was referring to. If I could take a screenshot, I would show you what I'm talking about. I can see you, but there is also black with your hand up. That's why I acknowledged you. There is a technical issue. We really don't want to take you out, because we're not sure you can come back in. That's the issue we're dealing with here.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

I just wanted to clarify that. We can all see what's going on.

We're going to get it sent by email to everyone, probably P9s, I would suggest.

The subamendment by Mr. Champoux will be coming to your P9s. That's a very good comment that you made, Ms. Lattanzio. It should be coming very soon.

Do you have any comments to make, or is that all you had to say on this subamendment, Ms. Lattanzio?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Chair, I apologize to Mr. Champoux, but I'm having difficulty hearing. That's why I'm requesting to see it. I'm not in a position to ask a question if I don't have it in front of me.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

That's fair. I haven't seen it yet. I'm on my P9. It will be coming very shortly.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair, if I might.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Go ahead, Mr. Noormohamed. We might even suspend here for a second, if you don't mind, but go ahead with your question to me.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I was just going to say—it may be less of a point of order—if the clerk can mute one of the two “Ms. Lattanzios”, it should work, from an audio standpoint.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Okay.

I think we're going to suspend until we get the subamendment sent to us. We'll just suspend for a minute or two until it comes into our P9s, if you don't mind.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

We're back.

The subamendment has been sent out to your P9s, so you can take a quick look at that.

I still have a speaking list to deal with. I have Mr. Noormohamed up first, then Ms. Gainey and Mr. Coteau, I believe.

For everybody around the table and online, we're going to deal with Bill C-354 for as long as it takes us. We're here until at least one o'clock. I know we were going to have a closed session, but we are going to try to get Bill C-354 completed here today, so make the adjustments to your schedule.

Mr. Noormohamed, I don't see you, but you were up next. I don't know whether you got bumped out, or if you've just gone away for a second. We're back, and we're dealing with the subamendment of the Bloc.

Ms. Gainey, if you're there, we'll move to you, if you don't mind.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

How about Mr. Coteau?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Yes. As we say in studio, “Here's Mr. Coteau.”

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank the officials for joining us today.

I remember, back in 2014, there was a change to the CRTC—some proposals on taxing Netflix, if you remember. I remember the Government of Ontario sent officials, and we put forward a presentation. We weighed in on that proposal in 2014. It was the way the Province of Ontario interacted with the federal government.

Is that proposal still in place? Can ministers, provincially or territorially—or department officials—come and weigh in on those types of...? Can you explain how the consultation works, Mr. Ripley?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, MP Coteau.

Indeed, the question you're referring to was a CRTC proceeding at the time. Again, in those situations, it is open to the province or territory to either file a written brief with the CRTC or, if they are doing in-person hearings, request to appear before the commission. There's nothing preventing a province or territory from participating in any CRTC proceeding and putting the official position of that province or territory on the record.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I know there are federal, provincial and territorial meetings. However, are there other mechanisms where information flows freely between the federal government and the provinces and territories, so they're not caught off guard and are up to date in general on those specific changes or proposals?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Indeed, there are regular mechanisms to exchange information or consult with our provincial and territorial counterparts. You mentioned the main mechanism, which is the ministerial table on culture. There's also a deputy ministers' table on culture. Those are ways, on the department side, we can keep our provincial and territorial counterparts informed, and vice versa.

I think what's important to understand about the Broadcasting Act is that it is structured in a way to preserve and assure the independence of the CRTC. At the end of the day, the role of the CRTC is to regulate the media sector, and it's important they do so in a way that ensures the decisions they make are seen to be independent and free from potential political influence. That's why the mechanisms by which any government can engage with the CRTC are very formal.

As I mentioned, it's open to provinces and territories to participate in any CRTC proceeding through a consultation process the CRTC would lead. The federal government's powers to engage with the CRTC are actually very limited. There are specific powers in the Broadcasting Act and a process to follow in those cases so that it's done openly and transparently. Again, that's in order to preserve the independence of the CRTC and ensure that decisions that could potentially affect the media sector are kept at arm's length from government.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

From your perspective, Mr. Ripley, why is that independence such an important component of the structure of the CRTC in general?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

It recognizes that, in a free and democratic society like Canada, we want to ensure the independence of the media and ensure that they have their journalistic independence.

In a situation where you have a regulator that needs to oversee the licensing and conditions of service that are placed on those media, to the extent that a government wants to weigh in on those, it's important that it be done in a way that respects their independence to ultimately make the final decision and provide transparency to Canadians so Canadians understand how a particular government, whether it's the federal government or a provincial or territorial government, is engaging with the CRTC.

That's why, in this case, they're all very formalized processes to ensure there's not a perception of politicization of the CRTC.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

This is my last question, Mr. Chair.

Can you go over the last or second-last process that was used to consult provinces and territories and give us an example of when that took place? Can you recall how many provinces and territories actually participated in the process? It's just so we can have an understanding of how effective the current process is.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

I'll use the example I gave to one of your colleagues earlier of when the Online Streaming Act received royal assent.

There are a lot of changes currently under way in the space of broadcasting regulatory policy. The government and the minister at the time wanted to make sure that provincial and territorial counterparts knew of those changes and the opportunity to engage with the federal government in terms of crafting the policy direction that was ultimately issued to the CRTC on orientation for implementing the Online Streaming Act, and also to make sure it was known that they could participate in the subsequent CRTC processes.

That's the most recent example. The department worked with the minister to be very proactive to make sure those things were on the radar of our provincial and territorial counterparts, so that if they wanted to participate, they could.

I don't know offhand, unfortunately, the extent to which provinces and territories have opted to formally submit as part of the implementation. I believe there have been a few briefs from provinces and territories put forward to date as part of the implementation of the Online Streaming Act. Obviously, that's a decision that ultimately rests with them and whether they choose to participate or not.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Ms. Gainey, please go ahead.

[Anna Gainey, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In light of what we've heard about the consultation processes that already take place and have taken place, is there some redundancy in this legislation from the point of view of our witnesses today?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

As I mentioned, it's already open for provinces and territories, including Quebec, to participate in CRTC proceedings. The way that Bill C-354 is structured makes an amendment to the CRTC Act, which, as I mentioned, is the act that creates the CRTC and sets out its powers. It's not in the Broadcasting Act.

What Bill C-354 proposes to do is require the CRTC—and there's a reading of the bill that would require the CRTC—before it exercises any power under the Broadcasting Act or does anything under the Broadcasting Act, to consult with the Government of Quebec or other provinces as it relates to the French-speaking communities in those provinces. It elevates that kind of duty of consultation with the Province of Quebec or other provinces above the current structure.

The concern is that you are elevating these governments and putting them in a privileged position, and the concern would be that it could give rise to a perception of influence on the CRTC, again, because, before they exercise any of their other powers, they have to go and do this consultation with Quebec or other provinces. It's not just a question of redundancy from the department's perspective. It introduces a risk, because you are elevating these provinces above other stakeholders who may want to participate and put their perspectives on the record.

[Anna Gainey, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Just to follow on that thought, does the Government of Canada have that privilege or that expectation as well, to be consulted prior to an engagement, or are we talking simply about the provinces acquiring this right or this opportunity?