Canadian Heritage Committee on May 18th, 2022

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

Thank you for that.

You mentioned policy direction from the government. In advance of Bill C-10—well, I guess Bill C-10 never did pass, but in advance of the committee's discussions of it, there was a policy directive issued. I just want to confirm that you have not yet received a policy directive from the minister in relation to Bill C-11.

[Ian Scott]

No.

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

Okay.

You mentioned you had a number of working groups working towards different aspects of this. One challenge that we've heard a lot about is the concept of discoverability and how that might be implemented for the major web giants.

I was wondering if you could commit, today, specifically on the concept of discoverability as to whether the CRTC could commit that no Canadian content would be boosted up or boosted below other Canadian content. What I'm asking is if you could commit that no one piece of Canadian content would take priority over another piece of Canadian content or lack priority over that.

[Ian Scott]

I understand and appreciate the essence of your question, but I would struggle to simply respond using those terms. Obviously, we prioritize. We prioritize French language content. We prioritize indigenous content, news, and so on. There are prioritizations, but we don't control what content broadcasters, or platforms in the future, put on. Let's be very, very clear about that. That has never been the role of the CRTC, to tell firms, whether the public broadcaster or the private ones, what they should be putting on.

My view or my explanation when asked to address discoverability is about making sure Canadians are aware and have access to Canadian stories. That is an outcome and we currently have a variety of tools to encourage regulated entities to make Canadians aware, and we would do that in the future.

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

I just have a very few seconds left—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 30 seconds, Mr. Nater.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To that end, has the CRTC undertaken any analyses of the platforms as they are today in terms of their Canadian content, in terms of how they may promote or not promote Canadian content as of today. Has there been an audit or a study or an undertaking to see what is the state of play today of the major platforms?

[Ian Scott]

We have been very busy gathering data and studying them, and I'm sure we'll come back to whether the commission is qualified, which is a question I get somewhat a little more challenging about. We are studying it, but not in terms of a specific percentage. We have not asked for that type of data, but we have met with them and learned a lot about how they already prioritize Canadian programming and make it available.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much. Perhaps you can address that in the next question asked of you, if you want to continue with that line of thought.

The next person up is for the Liberals, Anthony Housefather, for six minutes, please.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, thank you for your service. I appreciate the work all of you have done.

Mr. Scott, thank you for your service as chairman.

Recently, as you may recall, the CRTC was able to order the removal of RT from Canadian airwaves. Given what Russia was doing in Ukraine and the use of RT as a propaganda arm, it was a good decision.

Could you explain to us the process that you used to make that decision? Did you receive submissions? How did you use the act to be able to do that?

[Ian Scott]

I may ask my colleagues to join in in a second.

First of all, I should start by saying that we were very aware of the circumstance, and we were looking at the issue independently. The government asked us to examine whether or not their actions were consistent with the Broadcasting Act and set a defined period in which they wanted a response. They have that ability to ask us to act—albeit not to make a decision, obviously.

The content of the decision is entirely up to the commission as an arm's-length agency. We did that. We issued a notice. We sought comments, staff analyzed them, and we rendered a decision in a very short period of time, as we were asked to.

The circumstances were very clear and the weight of the evidence told us that RT was, in fact, not consistent with the objectives of the Broadcasting Act; therefore, they were removed from the authorized distribution list.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much. I raise that because this was an issue that was raised the last time we looked at Bill C-10.

If the government hadn't asked you to look at a channel within a certain amount of time, do you have the powers to, for example, say, “There is a Chinese state broadcaster. We're concerned about it. We are proactively looking at it”?

[Ian Scott]

If I may take a quick step back, it's not that it's overly complicated. There are often comparisons made between Canada and other countries. The U.K. is one example. They license foreign services. We do not license foreign services in Canada; we authorize their distribution. In effect, the distributers, the cable companies and so on, will come and say that Canadians are asking for a particular service and that they'd like to carry it. Then it gets authorized.

In order to take it away, so to speak, we need to remove them from the authorization list. That has been a relatively rare occurrence, but it is increasingly a concern, and we do have the ability, as we just did. Typically it would be driven by a complaint from the public or an enterprise, a person in a legal sense registering a complaint, and then we would examine it, determine whether the matter needed action, get comment and ultimately render a decision.

I'm sorry that was a very long answer.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

It was a very helpful answer.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have three minutes and 35 seconds.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much.

Let me come to you on Bill C-11 for a second, which was previously Bill C-10. There have been a number of people commenting in various places that somehow this bill and then the CRTC would choose to regulate social media posts of non-commercial, individual users.

Could you clarify whether the CRTC has that nefarious intention?

[Ian Scott]

We do not. If I may say, by way of introduction, we have that jurisdiction today. Some might argue that it could be challenged in court, but the act as it is written relates to programming delivered over any means and we do not regulate it today. Most of those services are subject to an exemption order. The challenge for the commission is that we really only have two tools, which are outdated. We have the ability to license and the ability to exempt. You can't license a non-Canadian, for example. You can see that we're very limited in what we can do.

The commission's broadcast regulation is not focused on user-generated content. It's focused on the objectives of the Broadcasting Act. What we are interested in is what will have an impact on the system.

More than 20 years ago the commission looked at this and said that for services delivered over the Internet, their regulation would not contribute significantly to the objectives of the act. They looked at it again a little over 10 years ago and reached the same conclusion. I think we could probably all agree that it's not a reasonable conclusion now. It is a significant impact on the system. That's why I've said that we need the flexibility in order to do that.

But the focus is not on user-generated content. It is on the content broadly, provided by programmers, platforms—Canadian or otherwise—and so on.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you so much.

I see I have a few seconds left, but I'll give that back to the chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Housefather.

I will go to the Bloc Québécois and Martin Champoux for six minutes please.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Scott, I will continue in the same vein as my colleague Mr. Housefather.

You were saying that the CRTC could be regulating digital media right now, but that it doesn't.

Does Bill C‑11, as presented today, give you more powers or does it limit the powers you would have to regulate the internet?

[Ian Scott]

It's a difficult question to answer. It is absolutely necessary.

If I can answer it in a slightly different way, there are three elements that we have emphasized that we need. We need clarity about our jurisdiction. There is an argument that it may or may not be covered. We need the ability to obtain data. We need the ability to have an enforcement tool that matters. There are many other aspects, but those are the three fundamental things we need. They are all contained in the legislation.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

We have regularly heard criticisms that the CRTC does not necessarily have the competence to regulate the digital universe. I see that you are smiling as I am.

I think you've probably reacted to that criticism. Have you taken any action? Do you see the CRTC as the ideal regulator? Have you had to reorganize?

[Ian Scott]

We're ready and able to do that. The CRTC has been the agency responsible for broadcasting for 50 years.

It doesn't matter what platform it comes on. Broadcasting is what we regulate and it is irrelevant whether it is delivered by a TV transmitter over the air, or by cable television or by the Internet.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

You were talking about traditional broadcasting, which you've been regulating, or rather the CRTC has been regulating, for 50 years.

I wouldn't expect you to have been at the helm of the CRTC for that long.

[Ian Scott]

It's because of my grey beard, isn't it?