Evidence of meeting #26 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was crtc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
In fact, there is nothing preventing the CRTC from holding these public hearings now.
11:50 a.m.
Professor, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
You are absolutely right, there is nothing to prevent the CRTC from doing this at present, if they feel it is necessary. However, if we want to ensure that the CRTC will hold public hearings in these circumstances, it seems to me that it is best to establish an obligation to do so.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Some witnesses suggested that employment and human resources obligations should be strengthened so that they also apply to foreign companies providing online services, not just Canadian broadcasting companies.
Do you think this would be a way to improve the bill?
11:55 a.m.
Professor, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
Section 3 of the Broadcasting Act, as amended by the bill, already provides for the obligation, at least for Canadian companies, to use Canadian human and creative resources. Indeed, it seems to me that foreign companies could have been required to use Canadian resources to the greatest extent possible, commensurate with the scope of their activities in Canada. This might be one way to ensure that foreign companies that come to earn revenue from the Canadian market reinvest some of that revenue in Canadian creative resources in a variety of ways.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Last week we heard powerful and disturbing testimony from OUTtv's Brad Danks. He told us that the folks at OUTtv were upset that they had been turned down and excluded by several companies that provide online services because they didn't want LGBT content.
Is it worrying to know that because there is no regulatory framework governing them, companies have so much power that they can exclude entire communities or groups without being subject to any obligation?
11:55 a.m.
Professor, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
Indeed, it is worrying. At present, it is the companies that can, at will, censor the speech of minority groups, including the one you just mentioned.
It's better if it's exercised according to the act, and that's what the bill would allow.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much, Peter.
I will now go to the second round. It's a five-minute round.
We will begin with the Conservatives and Mr. Kevin Waugh, for five minutes, please.
May 31st, 2022 / 11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Welcome, guests.
I'll just be honest. I don't share the enthusiasm that some of you have for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC. Mr. Palmer and Mr. Trudel have been talking about the CRTC. We've waited 17 months for the CRTC to approve the licence of the CBC, the public broadcaster. We've waited a year now for a three-digit system for suicide, and I have some others.
On July 20, 2015, the CRTC said it would review the French-language music policy. Today, almost seven years later, the CRTC still has not finished that review. In 2008, it said it was going to review the 1990 indigenous policy and implement a new policy in 2011. Well, 11 years later, it still has not finished that review.
Mr. Palmer, you were there in 1991 for the Broadcasting Act. Am I incorrect in my assumption that the CRTC is well over its head. There's no way that it can possibly look after Bill C‑11, when I've just stated four or five issues that it hasn't dealt with in the past 11 years.
What are your thoughts on that?
11:55 a.m.
As an Individual
I don't like to criticize a professional organization like the CRTC. It has some good people. Its processes are probably slow and bureaucratic. It is unfortunate that it has been unable to address a number of major issues that have come before it to make the decisions and get them out quickly. I personally don't know what the factors are that are preventing the wheels from being greased a bit better. Clearly, it doesn't speak well to the future prospects of giving further regulatory powers to the CRTC, seeing how it's working at the present day. You're quite right.
Noon
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Yes. I'm worried about Bill C‑11, but I'm more worried about Bill C‑18. As you know, because you were there, you had no business in newspapers. The CRTC will now be chosen to pick winners and losers, but that's for another battle with Facebook and Google.
What recommendations would you make, because you were on the CRTC for five years, that would give us, let's say, some confidence that it is capable to deal with Bill C‑11? Is there anything you can point out so that it would listen, as we are today, and take heed of an experienced person like yourself? Perhaps we can look forward to a couple of suggestions that would provide us with at least a bit of confidence in the CRTC.
Noon
As an Individual
That's really a question for Mr. Denton. I didn't serve on the CRTC.
Noon
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
You're right.
I'll move over to you, Mr. Denton. What are your thoughts?
I think that public policy and public confidence in the CRTC are low in this country. I will say that. We have seen some decisions they've made, and some that they haven't made for up to 11 years.
Is there any way we can have some trust in the CRTC to follow through on regulations on Bill C-11, as you see it?
Noon
Chairman, Internet Society Canada Chapter
The basic point is that the current regulated universe has about 4,000 to 5,000 entities. With Bill C-11, the range of entities that would come under CRTC jurisdiction may get up to several million. Indeed, there are no limitations, as far as I can see, on the range of sources because it's just an IP address, of which there are billions, so take your pick.
The basic premise of Bill C-11, and the broadcasting telecom review that preceded it, is an almost infinite faith in the wisdom, capacity and talent of government to make complex and difficult decisions. A government is good at making some decisions sometimes, but with the range of authority being handed over to these people, who are only human, after all, and very much bound by law and regulation to make decisions in a slow and deliberate way, it won't work.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much, Mr. Denton.
Thank you, Mr. Waugh.
I now go to the Liberals and Chris Bittle.
You have five minutes, Chris.
Noon
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
My questions will be directed to Professor Trudel.
To comment on the last set, we heard that the CRTC is both incompetent but all-powerful, all-seeing and all-encompassing, which is a strange argument across the board. However, Professor Trudel, I'd like to focus on a few things we heard from critics of the bill, and I am hoping you can address them.
First, will this bill allow the CRTC to implement a 30% digital tax on digital creators?
Noon
Professor, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
As I understand it, the CRTC does not have the power to impose taxes. This bill does not give it the power to do so, and certainly not with respect to digital creators. I don't see where Bill C‑11 would give the CRTC such power.
The bill does, however, ensure that companies that earn revenues from the Canadian market reinvest them in Canadian creation.
Noon
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you very much.
You spoke about clause 4, if we could go back there in terms of proposed section 4.2. There has been a focus of concerns, during the debate on the bill, about this section. Many people have interpreted this as an exception to the exception, as cancelling out clause 2 and its proposed subsections.
Can you explain how this is a flawed and superficial reading of the bill?
12:05 p.m.
Professor, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
As I understand it, clause 4 essentially provides that services that do not have an impact on the achievement of the Canadian broadcasting policy objectives do not have to be regulated.
Since it is possible that some services that do not have an impact on Canadian broadcasting policy today may have a more significant impact in the future, the act provides the CRTC with sufficient flexibility in this regard. Thus, the CRTC has the regulatory power to determine which services could be subject to regulation, to the extent that the activities of those services have a demonstrable impact on Canadian broadcasting policy objectives.
In short, the process seems complex to me.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you very much, Professor.
Past witnesses have speculated that leaving the door open to regulating user-generated content might invite the CRTC to censor individual posts in the future.
Could you explain how proposed paragraphs 3(1)(g) and (h) prohibit this in Bill C-11?
12:05 p.m.
Professor, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
In my opinion, we can't really take these fears of alleged censorship seriously. The Broadcasting Act prohibits the CRTC from infringing on freedom of expression. Therefore, the CRTC could not take measures that would censor what users can put online. That seems to me to be completely out of the question.
To argue that this could happen, one would have to assume that the CRTC would be violating the act. That is why, in my opinion, this hypothesis has no basis in fact. It seems to me to be totally unfounded. It is not even a question of intent, but rather of fabrication, since the act expressly states that it must be applied with respect for freedom of expression.
So I don't understand how anyone can continue to claim that there's a risk that the CRTC will start censoring content, whether it's user-generated content or any other kind of content.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you very much.
Many contend that the government is forcing regulation on an unregulated space. Can you speak to how platforms like YouTube and others are already setting the rules?
12:05 p.m.
Professor, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
That's exactly it. This is not an unregulated space; it is a space that is currently regulated by dominant companies. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: do we prefer to be regulated by the likes of YouTube, Google, and Facebook or by a democratic process, which Canadians are able to understand and to which they are able to contribute in a meaningful way? I think that's the question.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much, Professor Trudel and Chris.
My next speaker is Mr. Champoux for two and a half minutes.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Trudel, I'm turning to you once again.
I found the end of your exchange with Mr. Bittle interesting. Some people say that no country has regulations on digital platforms and online businesses that are as invasive as Bill C‑11. Yet in your column in Le Devoir on May 3, you talked about the European bill on digital services, which aims to make platforms accountable in general, especially for illegal content, violence, and so on, but which also addresses transparency in the operation of recommendation algorithms.
Tell us a little about this European approach.