Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 21st, 2022

[Ian Scott]

I have.

Obviously, we've been trying to prepare. We have a working group that involves several regulatory agencies, but I specifically have met with the Australian authority and the French authority, both of whom have different models that address this issue. I've also discussed it with the British competition authority and the Irish authority.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

What, if anything, have you taken from these meetings?

[Ian Scott]

“Best practices” would be the short answer.

Obviously, the legislation proposed in Canada is modelled predominantly after the Australian model. That is what I've been most focused on. From a very self-interested perspective, many of my discussions with them have been on what the really hard parts are and what work has to be done.

You'll understand that the model assumes that the outcome will be a negotiated commercial outcome and that the regulator will only get involved, if you will, where that fails to happen, but there's a great deal of regulatory work to be done in the event that our engagement is required. That has consumed a lot of resources on the part of the Australian regulator. That's probably my biggest take-away.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Has the commission been observing, or can they observe, the arbitration process or any outcomes that are happening in Australia or be involved in any way, or is that outside of the...?

[Ian Scott]

No, we can't be involved in any way. We certainly follow their public announcements and we follow media statements as to descriptions of how the regime has worked. We have no privileged knowledge of their processes.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Throughout this study, there's been some concern—and genuine concern—raised by smaller players in the Canadian news media that they don't stand to benefit from this legislation. We've heard from, on the other hand, an expert witness from Australia that this wasn't particularly the case.

As the regulator, how do you prevent a barrier for entry for small market and smaller players in the Canadian marketplace? Has the commission turned its mind to that?

[Ian Scott]

On a very general level, we're used to dealing with both small and large parties in our processes, so we can always accommodate small groups.

I'd also note that similar to the environment in which copyright tariffs are established, smaller players can group together. I think it's contemplated in this process that it's not likely to be singular small players seeking to reach agreement but, quite possibly, collectives of the smaller players. However, in any event, we would be equally attentive to small players as to large ones.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 30 seconds, Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Very quickly, some.... We've heard a bit today, and in the last meeting on this bill there was a suggestion that it's Communism. It's believed that this is massive government intervention in the news sector.

Do you have a reaction to that comment?

[Ian Scott]

No. As I said to Ms. Harder, it's not our role to design the legislation or establish the objectives. I understand you'll have the minister before you and I'm sure he could answer that question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Scott.

I'm going to move now to Mr. Champoux for six minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Scott, I'm going to continue along the same lines as my colleague Mr. Bittle.

We've heard the concerns expressed by Google, which conducted a pseudo-survey last week. We've also frequently heard people say that the CRTC would be given excessive powers under Bill C-18.

Do you think there's any scenario, no matter how twisted, in which the CRTC could become a kind of omniscient dictator? Do you think that could be possible?

[Ian Scott]

I really hope the answer is no.

As I was trying to describe earlier, I see our role in this as facilitating a framework for parties to reach a commercial agreement. It's not very different from what I described to the member a moment ago about the type of mediation and arbitration we do with broadcast programmers.

In this case, it won't be us doing the arbitration, as the act contemplates that to be in the hands of external mediators and arbitrators. However, I think it's the same thought; we're there to support a commercial negotiation and we'll only get involved in a detailed way failing a successful commercial negotiation.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I hear a lot of general criticism of the CRTC. People start attacking the CRTC's powers the instant we start talking about its involvement in anything.

In the specific case of Bill C-18, do you think another organization could take charge of overseeing or administering the rollout of the act that's passed? Does any Canadian agency other than the CRTC have the necessary structure to do that?

[Ian Scott]

I don't really think there is. The CRTC has experience in this kind of situation and is well positioned to do the job, but my colleagues may have something to add on the subject.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

All right.

Let's say that, for some reason, those who oppose the CRTC's taking charge are successful. How long do you think it would take to set up an agency capable of overseeing this? Would it be complicated? Would it require expertise? Based on your experience, would it be possible to establish that agency within a reasonable timeframe?

[Ian Scott]

As I said in my opening remarks, we are doing as much preliminary work as we can until, obviously, Parliament has done its work and we know the outcome, assuming Parliament passes the act into law.

How long it will take is hard to answer, because not everything is within our control. A number of the elements require regulations by statutory instrument, and we can develop those, but there's a consultative process. The Department of Justice is involved—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Scott, it was a hypothetical question. If someone said that the CRTC wouldn't be handling it and that we'd have to establish a new agency, I was wondering if it would be possible to do so within a fairly short timeframe. I mainly wanted to point out that the industry is in crisis, that it's been waiting for a long time and that we can't waste any more time. It needs us to level the market as soon as possible. So I think the CRTC, as imperfect as it may be, is nevertheless the agency in the best position to do the job.

I don't have a lot of time left in this round, and I wanted to discuss other concerns about protecting the quality of journalism. That's a very important topic for me, and I know it is as well for my colleagues, media companies and news businesses.

Shouldn't the act provide for a kind of commitment or general standards to apply to every journalism organization? I'm thinking here of criteria requiring news organizations to meet standards of journalism quality in order to be recognized. Shouldn't that be included directly in the act?

[Ian Scott]

You're asking a lot of questions.

To go to the question of journalistic standards, obviously that's not what we are going to be engaged in. With respect to the quality of journalism, I would say that obviously financial support will be of great assistance, but there are other co-regulatory bodies that work together to address the quality of journalism.

Perhaps I'm not answering your question precisely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 30 seconds, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

The idea is to guarantee high-quality journalism. We don't want to make room for organs of propaganda, for example. We don't want just anyone to be able to be recognized as an "eligible news business".

Consequently, shouldn't criteria be included in the act requiring any business seeking recognition as an "eligible news business" to abide by a code of journalistic conduct and standards?

[Rachelle Frenette, General Counsel and Deputy Executive Director, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]

Thank you for your question.

My understanding of the bill…

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry, Martin. We have now gone well over time. I'm hoping that somebody might pick up that thread so that we can get an answer to it.

We will now go to Mr. Julian. Peter, you have six minutes, please.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thanks for being here today.

Mr. Scott, I want to come back to the issue of the Community Media Advocacy Centre. You've just testified that $32,147 was given in two payments to the Community Media Advocacy Centre and Mr. Marouf. Can you tell us how much was provided by the broadcast participation fund?

My second question is related to the measures that have been taken. We've seen rising anti-Semitism, rising Islamophobia and rising racism, often violent. We had the convoy and the flying of Nazi flags. We have a threat in terms of racism and hate in our society. What measures has the CRTC taken, both for your own operations and also for any funds that are related to the CRTC, to ensure that those who hate do not receive any more funding?

[Ian Scott]

I share your characterization of the current situation. You may have seen our public statement that was released last week.

To the specifics, the amounts that you cited, as I said on the record a moment ago, are those that we gave. I don't have the precise number in front of me for the broadcast participation fund, but the total that was quoted in the media, and by installments, was a little over half a million. The rest is all from the broadcast participation fund. I'm not aware of any other cost awards of any kind.