Evidence of meeting #55 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 definition.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
The Clerk
Dr. Fry, Mr. Bittle has his hand up.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I don't think it really changes the bar—the concept of reasonableness—from “requires” to “reasonably requires”. I think it's redundant and unnecessary.
Very quickly to Mr. Ripley, can you explain how this would work in practice?
12:55 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you for the question.
The intention here is that the CRTC has the ability to request information it needs for the purposes of administering the act, so it is bound by that. The idea is not that the CRTC should be able to request any kind of information it wants. “Reasonably” further specifies that degree of connection or nexus with that, from my perspective.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
The Clerk
Dr. Fry, I have Mrs. Thomas and then Mr. Housefather.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you.
This clause has to do with duty to notify, so the operator has to notify the commission—the CRTC—if it falls within this subjective and very vague definition that has been outlined in clause 6. I guess I'm just curious then. My question for the officials is this: If DNIs are expected to self-declare, then, under this legislation, if they fail to do so, what happens?
12:55 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you for the question, MP Thomas.
Madam Chair, if I may, the mechanism provides that since digital news intermediaries are best placed to assess whether they meet the threshold set out in clause 6, it is incumbent on them to come forward. The alternative would be to empower and require the CRTC to survey everybody who they think could potentially be subject and then ask for information, which is a much heavier process.
The information-gathering powers, though, are there to ensure compliance at the end of the day. So if the CRTC suspects that a digital news intermediary may be subject and hasn't come forward, they have the tools to verify compliance.
Once they've had an opportunity to review that information, if they are of the opinion that it does meet the thresholds at clause 6, I expect the first step, in terms of what that would look like, would be for the CRTC to indicate to the digital news intermediary that it is subject to the legislation and would be expected to comply. Failure to comply, at that point, could result in the imposition of administrative monetary penalties.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Mr. Ripley.
Just to be clear, though, you're saying it's likely that the commission would notify these entities that they fall within this scope, but it's not an essential requirement within this legislation. It's not stated in this legislation that DNIs will be notified that they are in fact scoped in. It states that the CRTC will be responsible for creating a list, but my understanding of this legislation is that this list will be based on self-declarations. Am I missing something?
12:55 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
No. That is correct.
Again, the expectation is that digital news intermediaries will identify themselves when they meet those thresholds. Again, they are best placed to assess whether they meet the threshold and are to come forward and indicate such to the CRTC, at which point they would be added to the list you referred to. But, again, the CRTC is being provided with information-gathering tools so they can ensure compliance if need be.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Again, just coming back to my question, because I don't know that it was answered, what would happen to an entity that didn't declare itself to be a DNI? What would those repercussions look like?
12:55 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
The CRTC would have a variety of tools at its disposal. At the end of the day, failure to comply with the act could result in the imposition of an administrative monetary penalty. However, I think the goal at the end of the day is to ensure compliance with the act. From my perspective, the first step would be to have discussions with the digital news intermediary to make sure it understands that, based on the information it has provided, it is subject to the act and would be expected to comply. Failing to do so after that point could result in the imposition of administrative monetary penalties.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My question was already answered, so I don't need the floor.
1 p.m.
The Clerk
I have Ms. Gladu.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
I have just one more thing I want to say about this. I don't know what Mr. Nater was thinking when he put it forward, but the problem I have with this section is that it says that these individuals or entities have to provide the commission with “any information that it requires for the purpose of verifying”.
We've all seen overly burdensome requests from government. If you haven't experienced them, I'll tell you that they're not great. We have these small entities. We don't want to be overly burdensome, so the amendment that's been made takes out the word “any” and puts in the constraint of “reasonably”. I think that would improve the bill.
Thank you.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Ms. Gladu.
Is there any further discussion? Shall I call the question?
1 p.m.
The Clerk
Dr. Fry, Mr. Waugh had his hand up as well.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
I'll be very quick, Madam Chair.
Mr. Ripley, I don't recall the CRTC levelling too many fines over the years. You would probably agree with me. This is loosely interpreted. It's not that I don't trust the CRTC, but I have several questions surrounding them. I have an issue with how this is loosely written, if you don't mind my saying so.
The CRTC is the regulator. However, at the same time, we never hear of massive fines going out to anybody, so I have an issue with certain regulations in here. I wanted to put it on the record.