Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 1st, 2025

[Vicky Eatrides]

Almost. It has been at least two years.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

What have you been doing all this time? I hope that you have been a bit busy. I think that we'll schedule a meeting with you right away for next year. You should meet with the committee every year to report on the CRTC's activities. That would be quite productive.

Thank you for being here.

You spoke earlier about the CRTC's decision regarding the financial contribution of platforms, meaning their obligation to pay 5% of their revenue to Canadian content creators. This decision is currently before the Federal Court of Appeal, which should make its ruling in the coming days, or even sooner.

Do you have any idea when the ruling will be made? This money is quite urgently needed.

[Vicky Eatrides]

Unfortunately, we don't have an answer. We don't know. We hope that the ruling will be made soon.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I would like to go back to the CRTC's decision.

You estimated that the payment of that 5% of revenue would amount to $200 million. In addition, the amount received from the platforms would be shared. For example, 2% would be allocated to the Canada Media Fund, or CMF, which supports the production of Quebec and Canadian content. However, according to the decision, platforms have the right to take this money and invest it themselves in Quebec and Canadian content.

What prompted this decision?

If 5% amounts to approximately $200 million, this means that the remaining 95% of the platforms' revenue comes to around $4 billion. In light of this, didn't you consider that the platforms would really have the resources to invest in original Quebec and Canadian content with the fortunes raked in by doing business here?

I find it hard to understand why the CRTC has given platforms the option of using the money themselves rather than entrusting it to a well‑established organization.

I would like to know more about this.

[Scott Hutton]

I'll answer first.

Initial contributions had to be established. Clearly, time was of the essence and various measures were needed to promote English‑language and French‑language Canadian content.

You said that a significant portion of that 5% was allocated to the core institution to support both English‑language and French‑language television productions. That 5% is also allocated to various other funds, including funds that support indigenous productions, various ethnocultural communities and even official language minority communities, or OLMCs. All types of support measures are available.

This 5% contribution is generally allocated to these funds, which serve to develop Canadian productions. Nevertheless, we provided some flexibility by ensuring that various methods are promoted and that these companies can generate Canadian productions that also reflect the country's francophone reality. However—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I must stop you there.

[Scott Hutton]

—when they must spend their own money, it's necessary to ensure that they stick to the same proportions as the Canada Media Fund, or CMF.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Absolutely. I hear you on that.

However, I just think that it wasn't necessary to give them that option. These aren't large sums of money…. Of course, this money is needed and welcome. That said, it seems that these companies wouldn't have responded any differently if they hadn't had this option. The likely outcome is that they'll try to send as little as possible to the CMF. They'll also likely find all sorts of ways to invest as they see fit in whatever they please, rather than supporting content producers who are established and recognized, particularly by the Canada Media Fund.

In short, it seems that the collection of funds in this manner will compromise the potential for truly high‑quality content.

[Scott Hutton]

I can add to my answer, and Mr. Shortliffe can then provide further details.

Our goal was to encourage Canadian productions and to work with Canadian producers at the same level as we do in other ways, but not directly through the CMF in this case. This flexibility will help them get used to working on development so that they can gain confidence and invest even more in Canadian and Quebec productions.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

With all their good will, we can see that it works! That was tongue in cheek.

We hear a great deal about the discovery and promotion of Quebec content, particularly French‑language content, and Canadian content in general on platforms.

During the study of Bill C‑11, I personally moved an amendment to create paragraph 3(1)(r), which calls for the implementation of regulations to force digital platforms to invest in methods that will produce results in terms of content discovery.

Where do we stand on this? Have you found the right approach?

[Scott Hutton]

Mr. Shortliffe is currently working on this. I'll let him talk about the various hearings.

Of course, discoverability isn't easy, but it's a key part of the equation. If you make a product, but no one listens to it, then you have failed, as Mr. Shortliffe said earlier.

I'll let him talk about the various entities involved in our serious discussions on discoverability.

[Scott Shortliffe]

Yes.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm sorry, Mr. Shortliffe. I have to hit the pause button there, but Mr. Champoux can come back to this in his next round.

At this point in time, we are going to switch to five-minute rounds. We are starting with Mr. Diotte.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you so much.

Madam CEO, you've probably heard the name Travis Dhanraj. He was a CBC journalist. In the summer, he launched a human rights complaint against the CBC. He says he was silenced because he wanted to include conservative voices on his news show.

Does it concern you to hear that certain voices are being quashed by our national broadcaster?

[Vicky Eatrides]

This would be a good question to ask the CBC, which I think is appearing before you soon.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Would you have no concern about his allegations whatsoever?

[Vicky Eatrides]

I am aware of those allegations. I think that's a question for the CBC. The CBC is obviously an independent organization, and we would not be involved in those kinds of matters with the CBC.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

As an independent tribunal that regulates the Canadian communications sector, your strategic plan says the CRTC is an organization that respects Canada's diversity. Does your definition of diversity include a diversity of views and opinions in the Canadian content the CRTC regulates?

[Vicky Eatrides]

It absolutely does, and we could provide some detail on how it does.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Could you provide a bit of detail right now?

[Scott Shortliffe]

When we license someone, we don't want to tell them what kind of content to have, but we require them to adhere to certain codes that were created by the industry. There's something called the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, which administers codes that were developed by the industry. The CRTC then blessed them and added them to our standard conditions of licence for everyone. When someone has a complaint about content, they go to this independent organization, which looks into it.

Now, from my understanding about the particular complaint you've raised, it has two elements. It has a complaint that voices were silenced, and it has a complaint about internal treatment at the CBC/Radio-Canada, which is obviously a question for their management. We require that there be an equitable portrayal of all points of view, including conservative points of view. We allow that, however, to work through an independent body rather than have us declare whether a standard of fairness is met. That seems to be the best way to keep an arm's length between us, as a representative of the Canadian government, and decisions about what you put on the air.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thanks.

A poll from Public Square Research last year found that 76% of Canadians believe the government subsidies could negatively impact journalistic objectivity. Is the CRTC doing anything to protect diversity of opinion and objectivity on Canadian TV and radio?

I'd like the chair to answer, please.

[Vicky Eatrides]

Again, I would come back to our role as a quasi-judicial tribunal. We fulfill our mandate, as I've explained, in a number of ways. We're doing that through the implementation of the new Online Streaming Act.

I will turn it over to my colleague Scott to provide more details.

[Scott Hutton]

Our approach to that is multi-faceted. It includes everything from what we've already mentioned about complaints and not making decisions about individual programs that are put on air, or who is employed by the companies as they are broadcasting on that front, to ensuring that we license as many different parties as possible and that there is a diversity of voices through the licence system we have had in place for many years. We are moving forward through new proceedings, going into the future, to make it easier and make sure that all voices are represented by the system. That's quite key for the CRTC on that front.

We've talked about funding and supporting local news, whether it be on the radio, on the television or in other forms of broadcasting going forward. A concern is how we implement that funding to ensure that we remain at arm's length. It is quite key and quite important to us. Every time we have set up something of that nature, it has been through independent parties. The means by which those funds are distributed are also done in a manner that avoids questions about decisions of what is on air and what views are put forward on air.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Hutton, thank you.

That is your time, Mr. Diotte.

We'll move over to Mr. Ntumba.

You have five minutes.