Finance Committee on Feb. 9th, 2026

[Scott Shortliffe]

Those are excellent questions. We haven't gotten to the part of our regulatory cadre where we've had to define exactly what a podcast is. As we move into that social media space, I think the questions you posed are exactly the questions we want to pose and we want to hear from informed witnesses on.

Thank you. Those are great questions.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

I was bound to have one or two, but I appreciate that.

Again, you're not actually able to definitively say that certain programs that people would largely see as podcasts won't be captured by this, because the lines have not yet been drawn. Is that what you're saying?

[Scott Shortliffe]

What we can say is that we've been clear that we won't regulate podcasts. Therefore, if someone brought us a case and said this is an edge case, our starting position would be that if it's identified as a podcast, we would not want to regulate it. We would look at the evidence put in front of us.

We've been very clear that we have no intention of regulating podcasts, based both on the policy direction and on our decisions.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

As I read the determinations of what Canadian content is, it's supposed to be, for the most part, value-neutral. You're looking predominantly at ownership and production, not whether it sufficiently tells the story of Canada. Do I understand that correctly?

[Scott Shortliffe]

Yes, it's based on a points system. It modified a points system that had been around for several decades. We did add some bonus points for identifiable Canadian content. We went through what that means, such as whether it's based on a Canadian book. It is meant to be neutrally applied. We don't want to get into a case where I or any of my colleagues are saying, “This is Canadian enough.” We want to be able to add up points based on the Canadians who are making the content.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

That brings us back to the objective. Is the point of this to ensure that we are creating Canadian jobs and supporting productions that create Canadian jobs, or is it about telling the story of Canada? In the messaging from the political side of this, from the government, it was always about ensuring that Canadian stories are being told. However, you've designed the regulations in a way that is strictly about ownership. You could have a Canadian-owned production that's set in New York City, with American characters, that's trying to get picked up by a U.S. network. It's not actually promoting Canadian identity in any meaningful way.

[Scott Shortliffe]

What I'd say is that our existing rules have always been based on that. We've actually tried to come up with a system now that will encourage more partnerships. We now have these bonus points that would recognize certain Canadian attributes. I think that we don't see it as an either-or. We believe that if you have great Canadian talent, that will bring more economic opportunity into Canada, and it will allow you to reflect Canadian values and Canadian stories.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Keeping in mind what you said about the work in progress on defining what a podcast is, how can we ensure that we're keeping the broadest possible interpretation of that so we aren't including what most people would say are shows that should not be subject to this regime in the same way that a multi-million dollar scripted production would be?

[Scott Shortliffe]

What I'd say is that we're still building our regulatory cadre. As I mentioned, we haven't looked specifically at that question, but anything we do will be based on the public record and on public submissions. In answer to an earlier question, that's why sometimes it feels like it takes us a long time. It's because we need those records before we make decisions, so that they will be considered and Canadians will know that we are basing it on evidence put in front of us.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

This legislation now goes back many, many years. Obviously, you don't want to rush into the wrong decision here, but why has there not been an accounting for what are pretty core questions that were dealt with when the legislation and regulations were being drafted? Why has that not happened yet?

[Scott Shortliffe]

We're trying to take the legislation step by step. We took a look at Canadian content in audiovisual. We were changing decades' worth of practice. We brought in a base contributions decision that's bringing $200 million into the system. We created a commercial radio news fund. We've bulked up the independent local news fund. We have many more decisions that are coming.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Apologies, Mr. Shortliffe, but I'm going to have to end it there.

Thank you, Mr. Lawton.

I will now turn to Mr. Leitão for five minutes, please.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good evening, Ms. Eatrides. Welcome and thank you for being here.

I'd like to address two different issues: the first is communications, and the second is broadcasting and telecommunications.

I recently changed my Internet service provider, and everything went smoothly. I think I benefited from the new rules you put in place that allow one company to use another company's network. It worked in my case. I'm very happy, and everything is fine.

However, many people in our ridings are telling us that they don't understand why you're forcing a company that has invested in building a fibre-optic network to let its competitors use that network.

Could you explain to us and to the people in my region, in Laval, why that's not quite how it works, that in fact the decision increases competition, which in turn increases the range of services available to the public?

[Vicky Eatrides]

I will start and then ask Mr. Hutton to continue.

This is really important. Our job is to promote competition, but at the same time, we really want to promote investment. We understand that networks are very expensive, so we've put a lot of measures in place in conjunction with our decisions to ensure that investment continues.

I'll ask Mr. Hutton to provide you with more details.

[Scott Hutton]

There are two regimes you're referring to: the cellular network regime and the residential Internet network regime, so to speak. They're a little different, but the concept is still the same. Setting up regimes is always a key element for us. Yes, we are asking these companies to share their networks, but only for a certain period of time. The goal is to give new players time to find new customers and financing so that they too can ultimately invest in their own networks.

Naturally, in the meantime we're taking steps to ensure that prices are fair and equitable. I'm talking here about the fees that these new players have to pay to the incumbent companies. Companies need to be able, through a pricing framework—which the CRTC is working very hard on—to have the means to continue investing. These arrangements allow them not only to invest, but also to succeed. Some go through negotiation, others through CRTC pricing. However, it's still very important for us to have this team to be able to answer the big questions. We need more competition and more players, but we also need towers and fibre-optic networks across the country to ensure that Canadians are connected to the outside world.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Indeed.

We're all familiar with the very large companies, but there are also medium-sized companies that have invested in their own networks and now find themselves at a slight disadvantage due to the new regulatory framework. What are your thoughts on that?

[Scott Hutton]

There are two different markets. On the cellular network side, we've put a regime in place to encourage the deployment of these mid-sized companies in this market. We call them medium-sized companies, but they're still giants. We want various regional companies to be able to move beyond their traditional territory and compete with each other. That's really where we see the impact of competition from these new players on market prices. In fact, you've benefited from it yourself.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I don't have much time left, Mr. Shortliffe, and I wouldn't want you to be interrupted a second time. You talked about discoverability, which is very important, after all. Could you briefly tell us how you intend to ensure that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but there won't be any time left for a response. It's unfortunate.

Thank you, Mr. Leitão.

Mr. Champoux, the floor is yours.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Why stop when everything is going so well?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

You'll be closing out the meeting, Mr. Champoux.

You have two and a half minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

For about six years now, the government's been trying to legislate digital platforms with Bill C‑10, which became Bill C‑11, then Bill C‑18 about online news. The CRTC ended up having to set up regulatory frameworks based on these new provisions. These laws and regulations have been challenged relentlessly and repeatedly by digital platforms and web giants.

How would you rate Canada in general, or the CRTC specifically, in terms of regulating web giants, six years after we started trying to regulate them? You can give a rating out of ten. You can also give a rating out of five or three, if you want it to sound better.

[Scott Hutton]

You know, my role is to look at what's happening outside the CRTC and around the world. Naturally, these players are allergic to regulation, and I think you've made a good point about that. Some of our decisions, which you mentioned earlier, are still—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I know you well enough, Mr. Hutton. I know you won't give us a number. Maybe I wouldn't have said—

[Scott Hutton]

I won't give you a number, but it's important to note that what may appear to be progress elsewhere may not actually be progress. We've had some visits recently. Yes, in France, there are all kinds of wonderful regulations in place, but if Netflix sets up shop in another country, they don't apply.

We work with companies. They fight us for a while, but we're also seeing some successes, with certain Canadian programs being developed and certain investments coming in. So we're hopeful that we can go ahead—