Finance Committee on Feb. 9th, 2026

[Scott Shortliffe]

If someone doesn't comply, we have an escalating series of measures we can take that start with a warning letter and that can go to a mandatory hearing. At the most extreme level, Parliament has now given us the possibility of administrative monetary penalties, which is a tool we have not used to date, so we have a variety of tools.

I think the first thing—

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

Could you shut off access to a website in Canada?

[Scott Shortliffe]

We have no power to shut off access to the Internet, no.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Lawton. That concludes your time.

We'll continue with Mr. Fragiskatos for five minutes.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, all of you, for being here.

Ms. Eatrides, I have a question on artificial intelligence. In fact, I know you gave a recent interview, in early January, on how the CRTC was approaching or was beginning to approach that question. I ask the question as a parliamentarian. I think all of us, around the table and beyond, are concerned about the rise of AI. We see tremendous potential with it, of course, not only for democracy perhaps, but also for all sorts of benefits beyond democracy—in health care, in particular, I think.

Let's think about generative AI, for example, and what that might mean, ultimately, for deepfakes and for the use of those in election campaigns, between election campaigns and these kinds of things. I know that the European Union is advanced, certainly, when it comes to looking at questions like that. Is the CRTC prepared to delve in further and address the matter?

[Vicky Eatrides]

I can tell you what we hear and have been hearing about in our proceedings with respect to AI. Obviously, there's a lot of concern. There is a broad range of views, which is not surprising, in the broadcasting sector. We hear about a fear that television and movies will no longer be created by humans. There's obviously fear about job loss, which you hear across the board. We've also heard some positive remarks about accessibility and about how closed captioning and other accessibility tools have been made better because of AI. We've heard a wide range of things.

We have been asking questions about AI in our most recent decision on the definition of Canadian content. We did include in our decision a reference that creators should be human and not artificial intelligence, so we have started to address those kinds of issues on the broadcasting side.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

That's encouraging, but obviously these risks remain. Again, I look to Europe, for example, which has moved ahead and requires that the individual or organization from which the AI content originates—the video, in the example I'm giving—be made clear. When it comes to deepfakes, for example, this is where I think the real risk is. If there are risks, all of us worry about that, and constituents do, too.

Do you believe that, for the content creators of AI, we should know who's putting out such videos? Should that be required, as Europe has moved in that direction?

[Scott Shortliffe]

We also have questions about AI usage in other consultations of ours, which are still open. I can say that we're in close touch with our colleagues in Europe. We trade information with them. We're aware that we're under different legal statutes.

We're building a record around broadcasting in Canada. We're also not responsible for the open Internet, and we realize that deepfakes are often shared on social media platforms, which we don't regulate.

On broadcasting platforms, we have asked questions around the usage of AI. We have raised the question about labelling. It is a matter that is still before us, but we're certainly paying close attention to what's happening in Europe, while balancing that with our primordial mission to ensure there's freedom of expression. We're always balancing those issues.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

All of us know it's a new and emerging area, so of course I would encourage you to continue to make efforts on that. It's very good that you're engaged with the Europeans on it.

I have about a minute left.

Could you touch again on the advances that have been made when it comes to affordability? I'm thinking specifically here about cellphones. This has been an ongoing issue for a number of years. Ms. Eatrides, can you go over the numbers again on the achievements we've seen so far?

[Vicky Eatrides]

Like committee members, we often hear, when we are speaking with Canadians across Canada, about the challenges in terms of affordability. You asked about cellphone services. We've put measures in place on the cellphone side where we have allowed competitors to offer more choice to compete using the networks of large telecommunications companies. We've seen a lot of choice come out of that.

The StatsCan data we've seen, which I referred to earlier, shows that from 2021 to 2025, cellphone prices have gone down more than 37%, which is quite significant considering that we've seen a lot of other prices being relatively stable in the market or going up. We have seen some positive signs on that front.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Champoux, you have two and a half minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for welcoming me to your committee. This is a first for me, but it's not the first time I've met with CRTC representatives, whom I'm happy to see again, as always.

I wanted to take the opportunity given to me by my colleague Mr. Garon to ask the CRTC members a question about the independent local news fund.

Last year, in June if I'm not mistaken, the CRTC issued a decision allowing Corus to join the group of broadcasters eligible for this program, which is essential for regional news coverage. The CRTC justified Corus's inclusion among the program's beneficiaries on the grounds that new funds, new money, would be coming in to enhance the program and offset the inequity created by the arrival of a major player like Corus. However, the money still hasn't arrived. Obviously, this money was supposed to come from funds recovered from the digital giants. Where do we stand on that? What can we say to broadcasters who are struggling to keep their newsrooms open?

[Vicky Eatrides]

I'll start by briefly explaining the context. We've heard from many Canadians that newsrooms are really important, and we agree. We've taken many steps to support newsrooms. With regard to our decision on base contributions, we decided that since newsrooms are really important, we need money. We've made decisions about radio and television, which is what you're talking about.

I'll ask Mr. Shortliffe to give you a more specific answer on that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I have very little time.

Mr. Shortliffe, I know you're capable of giving us very detailed answers, but I really want to know if the money is on its way. Will these broadcasters be forced to close stations due to the funding shortfall? That's really the question on everyone's mind.

[Scott Shortliffe]

As a result of a decision by the Federal Court of Appeal, the funds are ready to go out. I've been checking the court's website three times a day. At the same time, we are in contact with the Canadian Association of Broadcasters to find out more about the pressure on broadcasting. There are more decisions to come.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

We need to stop there, Mr. Shortliffe.

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

We will continue with Mr. Kelly for five minutes, please.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you, Commissioner and officials.

In September, you appeared at the industry committee to answer questions, including questions from my colleague Raquel Dancho, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. She asked you a series of questions about what the CRTC is doing to crack down on fraud and scam phone calls. You then talked about resources and limitations, but you said that you have a role to play.

I wonder if you can update Canadians on what your office is doing to cut down on the ongoing problem of fraud conducted over the telephone.

[Vicky Eatrides]

Thank you for the question.

As we talked about earlier, this is obviously at best an annoyance and, at worst, fraudulent and criminal.

We have a civil regime that we, together with the bureau and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, promote compliance with, and there's a lot of education on that front. Anything that falls more within the sort of pure fraud type of activity would fall more with law enforcement.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

As the regulator, you have a role regulating the companies that carry the phone lines over which this fraud is done. The amount is not trivial. The estimates are up to $12 billion. All MPs are contacted in their communities by victims of fraud. They tend to be among the more vulnerable in our society, and the estimate is as high as $12 billion.

I think Canadians are looking for urgency on this, not just explanations of all the different jurisdictions, so can you demonstrate to Canadians the urgency and tell us what further steps your commission has taken on this since that meeting in September?

[Vicky Eatrides]

We are always promoting compliance and education about scam calls. I would say, and you did mention this, that it is a very small part of our role. The only amount that we get in terms of parliamentary appropriations from government is less than 5%, or—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Are you under-resourced to fulfill this aspect of your mandate?

[Vicky Eatrides]

We work with others to fulfill this part of our mandate. We work with partners on this front. Again, what our focus has been is really to help promote compliance, again working with our partners on this front to do that.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Are legislative changes needed to give you the tools you need to properly regulate the businesses through which these frauds are conducted?

[Vicky Eatrides]

Again, we're part of the civil regime. We help promote compliance with CASL, Canada's anti-spam law. If you're talking about pure fraud, which falls more on the criminal side, that would be all law enforcement, so even additional resources would not put us in the realm of—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

The companies you regulate are on the front line of this, and this is where referral to law enforcement would come into play. Is that correct? You would refer it to law enforcement.