Industry Committee on Feb. 8th, 2022

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Scott, I'm going to take you in another direction.

I'm sure you've seen the new version of the bill to revise the Broadcasting Act, Bill C‑11.

[Ian Scott]

Yes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I'm pretty sure you've had time to make this your bedtime reading over the last few days.

Last year, when Bill C‑10 was being studied, a particular clause was removed. That created quite a controversy afterwards, which probably contributed to the failure of this bill. This is clause 4.1, which was reinstated in Bill C‑11.

I'd like to hear your comments on how the clause was worded in the current version of the bill.

[Ian Scott]

I didn't expect to answer a question about broadcasting today.

I would imagine that we might well be asked to appear before the heritage committee to discuss it. I have only had an opportunity to look briefly at the new legislation as tabled.

What I perhaps would like to say about it is that the discussion I watched and heard at committee in relation to the predecessor bill, Bill C-10, and section 4.1 really went to how user-generated content would be treated. My understanding of the new legislation is that it says user-generated content won't be...unless it is subject to specific regulatory measures introduced by the CRTC.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Scott, I'd like to clarify my idea because my time is very short.

There is a clause that covers programs that are subject to the act. This is something that you will probably have to apply. It specifies that a program that is uploaded to an online business that generates revenue directly or indirectly, must be subject to regulations.

In this case, is there not a risk that we'll end up with an interpretation problem regarding the freedom of social media users?

[Ian Scott]

To be fair, on that question, I would rather take an undertaking at this point and provide information to the committee.

The legislation was only produced last week. I don't have a role; the commission does not play a role in the development of legislation.

I'm happy to answer questions about the commission's role, but if I could, I would respond perhaps in writing to the committee, or perhaps at—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That's all the time we have, Mr. Scott.

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Masse now has the floor for two and a half minutes.

Is Mr. Masse with us? I can't find him. We'll come back to him a little later.

So Mr. Fast has the floor for five minutes.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you very much.

My questions go back to wholesale rates, Mr. Scott. You said that the wholesale rate decision reversal was a costing decision, not a policy one, correct?

[Ian Scott]

Yes, that's correct.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

However, in your May 27, 2021, news release, the CRTC said, “This [decision] will enable the industry to move towards a new wholesale model that will increase competition and investments.”

Respectfully, Mr. Scott, that sounds like a policy decision. Have you moved to a new wholesale model?

[Ian Scott]

I don't know if you would like me to get into details about the various models.

There are two aspects to wholesale access that were established in 2016. One is called the “aggregated model” and one is called the “disaggregated model”. One involves, if you will, the wholesale access of all services, and that was what the final rates were in 2019—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Scott, I'm familiar with those two models, the disaggregated and the aggregated. I just want to know: Have you moved to a new wholesale model and was the decision actually a policy decision that you made to reverse your decision on wholesale rates?

[Ian Scott]

As I've already answered, the decision to which you're referring is a costing decision, and it established final rates for aggregated and final rates and other technical elements for disaggregated, and other aspects of the wholesale regime are still in front of us.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Can you tell me to what degree did the reversal have anything to do with improving the prospect that large telcos would invest further, and to a greater degree, in the infrastructure required to expand broadband across Canada, especially in rural areas?

[Ian Scott]

My colleague may want to correct me if I don't remember properly.

I don't recall that being part of the [Technical difficulty—Editor] meeting. As I said, this was focused on costing elements, not on policy considerations.

I'm well aware that parties made submissions after in relation to court proceedings and before cabinet that related to their investments, but the decision we are discussing related to costing, not to deployment of facilities.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

You mentioned the CRTC's $750-million broadband fund. How much of that is taxpayers' money?

[Ian Scott]

None, unless you want to refer to.... It comes from the industry. It's not a government program in the traditional sense. We do it similar to the contribution regime that was used to support the extension of basic telephone service.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

All right—

[Ian Scott]

It has been modified so that it now essentially supports the deployment of broadband services—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

But that fund—

[Ian Scott]

—but it's derived from payments from carriers.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Scott, that fund isn't the only government money that has gone into expanding broadband access across Canada, correct?

[Ian Scott]

That's correct, but you asked me about the $750 million—