By Denis Carmel
Bill C-10 has turned into a cultural piñata… again.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) and the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications (FRPC) organized a legal conference on Bill C-10 today, which featured two sessions asking the following questions: Does the bill’s section 3 hit the mark as a 21st century broadcasting policy and, will the bill’s grant of discretion to the CRTC ensure implementation of the country’s broadcasting policy?
Vast program.
The first panel was comprised of Doug Barrett, Timothy Denton, Peter Grant and Philip Palmer, which ensured that not only was the topic not covered, instead they provided us with their own views on C-10 and its flaws and also shared their pet peeves. And contrary to the intentions of the organizers, its focus was on policy rather than on the legal issues of the legislation.
It is illustrative the people speaking on this topic were not really representative of the diversity of Canada, but it was difficult to associate them with a vision of the 21st century. Two of them at least were instrumental in the adoption of the previous Broadcasting Act.
The second panel included Bram Abramson, Ken Englehart, Monica Song and Jay Thomson. The presenters as good telecom lawyers were better at sticking to the question posed by the organizers and provided a better representation of Canada.
Telecom people, I have noticed over the years, have a hard time dealing with the approach of the Broadcasting Act with its multiple policy objectives and its vague language, which leads to a lot of pronouncements that the CRTC has to balance the multiple interests of its stakeholders.
The Telecom Act, in contrast provides a more rational framework with more conceivable concepts such as just and reasonable rates.
As a result, the discussion ended up in a little bit of mayhem where some emotions were displayed and tempers flared, which, from the standpoint of a listener was a little surprising.
A good thing it was not in person because it could have resulted in a food fight.
What is indicative in the details of what was said is how this legislation is far from being passed as we see groups, mainly of a younger constituency, who will strongly resist any encroachment into the Internet unless the government undertakes to better explain the objective of the legislation or for that matter the legislations, plural.
A fast passage of a renewed C-10, along with bills related to online harms and compensation for journalism is far from being done, for a minority government.
What struck us, and maybe we should not be surprised, is how so many C-10 supporters endorsed the bill but… seemed to then criticize its shortcomings. The impression from the outside was that of a confused sense of purpose.
There is more to come on this event from Denis Carmel on Cartt.ca.
