By Denis Carmel
OTTAWA – Government agencies normally say as little as possible when facing a committee of politicians, even when queries from the elected folks repeatedly demand personal opinions. On Friday, however, while appearing in front of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which is studying Bill C-10, which will amend the Broadcasting Act, the chair of the CRTC tried to reassure the MPs the CRTC is up to the task of writing new regs – and offered a few good nuggets of wisdom.
When Conservative member and former sportscaster Kevin Waugh commented, “Actually today, you have the authority to regulate the streamers like Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon,” chair Ian Scott replied: “Today, as we read the Broadcasting Act, we have regulation over all programming – programming being widely defined – and the Commission has looked at three times, dating back 20 years ago, at whether or not it would be desirable or necessary to regulate content delivered over the Internet. And in the past the Commission has concluded that regulating it would not meaningfully contribute to the broadcasting system.
“Now the world has changed. I think the extent, the volume, the significance of over-the-top programming makes that not the case today, so we have exemption orders in place that require them not to be licenced, but they do fall under our jurisdiction,” he confirmed.
And if we go back to the chair’s opening remarks, where he said: “We welcomed the tabling of this bill since, in our view, it does three important things. One, it builds on the existing Broadcasting Act to clarify the CRTC’s jurisdiction regarding online broadcasters. Two, it proposes provisions that specifically address our ability to obtain data from online broadcasters to better monitor their evolution. Three, it proposes to modernize the CRTC’s enforcement powers.”
So, while C-10 clarifies the CRTC jurisdiction on online broadcasters, does that exchange mean we do not actually need C-10 to get the OTT to contribute? Nobody asked.
Waugh then asked if the CRTC today has the capacity, or the resources to change its regulations if and when Bill C-10 is passed (and while nobody mentioned the deadline imposed by the Minister directly on Friday, Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault has been on the record since November saying the Commission will have nine months to make the necessary policy changes). “There are many on the conventional side that say that you are overworked, and now this is coming forward. What will it take to get you up to speed as a regulator to tackle the whole bill and move on?” Waugh asked.
“We are busy. My team works incredibly hard in the public interest… we will need some additional resources and the Ministry is aware of that and will support our request for the necessary resources,” Scott replied.
It should be noted that the world over, law enforcement agencies ask for more powers and additional resources to accomplish their mandates. The Competition Bureau, the Privacy Commissioner and others are good examples. The CRTC has recently been given the power to impose penalties in telecommunications and this bill would give them similar enforcement powers in broadcasting.
“How will that compare with an OTT provider simply giving money, contributing financially and not actually developing and distributing Canadian stories?” – Ian Scott, CRTC
New Liberal MP, Marci Ien asked the chair what Scott thinks is the CRTC’s biggest challenge.
“Two things. First, we are regulators, and what we do, by definition, is make those difficult decisions. Our job is to balance competing, conflicting sometimes parties and measures an equitable, fair outcome,” he offered.
“And I think that is exactly what we will have to do, as we balance the various pros and cons of different regulatory approaches. Short answer to your question: I think the hardest thing we will face, is defining what is equitable when you say to a traditional broadcaster, ‘we want, for example, a specific focus on news, or particular focus on French-language programming.’ How will that compare with an OTT provider simply giving money, contributing financially and not actually developing and distributing Canadian stories? So, it will be the different lines of business, the different things they bring to the market and how one reaches a determination about what is equitable. I am being very candid but that will be the biggest challenge,” he concluded.
And when asked the timeline for public consultations, he said “at the end of the day, the timelines will be set… through a policy direction, to be issued by the government to the CRTC… And obviously, if issued such policy direction, we will fulfill it.
“We have been working very hard internally at the CRTC in order to prepare for the day if the will of Parliament is to pass this legislation into law, (we) will be able to start immediately.” – Scott
“I will be very frank with you, we have been working very hard internally at the CRTC in order to prepare for the day if the will of Parliament is to pass this legislation into law, (we) will be able to start immediately and issue relevant notices and bulletins and the public proceedings would follow very rapidly after that,” he offered.
Then members also heard from community media groups on Friday and we will have more on that, soon.
The committee then debated a motion to help accelerate the clause-by-clause examination process by having three-hour meetings on Friday afternoons, instead of two, in the “best interest of our stakeholders” as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage in introducing the motion. This triggered an acrimonious debate and a vote had to be called. While the Conservatives and Bloc Québécois voted against the motion, the NDP voted with the government. It could be then that the NDP will side with the Liberals often in the next part of the process.
Finally, after 67 witnesses have been heard and 25 briefs were tabled and published on the Committee’s website, time has come to study C-10, clause by clause (there are 47 of them).
The clock is ticking, however, and with a possible election looming (the federal budget is coming April 19th and votes on budgets are nearly always confidence votes, meaning if it is rejected by the House, we head to an election) and the prospect of a stalemate in the Senate, this could jeopardize the legislation.
