Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2023

[Vicky Eatrides]

Thank you very much for your question.

Yes, we are completely ready. We have a team of experts who will be helping us, and the members of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission who are here with me today are also experts. We will be basing our decisions on the submissions we have received.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

The minister recently said that she hoped to have a new regulatory framework in 2025. For us, for the culture sector and broadcasters, 2025 is an eternity. A lot of things could happen by then, not just in politics, but also in the culture sector, which has been considerably destabilized by the situation.

Do you feel this urgency in your work, and do you have the resources to address it? That is what I am very concerned about. I get the feeling that the machine is complex and is not capable of responding to the needs fast enough.

[Vicky Eatrides]

I will answer first, and then I will ask my colleague to add her comments.

Yes, we know it is very urgent. There is no doubt about that. That is why we started holding consultations very early on. That is why we chose an approach consisting of several phases or steps.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

When I say it is too far off, 2025, I also think it could just as easily be in 13 months as in more two years. That is a pretty wide range.

Do you think there is a chance that the regulatory framework will be put in place in early 2025, or is it a bit too optimistic to think it can be done in so little time?

[Vicky Eatrides]

Thank you for the question. I will answer first, and then I will ask my colleague to add her comments.

We are going to start by making decisions. We have already made two, and we are going to continue on that path. There are steps to go through.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Right.

We have all heard about positions being eliminated at TVA in recent weeks. They are disastrous for the culture sector and the television sector in Quebec. It is the biggest private broadcaster in Quebec and it has eliminated 547 positions. This is literally a nightmare.

Mr. Péladeau, the president of Québecor, has said that the regulations are killing their business and TVA was forced into making its recent cuts. That means they did all the pruning they could, if I may use that horrible term in this context. They did everything they could and they cut everything they could cut to maintain their operations. That implies that after that, there is nothing more that can be done.

Do you think there is a future for television in its present form? Did Mr. Péladeau's statement affect you? What about the statement made by the vice-president of Bell, who made similar comments about the regulations, which are much too complex for the traditional broadcasters? Are you aware of this request?

[Vicky Eatrides]

It concerns us a great deal. We have heard Québecor. We started with Québecor on Monday morning. It concerns us, but that is why we are acting so fast to determine whether we should put an immediate contribution in place.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

When you talk about a contribution, are you talking about requiring that digital companies make a contribution? Can you tell me a little more? What form would it take?

[Vicky Eatrides]

Yes, exactly.

[Rachelle Frenette, General Counsel and Deputy Executive, Legal Services, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]

As the Commission chairperson said, we are currently in the middle of a hearing to examine the possibility of asking digital platforms to make a bigger contribution to the Canadian broadcasting system.

Obviously, since that hearing is in progress, we cannot necessarily go into the details. The Commission members are examining these issues, but, as the chairperson said, these issues are crucially important to the Commission. That is why we started by giving that hearing priority.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I think that is a very fine idea. I agree that...

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Monsieur Martin, you have 15 seconds.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

Given the reaction by these digital companies regarding any regulation that is presented to them, do you not have the feeling it is wishful thinking to try to get money out of them by asking them for a contribution?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you. The time is up. I'm sorry.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I will come back to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm going to the New Democratic Party and that would be Peter Julian.

Peter, you have six minutes, please.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank our witnesses.

I am going to continue along the same line as Mr. Champoux.

First, what size contribution are we talking about, roughly speaking? A $500,000 contribution is not the same thing as a $300 million contribution.

Second, what tools will be put in place to enforce the contribution requirements?

[Rachelle Frenette]

Those are exactly the questions that are before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

What will be the nature and size of the contributions to be made? Those questions are currently being examined by the Commission.

I can tell you that some foreign entities have appeared during our hearing, including Google. The Commission finds their presence encouraging.

The bill we are currently implementing gives us the tools to finalize regulations that could require these major players to make certain contributions. I can tell you they are present. They are speaking with us and we find that encouraging.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you.

I see at this time that Meta and Google receive over $1 billion per year in indirect subsidies. Canadians, through the Canada Revenue Agency, are subsidizing all the companies that want to advertise on Meta and Google. That is $1 billion a year.

These big tech companies could make a bit of a contribution. That is important.

I wanted to come to the issue of cellphones. Canadians are gouged mercilessly by big cellphone telecoms, and we have a market monopoly of over 90%.

Canadians pay among the highest prices in the world, often, as you cited in your introductory remarks, without the service that goes with it. Internet and cellphone fees in the midst of the affordability crisis that so many Canadian families are facing are a critical aspect of reducing the gouging that is going on when people go to the grocery store, when they go to the gas pumps or when they try to use their cellphone or have Internet access.

I note that one of the criticisms of the CRTC regime is that the CRTC regime places all of its bets on existing regionally bound competitors who have already demonstrably failed to provide sufficient price discipline and service innovation despite years of effort. As the Commission itself notes, the dominant providers exercise market power at a national level, allowing them to weather a substantial amount of competitive pressure in any particular region.

How do you respond to those criticisms that what the CRTC is putting in place simply will not address the affordability crisis that comes from the massive gouging by big telecom?

[Vicky Eatrides]

This is something that we have heard from many Canadians about around how unhappy they are with respect to their bills and service.

We can use the levers that we have, and what we've done on the cellphone side is to allow regional providers to access the networks of the large companies for a period of time. They need to do that within seven years and build out their own networks, but that has already shown more choice in the market and we've seen that recently.

As I said in my opening remarks, just over the past year you can see plans now, both from regional carriers and also from the national providers, that are better for Canadians than they were previously. We are also taking all kinds of other steps through our broadband fund, making sure that we reach out to rural, remote and indigenous communities so that they have more choice there as well.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you.

I want to address the takeover of Shaw by Rogers. It was rubber-stamped by the Liberal government, tragically.

I was on the picket line just last weekend with long-time Shaw workers who were basically locked out by Rogers, and they're massively using replacement workers. The NDP has pressed for anti-scab legislation. It is before the House now, and we are expecting that it will be adopted. However, to what extent does the CRTC see with a bad eye this type of action by big telecom, where they run roughshod over their workers and simply lock them out and bring in replacement workers rather than negotiating in good faith for a collective agreement?

[Vicky Eatrides]

I would just come back to the CRTC's role and our mandate as an independent quasi-judicial tribunal. Our focus is on regulating telecommunications and promoting competition.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you.

The issue of resources has come up repeatedly. Ms. Hepfner raised it, and Mr. Champoux as well. You have a huge and important mandate, given what is happening right now in our broadcasting sector, what's happening with cellphone and Internet gouging and what's happening with foreign interference, for example.

To what extent do you need additional resources, because there are delays and complaints about the delays in CRTC's decisions. Often, there have not been the tools in place for the CRTC to follow up and ensure that companies comply.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry, Mr. Julian, but we're going to have to ask for that answer in the next round. Thank you.

Now we go to the second round, which is a five-minute round.

We begin, from the Conservatives, with Kevin Waugh.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome, everybody.

I've been around here for a few years. Bill C-18, originally, was supposed to help the newspapers in this country—it's done anything but. As you know, the big telcos got their hands into it, including the public broadcaster, who wants another additional $172 million. It's interesting, because Ms. Tait was in that chair a few weeks ago. They get $1.4 billion from the public and they get $400 million in advertising, yet they want to get their hands into Bill C-18.

When the bill originally came, it was for the newspapers. As I said, in the last year, I've had gobs of newspapers that have gone under—Metroland, 650 jobs lost. I can talk about Pincher Creek or Vermilion. I have some in my province.

When I look at your mandate letter, Ms. Eatrides, I see that its says that the Online News Act seeks to enhance “fairness in the Canadian digital news marketplace”. It's intended to benefit the diversity of news business, including local and independent outlets. How can that be? The newspapers are absolutely pushed out of this conversation.

I'd like your thoughts on the newspapers being pushed out, when originally Bill C-18 was all about the local newspapers.