Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question. Under proposed subsection 2(2.1), which is still in the bill, an individual who uses social media to disseminate content is not considered a broadcaster. They are therefore not subject to CRTC regulation. There is no need here to consider whether that individual can participate in CRTC processes or whether they must comply with CRTC regulations or orders, as proposed subsection 2(2.1) is quite clear: An individual, unless they are affiliated with a social media outlet, is not considered a broadcaster, regardless of how many subscribers they have or how much annual income they earn from the content they post on social media.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question. As my colleague Drew Olsen explained earlier, the CRTC will be launching public hearings where people will have a chance to submit their views as well as documentation related to the regulatory process. With respect to discoverability requirements that may apply to social media companies, anyone will have the opportunity to express their views on the subject.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question, Mr. Champoux. I will point out two things. First, because the CRTC is an administrative tribunal, every decision it makes is subject to judicial review. That means people can use judicial review to challenge a decision made by the CRTC. We know that CRTC decisions sometimes go to judicial review.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question. We know that, since the Broadcasting Act came into force, it has included a section indicating that the act must be interpreted with respect for freedom of expression and freedom of creation, among other things. Therefore, the government considers that this obligation is already included in the act.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question, Mr. Champoux. I would say that the proposed amendment will put a heavier burden on the CRTC, because for every decision, every order and every regulation, the CRTC will have to seek an outside legal opinion and then publish it on its website and in the Canada Gazette.

Canadian Heritage committee  Yes. Proposed section 2.1 provides that individuals who use social media are not to be considered broadcasters for the purposes of the act unless they are, in some way, affiliated with the social media service. Again, that is irrespective of how many followers they have, even if the count is into the millions, or how much revenue they make.

Canadian Heritage committee  The government's position is that the CRTC is bound by the charter. It needs to respect the charter, and its independent legal counsel will help it do that. If ever there is a question about its not having respected the charter, there are meaningful avenues of recourse available where individuals or organizations can have oversight from the federal court system.

Canadian Heritage committee  Mr. Aitchison, you are right that I don't have that figure at the tips of my fingers. What I can say is the fund has had a multi-million dollar budget over the course of its time, in the course of its existence. To date, it has been funded sporadically by what are called “tangible benefit decisions”.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Mr. Waugh. I might make a couple of introductory points and then suggest that my colleague Mr. Olsen jump in, who is very well versed in CRTC processes. Bill C-10 certainly envisions a transparent process when it comes to questions of regulations or orders. The intention is certainly that anybody who wants to participate in those proceedings would have an opportunity to do so.

Canadian Heritage committee  The purpose of proposed paragraph 11.1(1)(c) is to ensure representation of the public interest. Of course, if it is used to support an individual, the individual's participation in a CRTC process must be related to the public interest. If this relates to the regulation of broadcasting activities, again, in the vast majority of cases, individuals will not be considered broadcasters.

Canadian Heritage committee  If I understand the question correctly, you want to know whether a citizen is able to participate in the CRTC processes and make submissions. The answer is yes. Of course, I recognize that going through a regulatory process requires an effort on the part of an individual. However, it is possible.

Canadian Heritage committee  I'm sorry, your question was about whether the funding will be available. My understanding is that the broadcasting participation fund, to which I referred, is limited to groups and organizations representing consumers who have a non‑commercial interest. Could the proposed subsection 11.1(1) be used to create a fund to support individual participation?

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes. I would like to clarify the government's position. The issue here is not whether the CRTC is complying with the charter. As I mentioned, the charter applies to the CRTC, and mechanisms are already in place for people if they feel that the CRTC is not complying with the charter.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes. I have two points to make in response. In fact, a fund already exists to support public interest participation in CRTC processes in broadcasting. It's called the broadcasting participation fund. The problem is that there is really no long‑term funding to support the activities of the broadcasting participation fund.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes. My answer will depend on the purpose of the amendment. If the purpose of the amendment is to provide an opportunity for outsiders to submit legal opinions as evidence in a regulatory process, I would say that it is already happening. People can already make a submission to the CRTC and, if they want to file a third party legal opinion, they can do so.