OTTAWA – Last evening, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications heard how staff at Canadian Heritage as well as Innovation, Science and Economic Development might change the Telecommunications, Broadcasting and the Radiocommunication Act.
As we’ve reported, the Senate is thinking about how the legislation can be modernized to account for the evolution of the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors in the last decades. As you may have heard, the federal government has appointed an expert panel to do the same thing.
Some criticisms were voiced by Senators on the composition of that panel. For example, Committee Chair, David Tkachuk, Conservative Senator from Saskatchewan asked: “No Maritimers and no prairie people. Just someone from the University of Victoria, who used to live here, and everybody else is from Toronto and Montreal. Is that the way it is or am I overstating that a little?”
“I see all the stuff you’re putting out there, but this looks like a panel of very, I hate to use the word, conservative, old school—there are no new thinkers on there. These guys are not going to do anything to change what’s happening in broadcasting today. Only the marketplace will do that,” added Tkachuk.
He also asked, “What brought on the special study? Was it a lobby from industry, or was it a government initiative? Why is the government doing this?”
Later on, Terry Mercer, a Liberal Senator from Halifax added: “I want to get on the record, though, that the review of the panel’s bios is significant. There are no Atlantic Canadians on there that I can identify. There are no consumers. I don’t mean large-scale consumers, I mean Joe or Mary consumers who would have an opinion.
“This is a difficult subject for all of us because the world is changing so fast. We want Canadians to succeed and we want Canadians to be treated fairly. I have a difficult time seeing how Canadian media, Canadian culture and Canadian communications survives in a world that is moving so fast with the Internet, and with things like Netflix, et cetera, interfering with what we have been able to develop over the years, namely, a good network. I also know that if you watch either public or private television, that the competition is killing them.”
“I’m just saying. Doesn’t that kind of bother you? Who will decide this?” – David Tkachuk, committee chair
Conservative Senator Boisvenu echoed a question in the House of Commons from Pierre Nantel, the NDP critic for Canadian Heritage when the Committee was announced, saying that this sector is constantly in consultation. We consult for a long time but when the report is made public, it is already obsolete, he said.
Those comments echo the worries Cartt.ca has heard within the industry – rumours swirling of large stakeholders being met with quietly behind closed doors and even though the panel has announced its intention of “participating in a number of industry and academic conferences and meeting with a cross-section of experts, creators, stakeholders and other interested parties, including from Indigenous and official language minority communities,” they were not at the latest gathering of independents, the Canadian Communications Systems Alliance annual conference held last month in New Brunswick.
When asked by Cartt.ca for a response to the Senators and the industry's concerns, Broadcasting, Telecom Legislative Review panel chair Janet Yale said in an email: “Hopefully, most observers would feel confident in the broad cross-section of experience, geography and expertise that we bring to the task. We have panel members from right across the country, including those steeped in broadcast and telecom issues as well as members with extensive history in the consumer and creative sectors," she said.
"Most important of all, the panel is dedicated to working hard, consulting widely and offering thoughtful, considered recommendations for legislative change. Last week we launched our consultations with an open call for written submissions. In addition we will be meeting with stakeholders representing all interests and perspectives. We’re excited that, in addition to our work, the Senate is holding its own hearings.
“Hopefully, most observers would feel confident in the broad cross-section of experience, geography and expertise that we bring to the task." – Janet Yale, Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel
"Undoubtedly, we can learn much from their work even as we conduct our own outreach and we would welcome any opportunity to communicate with them on areas of common interest. To date, we've not received any questions from them about our mandate, composition, timing or plans. But we would welcome such conversation. Indeed, as chair, I would be happy to appear if invited," Yale concluded.
During the committee meeting yesterday, guests did their best to fend off different criticisms of the panel that, frankly, should be addressed to the government which chose the members of the panel and determined the timeline. But they provided some insight to where the Committee, which should probably invite Yale for a visit, will focus its attention.
For example, are going towards a single Act? “The panel was conceived to have a joint review given the linkages between the sectors. For example, in Canada there is a high degree of vertical integration and concentration. The sectors are also subject to similar global trends, benefit from policies that encourage competition, innovation, affordability and are regulated by the independent Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC,” read Pamela Miller, Director General, Telecommunications and Internet Policy Branch, ISED.
Are we looking at more policy objectives: “Safety, security and privacy are broader than telecommunications. However, the internet’s reach in our lives has raised these as important issues. Security and safety are not currently explicitly referenced in the act as policy objectives, while privacy is. The panel was asked to examine the extent to whether changes are needed on these issues within the context of telecommunication legislation,” continued Miller.
Or reviewing the extent of the relationship between government and regulator (notice that CRTC is not mentioned by name in the following statement): “Lastly, governance and effective administration given responsibilities are assigned to different organizations and decision makers. The panel was asked whether the allocation is correct and whether the balance between Governor-in-Council review and independent regulation is appropriate in the modern context.”
Finally, when Thomas Owen Ripley, Director General, Broadcasting and Digital Communications Branch read the following part of his presentation: “Moreover, given the rise of social media platforms, the phenomenon of online disinformation is also growing and has the potential to undermine our democratic institutions and processes. As such, the panel has been asked to examine whether current legislative provisions are sufficient to ensure the provision of trusted, accurate and quality news and information, and what can be done to ensure the continuing viability of local news,” the Chair and Ripley had the following exchange:
Chair: “You mentioned, Mr. Ripley, something called disinformation. What is disinformation?”
Ripley: “I would define disinformation as intentional misinformation. So it is an actor seeking to mislead by putting out something that’s false or misleading, but with a purpose.”
Chair: “You mean like politicians do? I’m just saying.”
Ripley: “I will leave that to you, Mr. Chair.”
Chair: “I’m just saying. Doesn’t that kind of bother you? Who will decide this?”
The Committee meets next on October 16 and the guest(s) has not been confirmed but Cartt.ca intends to continue following the work of the Committee.
