November 16, 2022 Mr. Vincent Labrosse Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications The Senate of Canada Ottawa, Ontario Canada, K1A 0A4 BRIEF – CRTC POSITION ON SEVEN-YEAR REVIEWS Introduction The CRTC is an independent, arm’s length regulator whose mandate in respect of broadcasting matters is derived from the Broadcasting Act (the Act). Within the Act, there already exist a number of provisions that ensure that regulatory measures taken by the CRTC are subject to several checks and balances. The Act also requires that the CRTC regulate efficiently in what is a fast-changing broadcasting environment. The CRTC is concerned that Bill C-11’s introduction of the new

section 34.01 of the Act will tip the scales inordinately towards slower and less efficient regulatory processes, which is not in the public interest nor consistent with the Act’s policy objectives.

Section 34.01 Based on our understanding,

section 34.01 would require the CRTC to consult with all interested persons with respect to orders and regulations it has made every seven years and to publish a report on the consultations. The report would also list what the CRTC proposes to review as a result of the consultations and would require that the CTRC set out its plan for the review. Seven-year reviews will create unnecessary operational burdens First, it is important to contextualise this requirement in light of the operational realities faced by the CRTC. Every year, the CRTC issues hundreds of broadcasting decisions.

The CRTC makes these decisions only after public processes have been held. To give an example of the scope of a seven-year review, the CRTC estimates that, based on the current number of regulations and other regulatory obligations issued every year, over 1,000 orders and regulations could be potentially subject to such reviews, a cycle that would repeat every seven years.

The CRTC is concerned that the requirements in 34.01 would divert a substantial amount of resources and delay the CRTC’s ability to deal with the important task of implementing Bill C-11, as well as to deal with ongoing applications, complaints and other matters in an expeditious manner. In this respect, the CRTC is cognizant of the policy objective stated in 5(2)(

g) of the Act which stipulates that the Canadian broadcasting system should be regulated and supervised in a flexible manner that is sensitive to the administrative burden that, as a consequence of such regulation and supervision, may be imposed on persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings. The CRTC is concerned that requiring further consultations within a short amount of time will increase the administrative burden on those undertakings and, more broadly, be detrimental to their need for regulatory consistency and certainty.

Second, such all-encompassing and mandated reviews are unnecessary, since the public can always request, at any time, that the CRTC review any of its existing measures, orders and regulations. Indeed, on its own initiative, the CRTC conducts reviews of its regulatory frameworks on a regular and consistent basis where it considers such reviews are necessary and appropriate. For example, the CRTC is currently undertaking a review to Co-develop a new Indigenous Broadcasting Policy, and has recently consulted on a review of the Commercial Radio Policy, to name but two examples.

Third, the CRTC is already required, pursuant to

section of the Act, to hold hearings and issue reports on request by the Governor-in-council. In addition, the CRTC also reports on its plans and priorities through the Department of Canadian Heritage in its yearly Departmental Plan. Conclusion In sum, imposing a mandatory seven-year review would create unnecessary operational burdens and delays in our regulatory processes. The existing Act, coupled with the CRTC’s existing reporting obligations, already provides for sufficient oversight and review. We would therefore suggest that this amendment be removed.