CRTC, in the eye of many storms, enters a new era

OTTAW—Hardly a day goes by without the CRTC being in the news. Never have the demands on and expectations of the federal broadcast and telecom regulator been so high and so critical. And this happening after decades of a growing view that it is time to shut the place down now that we had reached competition nirvana. Yes, really. There are several high-profile, high-impact issues at play: the Rogers service disruption; the n-word on SRC; Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act; the cabinet directive on competitive and affordable telecommunications; Bill C-27, the Digital Charter; and the bill on online harms, yet to come. We suddenly find the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is smack in the middle of a lot of the hottest topics in Canada, some of them quite existential to who we are as Canadians. And on many of the issues there is no national consensus. This is the new world for the CRTC, the new complicated high-stakes world that is the result of technological advancement. This is the CRTC’s hour and they are being watched closely on many fronts. The controversies pivot around full and unfettered free speech or respecting diversity and equality; regulating the internet, or leaving it to be the next frontier; leaving market forces to do their thing or enforcing competitive fairness; the free market versus consumer protection; ensuring bilingual and diverse services or letting the market decide; and giving complete independence to the regulator or having new directives from cabinet and Parliament, shortening that “arm’s length." And out there in the world it’s not a simple right and left split. Many critics want less of the CRTC in one area and more of it in another. That is the reality of the CRTC, always needing to find the best balance between competing interests or even competing values. On the July 8 Rogers disruption, Innovation Minister François-Philippe Champagne was the first one to step in, summoning the telecom CEOs to a meeting to hear the outrage of Canadians, and talk about how they would avoid the chaos going forward. He gave them three issues to figure out with a 60-day deadline. The CRTC almost simultaneously sent Rogers a volley of questions to explain exactly what happened, as it conducts its inquiry which will be on the public record. As a caution, while some folks are calling for maximum transparency, we should be aware that bad actors the world over are watching this closely, and the more we reveal about the weakness of our communications system in the name of openness, the more they learn about how to disrupt it for nefarious purposes. It's just one of the many conundrums. On the n-word, it was ostensibly used because the folks on air were making reference to the legendary 1968 book by Pierre Vallières, a radical analysis of his life as a francophone Québécois. The CRTC ordered the SRC to publicly apologize. This is the way I suggest people evaluate the use of derogatory terms: think of the most vile terms for a group close to you—women, Jews, Indigenous people—and then think about the use of that word on the air, four times in one show. We know La Presse or The Globe and Mail would never print those words so why should they be said on radio ad nauseum? Freedom of speech should be about speaking truth to power, not the powerful speaking vile to the powerless. By the way, there are popular Canadian bands called F***ed Up and Holy F***—you rarely see them reviewed in the media. Wonder why. While Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez, pictured May 3 on the Hill, and Bill C-11's supporters say it is about helping Canadian production and creation in this new media world, critics say it's using old-style regulation to regulate new media. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade For the SRC, this can go the core of its being. Out there in political land, the voices demanding absolute free speech are coincidentally also demanding the end of the public broadcaster, while the moderate voices who don’t like to hear the vile language on radio are their strongest supporters. Making the n-word the moniker of CBC/SRC is not going to turn their critics into supporters, but it will turn their supporters into critics. This is the serious stuff of existentialism for the Crown corporation. It may just be the hill they die on! We all need to take a break and talk this through carefully and respectfully. Powerful people need to listen to powerless people in that old-fashioned Canadian way. Bill C-11 ushers in a big new role for the CRTC, creating a new form of regulation of the foreign giant online streamers like Netflix and Google Plus. While Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez and the bill’s supporters say it is about helping Canadian production and creation in this new media world, some critics say it is using old-style regulation to regulate new media. Assuming it becomes law, it will usher in a whole new role for the regulator in the brave new world of online streaming—and to be clear, we are not alone. Measures of this kind are taking root in many countries that want to protect and develop their own national culture. Controversy around this goal is nothing new. The cabinet directive on affordable and competitive telecommunications issued in draft form in May, is one of the most detailed directives sent from the cabinet to the arm’s length regulator. It may be a sign of the lack of confidence the government has in the commitment of the commission to the interests of consumers, and it certainly directs them to change course. The Digital Charter is along those lines, as is the promised legislation regarding online harm—all that bad stuff on the internet. To mix metaphors, this is when the CRTC has to walk, chew gum, dance in high heels backwards, all at the same time, and in short order, while everyone is watching, waiting for it to trip up. Andrew Cardozo is president of the Pearson Centre. He is a former CRTC commissioner and has taught media regulation at Carleton University. The Hill Times