This bill was last introduced in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2021.
Steven Guilbeault Liberal
In committee (Senate), as of June 29, 2021
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill.
This enactment amends the Broadcasting Act to, among other things,
(a) add online undertakings — undertakings for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet — as a distinct class of broadcasting undertakings;
(b) update the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in section 3 of that Act by, among other things, providing that the Canadian broadcasting system should serve the needs and interests of all Canadians — including Canadians from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds — and should provide opportunities for Indigenous persons, programming that reflects Indigenous cultures and that is in Indigenous languages, and programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities;
(c) specify that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “Commission”) must regulate and supervise the Canadian broadcasting system in a manner that
(i) takes into account the different characteristics of Indigenous language broadcasting and the different conditions under which broadcasting undertakings that provide Indigenous language programming operate,
(ii) is fair and equitable as between broadcasting undertakings providing similar services,
(iii) facilitates the provision of programs that are accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities, and
(iv) takes into account the variety of broadcasting undertakings to which that Act applies and avoids imposing obligations on a class of broadcasting undertakings if doing so will not contribute in a material manner to the implementation of the broadcasting policy;
(d) amend the procedure relating to the issuance by the Governor in Council of policy directions to the Commission;
(e) replace the Commission’s power to impose conditions on a licence with a power to make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings;
(f) provide the Commission with the power to require that persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings make expenditures to support the Canadian broadcasting system;
(g) authorize the Commission to provide information to the Minister responsible for that Act, the Chief Statistician of Canada and the Commissioner of Competition, and set out in that Act a process by which a person who submits certain types of information to the Commission may designate the information as confidential;
(h) amend the procedure by which the Governor in Council may, under section 28 of that Act, set aside a decision of the Commission to issue, amend or renew a licence or refer such a decision back to the Commission for reconsideration and hearing;
(i) specify that a person shall not carry on a broadcasting undertaking, other than an online undertaking, unless they do so in accordance with a licence or they are exempt from the requirement to hold a licence;
(j) harmonize the punishments for offences under Part II of that Act and clarify that a due diligence defence applies to the existing offences set out in that Act; and
(k) allow for the imposition of administrative monetary penalties for violations of certain provisions of that Act or of the Accessible Canada Act.
The enactment also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Before we discuss this any further, I would like to ask a question. I get to do that once in a while.
Mr. Ripley, feel free to pass this to any one of your other officials, but again, I'll keep this within the realm of the officials. My question is quite succinct. This goes to the mandate of the CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
In the form of the original bill, how does Bill C-10 affect the mandate of the CBC?
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I'm going to keep my turn this time. I have something else to say, but I'd like to comment on the motion.
We have seven meetings left. If I understand correctly, four of them are to review reports. That leaves us three meetings.
Furthermore, we are aware that Ms. Shanahan may be putting forward a motion today.
Top of mind are the people watching us and following our proceedings. The purpose of the original motion, adopted in December, was to meet with the owners and executives of Pornhub. Naturally, once we started looking into the matter, we wanted to go deeper. Unfortunately, the committee doesn't meet five days a week or have 20 hours of meeting time a week. My biggest concern is finalizing the reports. Let's be frank: we could take longer. After all, the committee has gone over the time allotted in the past.
We have three meetings left. I'm sure my fellow members have suggestions on how we can end the session on as good of a note as we started it on. I won't go on about it, but I am quite concerned about the committee's ability to be effective, on behalf of those who are counting on us. We need to respect the purview of each committee. A committee can study an issue inside and out. As mentioned, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women took a different approach in the case of Pornhub, deciding to apply a different lens. The same is true in this case: the committee is examining Bill C-10.
I just want to be sure that the right work is being done at the right place.
That is my first concern.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the French version, as pointed out by Mr. Housefather, indeed, there are explanations at the end, after the quotation marks. There are two lines of explanation that don't belong in the subamendment, so that would be that.
In terms of the lines, it says:
"Que le projet de loi C-10, à l'article 7, soit modifié par substitution, à la ligne 2, page 8 [...]"
That would be, in fact, line 40 on page 7, because you removed the term “radiodiffusion” in French, so the amendment needs to start at “radiodiffusion” and takes off “services de”. Otherwise, you would have “services de services de radiodiffusion” once it was all included in the text of the bill.
The other problem is that the text you have received from Mr. Aitchison is the text once the amendment of Mr. Champoux is amended, where you need to vote on the subamendment first and then, if adopted, the amendment as amended. There are two things here. If you vote on the amendment as proposed by Mr. Aitchison—what you have received—the French incorporates the whole thing. The English incorporates the whole thing as well, rather than having subamendments as it should be.
Basically, in English it should read that the amendment be amended by adding after “broadcasting services”, the following...and that would be “excluding social media” and so on. Then it would continue that the amendment be amended by adding after “Canadian programming”, the following.... Then you would vote on that. If that's adopted, then you would vote on the amendment as amended, which would look like what Mr. Aitchison sent us.
I hope that's clear.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm speaking to my motion today to invite Mr. Steven Guilbeault, the Minister of Heritage, to come to the ethics and privacy committee to testify on the plans that are being led through the heritage department to deal with the allegations of non-consensual sexual assault videos that exist on PornHub.
At the April 12 ethics meeting, we were informed by security minister Bill Blair that the government of Mr. Trudeau will “introduce legislation to create a new regulator that will ensure online platforms remove harmful content, including depictions of child sexual exploitation and intimate images that are shared without consent” and that “Public Safety Canada and other departments are working on this proposed legislation with Canadian Heritage, which leads this effort.”
We have had no indication of what this new regulator is and I think we need clarity.
I would just step back a minute and say that this all stems from the December 2020 reports that came out of the United States on horrific abuse of children and sexual assault victims on PornHub, a company that is based in Canada. We began our study at that time to see if our laws were insufficient or if there was a problem. We asked the RCMP to come. The RCMP have made it clear that they are not moving forward with allegations against PornHub. They've talked about their being a partner. They've talked about voluntary compliance.
I received the RCMP's internal briefing documents in response to the December 2020 article, and in that document, it talks about what next steps have to be done and it mentions the leadership of the heritage department. My office asked the RCMP to send us the blacked-out information to explain why the RCMP is deferring to Mr. Guilbeault's office. My staff was told that this would breach cabinet confidence.
What that tells me is that after the December 2020 article came out in The New York Times on PornHub, this issue was discussed at the cabinet of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and a decision was made then to have Mr. Steven Guilbeault and the heritage department handle this file, rather than transferring it over to police, to the Attorney General or to public security.
I think this is really important. We cannot finish our PornHub study without knowing what exactly the government's plan is, because we have Bill C-10 right now that Mr. Guilbeault is in charge of, and I think the government shocked everybody when they decided to put user-generated content under Bill C-10. I've talked to many arts organizations that were shocked that Bill C-10 includes user-generated content. It is nothing that the artists' community wanted. They want Facebook and Google to pay their share. Where is this user-generated content coming from? Is this to address the allegations the survivors brought to us on PornHub?
If that is the case, Mr. Guilbeault needs to explain that, because I don't think you could disrespect survivors in any more of an egregious fashion than to suggest that sexual assault videos or videos of the torture of children that were brought forward to our committee are somehow considered user-generated content in Canada. What does that say to survivors? What does that say to the women of the global south who I have been meeting with, who are speaking from Nigeria, Colombia, Spain and France, talking about the sexual assault videos from their countries that are being posted on a Canadian site?
Are the Liberals telling us that they consider sexual assault and criminal acts mere content that can be handled by a regulator? Are they going to hand it off to the CRTC under Bill C-10, or are they going to create a new pornography regulator? I would like to know what that pornography regulator would be, because, again, I had excellent meetings following the debacle of our meetings with the sex workers, and Ms. Lukings provided really interesting analysis of how what we want to do is to make sure we hold corporations accountable for what's online, but we don't want to push stuff to the dark net.
If the Liberals have this idea that Mr. Guilbeault could set up some kind of regulator to tell us—I don't know—Canadian content in porn, good porn, bad porn.... Do we need a regulator or do we simply need the Liberal government to apply the laws?
We can look at the laws we have in Canada. In section 162 of the Criminal Code, it is a crime to film the private acts of individuals or people without their consent. It is a crime to circulate, to sell, to advertise or to make available the recording. We have a law. In section 163, sexual videos of crime, cruelty and violence are classified as criminal in behaviour. We heard from the survivors of non-consensual sexual assault videos that their videos were videos of crime, cruelty and violence. Section 164 gives the authorities, which would be the RCMP, the power to issue warrants to seize the recordings of voyeuristic videos of crimes as well as child pornography.
We have mandatory reporting laws. We have learned that Pornhub has not followed through on them. Pornhub has not respected the laws we have in this country.
The Attorney General doesn't seem to even think it applies, because he's not sure if this Montreal-based company is a Canadian company. If the Attorney General, who lives in Montreal, isn't sure that Pornhub is a Canadian company, even though their address is on Décarie Boulevard and everybody in Montreal who goes to work passes their office in the morning, then how are we expected to believe that the CRTC or some kind of regulator will handle this?
I think Mr. Guilbeault needs to come and explain this to us. What is the government's plan for dealing with the issues of sexual violence on Pornhub that have come to our committee? Are we going to ignore Canadian law or are we going to establish the CRTC to do this? Is this going to be Bill C-10 or...? Mr. Blair suggested that they're going to create a new regulator.
I think Mr. Guilbeault needs to come and inform us so that we can actually finish a report on what Parliament needs to do to address these disturbing allegations of brutality and non-consensual sexual assault of women, not just from Canada but from around the world. We need to be able to respond to those survivors and to the Canadian people that we've done our job. We cannot do that job without Mr. Guilbeault coming and explaining why he is the lead person appointed by the Trudeau government to address these very serious allegations.
I'd like to bring that motion forward for a vote.
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm glad to see you again, friends and colleagues.
Amendment BQ-23 concerns a provision that, under Bill C-10, would be added to the Broadcasting Act to give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission the necessary verification tools to meet the regulation-related requests it receives. Among other things, persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings are asked to grant the CRTC access to certain information. With this amendment, we wish to clarify, in proposed subparagraph 9.1(1)(j)(v), that the information on broadcasting services includes “any information related to any means of programming control.” We would also like to add subparagraph 9.1(1)(j)(vi) to include “information related to any means of promoting, recommending or selecting programming, including Canadian programming.”
I think it's important that we give the CRTC the necessary tools to verify whether persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings meet the requirements set for them.
I'm open to discussion and await your comments.
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Welcome, everybody. It's been a bit of a break, but we're all back here at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage discussing, once again, clause-by-clause of Bill C-10.
This is meeting number 37. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 16, 2021, and the motion adopted by the committee on May 10, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-10.
Today’s meeting takes place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. I would like to remind everyone on board that screenshots or taking photos of your screen are not permitted. Also when you are not speaking your mike should be on mute. You all know that.
Since we are doing clause-by-clause, I'll give just a quick reminder. If you go back to the documents you have here, you will see in the top right-hand corner—for the people who are watching from all around the world or at least all around the World Wide Web in our universe—if I say PV and a number, PV stands for Parti vert, which is a Green Party-proposed amendment. If it says CPC, that would be a Conservative Party-proposed amendment. NDP would be from the New Democrats. BQ would be from the Bloc Québécois. Of course, LIB is from the Liberal members on our committee. Finally, if an amendment has G and a number attached to it, that is a proposed amendment from the government.
(On clause 7)
If you go back to our regularly scheduled programming, you will see that we are currently on BQ-23.
For that, we're going to go to Mr. Champoux.
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Madam Speaker, three weeks ago, I asked the heritage minister why he removed the clause in Bill C-10 that exempted what Canadians post online from government regulation. The minister's answer was that I should read the bill. Patronizing remark aside, that same minister has since admitted that Canadians posting online with enough views will, in fact, be regulated.
Which is it? Will Canadians be regulated online or not?
Julie Dabrusin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Madam Speaker, once again, the Broadcasting Act has not been modernized in over 30 years. Bill C-10 is about bringing us that update, and it is an important update that will support Canadian jobs and Canadian creators.
If the member would like to, he can continue to follow the debate and work with us to help our creators, but the Conservatives have been vowing to block this law from going ahead since before it even went to committee. This is about web giants contributing to our creators. Why will the Conservatives not help us to make that happen?
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Madam Speaker, heritage department memos reveal that Bill C-10 has the potential to grant the CRTC regulatory powers to affect online services, including sports streaming, news sites, podcasts and apps. The Liberals are still pressing for the bill to be passed, which would cause tech giants to pass down the tax increase costs to my Bow River constituents by 50%, approximately.
Why did the minister ignore his department officials and proceed to present this destructive bill that will pick winners and losers based on unknown criteria?
Julie Dabrusin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Madam Speaker, Bill C-10 is about modernizing the Broadcasting Ac, which has not been updated in 30 years. That is before streaming services became a part of the way that Canadians found their shows, movies and music and it needed an update. However, from the very beginning, before the bill even went to committee, the Conservatives vowed to block this law from going ahead. The Conservatives have been against web giants contributing to the creation of Canadian stories from the beginning. Why?
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Madam Speaker, a well-read answer. I really wish the individual who just answered would stop trying to mislead Canadians.
The Internet is an amazing tool that allows Canadian artists to explode in popularity around the world. With Bill C-10, the Liberals are attempting to build a wall around Canadian creators. The problem is, on average, 90% of their audience is from outside of Canada. By creating a so-called protective wall around them, the Liberals are actually imprisoning them, thereby quashing their ability to succeed.
When will the minister stand up for all Canadian artists and scrap Bill C-10?
Julie Dabrusin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Madam Speaker, the only obligations in Bill C-10 for social media companies are for the companies themselves, not individuals. The proposed obligations for the companies are restricted to having them advise the Canada Revenue Agency, contribute a portion of those revenues to Canadian production and make those creators discoverable.
Nothing in the bill asks social media companies to hide content. It is about requiring web giants that make money in our country to contribute to our Canadian shows, movies and music. Why would we let web giants make money from Canadians and not contribute back?
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Madam Speaker, the minister once again tries to mislead the House and the Canadian public. The bill would result in discrimination against some Canadians. It is clear the Liberals no longer advocate for net neutrality; they think discrimination is okay so long as the government is the one doing it.
Here is the thing. We cannot lift one group of artists up by tearing another group of artists down, which is exactly what Bill C-10 is trying to do. The heritage minister is attempting to pick winners and losers. Will he change course, do the right thing and scrap Bill C-10?
Julie Dabrusin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Madam Speaker, Bill C-10 is about having web giants, like Netflix, contribute to the creation of Canadian productions. It is about Canadian jobs and Canadian artists. Bill C-10 does not deal with Internet service providers in any way. There is nothing in Bill C-10 that would allow or support in any way that Internet service providers could block people from accessing a service like Skype, or slow down a service like Netflix or YouTube in order to encourage someone to buy a different streaming service.
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Madam Speaker, the minister likes to use the word “expect” a whole lot in her answers, but what I have noticed is that the government refuses to hold them accountable. Let us move onto a different topic.
The principle of net neutrality is that everyone's content online is treated the same way. It means no favouritism. The government used to respect this principle, but that is not true anymore. With Bill C-10, the government will boost some content and suppress other content all based on arbitrary criteria. It is completely discriminatory.
Will the minister stop trying to pick winners and losers, and leave Canadians' online content alone?