Bill C-10 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

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.

[Dr. Michael Geist]

It is, and I'm proud to have signed that letter.

I think one of the most shameful aspects of this debate over the last few weeks has been the continual attempt to suggest that somehow it's just people who are speaking on behalf of tech companies or who aren't critical or who don't want to see any Internet regulation who have concerns over Bill C-10.

That letter has been signed by some of the fiercest critics and biggest experts around tech policy, including Ron Deibert, Bianca Wylie, Nasma Ahmed and Lex Gill. These are people Canadians have learned to trust, people who have expressed real concerns about the tech companies. They've look at Bill C-10 and they've looked at government policy around the Internet and said that they're very concerned about the direction we're headed.

[Andrew Cash, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Independent Music Association]

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee and fellow panellists, good afternoon.

My name is Andrew Cash, and I'm the president and CEO of the Canadian Independent Music Association. It is a pleasure to be back at committee.

Let's start by getting one thing off the table. Digital platforms like Netflix, Spotify and YouTube are incredible. They represent phenomenal opportunities for Canadian arts and culture creators.

It's been said that being in the music business is a great way to get rich and a lousy way to make a living. The pandemic has put this maxim in stark focus. Many artists and musicians lived below the poverty line before the pandemic, but the pandemic has made things much, much worse. Travel and gathering restrictions have meant no touring, no live shows and no income at all.

The pandemic has also underlined the systemic inequities in the market that have led to diminished compensation for creators. This imbalance has put the promise of a stable middle-class sector of artists and arts and culture workers further and further out of reach for this country. The sector is in crisis.

CIMA commissioned Nordicity to do a report on the impact of COVID. It found that the independent music sector saw a drop in revenue of $233 million, live music saw a drop in income of 79%, independent sound recording and publishing companies saw a 41% decline in revenue, and thousands of jobs were lost. That was just in the first nine months of the pandemic.

We don't expect to return to pre-COVID levels of revenue until 2023 or 2024 at best, but as we move towards recovery, we must address the elephant in the room: Digital giants doing business in Canada make lots of money off Canadians but pay fractions of a cent to content creators, and they operate here without any accountability or regulatory obligations, including to fairly contribute to the arts and culture ecosystem.

Really? Are we okay with this?

Given the numbers that I've laid out before you today, if there ever were a time when we needed you to stand up for the little guy, it's right now. Do you really want to go back to your ridings and say to your constituents, “Yes, I voted to protect big tech. I voted to allow them to continue raking in the profits, taking profits out of the country and not contributing a dime in return.”? Unless things have dramatically changed since I was an elected politician, I don't think you want to be doing that. In fact, many of you, from all parties, have pointed out that this inequitable playing field is wrong and that we have to do something about it.

CanCon regulations were created 50 years ago and helped establish a domestic industry within a domestic market. We wanted to protect and nurture French-language creators who were surrounded on all sides by English-language cultural content and English-language creators who were competing on all sides with the massive giant next door. Well, today our arts and culture marketplace is no longer a domestic one. Digital platforms have transformed the way content is consumed. Today the marketplace is global. Today we need a modernized system to grow our domestic industry into one that will thrive in the global market.

This bill, flawed though it is, could point us towards new modes of discoverability, towards new investments in our artists and our arts and culture entrepreneurs, and towards information transparency and accountability from big tech companies that simply doesn't exist right now.

CIMA believes that the bill as amended did not infringe on individuals' rights and freedoms. That belief was affirmed by last week's charter statement and further proposed amendments. However, let's be clear: We would oppose any measure that puts those rights at risk. Artists have long been at the forefront of fighting for civil liberties and freedom of expression against monolithic power structures. Our work quite literally depends on civil liberty and the protection of freedom of expression.

Bill C-10 couldn't [Technical difficulty—Editor] bad videos. What it could do, though, is begin to make a real difference in the lives of musicians, content creators, entrepreneurs and [Technical difficulty—Editor] across the country. It has the potential to move the creative sector from precarity towards middle-class stability, unlocking innovation and creating a global presence for the sector.

That's why I implore you today to continue your work in amending Bill C-10 as expediently as possible in order to pass it through Parliament before the end of the spring session.

Thank you.

[Pierre Trudel, Professor, Public Law Research Centre, Université de Montréal, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, good afternoon.

I'm a law professor, and I've been teaching the Broadcasting Act since 1979. I was the research director of the Caplan-Sauvageau committee, which produced the 1991 Broadcasting Act. As my colleague Janet Yale pointed out, I was involved in the work of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel.

As noted in the notice from the Department of Justice, which was tabled a few days ago, Bill C-10, amends the Broadcasting Act, which does not authorize measures to be taken against individuals with respect to the content they create and decide to put online. Above all, the act already clearly provides that all measures put in place to regulate broadcasting activities must respect freedom of expression.

Moreover, the Broadcasting Act has never authorized the CRTC to censor specific content. The CRTC's entire practice over the past 50 years is a testament to that. Furthermore, the Broadcasting Act requires that the CRTC refrain from regulating broadcasting in a manner that violates freedom of expression. It's hard to imagine a broader exclusion than that. It is an exclusion that requires a prohibition on interpreting the act in a way that empowers the CRTC to take action and create regulations or orders that violate freedom of expression.

In addition, as you know, the act provides that the CRTC shall refrain from regulating any activity that does not have a demonstrable impact on the achievement of Canadian broadcasting policy. In fact, the Broadcasting Act is enabling legislation. There are no specifics in the act. It is enabling legislation that empowers the CRTC to put in place rules adapted to the circumstances of each company so that they organize their activities in a way that contributes to the achievement of Canadian broadcasting policy objectives, as set out in section 3 of the act.

Therefore, Bill C-10 does not need to expand exclusions for any type of content. Rather, it is a recognition that Bill C-10 already excludes measures that could be suspected of infringing on freedom of expression and ensures that the Broadcasting Act applies to all companies that transmit programming, including on the Internet, which is the primary purpose of Bill C-10.

With regard to these online companies that determine content and that, it's important to remember, already regulate content that is offered to individuals through processes based on algorithms or artificial intelligence technologies, Bill C-10 strengthens the guarantees of fundamental rights for all Canadians. It empowers the CRTC to compel companies to provide information on the logic behind these algorithmic devices, which does not currently exist. It enables the CRTC to put measures in place to ensure that Canadians are offered programming that reflects the principles, values and objectives set out in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act.

Nothing in the Broadcasting Act as it is proposed to be amended would allow the CRTC to impose on anyone programs that they do not want to hear or see, let alone allow the CRTC to censor content on platforms.

Rather, the act provides individuals with a real opportunity for choice. There is currently no guarantee that online companies are offering Canadians a real and meaningful choice that reflects Canadian values as codified in the Broadcasting Act.

There has been a constant since the early years of radio, and that is a tension between those who believe that broadcasting undertakings should be left to market forces alone and those who—rightly, in my view—believe that intervention is required to ensure the effective availability of programming that is the product of Canadians' creative activity.

Bill C-10 is part of this continuum, which has allowed Canadians to have media that offers the best the world has to offer, while also giving prominence to the works of Canadian creators, including creators from minority and indigenous or first nations communities.

Thank you.

[Dr. Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As you know, my name is Michael Geist. I appear in a personal capacity, representing only my own views. I always start with that statement, but it feels particularly necessary in this instance, given the misinformation and conspiracy theories that some have floated and that Minister Guilbeault has disappointingly retweeted.

As I am sure you are aware, I have been quite critical of Bill C-10. I would like to reiterate that criticism of the bill is not criticism of public support for culture or of regulation of technology companies. I think public support for culture is needed, and I think there are ways to ensure money for creator programs this year and not in five years, as in this bill.

Further, I am puzzled and discouraged by the lack of interest in Bill C-11, which would move toward modernizing Canada’s privacy rules to help address concerns about how these companies collect and use our data. The bill would also mandate algorithmic transparency, which is much needed and far different from government-mandated algorithmic outcomes.

I’ll confine my opening remarks to the charter-related questions and widespread concerns about the regulation of user-generated content, but would welcome questions on any aspect of the bill.

There is simply no debating that following the removal of proposed section 4.1, the bill now applies to user-generated content, since all audiovisual content is treated as a program under the act. You have heard experts say that and department officials say that. The attempts to deflect from that simple reality by pointing to proposed section 2.1 to argue that users are not regulated is deceptive and does not speak to the issue of regulating the content of users.

I will speak to the freedom of expression implications in a moment, but I want to pause to note that no one, literally no other country, uses broadcast regulation to regulate user-generated content in this way. There are good reasons that all other countries reject this approach. It is not that they don’t love their creators and want to avoid regulating Internet companies; it is that regulating user-generated content in this manner is entirely unworkable, a risk to net neutrality and a threat to freedom of expression. For example, the European Union, which is not shy about regulation, distinguishes between streaming services such as Netflix and video-sharing services such as TikTok or YouTube, with no equivalent regulations such as those found in Bill C-10 for user-generated content.

From a charter perspective, the statement issued by the Department of Justice last week simply does not contain analysis or discussion about how the regulation of user-generated content as a program intersects with the charter. There is similarly no discussion about whether this might constitute a violation that could be justified, no discussion on the implications of deprioritizing speech, no discussion on the use of terms such as “social media service” that are not even defined in the bill, and no discussion of the implementation issues that could require Canadians to disclose personal location-based information in order to comply with the new, ill-defined requirements.

In my view, the prioritization or deprioritization of speech by the government through the CRTC necessarily implicates freedom of expression. The charter statement should have acknowledged this reality and grappled with the question of whether it is saved by section 1. I do not believe it is.

First, the bill as drafted, with section 4.1 in it, was the attempt to minimally impair those speech rights. With it removed, the bill no longer does so.

Second, the discoverability policy objective is not enough to save the impairment of free speech rights. There is no evidence that there is a discoverability problem with user-generated content.

Ms. Yale’s panel, which notably appears to have lost its unanimity, recommended discoverability but cited no relevant evidence to support claims that there is an issue with user-generated content.

Third, the objective of making YouTube pay some additional amount to support music creation is not enough to save the impairment of free speech rights either. This isn’t about compensation, because the works are already licensed. This is about paying some additional fees, given concerns that section 4.1 would have broadly exempted YouTube. I am not convinced that was the case, as services such as YouTube Music Premium might well have been captured. I am not alone on that. Canadian Heritage officials thought so too in a memo they wrote to the minister. In fact, it was such a non-issue that Mr. Cash’s organization did not even specifically cite the provision or raise the issue in the brief that it submitted to this committee.

I find it remarkable that the minister and the charter statement effectively tell Canadians that they should trust the CRTC to appropriately address free speech rights but are unwilling to do the same with respect to how section 4.1 would be interpreted.

Let me conclude by noting that if a choice must be made between some additional payments by a streaming service and regulating the free speech rights of Canadians, I would have thought that standing behind freedom of expression would be an easy choice to make, and I have been genuinely shaken to find that my government thinks otherwise.

I look forward to your questions.

[Janet Yale, Chair, Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for the invitation to be here today. My panel colleague Pierre Trudel and I are very pleased to provide our perspective on Bill C-10.

We endorse the federal government's efforts to update the legislative framework governing the broadcasting system to include both media streaming services and sharing platforms. This approach is consistent with our report, which recognized the realities of a borderless online world in which Canadians will seek to access media content based on personal interest, irrespective of platform or technology.

Bill C-10 would ensure that these new online streaming services, including Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime, as well as sharing platforms like YouTube, are required to make an appropriate contribution to Canadian cultural content. These online services derive significant revenues from Canadian audiences from both advertising and subscription revenues, yet face no obligation to contribute. To imagine that in 2021 we would permit these platforms to make money from Canadian audiences, Canadian consumers and Canadian creativity without any corresponding contribution defies logic, particularly when our system imposes obligations on traditional broadcasters that are now much smaller, less powerful and less prosperous.

In our report, we recommended, as a matter of competitive fairness, that online undertakings be included in updated broadcasting legislation. Our report also made it clear that these regulatory obligations should be restricted to the platforms—that is, if we use the language of the law, to undertakings. Individual creators should remain untouched by regulation, and that is exactly what Bill C-10 proposes.

Let me say it again: Bill C-10 imposes regulatory burdens and the obligation to contribute to Canada's creators only on the undertakings such as the big streaming and sharing platforms, not on individual creators.

I will put it another way. Programs consist of audio and audiovisual content. TV shows, songs, podcasts, postings and that programming—all those programs—exist beyond regulation and will remain beyond regulation. Individuals who create content, whether amateur or professional, and audiences large and small are not affected by Bill C-10 when they upload their programming, share it or even sell it to a streaming service. No one is going to police that content, tell them what they can say or compel them to pay dues.

What Bill C-10 does require—and, from my perspective, thank goodness we are finally taking this step—is that the undertakings—the YouTubes, Disney-pluses and Netflixes of the world that share that content and make money from distributing content—must operate by a set of rules and contribute some amount of the revenues they are harvesting from Canadians to the production of Canadian content.

Finally, to those who argue that Bill C-10 fails to protect user-generated content, we say that is just wrong. Proposed section 2.1 specifically provides that exemption already. New amendments that have been tabled make this exclusion even clearer. Therefore, to persist in creating this illusory scare against freedom of expression is either to misunderstand the legislation, in my view, or to intentionally seek to mislead people for some other purpose.

I will finish by saying this: Legislation, of course, is complex, and broadcasting policy and its regulation can be very technical. Devils do lurk in details, and that is why the scrutiny of this committee is so important. However, what's at stake here isn't hard to understand: We need to make provision for the reality of these immense and hugely powerful online platforms. We need to ensure that they give to, not just take from, Canadian creators and Canadian audiences. We need to update a broadcasting framework that was last amended before the world was even online. We need what is set out in Bill C-10, with all its provisions and all its protections. We urge the government to pass this legislation as quickly as possible.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I call the meeting to order.

Hello, everyone, and welcome back.

This is our 34th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

We are in the midst of doing clause-by-clause study of Bill C-10. As you know, of course, we took a little bit of a break to go on to other activities, including a motion that was passed to allow guests to come in and to also receive a document from the Department of Justice.

We also passed a motion to invite the Minister of Justice. Once again, I'd like to bring to everybody's attention—you probably know by now, through social media—that we did receive confirmation that Mr. Lametti will attend the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage tomorrow, May 18, at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time, for one hour, alongside the deputy minister and the other officials who were present last Friday.

Minister Guilbeault will also be attending. We didn't extend the invitation to him, but I didn't think you would mind if he tagged along and was involved in the proceedings as well. Nevertheless, if you do have a problem with that, you can simply not ask him a question, I guess. Perhaps that's how it goes.

That's for tomorrow. As you've just read, he's coming in for an hour. I want you to think about this for just a few moments, and we can discuss this later. Both ministers will be in, and we have what was required from the Department of Justice, so once that is complete, we can start clause-by-clause study again right afterward. That could be as soon as the second hour tomorrow or on Wednesday, as we have another meeting then. I will let you think about that for a while, and we can discuss it again later.

That said, the other part of the motion was to invite an expert panel, the membership to be based on suggestions from each of the parties represented officially on the Standing Committee of Canadian Heritage.

We have, suggested from the Liberal caucus, Ms. Janet Yale. If you remember, she is from the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel. She is the chair of it.

Welcome, Ms. Yale.

Also, from the Conservatives, we're welcoming back Dr. Michael Geist, who is the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law in the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa.

From the Bloc Québécois, we have Mr. Pierre Trudel, professor, public law research centre at the Université de Montréal.

Welcome back as well.

Finally, from the NDP, from the Canadian Independent Music Association and by no means a stranger to this committee, as he was a former member of this committee not too long ago—I was sitting next to him, and I don't want to give my age as well as his—we welcome the president and chief executive officer, Andrew Cash.

You know how this goes. We're going to start this right away. We're not going to break; we're going to do a full two hours, if you wish. There will be lots of time for questioning, but I assume everybody's going to want a bio-break in there somewhere. With your permission, I will find a spot in approximately one hour from now to take that break, and then we'll come back to resume.

Let us first start out with Ms. Yale. Of course, these are opening remarks. You can go up to five minutes, but we ask that you not go beyond five minutes for the sake of our committee.

Ms. Yale, the floor is yours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

All right.

Does everyone hear the amendment clearly? Extend an invitation for Tuesday or Wednesday, and we do not continue with Bill C-10 until said minister arrives.

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

All right. You want to delay Bill C-10. You want to delay the expert panel.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to point something out in response to Mr. Housefather's comments. With all due respect to him, point 3 of the motion, as unanimously adopted by the committee, clearly states that the committee will “[s]uspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2.” We all agreed on the fact that the committee should meet with both ministers. The Minister of Justice has refused thus far.

I will go even further and say that, before we voted, I went to the trouble of asking for clarification. I wanted to be sure that we would hear from both ministers before hearing from the panel. Everyone nodded their head. I'm not saying that we necessarily need to cancel Monday's meeting; we can make a decision on that. However, I want to underscore the fact that I went to the trouble of seeking that clarification.

Everyone has said they want to work together in a collegial manner, but we had agreed on the motion as a way out of the impasse. Today, we find ourselves at that same impasse, which has lasted for two weeks. On Monday, the committee finally adopted the very motion that members had refused to support two weeks prior.

I want that to be clear. What's happening is truly unfortunate. I thought for sure that we would be hearing from both ministers today, that the four witnesses would be appearing on Monday of next week and that we could then move things along. That does not seem to be the case, however.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's interesting that you read that, because that means this committee's work could, effectively, be stalled out indefinitely. According to the motion that was passed by this committee, as amended, the justice minister does need to come and appear before this committee before we can proceed to clause-by-clause. And I believe clause-by-clause is necessary in order for Bill C-10 to make it into law.

I would put forward the same request that my other colleagues and the members from the NDP and the Bloc have put forward, and it is that the justice minister, according to the motion that was passed at this committee, does need to appear.

I recognize that there are expressions made when using verbal communication, and then there are expressions made in other ways. In committee, it's common to often pass things or agree upon things based on a head nod or a hand put up, especially in our virtual world. And it was agreed upon at this committee that the Minister of Justice would come before we hear from the other expert witnesses.

Again, I would plead with you, Mr. Chair, that this should take place first.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let's, as this committee, agree unanimously to get both ministers here. I think the Minister of Justice is showing a lack of consideration for the charter, to be honest with you.

Issuing a charter statement may be fine, but come and explain yourself to the committee of heritage as we study Bill C-10, amending the Broadcasting Act.

I've just talked about this. All committee members unanimously last Monday agreed to bring both ministers to committee. There is a lack of consideration by the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Chair, I'll bring up another issue. When Mark Zuckerberg decided not to show up at committee, the biggest uproar in the committee was from Liberal MPs sitting around the table.

I think that, for consideration, we need to hear from the Minister of Justice on this. Doing a press release and sending out an update charter statement is fine, but come. We've asked him to come, it was agreed to last Monday, and that's the least the minister can do.

Ms. Drouin, thank you for filling in, but we want to see the minister. We got that co-operation with the Minister of Canadian Heritage, but we did not get it from the Minister of Justice. Out of consideration, faced with this important bill that has been discussed for months I think he owes it to the committee to come, as we have asked him to come.

We have next week open before we can get to the panel. We need to hear from the justice minister first and then go to the panel. As you said, we have three meetings scheduled next week. We can delay until the minister decides whether he wants to come Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, and then we can move ahead with the panel.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Here's what I have: I have direction from the committee and what we have done in the past.

If you recall the last witness meeting we had, instead of doing the two separate hours, we did one two-hour block with the ministers—if they were there—and accompanying officials. I'm more or less following what you're saying, but I'm also following what we have done in the past regarding Bill C-10 witnesses. However, I'm open to suggestion as to whether you would like to change that or not.

If I misinterpreted what you said at the end, Mr. Rayes, I sincerely apologize. I thought the direction of the committee was that we would have two ministers accompanied by officials appear before the committee, as well as four experts and the revised charter statement that was asked for. That's from the amended motion.

Let me now go to Mr. Waugh.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, sir.

As adopted Monday, May 10, 2021:

That the committee:

(1) Ask the Minister of Justice to provide a revised Charter Statement on Bill C-10, as soon as possible, focusing on whether the Committee's changes to the Bill related to content uploaded by users of social media services have impacted the initial Charter Statement provided, in particular as relates to Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

(2) Invite the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Canadian Heritage accompanied by relevant departmental officials, and an expert panel consisting of one witness from each recognized party to appear before the Committee as soon as possible to discuss the revised Charter Statement and any implications of amendments made by the Committee to the Bill.

(3) Suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

There are just a couple of things. Let me start with the second point first, which was the statement that is currently posted.

A motion was passed on March 8 and I will read it for you:

That the committee publish on the committee's website written responses to questions provided by the Department of Canadian Heritage.

What is put on our website is exclusive to that.

Now, that being said, I am a servant of the committee itself, and humbly so. If you wish to have what was released recently by the Department of Justice regarding Bill C-10—the revised—we can have that published, but I pretty much need permission from all to do that.

Do I have permission to post on our committee website the recent opinion by the Department of Justice as we just discussed?

Seeing no resistance and a plethora of thumbs, I'm going to say that we will publish it. I will ask the clerk to publish it following this meeting.

Go ahead, Mr. Rayes.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

My government is not interested in having an election. I think we've seen that some parties have been fundraising around the controversy they created around Bill C-10. We haven't been doing that. We've been hard at work trying to do everything we can to help the arts and culture sector.

I would remind you that the budget that was just presented by Deputy Prime Minister Freeland is a historic budget when it comes to the arts and culture sector in this country. We have never seen such an important budget to help our artists, our musicians, our creators. It is a historic budget. I think we've seen that we are there for our artists, and Bill C-10 is another clear example of that.