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.

Canadian Heritage

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals’ November version of Bill C-10 contained an exemption for user-generated content. That exemption has been removed, opening the door for the CRTC to regulate content uploaded to social media by any Canadian.

Last week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said the exemption was “not necessary”, but experts warn the amended bill now violates the charter. Constituents in my riding are demanding to know why the Liberal government wants to take away their freedom of expression.

Can the minister explain why he removed the safeguard clause?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a note that I received on social media from Mark, an art enthusiast from Newfoundland. He said:

Regarding the battle with the web giants, I just want to thank you for carrying on with the most pressing concerns of our times. It cannot be overstated the need for action, and history will treat kindly those who step forward to support this.

This is how the artistic community feels about Bill C-10 throughout Canada.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies.

The Liberal Bill C-10 has outraged millions of Canadians. The minister responded by calling those Canadians who are outraged “extremists.” Last night, the Liberals confessed to their mistake with an amendment to fix this flawed piece of legislation, yet experts are already saying the amendment does not work.

Why is the minister betraying Canadians and refusing to simply ask the justice minister if his bill, which he has changed, is even constitutional?

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Bill C-10 has outraged millions of Canadians. The minister responded by calling those Canadians “extremists.” Now we see him stooping to calling Conservatives “liars.”

Last night the Liberals confessed to this mistake with a new amendment to fix a flawed piece of legislation, but already experts have said the amendment does not work.

Why is the minister refusing to ask the justice minister if his bill is even constitutional?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Liberals talk about how awful web giants are in their defence of Bill C-10. Guess who is promoting a big interview with the web giant YouTube? That is right; it is the Prime Minister. Apparently, YouTube is okay as long as it is giving the Prime Minister what he wants. We cannot help Canadians from being awfully cynical when it comes to the government.

Why does the Prime Minister think that speech should only be free if it agrees with and helps him?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, we have been saying this from the beginning, and confirmed it last night. Bill C-10 is about fairness, not about what we can or cannot post online. Bill C-10 does not remove anything from Canadians. What it would do is give them more opportunities to meet with their artists and creators. How are we going to do this? By by making big streaming companies pay their fair share to our cultural institutions and ensure Canadian artists are discoverable on their platforms.

I invite the Conservative Party to join me in this important task and get Bill C-10 adopted. Our creators cannot afford to wait any longer.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me let the minister know that two past commissioners of the CRTC have warned of significant problems with Bill C-10. They say that it is a threat to free speech. They say that it is actually going to suppress investment in the creative sector. It is going to stifle innovation by cultural entrepreneurs.

Free expression on the Internet is essential to Canadian free speech rights. Why do the Liberals want to control what Canadians say and hear online?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-10, the fact is that the Prime Minister is taking away Canadians' freedoms. However, instead of admitting how bad the bill is and scrapping it, he would rather insult people and accuse those who oppose it of wearing tinfoil hats.

The Liberals' amendments to Bill C-10 do not even come close to their promise to protect free speech, and that is according to Canada's leading Internet law expert.

Why is the Prime Minister so fixated on trying to control online speech?

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

Given what Mr. Ripley just explained to us, I think everyone needs to understand the state of mind we're in.

As just explained, proposed section 4.1 initially changed the way the act did or did not apply to social media. It was removed. I think everyone saw the outcry that ensued. Even the NDP and the Bloc Québécois were pressured, so amendments were made to Ms. Harder's motion. We tried to find a compromise by setting a deadline, so as not to delay the process too much. We are asking to pause only long enough to get a new legal opinion from the Minister of Justice, to be clear on whether, now that proposed section 4.1 has been removed, the bill infringes on the freedom of expression of Canadians.

I think everyone understands our frustration. For over a week and a half, we were told that our statements were false. Then Ms. Dabrusin and the Minister attacked us by saying that we were anti-culture and that it was not true that this government decision was hurting users. Now, we feel that the Liberals are subtly trying to calm things down by proposing other amendments without our having the necessary expertise to judge them properly, and at a time when we have lost confidence in this government. Indeed, it has been engaging in demagoguery and spreading confusion by suggesting to people in the cultural community that we are anti-culture. I salute Mr. Shields, who has shown us his love for culture.

I invite Ms. Dabrusin and Minister Guilbeault to come to my riding to talk to my constituents about everything I've done, as mayor of Victoriaville, with my municipal council, to serve our local cultural sector. We have worked on the construction of a cultural megacentre, the first of its kind in 40 years. We have also supported the Festival international de musique actuelle de Victoriaville, as well as the Théâtre Parminou, which performs guerilla theatre, particularly in indigenous communities. We have also set up exhibition halls. These are just a few examples.

So I find it deplorable that we are being attacked in this way by suggesting that we are against culture, when we simply want to defend freedom of expression and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is our responsibility. Actions like this certainly make us lose confidence in this government.

This brings me to what I wanted to say about University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist. A few minutes ago, he tweeted that Ms. Dabrusin was talking about a new amendment that the government believed would address public concerns. However, as department officials just explained, that's not even close. In fact, according to Dr. Geist, it would create a new power for the CRTC to deal with user-generated content as social media or programming companies.

So you can understand our confusion after we heard this expert say that.

By the way, I'd like to say that it wasn't my intention to put officials in opposition to an expert like that. I understand Mr. Ripley's uneasiness, or at least his response that he couldn't comment on the issue.

When the government attacks us at at time when we want to defend freedom of expression, and in so doing shows partisanship, it isn't just us that it's attacking, but all the experts who don't share its opinion. In fact, the government has changed its opinion along the way, which undermines its credibility in this regard. It's attacking these experts and the Canadians who have written to us. Canadians didn't just write to us. I know of Liberal members who have received feedback from their own constituents telling them that they are making a mistake.

When I read what Michael Geist is writing online, warning us that this isn't true, that this amendment won't address public concerns, and that it will even give the CRTC more power over user-generated content, I'm totally confused.

All we're asking for in Ms. Harder's motion is a new opinion from the Minister of Justice, who is also a Liberal. If the minister is so confident, before we continue the debate on all the other amendments of Bill C-10, which means that this loss of confidence—

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess I'm probably going to speak again about my state of confusion still. What I'm struggling with here, Mr. Chair, is.... I understand that this amendment has been proposed by Ms. Dabrusin, because of the removal of proposed section 4.1, in an effort to make things, I guess, more crystal clear than they were before. I guess I remain frustrated by my confusion about the committee process, because I still think that what we ultimately need to do here is to get that new charter statement on where we're at.

What I would suggest is that perhaps these new amendments Ms. Dabrusin has proposed can form part of our request to the Minister of Justice. We had a charter statement based on Bill C-10 back in November before it came to our committee, and that was all well and good. Then we took out proposed section 4.1, and all these questions got raised. We were told that it was crystal clear. Apparently, it's not crystal clear, and now we're bringing this back. It begs the question: Does this new amendment actually do what proposed section 4.1 did as effectively? Does it do it at all?

I only got this earlier today. I don't think that is entirely fair for a rookie like me to truly get my head around it.

I'll be honest, Mr. Chair. I'm so used to municipal politics, where we can disagree without being disagreeable, where we get along and are all about the good of our communities. I don't have a lot of trust right now. I feel like because I.... I've been called an extremist because I've expressed some legitimate concerns from the people I represent about whether this bill does, in fact, infringe upon freedom of expression. All of a sudden, I'm wondering if I am I not an extremist now and was quite reasonable in my earlier request, because now Ms. Dabrusin has brought this latest amendment forward. Am I not an extremist?

Maybe I'm looking for an apology from Mr. Guilbeault for calling me names. However, if I'm not an extremist and my concerns were legitimate about the removal of proposed section 4.1, then I have to assume that everyone understands that my concern remains on this latest amendment brought forward by Ms. Dabrusin, who last week was telling us that we were all crazy.

Maybe “crazy” is not the word—I apologize—but she was telling us that we were all overreacting and that the Conservatives were spreading misinformation about this situation. Now she is bringing an amendment forward to address those concerns, and I'm just supposed to sit back and say, “Hey, that's great. You've addressed our concerns,” without having a chance to really dig into this.

As I said, I don't know who has the time to do a thorough analysis in the course of a couple of hours in the middle of a regular workday on Parliament Hill, but I certainly don't. I just think that it is unfair to call us extremists one day and say it's crystal clear, and then come back with an amendment, saying, “Oh, this will make it more crystal clear. You have nothing to worry about. Just trust me. Everything will be fine.” I don't. I simply don't.

I don't know if I can do this or not, Mr. Chair, but I would move that we put Ms. Harder's motion back on the table and send this to the Minister of Justice. Whether there are new amendments to replace proposed section 4.1 or not, we've fundamentally changed this bill. Canadians are justifiably concerned. I think we can probably establish that I'm not an extremist and that it's a legitimate question. The justice minister should have a look at where things are at—including these latest proposals that have been thrown at us in the final hours—to see whether, in fact, with these proposals, the charter statement we had before is still valid or whether we need to make even more changes.

I struggle with this, Mr. Chair. I'm not used to being called names by a cabinet minister, but if the concerns were legitimate enough to bring forward a new amendment, then I think the latest amendment that is being proposed should be reviewed by the justice minister as well. We should take the time to do that, because I fundamentally believe, and I think you all do, that doing this right is far more important than doing it quickly.

Canadians expect nothing less of us.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope my frustration wasn't too long.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I'm sorry. I wanted to get through it and not hold up people on it.

The point is that we've quoted many experts, and Ms. Dabrusin was again referring to experts on one side of the opinions as we maybe referred to different ones. I just want to bring to light that our citizens are our shareholders. They are our stakeholders. They are why we are here. This is a constituent I've never heard from before, who has never written to an MP before, and I just want to bring that real voice.

We've quoted experts. Ms. Dabrusin quoted experts in support of her amendment. Many experts have been quoted, so I want to quote who I believe are the true experts: the people who read the media out there. She didn't follow me and get this from me. She read it in one of our major media publications, and this is how this person feels in this time of COVID and frustration and confusion. She feels that Bill C-10, from what she has read, really is the last straw.

I just want to bring the voice of a person, a citizen, and how they feel that this piece of legislation personally affects them.

It isn't the experts we've quoted that we think are the doctors and academics. It's a citizen and how she feels. I think that is so valuable. We must not forget that the experts are our voters. They are the citizens in our country. How they perceive this legislation to affect them in their places, in their lives in this country... That's a voice that hasn't been represented when we've talked about experts and this particular amendment.

Thank you.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hear a lot of mention and discussion about experts, but I think it's interesting that in this conversation I don't hear the Conservatives referring to other experts as well who have been very much in support of the approach we've taken, including Pierre Trudel and Monique Simard, who put their opinion in Le Devoir recently.

I'm talking about their article “Pas de risque pour la liberté d'expression avec le projet de loi C-10”.

Also, Janet Yale worked with Monique Simard on the Yale report, in which it was also recommended that social media be included in our modernization. There are experts who, perhaps, Mr. Rayes would also like to consider when he's talking about this.

Pierre Trudel is a professor in the University of Montreal's Faculty of Law.

He is quite an esteemed expert as well.

As far as the original point is concerned, I will reiterate that proposed section 2.1 remains and has already been confirmed as part of this bill, and specifically—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is related to the answer I got earlier from Mr. Ripley, if I'm not mistaken. I would appreciate it if Ms. Dabrusin could enlighten us when it is her turn to speak, since, as parliamentary secretary, she must be quite familiar with this subject.

I am on Twitter right now, and I see a post by Michael Geist. He's an expert in the field who has been quoted here several times. The senior officials will be able to confirm this, but I want to point out that I have never heard the minister or the parliamentary secretary criticize his expertise in the field. I imagine it must be precisely because of his expertise that the government has subsidized many of his projects. He has received several amounts of money in the past two years to continue his research and work in the area of freedom of expression and on various issues.

So, on Twitter, Mr. Geist writes that it's wrong to suggest that amendments G-11.1 and G-13 being considered by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage address the concerns about user-generated content. He clarifies that it is not the case, as he mentioned in a previous tweet.

So, I would like someone to explain this to me. The information we're getting is very technical. I'm not an expert in the field, but we have an expert here who is following this very closely, regularly posting on Twitter and doing interviews about it. He tells us that these amendments don't match what the Liberal government is implying with Bill C-10, and that they don't protect users who upload content to social networks. I'm not an expert, but I'm trying to figure this out myself. We are getting tons and tons of letters. Former commissioners, experts, and university professors are commenting on the issue and saying that it doesn't make sense.

As we speak, the government is refusing to allow us to get a new opinion from the Minister of Justice that will tell us whether the bill still complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, now that proposed section 4.1 has been removed.

They are trying to put the blame us, the opposition. On top of that, the minister posted on Twitter that we are obstructing. I would like to tell everyone watching and listening that the one and only reason we are still here talking about this is because the minister had the gall to remove the original proposed section 4.1. He can't even explain to us why that section was originally proposed or why he removed it. He has been insulting us for two weeks, and then, all of a sudden, he tries to add things to correct his mistake.

I'm willing to listen to everyone, but I would sincerely like someone to explain to me how it is that this professor emeritus of law from the University of Ottawa is telling us that amendment G-11.1 will not fix the problem. I don't know if anyone can help me. I'd like to believe the department's experts, but other independent experts are saying the opposite right now.

As parliamentarians, freedom of expression is our responsibility.

Everyone is trying to make it sound like we in the Conservative Party are anti-culture, but that is not true. I am extremely insulted. The minister is watching us right now, and I hope he hears what I'm saying. He needs to stop repeating this to everyone over and over.

Right now, we are here to defend a fundamental aspect of our democracy, freedom of expression. We have experts stepping up and raising red flags. Some Canadians are concerned. I feel it's perfectly legitimate for us to stand up, ask questions and require further clarification, although the Liberals are trying to stop us from doing that right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm going to do a couple of things at this point. Thank you, Ms. Lalonde.

Let me start with the second part. Ms. Dabrusin is amending the original motion as amended. I know that sounds confusing. Let me try that again.

Ms. Harder had a motion. It was amended by Ms. McPherson. The amendment that was already accepted was specifically about the 10 days, that there would be a maximum of 10 days for doing that, which is what Ms. McPherson brought in. It was accepted. It was amended, and here we are at this point.

Madam Dabrusin brought in several amendments, chief of which was that the first part was to be negated, the part that talks about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and down to part (c). In other words, the part that says “suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10”, which Ms. Dabrusin would like to amend as well. Plus, she wants to bring back, to have explained in writing, what both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage would like to reply to this, as soon as possible after clause-by-clause is completed.

I hope that clears things up substantially.

Ms. Harder—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Since I was interrupted, let me rebegin with that quote:

The freedom to communicate across the internet is to be determined by political appointees, on the basis of no other criterion than what is conducive to broadcasting policy—and, presumably, the good of our domestic industry. As always, the interests of the beneficiaries of regulation are heard first, best, and last. Consumers and individual freedoms count for little when the regulated sector beats its drums....

For the narrow clique of broadcasters, CanCon producers, and their lobbyists, it is always all about broadcasting. For Canadians, however, it is about the right to use the internet to communicate. We do not have to have our freedom of speech squelched by a government determined to protect an obsolete industrial structure.

Forget about “broadcasting”: C-10 is clearly intended to allow speech control at the government's discretion. Ignore the turn signals, look at where the wheels are pointed. They are pointed at your right to communicate freely by means of the internet.

Dwayne Winseck, who is a professor at the school of journalism at Carleton University and director of the Canadian media concentration research project, states, “I support the idea that online video-on-demand (OVOD) services can be regulated, as Bill #C10 contemplates, but...the bill was already a mishmash of dishonest representations of OVOD services as b'casting (they are not)”.

He continues, “Proposed amendments adopted unanimously [at the committee]...would drop that distinction & sweep user generated content under the new broadcasting act...a terrible idea, not least because it subjects individuals' expressions to the [greatest] low” and “W/o these guide rails, the disc of #C10 is being driven by lobby groups & think tanks tied to incumbent telecom & media industries interests & the Liberal Govt+a tiny group of academics poorly versed in the terrain they seemed to have gained unwarranted authority to speak on.”

Emily Laidlaw, Canada research chair in cybersecurity law and associate professor of law at the University of Calgary, has this to say: “While broadcasting regs used to be about programming related all our favourite TV shows, news, sports, it would now cover that home video of your kid winning a track meet that you uploaded to YouTube. Here’s the free speech problem: Bill C-10 forces social media companies to censor speech. While you might think—hey it’s a cesspool and we should clean that up—remember this is broadcasting reg, not all the other regulatory qs about online harms...platform power or data protection. Why does it force social media companies to be censors? Because of the reg it requires. The only option to comply with Bill C-10 is for social media to heavily reg content”.

She goes on to say, “I am genuinely shocked by this. What does subjecting individual YouTube videos to CRTC regulation achieve in terms of regulatory objectives? These kinds of blunt approaches wreak havoc on internet governance, especially through a human rights-centred lens.”

Again, I would draw this committee's attention to her very important words there: “human rights-centred lens”. Here in Canada, our rights are largely guided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That charter, under paragraph 2(b)—and I have a copy.

Mr. Housefather, please don't call a point of order. It's just the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It says this:

2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

Let me draw your attention to paragraph 2(b) again, which, of course, is the subject at hand: “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”.

This is our charter. This is Canadians' charter. This is the document that was put in place by the former Trudeau in order to protect our rights and our freedoms as Canadians.

The responsibility of this committee is not to kowtow to industry stakeholders. The responsibility of this committee is to adhere to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to contend for Canadians. They are the ones who elected us. They are the ones who have entrusted us with the responsibility to advocate for them.

For this committee to continue forward without taking this responsibility seriously is to bring shame on us. To suggest that we should just continue ramming this legislation through, that we should just continue considering one clause after another without giving sober second thought to whether or not this legislation does indeed continue to abide by the charter is wrong.

Mr. Michael Geist is a lawyer—