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.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

I didn't realize that the supposed motions that could possibly be brought forward in order to amend this bill were relevant. Meanwhile, the things I'm talking about are in the bill as it currently stands, and somehow Mr. Housefather doesn't find them relevant.

I'll continue.

I believe that voices of experts are worth hearing and that they are worth tuning into. Therefore, as we consider my motion, and as we consider the amendment to the motion, which would try to put a pause on what I'm asking for, I would like to show why it is urgent that we do, in fact, seek this renewed charter statement.

The original charter statement directly cites the social media exemption in its argument that the bill respects paragraph 2(b) of the charter. Because that proposed subsection has been removed from the bill, then it can be argued and should be argued that the bill no longer holds up to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Experts are warning of this. They are warning that, with the amendments to the bill, it could give too much power to the CRTC to regulate or control what we put on our social media pages. Again, it's an infringement on our charter rights under paragraph 2(b), an infringement on our freedom, and therefore, I would say, it is thwarting our ability to engage in what is now the public square, and that's wrong.

Former CRTC commissioner Peter Menzies said about Bill C-10 that it “doesn't just infringe on free expression, it constitutes a full-blown assault upon it and, through it, the foundations of democracy.” That's a pretty big statement. That's big. That seems reason for moving to a charter statement immediately, rather than waiting for several weeks.

Furthermore, Laura Tribe, executive director of OpenMedia, had this to say. She said, “Voting for Bill C-10 in its current form will give the government the power to regulate speech on the Internet. C-10 was supposed to be about supporting artists and creators. But this Bill has totally lost the plot.”

That's interesting, because in the House of Commons, in question period, the Prime Minister has stated numerous times, and the Minister of Heritage continuously states that is what this bill is about: It's about supporting artists and those who create content. Actually, artists are able to exist and thrive when their charter rights and freedoms are most protected. If we move forward with this bill in its current state, and it does in fact breach the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then it's not helping artists and those who are creative. It's actually applying greater restrictions to them. It's hindering them from being the creative beings that they are meant to have the ability to be. It's actually inhibiting their ability to put the content out there that they would wish to put out there. No, this doesn't support struggling artists, as the government would want Canadians to think.

Ms. Tribe goes on to say, “For a country that made a department dedicated to 'innovation'—it's amazing to watch how regressive, overreaching, and oppressive their policies have become.... This government is a straight up disaster for Canada's internet.”

James Turk, the director of the Centre for Free Expression at Ryerson University, said, “The Trudeau Government is planning to give the CRTC the right to regulate user-generated content on sites like YouTube by amending Bill C-10—a dangerous government overreach that must be stopped.”

Timothy Denton, a national commissioner of the CRTC from 2009 to 2013 wrote:

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—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, maybe I'll just back up here for a moment. I think we seem to have forgotten what motion we're discussing. The motion we're discussing is one that is necessary because proposed section 4.1 in clause 3 of Bill C-10, the bill being discussed, was removed. Because this proposed section was removed from the bill, it therefore presents the question of whether this bill is still compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is the question at hand.

That question can be answered in one way, and that is by allowing this bill in its current state to go before the justice minister, the justice department, for a charter review. At that point, then, a charter statement would be granted to the committee, and that charter statement would tell us whether or not it is charter-compliant.

If the Minister of Justice says that, yes, it is compliant with proposed section 4.1 missing, then we would proceed accordingly. However, if the justice minister says that, no, this bill, with the missing proposed section 4.1, is not compliant with the charter, then it's incumbent upon us, as members of this committee, to pause and make the necessary changes to the bill to ensure that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is in fact respected, and that Canadians' freedoms are honoured.

The motion that I have put forward, then, asks for that charter statement to be redone and to be provided to this committee. That's the motion that we are discussing.

In order to get that charter statement, it would mean that the committee would need to be paused where it is right now. While it is paused and we seek that charter statement, my motion suggests that we ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice to appear before the committee.

The amendment that the honourable member has made to my motion would suggest that the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice do not come to this committee. Rather, they'd simply provide a written statement. Her amendment further suggests that instead of pausing right now in order to seek that renewed charter statement, we would continue to debate a flawed piece of legislation, and then we would seek that charter statement at the end.

I would suggest that is a misuse of our time, given that many experts have already spoken out and, I would suggest, argued that this bill is deeply flawed.

One thing that the party in government presents to us over and over again when we ask questions in the House of Commons concerning this piece of legislation is that individual users are protected. Meanwhile, Conservatives contend that's not entirely the case now that proposed section 4.1 has been removed from the bill.

When members of the governing party argue this, they point to proposed section 2.1. Proposed section 2.1 does say that users who upload programs onto social media sites like Facebook, YouTube or TikTok are not considered broadcasters and so are not personally subject to conditions like the Canadian content requirement or the Canada Media Fund contributions that would be imposed by the CRTC on streaming services like Netflix or Amazon, as examples.

That's fair. However, proposed section 4.1 dealt with the program, the content that individuals—you, me, your uncle, your aunt, your mom—upload to social media sites. Proposed section 4.1 originally protected those individuals and their content from being regulated by the CRTC. When we removed proposed section 4.1, when that proposed section was removed from the bill, the protection for the content that individuals place on social media platforms was, therefore, taken away.

Although the CRTC can't treat individuals as broadcasters because of proposed section 2.1, with proposed section 4.1 gone, it can regulate the content—your mom's video, my mom's video, your uncle's video—that is uploaded to social media and perhaps even to apps. The content uploaded by individuals is treated the same as if it were from CTV News or Global, which is wrong. It's just wrong.

Let's just take a moment here. Again there seems to be some confusion in the room. We seem to be discussing proposed section 2.1 as if it does what proposed section 4.1 once did. It's just not true. Proposed section 2.1 is not the level of protection that Canadians deserve. It's not enough. We need section 4.1. We need that section that was taken out. This is what I'm contending for, and this is what many experts have said.

My motion would ask for an official opinion in the form of a charter statement.

Let's go back a moment. Just how could the CRTC regulate social media with proposed section 4.1 removed? That seems to be the issue at hand here.

Using the powers in the Broadcasting Act, which is the point of proposed section 4.1, these powers, particularly in proposed subsections 9(1), 9.1(1) and 10(1), could provide the basis for the CRTC, among other things, to adopt regulations that would require social media sites such as YouTube to take down content that it considers offensive and adopt “discoverability” regulations—Ms. Dabrusin used that term—that would make them change their algorithm to determine which videos are seen more or which are seen less. The fines for violating these regulations could be as high as—

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

Thank you.

I'll continue:

(3.1) Orders made under this section, other than orders made under paragraph (1)(e.2), (i.1) or (j), do not apply in respect of programs that are uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service—if that user is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them—for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service.

This amendment would go to restricting the CRTC's order powers for social media web giants with regard to expenditures, discoverability of Canadian creators, programs and financial information for these web giants. However, the other part that's really important to be considering and another amendment that I'm really looking forward to moving once we get to clause-by-clause is going to be that Bill C-10, in clause 8, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 10 the following:

(4) Regulations made under paragraph (1)(c) do not apply with respect to programs that are uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service—if that user is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them—for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service.

This amendment would be limiting the CRTC's regulatory powers for social media web giants to business information and registration.

I think it's very important that we—

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

Thank you. That's unfortunate because there's a lot that we need to get to as part of this clause-by-clause study of Bill C-10. I would like to be able to see us move to it because there are some important amendments that I will be moving once we get to clause-by-clause.

For example, one of the amendments that I think is important for all of us to be discussing and voting upon will be the amendment that Bill C-10, in clause 7, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 7 the following:

(i.1) in relation to online undertakings that provide a social media service, the discoverability of Canadian creators of programs

Then it continues by adding after line 10 on page 8 the following:

“(3.1) Orders made—

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. El-Khoury. Well done.

It is 5:30, members, and I'm going to go on for the next 15 minutes. I'd like to go on as long as we can but, unfortunately, the heritage committee has the resources at 6:30. They're into clause-by-clause for C-10, so we're looking at a 5:45 shutdown. I just wanted to give everybody a heads-up on that.

I now have Mr. Iacono. You have the floor.

Canadian Heritage

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am beyond disappointed by the opposition members' fearmongering on freedom of speech, especially when they know they are spreading misinformation to Canadians. It is shameful. They are holding the Canadian cultural sector hostage for cheap political gain and are siding with web giants.

Can the minister please tell us about and clarify the importance of Bill C-10?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the minister does not even understand his own bill. If the CRTC can regulate what Canadians see on their YouTube or Instagram feed, it can control what Canadians see and what they learn about any given topic.

Last year, that minister mused about licensing media companies. Now he is giving the government the ability to dictate which videos Canadians can see online. This bill is a direct attack on free speech.

When will the minister drop his talking points, listen to Canadians and scrap Bill C-10?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, our artists are among the Canadians who have been hit the hardest by the pandemic. They are suffering financially and mentally. Bill C-10 brought them the hope that things would get better soon, with the promise of forcing web giants to invest in our stories and music.

The Conservatives are stalling Bill C-10, siding with web giants against Canadian artists who are deprived of hundreds of millions of dollars. Why is the Conservative Party siding with Google, one of the wealthiest companies in the world, instead of Canadian musicians and artists?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I better share the reviews on the minister's law before he pulls the comments off-line.

The Globe and Mail called the minister's performance “amateur hour” on Bill C-10. OpenMedia has said that the Prime Minister and that minister have lost the plot with this law. Michael Geist, the leading expert, said, “Bill C-10 represents an unconscionable attack on the free expression rights.”

When is the government and that minister going to listen to Canadians and scrap Bill C-10?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, our artists and creators are among the Canadians who have been hit the hardest by the pandemic. They are suffering financially and mentally. Bill C-10 brought them the hope that things would get better soon, with the promise of forcing web giants to invest in stories and music from Quebec and Canada.

Today, the Conservatives are stalling Bill C‑10, siding with web giants against Canadian artists and creators who are deprived of hundreds of millions of dollars. The real question is why the Conservative Party is siding with Google, one of the wealthiest companies in the world, instead of our artists.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Globe and Mail called the minister's performance “amateur hour” on Bill C‑10. OpenMedia said that the Prime Minister has lost the plot with this bill. Michael Geist said that this legislation is an attack on freedom of expression.

This bill is a threat to Canadians' freedom. When will the Liberal government scrap Bill C‑10?

Government Accountability

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, after losing their majority and finishing second in popular vote in the last election, one would think the Liberals would have sought to govern for all Canadians.

Instead, the Prime Minister is using a pandemic as an opportunity to bypass Parliament. Let us not forget move one was the Liberals proposing legislation that would give themselves power to tax and spend with no parliamentary oversight for 21 months. Although that blatant attempt at a power grab failed, the disregard for responsible government has continued. They had no budget for 25 months, proroguing Parliament to avoid the WE scandal investigation, shutting down committees and continuous filibustering to impede evidence of corruption from becoming public. Finally, they introduced Bill C-10 that would allow them to police what Canadians post on their social media accounts.

It is time for a responsible, ethical government. The Conservative Party is ready, willing and able.

[David McGuinty]

Ms. Lambropoulos, I think you're raising the $64,000 question: What is the appropriate balance between free speech and when that free speech crosses a line and becomes something else? It's not something the committee examined in terms of what's the remedy or what's the recommendation. In fact, this report was agnostic this year on recommendations. It wanted to present the magnitude of the risks, but we really hope that a committee like public safety, for example, might apply its collective mind to figure out what the best way forward is.

We haven't examined Bill C-10. It's being debated. We haven't applied it to this particular set of challenges, but we may have more to say about this when we release our report on cyber-activities, which we hope will be by the summer. We may also have more to say about this when we are finished the review of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's federal policing mandate, given their role as the national organization with the primary responsibility for national security investigations and organized crime, for example.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. McGuinty and team, for being here with us today to answer our questions, and thanks for the work that you do on this committee to protect Canadians.

My question is about the spike in online hate and online hate groups. I can't help but notice the concern that people have with Bill C-10 and people's belief that it would infringe on their basic rights to express themselves and freedom of expression, which obviously our government has said it wouldn't do. Because this is the current fear, I'm wondering how our government could go forward. What would you recommend or what ways that could you see our government going forward with legislation to stop people who organize hatred online and push that kind of an agenda on social media and online?

In what ways can we limit the ability of these groups to have a negative influence on Canadians?

Ethics

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, anytime anyone asks a tough question of the Prime Minister, he says it is a personal attack. That is why when the questions got really tough and heated for the Prime Minister, when he was trying to cover up his conflict of interest in the WE scandal, he shut down Parliament during a pandemic. Now his attacks on democracy have gotten more brazen.

That is what the Prime Minister is trying to do by silencing Canadians online with Bill C-10. Will the Prime Minister tell us how long it will be before every aspect of Canadian life must conform to his Liberal vision of Canadian society?