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.
Lyne Bessette Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
To answer Mr. Champoux's question, I think that we should recognize first nations, Inuit and Métis people in this bill, since they have three distinct cultures. The amendment proposes to add the definition of “indigenous peoples” found in the Constitution Act, 1982, to clause 1 of Bill C-10. However, I'd like the indigenous peoples to be listed, if you agree.
Thank you.
Lyne Bessette Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
At this point, Bill C-10 doesn't define “indigenous peoples.” It would be good to list them: first nations, Inuit and Métis people.
Thomas Owen Ripley Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will likely call on my colleague, Mr. Olsen, as well.
Just to give the context, the government included the definition of “control” in Bill C-10 as it currently exists to provide some context in the case of how it should be interpreted in certain provisions so that the definition of “affiliate”.... It's relevant when thinking about the relationship with social media companies, which we'll have an opportunity to talk about later, I'm sure. It's important in that context to have an understanding of what it means when an affiliate is under the control of another corporation.
Then, in the context of proposed subparagraph 9.1(1)(i)(i), I think perhaps Mr. Olsen can indicate why we felt it was important to have a definition of “control” in that context.
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
We're honoured to have you, in that case.
That being said, we're going to move ahead now with clause-by-clause study.
Buckle up, folks. This is the fundamental core of parliamentary democracy at its best. It's going to be an exciting time—so exciting that we'll probably sell the story rights to Netflix.
I'm kidding, just kidding; we're not going to do that. I don't think we can do that to any broadcast undertaking.
Let's get moving, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 16, 2021, we are examining Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the title is postponed to the end. It's normally the first thing you see in the bill, but we will deal with the title at the end of this clause-by-clause session.
(On clause 1)
We're going to proceed in the first place, as you may have guessed, to clause 1. Since it has already been deemed moved, we will start with amendment PV-1.
I am looking to the side of my screen, where I see all the names. I want you to raise your hand if you want to move or wish to speak to a particular amendment.
That being said, right on cue, Mr. Manly, we welcome you. You, sir, have the honour of going first, with amendment PV-1.
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I call the meeting to order. Hello, everyone. Welcome to what we legendarily call “clause-by-clause” on Bill C-10.
I'm going to go through a few instructions. For those of you who are listening in the virtual world, I'm going to describe how clause-by-clause study is going to operate, in case you're not familiar with it. This is a brief explanation.
We will, for the next three hours, be going through this bill. As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill, each clause successively, and each clause is subject to a debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member who is proposing the amendment, who will explain it. Debate will follow, if there is a debate. When no members wish to further intervene, at that point, when the debate has settled, we will proceed to a vote.
The amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill package that you all have as members, and they will be numbered as such. If there are amendments that are consequential to each other, they will be voted on together. I'll inform the members when that situation occurs, or the legislative clerk will when need be. Given that we're all in a virtual world, that may happen more often than not. I'll be pleased to accept that interruption should we go awry. Pursuant to the House order of September 23, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote, except for those decided unanimously or on division. Let me explain this for a moment.
We have three options here. When I say, “Shall the clause carry?” or “Shall the amendment carry?”, if I am greeted with silence, it will be accepted and carried. If you have issues with the clause or the amendment but you don't wish to go to a vote, you can say, “On division”, and it will be carried on division. Just make sure that someone says, “On division” if you wish it to be passed that way. Finally, if we have someone saying, “No”, or if people have big issues, we will go to a recorded vote. I'll ask our clerk to proceed with a recorded vote when necessary.
That said, you have your package of amendments. For those who are listening in the virtual world through the webcast, I will explain how it works.
We have amendments from six different streams, and they will be labelled as such. For example, the first one we will deal with is PV-1. PV is Parti vert. It is the Green Party amendment. The Green Party members are not full-time members of the committee, but they are allowed by law to introduce amendments to this bill. They do not have the ability to vote, but they certainly have the ability to introduce amendments and to debate them. One note about this is that all motions by the Green Party will be deemed moved because of the situation of not being on the committee. All the other amendments have to be moved by the mover when need be. I'll notify that person when their number comes up.
I'll use the example of the first amendments. We have PV-1. We also have LIB-1. These amendments will be coming from the Liberal members on the committee. We have CPC-1, which will be coming from the Conservative members on the committee. We have BQ-1 coming from the Bloc Québécois. We also have NDP-1. These amendments will be coming from the New Democrats. The final category is G, as in amendment G-1. These amendments will be moved by our members from the government, because the government may amend its own bill. Such is the democracy that we have.
Moving on, the other item I would like to bring to everyone's attention is about subamendments. Members are permitted to move subamendments. The subamendments must be submitted in writing, or by email for members participating virtually, as we are, in this world. They do not require the approval of the mover of the original amendment. If you're subamending, the subamendment is voted on first. Another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it. Only one subamendment at a time may be considered. We can't do two subamendments based on the original amendment. We'd have to vote on that and then move another one. I hope I made that somewhat clear.
Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and then on the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if any amendments are adopted, of course. We send that back to the House for report stage. In fact, the committee orders the chair to report the bill to the House. The report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.
I thank the members for their attention.
Here are a couple of other items.
Yes, folks, I've seen some of your input, and we will be having a health break. Accordingly, some tine between one hour and an hour and a half from now, we'll do so. If I see people fidgeting in their seats, I'll do it right away—forthwith, if need be.
Nevertheless, I also want to say welcome. As we normally do in clause-by-clause examination, we also bring in guests from the department—in this case, of course, the Department of Canadian Heritage. They will be available to us—virtually, of course—for questions, if we have any regarding an amendment, subamendment or the bill itself.
I want to welcome to our virtual world and our world of small squares on the screen Thomas Owen Ripley, the director general, broadcasting, copyright and creative marketplace at the Department of Canadian Heritage. We also have Drew Olsen, senior director, marketplace and legislative policy; and Kathy Tsui, manager, industry and social policy, broadcasting, copyright and creative marketplace. As I've said to her before, that's probably the largest business card I've ever witnessed. We also have Patrick Smith, a senior analyst, marketplace and legislative policy.
Thank you to our guests for being here today.
I need to recognize one member at the very beginning.
Ms. Dabrusin, are you there?
Happy birthday, Ms. Dabrusin.
Julie Dabrusin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Madam Speaker, it is an exciting day, as we are moving forward with clause-by-clause consideration on Bill C-10, modernizing the Broadcasting Act, today in committee.
Standing committees are independent and have an important role to play in improving bills through the legislative process. I am looking forward to seeing all parties work together to make sure that it is the best bill that it can be.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, foreign, state-backed misinformation and violent forced confessions should not be part of the Canadian broadcasting system, which is why I will be moving amendments to Bill C-10 to protect Canadians and others from these gross violations of human rights.
Does the government support these proposed amendments?
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
In this situation it would certainly require removing any sort of cap that we have right now. You can grow into a larger foreign-owned entity, but you can't take over a Canadian entity above a certain threshold. We could remove those thresholds. We would also have to think about whether or not we want to maintain the current restrictions on broadcast ownership, because of course we've seen that some of the largest companies also own large broadcast assets.
While Bill C-10 actually does remove some of the references to Canadian ownership, so in some way the government maybe already is moving a little bit in that direction, perhaps inadvertently, that's certainly part of the equation. Perhaps it's part of a broader discussion as to our comfort level with foreign ownership of broadcast assets. If the issue or the concern comes around airing Canadian content and some other regulatory obligations, I honestly don't see why those couldn't apply to foreign-owned companies in the same way as they apply to Canadian-owned ones.
Jay Thomson Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Communication Systems Alliance
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
I'm Jay Thomson, CEO of the Canadian Communication Systems Alliance, CCSA.
CCSA represents independent communication companies that provide bundled TV, Internet and telephone services to Canadians mostly living in smaller communities and rural areas.
The Rogers and Shaw families are long-standing industry colleagues, and we regard the companies they have built with the greatest respect. Nevertheless, we fear that the Rogers-Shaw deal has the real potential to make some already bad things worse, both in broadcasting and in telecom.
Last week, we appeared before the heritage committee for its study of Bill C-10, which would amend the Broadcasting Act. We highlighted that Rogers, as well as Bell and Quebecor, have already become so big and powerful that the CRTC has had to implement regulatory safeguards to preclude them from using their size to increase consumer costs and reduce choice. We advised the committee that those domestic communications giants have been using their size and influence to undermine the CRTC's consumer safeguards, and we warned that they will only increase those efforts if left unchecked. Regardless of this Rogers-Shaw deal, the CRTC's authority to establish and enforce its consumer safeguards must be confirmed and strengthened. With this deal, a giant will get bigger.
Rogers' cable and Internet subscribers will roughly double in size. That will double the guaranteed cable subscribers to Rogers' TV services, like Sportsnet, at its own preferred rates. Absent the CRTC's safeguards, Rogers could then use its expanded cable size to squeeze smaller cable companies for higher carriage rates for its services, as well as for other concessions, resulting in higher prices and less choice for rural Canadians.
Further, absent the CRTC's safeguards, Rogers could use its expanded Internet size to favour itself with exclusive access arrangements for its online sports service, Sportsnet Now. What will ultimately happen with the numerous Corus TV services now owned by the Shaw family? No one knows.
Should the big get bigger, it will only increase the need to ensure that the CRTC has the authority to implement regulatory safeguards to protect consumers against the domestic giant. Safeguarding consumers where an industry is dominated by a few large players also comes through regulatory decisions that promote competition from other players. The most important of such decisions in these circumstances now becomes the CRTC's pending ruling on providing mobile competition to all of the dominant wireless providers through mobile virtual network operators, MVNOs. As with the other consumer safeguards, MVNO competition is needed regardless of this Rogers-Shaw deal, but even more so if the deal goes through.
I'll end on a positive note. As an industry committed to extending broadband to all Canadians wherever they live, we appreciate Rogers' commitment to a $1-billion broadband fund. However, the devil will be in the details as to whether it will actually accomplish its welcome goals, so more scrutiny is warranted.
Thank you again for this opportunity, and I look forward to responding to your questions.
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, I find this a very interesting set of questions from my colleague Mr. Housefather.
In fact, it is very interesting to hear you, Mr. Chan, explain how Canadian public finances should be managed with respect to multinationals, which generate billions of dollars on Canadian soil and are headquartered abroad. We will get there, Mr. Chan. We will find a way to make companies like Facebook contribute fairly to the system from which they still benefit quite a bit.
As you know, we are in the process of finalizing the study of Bill C-10. Many of the recommendations aim to bring social media under the regulation of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, which is not currently the case. Obviously, I expect there will be opposition from social media.
If that were to be the case and if social media like Facebook were to become subject to regulation under the Canadian Broadcasting Act, how would you adjust your responses to situations like the one regarding events in Christchurch, which we were talking about at the beginning of the meeting? Would you adjust your responses so that the 17 minutes of horror that was witnessed was no longer accessible?
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
In the interest of not taking time away from witnesses, I moved a motion at the beginning that we add time during clause-by-clause so we can get through Bill C-10 expeditiously. I would like us to have the rest of that discussion, which we suspended out of kindness and respect for our witnesses.
The current situation isn't right. Bill C-10, as it stands, isn't right either. The political will to make amendments is timely. We've heard this from the minister and I've spoken with several parties about this. It isn't really an issue.
We really need amendments to the legislation. The Broadcasting Act should be seen as cultural legislation. The distribution methods will change. The business models will change. Canadians will be watching content, but will it be our cultural content? That's the issue.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
If that is not done and we don't see the content regulated adequately, would you be able to support Bill C-10 as it currently stands, in its current iteration?
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have the privilege of having the last two and a half minutes of the Bill C-10 study, which is exciting. I am going to go to Mr. Payette for the final two and a half minutes.
Mr. Payette, you spoke earlier and it triggered something for me. You talked a lot about user-generated content, of course, and why it's important that it is defined so much more clearly.
You said that you felt the testimony that was brought forward by Mr. Ripley to this committee was misleading. I wonder if you could speak a little more about that. Knowing that this is the last testimony we will hear on Bill C-10, could you make sure we understand clearly about the user-generated content?
Marci Ien Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Thank you so much, Mr. Payette.
I am going back to Ms. Edwards.
Also, feel absolutely free, Mr. Freedman, to answer this as well.
The bottom line here is, if Bill C-10 moves forward with no changes at all, what will this mean for the future of community broadcasting? What will we be missing in the Canadian broadcasting landscape?