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.

Official Languages

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages]

Madam Speaker, every time I have risen in this House over the past year, I remember how things have changed.

Almost a year ago to the day, we were all gathered here, not knowing what to expect. Since then, we have had a difficult year, a year marked, yes, by upheavals and mourning, but also by the resilience, courage and compassion of our fellow citizens.

In saying that our world has changed, I am just stating the obvious, because across time and place change is the only constant, last year, this year and the next, and when it comes to change, we really only have two options. We can try to fight it or we can choose to see the possibilities that come with it. Time and again Canadians have chosen the latter.

The country we know today was shaped by people who have managed to adapt to and seize the opportunities of a changing world, a country that is strong in its diversity and, of course, proud of its differences, a country that is bilingual. Having two official languages is one of Canada's greatest strengths. Our two official languages set us apart and help us stand out on the world stage.

Each of us has our very own personal history when it comes to official languages. My history is that of a unilingual francophone family, established in a neighbourhood in the suburbs of Montreal where children, regardless of their origins and languages, had made friends. My story also carries the dream of my mother, a teacher, who always insisted that her children become bilingual, convinced that English would open all doors for them.

I was lucky enough to grow up in an environment where French and English come together. However, this bilingual country in which we live is no accident. If the French language is still so alive in North America, it is because Canadians, and Quebeckers in particular, are committed to protecting it and making it flourish.

More than 50 years ago, we collectively chose a modern vision of the state, a state where our two official languages, those two languages that unite and define us, occupy a central place not only in the affairs of our country, but also in our lives. In fact, we owe a lot to the Official Languages Act. Thanks to this act, millions of francophones have the right to be served and to live in their language from coast to coast to coast. Thanks to this act, our young people who live in official language minority communities go to school in their mother tongue, a right that their parents were sometimes denied.

From Moncton to Whitehorse, Sherbrooke to Sudbury, the Official Languages Act protects language rights and ensures the vitality of our communities.

So many of us benefited from growing in a bilingual Canada: kids from the Prairies who studied in French emersion; teenagers in New Brunswick who met their best friend in English class; Francophones who learned English on the slopes of B.C.; Anglophones who fell in love with cities like Montreal and Quebec. In Canada, language is not some abstract concept. It is our connection to the past. It is the vector through which our stories get told and retold.

In fact, language is not just an important part of who we are as individuals, but how our country can be. It is part of our DNA. This is true of French and English of course, but also of indigenous languages, which any language policy in the country should and must take into account.

That is why, in 2019, we introduced the Indigenous Languages Act to reclaim, revitalize, strengthen and maintain indigenous languages. This was historic legislation, but we know that the work being done by indigenous communities to recover and reclaim their language continues, and they can count on our government's steadfast support.

Our world is changing. More than ever, we are interconnected with each other. Globalization has had the effect of imposing certain languages to facilitate trade beyond our borders. At the same time, the rapid development of international trade and digital technologies, including social media and content delivery platforms, are promoting the use of English.

In the face of these changes, our two official languages are not on equal terms. There are eight million francophones in Canada in a North American ocean of more than 360 million inhabitants, most of them anglophones. The use of the French language is on the decline in Quebec and elsewhere in the country. It is up to us not only to protect our language, but to offer a modern vision of our linguistic duality and its future.

The time has come to act. We must act to ensure that all our citizens are reflected in the objectives of the Official Languages Act. We must act to ensure the sustainability of a strong and secure Francophonie in the country, including in Quebec. We must act in the face of contemporary challenges that directly impact the development of a Francophone identity in our children. We must act to promote our Acadian, Quebec and francophone cultures across the country.

Whether people are part of the English-speaking majority, a French-speaking Quebecker or a member of an official language minority community, their unique reality should be reflected in our laws. That is exactly why our government is introducing a series of reforms so our two official languages stand on more equal footing.

Today, our government is presenting a reform aimed at establishing a new balance in our linguistic policies. As French is a minority language in the country, there must be real equality between our two official languages. The government has a responsibility to ensure that we can learn, speak and live in French in Canada, as is the case with English. Today we are sharing our game plan.

First, for a language to be alive, its culture must be strong. Francophones must be able to make their voices heard, especially in the digital space where English dominates. To do this, our federal cultural institutions, such as Telefilm and the NFB, must support and encourage the production and distribution of French content. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission also has a role to play. On this point, Bill C-10 is crucial to the future of broadcasting. We are also committed to protecting CBC/Radio-Canada as a flagship cultural institution and a vehicle for the dissemination of our two official languages and bilingualism across the country.

Our government also recognizes that the private sector has a role to play in ensuring the protection and promotion of French. People have the right to be served and to work in French in federally regulated businesses in Quebec and in other regions of Canada with a strong francophone presence. These rights and their recourses will therefore be established in federal legislation, in consultation with the affected sectors.

That said, when it comes to ensuring respect for bilingualism in the workplace and ensuring the right to work in one's first official language, the federal public service must lead by example. After all, it is Canadians' primary point of contact with the federal government. That is why we are going to create a central body within the government that is responsible for ensuring compliance with language obligations.

We will also strengthen the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and we will continue to defend and promote French abroad in our embassies, in our missions and within major international organizations, such as the UN and the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie.

The Government of Canada will also make a point of attracting and facilitating francophone immigration outside Quebec. Increasing the demographic presence of francophones outside Quebec is a priority for us. For some communities, it is even a matter of survival. Over time, immigration has changed our language and enriched our communities, and that must continue.

Finally, all our institutions must be bilingual, including the highest court in the country. The Official Languages Act must require that judges appointed to the Supreme Court be bilingual.

As part of our efforts to modernize the Official Languages Act, we will also take steps to promote bilingualism from coast to coast to coast. It should be easier for English Canadians to learn French, but right now too many parents have to get on a wait list or go through a lottery system before they can send their kids to French immersion. These parents and their kids are being turned away because there are not enough available spots. This is unacceptable. We will get rid of wait lists for French immersion.

All official languages communities, English-speaking Quebeckers and Francophones in the rest of the country have constitutional rights. Our communities are only as strong as their institutions, as strong, of course, as their schools, their universities and their cultural centres. That is why the federal government will continue to support those who seek to uphold their constitutional rights. We will stand by their side.

The history of our two official languages is one of resilience marked by persistent demands. This is the story told by Gabrielle Roy, Michel Tremblay, Dany Laferrière and Antonine Maillet.

However, that story, our story, has been told through the works of Leonard Cohen, Rufus Wainwright, Margaret Atwood and Gord Downie. This is the beauty and the strength of our country. Defending our official languages is defending who we are as a country.

Our history has stood the test of time. It has also taught us that we can never take our linguistic duality for granted. We always have to do more, especially when it comes to protecting the French language. With this reform, we are paving the way for the next 50 years. We are adapting to a world that is rapidly and constantly changing. We are preparing for the challenges that arise and those that await us.

Our government's vision is rooted in studies conducted by House of Commons committees, the Senate and the Commissioner of Official Languages, but it is above all rooted in the hard work of those who are passionate about our official languages, those whose mother tongue is French or English, those who have learned our official languages or who are working on it, those who enroll their children in French immersion programs and those who are proud to say that two of their languages are international languages.

I am grateful to all these people. Their ideas and work have been a constant source of inspiration, and we look forward to continuing to work with them, as well as all official languages partners and allies across the country. Our society, our country and the future of our children in our two official languages will be all the better for it.

Broadcasting Act

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy with the outcome of the two motions adopted earlier. If you seek it, you will find unanimous consent of the House:

That, notwithstanding any standing or special order or usual practice of the House, the amendment to the second reading motion of Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, standing in the name of the member for Regina—Wascana, be withdrawn; and that the motion for second reading of Bill C-10 be deemed adopted on division and that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

(Bill C-10. On the Order: Government Orders:)

February 5, 2021—Second reading of Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

That's important. I think that making sure the CRTC is given that direction is vital.

The other thing I know you have commented on, that you've said Bill C-10 is silent on, is the CBC mandate. Could you speak a little about what you're asking us to consider or to update within Bill C-10 on CBC's mandate?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank you, witnesses, for joining us today and sharing your expertise with us. I apologize that you have had to sit through some of our committee discussion.

I want to start with Mr. Bernhard from Friends of Canadian Broadcasting. You have done a very deep dive into Bill C-10. You have done an awful lot of work around this. You've come today with 19 amendments.

Could you expand on two, three or maybe even four of those that you think are absolutely crucial for the success of this bill, please?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I agree with Ms. McPherson. I find it a little inappropriate on our part, especially since this hour was scheduled to hear from the witnesses that the NDP and the Bloc had invited. You know that we have less time and fewer opportunities to hear from witnesses. I'm a little frustrated that this issue is being raised during this hour.

I propose, as Mr. Rayes did earlier, that we set aside some time to discuss this issue before the next meeting, which will be held after the break week. I don't feel it's appropriate to do so in the presence of the witnesses. I would very much like to hear from them about Bill C-10 while they are here with us.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What Ms. Dabrusin just said is very intriguing. I agree with us using her time to discuss her proposal. That way, we won't take up any of the time we have for questions to the witnesses who are here with us.

A few things concern me. We could discuss her proposal at the beginning of the next meeting, but we already have a busy schedule on Mondays and Fridays. At the end of the week, we all still have a lot of work to do. If we add an hour, it will mean even more preparation for each of us. We do not have very big teams, with due respect for the parliamentary secretary and the minister, who sometimes have more staff.

I'm concerned about another issue that we don't often consider: the interpreters. They have all told us how difficult their work is and how few of them are available at the moment. It's Friday and they have been working all week too. We're aware of all the technical difficulties at the moment. For these reasons, adding a third hour worries me.

However, Bill C-10 is important. Nothing is stopping us from adding more meetings, if the parliamentary secretary, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc wish to do so. We would be more than willing to extend the consultations by adding more meetings as necessary. We then could hear from all the witnesses who need to speak to this bill, for as long as the committee wants.

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

I'm absolutely fine with that, because I believe that what we're seeing overwhelmingly from people who work in the industry is that they want us to move ahead with Bill C-10. That's what I'm seeing from the number of people who have put their names forward to speak to it.

I would really love to see how we can work to do this.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I get to some questions for the witnesses, there's clearly a lot of interest from all of the witnesses who have been before us so far, and we've seen a lot of requests from people who want to be able to present at committee. I'm not sure if I'm going to have another chance before the constituency week to put this to the committee, so I'd like to ask if they would be ready to add an extra hour on Friday so that we could have a chance to hear from more witnesses and do this important work.

I understand that members of this committee have generally shown a great interest in this work, having done this prestudy and having said that they're interested in moving forward with Bill C-10. I put that somewhat in brackets because I was surprised to see that the Conservatives brought a motion this afternoon in fact to withdraw Bill C-10 and to have it fully pulled. However, luckily, I am happy to see that did not go forward.

I am presuming that the members on this committee still have an interest in doing the hard work on Bill C-10 and in being able to hear from as many witnesses as we can in order to move forward with the bill. I am wondering if we could have a chance maybe right now to see if we can get agreement from the different parties to add on one more hour. As far as context goes, I'm also going to add that we will not have a meeting on February 15 because of Family Day, so we're actually losing one day of witness testimony coming up. It would be very helpful for us to be able to have that extra time.

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

Section 19 of the Income Tax Act has, since the 1960s, provided that if foreign advertising is purchased, such expenses are tax deductible only for Canadian businesses. This does not appear to have been applied to the digital field in Bill C-10, which means that Canadian companies lose this advantage.

Do you agree with this statement?

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

Thank you, and I am going to ask you a second question.

Bill C-10 amends subsection 3(1), which many believe could allow foreign companies to take control of Canadian broadcasting companies.

Does that concern you too?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses who have taken the time today to come and help us in our committee work. I’ll get right to the point.

My first question is for Mr. Bernhard of the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.

Mr. Bernhard, I would like to hear what you have to say about the exclusion of social media in Bill C-10. It seems to me to be extremely worrisome.

Is this also the case for your organization?

[Daniel Bernhard, Executive Director, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today.

The Friends of Canadian Broadcasting is a citizen’s movement dedicated to defending our cultural identity on the airwaves and online. Since our work is funded exclusively by citizens, our only interest in this process is that of the public.

Canada is an idea, and without sovereign media, that idea won't last. In 1932, the Conservative government recognized the power of radio to reinforce Canada's political, economic and cultural independence. They also foretold how an unregulated broadcasting system would turn this power against us, imposing American ideas and American ideals onto Canadian culture and politics.

We have taken care to protect our cultural institutions, but the omnipresence of the GAFAM group continues to threaten them. Ottawa has turned a blind eye to the distribution of illegal content on many of these platforms and has allowed foreign digital broadcasters to enrich themselves on our territory without contributing to the production of local content and without paying their taxes. Thanks to these companies and the inaction of Canadian governments, our democracy is now weakened and our society is becoming increasingly divided.

Minister Guilbeault pitched Bill C-10 as a solution to at least some of these problems, and if we judged it by his comments alone, Bill C-10 would be a wild success, but upon reading the text itself, it's clear that Bill C-10 is not exactly as advertised. In fact, the bill, which should regulate digital broadcasting, could leave Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, Youtube and Spotify entirely unregulated, just as they are today.

The good news is that Bill C-10 can be fixed, and we have formulated 19 precise amendments that would cause the text of the bill to more closely resemble the minister's account of it.

First, let’s address the issue of Canadian content. We subscribe to the philosophy that, by default, digital broadcasting should not require permission. However, giving the CRTC the option to regulate platforms such as Netflix is totally insufficient. The CRTC should be obliged to regulate digital broadcasters of a certain size.

Minister Guilbeault promises to address this by order in council, but that’s a temporary approach that future governments could undo without parliamentary scrutiny. You can't accept this bill on the promise of an order that you haven't seen and that may not materialize. It's important to strengthen the bill itself.

Second, on social media and algorithmic decision-making more generally, we agree that people who create and upload content to the Internet should not require a licence to do so, but we can achieve that without exempting companies like Facebook, YouTube and Pornhub from responsibility for the content they broadcast. These companies routinely broadcast illegal content that would land any other broadcaster in court. The exemption for user-generated content should apply to the users themselves, not to the platforms who make billions curating and promoting this content. The Broadcasting Act alone cannot hold the likes of Facebook fully accountable for its transgressions, but it would still help to remove Bill C-10’s blanket exemption for social media sites and revise the new concept of programming control to specifically include decisions made by algorithm.

Third, Bill C-10 removes Canadian ownership requirements, paving the way for Fox and other American interests to swallow ailing Canadian broadcasters, decimating local programming, especially local news. We need not invite the further decimation of local news in Canada.

Finally, Bill C-10 is completely silent on the CBC, which could soon be the only national media of consequence left standing. You could use this opportunity to revise CBC’s mandate to be fundamentally non-commercial and to finally end political appointments for the president and the board.

In closing, I urge you not to waste this precious opportunity. We may not get another chance like this for years, and most Canadian media won't survive that long. Just this week, Bell Media announced hundreds of layoffs, adding to the more than 3,000 media layoffs in Canada since COVID. Let’s make things right—right now—while we still can.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, folks, we are back for our second round. We're studying Bill C-10, of course, in a prestudy of Bill C-10 before it passes the House of Commons, if it does.

I'd like to make a few comments.

Again, screenshots, or taking photos of your screen, are not permitted. That's for our committee members and our guests; please do not take screenshots. Please, before speaking, wait until I recognize you by name. When you are ready to speak, you can click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. For interpretation, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of whatever is on the floor, or you can switch to either English or French interpretation. Please, when you are not speaking, put your mike on mute.

These are all the universal Zoom rules that we've been under for the past year, or almost a year.

Of course, I want to welcome our guests. We have two participants today. We have two guests we want to hear from, and we want to thank them for joining us here on a Friday afternoon.

We have, from the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, Daniel Bernhard, who is the executive director, and from the Union des Artistes, we have Sophie Prégent, Pascale St-Onge and Julien Laflamme.

We have five minutes each for your remarks. I unfortunately have to be a bit strict on that. I'll let you clew up your thoughts, but you have not much beyond five minutes, if we get there.

We're going to start with Mr. Bernhard from Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, please, for five minutes.

[Joel Fortune, Legal Adviser, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network]

Thanks, Monika. I will do it very quickly.

We work very carefully with the structure of the act and what the department proposed for Bill C-10 and how the various powers of the CRTC work. We really focused in on what we thought were the absolutely essential powers that the commission could have in relation to programming services as opposed to Canadian programs.

We proposed changes to the proposed subsection 9.1, which is on the CRTC's ability to make orders that affect online services. We are suggesting that the ability to make programs available should also extend to programming services, to make them available and discoverable. Similarly, there is an issue regarding the current requirement that distribution undertakings make certain programming services available. If you look at the act, a distribution undertaking by definition excludes an online service, so that's just crazy. If you have one type of distribution undertaking using one technology, you can make the service available under certain terms and conditions, but for a service using an Internet technology, you can't do that. That's just crazy, so we're suggesting that section should be changed.

Similarly, the commission's regulatory powers are very important. The underpinning for the whole system is its ability to make regulations, so we have suggested that certain regulatory powers that right now are limited to distribution undertakings specifically excluding online services should have the ability to relate to broadcasting undertakings, which would then include online services.

Those are a couple of little definitional questions, but they are very important.

We have also addressed the way the act works. Right now, you have two major sections. You have policy and you have powers, and you have to have both sections. You have to have a policy that relates to a power and a power that relates to a policy. It's great to have highfalutin policies, but unless there are specific powers that the commission can use, they really don't mean anything and vice versa. We have suggested a specific policy section that would relate to online services when they are distributing other services. It's essentially that they treat other services fairly and make Canadian services visible.

These are just some basic objectives for online distribution of Canadian programming services. Right now the act is completely silent on that point. That's a major flaw.

Finally we suggest a modification of the existing language that deals with Canadian ownership in the system. Essentially, we're suggesting that the act shouldn't just remove it; doing that seems excessive. We should certainly recognize that there's tremendous value in protecting Canadian ownership in our own broadcasting world. I can't believe the act wouldn't have that. In addition, we think it's important to recognize the diversity of voices, and especially of independent voices, in that section.

All of those pieces work together to fill the hole that Monika identified.