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.

Broadcasting Act

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, ultimately, there has to be some clear definition on what these would constitute. When we look at the small community radio stations, and in our particular case in Nova Scotia, there are only a few Francophone radio stations beyond the CBC, they can be in direct conflict or in competition with some of these smaller groups that have no regulations at all. They can say and do anything they want. We want to ensure we keep those small community radio stations available and not have them in competition with these smaller groups.

However, what does it constitute, what does it mean? I hope the minister will clarify some of those things.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from West Nova for his speech.

I wonder if he could expand on the importance of French-language content, especially on platforms like Netflix. Does he have any suggestions for ways to increase it? Should quotas be imposed, or should we use a carrot rather than a stick and create financial incentives? Should the measures be more coercive or more incentive-based?

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

We really want to encourage this with a positive approach. There is not much francophone or Acadian content. We really need to see Acadians, francophones and indigenous people not only on our social media, but also in our traditional media, such as CBC and others. I believe that it is possible to find ways to get these media to agree to come to the regions.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

This has to be one of the most enjoyable debates I have had the opportunity to participate in this chamber. With such a vast and diverse country like ours, it is interesting to see the different local content from the far corners of our country.

This is near and dear to my heart, not just because of the content on the screen but because of the experiences of the persons who are involved in creating the content. That includes the background extras.

I had the very good fortune of being a background extra in several productions in my hometown in Regina, in the surrounding area. It all came about by chance, but it really did open my eyes to the so-called gig economy that has been in the news much more lately during the pandemic.

I was walking through the mall one day in Regina and I saw a guy, who has since become a good friend of mine, sitting at a table and a sign that said, “Sign up here to be in TV shows”. I asked him what it was all about. He was the casting director for a local company called Partners in Motion, which makes movies and TV shows in Regina and in southern Saskatchewan. He told me that I looked like a police officer and he had a spot for me in the documentary series called Crime Stories. They needed background extras to re-enact these crimes and they could cast me in the role of a police officer to arrest some criminal for the documentary series. It sounded like fun and a good way to make minimum wage on the side, so that is what I did. It really opened my eyes to how many people in my community had hobbies or gig jobs being background extras in TV shows.

Over the course of the following months and years, I arrested many different people in that crime series. I got to be a soldier in war. In a particularly memorable experience, I got to be a background extra in Corner Gas: The Movie. People tend to talk about Corner Gas, the TV show, but there was a major motion picture a few years ago, based on all the characters in Dog River, Corner Gas. It was certainly very memorable to walk up and down Main Street in Rouleau, Saskatchewan. I played towns person number seven in that movie. Much to my dismay, I was not nominated for an Oscar that year, but in the sequel perhaps my name will come up.

I have not seen anything in the bill to address the gig economy and people who work in the industry on a casual basis. I strongly suspect that this is something not specific to Regina, Saskatchewan, but specific to people who work in the industry all across our great country.

I think we could do Canadians a lot of good by withdrawing this bill and rewriting it from scratch to ensure that everyone is included in it and to ensure we have the best legislation we can for Canadians.

Therefore, I would like to move the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That'"and substituting the following: “Bill C-10, An act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am a little disappointed. I know the minister went to great effort to ensure there was a great deal of consultation. We are in a process of modernizing something, and it really does need to be looked at. Why would he want move an amendment of this nature, given the importance of the industry?

He even talked about the importance of the industry. There is absolutely nothing wrong with finishing the debate. Once that debate has come to an end, it goes to committee. Members would be able to present amendments if they felt it was necessary. Even the minister has indicated his willingness to receive amendments.

Why would the member not follow that course?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have particular concerns about the delegation of authority to the CRTC and the lack of accountability in not just the CRTC, but in other arm's-length government agencies.

As the hon. member may be aware, I currently serve on the transportation committee. We have been having a considerable amount of difficulty with Nav Canada with respect to the closure of air traffic control towers. Although it is an agency created by an act of Parliament, there seems to be a serious lack of accountability for this government agency. I do not want to see the same situation transpire with the CRTC, so the best thing to do is to proceed with the amendment that I tabled a minute ago.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I too have a question for my colleague.

Generally speaking, when looking at the parliamentary schedule, the parties agree to the number of speakers they wish to work on a bill before it is referred to committee. I gather that these discussions took place with respect to Bill C-10 in order to advance it so that it could be studied, or not, depending on the decision made by the House. My colleague's approach intrigues me somewhat, given that parliamentarians usually agree amongst themselves on this schedule and the approach to be taken for bills.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for this question.

The most important thing is to have the best bill for Canadians. As I stated a few minutes ago, I believe that we should start over with this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you deemed the amendment is fact in order, I would be prepared to speak to it. Therefore, I would rather you not call for the vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We are pursuing the debate. We are going to continue with speeches. There will be no call for votes on the amendment.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, we should be clear about what is going on here.

The Conservatives are introducing this amendment, which they know will not get through, so they can reset the entire speaking roster and can continue to drag this debate on and on. We are already at day four of this. The Conservatives do not want to see this go to committee. They do not want anything to happen on this. It is very clear that the member has introduced this strictly for the purpose of dragging this on longer and longer. At least he can just stand up and admit that.

He did not answer the parliamentary secretary's question when he specifically said that if the member was so passionate about this, why would he not let it go to committee rather than try to kill it on the floor right now.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, the fundamental question we have to ask ourselves is whether democracy is a good thing or a bad thing. Is it good to debate these bills so we get the best laws for Canadians or is it not?

If this particular law has not been amended for many years, then four days do not strike me as a particularly long time to debate the bill. If we are going to be living with this bill for many decades to come, then four days do not strike me as a particularly long time to debate it.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been very impressed with the minister's openness to listen, his demeanour and his tone. A more partisan person than I might say that he could share that message with the member for Kingston and the Islands, but I would never say that.

I am honoured to speak on a subject I am very passionate about: the update to the Broadcasting Act. Before I get into my content, I will tell the minister directly that he seems very open, and I congratulate him on his tone. He has been great to work with. I want to put another plug in for the Capitol Theatre in Port Hope, if he could please help us out there.

My big ask, in terms of an amendment, would be protecting those smaller operators. We need tighter rules. We cannot leave this up to the CRTC. There are fabulous professionals working there doing the best they can, but we need to make sure there are solid protections.

There are some great arguments, and this act desperately needs to be updated because it has not been in 28 years. In that very long time, we have seen the evolution of the Internet, and the introduction of big players such as Facebook, Google, Netflix and Spotify. In light of this innovation, it is important that we upgrade the bill. However, as I said, I have serious concerns that the bill may inflict harm more than do good.

One of the fundamental changes in the communications sector in the last 28 years has been the democratization of access. Canadians are no longer limited to a couple of voices coming through their televisions. They can now listen and express themselves through Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and many other platforms. In many ways, these platforms are closer to going out to the public square in the 1800s and expressing oneself, and anyone who wants to listen, can.

Many of the individuals who participate through YouTube or other platforms contribute a lot to our national discourse on matters like politics, philosophy, culinary arts and health. Having this cacophony of voices that brings with it life experience and perspective not only enriches our lives, but makes our society better. Combatants enter the arena of ideas and have the opportunity to put their theories and ideas out there, and our society decides whether they are enlightened or maybe missing the point.

I am thankful for those who share their great ideas, because they make our country better. Those who lose in the battlefield of ideas can look at the Republic, and what Socrates says. He said those who lose an argument are the better for it because they walk away with knowledge, which often happens to the member for Kingston and the Islands. He should be particularly thankful.

Just like everything, there are bad actors in the world, and there are bad actors in the broadcasting sector. There are individuals who spread hate, lies and conspiracy theories. This behaviour is reprehensible, abhorrent and disgusting. The legislation has the laudable objective of curating online content to protect Canadians against hate and promote quality Canadian programming.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to inform the hon. member he will have six minutes to conclude his speech when the bill next comes up for debate.