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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Madam Clerk, we'll have a vote, please.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

Folks, we are currently five minutes overdue. As you know, we've just filled our normal two hours. Through implied consent, normally we'd adjourn at this hour, and we will do just that. We'll resume again on Friday, June 4.

We'll see you back here again on June 4 for the resumption of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Because there have been some misleading remarks made, let me say that this concept of net neutrality is that every single Canadian has equal access to different sites online. Every site is treated with equality, which means that some sites aren't made more prominent than others. It means that speeds for some are not slowing down while speeds for others are speeding up. It means that we, as Canadians, have access to material made available online in an equal fashion: that some things are not discriminated against, some things are not promoted and some things are not shown favouritism.

It's a great principle. It is a principle that so many members of the current government have spoken about in the past, including the justice minister; the former heritage minister, Minister Joly; and the Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau himself. It is this principle that Canadians would be able to function within this glorious platform that is allowing so many individuals to thrive. They would be able to function within that platform, this tool that we rely on in Canada to access information, to promote other information, to share ideas and to welcome people into their creativity and their artistic expression. It's amazing.

The Internet exists as this amazing place where ideas collide and where, as stated, artistic talent is shared, debate takes place and business transactions transpire, etc. Net neutrality, this principle that all those who use the Internet would be able to do so without being discriminated against, without having some content favoured over others, is a brilliant concept.

For this bill to move forward with the exclusion of proposed section 4.1 is threatening that concept of net neutrality, because instead of all things being considered equal, this bill would move forward in such a way that some content is actually demoted and some content is promoted—not all things are equal.

The hand that guides this process is the government's, through a regulatory arm known as the CRTC. To put the CRTC in control of such a thing is not only daunting for them, by their own admission, but crazy. It's just ludicrous. This bill is under the guise of “modernizing” the Broadcasting Act, but the Broadcasting Act actually shouldn't be applied to the Internet, because the Internet is this incredible place that is limitless. You don't actually need the CRTC to step in and pick winners and losers, to show favouritism to some and to harm others.

What's going on here, if Bill C-10 proceeds without any sort of amendment that would offer protection for the content that individuals post online, is actually the extreme censorship of material that is posted online and, therefore, an attack on this concept of net neutrality, which is something that we have held in high regard for so long. It used to be a principle that was held by all parties, so it wasn't even a partisan issue. Now, with the removal of 4.1, all of a sudden the government has turned this into a massively partisan issue, and for what?

It's certainly not for the benefit of the Canadian public. The only one benefiting from Bill C-10, interestingly enough, is actually, I guess, the government, because it gets to determine the content that Canadians can and cannot access. Then it also actually benefits the big telecom giants, which is interesting, because the government would say, “No, this legislation actually goes against them.”

No, it doesn't. This legislation goes against Canadians. This legislation goes against those who wish to access content online and those who wish to post content online. This legislation goes against our freedom of choice. This legislation goes against our freedom to express ourselves, to share our opinions, to share our beliefs and to share our talents with the world.

That's what this legislation does—if it moves forward in its current form. Again, that is why we should be voting “yes” to the amendment being brought forward. We should want to protect Canadians. We should want to look after their well-being. We should want to give them the freedom to express themselves. We should want to allow Canadians to access the content they so desire.

When we talk about net neutrality, when we talk about Canadians having access to the Internet in an equal fashion, this bill goes against that. The way we restore that principle, the way we return to the advocacy of that principle, is through the amendment that my colleague has presented. I am somewhat perplexed as to why we are not considering this amendment to a greater extent.

Going back to my colleague Mr. Aitchison, he asked why we would be against proposed section 4.1. How is this bill strengthened by its removal, or how, in the opposite of that, is this bill harmed by adding this amendment, which is similar to 4.1? For all of the facial expressions that have been shown and the things that have been lipped, no one has offered to raise their hand and offer an explanation as to why the omission of 4.1 strengthens this bill or, alternatively, why adding this amendment would weaken it.

I guess I would invite that, through you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure if someone here would be able to provide that explanation. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary would be best positioned to do that. I think many members on this committee would be interested in hearing that justification. I think many of us are baffled right now by the way this is landing.

I'll leave it there.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've gone an hour and 40 minutes without a break, so I think we can all wait another 20 minutes. I certainly won't speak for 20 minutes, but I want to reiterate what Mr. Rayes and others have said about bringing back proposed section 4.1.

To my dear colleague in the House, Mr. Champoux, I agree that proposed section 4.1 did allow for YouTube to be regulated when it operated as a broadcaster of its own for-profit content. The language of 4.1 said it clearly, but then the department, in December of 2020, in a memo to the minister, clearly stated that YouTube Originals and YouTube Music would be regulated even under 4.1.

I've been quoted several times by the minister in the House and in committee talking about this. Of course, on that Friday afternoon, proposed section 4.1 was suddenly eliminated. I think it's been an interesting conversation, not only today but for the last three weeks. All of our offices, I'm sure, have been inundated with concerns about Bill C-10, and rightfully so. It is an important part of our culture.

I look at the Toronto Sun today, and now we have the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation doing an attack on culture. That's what we don't want, I believe, in heritage. Now we have creators and culture, so now we have an editorial in the Toronto Sun today, and several comments now, done by Franco Terrazzano. I think as politicians we support our creators. We support our culture in this country, but now all of a sudden what this bill has done is to say, you know, you're a bunch of freeloaders. You've gotten millions of dollars in the past, and now you've been exposed. Many of these groups have lobbied the heritage department over a number of months and years. Now we're seeing the figure that the minister himself brought out of $835 million.

Mr. Chair, we still have some doubts about where that money will come from. I have an idea of where that $835 million will come from. Everyone says it comes from YouTube, and it could come from Amazon, Netflix and so on, but indirectly that comes from Canadian pockets. Don't fool us. That $835 million will come from consumers, on top of what is already put into culture and all the sectors that the heritage department supports in this country. We dearly love the support, especially during the time of the pandemic for the last 15 months. We've seen it. The member for Edmonton Strathcona talks about her constituency and about being viable and wanting to get back to normal and having our culture in the summer and feeding hundreds if not thousands of people in our communities. That's what this is all about.

I must say that Bill C-10 is a disaster now. We need to step back. Let's face it: Tomorrow is June 1, and it may pass the House of Commons but it won't pass the Senate. There's no time in three and a half weeks. This amendment by Mr. Rayes should be brought back in, and for very good reason. Canadian content should be accessible to all—I agree with you guys—but the algorithms will put some ahead and some back. Now we have winners and losers. Who knows? Once you get into the loser category, where you go from there?

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to say that. I won't go on much longer. I used four minutes of the time. I just felt that I should support my colleague Mr. Rayes on bringing back proposed section 4.1.

I think it's a very good amendment to bring back in, because I was quoted several times by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I thank him for quoting me. “Saskatoon—Grasswood” is what the riding name actually is. He has trouble with saying that at times in the House. When he quotes me in saying that I supported the bill, I did because that's what the bill said in November. Then it was changed in March and April here. I haven't had time to say that on the record, but I think proposed section 4.1 should be brought back in as an amendment.

Thank you.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll try to be brief. I simply want to respond to what Mr. Shields said a while ago.

He said something very important when he talked about not rejecting other people's opinions in a discussion. I fully agree with him.

Besides which, we took the time to ask questions, listen to the experts and check whether indeed there was anything to worry about in terms of an attack on freedom of expression for users of digital platforms and social media. I think we kept an open mind on this matter. I fully agree that it is important in debates to remain open to the opinions and ideas of others, because the healthy exercise of democracy means that we shouldn't necessarily cling our positions.

I also just wanted to add that when I said that we had no judges on the committee, I was drawing an analogy, an image to say that what we have here is a dialogue of the deaf. Each party is doggedly defending its positions, and I said that it might take a judge to rule on the matter. I am well aware that these issues will highly likely end up in court.

I also wanted to return briefly to Ms. Harder's lengthy monologue. I got the impression that we were being schooled on the quality of the work that had been done by the committee members, and I must say I take umbrage at this. We received 121 witnesses and 54 briefs during the study and preliminary study of Bill C-10. Indeed, I think that the Conservatives were able to invite many of these witnesses, and our colleagues who were there at the time were very effective. When we were began doing it, I think each of the parties did a good job of inviting the witnesses they felt were most appropriate at the time.

Did we invite everyone who should have been heard? I think we would agree that's impossible, but a call was nevertheless sent out to all interested parties across Canada to prepare a brief to state their opinion on this issue. So I think the work was indeed done well and that several issues were raised by people who were not necessarily there during the studies of Bill C-10, and I'll admit that there were moments when this struck a chord with me.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

When we talk about the digital content that is put online and the fact that this bill, if it moves forward the way it currently stands, will censor that content, we need to take that very seriously for two reasons: one, the impact that will have on artists or creators and, two, the impact that will have on their audience, those individuals who go on YouTube and use it in order to access content.

When it comes to the artists, we have to acknowledge that the greatest artists right now and over the last decade have come up through platforms such as YouTube or TikTok. We're talking about artists who are young, aspiring and diverse. We're talking about individuals who belong to different minority groups, represent different viewpoints and are able to bring Canada to life. However, they won't necessarily make the cut when it comes to being acknowledged as “Canadian content producers” because they don't fit the traditional mould.

When the government steps in and imposes these regulatory measures that insist that Canadian content be bumped up in its “discoverability” and that non-Canadian content be bumped down in its discoverability, first of all, they are starting with a false definition of Canadian content, and then they move on to actually demote or degrade or thwart the success of some artists, because, again, those artists won't make the cut.

Let's take Lilly Singh, for example. She's Canadian, fully Canadian, functioning from Canada and in many of her posts she talks about Canadian issues, but in many of her posts, she talks about her Indian culture and heritage. In some of her posts she talks about other countries. In other posts she talks about things that are just hilarious, not necessarily Canadian content per se, but she's Canadian, functioning in Canada and enjoying a life of artistic success. She'd be punished. If Bill C-10 passed, her content would be demoted. It would be moved to the bottom of the page. Meanwhile—I don't know—maybe basket weaving gets moved to the top because everybody wants to learn about basket weaving.

The fact that this is going to have such a detrimental impact on artists and on creators should cause us as committee members to pause for a moment and to consider the amendment that's been put on the table, because this amendment will protect the content that is produced. It will make sure that these artists have a fighting chance, that they are captains of their own destiny, that they get to determine their success based on the way they perform and based on growing an audience organically. Again, I'll remind the committee that 90% of their audience members are beyond the borders of Canada; they are from all over the world.

If we start putting fences around these individuals, sure, they'll protect some artists, but they will imprison other artists. They will actually prevent them from being able to achieve the level of success that they would be able to achieve on their own.

Artists are not asking for more government regulation. In fact, they're telling me quite the opposite. They're telling me they want the government to get out of the way. They're creators. They're creative. They're entrepreneurial. They're hard-working. They don't want the government to step in and dictate to them what they can and cannot do, and they certainly don't want the government to step in and determine what is Canadian and what is not Canadian and whether or not they make the cut. They just want to continue to create and enjoy an audience and provide something of value to those who would enjoy their talents.

I think the idea of protecting “Canadian culture” is a noble one, but in actuality that's not what this bill would do.

This bill will protect a very small niche group, a little niche group of artists who can't compete on new platforms, a niche group of artists who have lobbyists who apparently have been quite effective within this government, a niche group of artists who rely heavily on government grants. Why do they rely on government grants? If the content is wanted, if the content is desirable, then surely there would be a buyer.

Again, there are many digital first creators who are making a go of it. In fact in Canada over 25,000 Canadians have platforms and through them have organically grown an audience and are able to make over $100,000 a year. This bill will put them out of business.

So much for a government that believes in the digital economy. This bill is a direct attack on that. It's shameful.

I think we have to ask ourselves, then, what defines Canadian culture. What defines Canadian content? What is going to make the cut and what isn't? That definition, we discover, is extremely flawed, again putting an end to so many good Canadian artists.

The amendment that's been brought forward would protect the content that individuals post online. It would protect it from getting bumped up or bumped down. It would protect it from having to go through the scrutiny of being determined Canadian or not Canadian and being given a rating out of 10 on just how Canadian it is.

Further, the amendment we put on the table in terms of the content would not only protect the artists and their content but would also facilitate a person's viewing experience. In other words, when we go online in search of content, we're going to have the freedom to explore based on our desires as audience members rather than being dictated to by a government-designed algorithm.

Again, in its current form, this legislation will result in algorithms being put in place that will move content up or down in the queue and make it available to us based on what the government wants us to see, based on “Canadian content”.

Right now, Canadians go online and they go on YouTube and they access the videos they want using a search bar. Once the algorithms figure out that a person really likes looking at cartoons and learning how to draw cartoon characters, the algorithms generate more content for them that is in line with that. It's great. It curates it for us.

What the government is saying with Bill C-10 is that, no, we don't want it curated for you, Canadians. We don't want it curated for the audience member or the user. No, this government wants to dictate what Canadians should and should not have access to. Instead of algorithms curating a platform for you, the government's going to step in and create an algorithm that's going to curate it based on what they think you should see.

That is a direct attack on freedom of expression. That is a direct attack on our charter rights to be able to access information freely, to be able to express ourselves freely, to be able to hold beliefs freely, to be able to hold opinions freely, to be able to use what is now the new public square in order to have our voices heard and to access the voices of others.

It is absolutely necessary that this bill move forward only with this protective mechanism in place, with the protection of content. Content that people post online should not be regulated by the government.

We already have the Criminal Code in place, which of course protects Canadians by making sure that child pornography, let's say, is not posted online, for sure. That type of legislation is appropriate, but to put legislation in place that will rate, somehow, the Canadianness of something, and then determine whether or not it gets to be posted and where it falls in the queue, is inappropriate. That is totally inappropriate. It is extremely dictatorial. It's an affront to democracy.

Numerous experts have spoken out and said that, so why we're even having this conversation is a mystery to me. It's a no-brainer. We live in a democracy. We live in a free society. We believe people's voices should be heard. I mean, this is the government that keeps saying diversity is our strength. This is their chance to stand by that statement. If diversity is truly our strength, then why wouldn't we want to celebrate diversity of thought, diversity of artistic expression, diversity of creativity? This bill will quelch that like never before.

This amendment is needed in order to protect the content that so many post online. This amendment is needed to protect those individuals who wish to access that content freely. Without this amendment, this bill is an absolute disaster. It is an attack on the Canadian people and their freedom.

I'll end there for now.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I've been looking forward to moving amendment CPC-9.1 for nearly a week now. I'll read it first and then explain why I was so eager to present it.

This amendment proposes that Bill C-10, in clause 7, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 8 the following:

9.2 This Act does not apply in respect of

(a) programs that are uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service—who is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them—for transmission or retransmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service; and

(b) online undertakings whose broadcasting consists only of such programs.

With your permission, I'd like to present a summary and history of the bill.

As the minister noted, Bill C-10 was introduced last November. Everyone had been waiting for this bill, under which the Canadian government, through the CRTC, would regulate digital broadcasters such as Netflix, Spotify and Disney+—the ones the minister has named from the start—in a way that would be fair and equitable for so-called conventional broadcasters such as CTV, CBC/Radio-Canada, TVA, global and others. The same would be true for the various radio stations, CBC/Radio-Canada and commercial stations.

Although the government has been in power for six years now, this much anticipated bill wasn't introduced until last November. As has been noted on numerous occasions, the committee has worked hard not to slow down proceedings. We even agreed to conduct a pre-study of the bill in committee both to avoid delays and to enable members to express their views on it in the House of Commons. Discussing a bill in the House is an entirely legitimate process, and it's a member's privilege to do so. It was all the more legitimate in the case of Bill C-10 because we'd been waiting for it for so long and it contained significant flaws, as may be seen from the number of amendments. The witnesses who've appeared, even those who have wholeheartedly supported the bill from the start, have recommended many amendments, and speakers who completely opposed the bill naturally had many amendments as well.

As a result, nearly 120 amendments have been introduced by all political parties and even by the government itself. In fact, nearly one quarter of those amendments have come from the government. The Bloc québecois has introduced 37, the Green Party 37, the NDP 14 and the Conservative Party 15 or so. That's excluding all the other amendments that have been introduced along the way.

A key event occurred a few weeks ago in the course of this process:section 4.1, which was initially included in Bill C-10, was deleted, which raised red flags for many experts. Michael Geist, in particular, discussed it, and I would note that other experts of course expressed views that differed from his. My Bloc québécois colleague said so as well when we finally got a chance to hear from the experts following the presentations of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Experts for and against Bill C-10 have thus come and told us what they thought of it since proposed section 4.1 was deleted. The bill then turned into something completely different. It wasn't just about digital broadcasters anymore; it was also about social media, platforms and related applications.

Once again I'd like to note that many experts have spoken. An attempt is under way to make us believe that the cultural sector is at war with free speech and net neutrality advocates. There's no such war between those two camps, contrary to what the government would have us believe. We of the Conservative Party think we can reconcile the two concepts, as other countries have done.

It's clear in our minds that the government must support the cultural sector. It also has to pass a bill to ensure that digital and conventional broadcasters are treated fairly. However, I think the government was mistaken in deleting proposed section 4.1 because, in doing so, it attacks users and the content they upload to the Internet.

So the committee's proceedings were brought to a halt. I want to make it clear that, if the government, at the outset, had accepted our initial proposal, that it invite the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, we would only have wasted about 48 hours, but the Liberals opposed that proposal.

Thanks to our teamwork, however, we finally managed to succeed. It was even a Liberal member, Mr. Housefather, who submitted a new proposal similar in tenor to what we had initially requested. After the committee's proceedings had been halted for nearly three weeks, we ultimately heard once again from the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and, to our delight, some experts also came and gave us their opinions.

However, people are still raising red flags. Many wonder about all the powers being conferred on the CRTC. They say we want to give the CRTC even more powers. At the same time, experts who had previously worked at the CRTC told us it was unacceptable to delete proposed section 4.1 from the bill from the get-go.

I'm thinking of Timothy Denton, who was commissioner of the CRTC from 2009 to 2013, and Konrad von Finckenstein, the CRTC's president from 2007 to 2012. Peter Menzies, who was vice-president for telecommunications at the CRTC from 2013 to 2018, even said this was a full-fledged attack on freedom of expression and the very foundation of democracy. In his view, it's hard to contemplate the levels of hubris, incompetence or both that would lead people to believe such an infringement of rights is justifiable. He was talking about the minister. I'm also thinking of Michel Morin, who was national commissioner of the CRTC from 2008 to 2012, and Philip Palmer, general counsel at the Department of Justice and head of legal services at the Department of Communications from 1987 to 1994. These are sound, reliable people.

We also had professors such as Michael Geist, whom we all know, but also Emily Laidlaw, professor of law at the University of Calgary, and Dwayne Winseck, professor at Carleton University.

Artists and web influencers also expressed their opposition. In particular, Mike Ward, an occasionally controversial Quebec artist, made a public statement on the subject on social media.

This is a bill that challenges the very basis of net neutrality. It has to be said that, if we agreed to regulate the Internet this way, it would be a global first because no country has gone this far.

We can even raise questions about discoverability. I'm speaking to Quebec francophones here: if other countries like France, which has 67 million inhabitants, or other countries in the Francophonie, which have 400 million, decided to do the same thing, artists here at home would lose their discoverability potential. There are approximately 9 million or 10 million of us francophones in Canada.

According to an article in Le Devoir, artists from my region clearly question what the government is doing on social media. They wonder how the government can consider regulating, through an agency, platforms that constantly update in real time. YouTube, for example, can update more than 500 times a day.

With regard to net neutrality, it's important to note that the Prime Minister said in 2017 that net neutrality had to be defended. When she was Minister of Canadian Heritage, Mélanie Joly stated in her cultural policy that the government was in favour of the principle of net neutrality. Navdeep Bains, while Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, said that net neutrality was one of the crucial issues of our time, just as freedom of the press and freedom of expression had been.

At 6:18 p.m. on May 22, 2018, the present Minister of Justice, but at the time parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, told the House of Commons the following:

It is clear that the open Internet is a remarkable platform for economic growth, innovation, and social progress in Canada and around the world. It is essential to a modern digital economy and society. Many activities depend on it, including access to health care, education, employment, entertainment, and more. More broadly, it is vital for freedom of expression, diversity, and our democratic institutions. A flourishing and vibrant democracy is possible only when citizens are able to communicate and access information freely.

It was the Government of Canada, the Liberals, who said these things.

Consequently, we want to give the committee, in all the work we're doing, an opportunity to adopt a provision that would compensate for the deletion of initially proposed section 4.1. That would be like putting a band-aid on Bill C-10, which we believe is fundamentally flawed.

We hear a lot of groups talking. They're entitled to do so, and, I should point out, they represent a lot of people. I'm thinking, in particular, of Quebec's artistic sector, which legitimately advocates in favour of Bill C-10 given the impact it might have on its network. However, I want to clarify one point, and I'd really like everyone, including the people watching us on the web, to listen closely to what I'm about to say.

When the minister introduced Bill C-10, even before proposed section 4.1 was deleted, he said in his interviews, even on Tout le monde en parle, that digital broadcasters such as Netflix, Spotify and Disney+ were going to invest nearly $800 million by 2023, if I'm not mistaken, in Canadian anglophone and francophone content, particularly in Quebec francophone productions and first nations productions.

Incidentally, it took us months to access the calculations that yielded those figures. The minister said that the assumption used in the calculations was that the same rules would be applied as those applicable to our conventional broadcasters, but that would depend on what the CRTC decided in the following nine months. So we have no guarantee on that if the bill is adopted. However, the minister made that statement before proposed section 4.1 was deleted, and thus before social media were included in the bill, with all the consequences that entails for net neutrality and freedom of expression. These are two principles that are currently missing and that many fiercely advocate.

If we adopt amendment CPC-9.1, we'll find ourselves back where we started. If the government sincerely wants to help the cultural sector and allow this alleged investment of $800 million or $900 million—the minister even said in some interviews that it might be as much as $1 billion—it has to support this amendment because, otherwise, we'll wind up exactly where it initially said we would.

If it doesn't, I invite the minister to provide us with some new figures. If all the digital platforms and applications are included, it won't be just $800 million or $900 million. Given the rule of three, and considering what he's told us, it'll be much more than that, and so much the better for the artists.

Whatever the case may be, given the deletion of proposed section 4.1 and the government's stubbornness, I think we're jeopardizing this bill.

We're talking about the cultural sector right now. However, we received a document last week. I know the members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage receive a lot of documents, so I can understand why some haven't read them all. Last week, we received a document from the British Columbia Library Trustees Association, an organization that supports and represents trustees in advancing public libraries. I want to emphasize that it represents public not private libraries. This letter was sent on May 13, 2021, and it's one of the documents that all members of the Standing Committee of Canadian Heritage have received. The organization also took the trouble to send it to me personally, with copies to the British Columbia members of Parliament from all parties. The letter reads as follows:

The British Columbia Library Trustees Association, or BCLTA, founded in 1977, is a not-for-profit society and registered charity. As the association for public library trustees in British Columbia, BCLTA supports and represents trustees in their role of overseeing libraries (which have a collective annual budget of over $0.25 billion.

The BCLTA board has been following the discourse regarding Bill C-10 and is sending this letter to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, with copies to all British Columbia MPs, to communicate our concerns regarding the recent exclusion of clause 4.1(1) from Bill C-10.

The BCLTA board endorses freedom of expression as a core principle of Canadian librarianship. Public libraries are impartial collectors and distributors of knowledge in its many forms, including Internet social media. Because public libraries are fee-free and do not require membership, Canadians regard their local libraries as being key to supporting intellectual freedom and open communication. For many Canadians, their public library is the only place where they can participate in online discourse or create and publish end-user content.

This makes the Internet an essential tool for Canadians exercising their right to freedom of speech. Accordingly, the BCLTA board believes CRTC regulation should not be expanded to include Internet platforms such as YouTube and TikTok, which are just two examples of where Canadians may post content. Clause 4.1(1) allows for the exemption of end-user content from regulation by CRTC.

The BCLTA board encourages the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to press for the reinstatement of clause 4.1(1) of Bill C-10.

Why did I read this letter to you? I could've read many other letters that we've received from associations and organizations that have questions about Bill C-10, particularly since proposed section 4.1 was deleted, because that's when a break occurred. Things were very calm before that. People weren't particularly interested in the bill, except those directly concerned by it.

This letter is just one of the many we've received from thousands of Canadians across country. Setting aside partisanship, our responsibility is to represent all Canadians: Quebeckers and the citizens of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. In short, we represent Canadians across the country.

I heard the minister attempt to portray those who are fighting for this part of Bill C-10 as people who are opposed to culture. When he attacks us as he has done—and I think he has done so in a crass manner—he attacks all the people and experts who have an opinion different from that of the government. That scares me because freedom of expression is at stake. It is incomprehensible that a minister should make such comments when people legitimately make every effort to ask the right questions. Members of Parliament aren't the only ones who have questions; so do organizations like the British Columbia Library Trustees Association, as well as web artists, influencers and users. Approximately 25,000 Canadians currently earn a living from the web without belonging to any association. I'm talking about the artists who create their works without seeking any subsidies from the government. They do their work and live out their passion.

As I said in one of my speeches, this subject is of deep concern to me. Despite the criticism and attacks that have come my way, I haven't gone to bed troubled one single night since we began debating Bill C-10. I've never found it hard to fall asleep because I'm doing what I think, in my soul and conscience, is best, based on all the information I have gathered since we began studying the bill.

I therefore ask members of the committee to let us move this bill forward. I also ask them to cross their fingers and hope the government doesn't call an election. The fact of the matter is that, if an election is held in the fall before this bill has been passed, it won't the Conservatives' fault. We already know that NDP and Bloc québécois members ultimately want to vote for it, and I'd remind you that the government's in the minority.

If the bill is passed, it will be for one single reason. Although the government has had six years to work on it, Minister Guilbeault failed by deleting proposed section 4.1 one Friday afternoon without even consulting us. He failed to keep us informed and didn't work with us, as he had done from the start in addressing this bill. He delayed the process for three weeks before ultimately deciding to come back and testify before the committee, together with the Minister of Justice, in order to advance the proceedings. Now the Liberal government is making every attempt to call an election in the fall. So it will be a lost cause, despite all the work we've done.

If we want the essential aspects of this bill to advance, even though it's imperfect, whether we're for or against certain parts of it, completely for or completely against, if we want to respect all the speakers who raised yellow, orange and red flags, the least we can do is adopt amendment CPC-9.1.

This is a fundamental issue for us. I hope our discussions will help us achieve that result. I'm eager to hear what you all have to say on the subject, not only my Conservative colleagues, but also the members of the other parties. Even though we have differing views on certain points, I know you have opinions on the subject. It's important that you express them if we are to move forward.

We still have many amendments to examine as part of our study of the bill, as imperfect as it may be. To those who feel the bill has been delayed by the Conservatives, I repeat that we have brought the fewest of the some 120 amendments that have been introduced. Apart from our own, amendments have been introduced by the Green Party—and I'm pleased to see the committee unanimously decided to allow the Green Party to take part in the process—by the Bloc québécois, by the NDP and by the government itself. Just imagine, the government brought forward amendments to its own bill. You have to believe all those amendments will help us come up with an acceptable bill.

I'll conclude with one final comment, because I want to give everyone a chance to speak to amendment CPC-9.1 today.

If the government had first listened to the discussions during the clause-by-close consideration of the bill in committee and had appropriately adapted the section 4.1 it was proposing, we would not be where we are today. If the government and its minister had made a cooperative effort right up to the end, as they wanted to do at the very start, we would not be where we are today. If the government had properly done its work over the past six years, we would not be where we are today. And if the government had not signalled that there might be an election in the fall, we would not be where we are today either.

I am asking the members of the committee to adopt amendment CPC-9.1 so we can continue moving forward in our study of this bill.

Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing me to present this amendment to the members of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome back, everybody, to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. This is meeting number 38.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 16, 2021, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Once again, I'd like to ask everyone for their patience. Let's try not to to talk all over each other because it gets very confusing for the people watching. It gets even more confusing for the people who are taking the record of what we are saying. I appreciate your patience in that.

(On clause 7)

Let's dive right into where we left off last Friday. We are now coming up on an amendment put forward by the Conservative Party. That's CPC-9.1, if we all want to turn to our documents.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Perhaps I'll just start by taking a step back and reminding the committee that Bill C-10 proposes transitioning from a licence-based model to what we have called a conditions of service type of model. The bill proposes that conditions of service, which could be through orders at proposed section 9.1, regulations at proposed section 10 or proposed section 11.1, not be necessarily time limited.

To Mr. Waugh's point, which is a good one right now, we know that licence renewal is the key point when the CRTC tends to turn its magnifying glass on a particular organization and look at compliance. Bill C-10 proposes a shift from that as well, in the sense that, as the committee knows, it's proposing the introduction of an administrative monetary penalty regime. That would allow the CRTC, at any point in time, to call a broadcasting undertaking before it if there's a question of compliance and potentially subject them to an AMP if they're found not compliant. The goal is also to shift the CRTC to a more regular kind of enforcement footing as opposed to waiting for seven years before a licence is up for renewal before it looks at some of those compliance issues.

Mr. Shields, indeed the bill does apply to a broader scope of undertakings, including online undertakings, as the committee knows well. The bill allows the CRTC to amend an order of its own motion or at the request of a party at any time. Again, the position is that, once an order's in place, it's not set in stone.

From that perspective, the amendment on the table, in proposed subsection 9.1(1.1), confirms what would already be the case—that the CRTC has the ability to amend an order. As I highlighted, it's proposed subsection 9.1(1.2), though, that suggests that the CRTC would be under an obligation to renew an order for a period not exceeding seven years. It again raises the question of whether it's workable or effective to require the CRTC to look at every single order that it may have on the books on a recurring seven-year basis, as opposed to identifying the biggest impact orders in terms of those that may need to be reviewed because of a change in technology, a change in business models or those kinds of things.

I hope that helps answer your question, Mr. Shields.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

If I understand what's taking place, Mr. Rayes has tabled an amendment that alludes to a future amendment that introduces, I think, something along the lines of a public interest test for the corporation.

The changes with respect to CBC/Radio-Canada in Bill C-10, as it was tabled, were very limited in the sense that the government acknowledged that there were recommendations in the Yale report with respect to CBC/Radio-Canada, but that it was not including CBC/Radio-Canada within the scope of Bill C-10 for the most part and that the role and mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada would be looked at in a future phase of reform.

The only change that was made that affected CBC/Radio-Canada flows from the expansion of the CRTC's jurisdiction over online undertakings. Right now, the mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada refers specifically to radio and television. There is a limited change being made in that context to talk about broadcasting services more broadly, to reflect the fact that CBC obviously operates as CBC Gem and ICI TOU.TV, and those are online undertakings. To ensure that the CRTC would have jurisdiction over those was the only change we proposed that affects CBC/Radio-Canada in Bill C-10.

Flowing from that, Mr. Chair, indirectly of course, CBC/Radio-Canada would also be subject to the AMP regime, the administrative monetary penalty regime, that's been put in place. All broadcasters, for example CBC/Radio-Canada, would be subject to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Before we discuss this any further, I would like to ask a question. I get to do that once in a while.

Mr. Ripley, feel free to pass this to any one of your other officials, but again, I'll keep this within the realm of the officials. My question is quite succinct. This goes to the mandate of the CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

In the form of the original bill, how does Bill C-10 affect the mandate of the CBC?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I'm going to keep my turn this time. I have something else to say, but I'd like to comment on the motion.

We have seven meetings left. If I understand correctly, four of them are to review reports. That leaves us three meetings.

Furthermore, we are aware that Ms. Shanahan may be putting forward a motion today.

Top of mind are the people watching us and following our proceedings. The purpose of the original motion, adopted in December, was to meet with the owners and executives of Pornhub. Naturally, once we started looking into the matter, we wanted to go deeper. Unfortunately, the committee doesn't meet five days a week or have 20 hours of meeting time a week. My biggest concern is finalizing the reports. Let's be frank: we could take longer. After all, the committee has gone over the time allotted in the past.

We have three meetings left. I'm sure my fellow members have suggestions on how we can end the session on as good of a note as we started it on. I won't go on about it, but I am quite concerned about the committee's ability to be effective, on behalf of those who are counting on us. We need to respect the purview of each committee. A committee can study an issue inside and out. As mentioned, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women took a different approach in the case of Pornhub, deciding to apply a different lens. The same is true in this case: the committee is examining Bill C-10.

I just want to be sure that the right work is being done at the right place.

That is my first concern.

[Philippe Méla]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the French version, as pointed out by Mr. Housefather, indeed, there are explanations at the end, after the quotation marks. There are two lines of explanation that don't belong in the subamendment, so that would be that.

In terms of the lines, it says:

"Que le projet de loi C-10, à l'article 7, soit modifié par substitution, à la ligne 2, page 8 [...]"

That would be, in fact, line 40 on page 7, because you removed the term “radiodiffusion” in French, so the amendment needs to start at “radiodiffusion” and takes off “services de”. Otherwise, you would have “services de services de radiodiffusion” once it was all included in the text of the bill.

The other problem is that the text you have received from Mr. Aitchison is the text once the amendment of Mr. Champoux is amended, where you need to vote on the subamendment first and then, if adopted, the amendment as amended. There are two things here. If you vote on the amendment as proposed by Mr. Aitchison—what you have received—the French incorporates the whole thing. The English incorporates the whole thing as well, rather than having subamendments as it should be.

Basically, in English it should read that the amendment be amended by adding after “broadcasting services”, the following...and that would be “excluding social media” and so on. Then it would continue that the amendment be amended by adding after “Canadian programming”, the following.... Then you would vote on that. If that's adopted, then you would vote on the amendment as amended, which would look like what Mr. Aitchison sent us.

I hope that's clear.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm speaking to my motion today to invite Mr. Steven Guilbeault, the Minister of Heritage, to come to the ethics and privacy committee to testify on the plans that are being led through the heritage department to deal with the allegations of non-consensual sexual assault videos that exist on PornHub.

At the April 12 ethics meeting, we were informed by security minister Bill Blair that the government of Mr. Trudeau will “introduce legislation to create a new regulator that will ensure online platforms remove harmful content, including depictions of child sexual exploitation and intimate images that are shared without consent” and that “Public Safety Canada and other departments are working on this proposed legislation with Canadian Heritage, which leads this effort.”

We have had no indication of what this new regulator is and I think we need clarity.

I would just step back a minute and say that this all stems from the December 2020 reports that came out of the United States on horrific abuse of children and sexual assault victims on PornHub, a company that is based in Canada. We began our study at that time to see if our laws were insufficient or if there was a problem. We asked the RCMP to come. The RCMP have made it clear that they are not moving forward with allegations against PornHub. They've talked about their being a partner. They've talked about voluntary compliance.

I received the RCMP's internal briefing documents in response to the December 2020 article, and in that document, it talks about what next steps have to be done and it mentions the leadership of the heritage department. My office asked the RCMP to send us the blacked-out information to explain why the RCMP is deferring to Mr. Guilbeault's office. My staff was told that this would breach cabinet confidence.

What that tells me is that after the December 2020 article came out in The New York Times on PornHub, this issue was discussed at the cabinet of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and a decision was made then to have Mr. Steven Guilbeault and the heritage department handle this file, rather than transferring it over to police, to the Attorney General or to public security.

I think this is really important. We cannot finish our PornHub study without knowing what exactly the government's plan is, because we have Bill C-10 right now that Mr. Guilbeault is in charge of, and I think the government shocked everybody when they decided to put user-generated content under Bill C-10. I've talked to many arts organizations that were shocked that Bill C-10 includes user-generated content. It is nothing that the artists' community wanted. They want Facebook and Google to pay their share. Where is this user-generated content coming from? Is this to address the allegations the survivors brought to us on PornHub?

If that is the case, Mr. Guilbeault needs to explain that, because I don't think you could disrespect survivors in any more of an egregious fashion than to suggest that sexual assault videos or videos of the torture of children that were brought forward to our committee are somehow considered user-generated content in Canada. What does that say to survivors? What does that say to the women of the global south who I have been meeting with, who are speaking from Nigeria, Colombia, Spain and France, talking about the sexual assault videos from their countries that are being posted on a Canadian site?

Are the Liberals telling us that they consider sexual assault and criminal acts mere content that can be handled by a regulator? Are they going to hand it off to the CRTC under Bill C-10, or are they going to create a new pornography regulator? I would like to know what that pornography regulator would be, because, again, I had excellent meetings following the debacle of our meetings with the sex workers, and Ms. Lukings provided really interesting analysis of how what we want to do is to make sure we hold corporations accountable for what's online, but we don't want to push stuff to the dark net.

If the Liberals have this idea that Mr. Guilbeault could set up some kind of regulator to tell us—I don't know—Canadian content in porn, good porn, bad porn.... Do we need a regulator or do we simply need the Liberal government to apply the laws?

We can look at the laws we have in Canada. In section 162 of the Criminal Code, it is a crime to film the private acts of individuals or people without their consent. It is a crime to circulate, to sell, to advertise or to make available the recording. We have a law. In section 163, sexual videos of crime, cruelty and violence are classified as criminal in behaviour. We heard from the survivors of non-consensual sexual assault videos that their videos were videos of crime, cruelty and violence. Section 164 gives the authorities, which would be the RCMP, the power to issue warrants to seize the recordings of voyeuristic videos of crimes as well as child pornography.

We have mandatory reporting laws. We have learned that Pornhub has not followed through on them. Pornhub has not respected the laws we have in this country.

The Attorney General doesn't seem to even think it applies, because he's not sure if this Montreal-based company is a Canadian company. If the Attorney General, who lives in Montreal, isn't sure that Pornhub is a Canadian company, even though their address is on Décarie Boulevard and everybody in Montreal who goes to work passes their office in the morning, then how are we expected to believe that the CRTC or some kind of regulator will handle this?

I think Mr. Guilbeault needs to come and explain this to us. What is the government's plan for dealing with the issues of sexual violence on Pornhub that have come to our committee? Are we going to ignore Canadian law or are we going to establish the CRTC to do this? Is this going to be Bill C-10 or...? Mr. Blair suggested that they're going to create a new regulator.

I think Mr. Guilbeault needs to come and inform us so that we can actually finish a report on what Parliament needs to do to address these disturbing allegations of brutality and non-consensual sexual assault of women, not just from Canada but from around the world. We need to be able to respond to those survivors and to the Canadian people that we've done our job. We cannot do that job without Mr. Guilbeault coming and explaining why he is the lead person appointed by the Trudeau government to address these very serious allegations.

I'd like to bring that motion forward for a vote.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad to see you again, friends and colleagues.

Amendment BQ-23 concerns a provision that, under Bill C-10, would be added to the Broadcasting Act to give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission the necessary verification tools to meet the regulation-related requests it receives. Among other things, persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings are asked to grant the CRTC access to certain information. With this amendment, we wish to clarify, in proposed subparagraph 9.1(1)(j)(v), that the information on broadcasting services includes “any information related to any means of programming control.” We would also like to add subparagraph 9.1(1)(j)(vi) to include “information related to any means of promoting, recommending or selecting programming, including Canadian programming.”

I think it's important that we give the CRTC the necessary tools to verify whether persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings meet the requirements set for them.

I'm open to discussion and await your comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome, everybody. It's been a bit of a break, but we're all back here at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage discussing, once again, clause-by-clause of Bill C-10.

This is meeting number 37. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 16, 2021, and the motion adopted by the committee on May 10, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-10.

Today’s meeting takes place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. I would like to remind everyone on board that screenshots or taking photos of your screen are not permitted. Also when you are not speaking your mike should be on mute. You all know that.

Since we are doing clause-by-clause, I'll give just a quick reminder. If you go back to the documents you have here, you will see in the top right-hand corner—for the people who are watching from all around the world or at least all around the World Wide Web in our universe—if I say PV and a number, PV stands for Parti vert, which is a Green Party-proposed amendment. If it says CPC, that would be a Conservative Party-proposed amendment. NDP would be from the New Democrats. BQ would be from the Bloc Québécois. Of course, LIB is from the Liberal members on our committee. Finally, if an amendment has G and a number attached to it, that is a proposed amendment from the government.

(On clause 7)

If you go back to our regularly scheduled programming, you will see that we are currently on BQ-23.

For that, we're going to go to Mr. Champoux.

Canadian Heritage

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

Madam Speaker, three weeks ago, I asked the heritage minister why he removed the clause in Bill C-10 that exempted what Canadians post online from government regulation. The minister's answer was that I should read the bill. Patronizing remark aside, that same minister has since admitted that Canadians posting online with enough views will, in fact, be regulated.

Which is it? Will Canadians be regulated online or not?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, once again, the Broadcasting Act has not been modernized in over 30 years. Bill C-10 is about bringing us that update, and it is an important update that will support Canadian jobs and Canadian creators.

If the member would like to, he can continue to follow the debate and work with us to help our creators, but the Conservatives have been vowing to block this law from going ahead since before it even went to committee. This is about web giants contributing to our creators. Why will the Conservatives not help us to make that happen?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, heritage department memos reveal that Bill C-10 has the potential to grant the CRTC regulatory powers to affect online services, including sports streaming, news sites, podcasts and apps. The Liberals are still pressing for the bill to be passed, which would cause tech giants to pass down the tax increase costs to my Bow River constituents by 50%, approximately.

Why did the minister ignore his department officials and proceed to present this destructive bill that will pick winners and losers based on unknown criteria?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-10 is about modernizing the Broadcasting Ac, which has not been updated in 30 years. That is before streaming services became a part of the way that Canadians found their shows, movies and music and it needed an update. However, from the very beginning, before the bill even went to committee, the Conservatives vowed to block this law from going ahead. The Conservatives have been against web giants contributing to the creation of Canadian stories from the beginning. Why?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, a well-read answer. I really wish the individual who just answered would stop trying to mislead Canadians.

The Internet is an amazing tool that allows Canadian artists to explode in popularity around the world. With Bill C-10, the Liberals are attempting to build a wall around Canadian creators. The problem is, on average, 90% of their audience is from outside of Canada. By creating a so-called protective wall around them, the Liberals are actually imprisoning them, thereby quashing their ability to succeed.

When will the minister stand up for all Canadian artists and scrap Bill C-10?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, the only obligations in Bill C-10 for social media companies are for the companies themselves, not individuals. The proposed obligations for the companies are restricted to having them advise the Canada Revenue Agency, contribute a portion of those revenues to Canadian production and make those creators discoverable.

Nothing in the bill asks social media companies to hide content. It is about requiring web giants that make money in our country to contribute to our Canadian shows, movies and music. Why would we let web giants make money from Canadians and not contribute back?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the minister once again tries to mislead the House and the Canadian public. The bill would result in discrimination against some Canadians. It is clear the Liberals no longer advocate for net neutrality; they think discrimination is okay so long as the government is the one doing it.

Here is the thing. We cannot lift one group of artists up by tearing another group of artists down, which is exactly what Bill C-10 is trying to do. The heritage minister is attempting to pick winners and losers. Will he change course, do the right thing and scrap Bill C-10?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-10 is about having web giants, like Netflix, contribute to the creation of Canadian productions. It is about Canadian jobs and Canadian artists. Bill C-10 does not deal with Internet service providers in any way. There is nothing in Bill C-10 that would allow or support in any way that Internet service providers could block people from accessing a service like Skype, or slow down a service like Netflix or YouTube in order to encourage someone to buy a different streaming service.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the minister likes to use the word “expect” a whole lot in her answers, but what I have noticed is that the government refuses to hold them accountable. Let us move onto a different topic.

The principle of net neutrality is that everyone's content online is treated the same way. It means no favouritism. The government used to respect this principle, but that is not true anymore. With Bill C-10, the government will boost some content and suppress other content all based on arbitrary criteria. It is completely discriminatory.

Will the minister stop trying to pick winners and losers, and leave Canadians' online content alone?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am rather shocked by my hon. colleague's question. I did not hear the Bloc Québécois speak out in forums all across the country against the Conservative Party and in support of Bill C-10.

I spoke with over 4,000 artists from across the country over the last few months, and they told me they want Bill C-10 to be passed.

We are doing everything we can. Obviously, the bill is in the hands of the committee. We are working with a party that does not want to collaborate and that has said in the past that it did not want this bill to see the light of day.

There is a certain guile—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, he said it is a top priority. We will keep that in mind.

Not long ago on Tout le monde en parle, the Minister of Canadian Heritage seemed open to working with the Bloc Québécois leader to expedite passage of Bill C-10, but it has been radio silence since then.

The Liberals are refusing to discuss this issue with the Conservatives, and the cultural industry is paying a heavy price for their ideological unwillingness to communicate. It is paralyzing committee work. The committee wants two ministers to appear. One agreed to show up, but the other requires some arm-twisting. The committee called for a new Charter statement, but the Minister of Justice decided that was not really necessary. We are reaching out, but that arm is starting to get a little tired.

When the government tells the cultural sector that Bill C-10 is a priority, does it really mean that?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the National Assembly of Quebec is calling on Parliament to pass Bill C-10. Quebec's cultural sector is calling on Parliament to pass Bill C-10. The Bloc Québécois is telling the government that it will do everything it can to get Bill C-10 passed.

We do this is in the spirit of collaboration, but the government does not seem to be in any hurry. It does not seem to be taking this very seriously, and I must admit that we are concerned. What is the government doing to ensure that the modernization of the Broadcasting Act gets passed?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our nation has a legacy of being a prime destination for immigrants and refugees because we enjoy many liberties and freedoms here that many around the world do not have the luxury of. Things such as freedom of expression, religion and choice and free enterprise make us a beacon of hope and prosperity for many. However, that is under attack with the Liberal government's Bill C-10.

The government flaunts supporting diversity in media and representation, but the bill could affect many ethnic and marginalized media outlets that have small budgets. This bill muzzles freedom of speech and expression. This is similar to what dictatorships do to their citizens. The heritage minister's agenda to silence ethnic and marginalized groups is unacceptable.

I stand here today for freedom and for diversity in media, and against Bill C-10.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona for all her work she does on the heritage committee, where we are currently studying Bill C-10.

She is right. There is no help at all for the oil and gas industry in Saskatchewan and Alberta. We need to diversify. Both provinces know that, particularly Alberta, because of its situation it is under right now, but the government has really avoided western Canada. I was looking at the polls today. They were shut out in Alberta and Saskatchewan for a very good reason in the last election, and they are going to be shut out again. They have absolutely forgotten about western Canada, and we are going to make them play next time in the province of Manitoba.

Canadian Heritage

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, despite the Conservatives' attacks on Quebec and Canadian creators, we want to emphasize that an individual who posts on social media platforms will never be considered a broadcaster under Bill C-10.

The obligations that apply to the web giants will not apply to Canadian users. This protection is clearly set out in clause 2.1 of the bill.

Why do the Conservatives continue to hammer on this? It is simply because they do not support Canada's cultural industry.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame to see Conservatives attacking the Canadian cultural industry once again.

Justice Canada's analysis confirms that Bill C-10 remains consistent with the charter right to freedom of expression.

Bill C-10 aims to level the playing field between Canadian creators and web giants. It requires powerful foreign broadcasters to provide information on their revenues, to contribute financially to Canadian stories and music, and to enable different audiences to experience our culture. This is what we will always strive to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, we were shocked yesterday to hear the Minister of Canadian Heritage say that Bill C-10 would not limit net neutrality in any way.

However, in Bill C-10, the Liberal government gives the CRTC more powers to regulate social networks, blogs, online gaming sites, apps and even audiobooks.

I have a very simple question for the Prime Minister. Does he believe that regulating these platforms is in keeping with the principle of net neutrality, yes or no?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, what we have demonstrated from the very beginning of our time in office in 2015 is that we are there to support Canadian content and Canadian creators right across the country, particularly after a Conservative government did nothing but attack culture and content creators, and limit the cultural industries in this country.

We will continue to stand up for producers and creators of great Canadian content right across the country. Bill C-10 is about giving the CRTC the tools to do just that in a world where people do not only get their Canadian content from CBC or CTV or on the radio.

We need to make sure we continue to support Canadian content. That is exactly what we are going to do. It is no surprise the Conservatives do not get it.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was embarrassing. There was a lot of um's and ah's and a few stumbles, yet the Prime Minister is not able to define Canadian content. He likes to talk about it a lot, though.

Let us talk a little more about Canadian creators, shall we? Brian Wyllie from Calgary is an expert gamer who has over a million followers on Twitch. Montrealer Kiana Gomes created a whole business using TikTok. Sadly, these self-made creators just are not Canadian enough to be considered artists by the Liberals. Bill C-10 would punish them, demote them and prevent them from being further successful.

Why is the Prime Minister hell-bent on punishing these ingenious creators?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Wow, Mr. Speaker, I thought the Prime Minister was going to mansplain net neutrality there for a moment, but it looks like he does not even understand the definition because he could not define it.

The Prime Minister tries to mislead Canadians by saying that Bill C-10 is against web giants and it is about promoting Canadian artists and content. Let us have some fun and do a little quiz.

There is a movie called Ultimate Gretzky. It is about none other than Canada-born Wayne Gretzky, who is often described as the greatest hockey player ever. It was also filmed largely in Canada.

Could the Prime Minister tell us if this movie is Canadian enough to pass as Canadian content?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in 2017, the Conservatives demonstrated they did not understand net neutrality, and they certainly do not understand it now.

Bill C-10 seeks to promote Canadian music, storytelling and creative works. It does not affect the work and activities of Internet service providers in Canada. It has no impact on Canada's commitment to net neutrality.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister insists on misleading the House and thereby the Canadian public.

In 2017, however, the Prime Minister was committed to defending the concept of net neutrality, which is the principle that Internet users should have equal access to all sites, all content and all applications without blocking or giving preference.

Now, he wants to put an Internet czar in place in order to promote some creators and demote others. It is wrong.

With Bill C-10, the Prime Minister is turning Canada into the most digitally regressive democracy in the world. Why?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, just as Canada's analysis confirms that Bill C-10 remains consistent with the charter's guarantee of freedom of expression, Bill C-10 aims to level the playing field between creators and web giants.

It requires big, powerful foreign streamers to provide information on their revenues in Canada, to financially contribute to Canadian stories and music, and to make it easier for individuals to discover our culture.

The bill explicitly says that obligations apply to web giants only: not to Canadian users. Web giants have gone unregulated for far too long. Our government has chosen action over reaction.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in 2018, the current Liberal Minister of Justice said, “Our government supports an open Internet where Canadians have the power to communicate freely and have access to the legal content of their choice.” That seems like a good idea.

Sadly, Bill C-10 does the exact opposite. It actually takes choice away from Canadians by dictating the content they should and should not view online. It is sneaky. It is controlling, and it is wrong. Why is the Prime Minister insisting on regulating the Internet?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I profoundly disagree with the basis of the hon. member's question, as does the Department of Justice Canada. Its analysts confirmed that Bill C-10 remains consistent with the charter's guarantee of freedom of speech.

Bill C-10 is about levelling the playing field between creators and web giants. It will require big, powerful foreign streamers to provide information on their revenues in Canada and make financial contributions to Canadian stories and music. I wonder why the Conservative Party continues to oppose this.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-10, the Liberals are opening up the door to massive abuses of Canadians' freedom of expression. The heritage minister has denied this, yet an internal memo from his own department indicates that things such as podcasts and news sites could be regulated as well. Canadians recognize a threat to freedom of expression when they see one.

Will the Prime Minister commit to Canadians that he will not regulate their social media, or will he just repeat his same old tired talking points?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, again, this is a profound misconception about what we are trying to do. In fact, the Department of Justice has stated that there is no problem with free speech in Bill C-10, and the member opposite was at the committee. She got to ask the Minister of Justice questions regarding this.

Frankly, what I cannot understand is why the Conservative Party of Canada continues to oppose the fact that we are asking some of the wealthiest companies in the world to pay their fair share when it comes to Canadian artists and Canadian musicians. I just do not understand.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, again, this is a profound misconception by the hon. member opposite. We are not regulating the Internet. We are regulating some activities on the Internet. There is a huge difference.

Bill C-10 does not affect how Internet service providers manage Internet traffic and does not modify the relevant provision in the Telecommunications Act, therefore maintaining net neutrality.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister reads his speaking notes very well, but what he is saying is actually really misleading to the Canadian public and actually quite insulting to their intelligence.

Net neutrality ensures that all Internet users are treated fairly. The Liberals once believed this principle. Now, as stated, they will say Bill C-10 has to do with web giants, but that is actually not the case.

We are talking about a bill that targets everyday Canadians in their everyday Internet use. We are talking about regulating the Internet: everything from YouTube to Facebook to TikTok, etc. It is unfair, it is undemocratic and it is incredibly regressive.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is some misconception about the concept of net neutrality because it refers to hardware: to Canadians being able to access the Internet and having these conditions be the same for all Internet users.

Bill C-10 is not about telecommunications or hardware. It is about ensuring that web giants pay their fair share and that Canadians have easy access to the content developed by Canadian creators.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The amendment moves that clause 7 of Bill C-10 be amended by adding after line 19 on page 8 the following:

9.2 This Act does not apply in respect of

(a) programs that are uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service—who is not the provider of the service or the provider's affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them—for transmission or retransmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service; and

(b) online undertakings whose broadcasting consists only of such programs.

This amendment is being introduced in an effort to work with everyone, given what happened after the removal of proposed section 4.1.

My colleague, Mr. Champoux, has asked this question several times. The minister even told us that the committee was responsible for these decisions. We would like to address the situation and dispel all lingering concerns by proposing this amendment, which applies to the place in the bill that we're studying today.

We've heard from several experts. For the past three weeks, our work has been stalled because of the unwillingness of the two ministers. Actually, I shouldn't say that. Rather, the government members on the committee didn't want the ministers to appear from the beginning. In the end, everything worked out over time. I want to acknowledge that and thank everyone.

I want to propose this amendment so that we can break the deadlock in relation to the issue of freedom of expression and the protection of content. That's why this amendment is so important today.

I hope that all my colleagues will see the value in this. I'll end on that note and let them discuss the matter. When I spoke earlier about the second subamendment proposed by Mr. Champoux, I said that, as the saying goes, you can't be too careful. I think that it would be in our interest to pass the amendment. This would show the government's willingness to protect freedom of expression and to address the current concerns of a number of people across the country.

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

It's dated May 11, 2021. I can't tell you the exact number, but it's the one that calls for clause 7 of Bill C-10 to be amended by adding after line 19 on page 8—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My second subamendment concerns paragraph (b) of amendment G-11.1, which proposes to amend clause 7 of Bill C-10 by adding subsection 9.1(3.1) after line 10 on page 8. My subamendment seeks to amend the amendment by adding the following to the end of the proposed text:

Interpretation (3.2) For greater certainty, paragraph (1)(i.1) shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression enjoyed by users of social media services provided by online undertakings.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ripley, as we move forward, new questions come to mind. I'm sorry for dragging out the discussion, Mr. Champoux, but I find that I'm learning almost more today than I've learned since the start of this study.

If we don't pass Mr. Champoux's subamendment and we go back to the government's original amendment, which talks about “the discoverability of Canadian creators of programs,” we won't know what constitutes a Canadian creator. It could be anyone. As you confirmed, Mr. Ripley, it isn't defined. The CRTC will have to define it. There's no mention of professional Canadian creators, for example. If need be, I could create my own program on social media. I'm thinking of a young Quebecker who created his own program, 7 jours sur Terre, and who is followed by thousands of people. He even has his own subscription system. This has become a side gig for him, or maybe it's his main job. I have no idea. Thousands of people follow him in real time.

Since the original proposed section 4.1 was removed from the bill three weeks ago, the government has been telling us that users aren't affected by Bill C-10, even without that section. Over the course of our discussion, questions have been coming to mind. I'm thinking as I'm talking to you. I can see that, in proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(i.1), the government is asking for, “in relation to online undertakings that provide a social media service, the discoverability of Canadian creators of programs.” So, indirectly, if a Canadian were to create their own program on social media for fun, the CRTC would be asked to determine whether to ensure the discoverability of that program and, if so, to establish how to do this. Is that right?

For three weeks now, the minister has been telling everyone that users aren't affected by this bill after the removal of proposed section 4.1. However, I can see the intention to reinstate a provision in the bill that could directly affect users. In any event, I'm raising the issue.

Do I understand this properly?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ripley, we are bombarding you with questions, but I think they are quite relevant.

At first sight, when Mr. Champoux proposed the first part of his subamendment, its aim was to replace “Canadian creators of programs” with “Canadian programs”, and I saw this as a simple superficial amendment. However, I have listened to your comments, especially those in response to Ms. Harder's questions. The further we get, the more she is showing her knowledge on the topic, and the more I am finding that the amendment is not just a superficial one. It is rather an important amendment. I am happy Mr. Champoux agreed to divide his subamendment in two, so that we can vote.

I would like you to clarify something for me.

At first, when Bill C-10 was introduced, the objective was for the activities of digital broadcasters, such as Netflix, Disney+ and Spotify, to be regulated in a fair manner compared with the activities of our so–called traditional broadcasters, such as TVA, CBC, CTV and Global. The basis of the bill is very technical; we can see that in all the proposed amendments, the scope of this issue and the reactions to it around the country.

To ensure that I understand properly, I would like you to explain something to me, as this will impact my response to this subamendment. As you pointed out, everything we are trying to do is related to the initially proposed section 4.1. The government is trying to integrate elements to compensate for the shortcomings stemming from this section's deletion. The rift occurred when social media were brought into the discussion. In the beginning, it was a matter of digital broadcasters like Netflix, which is not a social network such as Facebook or TikTok. Now, YouTube, TikTok and all social networks have been integrated as potential broadcasters.

As you pointed out so well, the bill provides no definition of social media. You say that the CRTC will define what constitutes a social medium and what constitutes a Canadian program. I think we all agree on what a Canadian program is when it comes to traditional broadcasters. Those rules have been in place for a long time. Now, the Internet has joined the conversation. For me, Netflix is on the Internet. However, a social network is another type of platform. We always talk about the same social networks we, the old generation, are familiar with; I will put all of us into the old generation category. My children, who are 19, 23 and 25 years old, use other social networks that I dare not even mention, as I may get the name wrong. The youth are using them by the millions around the world.

I am honestly a bit shaken today, and I would like you to clarify this for me. Without a definition, we are all relying on the CRTC. Unless I am mistaken, the corporation has nine months following the passing of Bill C-10 to set out clear rules. Is that right? Do I understand the situation correctly or am I completely off course? If so, tell me, and I will accept it with humility.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I think that says it all, Mr. Chair.

Paragraph 9.1(1)(i.1), as proposed in the amendment, talks about “Canadian creators of programs”. However, that is not a term generally used in the texts we are now reviewing under Bill C-10. It is rather a matter of Canadian content, francophone content or programs, or even of human, creative and other resources. So I felt that the term “Canadian creators of programs” does not refer to something very specific. However, the term “Canadian programs” does refer to what we want to make discoverable for users, in the context of the Canadian broadcasting system. That is my explanation for this part of the subamendment.

As for the second part, the aim is to add wording to reassure people who may be concerned about the act being interpreted so as to infringe on freedom of expression. So this notion is added to the part on interpretation, to encourage the CRTC not to lose sight of needing to make its decisions while keeping in mind that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains a fundamental principle, that of the freedom of expression enjoyed by Canadians. As such, this is about the freedom of expression enjoyed by users of social media services provided by online undertakings.

It is pretty simple and clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Rayes.

Since G-11.1 is now moved, as Ms. Dabrusin pointed out, we are in the middle of that debate. If you wish to move a motion—I'm assuming it's about Bill C-10—that certainly falls within the purview of the committee to examine, but we have to dispense with what's on the table right now. That would be G-11.1, as far as the amendment is concerned.

In saying that, would you like to talk about G-11.1?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Dabrusin, I'm sorry, but just before you finish, I didn't have a chance to say, for all those watching on television or the Internet through our web page, that we are doing clause-by-clause on Bill C-10. I forgot to mention that this is clause-by-clause.

I'm sorry for the interruption, Ms. Dabrusin. Carry on, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 36 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Pursuant to the order of reference of February 16 and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, May 10, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

As I mentioned earlier, when we left we were with G-11.1.

I see there is a great deal of interest on the board. There are hands up.

Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead, please.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Yes, it's me again, Mr. Chair.

I would like to remind you that I asked a few questions earlier about possible remedies after a bill has been passed. Minister Lametti said that, if there are still concerns about certain sections of the legislation after a bill is passed, Canadians, individuals or groups always have a process through which to challenge its validity or constitutionality.

In the last few days, the leader of the Conservative Party has been very clear that, if elected to power, he would repeal this piece of legislation. It is understandable then that our Conservative colleagues' support for Bill C-10 is non-existent.

However, since the beginning of the work, although they do not support the bill, the Conservatives have always been willing to not interrupt, block or slow down the work, and I am absolutely grateful to them for that. Moreover, despite their opposition to the bill, their input has often been very constructive.

We stopped our study for several meetings when it would have been very important for the cultural industry and the community to move forward. We have repeatedly expressed the urgency of this bill for the cultural industry. I sincerely believe that the questions have been well answered and I am quite convinced that we will never reach a consensus. We will not agree, but, as they say,

“let's agree to disagree”,

and move on with the job we have to do. There will always be remedies available afterwards, if you feel that any of the sections of this piece of legislation actually infringe on freedom of expression.

The most important thing we have to do right now is to do our best to improve this bill and send it back to the House of Commons. We need to do this for the cultural industry, which is watching us, listening to us and pleading with us to put an end to this stalemate and move forward with the work. I think it's crucial for that industry. We must get out of this impasse.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am wondering about something and I would like to share it with everyone.

Before me, I have the motion that Mr. Housefather introduced. The first point asks the Minister of Justice “to provide a revised Charter Statement on Bill C-10.”

The minister clarified in his speech and repeatedly in his responses to questions from the Conservatives and members of other parties that this was not a revised statement from his November 18 document, but rather an explanatory document.

I would like to know whether all members of the committee really understood what the minister said. If so, I would direct your attention to the third point of the motion, which is that the committee suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2.

I am wondering. I don't know what our decision will be, but I need to have some good discussions with my colleagues on my side.

I would like to hear from the other members of the committee on this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Ms. McPherson.

Folks, that brings us to the end of this part. This is the witness testimony that we brought here today.

We want to thank both ministers for being here. We want to thank the officials who accompanied them for being here as well.

Is there any further discussion at this point about what we have heard?

I see none, other than Minister Lametti waving goodbye to us.

As you saw in the notice, tomorrow we're going to resume clause-by-clause on Bill C-10. I'm looking for input here. We're good to go, as the motion put forward by Mr. Housefather has been satisfied. Tomorrow we will proceed. We're going to be starting with proposed amendment G-11.1.

Go ahead, Monsieur Rayes.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'll have to go back to the record afterwards. I think I heard Ms. Jansen say that she may not be voting in favour of the budget, which stunned me a great deal. I think we're all very surprised by that.

I would also point Ms. Jansen and Conservative colleagues, if they wish to take a look, to the most recent data, which has regularly for the past several weeks put Canada in the very top tier—either first some days, second other days, third other days, but no worse than third—in the G20 for vaccinations per day being administered.

It's really something that I think needs to be corrected here. Yes, we can do better, of course, but we're doing extremely well right now. The effect of that rhetoric, Chair, is that it generates a sense of concern and I would say even fear that is not well placed. If we're going to be seized with issues at this committee, let's focus on the facts rather than contribute to these myths that opposition colleagues have been peddling recently.

It's a different issue altogether, but we've seen what has happened with Bill C-10, concerning which Facebook has been alive and well with conspiracy theories about censorship in recent weeks, and we all know they're not true.

I will, however, focus on the issue at hand here, Chair. I just wanted to put those points of view on the record.

Mr. Telles, thank you very much for representing youth here today. Thank you very much for being an advocate.

Ms. Dzerowicz took my question, unfortunately, which was to ask you about student debt. It was great to see that there were a number of measures put in place in budget 2021 to help students with debt. That matters a lot for me, because prior to taking on the role of a member of Parliament, I taught at Western for a number of years, where I saw students really impacted in such negative ways by student debt.

What I also saw was the mental health challenges that young people faced. I think we all know—we've heard the stories in our own communities—about the way the pandemic has exacerbated that challenge for young people. Could you speak to that? I know the budget provides a very sizable investment for mental health in this country and for improved services.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I thank my colleague for his question.

I think we have done everything the committee has asked of us. Every time the committee has asked me, I have come to testify, even twice in the last two weeks. The committee asked for clarification of the original charter statement; that was submitted last week. My colleague the Minister of Justice is here with me today. We take this bill very seriously, as I think does the entire Quebec and Canadian arts community. You may have seen the petition launched by the Union des artistes and signed by Yvon Deschamps, Claude Legault and Ariane Moffatt, among others. I could talk about the letter published in the Toronto Star last week and signed by the great international artist Loreena McKennitt.

I could also talk about the unions. Again today, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec issued a press release in support of Bill C-10. There is also the Confederation of National Trade Unions, and even Unifor, the largest union in Canada.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Ms. Dabrusin.

Earlier on in one of her questions, Ms. McPherson said that because the bill had around a hundred amendments, it was a flawed bill. That's a false premise. I know that, just like me, she's a new MP, so we're not used to this. It's not uncommon for bills to have 200 amendments. Going back in the previous Parliament, I can recall Bill C-69, which I followed closely in my previous career, had around 200 amendments. There's nothing extraordinary about that. In fact, a hundred may not be so much after all.

She pointed out that we've heard about experts who have raised concerns. I think just yesterday this committee heard from a number of experts who have actually clearly said that they thought there were no issues regarding freedom of speech. We've heard from a previous director of the CRTC, Janet Yale, and from a law professor from the Université de Montréal, Pierre Trudel.

I could quote this because I don't think it has been done in this committee and I think it is important. It's in French, so I'll switch to French. It's the unanimous resolution from the National Assembly.

The motion recognizes that Bill C-10 “constitutes a significant step in protecting and promoting Quebec culture and..., therefore, [the National Assembly of Quebec] affirms its support for the measures proposed by the bill.”

I think Bill C-10 actually has a lot of support across this country given the benefit it will bring to our artists as well as to the broadcasting ecosystem.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair, and I thank Ministers Lametti and Guilbeault for being here. I appreciate that and also I want to thank the representatives from justice and heritage for being here in this important conversation.

We've heard lots of testimony already and numerous arts organizations have come out in support of Bill C-10. Our artists are among the most fierce defenders of free speech in our society. They understand that updating this Broadcasting Act in no way infringes on the freedom of expression nor does it represent any censorship of the Internet.

Minister Lametti, I would like to hear from you. Can you explain the balanced approach that this bill takes in supporting our arts and defending free speech? Specifically, the charter statement says, “In making regulatory decisions, the [CRTC] must proportionately balance the objectives of the act with protection of freedom of expression in light of the facts and circumstances.”

Can you explain exactly what you meant by that? Is it your conclusion that the original import of the charter statement still applies and remains true?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

No, the question was not directly related to Bill C-10, Mr. Minister. It could have been about any bill.

However, this is a good example. The bill before us is more complex than just the matter of freedom of expression. I am wondering whether, after the bill is passed, people will still have an opportunity to challenge parts of it if they want to, if they are concerned or uncomfortable.

This is simply a question about procedures and how the justice system works.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

That is always the case. In fact, that's one of the reasons why I don't give legal opinions publicly, either before committees or in the House.

As I have repeatedly said, if you have specific questions about the scope of Bill C-10, I will defer to my colleague Mr. Guilbeault.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I have a question for you. I'm not necessarily looking for a legal opinion, but I would like to draw on your expertise as a lawmaker.

Once Parliament passes a bill, as may soon be the case with Bill C-10, and once that bill comes into force, can people or groups of people turn to the Federal Court or another court to challenge specific sections of the legislation they find worrisome or unconstitutional? I'm thinking of provisions they feel jeopardize their freedom of expression.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I'd like to thank the honourable member for his question.

Although it's an important question, I must say that I am here to explain the purpose of charter statements and to discuss the explanatory document we provided.

I am not here to give lessons on the charter and certainly not legal opinions. Answering a hypothetical question could lead me into very dangerous territory, as justice minister.

If you have any questions about Bill C-10, I will defer to my colleague Mr. Guilbeault.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

The legal obligation with respect to charter statements, according to section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act, is that they be tabled around the time that the bill is tabled in the House of Commons. At that point, we put it up on the website. As the committee requested a separate assessment, we produced an explanatory document based on the amendments to C-10, and we gave it to the committee because it was the committee that requested it.

It's not the charter statement that was originally tabled, so there was no need to list it on the Department of Justice website.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

As I mentioned in my opening statement, both the charter statement and the explanatory document looked at the various provisions of Bill C-10 and found that section 2(b) might be engaged, but there were various reasons given—which I outlined in my opening—to conclude that this was in conformity with section 2(b) of the charter.

Again, if there's a substantive application question, I will turn it over to Minister Guilbeault.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I have a question with regard to the charter—as to whether or not section 2(b) of the charter is actually held up by this bill—so let me explain further.

If I go to an art exhibition owned by a private individual, I expect to walk in and the art to be curated for me. Some artists are going to be given the front room; other artists are going to be given a back room. The curators are going to choose which paintings come first and which are toward, maybe, the end of the exhibition. That curation is expected because I'm going into a private gallery, and they've offered to do that for me. At the same time, however, if the government was to come in and dictate to that gallery how the art should be hung, where it should be hung or which artist should be promoted, that is censorship in its finest. The same thing is happening on our social media platforms with Bill C-10.

How does that fit within section 2(b) of the charter: to have what we post online carefully curated and censored by a government arm, the CRTC?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Minister, in the charter statement for BillC-10, clause 3, proposed section 4.1 is cited as grounds for the bill being in compliance with the charter. We know that section was removed. Experts in the industry now say that the removal of section 4.1 takes away the safeguards that were imperative to protect user-generated content.

Do you agree with that?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon.

I wish to acknowledge that I'm speaking to you today from Ottawa on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the invitation to appear before you to discuss the charter statement that was tabled for Bill C-10, as well as the explanatory document requested for the proposed amendments now before the committee.

As you can see, I'm appearing alongside Minister Guilbeault, who is the minister responsible for Bill C-10. I am accompanied by officials from my department.

I want to begin by discussing the duty I have under the law, as Minister of Justice, to prepare statements regarding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for government bills introduced in the House of Commons.

I will discuss the purpose of charter statements and provide the context, including their history. I will explain what charter statements are meant to do and not do.

I will also gladly speak to the charter statement tabled in relation to Bill C-10, as well as the explanatory document provided to the committee concerning the potential effects of the proposed amendments on freedom of expression.

I should note at the outset that it is not my role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General to give legal advice to parliamentary committees. You have access to your own legal counsel and independent witnesses.

As you are aware, however, I do have obligations under the Department of Justice Act in terms of reviewing proposed government bills for inconsistency with the charter and preparing charter statements for government bills. This obligation was created by our government to be open and transparent with Canadians about the charter considerations of our legislation.

These two sets of obligations—examining bills and preparing charter statements—are both focused on the bill as tabled.

Section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act requires the Minister of Justice to ensure that a charter statement is tabled in the House of Commons for every government bill. That obligation came into force in December 2019.

Examining bills for potential inconsistency with the charter, as set out in section 4.1, is one of my most important responsibilities. Rest assured that I also take very seriously the obligation to ensure charter statements are tabled in the House, as set out in section 4.2.

Now I will turn to the purpose of charter statements.

Charter statements are intended to inform parliamentary and public debate on a government bill. They foster transparency regarding the effects of a government bill on the fundamental values protected by the charter. They provide parliamentarians with additional information to further inform the important legislative debates they have on behalf of Canadians. Charter statements also provide Canadians with additional information to help them participate in these debates through their elected representatives.

The obligation to table charter statements is a testament to our government's commitment to respect and uphold the charter, as an integral part of the country's good governance.

We can never abdicate our responsibility as a government to ensure that our decisions—including those reflected in the reform of an act—respect our fundamental rights and freedoms. Section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act strengthens the obligation this government and future governments have to respect this most basic of requirements.

I would like to take a few moments to explain the content of charter statements. In keeping with their purpose, charter statements are drafted at a high level. They set out in an accessible way the potential effects a bill may have on the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter. Charter statements also explain considerations that support the constitutionality of a bill.

In our discussion of the charter, it is also important to stress that, when Parliament legislates, it may have an effect on charter rights and freedoms. This may include limiting people's enjoyment or exercise when it is in the broader public interest to do so. This is entirely legitimate. The rights and freedoms guaranteed in the charter are not absolute, but rather subject to reasonable limits, as long as those limits can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

This means that, when identifying the potential effect of a bill that could limit a right or a freedom, it may also be necessary to consider whether the limit is reasonable and justified. A charter statement may therefore outline considerations relevant to the potential justifiability of a bill.

The fact that charter rights and freedoms can be limited, however, is not a licence to violate them. Rather, it is a reminder that any legislative limits to rights and freedoms must be carefully considered in the context of the shared values of Canada's unique, free and democratic society.

As parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to discuss and debate potential effects on charter guarantees. We exercise our judgment on behalf of Canadians as to whether proposed legislation strikes the right balance between rights and freedoms and the broader public interest. Charter statements are one more source of information to add to our deliberations.

I would also like to take a moment to explain what a charter statement is not.

A charter statement is not a legal opinion. It does not provide a comprehensive analysis of the constitutionality of a bill.

As I mentioned, a charter statement provides Parliament and the public with legal information relating to the possible effects of a bill on the rights guaranteed by the charter and to the considerations that support the consistency of the bill with the charter.

As we all know, bills often change when they are being considered by Parliament. A charter statement reflects the bill at the time it was introduced by the government in the House of Commons. Section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act does not require that charter statements be updated as a bill progresses through Parliament.

Keeping that in mind, I will now turn to the proposed amendments to Bill C-10 in relation to social media, which are before the committee.

My fellow minister Mr. Guilbeault talked about the scope of the proposed amendments. He highlighted the key objectives underlying the amendments and discussed their intended effects on social media services and users.

In short, the proposed amendments are intended to empower the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to regulate a social media service in respect of programs uploaded by its unaffiliated users, strictly in relation to the following: payment of regulatory charges, such as to support the creation of Canadian programming; discoverability of Canadian creators; registration of the service; provision of information; and auditing of records.

In keeping with my obligations under the Department of Justice Act, I tabled a charter statement for Bill C-10 in the House of Commons on November 18, 2020. The charter statement for Bill C-10 identifies the rights and freedoms that may potentially be engaged by the bill, and relevant considerations that support the bill's consistency with the charter.

In considering the committee's recent discussions focusing on the impacts of the proposed amendments on social media, I understand there has been extensive debate on freedom of expression.

We have prepared and shared with you an explanatory document that examines the amendments, and discusses their potential effect on the right to freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the charter. I'm confident that these considerations support the charter consistency of the bill, and that they remain as outlined in the charter statement. It is our position that the bill, as tabled, and these proposed amendments are consistent with the charter.

As the charter statement indicates, the bill's regulatory requirements have the potential to engage freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the charter. The following considerations support the continued consistency of the proposed regulatory requirements of section 2(b).

By virtue of clause 1, which would remain in the bill, unaffiliated users of social media services would not be subject to broadcasting regulation in respect of the programs they post. What remains is an updating of the CRTC's regulatory powers, and providing it with new powers applicable to online service. The bill maintains the CRTC's role and flexibility at determining what, if any, regulatory requirements to impose on broadcasting undertakings.

Regarding the proposal to give the CRTC new limited powers to regulate an online undertaking that provides the social media service in respect of programs posted by unaffiliated users, the relevant charter considerations include the CRTC's discretionary role and flexibility.

The proposed narrowing of the CRTC's discretionary powers to regulate its social media service in respect of programs posted by unaffiliated users, to only discrete members that I have mentioned, is an additional consideration. The CRTC is subject to the charter, and must exercise any discretionary powers it has in a manner that is consistent with the charter.

The act states that it must be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with freedom of expression. The CRTC's decisions on matters of law or jurisdiction are subject to review by the Federal Court of Appeal.

In my view, the relevant considerations that are set out in the charter statement remain valid. These considerations are not impacted by the proposed amendments.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today.

I am at your disposal to answer questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome back, everybody. Once again, just 22 hours later, here we sit once more with Bill C-10.

Today, we're doing witness testimony. With us today we have both ministers and officials. I'm just going to briefly introduce them for you.

We have the Hon. Steven Guilbeault, who is the Minister of Canadian Heritage and who has been here before.

We also have the Hon. David Lametti, the Minister of Justice.

From the Department of Justice, we have Nathalie Drouin, the deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada; Sarah Geh, director general, human rights law section; and Michael Himsl, legal counsel.

Once again, and no strangers to us now by any means, from the Department of Canadian Heritage we have Thomas Owen Ripley, director general, and Drew Olsen, senior director.

We have an hour and perhaps a bit. I know we have an hour with the minister, but, Minister, bear with us. Sometimes we tend to go five minutes over. I say that with trepidation, but you can try to hold us to it.

That being said, we usually do four questions in the opening round and four questions in the second round. I'm hoping to accomplish that. If we have time left, we can do more. That would give an extra one spot for the Conservatives and then the Liberals. In the meantime, I'm going to try to hold to these eight speaking spots.

Mr. Guilbeault, you're not doing an opening statement, but we understand Mr. Lametti is.

Minister Lametti, welcome to the committee. You have up to 10 minutes. The floor is yours, sir.

[Dr. Michael Geist]

The government has already announced it. It has said that it's going to implement a digital services tax starting next year. There are some concerns about moving forward in that regard without an international consensus, but the government has made it clear that it wants to move forward with it.

They've talked about the revenue it's going to generate. It seems to me there is nothing to stop the government from saying that it is going to take a portion of those proceeds and put them into the very funds we're talking about right now to support the creators and ensure that there is money right now, as distinct from the Bill C-10 approach, which is going to take, as I say, years to sort out through the courts and the CRTC.

[Janet Yale]

Exactly, and I think the removal of proposed section 4.1 makes it clear that social media platforms are within the scope of Bill C-10, which might have been unclear before that.

As I've said, it is my view that because the user-generated content, which is still covered by clause 2.1, is exempt from regulation, I believe there is no threat to freedom of speech and that users will continue to be as free, once Bill C-10 is passed, to put whatever content they want online or on social media platforms as they are today.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

I'm going to ask some questions—I probably don't have a ton of time—of Mr. Geist.

Mr. Geist, my colleague Mr. Champoux has just asked what we could do to make Bill C-10 something that you would be able to support. You speak about taking out that proposed section 4.1.

My concern is that we need to find a way to do this broadcasting legislation. We know it's 30 years overdue. What are the things, aside from that one, that you would like to see us do to ensure this legislation does what we've asked it to do in terms of levelling the playing field, protecting our artistic sector and our broadcasting sector, and also in terms of protecting freedom of expression?

[Andrew Cash]

There's no question that the sector is changing, and it's changing based on a global market. Canadian entrepreneurs, Canadian artists and the entire independent music sector could be poised to play a significant role in our country's post-COVID economic recovery, one that's centred around creating good middle-class green jobs, developing Canadian-owned intellectual property by artists and entrepreneurs who have the know-how and the experience to export at scale to every market on the planet, quite frankly.

The needs of the sector could very much be helped by the injection of support into the sector that Bill C-10 promises. We need to work quickly to get this through because we have a lot of work to do at the CRTC to make sure this happens.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've been focusing a lot on the risks Bill C-10 puts forward and concerns that people—experts—have raised about freedom of expression.

I wonder if I could ask one quick question, Mr. Cash, of you in terms of the potential of Bill C-10. If a version of Bill C-10 is passed that does provide support for our artistic community, could you talk a little bit about the growing international marketplace and how it could impact the sector if Bill C-10 was passed?

[Janet Yale]

First I would say that there is nothing in the bill as amended, with the exclusion of proposed section 4.1, that threatens free speech.

I've tried to make it clear in my comments thus far in this meeting that users put content on, say, a social media platform. For sure that content may be under the legal definition of a “program”, but as I've said before, programs aren't regulated, so if you are a blogger or someone who makes podcasts, that's content for sure, but how is it distributed? It's distributed because you do an arrangement with Spotify or you do an arrangement with YouTube, and it's carried on those platforms.

The platforms are the online undertakings that would be regulated, not the creators of the content, whether they're users or whether they're amateurs or professionals. You are free to put up anything you want, whether you monetize it or not, whether you get advertising or subscription revenues or not. It's not covered by Bill C-10. It's the online undertakings that are, and users are not operating online undertakings. They're not regulated.

In my view, there is no threat to freedom of speech, freedom of expression or the ability to put out anything you want on any platform you like without fear that your content could be moderated or regulated in any way.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Trudel, I'd like to ask you a fairly direct question, and I'd like a fairly brief answer.

You've spoke several times about the CRTC as an effective regulatory body, which will ensure that it is a bulwark against the questions of many experts regarding freedom of expression.

However, in Le Devoir this morning—you even quoted a letter you sent to the same newspaper—former CRTC officials express an opinion completely opposite to your current reading of Bill C-10. These former CRTC officials are Timothy Denton, CRTC commissioner from 2009 to 2013; Konrad von Finckenstein, CRTC president from 2007 to 2012; Peter Menzies, the CRTC's vice-president of telecommunications from 2013 to 2018; Michel Morin, the CRTC's national commissioner from 2008 to 2012; and Philip Palmer, legal counsel at the Department of Justice and senior counsel at the Department of Communications from 1987 to 1994.

Could it be that experts have opinions that are different from yours and that hold water. These are people who were on the ground.

Do these people have any credibility, yes or no?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you. That's wonderful.

One concern that's come up as we talk about Bill C-10, of course, is the need for freedom of expression to be protected. Of course, this is something for which, as you will know, the NDP has pushed for a very long time. I think artists probably more than any other group of people would defend freedom of expression. It's at the heart of their reason for being.

Could you tell us more about the economic reality for artists in your industry and why they want web giants to pay their fair share while fully, of course, respecting the freedom of expression and the ability of people to publish content of their choice on the Internet?

[Andrew Cash]

Thank you so much for the question.

You know, roughly 80% of all the players in the music scene, in the music sector writ large in Canada, are solo self-employed or solo operators. They are running, in a sense, small businesses. There are some larger entities, of course, but that's the reality. Their combined efforts and their combined risk....

By the way, there is a lot of risk, not just on one's financial resources but also on one's physical and mental health, in being in this business. There is a real need for people like you to really understand what we're doing and how we do it. People don't really know how the music they're listening to in their earbuds got there. They don't how it was made and who made it. That is one of the reasons that a bill like Bill C-10 is so important.

As I said in my opening remarks, COVID really has laid bare the vulnerabilities in the system. It would be one thing if this were pre-Internet, but the fact of the matter is that these massive companies are interacting with our arts and culture sector. They essentially need the content, and not just Canadian content but the content of all creators around the world. They need it in order to make their platforms roll. Too often it is especially the artists and the small independent Canadian-owned companies that get swept under.

There's one other thing that's important to note here when you're asking about the Canadian independent music scene. We're talking about Canadian-owned companies. We're not talking about multinational entities. We're talking about people who live and work in your communities, people who are developing intellectual property and many times are successfully exporting that to markets beyond our borders and bringing that revenue back to Canada.

We look at Bill C-10 as a way of really improving that and adding to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Actually, Ms. Harder, under normal circumstances I've done that, yes, but I've also seen precedents in which we've allowed discretion for other members to be involved. I have not given Mr. Manly any time thus far in the Bill C-10 deliberations. However, he's been very active in proposing amendments, and I thought it would be at the chair's discretion to say, “Yes, go ahead.”

He's only getting the one question—certainly no more than five minutes—and there are precedents for that, Ms. Harder.

Thank you very much.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today. Their visit was highly anticipated. I'm grateful to them, and I thank them for their availability.

I'll start with Mr. Trudel.

Mr. Trudel, a few moments ago, you talked about the fact that, as things stand, we are still much less protected. Privacy, freedom of expression and, at the very least, freedom of choice of content are less protected. Bill C-10 has no intention of infringing on this.

Do you think the bill will improve things or will the status quo be maintained?

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

Thank you very much.

I only have a minute left. I will go back to Janet Yale, please.

There's been some conversation about how much consultation went into preparing for this bill. Could you just quickly talk about the number of consultations and the stakeholders you spoke with in preparing your report, which formed the backdrop to preparing Bill C-10?

[Pierre Trudel]

It is essential to understand that the algorithms used to direct the flow of content on the Internet are not neutral. These are default regulations, default rules. At the moment, there is absolutely no guarantee that these default regulations, which are based solely on the commercial choices of commercial enterprises, do not involve biases or possible violations of fundamental rights. If we want to get into the area of conjecture, we must also take that into account.

At present, Canadians have no guarantee that their choices are not being directed in the same undemocratic way that they could possibly be if the multiple scenarios that have been discussed were to become reality. If the CRTC ever decides to violate the Broadcasting Act by imposing regulations that contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our freedoms would be at risk. This is a very distant possibility.

Right now, there are some very real contingencies. The practices of the companies that dominate the online platforms in a monopolistic way can, with impunity, without anyone looking at them, infringe on our fundamental rights. That is the real issue with respect to fundamental rights. It is in this sense that Bill C-10 would strengthen the protection of our fundamental rights.

Unfortunately, there is no protection on the Internet at the moment. Our rights aren't protected. Our rights to access content relevant to us and our rights not to be spied on when we make choices aren't guaranteed. Government regulations can guarantee them.

[Dr. Michael Geist]

It is, and I'm proud to have signed that letter.

I think one of the most shameful aspects of this debate over the last few weeks has been the continual attempt to suggest that somehow it's just people who are speaking on behalf of tech companies or who aren't critical or who don't want to see any Internet regulation who have concerns over Bill C-10.

That letter has been signed by some of the fiercest critics and biggest experts around tech policy, including Ron Deibert, Bianca Wylie, Nasma Ahmed and Lex Gill. These are people Canadians have learned to trust, people who have expressed real concerns about the tech companies. They've look at Bill C-10 and they've looked at government policy around the Internet and said that they're very concerned about the direction we're headed.

[Andrew Cash, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Independent Music Association]

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee and fellow panellists, good afternoon.

My name is Andrew Cash, and I'm the president and CEO of the Canadian Independent Music Association. It is a pleasure to be back at committee.

Let's start by getting one thing off the table. Digital platforms like Netflix, Spotify and YouTube are incredible. They represent phenomenal opportunities for Canadian arts and culture creators.

It's been said that being in the music business is a great way to get rich and a lousy way to make a living. The pandemic has put this maxim in stark focus. Many artists and musicians lived below the poverty line before the pandemic, but the pandemic has made things much, much worse. Travel and gathering restrictions have meant no touring, no live shows and no income at all.

The pandemic has also underlined the systemic inequities in the market that have led to diminished compensation for creators. This imbalance has put the promise of a stable middle-class sector of artists and arts and culture workers further and further out of reach for this country. The sector is in crisis.

CIMA commissioned Nordicity to do a report on the impact of COVID. It found that the independent music sector saw a drop in revenue of $233 million, live music saw a drop in income of 79%, independent sound recording and publishing companies saw a 41% decline in revenue, and thousands of jobs were lost. That was just in the first nine months of the pandemic.

We don't expect to return to pre-COVID levels of revenue until 2023 or 2024 at best, but as we move towards recovery, we must address the elephant in the room: Digital giants doing business in Canada make lots of money off Canadians but pay fractions of a cent to content creators, and they operate here without any accountability or regulatory obligations, including to fairly contribute to the arts and culture ecosystem.

Really? Are we okay with this?

Given the numbers that I've laid out before you today, if there ever were a time when we needed you to stand up for the little guy, it's right now. Do you really want to go back to your ridings and say to your constituents, “Yes, I voted to protect big tech. I voted to allow them to continue raking in the profits, taking profits out of the country and not contributing a dime in return.”? Unless things have dramatically changed since I was an elected politician, I don't think you want to be doing that. In fact, many of you, from all parties, have pointed out that this inequitable playing field is wrong and that we have to do something about it.

CanCon regulations were created 50 years ago and helped establish a domestic industry within a domestic market. We wanted to protect and nurture French-language creators who were surrounded on all sides by English-language cultural content and English-language creators who were competing on all sides with the massive giant next door. Well, today our arts and culture marketplace is no longer a domestic one. Digital platforms have transformed the way content is consumed. Today the marketplace is global. Today we need a modernized system to grow our domestic industry into one that will thrive in the global market.

This bill, flawed though it is, could point us towards new modes of discoverability, towards new investments in our artists and our arts and culture entrepreneurs, and towards information transparency and accountability from big tech companies that simply doesn't exist right now.

CIMA believes that the bill as amended did not infringe on individuals' rights and freedoms. That belief was affirmed by last week's charter statement and further proposed amendments. However, let's be clear: We would oppose any measure that puts those rights at risk. Artists have long been at the forefront of fighting for civil liberties and freedom of expression against monolithic power structures. Our work quite literally depends on civil liberty and the protection of freedom of expression.

Bill C-10 couldn't [Technical difficulty—Editor] bad videos. What it could do, though, is begin to make a real difference in the lives of musicians, content creators, entrepreneurs and [Technical difficulty—Editor] across the country. It has the potential to move the creative sector from precarity towards middle-class stability, unlocking innovation and creating a global presence for the sector.

That's why I implore you today to continue your work in amending Bill C-10 as expediently as possible in order to pass it through Parliament before the end of the spring session.

Thank you.

[Pierre Trudel, Professor, Public Law Research Centre, Université de Montréal, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, good afternoon.

I'm a law professor, and I've been teaching the Broadcasting Act since 1979. I was the research director of the Caplan-Sauvageau committee, which produced the 1991 Broadcasting Act. As my colleague Janet Yale pointed out, I was involved in the work of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel.

As noted in the notice from the Department of Justice, which was tabled a few days ago, Bill C-10, amends the Broadcasting Act, which does not authorize measures to be taken against individuals with respect to the content they create and decide to put online. Above all, the act already clearly provides that all measures put in place to regulate broadcasting activities must respect freedom of expression.

Moreover, the Broadcasting Act has never authorized the CRTC to censor specific content. The CRTC's entire practice over the past 50 years is a testament to that. Furthermore, the Broadcasting Act requires that the CRTC refrain from regulating broadcasting in a manner that violates freedom of expression. It's hard to imagine a broader exclusion than that. It is an exclusion that requires a prohibition on interpreting the act in a way that empowers the CRTC to take action and create regulations or orders that violate freedom of expression.

In addition, as you know, the act provides that the CRTC shall refrain from regulating any activity that does not have a demonstrable impact on the achievement of Canadian broadcasting policy. In fact, the Broadcasting Act is enabling legislation. There are no specifics in the act. It is enabling legislation that empowers the CRTC to put in place rules adapted to the circumstances of each company so that they organize their activities in a way that contributes to the achievement of Canadian broadcasting policy objectives, as set out in section 3 of the act.

Therefore, Bill C-10 does not need to expand exclusions for any type of content. Rather, it is a recognition that Bill C-10 already excludes measures that could be suspected of infringing on freedom of expression and ensures that the Broadcasting Act applies to all companies that transmit programming, including on the Internet, which is the primary purpose of Bill C-10.

With regard to these online companies that determine content and that, it's important to remember, already regulate content that is offered to individuals through processes based on algorithms or artificial intelligence technologies, Bill C-10 strengthens the guarantees of fundamental rights for all Canadians. It empowers the CRTC to compel companies to provide information on the logic behind these algorithmic devices, which does not currently exist. It enables the CRTC to put measures in place to ensure that Canadians are offered programming that reflects the principles, values and objectives set out in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act.

Nothing in the Broadcasting Act as it is proposed to be amended would allow the CRTC to impose on anyone programs that they do not want to hear or see, let alone allow the CRTC to censor content on platforms.

Rather, the act provides individuals with a real opportunity for choice. There is currently no guarantee that online companies are offering Canadians a real and meaningful choice that reflects Canadian values as codified in the Broadcasting Act.

There has been a constant since the early years of radio, and that is a tension between those who believe that broadcasting undertakings should be left to market forces alone and those who—rightly, in my view—believe that intervention is required to ensure the effective availability of programming that is the product of Canadians' creative activity.

Bill C-10 is part of this continuum, which has allowed Canadians to have media that offers the best the world has to offer, while also giving prominence to the works of Canadian creators, including creators from minority and indigenous or first nations communities.

Thank you.

[Dr. Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As you know, my name is Michael Geist. I appear in a personal capacity, representing only my own views. I always start with that statement, but it feels particularly necessary in this instance, given the misinformation and conspiracy theories that some have floated and that Minister Guilbeault has disappointingly retweeted.

As I am sure you are aware, I have been quite critical of Bill C-10. I would like to reiterate that criticism of the bill is not criticism of public support for culture or of regulation of technology companies. I think public support for culture is needed, and I think there are ways to ensure money for creator programs this year and not in five years, as in this bill.

Further, I am puzzled and discouraged by the lack of interest in Bill C-11, which would move toward modernizing Canada’s privacy rules to help address concerns about how these companies collect and use our data. The bill would also mandate algorithmic transparency, which is much needed and far different from government-mandated algorithmic outcomes.

I’ll confine my opening remarks to the charter-related questions and widespread concerns about the regulation of user-generated content, but would welcome questions on any aspect of the bill.

There is simply no debating that following the removal of proposed section 4.1, the bill now applies to user-generated content, since all audiovisual content is treated as a program under the act. You have heard experts say that and department officials say that. The attempts to deflect from that simple reality by pointing to proposed section 2.1 to argue that users are not regulated is deceptive and does not speak to the issue of regulating the content of users.

I will speak to the freedom of expression implications in a moment, but I want to pause to note that no one, literally no other country, uses broadcast regulation to regulate user-generated content in this way. There are good reasons that all other countries reject this approach. It is not that they don’t love their creators and want to avoid regulating Internet companies; it is that regulating user-generated content in this manner is entirely unworkable, a risk to net neutrality and a threat to freedom of expression. For example, the European Union, which is not shy about regulation, distinguishes between streaming services such as Netflix and video-sharing services such as TikTok or YouTube, with no equivalent regulations such as those found in Bill C-10 for user-generated content.

From a charter perspective, the statement issued by the Department of Justice last week simply does not contain analysis or discussion about how the regulation of user-generated content as a program intersects with the charter. There is similarly no discussion about whether this might constitute a violation that could be justified, no discussion on the implications of deprioritizing speech, no discussion on the use of terms such as “social media service” that are not even defined in the bill, and no discussion of the implementation issues that could require Canadians to disclose personal location-based information in order to comply with the new, ill-defined requirements.

In my view, the prioritization or deprioritization of speech by the government through the CRTC necessarily implicates freedom of expression. The charter statement should have acknowledged this reality and grappled with the question of whether it is saved by section 1. I do not believe it is.

First, the bill as drafted, with section 4.1 in it, was the attempt to minimally impair those speech rights. With it removed, the bill no longer does so.

Second, the discoverability policy objective is not enough to save the impairment of free speech rights. There is no evidence that there is a discoverability problem with user-generated content.

Ms. Yale’s panel, which notably appears to have lost its unanimity, recommended discoverability but cited no relevant evidence to support claims that there is an issue with user-generated content.

Third, the objective of making YouTube pay some additional amount to support music creation is not enough to save the impairment of free speech rights either. This isn’t about compensation, because the works are already licensed. This is about paying some additional fees, given concerns that section 4.1 would have broadly exempted YouTube. I am not convinced that was the case, as services such as YouTube Music Premium might well have been captured. I am not alone on that. Canadian Heritage officials thought so too in a memo they wrote to the minister. In fact, it was such a non-issue that Mr. Cash’s organization did not even specifically cite the provision or raise the issue in the brief that it submitted to this committee.

I find it remarkable that the minister and the charter statement effectively tell Canadians that they should trust the CRTC to appropriately address free speech rights but are unwilling to do the same with respect to how section 4.1 would be interpreted.

Let me conclude by noting that if a choice must be made between some additional payments by a streaming service and regulating the free speech rights of Canadians, I would have thought that standing behind freedom of expression would be an easy choice to make, and I have been genuinely shaken to find that my government thinks otherwise.

I look forward to your questions.

[Janet Yale, Chair, Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for the invitation to be here today. My panel colleague Pierre Trudel and I are very pleased to provide our perspective on Bill C-10.

We endorse the federal government's efforts to update the legislative framework governing the broadcasting system to include both media streaming services and sharing platforms. This approach is consistent with our report, which recognized the realities of a borderless online world in which Canadians will seek to access media content based on personal interest, irrespective of platform or technology.

Bill C-10 would ensure that these new online streaming services, including Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime, as well as sharing platforms like YouTube, are required to make an appropriate contribution to Canadian cultural content. These online services derive significant revenues from Canadian audiences from both advertising and subscription revenues, yet face no obligation to contribute. To imagine that in 2021 we would permit these platforms to make money from Canadian audiences, Canadian consumers and Canadian creativity without any corresponding contribution defies logic, particularly when our system imposes obligations on traditional broadcasters that are now much smaller, less powerful and less prosperous.

In our report, we recommended, as a matter of competitive fairness, that online undertakings be included in updated broadcasting legislation. Our report also made it clear that these regulatory obligations should be restricted to the platforms—that is, if we use the language of the law, to undertakings. Individual creators should remain untouched by regulation, and that is exactly what Bill C-10 proposes.

Let me say it again: Bill C-10 imposes regulatory burdens and the obligation to contribute to Canada's creators only on the undertakings such as the big streaming and sharing platforms, not on individual creators.

I will put it another way. Programs consist of audio and audiovisual content. TV shows, songs, podcasts, postings and that programming—all those programs—exist beyond regulation and will remain beyond regulation. Individuals who create content, whether amateur or professional, and audiences large and small are not affected by Bill C-10 when they upload their programming, share it or even sell it to a streaming service. No one is going to police that content, tell them what they can say or compel them to pay dues.

What Bill C-10 does require—and, from my perspective, thank goodness we are finally taking this step—is that the undertakings—the YouTubes, Disney-pluses and Netflixes of the world that share that content and make money from distributing content—must operate by a set of rules and contribute some amount of the revenues they are harvesting from Canadians to the production of Canadian content.

Finally, to those who argue that Bill C-10 fails to protect user-generated content, we say that is just wrong. Proposed section 2.1 specifically provides that exemption already. New amendments that have been tabled make this exclusion even clearer. Therefore, to persist in creating this illusory scare against freedom of expression is either to misunderstand the legislation, in my view, or to intentionally seek to mislead people for some other purpose.

I will finish by saying this: Legislation, of course, is complex, and broadcasting policy and its regulation can be very technical. Devils do lurk in details, and that is why the scrutiny of this committee is so important. However, what's at stake here isn't hard to understand: We need to make provision for the reality of these immense and hugely powerful online platforms. We need to ensure that they give to, not just take from, Canadian creators and Canadian audiences. We need to update a broadcasting framework that was last amended before the world was even online. We need what is set out in Bill C-10, with all its provisions and all its protections. We urge the government to pass this legislation as quickly as possible.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I call the meeting to order.

Hello, everyone, and welcome back.

This is our 34th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

We are in the midst of doing clause-by-clause study of Bill C-10. As you know, of course, we took a little bit of a break to go on to other activities, including a motion that was passed to allow guests to come in and to also receive a document from the Department of Justice.

We also passed a motion to invite the Minister of Justice. Once again, I'd like to bring to everybody's attention—you probably know by now, through social media—that we did receive confirmation that Mr. Lametti will attend the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage tomorrow, May 18, at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time, for one hour, alongside the deputy minister and the other officials who were present last Friday.

Minister Guilbeault will also be attending. We didn't extend the invitation to him, but I didn't think you would mind if he tagged along and was involved in the proceedings as well. Nevertheless, if you do have a problem with that, you can simply not ask him a question, I guess. Perhaps that's how it goes.

That's for tomorrow. As you've just read, he's coming in for an hour. I want you to think about this for just a few moments, and we can discuss this later. Both ministers will be in, and we have what was required from the Department of Justice, so once that is complete, we can start clause-by-clause study again right afterward. That could be as soon as the second hour tomorrow or on Wednesday, as we have another meeting then. I will let you think about that for a while, and we can discuss it again later.

That said, the other part of the motion was to invite an expert panel, the membership to be based on suggestions from each of the parties represented officially on the Standing Committee of Canadian Heritage.

We have, suggested from the Liberal caucus, Ms. Janet Yale. If you remember, she is from the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel. She is the chair of it.

Welcome, Ms. Yale.

Also, from the Conservatives, we're welcoming back Dr. Michael Geist, who is the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law in the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa.

From the Bloc Québécois, we have Mr. Pierre Trudel, professor, public law research centre at the Université de Montréal.

Welcome back as well.

Finally, from the NDP, from the Canadian Independent Music Association and by no means a stranger to this committee, as he was a former member of this committee not too long ago—I was sitting next to him, and I don't want to give my age as well as his—we welcome the president and chief executive officer, Andrew Cash.

You know how this goes. We're going to start this right away. We're not going to break; we're going to do a full two hours, if you wish. There will be lots of time for questioning, but I assume everybody's going to want a bio-break in there somewhere. With your permission, I will find a spot in approximately one hour from now to take that break, and then we'll come back to resume.

Let us first start out with Ms. Yale. Of course, these are opening remarks. You can go up to five minutes, but we ask that you not go beyond five minutes for the sake of our committee.

Ms. Yale, the floor is yours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

All right.

Does everyone hear the amendment clearly? Extend an invitation for Tuesday or Wednesday, and we do not continue with Bill C-10 until said minister arrives.

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

All right. You want to delay Bill C-10. You want to delay the expert panel.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to point something out in response to Mr. Housefather's comments. With all due respect to him, point 3 of the motion, as unanimously adopted by the committee, clearly states that the committee will “[s]uspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2.” We all agreed on the fact that the committee should meet with both ministers. The Minister of Justice has refused thus far.

I will go even further and say that, before we voted, I went to the trouble of asking for clarification. I wanted to be sure that we would hear from both ministers before hearing from the panel. Everyone nodded their head. I'm not saying that we necessarily need to cancel Monday's meeting; we can make a decision on that. However, I want to underscore the fact that I went to the trouble of seeking that clarification.

Everyone has said they want to work together in a collegial manner, but we had agreed on the motion as a way out of the impasse. Today, we find ourselves at that same impasse, which has lasted for two weeks. On Monday, the committee finally adopted the very motion that members had refused to support two weeks prior.

I want that to be clear. What's happening is truly unfortunate. I thought for sure that we would be hearing from both ministers today, that the four witnesses would be appearing on Monday of next week and that we could then move things along. That does not seem to be the case, however.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's interesting that you read that, because that means this committee's work could, effectively, be stalled out indefinitely. According to the motion that was passed by this committee, as amended, the justice minister does need to come and appear before this committee before we can proceed to clause-by-clause. And I believe clause-by-clause is necessary in order for Bill C-10 to make it into law.

I would put forward the same request that my other colleagues and the members from the NDP and the Bloc have put forward, and it is that the justice minister, according to the motion that was passed at this committee, does need to appear.

I recognize that there are expressions made when using verbal communication, and then there are expressions made in other ways. In committee, it's common to often pass things or agree upon things based on a head nod or a hand put up, especially in our virtual world. And it was agreed upon at this committee that the Minister of Justice would come before we hear from the other expert witnesses.

Again, I would plead with you, Mr. Chair, that this should take place first.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let's, as this committee, agree unanimously to get both ministers here. I think the Minister of Justice is showing a lack of consideration for the charter, to be honest with you.

Issuing a charter statement may be fine, but come and explain yourself to the committee of heritage as we study Bill C-10, amending the Broadcasting Act.

I've just talked about this. All committee members unanimously last Monday agreed to bring both ministers to committee. There is a lack of consideration by the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Chair, I'll bring up another issue. When Mark Zuckerberg decided not to show up at committee, the biggest uproar in the committee was from Liberal MPs sitting around the table.

I think that, for consideration, we need to hear from the Minister of Justice on this. Doing a press release and sending out an update charter statement is fine, but come. We've asked him to come, it was agreed to last Monday, and that's the least the minister can do.

Ms. Drouin, thank you for filling in, but we want to see the minister. We got that co-operation with the Minister of Canadian Heritage, but we did not get it from the Minister of Justice. Out of consideration, faced with this important bill that has been discussed for months I think he owes it to the committee to come, as we have asked him to come.

We have next week open before we can get to the panel. We need to hear from the justice minister first and then go to the panel. As you said, we have three meetings scheduled next week. We can delay until the minister decides whether he wants to come Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, and then we can move ahead with the panel.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Here's what I have: I have direction from the committee and what we have done in the past.

If you recall the last witness meeting we had, instead of doing the two separate hours, we did one two-hour block with the ministers—if they were there—and accompanying officials. I'm more or less following what you're saying, but I'm also following what we have done in the past regarding Bill C-10 witnesses. However, I'm open to suggestion as to whether you would like to change that or not.

If I misinterpreted what you said at the end, Mr. Rayes, I sincerely apologize. I thought the direction of the committee was that we would have two ministers accompanied by officials appear before the committee, as well as four experts and the revised charter statement that was asked for. That's from the amended motion.

Let me now go to Mr. Waugh.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, sir.

As adopted Monday, May 10, 2021:

That the committee:

(1) Ask the Minister of Justice to provide a revised Charter Statement on Bill C-10, as soon as possible, focusing on whether the Committee's changes to the Bill related to content uploaded by users of social media services have impacted the initial Charter Statement provided, in particular as relates to Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

(2) Invite the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Canadian Heritage accompanied by relevant departmental officials, and an expert panel consisting of one witness from each recognized party to appear before the Committee as soon as possible to discuss the revised Charter Statement and any implications of amendments made by the Committee to the Bill.

(3) Suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

There are just a couple of things. Let me start with the second point first, which was the statement that is currently posted.

A motion was passed on March 8 and I will read it for you:

That the committee publish on the committee's website written responses to questions provided by the Department of Canadian Heritage.

What is put on our website is exclusive to that.

Now, that being said, I am a servant of the committee itself, and humbly so. If you wish to have what was released recently by the Department of Justice regarding Bill C-10—the revised—we can have that published, but I pretty much need permission from all to do that.

Do I have permission to post on our committee website the recent opinion by the Department of Justice as we just discussed?

Seeing no resistance and a plethora of thumbs, I'm going to say that we will publish it. I will ask the clerk to publish it following this meeting.

Go ahead, Mr. Rayes.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

My government is not interested in having an election. I think we've seen that some parties have been fundraising around the controversy they created around Bill C-10. We haven't been doing that. We've been hard at work trying to do everything we can to help the arts and culture sector.

I would remind you that the budget that was just presented by Deputy Prime Minister Freeland is a historic budget when it comes to the arts and culture sector in this country. We have never seen such an important budget to help our artists, our musicians, our creators. It is a historic budget. I think we've seen that we are there for our artists, and Bill C-10 is another clear example of that.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Could I be allowed just to finish my answer on the charter statement? You have a charter statement in front of you. You've heard Deputy Minister Drouin explain very clearly that Bill C-10 respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,. Not only that, but there are mechanisms in place for the CRTC to ensure that it does that. It has discretionary powers, but these powers are not absolute. They have to be exercised in light of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I'd like to say one more thing.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage is not on the committee. In addition, we are a minority government. The committee can decide to propose amendments to Bill C-10. It is true that the bill has already undergone a hundred or so amendments, which, by the way, is not unusual for a bill. As lawmakers, I think we can always do better; a bill can always be improved.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you for your question.

It requires a multipart answer.

First, as repeatedly stated, Bill C-10 will not apply to individuals. You are right to say that new subsection 2(3) of the act refers to undertakings, not individuals, because the act will apply to undertakings, not individuals.

You no doubt heard the deputy minister, Ms. Drouin, very clearly say that the Department of Justice issued a statement indicating that Bill C-10, as amended, respects the charter, on one hand. On the other hand, as she just explained, the CRTC also has an obligation to respect the charter in exercising its authority. Mechanisms are in place to ensure that happens.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Yes. I think we still have a long way to go. There's still a lot of work to do, but Bill C-10 will enable us, as I said in my remarks initially, and will mean that around $830 million in additional money is added for the cultural sector and certainly for BIPOC communities and under-represented groups in our arts and culture sector.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

It's interesting, because I had the opportunity to meet with them. I'm a backbencher, and they made time for me.

I found it interesting that you didn't take the time to reach out to them, because I think they would have been more than happy to give you some time.

What they have to say about the bill is this. “The arrogance of taking this huge vehicle of expression, commerce and learning—in other words the Internet—and stuffing it into an act that was designed to regulate a technology that is now more than century old is an offence to reason.”

Minister, they have huge issues with Bill C-10, and they've asked you to scrap it. I would request the same.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I would be happy to provide the committee with the list of all Canadian experts and organizations that have been consulted for the preparation of the Bill C-10.

I'll also remind the members and the committee that, prior to Bill C-10 being tabled, there was an almost two-year consultation leading up to the Yale report that was done, and close to 2,000 papers were presented.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Philip Palmer and Mr. Len St-Aubin were both at the table when the Broadcasting Act was originally put together. They're now available and able to offer their expertise on this subject matter. Did you consult them when creating Bill C-10?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay.

Will the CRTC then be given the responsibility under Bill C-10, the power to regulate the algorithms used by social media platforms to decide what type of content that people can and cannot see on their Facebook feeds or the information that appears on Google or YouTube?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I would beg to differ with the premise of your question.

Many experts have come out in Quebec and in English Canada saying that Bill C-10 was not an infringement on freedom of speech or an attack on the charter. In fact, we now have a statement by the independent civil servants of the Department of Justice saying exactly that.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

We've just heard you mention your list of organizations that support Bill C-10. Obviously, everyone on this committee has met with organizations that have expressed their concern about this legislation and their support for having good legislation. We all understand that this legislation is not as strong as it needs to be. This is why there are 120 amendments to the bill that the committee is trying to get through.

In your recent interviews on Bill C-10, Minister, you seem to want to go after experts who want to protect one of the most important rights in our democracy, and that is the freedom of expression. The experts who are working on this issue and have been working on it for a very long time have expressed concerns. They have expressed the view that there are problems within the legislation.

What is the goal of attacking them, when we should be working with them to find a solution? It feels to me very much as though we have you saying, “Don't worry, it's not a problem” and the Conservatives saying, “Let's not do anything at all; let's not provide legislation for our broadcasters.” Even the cultural sector doesn't obviously want to regulate user-generated content.

It feels very much as though you're trying to divide Canadians on this issue and not to work collectively to find a solution. I am wondering why that is.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I think we have a charter statement that is pretty clear about Bill C-10's respecting section 2 of the charter. We've also heard from deputy minister Drouin, who has been very clear on that as well.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Bill C-10 is not about content moderation. The CRTC, in its last 50 years of existence, has never done content moderation, and Bill C-10 doesn't give the CRTC the ability to do content moderation.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I won't go through it, but you've probably heard that there is a long list of organizations in Quebec and in English Canada, a list many pages long, that have all come out in the last few weeks in support of Bill C-10, ranging from musicians to independent producers to writers and so on. I have spoken over the course of the last year to thousands of people in the culture sector, and they agree with what we're trying to do with Bill C-10.

Again, earlier in my speech I quoted polling results that were released recently showing that 78% of Canadians—

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

This is a question based on a series of assumptions, and any answer from me would be highly hypothetical.

As we have seen over the past few weeks, there are clearly Canadians who believe that the Internet should not be subject to any form of regulation, whether it be on the cultural issue, hate speech, or media compensation. Some of these critics began their action at the same time the Yale report came out. I recall that the former leader of the official opposition had said that he would not even read the Yale report and would throw it in the trash.

Honestly, beyond all the debate surrounding proposed section 4.1, I think there is one political party that has decided to highlight this issue as if the entire bill C-10 revolves around a single section, which it obviously does not...

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Minister, we have very little time, so I want to get more specific answers than that.

I have told you that I am confident that all parties would give their consent to reopening the debate on section 3 of the bill to amend proposed section 4.1 and continue the work afterwards. Everyone would be satisfied.

You know we sometimes have discussions behind the scenes and then it is possible to propose something in committee, knowing that we will have the assent of just about everybody. Yet, this was not even raised or considered.

After wasting four meetings dithering, we still find ourselves today in the situation where a certain portion of the requests that the committee had made, among others the invitation extended also to the Minister of Justice, have not been met.

If we had reopened debate on this section right after the first meeting where this issue was raised, perhaps we would be working through the sections of the bill today and perhaps we would have an opportunity to finish up the work and pass Bill C-10.

In hindsight, do you think this would have been a good solution?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for his question.

Over the past few weeks, I've given several interviews about Bill C-10, and you'll probably have noticed that I've never mentioned the filibuster that your party is doing. Perhaps...

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses who are with us today.

If I may, Minister, I would like to start by setting the record straight a little bit. For some time now, you seem to have had a narrative that the Bloc Québécois and the NDP were in full agreement to delete proposed section 4.1 in Bill C-10. I would just like to put this in context and explain the process by which discussions take place between the parties in an effort to save time and make our committee work as efficiently as possible.

We had amendments to suggest for proposed section 4.1. The Bloc Québécois initially advocated amending proposed section 4.1. We wanted to keep it, but remove the exclusion given to social media, while preserving the exclusion given to social media users.

However, in our discussions, people in your party, Minister, suggested instead that we delete proposed section 4.1 and introduce new amendments to add other provisions in this regard, which we agreed with, I admit. However, it should not be said that this was a collaborative proposal and that we were happy with it right off the bat. We would have preferred to amend proposed section 4.1; that was our original proposal.

So, there is an important nuance here, and I wanted to make that clear.

That being said, we're also hearing a lot lately that the opposition parties as a whole are blocking the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-10.

Now, Minister, I would like to ask you a question, in all candour.

At the very beginning of the impasse that we are in right now, after the first meeting that we had where the Conservative Party members raised the issue of deleting proposed section 4.1, we talked to each other. I told you that a solution that would work for everyone would be to reopen the debate on section 3 of Bill C-10, which proposes the new section 4.1 for the act, that we amend that section, and proceed. I have proposed that.

Do you think that would have been a good idea, Minister?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I think there is a mistake in the premise of your question. Bill C-10 is not about content moderation. It is about giving us the tools to ensure that the web giants pay their fair share in cultural matters...

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

The first version of Bill C-10 that the committee received was at that time our best interpretation of what modernization of the Broadcasting Act should be. However, as soon as the bill was introduced, I was the first to say that it could be improved.

All political parties represented on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, including the Conservative Party, as well as many stakeholders, spoke out to argue that proposed section 4.1 created too broad an exemption. As Mr. Waugh said, under this section, the act would not have applied to a platform like YouTube, which is the largest music distributor in Canada today. This exemption was therefore too broad. As a result of these interventions, we decided to delete the proposed section.

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

Yes, but you answered that question earlier.

Now I would like to know why, in the original version of Bill C-10, you had proposed to add section 4.1 to the act.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

The last time the Broadcasting Act was modernized, you may recall, was under a Conservative government. That government put in place the entire regulatory ecosystem that we have today for conventional broadcasting. What we are trying to do through Bill C-10 is to adapt the regulations to the Web giants, who are becoming more and more important in the current ecosystem.

You mentioned net neutrality. As you know...

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

That's fine. That's a good answer, especially since the Prime Minister also said he would defend net neutrality wholeheartedly. The Minister of Canadian Heritage before you, Ms. Joly, also said this in the cultural policy she introduced. She even said that the government agreed on the principle of net neutrality.

Internet neutrality is defined as “a principle that should ensure equal treatment of all data flows on the Internet”. This includes everyone.

Navdeep Bains, while he was Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, said this: “Net neutrality is one of the critical issues of our time, much like freedom of the press and freedom of expression before it.”

Mr. Lametti, while serving as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, said this:

It is clear that the open Internet is a remarkable platform for economic growth, innovation and social progress in Canada and around the world. It is essential to a modern digital economy and society. Many activities depend on it, including access to health care, education, [...], and entertainment. More broadly, it is vital for freedom of expression, diversity and our democratic institutions. A flourishing and vibrant democracy is possible only when citizens are able to communicate and access information freely. [...] Our government supports an open Internet [...]

You introduced Bill C-10. You did mention at the outset that its purpose was to restore the balance, in terms of regulation, between digital and conventional broadcasters. Just so everyone understands, we're talking about Netflix, Disney+ and other digital platforms that compete with broadcasters like TVA, CBC/Radio-Canada and CTV. This could also apply to radio stations.

In the process, you chose to delete the originally proposed section 4.1. I would like to know why this section was proposed in the bill in the first place.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, members of the committee.

I’m joining you from Montréal, on the traditional lands of the Mohawk and other Haudenosaunee peoples.

I am pleased to appear before you to discuss Bill C-10, the explanatory document the Department of Justice drafted in response to your request, and the impact of your committee’s amendments to Bill C-10.

I have with me officials from my department, as you said, Mr. Chair, as well as senior officials from the Department of Justice. I am delighted to contribute to your review of the bill.

I would like to begin by thanking this committee for its important work to date.

Since Bill C-10 was introduced, the cultural sector, broadcasters and experts have given us—and you too, I’m sure—much food for thought. They have provided input and support on updating the Broadcasting Act across the country.

Our broadcasters, our production sector and the cultural sector as a whole are counting on this new legislative tool to continue to flourish on digital platforms.

They are counting on this tool to level the playing field between conventional broadcasters and digital platforms. In other words, the bill is about restoring a balance that the arrival of the Web giants has skewed very seriously in their own favour at the expense of local people and businesses.

If we do not modernize the act, within a few years, our creators, artists and musicians risk losing up to a billion dollars annually.

However, if we move forward with Bill C-10, the Department of Canadian Heritage predicts that by 2023, online broadcasters could be contributing up to $830 million per year to Canadian content and creators.

Let's remember that the audiovisual and interactive media industry employs nearly 160,000 Canadians every year. According to the 2016 census, the median annual income for core artist groups, such as musicians, singers, authors, writers, producers and directors, was only $24,300, which is well below the $43,500 median for all workers.

To make matters worse, this industry is still suffering the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the years to come, the positive impacts of Bill C-10 will stimulate industry growth and increase the visibility of our stories and our artists.

Canadians also support this initiative. More than seven out of ten Canadians feel that more needs to be done to promote Canadian and Quebec audiovisual content in the country, and almost half say that this content is not easy to find.

Although some have the view that any type of regulation for web giants is too much, most Canadians believe that we must act: 78% of Canadians agree that streamers need the same rules as those of Canadian broadcasters; 81% support the principle that Facebook and Google should pay more for news; and 83% support some form of accountability for these companies for the content shared on their platforms.

The first objective of the bill is to ensure equity between conventional and digital broadcasters and to ensure that social media platforms that act as broadcasters are also contributing to our cultural industry.

Another objective is to promote Canadian cultural expression in all its diversity, including that of indigenous and racialized communities.

The goal is not to regulate content generated by users, such as videos of our children, friends and colleagues. It never was. And it never will be.

However, one thing is clear: more and more Canadians are listening to their favourite music and artists on social media. Right now, YouTube is the most popular online music listening service in the country.

Witnesses who appeared before this committee showed that section 4.1, as drafted in the original version of Bill C-10, could allow social media platforms to get away with just about anything. They also demonstrated that section 4.1 did not take into account how these types of services are used to deliver professional content, such as content put online by record companies.

While other online businesses would be required to contribute to the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, social media platforms would not. How could we justify imposing obligations on Spotify, Apple Music or QUB Musique, but not on YouTube, a Google subsidiary?

Following the constructive debate at second reading of the bill, all opposition parties, including the Conservative Party, deplored the fact that social networks were not covered by the bill.

Let me give you a few examples.

On November 19, the Conservative MP from Saskatoon—Grasswood, Mr. Waugh, told the House of Commons the following:

It is deeply disappointing that the government's proposals are so incredibly lacking. I am going to focus in on four points today. First, the legislation does nothing to address social media companies, such as Facebook and Google, and their various properties, such as YouTube, to pay its fair share.

On March 26, he also added—again, this is the beginning of the quote:

To the Professional Music Publishers' Association, you're right on about YouTube. It is not regulated in Bill C-10, and everybody is using YouTube. We are going to have an issue. As you pointed out, correctly, this should be regulated and it's not.

That’s why it was not surprising that on April 23, a majority of the members of this committee, including those of the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party, agreed that first, section 4.1 should be withdrawn, and that the CRTC’s powers should subsequently be restricted with respect to social media platforms.

We know that these platforms are very different from conventional broadcasters. The amendments proposed by my parliamentary secretary last week limit the CRTC's power to three main requirements: Number one, platforms must provide information about their revenues; number two, they must contribute financially to the Canadian cultural ecosystem and, finally, they must increase the visibility of Canadian creators.

All of this would be done without ever preventing anyone from putting their own content online and sharing it, or forcing anyone to watch anything against their will. In other words, you and I, like all Canadians, would continue to enjoy the same freedom online that we enjoy now.

I've said it before and I will say it again: We're not targeting individuals; we are targeting the web giants, which are almost all American companies. Our goal is simple, to get these multi-billion dollar companies that generate hundreds of millions of dollars in Canada every year to do their part to make sure our creators and artists are better paid and more visible online.

We must remember that Canadian radio, television and cable companies have been subject to similar obligations for more than 50 years. In the spirit of fairness, Bill C-10 would extend these obligations to streaming services and social media platforms when they act as broadcasters.

In the spirit of fairness, Bill C-10 would extend these obligations to streaming services and social media platforms when they act as broadcasters.

Bill C-10 recognizes that there is a large diversity of digital business models. It provides ample flexibility to craft common sense rules that will evolve over time as technology changes and Canadians’ habits for accessing culture change.

Once again, let me be very clear: there is no question of censoring what individuals post on social media.

I would also like to point out that the Department of Justice, in its updated analysis of the bill as amended by the committee, confirms that the bill is still consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Internet is dominated by a few massive American companies whose algorithms dictate what we see, what we hear and what we consume. We are inundated with their information. Many of our artists and creators, especially francophones, indigenous and racialized people, have a hard time being heard.

Far from limiting anyone's freedom of expression, Bill C-10 wants to give more visibility to these artists and creators to ensure a greater diversity of voices and perspectives, to counter homogenization and to assert our cultural sovereignty over foreign companies that are only accountable to their shareholders.

I hope the committee will resume its work and quickly move Bill C-10 back to the House of Commons. As always, I would be delighted to support you in your work. I look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Hello, everyone.

Welcome back to the 33rd meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Pursuant to order of reference on February 16, and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, May 10, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format as you can see across the screen. Again, I ask for your patience as we try to deal with this. Please only speak when recognized. Talking over each other under normal circumstances doesn't serve well, and, of course, being in a hybrid situation, or a virtual situation, it makes it even worse.

That being said, there's also one final rule I neglected to mention last time, and that is screenshots or taking photos of your screen are not permitted, please.

One final warning, we are televised today so I hope you are sounding and looking your best as we get on with our meeting.

As you know, thanks to a motion we have appearing before us right now the Honourable Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Canadian Heritage regarding Bill C-10. Also from the Department of Canadian Heritage, we have Thomas Owen Ripley, director general, broadcasting, copyright and creative marketplace; and Drew Olsen, senior director, marketplace and legislative policy.

From the Department of Justice, we invited the Minister of Justice. We received correspondence, and we have been advised that Minister Lametti respectfully declines the invitation. However, we do have from the Department of Justice Nathalie Drouin, deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada; Sarah Geh, director general, human rights law section; and Michael Himsl, legal counsel, also from Canadian Heritage.

That being said, we go back to our original format of witnesses. What we normally do is we allow the chief witness up to 10 minutes to speak, and then we have questions and comments from members of the committee. We follow, based on our old regime, our old order of precedence, when it comes to questions.

Mr. Waugh, I see your hand up.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, Canada's analysis confirms that Bill C-10 remains consistent with the Charter's guarantee of freedom of speech. As a government, we have upheld, and we will continue to uphold, Canadians' fundamental rights.

I would like to confirm once again that individuals posting to social media are specifically excluded in Bill C-10. Also, to be clear, of the obligations for social media companies in the bill, none would require them to restrict or review posts by individuals.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, let me clarify: When the member says that the bill would make certain artists discoverable, what she means is that it would move some up in the queue and some down in the queue; it would pick winners and losers. It is sneaky, controlling and wrong.

If this bill had been in place when Shawn Mendes was a young, aspiring artist posting to YouTube, where his popularity began, the government's Internet czar likely would have demoted him because his songs are, well, just not Canadian enough.

Will the minister truly support Canada's young artists and cancel Bill C-10? The question is for the minister, please.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to content creation on YouTube, Canadians punch above their weight. Now, the government wants to step in and determine who gets to be noticed and who has to be hidden; who gets to succeed and, well, who gets to lose.

If Bill C-10 had been in place when Justin Bieber was just a kid posting his music on YouTube, he probably would not have been discovered because his songs just are not Canadian enough, according to the government's approval test. I ask members to let that sink in, for just a moment. Why is the minister moving ahead with a bill that punishes young artists?

Bill C-10

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the heritage minister has dismissed and insulted critics of Bill C-10 as “extremist” while peddling his own tin-hatted conspiracy theory about big tech being in cahoots with Canadian academics just to spread disinformation about his bill.

Despite all the backlash and the minister's vague promises of future clarity amid his own incoherent and contradictory statements, the bill remains “a full-blown assault” on freedom of expression.

Remember, this minister is a lifelong, radical, anti-energy activist. He admits that the whole point of Bill C-69 was to ensure that no Canadian energy project ever gets built again, and now he wants the power to regulate online content to be, in his words, consistent with the government's vision.

To the energy workers who have lost their jobs at the hands of this government's vision, the prospect of this minister and his government regulating their posts should be terrifying. However, if this deeply flawed bill passes in this Parliament, do not worry, a Conservative government will appeal it in the next one.

Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, the minister has claimed that somehow there has been Conservative dilatory tactics used and he has to move time allocation, yet that has not been the case. Maybe the minister could give us the real reasons why time allocation is being moved.

I know he has so far refused to attend the heritage committee hearings on Bill C-10, even though he has been ordered to do so. Perhaps, is he moving time allocation so he can clear his schedule to enable him to appear at that committee as he has been asked to?

Opposition Motion—Elections During a Pandemic

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have big shoes to fill in following my colleague from Shefford, who is always eloquent and on point. It is my turn to congratulate her on her speech.

It is unbelievable. I am somewhat appalled to see our Liberal colleagues speak so passionately in this debate on Bill C-19. I think that, had he known they were so passionate about the subject, the Prime Minister might have thought twice before forcing closure on it. It seems to me they really need to talk about it.

I believe we are all of one mind in saying that a pandemic is not the time to hold an election. The motion put forward by the Bloc Québécois today is plain common sense. It simply reminds us that an election was held in October 2019, that 1.3 million Canadians, including almost 360,000 Quebeckers, have been infected by COVID-19, that nearly 25,000 people have died as a result and that, in the opinion of the House, holding an election during a pandemic would be irresponsible, and the government must make every effort to ensure that it does not happen. It is a common sense motion.

I get that the government wants to be ready in case the opposition parties decide to bring it down. That is the cheap excuse the government is using, but we are not naive, and neither are Quebeckers. The only reason the Liberals want to pass Bill C-19 is that they expect an election in the coming months. I think it is as simple as that.

I think it is irresponsible of the government to even be thinking about an election, never mind doing everything it can to blame it on the opposition parties. I think that is the height of cowardice. Under normal circumstances, yes, there would probably have been an election this year, or maybe even before now because the Liberals, quite frankly, are just not rising to the occasion. They do not seem worthy of the trust that voters placed in them.

There are some fairly recent examples, like that of the Minister of National Defence, who took no action on allegations of sexual misconduct against the former chief of the defence staff, and the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages, who did nothing to save French-language programs at Laurentian University. She even said that her government would take action to reverse the current anglicization of Quebec. We are still waiting. In the meantime, Quebec had the time to come up with its reform of Bill 101, which was introduced today.

Another example that is very important to me is that of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, who has difficulty putting his money where his mouth is when it comes to greenhouse gas reductions. In fact, his actions encourage businesses to increase their emissions. For example, he granted exemptions to DuPont and Owens Corning, which are manufacturing giants. These exemptions let them ignore the new standards established by his own department for the manufacture of XPS insulation board. I mention this because it was done to the detriment of companies such as Soprema, which is a well-established company in my riding of Drummond that has suffered huge financial losses just because it agreed to comply with these new standards.

There is also the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who has been in the hot seat a lot recently. He still has not come up with a solution to the urgent problem facing our print media, which have been suffering for years because of GAFAM, which is taking advertising revenues on the backs of our journalism content creators. This is to say nothing of the current impasse on Bill C-10 and how the government is managing that file.

In fact, the only minister who did something and took full responsibility was the former minister of finance. I am talking about when he resigned, of course.

If this government knew how to collaborate, listen and govern in a minority context, it would not have such a hard time convincing us of its good faith. Instead, rather than listening to the criticisms and comments of the opposition parties, it prefers to act like a two-year-old child.

When kids are two or three, they go through a phase of saying no. The Liberals are going through that phase right now. They say no to health transfers. They say no to increasing the old age pension starting at age 65. They say no to a single tax return for Quebec. They say no to applying the digital services tax to Netflix, Amazon Prime and other subscription-based content streaming companies. They say no to print media, as I just mentioned.

In fact, they say no to good suggestions from the Bloc Québécois, but those good suggestions will likely become more appealing at election time because we know that the Bloc Québécois proposes things that reflect the interests and demands of Quebec.

I experienced this “no” phase with my own children. They went through it. It is so annoying. It is tiresome and counterproductive. They are so stubborn that there is no way to make them listen to reason. That was at age two. Now we are stuck with a government that is in its “no” phase.

If there is an election during this pandemic, we can conclude that all of the measures announced in the budget were probably meant to become election promises. There is nothing concrete. The government simply made announcements without any follow-up. The Liberals have been doing this since well before the 2019 election.

One example is that the government is promising an inadequate increase to old age security in 2022. Their motto seems to be “why do today what you can put off until tomorrow?”

The government announced $1.3 billion to support the cultural and tourism sectors. The government had the opportunity with its budget implementation bill to include a number of proposed measures to support the cultural and tourism sectors. These sectors would finally have gotten the money they so urgently need. However, the government did not do this.

Two years ago, the Prime Minister promised that his government was going to plant two billion trees by 2030. That comes out to 200 million trees a year. That announcement sounds great, but I do not think that many trees have been planted so far. In fact, I am not even sure there have been many shovels in the ground since 2019.

Since we cannot count on the Liberals for that, I thought maybe the 184 opposition members could give them a hand. According to my calculations, if we decide to do the work for them, every MP will have to plant 10,869,565.2 trees. I do not want to brag, but I have already planted two trees in my yard, and I believe my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert has planted one or two as well. We are ahead of the game. Other MPs will have to catch up with us because there is a long way to go.

As Niccolò Machiavelli wrote in his book, The Prince, to govern, one must make others believe. The Liberals have read the book, and they are putting that theory into practice.

According to a Global News study published on April 18, 57% of voters feel that an election during the pandemic would be unfair. Another survey, this one by Leger, shows that 60% of Canadians do want an election, but they want it to happen later, at least after the fall.

The opposition parties are not the only ones against holding an election in a pandemic. Over 22 million Canadians feel the same way. The Liberals have been getting ready to trigger an election for a while now. In an article published in Le Devoir, journalist Boris Proulx wrote that, in the fall of 2020, candidates under consideration received invitations, in the form of letters addressed to them, to run under the Liberal banner. In the same article, he wrote that, in a year-end interview with CBC, the Prime Minister let slip the words “next year's election”, referring to this year. Either his subconscious is playing tricks on him or plans have been laid.

Why is the government in such a hurry to call an election? I use the word “hurry” because Bill C-19 has been languishing on someone's desk for four months now, and suddenly, the government leader put it on the agenda, with only four hours of debate and time allocation. We are not the only ones wondering about this. The media has often talked about the Liberals' intentions, wisdom or opportunism in trying to trigger an election.

In January 2021, Louis Lacroix, a Cogeco Media host, said that, if he were prime minister, he would want to hold elections as quickly as possible, because once the vaccine begins to have an impact a few months from now and the pandemic starts to recede, we will have time to analyze all these programs and spot the mistakes that were made, which will come back to bite the Prime Minister.

The government would like to have an election because things are getting better and better. The vaccine rollout is generally going well, and we are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

In closing, I will repeat what Bernard Drainville, a radio host on 98.5, had to say. On Monday morning, he said that if the government wants to change the election act, it must seek as broad a consensus as possible. He also mentioned that changes were made unanimously in Quebec.

What the the Bloc Québécois is proposing is to have the leaders of the four parties meet to discuss the proper way to do things and reach a consensus, as befits a subject that is so important to the people we represent. It is just common sense.

The Bloc Québécois has always been clear about what it expects for Quebeckers. When the government criticizes us for voting against the budget, that makes me feel quite cynical because we have always made it very clear that we would support the budget if it included an OAS increase for seniors 65 and up and higher health transfers, which Quebec and the provinces were unanimous in calling for. The government knew that it would not get the Bloc Québécois's support without those things.

The Bloc said in advance what it wanted. Its demands were transparent. When it votes against a budget that does not contain those things, whose fault is that? Is it the Bloc Québécois's fault? I think not.

Canadian Heritage

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

Our main focus is to do everything in our power to help the cultural sector across the country, including in Quebec. This sector was hit particularly hard by the pandemic.

Bill C-10 will invest hundreds of millions of dollars more in our cultural ecosystem, including hundreds of millions of dollars in Quebec, to support francophone artists and musicians in Quebec and across Canada.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion passed by the Quebec National Assembly regarding Bill C-10 also demands the repatriation to Quebec of all powers in the area of culture and communications.

That is nothing new coming from Quebec, or even from provincial Liberals. In 1973, Robert Bourassa was already calling for this. He called it “cultural sovereignty”. Jean Charest did the same in 2008, but the federal Liberals were not quite there yet. There is some good news, however. We learned on Twitter this week that the Liberal Party's Quebec lieutenant supports that motion. He is in favour of repatriating the powers regarding culture to Quebec.

Is there any chance we can see that happening before the end of this session?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously adopted a motion on Quebec culture in the digital age. The motion states that Bill C-10 does not go far enough against the web giants to protect Quebec culture.

That is true, and that is why the Bloc Québécois made sure to introduce amendments to meet the expectations of Quebec's cultural community.

On Tuesday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage warmly supported the motion. Are we to understand that the minister will ensure that Bill C-10 will be prioritized as soon as it leaves the committee in accordance with the unanimous request of the National Assembly and Quebec's cultural community?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as a former journalist and writer, I can assure you that I am acutely aware that Canadians have the right to freedom of expression. Our government would never limit freedom of expression. That is not what Bill C-10 does.

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

Mr. Speaker, we, the Conservatives are for culture and against censorship. The problem with Bill C-10 is that it was literally thrown together by the Minister of Canadian Heritage after he withdrew the much-talked-about clause 4.1 resulting in Canadians' freedom of expression no longer being protected and even threatened.

We are not the only ones saying this. Academics, observers, former members of the CRTC are sounding the alarm. This bill goes too far. The minister himself said that those with a very popular YouTube account will now be under the yoke of the federal government.

Who is going to draw the line between what is good and what is not good in that government?

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Canadian Heritage admitted the goal of Bill C-10 is to end net neutrality, thereby controlling online freedoms. This is not about web giants or artists. It is about what Canadians can and cannot post, and can and cannot see online.

Can the heritage minister just admit that what the Liberals are trying to do actually has nothing to do with promoting Canadian content, and everything to do with stifling free speech and expression?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are suffering while the rest of the world moves ahead and it is because of the Liberals' third wave.

We all know the Liberal thought police are alive and well, and through Bill C-10, the Prime Minister is expanding his attempt at controlling Canadians by controlling what they can or cannot see online. If we question Bill C-10, Liberals will call us conspiracy theorists, all while the heritage minister has incoherent and inconsistent answers on how the Liberals' own bill will apply.

Do these Liberals have such a low opinion of Canadians that they think they must control their online activities?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-10 aims to level the playing field between creators and web giants. It requires big foreign streamers to provide information on their revenues in Canada, financially contribute to Canadian stories and music, and make it easier for individuals to discover our culture.

The bill explicitly says that obligations apply to web giants only, not Canadian users. Web giants have gone unregulated for far too long, and our government has chosen to act.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, experts are saying otherwise.

Canadian culture should be determined by the Canadian people, not the government. To censor online content based on a narrow definition of “Canadianness” is an attack on the artists whom the Prime Minister claims he supports. However, members should not take my word for it. Sherley Joseph is an advocate for Black content creators. She says the definition of “Canadian content” discriminates against Black creators, and Bill C-10 will actually prevent them from being able to leverage their voice. Interesting. It does not sound like an attack on web giants.

Will the Prime Minister finally give up on this unwanted Internet czar campaign and back off?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-10 aims to level the playing field between creators and web giants. It requires big foreign streamers to provide information on the revenues in Canada, financially contribute to Canadian stories and music, and make it easier for individuals to discover our culture. The bill explicitly says that obligations apply to web giants only, not Canadian users.

Web giants have gone unregulated for far too long. Our government has chosen to act.

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

Mr. Speaker, all of us, all MPs from all parties, agree that we must help the cultural sector. I asked the Prime Minister a very simple question.

Are the people who defend freedom of expression in this country considered to be troublemakers, conspiracy theorists and people who spread misinformation? Does he really believe that the concerns of Canadians, analysts, experts, professors and all those who oppose the Liberal government's Bill C-10 are part of a huge conspiracy as his Minister of Canadian Heritage is implying? Does he agree with his heritage minister, yes or no?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage posted a tweet suggesting that public opinion is being manipulated by a misinformation campaign and that anyone questioning Bill C-10 and the Liberals' attack on freedom of expression is, at best, a conspiracy theorist.

I have a very simple question for the Prime Minister: Does he endorse what the Minister of Canadian Heritage said?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage posted a tweet suggesting that public opinion is being manipulated by a misinformation campaign and that anyone questioning Bill C-10 and the Liberals' attack on freedom of expression—

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to respond to the issues raised by my colleague tonight.

Our government is committed to upholding the ideals of freedom of expression and protecting Canadians' rights as guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is why I want to clarify that Bill C-10 in no way seeks to silence Canadians.

Our government stands strongly in favour of the protection of freedom of expression and charter rights, and it is incorrect for the opposition to state that Bill C-10 would regulate the Internet or that it would restrict freedom of expression.

I would like to point out that the act itself has a specific requirement that the Broadcasting Act be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence. I would like to further clarify that the changes that we are proposing through Bill C-10 to modernize the Broadcasting Act do not have the impact that the member opposite states.

The purpose of this modernization is to update a law that has remained unchanged since we were renting videos from the local cornerstore and we had yet to even imagine streaming services. The law is outdated and has created an uneven playing field for web giants that do not have to contribute to the creation of Canadian stories and music. Our artists have shown overwhelming support to update this law.

The bill does not apply to individuals posting content to social media. In fact, individuals are specifically excluded. This bill is not about what Canadians do online; it is about what web giants do not do in Canada, which is support Canadian works, languages, stories and music.

There is an amendment before the heritage committee that clarifies the powers that the regulator, the CRTC, would have over social media companies and the companies alone. The only things that will be asked of social media companies are the following. The first is how much revenue the platform makes in Canada, Second, they are asked to invest a certain percentage of that platform's Canadian revenues into our cultural production funds. Third, they are asked to promote and make discoverable our artists.

Another important point is that the discoverability requirement for social media companies is not the same as the one that applies to traditional TV and radio broadcasters. The social media company will not need to show or play a proportion of Canadian shows or music. The discoverability requirement for social media companies is only to make our creators discoverable, for example, to include them as suggestions in playlists.

Finally, the regulator will not have any powers relating to broadcasting standards for social media companies. The only powers will be the three that I have stated on Canadian revenue, investing in Canadian stories and music and making our artists discoverable.

I was pleased to see that Quebec's National Assembly unanimously supported Bill C-10. I would like to thank its members for their commitment to creative artists. The CRTC is not just going to start regulating content posted by users. Let me reiterate that this bill is in no way an attack on Canadians' freedom of expression.

I look forward to welcoming the justice minister's new charter statement on Bill C-10 as well as hearing from expert witnesses on the changes that have been proposed.

Canadians are at the heart of Bill C-10.

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

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and his heritage minister are engaged in an offensive against their critics. Yesterday the heritage minister, quoting an article, accused his critics of “a deliberate campaign of misinformation by commercial interests that would prefer to avoid the same regulatory oversight applied to broadcast media.”

While the heritage minister is quoting individuals who are part of the groups that have lobbied him and his ministry, the opponents, which he and the Prime Minister accuse of being part of a conspiracy theory and wearing tinfoil hats, number in the tens of thousands of Canadians. They include noted professors of law, Internet law experts and the former chair of the CRTC.

The government is rightly under siege for its flawed bill, Bill C-10. It is a bill that the minister seems to know shockingly little about, as evidenced in his disastrous appearances on news shows over the past two weeks.

While the minister and the Prime Minister are threatening the freedom of expression of Canadians and proposing draconian measures that would restrict and limit the expression of Canadians online, they are also proposing measures that would establish a regulatory body that could block websites from Canadians being able to see them and have social media posts ordered to be taken down. It is concerning when any government seeks to limit the freedom of expression of its citizens, especially so when it is completely unable to articulate the rationale for why this is appropriate.

The government says it is to protect Canadian culture, but there were protections included in the legislation for individual Canadians. However, the government stripped those protections, saying the bill did not need them, and now is proposing half measures that would still not address Canadians' concerns.

Some of the concerns Canadians have include the fact that the Prime Minister has a history of silencing his critics. When he is talking about being able to order web pages blocked, social media posts taken down and the regulation of social media users who have followings that meet no decided threshold, but just have a lot of followers or views, it raises concerns.

This is the same Prime Minister who fired his attorney general, the member for Vancouver Granville, as she was speaking truth to power and stopping him from his attempts to interfere in the criminal prosecution of his friends at SNC-Lavalin. This is the same Prime Minister who kicked the member for Vancouver Granville and Dr. Jane Philpott out of the Liberal caucus for speaking out against him. This is the same Prime Minister who obstructed the investigation in what was later labelled the “Trudeau II Report”, which detailed his attempted interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. It is the same Prime Minister who silenced committees and parliamentarians investigating the WE scandal when he prorogued Parliament and locked the doors to this place.

Canadians are rightfully wondering, as are Internet law experts and the former chair of the CRTC, to name a few, what the government is really trying to do with this clumsy legislation and its spokesperson, the minister, who does not seem to have even read the legislation. Is it really about protecting Canadian content or, in fact, is this legislation about silencing critics of the government?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the International Grand Committee brings together parliamentarians from around the world to discuss the issues surrounding the role social media platforms play in our democracies. As one of the committee's founders, I have always stressed the importance of ensuring our fundamental right to freedom of speech is protected. It is why I am so deeply disturbed by Bill C-10. As former CRTC commissioner Timothy Denton wrote, the bill is “Clearly intended to allow speech control at the government’s discretion.”

What does the Liberal government have against free speech in Canada?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, this will allow me to continue enumerating the list of supports that Bill C-10 has received. It includes, the Music Managers Forum Canada; the League of Canadian Poets; Quebec English-language Production Council; Professional Music Publishers' Association; Canadian Media Producers Association; Professional Music Publishers' Association; Directors Guild of Canada and the The Writers Guild of Canada; Songwriters Association of Canada; Access Copyright; and the list goes on.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents of Red Deer—Mountain View are shocked to discover that the Liberal government is planning to regulate what content they can post on social media channels like Facebook. They are also shocked and disturbed by the confused, contradictory and misleading statements from the minister. On Monday, we found out that thanks to public backlash, the Liberal government's Bill C-10 has now been forced on hold pending a charter review.

Canadians have fought and died to defend our right to free speech and freedom of expression. Why is the Liberal government so determined to wipe out that proud tradition and put these rights at risk?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that Peter Grant, counsel at McCarthy Tétrault LLP and past chair of Technology, Communications and Intellectual Property Group, came out in support of Bill C-10. Others that came out in support include Jane Yale, chair of The Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel; Pierre Trudel, law professor at the University of Montreal and first head of the L.R. Wilson Chair in Information Technology and E-Commerce Law, and communications professor; and the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which actually represents 200,000 artists across the country, musicians from coast to coast to coast, artists, creators, the Canadian actors—

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are trying to regulate the Internet and the algorithms of social media platforms. Bill C-10 is an attack on accounts with blue check marks that are simply wanting to express their opinions.

Recently, University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist stated that Bill C-10 had been a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation from the outset. The former CRTC chair, Konrad von Finckenstein, also said the legislation should not be passed in its present form.

It is clear that the heritage minister is struggling with his own bill. Why is the Liberal government so determined on attacking Canadians' freedom of speech?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for providing me with this opportunity to read a long list of organizations that have already lent their support to Bill C-10 in the past few weeks.

I am thinking of the Société civile des auteurs multimédia, the Société des auteurs et compositeurs dramatiques, Copibec, the Alliance nationale de l'industrie musicale, the Association des distributeurs exclusifs de livres en langue française, the Fédération nationale des communications et de la culture, SOCAN, the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, the Union des artistes, the Association des professionnels des arts de la scène du Québec, the Association québécoise des auteurs dramatiques—

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-10 aims to level the playing field between creators and web giants, and I continue to be baffled by the fact that the Conservative Party of Canada has decided to side with some of the wealthiest and most powerful companies in the world, against our Canadian artists in this country and our musicians.

We would require big, powerful foreign streamers to provide information on their revenues in Canada, to financially contribute to Canadian stories and music, and make it easier for individuals to discover our culture. The bill explicitly says that obligations apply to web giants only, not to Canadian users.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is talking about those groups that receive handouts from the government in order to stay afloat. He is not talking about those individuals who work hard in order to capture an audience organically on YouTube.

Canadian content creators have worked hard to capture massive audiences without any help from government, yet we see the Liberals attempting to tip the scales in favour of those big lobby groups. They are doing so by penalizing individual Canadians for finding success on social media without government support.

Bill C-10 is a disastrous attack on freedom and those with a creative or entrepreneurial edge. When will the heritage minister listen to Canadian content creators and back off?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, aspiring creatives have found a way to successfully market themselves on social media platforms. In doing so, they pose a threat to big arts and culture groups that have traditionally relied on government favours in order to stay afloat.

Finding it hard to compete with savvy YouTubers, those arts and culture groups knocked on the government’s door and asked the Prime Minister to tip the scales. Enter Bill C-10.

How does picking winners and losers protect Canadian culture?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-10 is designed to level the playing field between Canadian creators and the web giants. It will force powerful foreign broadcasters to provide information on their revenue, contribute financially to Canadian stories and music, and enable different audiences to discover our culture. The bill explicitly stipulates that these obligations apply only to web giants and not to Canadian users. The web giants have been exempt from regulations for far too long. Our government has chosen to take action instead of simply reacting.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first the minister said that the government's and CRTC's regulations in Bill C-10 would apply to people who have a lot of followers, earn money and could be considered influencers or broadcasters. The following day he said the opposite. I do not know whether the minister understands his own bill, but one thing is for sure. The bill is vague, confusing and unacceptable.

Why is the Liberal government trying to subject Canadians to a law that will violate freedom of expression?

Bill C-10

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from hundreds of constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country expressing their concerns about the Liberal government’s attempted overreach to regulate individual Canadian Internet users through Bill C-10.

The Macdonald-Laurier Institute stated Bill C-10, “constitutes a full-blown assault” on free expression.

University of Ottawa Professor Michael Geist, Canada's Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, said that Bill C-10 represents, “an exceptionally heavy-handed regulatory approach where a government-appointed regulator decides what individual user generated content is prioritized”.

The CBC reported, “free speech is at risk”.

However, the Prime Minister says that those in Parliament who question him on this topic wear tinfoil hats.

Now the Liberal Minister of Canadian Heritage has been trying to undo the confusing pretzel of information he has twisted, but Canadians in this free and democratic country are smarter than he thinks they are.

Conservatives will persist in standing for the freedoms of Canadians who post their content online.

Canadian Heritage

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote members of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, who state, “Bill C-10 in no way infringes on the freedom of expression, nor does it represent censorship of the Internet.”

The cultural sector is very clear. It wants this bill. Hundreds of millions of dollars for art creators, artists and art musicians are at stake. We are asking the committee to accelerate the completion of its work on Bill C-10 so it can be brought back to the House.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, for weeks, the Liberals have continued their attack on freedom of speech online. As it currently stands, Bill C-10 would grant the CRTC the ability to regulate content that is posted online by individuals who are not even considered broadcasters. This is not disinformation; these are serious concerns that have been raised by former CRTC chairs and highly respected academics.

Will the minister agree to stringent and in-depth protections for user-generated content in Bill C-10?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for giving me the opportunity to remind him of all the people and organizations across the country who support Bill C-10.

Among others, there is Pierre Trudel, professor at Université de Montréal's Faculty of Law and first chair holder of the L.R. Wilson chair in information technology and e-commerce law. There is also the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, the National Alliance of the Music Industry, the Association des distributeurs exclusifs de livres en langue française, the Société civile des auteurs multimédia, the Société des auteurs et compositeurs dramatiques, Copibec, the Association—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me interpret that. What he is saying is that information will be censored, that certain videos will be moved to the top and others to the bottom, and that the government will dictate which is which.

Over the weekend, the minister had yet another blunder. Every time he goes out to “clarify” the intent of Bill C-10, he makes things worse. Within 24 hours, he had to issue two clarifications and an apology. It is obvious the minister does not know what is in his very own bill. It is so bad that just moments ago, the parliamentary secretary had to do the press conference instead of the minister.

Why does the government continue to try to defend the indefensible?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. The bill is not about what Canadians can or cannot post online. It is very explicit in this regard. Helping Canadian artists and creators is at the heart of what Bill C-10 does. It actually gives them more opportunities to meet their own artists and creators. It does so by making sure that big streaming companies pay their fair share to our culture. It also ensures that Canadian artists are discoverable on these platforms. Our creators cannot afford to wait any longer.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when the heritage minister first started coming under fire for Bill C-10, he insisted that YouTube content would not be censored. However, just yesterday the truth slipped out. Uh-oh. In an interview he said, “at some point the CRTC will be asked to put a threshold.” Wait a minute. With one breath the minister says YouTube users have nothing to worry about, but in his next breath he says that at some point they will be censored.

Why does the minister want to dictate to individual YouTubers what they can and cannot post?

Canada Elections Act

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member points out something really important, and that is, first, that we need to acknowledge the fact that the Liberals just moved time allocation, which means they are trying to rush this legislation through without fulsome debate. That is very problematic because it is chipping away at democracy.

The second point the member raises is with regard to Bill C-10, which has to do with government censorship of the information that we post on our social media platforms. This is a huge overreach on behalf of the government and something that is not properly researched.

Interestingly enough, Bill C-19 is one and the same, where, again, I believe it goes too far and ignores the voices of witnesses and those who have expertise in this area. It is shameful.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is good to enter the discussion on this important subject. We are seeing a debacle of epic proportions on Bill C-10, a bill that the minister obviously does not even understand. There are a lot of questions that Canadians have around Bill C-19 and its effect on what is one of the key things that the House is required to do, and that is to be the custodian of Canada's democracy.

Are there any parallels between the debacle that is currently unfolding with Bill C-10 and what is possible with Bill C-19, especially if the bill goes to committee, and now that the Liberals have limited debate and discussion on Bill C-19?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I don't need to repeat that, correct? I see enough nodding heads around the room. It's a critical mass of nods, if I could use the term, to proceed in that way.

My goodness, I don't see any hands up. What is going on with this world?

Anyway, seeing that there is no further discussion or no further debate, that brings us to a vote.

Let's be clear. We're voting on Mr. Housefather's subamendment to the motion put forward by him. What it states, very simply, is that we're going to take out the part that suggests Dr. Geist as a witness and replace it by saying that we're going to have an expert panel with one witness proposed by each recognized party—one from the Liberals, one from the Conservatives, one from the Bloc, and one from the NDP—along with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We will do this as soon as possible over the next little while, before we go on to anything else. That is the subamendment.

I am pausing to see if anyone has a question for clarification.

I don't see one. We will go to a vote.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we will go back to the amendment put forward by Mr. Waugh. There are three paragraphs. In paragraph 1, he takes the word “programs” out to put in the word “contents”.

In paragraph 2, the subamended amendment is, instead of Dr. Michael Geist, we now have an expert panel of four people in addition to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Paragraph 3 would suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2, which I just read.

That is the amendment from Mr. Waugh. Seeing no discussion or debate—I see a lot of thumbs up—we will go to Madam Clerk for the vote. Shall the amendment carry?

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings] )

Now we will return to the main motion of Mr. Housefather, which now includes three points, not two. I don't need to talk about this again. We are all clear as to what it is.

Shall the motion of Mr. Housefather carry?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

This is really important because I think most Canadians would agree that Clearview AI's situation was very concerning. We could see many more examples of this as this technology becomes more commonplace, yet we have legislation that seems to be going backwards. It's willing to protect Clearview AI rather than citizens.

I ask this because we have Bill C-10, which should have been a pretty straightforward bill about making the tech giants pay their part. Instead, it has turned into this legislative dumpster fire with the minister running around looking like a chicken with his head cut off. Our committee had brought forward really clear recommendations on the issue of privacy rights.

You're telling us, with Clearview AI, that this law is actually not taking the lessons we learned on issues like facial recognition and from the big data giants ignoring their obligations under Canadian law, but actually writing in more protections for that abuse because we're not looking at it in a human rights frame. Is that correct?

Bill C-19—Time Allocation Motion

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the clever wordplay by my colleagues from the Liberal Party. What I said was this. When bills go to committee, sometimes, like with Bill C-10, they come back in worse shape because of terrible amendments put forward by the government. I would hate for that to happen to something as critical as this democratic bill, Bill C-19. When I say we should have more debate in the House of Commons, that means this bill deserves more than three hours and 45 minutes of debate.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The same thought occurs to me. After all the time we have spent on this, if the Ministers are not ready to come and testify as soon as possible, and if the new charter statement is not yet ready, we have a problem.

So, basically, I agree. I had a former colleague who used to say that, often, to come to a decent agreement, everyone needs to leave a little blood on the table. Compromises have to be made and this one seems acceptable to me. We will count on our Liberal colleagues to put all the pressure they need for the Ministers to be ready to come and testify before the committee as quickly as possible. We all agree that “as quickly as possible” is this Friday. Then, at the next meeting, as Mr. Housefather proposed, we could welcome one witness per party represented around this table. We could then finally resume our work and hope to be able to see Bill C-10 adopted. The bill is so important for our industry.

The compromise is perfectly acceptable, I feel. So I am in favour

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, this bill has only been up for debate three times and has only been debated for about three hours and 45 minutes. The minister saying the government is looking forward to getting it to committee does not leave the opposition with a lot of hope, because quite a few bills have gone to committee and come back worse. I think about Bill C-10 and the MAID bill. There are a few bills like this, and we do not have confidence that after they go to committee, they will be better bills. That is why we are in favour of having more debate on the floor for this piece of legislation, so that we can get our comments on the record and ensure that it moves forward.

The minister says the government does not want a pandemic election, so what is the big desire to rush this bill through now and call for a concurrence motion?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I have a brief comment here.

First off, I think this motion is being strengthened as we go along. Ms. McPherson has offered to change it from “separately”, and we've obviously agreed to take that out. I think that's fine.

I think point 3 is very important. It is that we would suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2. We know why this is important: It is because we feel that this charter statement is absolutely necessary in order to make the best decisions going forward.

Hearing from those witnesses is going to also give us a better understanding of this bill. Here's why that is of utmost importance: We see that the Minister of Heritage himself is struggling to answer some really basic questions about this bill. If he himself doesn't have a full understanding of what this legislation does and does not do, and is not able to clearly communicate on that point, then I'm confused as to why this committee would be expected to have a clear understanding of this piece of legislation.

I think it's incumbent upon all of us, then, to seek the input from those who would be able to give us better insight and help us to clearly understand the parameters of this bill and what it does. Within that, I'm talking about witnesses, but I'm also talking about the charter statement, which we know will have fundamentally changed since the bill was first introduced in the fall, which was when the original charter statement was provided.

Obviously, because of those changes, a new charter statement is the responsible thing to seek, and it will help us do a better job as legislators and rightly represent Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Before I go to Ms. Harder, I'm starting to read the room a little better now in terms of what you just mentioned.

Mr. Rayes, were you suggesting to subamend Mr. Waugh's amendment to take out the word “separately”?

I'm seeing a lot of nods, because if a committee so desires, we can dispense with that right away.

Do I see any objection with subamending that right away?

There are no objections.

(Subamendment agreed to)

We're taking the word “separately” out of his amendment.

For those who have just joined us, such as Ms. Harder, Mr. Waugh is proposing to do the following with Mr. Housefather's motion: In point 1, he takes out the word “programs” and replaces it with the word “content”, and in point 2, he would invite the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Dr. Michael Geist to appear before the committee, and not separately.

In point 3, he would suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2.

Ms. Harder, you have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I can provide some clarification, because I've had this discussion already. There is a way by which you can.

I'll do this very slowly so that everybody understands.

Ms. McPherson was asking if we can seek unanimous consent to go back to other amendments that we've already covered under Bill C-10. There is a path to do that, and I'll go to the clerk in just a few moments to seek clarification, but this is how it can work.

You could adjourn the motion with a clarification. If you adjourn this motion—the debate on the motion—provided that you also have a clarification that you want to seek unanimous consent, it's not a dilatory motion. We can debate it if you wish, and then go to that very thing that you want to get to. Then, upon that, following that, we can go back to Mr. Housefather's motion or the amendments that have been proposed.

I hope that was somewhat clear.

I will ask the clerk. Go ahead, Aimée. Rescue this poor man.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

May I propose that points 1 and 2 stand, and that point 3, then, would read “suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2”? It's very simple.

I hope the clerk has notification of that by now. Points 1 and 2 would still be the same. Point 3, because you've made the ruling, would be that we suspend the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill until the completion of both points 1 and 2. That's as short as I can make it for you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I call the meeting to order. Welcome back, everybody.

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage as we take a look at, are concerned with and are enveloped in Bill C-10 and clause-by-clause consideration.

Before I give the floor to Ms. Dabrusin, I want to say that we likely will be interrupted towards the end of the meeting.

Now, I'm going to use Eastern Time, of course. We are anticipating that the bells will ring at 12:30 Eastern Time for a vote. The way this normally works is that if we want to extend the meeting into bells for a period of time that is okay with us, we have to ask for consent to do that. Otherwise, I just adjourn the meeting right there and then so that we can go and vote. I'm not asking you about this right now, obviously. We'll figure that out when we get there, as we are masters of our domain.

Let's go back to the topic at hand. We are considering Bill C-10 in clause-by-clause consideration.

Ms. Dabrusin, you have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

That puts us back into the same situation, folks. We have now gone over two hours. I am looking at everyone to see who wants to say goodbye. I see a lot of hands waving in this direction, so I'm assuming that you want to call it a week and get ready for your weekend.

I will put something on your radar, though, if that's okay. It won't take very long.

As you know, we passed a motion on March 26. It says, “That the committee extend the hours of its meetings during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10”. That's on the extension of hours. The second thing it calls for is that we “hold any additional meetings required to make the necessary changes to the outdated Broadcasting Act and move the bill to third reading”. That was adopted by the committee, and that's why we had the meeting last night. It tells me that I should endeavour to find meetings during the break week if we are still on Bill C-10 and considering clause-by-clause.

I'm saying this because it is the will of the committee, and I just want to give you a heads-up a week and a bit before the break week, so that you can plan accordingly when we get close to that date.

Thank you, everyone. It was a great debate. It's good to see you all.

Have a good weekend.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I must admit that I find it a little hurtful to see that some people are asking for the meeting to be adjourned when we have talked so long about freedom of expression and the importance of being able to speak. To me, that also includes an obligation, if only out of respect, to let others speak, which I am happy to do at this time. I'll still try to keep it short.

How did we get here? It's quite worrisome.

First, we agree that the Liberals fell short by removing the proposed section 4.1 without immediately taking precautions to reassure users of their freedom to share their content. Various anti-Internet-regulation advocates jumped on the bandwagon and pointed to this loophole as a potential threat to freedom of expression.

The cultural industry is caught between the Liberals' negligence and the Conservatives' reaction. I have heard my colleagues Mr. Rayes and Mr. Shields testify and profess their love for culture, and I don't doubt it for a second. I don't think anyone can sit on this committee without a deep affection for culture. Having said that, culture is currently paying the price for this struggle we are having a hard time resolving.

We often quote Mr. Geist, whose expertise I recognize, but other experts have said other things as well. Let's talk about Pierre Trudel and Monique Simard, who published a letter in Le Devoir. Pierre Trudel is not just anyone. You know the content of the letter, and I am sure that everyone is aware of their opinion: “Bill C-10 creates no risk that the CRTC will one day start regulating videos produced by individuals...” That's it; you can read the letter. I don't want to take up too much of your time doing so.

Pierre Trudel is also a law professor, at the Université de Montréal. He has written books on the right of access to information and media law. He works extensively on the subject of Internet regulation. He and Ms. Simard were part of the federal expert panel on the review of the legislative and regulatory framework for broadcasting. So I think they have some credibility too.

I agree that we must rely on experts. However, when you want to listen to the views of experts in a field in which you don't have expertise yourself, you have to listen to those who advocate a point of view that is not necessarily the one you spontaneously adopt. You have to be open. Wanting to better understand the issue also means wanting to understand the point of view of all parties.

Right now, the cultural industry is wondering why we are wasting so much time talking when there is an urgent need to act. Ms. Yale mentioned this urgency last year in her report, which was co-signed by Ms. Simard. We all agreed on that. At this point, I think we must not speak for the Liberal Party, the Conservatives, the NDP or the Bloc Québécois, but we must speak for those who will be most affected by this bill: the people in the cultural and media industries.

The Internet giants are doing a lot of damage to our industry and to our Canadian broadcasting system, and that is why we are here. Yes, concerns need to be addressed. We need to reassure those who fear for their freedom of expression, I agree with that 100%. That's why, up until now, I've been keen to have that point clarified. I think Mr. Housefather's proposal today is a compromise that deserves to be considered by all parties.

I want to pick up on the point that Ms. Harder and Mr. Rayes made earlier. It would be impossible not to go backwards if the Minister of Justice did not provide us with a new opinion on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that supported Bill C-10. It would be impossible not to go backwards, because refusing unanimous consent to change sections would be tantamount to killing the bill. No one who wants to see this bill succeed would refuse to come back and change sections of the bill if it did not have the full support of the Minister of Justice through his new statement on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There is room for good will and good faith. We will get the new statement on the charter, we will have a visit from the two ministers, we will have the answers to our questions and we will not have to put this bill to a vote until we have those guarantees. The Bloc Québécois would never support any bill if we had the slightest suspicion that it posed a real risk to freedom of expression.

In the meantime, we can work on other clauses to move this bill forward for the benefit of the cultural industry, which is crying out for us to do so. I know that the Canadian and Quebec cultural industry is important to you. I also know that, regardless of the party affiliation, you all want to make progress. So I invite you to be open.

We will ensure that freedom of expression is protected by all means necessary and by all means that satisfy us. In the meantime, I believe we have a duty to continue to work to improve this bill, which we all agree needed a lot of love to become acceptable to everyone. We also have a duty to respect the democratic process, my friends. In this regard, if we respect the democratic process, we must accept that the members of the committee can all vote together on a motion that seems acceptable to me.

In any event, even if we wanted to go back to Ms. Harder's motion, as the Conservatives seem to be asking, we would first have to deal with the motion before us now. So I think we should vote on that motion and give the committee a chance to continue the democratic process. I think that's reasonable and makes good common sense. We owe it to our creators in Quebec and Canada. We owe it to the media and cultural industry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's time to move on, with this good compromise.

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

I was saying we have been waiting six years for the Liberal government to bring forward this legislation.

Everything was going smoothly. The minister was the one who gave the instruction to remove an element from the bill. In a major interview, he couldn't even explain why the section had been included in the first place or why he had asked for it to be removed. Then, he assured us that everyone would be protected. Two or three days ago, the minister announced in a tweet that further amendments would be brought forward to clear everything up. Then, we—not the minister—are accused of lying and misleading Canadians when we say that the bill does not protect users. The Liberals, however, are the ones bringing forward further amendments in an effort to remedy the problem they, themselves, created by removing the section. That means they put forward bad amendments, on top of it all. I find that worrisome.

To be frank, as I said at last night's meeting—which was added—I have lost confidence in the minister. As happens in regular life, we sometimes lose faith in friends and loved ones, so that confidence has to be rebuilt. People often say it takes years to build a friendship but only an instant to destroy it. It is incumbent upon the minister to regain that confidence. It is up to him to show us that he is being sincere, and the best way to do that is to not stand in the way of the committee hitting the pause button for a few days.

I would say that, since we started talking about this, the Minister of Justice has begun preparing a written opinion. He has to consider everything that is going on to prepare that opinion. Like the Minister of Canadian Heritage, he must have a multitude of public servants and political advisers watching each of our meetings to know what's being said. Regardless, in his motion, Mr. Housefather is ultimately calling on the minister to issue a new opinion.

If the bill is as clear as the government says, why not take a short pause, so we can get everything cleared up and go back to making good progress like before?

Some are even saying we should go back to the drawing board. That says a lot. The loss of confidence is so great that some experts on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and freedom of expression are starting to point to a serious problem. Are we being hoodwinked? It feels that way. That confidence goes to the heart of this very work, as we try to get answers to all of our questions.

Mr. Housefather's motion suggests a genuine desire to find a compromise, but a compromise in response to what? We already had a compromise, and everything was going fine.

The government caused all of this by deciding to remove proposed section 4.1. Had the government not done what it did, we might have been finished our study of Bill C-10 by now. Nevertheless, the mistake was made, and it has to be fixed. We need a new opinion from the minister before we can go any further. What's a few days after a six-year wait?

Enough with the accusations that we are pushing culture to the side and that we don't want to help those in the sector. We even submitted a unanimous report regarding our study on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the arts, culture, heritage and sport sectors so the government could make good budget decisions.

The organization Friends of Canadian Broadcasting had even raised a red flag over proposed section 4.1, pointing out that it also applied to users, so they needed to be protected. The organization did not recommend removing the proposed section altogether. Worst case, it could have been amended, if necessary.

The minister was aware of those positions and explanations. He consulted the same groups we, the opposition parties, consulted before we got to this point.

I am very concerned about where the committee goes from here. It's clear where things are headed. Some would have us keep going, amendment by amendment, but freedom of expression is too important of an issue to sidestep.

I repeat: this is not about pitting culture and freedom of expression against one another. We must stand up for both. The Minister of Justice issued a charter statement relating to freedom of expression on November 18 or 20 of last year. I don't recall the exact date, but it's available on the federal government's website. The people following our proceedings right now may not know this, but every single government bill has to undergo a review by the Minister of justice for consistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The minister issued his recommendation taking into account proposed section 4.1, which the bill would have added to the Broadcasting Act. Now that the proposed section has been deleted, the opinion has no leg to stand on. It's like pulling the foundation out from under house. It reminds me of that game where you construct a tower with a bunch of wooden blocks. Those who have played before know how it works: players pull out blocks one at a time, but as soon as someone pulls out a block from the bottom, the tower comes crashing down. Allowing this to go forward would be akin to cheating, holding up the tower with our hands to keep it from crumbling.

We are asking for a pause. We want the Minister of Justice to quickly issue a new opinion so we have the clarity we need to move forward. It would show a modicum of good faith to put Mr. Housefather's motion aside and move forward accordingly.

Why do I say that?

I brought up Peter Menzies earlier. After our meeting yesterday, comments were posted on Twitter. I'm sure all the committee members read what he posted, given his eminent expertise in the field. I will try to recap what he said.

Mr. Menzies wondered how Mr. Guilbeault's amendment to Bill C-10 clarified the CRTC's regulation of user-generated content. He stated that, for the past week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Mr. Guilbeault, promised to address widespread concerns over Bill C-10, the bill to reform the Broadcasting Act. After the issue became the subject of growing debate in the House of Commons, Mr. Guilbeault indicated that the Liberals, too, wanted to make sure content uploaded by users to social media would not be deemed programming under the act and thus not be regulated by the CRTC. He added that that was why the Liberals would be bringing forward another amendment to ensure that this was absolutely clear.

The Prime Minister reiterated the message on Wednesday in the House of Commons, saying and I quote:

We have been clear that this is not about individual users or about what individual Canadians post online. As the Minister of Canadian Heritage said, we will be bringing forward an amendment to ensure that this is absolutely clear.

He had just contradicted his own minister, who actually contradicted himself by denying that users were impacted by the removal of proposed section 4.1 from the bill.

I want to cite Mr. Geist, because the sequence of events is crucial to understand why we cannot keep dealing with the bill one amendment at a time and hoping for unanimous consent in the end to revisit certain amendments. It would be more reassuring if the Liberals were to agree in writing, in the presence of counsel, to give us the ongoing ability to revisit amendments at the end of the process, should we wish to propose others. I doubt they would, however.

Last night, at a somewhat strange Canadian heritage committee meeting, Liberal member Ms. Dabrusin, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, brought forward the promised amendment. Instead of confirming that the content Canadians upload to social media would not be deemed programming under the Broadcasting Act, the amendment does precisely the opposite.

First, the amendment does not reinstate the exception that was set out in proposed section 4.1, which was touted as a safeguard against the regulation of user-generated content. Second, not only does user-generated content continue to be subject to regulation, but the amendment also confirms the CRTC's regulatory authority, including a new power specifically designed for social media. In other words, instead of backing down in the face of public criticism, the government doubled down on its plan to regulate the Internet. It's madness.

I am trying to untangle it all. The minister and his officials initially proposed adding section 4.1 to the act to protect users, but then took it away on the pretext that users were protected regardless. At the end of the day, that is not true, and the government is putting forward a new amendment. According to the experts, the government is actually making things worse with its new amendment, G -11.1

We agreed to set amendment G-11.1 aside in order to consider Mr. Housefather's motion.

As Mr. Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and subject matter expert, goes on to explain, amendment G-11.1 adds to the list of conditions the CRTC can impose on online undertakings. As amended, the provision would read as follows:

9.1(1) The Commission [the CRTC] may, in furtherance of its objects, make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings that the Commission considers appropriate for the implementation of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1), including conditions respecting … (i.1) in relation to online undertakings that provide a social media service, the discoverability of Canadian creators of programs …

According to Mr. Geist, the proposed amendments establish some regulatory limits that restrict what the CRTC can do in relation to user-generated content, but the overall approach is indeed supposedly crystal clear. User-generated content is subject to CRTC regulation under Bill C-10, and as a result, the content of millions of Canadians' feeds on social media will be subject to regulation.

What I just told you is madness. When an articulate and eminent expert in the field makes a comment like that, I understandably have concerns about the honourable member Mr. Housefather's motion.

Mr. Geist points out that content on TikTok, Instagram and YouTube will now be approved by the CRTC, because it sets the conditions to mandate discoverability of Canadian content. By regulating user-generated content in this way, Canada will be an outlier with respect to Internet regulation. In a previous post, Mr. Geist stated that even the European Union, with its extensive regulations, ensured that video sharing platforms were not subject to regulatory requirements to prioritize some user-generated content over other content.

Mr. Geist goes on to say that there is good reason to not regulate user-generated content in this manner, since it has implications for freedom of expression and raises a host of questions. I want to stress how important those questions are, questions we have every right to ask. For example, how will companies determine what constitutes Canadian content? Will Canadians be required to surrender more personal information to big tech companies as part of the new rules? What requirements will be established for individual feeds?

Now we are getting into people's personal information—information the tech giants could force users to provide. That is to say nothing of the algorithms these companies use, which raise a whole slew of other questions. We don't have the necessary expertise at this time to arrive at an informed opinion.

As someone who used to represent educators, I cannot overstate how much it bothers me to make a decision that is uninformed.

That brings to mind an important rule of project management. It has four parts. First, know the project. Second, understand the project. Third, support the project. It will then be possible to, fourth and finally, implement the project. Since I'm having trouble knowing and understanding just what the government is proposing, I can't go on to support or implement it. It's basic decision-making.

I'm conflicted right now. Given what the experts are telling me, I am not in a position to make an informed decision on Mr. Housefather's motion.

Mr. Geist's analysis of amendment G-11.1 doesn't stop there.

I might add that amendment G-11.1 is the next amendment we are supposed to examine, despite the fact that we don't know where the Minister of Justice stands. If we adopt Mr. Housefather's motion, we will be going ahead without the benefit of the minister's expertise or the answers to our questions. Later on, if we feel the need to backtrack, it won't be possible to do so without unanimous consent.

Given the attacks of Mr. Guilbeault and his parliamentary secretary over the past two weeks, I don't feel confident that I would get the unanimous consent needed to propose amendments, if the Minister of Justice came to the conclusion that any part of the work we were doing here was not compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As I say that, I have trouble believing that anyone would be against charter compliance.

Back to Mr. Geist's post. He states that Canadian Heritage officials removed any doubt about the implications of the amendment. It makes me a bit uncomfortable to repeat this next part, given the critical tone, but these are the professor's comments. Regardless, criticism is a necessary part of the process to move forward and make things better. I'm sure departmental officials have already seen what he had to say. I don't mean to suggest that there was any bad faith on their part. I am simply saying that people's thinking is informed by their own understanding and by the people who influence them.

According to Mr. Geist, department officials told members of Parliament that the amendment to proposed section 9.1 of the bill would give the CRTC an additional power, the power to make orders with respect to online undertakings that provide a social media service. That order-making power would apply only to a social media service. It would give the CRTC the ability to make orders with respect to the discoverability of Canadian creators' programs.

Mr. Geist points out that, in response to another member's question—it might actually be a question I asked, I'm not sure—officials reiterated that proposed section 4.1 was intended to exclude programming that was uploaded on social media by someone who was not affiliated to that social media. The motion put forward by Ms. Dabrusin, amendment G-11.1, defines what regulatory tools under proposed section 9.1 can be used vis-à-vis social media.

I'm nearing the end of Mr. Geist's analysis. I'll wrap up by telling you where I stand on the motion.

Minister Guilbeault and the government promised to remove the parts that give the CRTC the power to regulate user-generated content. Instead, yesterday, they effectively confirmed that denials about the effects of the bill were inaccurate and left a regulatory framework in place.

As Navneet Alang states in the Toronto Star, in a column critical of Facebook, the right to speak on social media includes the right to be amplified and to be free to have an audience. That part is key. It means we should be requiring greater algorithmic transparency from Internet companies, not substituting their choices for those crafted through government regulation. That is the difference. That is the hook around which demagogues rally, making people believe—because the issue is so complex—that users, big tech, culture and freedom of expression are all at odds.

I have shown nothing but good faith since I have been on the committee. I was elected vice-chair and even had the privilege of standing in for you a few times, Mr. Chair. I can attest to what a feat it is to run a meeting like this, ensuring its orderly conduct in accordance with all the rules. Although we challenge your decisions at times, it does not mean that we question your ability or authority. I can certainly speak to that.

No matter how you slice it, despite Mr. Housefather's genuine desire not to delay the bill's passage, it is clear to me that this is a specious debate. All we are asking for is to hit the pause button for a few days. It would take just a few days to obtain the Minister of Justice's legal opinion.

Had there been support at the outset for what this motion seeks to do—obtain a new legal opinion—the matter would have been settled by now. Today, we would know whether the removal of proposed section 4.1 has any repercussions on freedom of expression. If the minister determined that there were none, we could have carried on with our study as per usual. If not, I think we would have had one heck of a problem. I think we have one heck of a problem right now, for that matter. That is why I am so adamant about finding some way to put the study on hold. We are not trying to delay helping the cultural sector. I repeat, all we need is a few days.

The expert panel that had previously endorsed Bill C-10 even had to write another letter of support because some of its members no longer wanted to support it. Right now, people across the country are opposed to the bill. I can tell you that I feel pressure, not from my party, but from Canadians and Quebeckers who feel attacked. I must respond to them.

It doesn't matter whether the minister likes this or not. He's trying to grandstand. By the way, it would be nice if a Liberal member could send him the message that his attacks slide off me like water off a duck's back. They really don't work. They won't change my commitment to freedom of expression at all costs.

As I said before—I can't remember whether it was in this committee or in an interview—my parents are Egyptian. You may say that my comments are off topic. However, my point is important because it explains why I'm so strongly opposed to this motion. My parents came to Canada from Egypt. When I had the opportunity to speak to my father about why he and my mother decided to move our entire family from their beloved home country to Canada, I remember his answer like it was yesterday. He often repeats it when we talk about major political and social debates. He and my mother came to Canada so that we could enjoy freedom of expression and religion; choose our own paths, whatever they may be; and access the Canadian justice system. Although this system isn't perfect, we should always strive to change it. This is in my DNA.

During the oral question period, the minister tried to attack one of the values that I hold so dear by suggesting that I was misleading the public. Goodness knows the Speaker of the House quickly called him to order. He then tried to sidestep the issue, but he subsequently respected decorum. I want to thank him for that.

I can't go on like this. I'll do everything in my power to defend freedom of expression. I invite the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democrats to do the right thing if they really want to make progress on our work for the sake of Canadian culture and creators, whether the creators are Quebeckers, francophones, anglophones, indigenous people or other people. The very basis of the Canadian, Quebec, francophone and Acadian identity in this country is freedom of expression. This freedom has been attacked.

I know Mr. Guilbeault a little bit. He isn't a bad person. He has an activist background. We all wondered why he joined the Liberals. We all thought that he would run for the Green Party—

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

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the motion of my colleague Mr. Housefather.

As I said before when I took the floor, I really like Mr. Housefather, and not only because he is a Quebecker and a Canadian. The openness he has shown in various debates and his willingness to work in partnership have often been highlighted by the members of all parties in the House of Commons. However, that does not mean we are always in agreement. I see him smiling; he knows what is coming. I don't have only praise for him, but I don't want to criticize him, either.

Before I begin, I want to come back to the fact that he raised a point of order to underscore that, had my colleague not taken time to speak, the committee could have already voted on his motion, and even on Ms. Harder's motion, if necessary. I have two things to say to him. First, we would have liked to vote on Ms. Harder's motion, but the Liberals ended the debate by moving a motion to adjourn. So we did not even have the opportunity to do that. Second, since the beginning, we have been calling for the committee to suspend its operation, while waiting for the Minister of Justice to provide us with a new statement and for the two ministers to appear before the committee. Had this proposal been agreed to, we would have already had the minister's new statement and we would already be working on the amendments to the bill—in other words, proceeding with the clause–by–clause consideration of the bill.

However, that is not the decision the committee made. A motion to adjourn was proposed to end the discussion on Ms. Harder's motion, even though the NDP and the Bloc Québécois had proposed an amendment to impose a deadline on the minister to quickly submit a new statement to us, so that we could continue our work.

We are now dealing with a new motion. Some people feel that this is an acceptable compromise to Ms. Harder's proposal. The motion enables us to continue with the committee's operations and to avoid slowing the process down. What is more, depending on the minister's new statement, we will have an opportunity to propose new amendments, as needed, at the very end of the process.

That said, Ms. Harder highlighted one of the major flaws of Mr. Housefather's motion. I sincerely don't think that Mr. Housefather acted in bad faith. I think that, when he moved his motion, he truly wanted to find an acceptable compromise, so that we could get back to our clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. Nevertheless, an element was forgotten, although I am sure it was not intentional. We found that flaw upon reading the House of Commons Procedure and Practice—the big green book.

The motion proposes that we work together on amendments before we even get the minister's statement on the central element of this debate, the deleting of the initially proposed clause 4.1. After we finish our work, if, in light of the minister's statement and despite the amendments that have been adopted or rejected, we note that the bill still has real flaws, we could amend the bill further. However, since we need unanimous consent to return to an amendment, members of the government or of another party will have the power to block the process.

I think that is the motion's major flaw. We are not pausing committee work while we wait for the statement from the Minister of Justice and hear from him and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, as it was requested. The motion also does not impose a deadline to avoid this taking too long. A deadline would help our work mover forward nicely, as the case was before the fateful moment when clause 4.1 was deleted and clause 3 of the bill was proposed.

I want to tell people who are listening to us that this is not a debate between culture and freedom of expression. Those are two important elements. We all agree with defending culture. Unfortunately, the minister and his parliamentary secretary, I think, are saying things in the media that are misleading us. I apologize, Mr. Chair, I should not be saying this. Even the minister tried to accuse me of misleading people during question period, and he had to apologize for that. Let's rather say that the wrong message is being sent to cultural stakeholders by making them believe that culture is not important to us. Our desire to defend freedom of expression, which is the very foundation of our job as members of Parliament, is implying that we are opposed to culture, and that should not be the case now.

This is why it is important to clarify that matter before going further. I am personally not comfortable continuing the process, knowing that, at the end of the day, we may not be able to make the amendments we deem necessary, based on the Liberal minister's statement, to protect users who generate content on social networks.

This is not about creating a war between major social networks, on the one hand, and users, on the other hand. I think users' freedom of expression must be protected and precedent setting avoided. We must avoid a well-meaning group being able to decide what is good and what is not. I think this is important and want to point it out.

My colleague Mr. Shields felt the need yesterday to show his love for culture. I also felt that need. I was sincerely offended, upset and shocked to see our will to protect the French fact and Canadian culture questioned. In reality, we have been responsive to organizations in these areas. We have even proposed a number of amendments and subamendments that show this.

Two weeks ago, a shocking event occurred that no one saw coming. On a Friday afternoon, with no warning, the government proposed that a clause from Bill C-10 be deleted. That took us by surprise. The change caused a huge outcry across Canada by citizens, experts and university professors. Some well-known experts have already been named, but I could name some others. I took the time to name a few during oral question period.

Among those who are often named is Peter Menzies, former commissioner at the Canadian Radio–television and Telecommunications Commission. He made a scathing comment, which is making me reluctant to support Mr. Housefather's motion. I am not fully convinced that we could ultimately make changes to the amendments, as that would require the committee's unanimous consent. So I implore my NDP and Bloc Québécois colleagues to be careful about this element, which I did not see coming right away either, when we received in our emails the idea of Mr. Housefather's amendment.

Mr. Menzies said this was a full–blown attack on freedom of expression and the very foundations of democracy. He finds it difficult to understand the level of pride or incompetence, or both, that may lead someone to believe that such an infringement of rights is justifiable. Those are pretty strong statements from someone who has been commissioner of the CRTC, when we consider all of that organization's powers.

Michael Geist was all also named numerous times, and I will talk to you about him a bit later to explain why Mr. Housefather's motion worries me. Mr. Geist said that this was the most anti-Internet government in Canadian history. Unfortunately, I have still not heard any Liberal members attack Mr. Geist by saying that his statements were demagogic or inappropriate. I don't know whether the Liberals are afraid of provoking him or they are all simply fully aware of his expertise level and of how right he is. It is true that, every time an issue is raised in his area of expertise, Mr. Geist is quick to react thanks to his relevant knowledge on international matters.

So I would like people to stop saying that we are opposed to culture because that's not true. Here is what I have to say to the committee members and to people listening to us. The government has been in power for six years. It prorogued Parliament for reasons I don't want to get into, as I will be told that I am getting off topic, but there have been scandals related to the WE Charity, which the government wanted to bury by trying to halt the project.

By the way, some are blaming us by saying that we are now filibustering. However, if we look at the list of committees, we see that a number of them currently have their work completely blocked because the government wants to avoid discussions on Liberal scandals, such as the allegations against Mr. Vance, the WE Charity, and so on.

We are speaking out to defend freedom of expression. I don't feel that I am filibustering, but rather fighting for Canadians who feel that Bill C-10 attacks their freedom of expression.

What I am getting at is that the Liberals have been in power for six years, and that is how long it took them to introduce this bill.

We have been debating in committee without issues since the beginning. I challenge anyone to find a single moment, before the proposed clause 4.1 was deleted, when the consideration of the bill was delayed. Despite what the minister and his parliamentary secretary said in the media and on social networks, can a single moment be found when the legislative process, which is managed by the government leader and his team, was delayed?

We agreed to conduct a preliminary study of the bill, so that the committee would start hearing from witnesses at the same time as members were using their legitimate right to express themselves on the bill in the House of Commons. Some felt that the bill was incomplete, or that it was a bad bill, while others thought the bill was basically good, but they wanted to improve it through amendments. Everything was going well, even in committee. Liberals were supporting Conservative amendments, the NDP was supporting the Bloc Québécois amendments, and vice versa.

Mr. Chair, I am hearing the interpretation in English.

It's okay, I think the problem has been resolved.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, the motion that has been put forward has to do with Bill C-10 and it has to do with whether or not we are going to continue to consider it in its current state and then, at the end, ask for a charter statement, or if we are going to vote this down and go with the amendment that I've proposed, which is to stop this imminently and seek that statement now. Perhaps we are going to go with neither of those motions. Perhaps there's a different motion that someone else would like to bring forward, or perhaps we'll just continue as if there is no motion at all.

Again, it is impossible to talk about this motion and my position on this motion, which I believe is what this debate is all about...allowing me to state my position and to try to rally support. It is impossible to do that without actually diving into Bill C-10. It would be irresponsible of me.

In order to make an educated decision, it is important to consider the things that experts are saying, so that's what I'm doing. I'm providing context and I'm making my argument, stating my position, which I believe, as an elected member of Parliament, I am permitted to do.

Of course, I believe I am also permitted—although this might be censored as well, soon, but I don't think it is yet—to use the words of another and to quote him in my statement.

Dr. Geist makes it really clear, then, that the content of millions of Canadians—the things that they post on TikTok, YouTube and Instagram—would in fact be regulated. That content would be mandated to discoverability criteria, which then would allow for some content to be prioritized over other content.

Again, that's a problem. It's a problem because it allows some values to be set at a higher place than others, which is an imposition on people's freedom.

If we were to seek a charter statement, it would allow us to understand the implications of the bill as it stands.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Let me revisit the motion here. I'll just read it out loud so that we all understand what we're talking about and I can also refresh my own memory. It says:

That the Committee:

1) Will consider all amendments proposed on Bill C-10 and should points 2 and 3 below not have been completed at the time the amendments on the Bill have all been considered, the Committee will pause in its deliberations and not dispose of the Bill until points 2 and 3 below have been completed.

2) Ask the Minister of Justice to provide a revised Charter statement on Bill C-10—

Good. We're talking about Bill C-10. That's good.

—as soon as possible, focusing on whether the Committee's changes to the Bill related to programs uploaded by users of social media services have impacted the initial Charter statement provided—

We're talking about social media use. We're talking about the regulation of those programs. We're talking about a charter statement. Got it.

—in particular, as it relates to Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That's great. We're talking about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms too.

3) Invite the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage accompanied by relevant department officials to appear before the Committee as soon as possible—

I love that language. It's so descriptive and precise.

—to discuss the revised Charter statement and any implications of amendments made by the Committee to the Bill.

4) Shall take all votes necessary to dispose of the Bill—

Now interestingly enough, “all votes necessary” would mean basically just one vetoed vote after another.

—once points 2 and 3 are completed and all amendments have been considered.

Good. I've refreshed my memory, I now understand the scope of this amendment and I believe that everything I have talked about thus far still fits within this amendment, so I will proceed.

Dr. Geist.... I'm sorry, folks. I got interrupted. I'm going to start over.

In his statement, he said:

The amendments establish some limitations on regulation that restrict what the CRTC can do with regard to user generated content, but the overall approach is indeed “crystal clear.” User generated content is subject to CRTC regulation under Bill C-10 with the result that the content of millions of Canadians’ feeds on TikTok, Instagram, and Youtube will now be CRTC approved as it establishes conditions to mandate—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Again, I would contend that it is unhelpful, possible but unhelpful, to consider the motion that has been brought forward without understanding the greater context of the bill. After all, the motion is being brought forward in reference to the bill, the legislation. The fact that all of my points have been directly related to Bill C-10, I believe, puts me on the right track and within the confines of what this is all about.

I'll go back to Dr. Geist because, like I said, I think he has some very helpful things for us to consider. He goes on to say:

The amendments establish some limitations on regulation that restrict what the CRTC can do with regard to user generated content, but the overall approach is indeed “crystal clear.”

He goes on to explain what that crystal clear looks like. He says:

User generated content is subject to CRTC regulation under Bill C-10 with the result that the content of millions of Canadians’ feeds on TikTok, Instagram, and Youtube will now be CRTC approved as it establishes conditions to mandate discoverability of Canadian content.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Having gone through the last couple of meetings in the hopes of trying to come to a consensus, I would like to move a motion, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to move:

That the Committee:

1) Will consider all amendments proposed on Bill C-10 and should points 2 and 3 below not have been completed at the time the amendments on the Bill have all been considered, the Committee will pause in its deliberations and not dispose of the Bill until points 2 and 3 below have been completed.

2) Ask the Minister of Justice to provide a revised Charter Statement on Bill C-10, as soon as possible, focusing on whether the Committee’s changes to the Bill related to programs uploaded by users of social media services have impacted the initial Charter statement provided, in particular as relates to Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

3) Invite the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage accompanied by relevant department officials to appear before the Committee as soon as possible to discuss the revised Charter statement and any implications of amendments made by the Committee to the Bill.

4) Shall take all votes necessary to dispose of the Bill, once points 2 and 3 are completed and all amendments have been considered.

Mr. Chairman, I have sent a bilingual version of the motion to the clerk to distribute to the committee. Then I'll speak to it, when you give me permission and presumably once the clerk has distributed the motion to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome back, everybody.

This is the 31st meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We are doing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10.

As we get into it, I now see a whole host of hands, which is now routine for us [Technical difficulty—Editor]. How about I just say that I'll go over to the floor, and I see that Mr. Housefather has his hand up.

Mr. Housefather.

Health

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his question, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka claimed that I had said those who oppose Bill C-10 were extremists. I said no such thing. I did point out that the Conservative Party of Canada was leaning toward the more extremist elements of its party when it comes to Bill C-10, but I did not say that those who oppose it are extremists.

Canadian Heritage

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the question, as it will give me an opportunity to continue listing the organizations that have come out in support of Bill C-10 in the past few weeks. I will continue.

On that list are the Association des professionnels des arts de la scène du Québec, the Association québécoise des auteurs dramatiques, the Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec, the Guilde des musiciens et des musiciennes du Québec, the Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois, the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, the Travailleuses et travailleurs regroupés des arts, de la culture et de l'événementiel, ADISQ, the Association des réalisateurs—

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage claims Bill C-10 is only about regulating web giants and protecting the interests of Canadian artists and musicians. If that is not fake news, then the response Canadians are demanding from him is simple. He should apologize and restore the full clause protecting their right to freedom of expression in the public square of social media. Constituents in my riding see him, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government as extremists on this issue.

Is he ready to prove them otherwise?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to read the list of supporting organizations throughout the country that have come out in support of Bill C-10: the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, the Professional Music Publishers' Association, the Canadian Media Producers Association, the Directors Guild of Canada, the Writers Guild of Canada, La Fédération nationale des communications et de la culture, SOCAN, la Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, the Canadian Federation of Musicians and APTN.

There is also the Union des artistes, the Association des professionnels des arts de la scène du Québec, the Association québécoise des auteurs dramatiques—

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-10 should be about helping Canadian artists and broadcasters succeed among web giants and foreign competitors. Liberals keep accusing Conservatives of not caring about Canadian content, but they keep jeopardizing the prosperity of artists to leverage their own political agenda and censor individual Canadians. As an artist myself, I am appalled. If the Liberals truly cared so much about artists, they would just fix the bill, and Canadians would not be so afraid of Bill C-10.

When will the minister stop flip-flopping and make it crystal clear to Canadians that democracy still has a place in Canada's government?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon. member opposite to actually read Bill C-10, where in section 2(3) it says, “This Act shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings.”

I expect the committee will be able to move forward on Bill C-10 without any further interference by the Conservative Party of Canada.

[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—

[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.

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, is the root of the problem with Bill C-10 that the Prime Minister cannot show leadership on questions of ethics?

He could not deal with sexual misconduct allegations against the former chief of the defence staff because he was dealing with the revelations of assaults he had committed. He fired his attorney general when she tried to stop him from interfering in the prosecution of his friends at SNC-Lavalin.

Instead of the Prime Minister fixing his own ethical problems, is the real plan to silence his critics online?

Canadian Heritage

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is so unfamiliar with the content of the bill that he has to read talking points. Yesterday, I was on a talk radio panel. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage said it is crystal clear that Bill C-10 does not target individuals. A few minutes later, however, she said that the minister is going to bring forward amendments to make sure it is crystal clear. They cannot have it both ways. The bill cannot already be crystal clear and still need amendments.

Which is it? Is the bill already perfect, or does it infringe on Canadians' charter rights and therefore need to be amended?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, let me be absolutely clear. Bill C-10 is not about restricting content or freedom of speech, but about making Canadian music more discoverable and more available to the general public. Freedom of speech is explicitly protected under this act and in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not negotiable by this government, and we will continue to abide by it, protect it and uphold it.

The Conservatives are yet again deliberately misleading Canadians and obstructing the study of this important bill by siding with web giants against Canadian creators.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in a democracy, it is the government's job to defend people's right to speak freely, yet the Liberal government is doing the exact opposite with Bill C-10. It edited its very own bill to remove the protections that were once in place for the content that Canadians post online. Bizarrely, it is justifying this alarming move by saying that it is to protect art, music and culture.

If the Prime Minister is so obsessed with protecting culture, could he perhaps start by protecting Canada's long-standing commitment to free speech?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is the one misleading Canadians by trying to convince them that we are against culture.

For his information, we have received letters from thousands of Canadians, as well as former CRTC commissioner Peter Menzies, University of Ottawa emeritus law professor Michael Geist, University of Calgary law professor Emily Laidlaw, and Carleton University professor Dwayne Winseck. They all denounced the Liberals' direct attack on the freedom of expression we hold so dear.

Why is the Prime Minister ignoring them all by deleting the clause in Bill C-10 that protected our freedom of expression? Why?

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-10 originally stated that the act does not apply to users who transmit and receive programs through an online undertaking that provides a social media service, such as YouTube, Facebook or TikTok.

One Friday afternoon, without warning, the Liberals surprised us by deleting this entire clause of the bill, thereby attacking Canadians' freedom of expression. Why did the Prime Minister do this?

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

Mr. Speaker, freedom of expression is fundamental. It is not a privilege, but a right.

The Prime Minister thinks this freedom should be free provided it is in line with his expression, but last year he said that freedom of expression has limits.

Why is this government once again attacking Canadian freedom of expression with Bill C-10?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, unlike what the Leader of the Opposition is trying to pretend, Bill C-10 is not about what Canadians do online. It is about what web giants do not do, which is to support Canadian-made stories and music. That is why we made sure the bill covers professional, profitable content while explicitly exempting regular users from contribution requirements. We have improved, and we will continue to improve, this bill so it truly reflects its initial objective, which is to serve Canadian creators without hindering free expression in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows this is not about cultural content. It is about the everyday content Canadians put on their social media. The Prime Minister, last fall, mused about placing limits on free speech. He then backtracked and told this House he would “unequivocally defend freedom of expression.”

Will he make good on that promise and withdraw Bill C-10, or will this broken promise to defend the free speech rights of Canadians just be added to the list of broken promises from the Prime Minister?

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

It is very interesting, Mr. Speaker. That Reuters headline I was talking about was actually referencing new legislation being introduced in Hong Kong. It should worry Canadians that the Prime Minister could not tell the difference between what is happening in Hong Kong and his own bill, Bill C-10. Of course, we should not be surprised, because last fall he told Canadians that free speech has limits.

Why is the government using Bill C-10 to crack down on the free speech rights of everyday Canadians on the Internet?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, our artists and creators are among the Canadians who have been hardest hit by this pandemic. They are suffering financially and mentally. This bill is about ensuring that we are no longer putting the interests of international companies ahead of Canadian creators.

We have been clear that this is not about individual users or about what individual Canadians post online. As the Minister of Canadian Heritage said, we will be bringing forward an amendment to ensure that this is absolutely clear. We must get to work and pass Bill C-10.

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, Reuters had a headline that said, “the government was working on 'fake news' legislation to tackle 'misinformation, hatred and lies,' as worries grow over media freedoms”.

When it comes to the basic freedom of expression, the Prime Minister has also always felt it should be free if it agreed with his expression.

Why is the government once again taking a hammer to Canadian free expression rights with Bill C-10?

Bill C-10

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am here in Ottawa today specifically to push back and fight against the government's bill, Bill C-10, which is an absolute attack on the freedoms we as Canadians enjoy online. This legislation would give sweeping power to the CRTC to regulate the Internet with no clear guidelines of how that power would be used.

The government has now said it would introduce an amendment to make it clear that the content uploaded on social media sites would not be regulated by this bill. However, Canadians still have the right to be concerned. This is unacceptable in a society such as ours that values its freedom.

It could not have been said any better than by the former chairman of the CRTC, who stated that this bill, “doesn’t just infringe on free expression, it constitutes a full-blown assault upon it and, through it, the foundations of democracy.”

This bill has no place in a free and fair society like Canada's, and I will work tirelessly to oppose such a bill becoming law.

Canadian Heritage

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to the question raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

The proposed modernized Broadcasting Act is about fairness, a value that is essential in any healthy democracy. We believe that Canadian broadcasters deserve a fair shot at competing against streaming services. Everybody who benefits from the system should contribute to it, therefore, a modernized Broadcasting Act would require streaming services to support the creation and discovery of Canadian music and stories, creators and producers.

A fair broadcasting system can not only keep citizens informed, but also amplify the voices of marginalized people. Over 70 years ago, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Thanks to the declaration's legacy and that of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the government is acting on its commitment to protect and defend human rights by preventing gender-based violence, fighting racism and eliminating all forms of discrimination.

Bill C-10 would ensure a more faithful representation of the diversity of Canadian society by creating a broadcasting system whose programming and employment opportunities are more inclusive. A system that serves the needs of all Canadians is, by definition, a more democratic system.

Bill C-10 would also set the stage for a broadcasting system that serves the interests of francophones and anglophones, indigenous peoples, Canadians from racialized communities, and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions and ages.

Along these same lines, the bill would provide the CRTC with new, flexible regulatory tools intended to encourage the development of diverse Canadian expression by, for example, incentivizing diversity in key creative positions, or by supporting programs and creators from diverse communities.

As we continue to move through clause by clause, it is through looking at these aforementioned values that we shall continue to examine and debate all motions presented before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-10 is an attack on the freedoms of Canadians, Particularly in its present form, it fundamentally threatens our way of life. Officially, the bill is about changing the Broadcasting Act to bring online streaming services under broadcasting regulations, but it now also seeks to create a framework whereby social media companies and users can be directly regulated by the unelected bureaucrats at the CRTC.

Social media platforms today are the primary place where public debate takes place. They are the public space. They are like radio and television, where large companies broadcast artistic content through limited airwaves. They are the place where all kinds of conversations take place between free individuals expressing and critiquing important ideas. Previously public and private conversations now all take place in this online space. Therefore, any regulation of social media is necessarily regulation of speech, of debate and of that public square.

Broadcast regulation is not about combatting hateful content. There already are Criminal Code provisions dealing with this. Certainly there is a case for regularly re-evaluating those provisions, but broadcasting regulation is about shaping content with other objectives in mind, such as seeking representation of what is deemed Canadian content and establishing quotas for representation of certain views or experiences. Applying this approach to social media means that the government would have dramatic capacity to shape the content which is shown and the user experience on social media.

The algorithms that shape this experience are already fairly opaque in terms of what is seen by whom and why. For this reason, Bill C-10 is a particularly dangerous form of state censorship. Normally, censorship is explicit and transparent; people know who and where the censors are. However, in the world envisioned by Bill C-10, the dialogue happening in the public square, what we see and cannot see, is shaped by state-directed algorithms advancing certain kinds of content over others, sometimes without our knowing about it at all.

Whether individual users are treated as broadcasters or not, their content and who sees it would be controlled through state regulation of social media platforms. In a free society, the state must not take it upon itself to control the flow of information in the public square, but Bill C-10 would create control by default.

At one time, being Liberal meant adhering to the values of freedom, believing that the free exchange of ideas leads to ideas being measured and conclusions being drawn that best harness the wisdom and experience of the wider community. However, today we are seeing increasing efforts to create fear about the implications of free and open discussion. We are warned about misinformation and fake news, about the dangers of populism and public confusion and about the need to trust authority. Some are using these warnings to push us toward an illiberal reality whereby growing state control is justified and powerful people are less likely to be held accountable.

Let us not shy away from the fact that in a free society, people are going to say stupid and false things on the Internet. When that happens, there is no need to engage in hyperbolic moral panic. Just tell them they are wrong and tell them why. Truly liberal people do not freak out about the fact that other people do not believe things that are true. Totalitarian control of the flow of information, even in pursuit of truth, inevitably leads to the suppression of contrary opinions which, in the long run, could turn out to have merit. Free societies allow competition between different ideas to be lived out and allow people to come to conclusions based on what they observe.

There used to be so much optimism about the online community's capacity to usher in a small-l liberal golden age of free and equal debate and competition no longer dominated by powerful industrial actors or governments. However, now, perversely, politicians who call themselves Liberal are pushing a return to reactionary state control of the flow of information and creating regulations that advantage strong incumbent players.

In the midst of this situation, I am proposing amendments which seek to protect free societies from foreign-state-backed interference. When foreign states control our airwaves and shut out contrary voices, that undermines the free exchange of ideas that Canadians want to see.

When I asked about this proposed amendment around foreign content, the government claimed that it did not have a position because it wanted to let the committee do its work independently. However, now we can see clearly from government communications that the Liberal MPs are being directed by the PMO. Would it not be ironic if, while seeking to censor the speech of Canadians, the government failed to act in response to the efforts of foreign states to control our airwaves. The government must fix Bill C-10 or withdraw it.

[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 and creators 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 with Canadian musicians and artists?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my office has been inundated with calls and emails from constituents who are furious about Bill C-10, and for good reason. By rejecting an exemption that would have protected them and their social media posts from the long arm of the CRTC, the government is taking away their charter rights of freedom of speech and expression. I know the Prime Minister admires basic dictatorships, but my constituents do not.

Why is the government feeling so threatened by Canadians' right to free speech?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, dozens of constituents have written to me to express their shock and dismay at the government's attempt to control speech and online content with Bill C-10. Government censorship of the Internet is something that happens in totalitarian societies, not free ones.

Since Canada already has laws that cover hate speech, what is the hidden agenda of the Minister of Canadian Heritage that requires these additional censorship powers?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, if anyone is abandoning our creators, it is the opposition. It refuses to let us move forward with Bill C-10, which nearly all arts organizations across the country are calling for. Just this week, it was ADISQ and the Union des artists.

Why did the Bloc Québécois vote in favour of a Conservative Party resolution to halt work on Bill C-10, through which hundreds of millions of dollars will be invested in Quebec culture and francophone Canadian culture across the country? It makes no sense.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member, I must say that what he is saying is false.

Let us not forget that a year ago, there was no obligation on the part of web giants to invest in Quebec culture. That is what we are trying to accomplish with Bill C-10. There was no taxation for web giants, but it is included in the last budget. We have also announced, as have many other countries, that we would move forward with further measures. I challenge members to find any other country that is doing as much as Canada is doing right now to take on web giants. There is no such country. That is the simple and fundamental truth.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, as they say, actions speak louder than words.

My esteemed colleague has an opportunity to support francophone artists from across the country. Bill C-10 will enable the government to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in culture, in music, in our TV shows and movies and in francophone culture across the country.

If he is really such a champion of francophone culture, why is he standing in the the way of Bill C-10? ADISQ, SARTEC and Quebec's Union des Artistes are calling on the Conservative Party to support Bill C-10.

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

Mr. Speaker, for a week now, we have been asking the Minister of Canadian Heritage to tell us why he is not listening to experts who say Bill C-10 is a direct attack on freedom of expression. He has denied the facts and turned down our request to get another opinion from the Minister of Justice.

Given that he has failed to step up, I will put my question to the Minister of Justice directly. Will he provide an opinion on whether this bill complies with section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or not?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was a non-answer. For Bills like C-10 to become law, they have to pass a sniff test to make sure they adhere to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In November, the justice minister gave Bill C-10 a green light, but the bill has changed significantly since that time. Experts believe that a new opinion is needed from the justice minister. Over and over again, the heritage minister, including just right now, has proven incompetent in his ability to answer my question.

Therefore, my question is for the justice minister. Does he agree that a new charter statement is needed?

[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.

Now 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?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, 10 times the heritage minister has decried fake news when questioned about Bill C-10. Those who have criticized the Liberals' attempt to violate Canadians' freedom of expression have been called extremists. Yesterday, the minister resorted to a new low by attacking my personal beliefs and values because he did not like that I was asking important questions that Canadians have.

Is the government only interested in protecting the speech it agrees with?

Bill C-10

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in a democracy, it is the government's job to defend people's right to speak freely, yet the Liberal government is doing the exact opposite. The Liberals changed their own legislation in Bill C-10 by removing the one section that protected the content Canadians post on their social media pages. The question I ask is, why?

For Bill C-10 to become law, it first has to pass a sniff test to make sure that it abides by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In November, the justice minister gave Bill C-10 the green light, citing clause 3, which protected individuals' online content from censorship. Interestingly enough, however, that is the very section that was removed.

Last week at committee, I put forward a motion that would seek to ensure Canadians' rights are protected. The Liberals shut down debate. Indeed, freedom is messy, but the alternative is soul-crushing and altogether destructive. Respect for the charter should not be a partisan issue, however, it is increasingly so. Conservatives will always defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would invite the Liberal members to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, our artists have been hit hard by the pandemic and, yet, right now we need them more than ever. It is their stories and songs that are helping us get through COVID-19. Helping artists and creators is at the heart of what Bill C-10 is about. Making sure that web giants contribute to our great creative industries for the stories, for the music and for the Canadian jobs in this important industry from coast to coast to coast. I hope that the Conservatives will end their filibuster and allow all of us to complete Bill C-10 and the urgent work required for our artists.

I was pleased to see the Canadian Independent Music Association, SOCAN, IATSE, Unifor and others show their support for us to continue through clause by clause, and to make it easier to discover Canadian shows and music, and make sure that web giants are making financial contributions to the Canadian sector. Let us get this done for our artists.

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I live in a province that has accepted the science, and folks on the other side of the aisle are now thinking carbon pricing is a great idea. Imitation is the best form of flattery, so I thank them for that.

In my province of British Columbia, climate pricing has been in place for over a decade now, and we have been seeing the results of it. Almost one out of every 10 vehicles sold is electric, and oil and gas consumption at the petrol pumps has been down significantly. B.C. has been cleaning its environment in that respect, and nationally we have physical attributes, such as planting two billion trees. There are industry standards, even in the oil and gas sector, that are helping to reduce carbon emissions. There are even comments from some CEOs, like the head of Shell Canada, who think that Bill C-10 is the right direction.

Whether we look at industry, the average Canadian or stakeholders—

Canadian Heritage

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the disinformation campaign the Conservative Party of Canada is waging against the Canadian public.

An impressive number of stakeholders came to committee to testify on Bill C-10, and they told us how necessary this legislation is. It has nothing to do with moderating content and everything to do with getting web giants to pay their fair share for Quebec and Canadian culture.

The Conservatives have chosen to side with Google and YouTube, some of the richest companies on the planet, over our artists and our culture in Quebec and Canada. It is disappointing, and the Conservatives should—

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they say that imitation is the finest form of flattery and, if so, George Orwell must be blushing with the Liberals' Orwellian attempt through Bill C-10 to control Internet content and social media.

A few days ago, the minister embarrassingly and incoherently attempted to justify the inclusion of user content in the bill. Canadians are rightfully outraged.

Will the minister dump this bill, or re-protect user content, or insult me like he insulted the member for Lethbridge or will he again try to explain this unexplainable infringement on Canadian freedoms?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the heritage minister quoted me asking to stop child sexual abuse material on Pornhub to justify his free speech attack in Bill C-10. The Criminal Code defines that child pornography websites break the law with such vile videos and images, but rather than go after companies profiting from child exploitation and non-consensual videos, the Liberals have decided they will go after Canadians' Facebook posts instead.

How can the Liberals use the failure to charge, prosecute and convict on child sexual abuse material as an excuse for their assault on Canadian rights and freedoms?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have lost count of the number of experts who have spoken out categorically against the new version of the Liberals' Bill C-10.

A former CRTC commissioner, former CRTC national directors, lawyers, university professors and experts in freedom of expression all said that the bill went much too far and that it stepped over an unacceptable line.

Why are the minister and the Liberal government refusing to listen to all these experts?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is sad that the minister still does not have an answer to this question. It has been asked for days now, and still, he continues to point to big organizations, such as Google and Facebook, rather than talking about the protection of individual rights and freedoms, which is the question at hand.

Bills like Bill C-10 are put through a sniff test, which means that the justice department goes through them and decides whether or not they adhere to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

At committee last week, I put forward a motion asking that there be another review done to this bill because it has substantially undergone change. Experts have stated that we need a new evaluation from the justice minister to determine if Bill C-10 respects the charter.

Does the minister agree?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals recently changed their own legislation, Bill C-10.

They removed the one section that safeguarded individuals from online government censorship. Why?

Bill C-10

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, dangerous, draconian, the worst thing to happen to free speech in our history: One would think I am describing legislation proposed in a communist regime or a dictatorship, but unbelievably, in fact, this is how experts are describing legislation proposed right here in Canada with the Liberals' Bill C-10. However, maybe we should not be surprised. We all remember how the Prime Minister professes admiration for China's basic dictatorship.

Unlike the heritage minister, I will be clear. Bill C-10 opens the door for state regulation and control of the Internet. The former commissioner of the CRTC said this is “a full-blown assault” on free expression and “the foundations of [our] democracy”. The Liberals want to control what we see on YouTube, Netflix and Twitter, or if it is content that they do not agree with or that does not align with Liberal virtue, the Prime Minister is giving himself the authority to have it removed.

Clearly, this is a move to silence Canadians' free speech and freedom of expression. Conservatives will not support this. We want all Canadians to be the voice of defending our free speech.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like all of the Liberals' policies, Bill C-10 is a poorly thought-out piece of legislation that will have a tidal wave of consequences for everyday Canadians, first and foremost curtailing their freedom of speech online. This is unacceptable.

The Liberals have removed the clause that confirmed the charter right to freedom of speech would be upheld. Looking deeper, Canadians can see the Liberals' effort to give the CRTC policing powers to oversee user-generated content, giving it the power to order takedowns on online content it deems objectionable.

By what right can the Liberals or the CRTC judge whether someone's content is objectionable? Do we not have freedom of expression in this country? Who made the heritage minister the arbiter of acceptable content? A former CRTC commissioner says this is “a full-blown assault upon...the foundations of democracy”.

Conservatives will not stand for it. Bill C-10 must be withdrawn or amended to protect freedom of speech in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Seeing no further debate, we're going to go to a vote.

I'm going to recap what we're voting on. I'm not going to go through the whole thing. Suffice to say, from the main motion by Ms. Harder, we are voting on the amendment proposed by Ms. McPherson. To paragraph (a), she adds “in the next 10 days”. In paragraph (b), again she adds “in the next 10 days”. In part (c), there are two changes: “suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 for a maximum of 10 days” and “provided that it has received the updated charter statement.”

Is everyone clear on what we are voting on?

Let's go to a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're back to the main motion by Ms. Harder, as amended.

Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to go back to the fact that it's been frequently said that it was a very imperfect bill when it was tabled, hence the 120 amendments, including several from the government itself. Now when we decided to agree to study the bill in committee, we were also committed to improving it, and that's what we did. I think we have a responsibility to people in the cultural industry, who need Bill C-10 to become a reality. My view is that we ought to keep forging ahead to achieve that. We need to put our energy in the right place and do what we can.

I suspect there might be some political manoeuvring going on behind the Conservatives' comments about the deletion of proposed clause 4.1 from the bill. I think everyone knew that amendment G-13 would dispel any concerns that might arise. Nevertheless, when we are asked to deal with questions as fundamental as a charter statement, we have no choice but to listen to what's being said and to ask the appropriate questions.

This motion was introduced on Friday. The rumour was that the NDP and the Bloc Québécois would very likely support it. We might do so reluctantly, but it's nevertheless legitimate to do so. The Liberals might get the opportunity to speed the process up on Friday by agreeing for one of the two ministers to appear today. In short, there are, as it turns out, ways to avoid slowing down the process.

Today is the second time we are spending an entire meeting discussing this amendment, when there are ways of considerably speeding up the process without slowing down or suspending the work. We have before us a legitimate request for ministers to come and clarify the situation, and we need to show that we are willing, because there are options available.

For example, in the discussions I had over the weekend, the possibility was even raised of once again considering the clause in the bill under which the addition of clause 4.1 was proposed. Our friends in the Liberal party did not really like this idea much, but it remains an option that is perfectly conceivable. It would also be possible to propose considering amendment G-13 a little earlier to see if that would dispel the concerns of people around the table.

In any event, I'd like to remind everyone of how important it is not to slow down the work unduly. If there is still hope that Bill C-10 might be adopted before the end of the parliamentary session, we have a duty to make every possible effort to get there.

Well, Mr. Chair, I think that we should rule quickly on the amendment proposed by Ms. McPherson, so that we can move on to the next question as soon as possible. We need to show the best of intentions and respond to this legitimate request. We could then continue with the urgent work required on Bill C-10.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will now set aside the debate over poutine and return to Bill C-10. I'll start over more or less from the beginning because I don't know at what point the interpretation stopped.

First of all, I'd like to thank all the committee members for having agreed to continue to debate the motion put forward by my colleague, Ms. Harder. The principle she is defending in her motion—freedom of expression—underpins the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I believe that it is an issue that all members of Parliament, whatever their political party may be, should take into consideration in any future plans.

Some people listening in may not know it, but for every bill, the Minister of Justice has to table recommendations, or at least an opinion, to ensure that the bill complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and freedom of expression.

That being the case, I would ask all committee members and those who are listening to consult the public statement published by the Minister of Justice on November 18, 2020, concerning BillC-10. He had done an analysis of the bill's proposed clause 4.1. However, now that the Liberals decided just over a week ago to delete this proposed clause, the minister's analysis of issues pertaining to freedom of expression and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can no longer be applied in the same manner.

Last weekend, in the media and on social networks, the Liberals, in this instance Minister Guilbeault and his friends tried to convince Canadians and Quebeckers that the Conservatives were against culture, did not want to defend culture and were opposed to the bill to amend the Broadcasting Act. I want to emphasize that this is not at all the case. That's not what the debate is about.

On the contrary, from the very outset, I think everyone would agree that all members of the committee showed a genuine desire to move this admittedly imperfect bill forward. This is demonstrated by the fact that after various consultations, 118 amendments were put forward, including 27 by the government itself and by Liberal MPs on the committee. This shows just how poorly the bill had been cobbled together from the getgo.

According to our analysis, by deleting this clause from the bill without prior notice just over a week ago, the government gave the CRTC the power to regulate social network users who stream content, instead of going after the major players, the GAFAs of the world, as it claims to be doing. Basically, we agree that regulation is needed to make online undertakings subject to the Broadcasting Act, on the same basis as conventional broadcasters.

We're not at war against culture; the motion we're debating today has nothing to do with that. By deleting clause 4.1 as proposed in clause 3 of the bill, the government itself is in violation. We can now no longer continue our work without obtaining a new opinion from the Minister of Justice who, in passing, is a Liberal. I therefore have trouble understanding why my Liberal colleagues and the department are opposed to our request, which is that we obtain a new opinion from the Minister of Justice. We would like him to appear before our committee to clarify the matter and tell us whether the deletion of this clause from the bill constitutes a violation of freedom of expression

Furthermore, it's worrisome to see that the minister, while taking part in a broadcast over the weekend, was unable to explain why the bill had proposed the addition of this clause to the act initially, nor why he had afterwards decided to completely delete it without providing any other information or context.

If the opposition parties, namely the Conservative party, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Green party, were the only ones to ask questions about it, then the people listening to us might think that they are only doing so on a partisan basis. However, numerous experts on freedom of expression or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including university professors and former CRTC commissioners and administrators, raised a red flag to say that a genuine violation had been created by the government itself.

Some previous quotes from the Prime Minister and the minister himself indicated that they were in favour of Internet regulation and Internet content. That, believe me, is scary. So when that in last Friday's debate on freedom of expression, the government tried to muzzle us by putting an end to the debate, it became even scarier.

We need to take the time to do things properly. Even if, in order to protect freedom of expression, we have to prolong our study of Bill C-10 by a week or two weeks or even three weeks, then we will be able to feel very proud of having done so.

We are not challenging culture. We want to protect our culture and our broadcasters. We all want to make sure that regulation is fair and equitable for online undertakings and conventional broadcasters. At the moment, a violation has occurred in the process through which we are ruling on amendments clause by clause. We will not be able to continue our work until we have received an answer on this matter.

As I said earlier, former CRTC commissioner Peter Menzies said in an interview that Bill C-10 not only contravened freedom of expression, but was also an all out attack on it, and consequently on the very foundations of democracy.

We also heard from Michael Geist, emeritus professor of law at the University of Ottawa. He is so well known in his field that the government funds his projects. He is anything but a Conservative or a Liberal; he is completely non-partisan. He was even very critical of the former Conservative government. Anyone who has done their homework properly and checked his comments on Google will know this. He said that he had never, in the history of Canada, seen a government that was so anti-Internet.

There were also all the other witnesses and groups that defend rights and freedoms that made public statements, including the director of OpenMedia.

I'm also thinking of James Turk, the director of Ryerson University's Centre for Free Expression, who said that the Trudeau government, by amending Bill C-10, was planning to give the CRTC the power to regulate content generated by users of websites like YouTube. He believed that this was dangerous, that the government was going too far, and that it had to be stopped.

I'm not making any of this up. I'm not even citing all the policy analysts who deal in such issues. Unfortunately, I must say that we're not hearing much about this in Quebec yet. The idea is only beginning to percolate. However, I believe that analysts in English-speaking Canada have understood what the Liberal government tried to do.

I hope that my colleagues will be able to set partisan considerations aside. God knows that there ought not to be any when it's a matter of freedom of expression. We need to wait until we have a clear opinion on this matter before we can continue to do a clause-by-clause study of the bill.

If anyone should feel responsible for the fact that the process is taking a long time, it's the Minister of Canadian Heritage himself. To begin with, his government prorogued Parliament. Secondly, this government, which has been in power for almost six years now, spent all this time introducing a bill to enact broadcasting legislation. Thirdly, it decided on its own to delete an entire clause from the bill, the end result of which was an attack on freedom of expression.

For all these reasons, we need to take the time required to do things properly. The minister can attack us all he wants, but at least I'll be able to sleep at night because I know that I'll be working to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians and Quebeckers. I can rest easy for having done so when faced with a government that is trying to attack these freedoms.

I hope that my colleagues will support us so that we can ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice for clarification, on the one hand, and also ask the Minister of Justice for a new legal opinion so that we can continue to do our work as the Parliament of Canada's legislators.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that very much. I also return my thanks to the committee for hearing me out on this.

Mr. Chair, as stated, this piece of legislation, Bill C-10, has undergone significant change with the removal of proposed section 4.1. As a result, it is questioned whether an individual will actually be allowed to put up content of their choice on their social media platform or use apps on their phone, based on Bill C-10. In other words, it is presumed—not just by me but by other experts—that individuals' rights will actually be brought under attack by this legislation.

It seems, then, very important for the members of this committee to receive an updated charter statement. Of course, what this would do is take the bill in front of us—Bill C-10 as it exists now, in its amended form—and put it up against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This charter statement would be delivered by the justice minister and it would state whether or not this bill holds up.

The reason this is so important is that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the supreme law of the land, and paragraph 2(b) protects freedom of expression, freedom of opinion and freedom of belief. When we are at a point in Canadian history where we are using social media platforms as the public square, it is important to protect the voices of Canadians and how they express themselves in those spaces.

The government has gone too far when it imposes itself—or empowers the CRTC, which of course is directed by the government, to impose itself—on people and their freedom of expression, freedom of belief and freedom of opinion and starts regulating what people are saying or posting.

Of course, I am offering my own take on it, as well as the takes of many other experts who have analyzed this piece of legislation. What I am asking is that this committee also request the take of the justice minister. Again, this would be accomplished by a charter statement.

One of the reasons this is so crucial is notwithstanding the most important one, which is to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians. It's been interesting over the weekend as I watched as the Minister of Heritage responded to the concerns raised around Bill C-10. One of the accusations that was brought out by Minister Guilbeault is that all of the individuals expressing opposition or raising questions or concerns with regard to Bill C-10 are suddenly being called “extremists”. If you disagree with the government, if you have a question about a bill being brought forward by the governing party or are opposed in any way, you are now labelled an “extremist”. If that is happening in this small fraction of time, I can only imagine the types of stipulations that would be put in place by this same minister should the legislation be successful.

If he and his department are responsible for telling Canadians what they can and cannot post, then anything that might be against the ideology of this government would be flagged. Anything that would raise questions with regard to a government decision would be taken down. Any material that an individual posts that would make someone feel uncomfortable or at which someone might choose to take offence would be removed.

It has a silencing effect, and it's wrong. It must be stopped. Canadians must be protected. Their charter rights must be preserved.

I am asking for something that I believe is extremely reasonable, which is that we push the “pause” button on this committee for a very short time and that we seek this statement from the justice department. We would be looking for an opinion as to whether Bill C-10 does, in fact, align itself under the charter. If it does, okay, but if it doesn't, this committee has some work to do in terms of making sure the charter rights of Canadians are indeed protected.

With that, I have put a motion on the table asking for that statement and asking to hear from the Minister of Heritage. I would ask the members of this committee to vote in favour of it.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you for seeking clarification. I very much appreciate that.

Mr. Chair, I wish to return to a motion that was brought forward to the committee on Friday, at the last meeting.

The motion that I moved at that point in time was that we would request the Minister of Justice to produce an updated charter statement under section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act with respect to the potential effects of Bill C-10, as amended to date, on the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This motion further said that we would invite the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice to appear before the committee to discuss the implications of Bill C-10, as amended to date, for users of social media services, and that we would suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10, notwithstanding the committee's decision of March 26, 2021, until it has received the updated charter statement requested under paragraph (a) and has heard from the ministers invited under paragraph (b) of this motion.

The reason I moved this motion on Friday was that the bill we are currently debating, Bill C-10, has undergone significant change since it was first brought forward in the fall, and at that point in time, in November, was provided with a charter statement. Of course, that charter statement was up to date at that time. However, because section 4.1 has been removed, and thereby protections for the content that an individual might post to their social media account is now subject to government scrutiny, I do believe that it is in the best interest of this committee to seek another charter statement in order to make sure that it is in compliance.

[Drew Olsen, Senior Director, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you. Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes.

The current wording in Bill C-10 would have allowed the CRTC to obtain ownership information related to corporations that hold licences, but there are some ownership structures out there that are not corporations, such as partnerships and trusts, so we are just trying to make sure this doesn't unintentionally limit the CRTC's ability to get ownership information from licensees that may not be corporations.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am moving amendment G-11. This builds on the ownership clauses that we were working on earlier, and it would allow the CRTC to obtain ownership information from all types of undertakings. Bill C-10 as it was originally drafted didn't account for corporate structures such as co-operative trusts or partnerships, so this would allow for that broader ability to take into account different corporate structures.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Now, on Bill C-10, we last dealt with amendment G-10 and we're now going to deal with amendment G-11. There is just a quick note about G-11 that I want to bring to everybody's attention. If G-11 is adopted, amendment BQ-22 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

I'll go to the speakers list, starting with Ms. Dabrusin.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome back, everybody. Happy Monday to all.

There are a couple of very important points I want to start with before we get into the gist of what we're doing today.

Welcome to meeting number 29 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 16, the committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, which we certainly are used to by now. I guess it's been over a year. I think we can call it that. As you know, there are a couple of rules to point out to everybody. They're not official rules in the book, but nevertheless they help us in our committee.

First, try to avoid talking over each other. If you want to get my attention, you know how to do it on the side here. Just raise your hand electronically. If you're not hearing interpretation or you're not getting the volume or you're not hearing the speaker, you can do that, or just wave your hand to get my attention if something technical goes wrong. If that happens, please get my attention, and obviously we'll try to fix it.

We've had some technical difficulties from the Ottawa side of things. I've had a few difficulties of my own with sound. I don't want to alert the IT people in Ottawa. This is a thing that's originating from my office here in Grand Falls-Windsor in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have to address something that is extremely important to this committee, and we have to do it, I think, right away. It won't take too long, but we really have to wish a happy birthday to the member for Drummond, Mr. Champoux.

Happy birthday, Mr. Champoux.

[Thomas Owen Ripley, Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Housefather.

The amendment as currently drafted, as members of the committee will note, talks about undertakings that are carried on under a licence. The way that Bill C-10 is structured, as you may recall, is that online undertakings actually do not need to hold a licence, and so the amendment that Mr. Aitchison is proposing is actually already in line with the amendment as currently drafted, because an online undertaking is not required to hold a licence to begin with. The CRTC, as you may know, does indeed review ownership transactions in the conventional broadcasting world—that is, conventional broadcasters, cable and satellite companies—and this is to just ensure that it can continue to review those transactions moving forward, given that we're moving to a condition of a service model instead of a condition of a licence model.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, believing the motion I've laid out on the table is of utmost importance, I would move that we return to debate, that debate resume with regard to the motion that I have put before this committee, which, of course, asks for a new statement from the justice minister in regard to whether Bill C-10 in its current state does in fact respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Now we go to C-10 for the day.

As mentioned earlier, we're going to talk about G-10. It's where we left off last time, if you recall.

Do I see Ms. Dabrusin raising her hand?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you know, I'm a former broadcaster, like many on this committee.

We all know, whether you're from the government side or the opposition side, that C-10 needed to be updated. It hadn't been updated in over 30 years. In fact, the Internet wasn't even around the last time this bill came forward. In the last several months we've all talked about this bill.

It was interesting hearing from all the stakeholders. That's all I'm going to say. The stakeholders have been looking at this bill for the last five years. They want a good bill to come out of committee so they can put it on the wall and follow the regulations.

We know that the conventional broadcasters—and we've heard from them in committee—are deeply hurting in this country. It doesn't matter if you're a big supplier of television and radio like Bell or Rogers or if you're just a local radio station by yourself in Kamloops or wherever; you know this bill is major in the industry right now.

This is not only because of COVID-19, although that slowed it up a little, but Mr. Chair, as a former broadcaster, I think you too would agree that the landscape in this country has changed dramatically. It's changed because of the Internet. It's changed because of the digital players. All of us know that. Many of us in this country no longer subscribe to cable. We've seen the numbers drop, and maybe for good reason. They're getting their news now from Facebook. They know what their families are doing across this country because of Facebook.

When you seek a charter statement on this.... I don't know about you, but I've had literally 200 to 300 calls and emails this week, specifically since last Friday, from constituents really worried about the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

Many of us go on and upload messages to family. In my statement.... I have a brother out in Vancouver who I haven't seen in maybe four or five years. I have a nephew right now that has made the Prince Albert Raiders. I'm just going to share this with you. They had a bubble in Regina, so I could have maybe gone to see him play. They had a 24-game schedule here in Regina. I couldn't go because of COVID, which I understand.

How do I reach out to my nephew, Niall Crocker, and his family? This is not only me; this is every family in the country. They want the freedom socially to do some of what we have done for years now.

When the proposed section 4.1 was removed last Friday and changed the field, then all of a sudden, holy man.... We've gone into uncharted territory. It's uncharted because when you have a former chair of the CRTC raising a flag.... I can tell you that Ian Scott, the current chair of the CRTC, read his statement. What we don't want, I think, as legislators is the CRTC non-elected telling people in Canada what they can and can't do on the Internet with respect to what they can upload and so on.

I think Michael Geist was right on. Every newspaper in this country—not only the Sun newspapers, but the National Post, the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail and so on, has really come to the forefront with this story this week, because it matters to Canadians. The newspaper industry, as we know, is hurting in this country.

I would say this, as a former broadcaster. They probably had more input this week because of this bill than on any other government bill that has been debated in Parliament in the last two weeks. They know it's an infringement of rights.

I agree with Ms. Harder and Mr. Rayes. Maybe we should get a legal opinion from the justice minister on the charter statement on rights and freedoms.

For people in this country, because they've been locked down, Mr. Chair—and you know it more than anybody because you're back in the Maritimes right now—this is really hard on them. Particularly in this country, we're fighting anti-maskers and people who don't believe in vaccines, and then all of a sudden this bill hits the airwaves from last Friday and in particular the last five days in this country, and people are up to here. They want their rights and freedoms restored if they've been diminished. This bill, by removing the proposed section 4.1 last Friday, has diminished rights. You might not say that, but it's there.

When you have a former chair of the CRTC raising awareness before we even get to the finish of clause-by-clause, that's enough for me. Mr. Menzies was a well-respected chair of the CRTC for years. Mr. Scott, in his position, I am sure, has had the dialogue over what is happening in committee.

I want to say thank you to Mr. Ripley and all the Heritage staff. You have been magnificent on clause-by-clause, giving an opinion on our amendments going forward and giving us a sense of what is needed in this bill, because we're only going to get one shot at this. This took 31 years to get renewed, and it may take another 31 years to move it forward.

The stakeholders are watching. We know that. We're still getting emails from all our stakeholders who want one-on-one meetings. I'm getting them every day from everybody, in particular over what happened last Friday, with the government removing 4.1.

I'll wrap it up there. I think we need to pause this right now. We can get a clarification from the justice minister. I've seen quotes in newspapers. Let's get this bill right. That's why we're here; that's why we got elected. We got elected to do the right thing for Canadians—to bring a bill forward that needs to be updated. All of us on the committee, all 11 of us on this committee, agree that this bill needs to be right.

When we saw what happened this last week with Canadians up in arms over this bill—and they are up in arms over it—I think that was the flag for all of us to say, “Look, let's get an interpretation. Then, once we get that interpretation from the justice minister, good or bad, we can move on with this bill.”

We all agree on this committee. We've gotten along so well, and we still are, but we want this broadcasting bill to be right. I see no problem pausing, getting a clarification, and then picking it up and moving it out. We have seven or eight weeks in the House of Commons. What's the difference if we bring this out May 10 or June 10? The difference is that we'd better get it right. Canadians are looking to us to get it right.

That is my comment, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your time and your willingness to hear from all of us here today.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to make a comment on Ms. Harder's request, which I consider perfectly legitimate.

We all started out with a willingness to review the Broadcasting Act, which is many years old. When we started, everyone wanted to collaborate with the government. Those who came to talk to us expressed their concerns. They told us about aspects of the bill with which they agreed or disagreed, or which, in their opinion, should be amended.

All members of the committee, from all parties, unanimously agreed to allow members of Parliament the privilege of expressing their views on this bill in the House. Some saw the bill as basically bad, some raised concerns. Members of the committee even agreed to conduct a preliminary study of the bill in committee so as not to hold up the process. The Liberals hinted in the media that we had tried to hold up consideration of the bill, but that was false. It had been agreed that the committee would begin to study the object of the bill and, once the debate in the House was over, the committee would consider the information that had been gathered as it began its official study of the bill.

Everyone was ready to work together, with the objective that the major players in the digital world, such as Netflix, be regulated in the same way as our traditional Canadian broadcasters, as we so dearly like to call them. Everyone shared in that salutary and commendable objective, at the outset.

Subsequently, some criticized the government for not requiring the GAFAs of this world, companies like Facebook, to redistribute money. It was also criticized for not including the CBC's mandate in the bill. We also had the whole issue of hate speech on social media, which the Minister proposes to deal with by means of another bill that will be introduced later.

Through it all, we did our work. Experts came to testify before the committee. A few weeks ago, we then began the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. If my figures are correct, about 118 amendments were proposed by all parties: 37 by the Green Party, 37 by the Bloc Québécois, 27 by the government itself and by the Liberal members of the committee,14 by the NDP and 13 by ourselves in the Conservative Party. As I said, that's 118 amendments. It shows that the bill had a number of gaps from the outset. All the members of the committee worked together to find an acceptable compromise by proposing subamendments. The issue of Canadian content in French, that everyone brought up, as you recall, also had to be dealt with.

So what happened last Friday was a shock for everyone, I would say. No one saw it coming. Although committees are supposed to be independent, the Minister, through his Parliamentary Secretary, and other Liberal members who represent him on the committee, decided to eliminate one whole section of the bill, which will have consequences on internet users and influencers specifically. People do not realize that and are only just starting to talk about it. I can tell you that the media in Quebec are not talking very much about what is happening at the moment. However, freedom of expression and the very basis of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are at play for all users, influencers, youtubers, people with a little YouTube channel, who do it as a second job or just as their passion. By taking out that whole section, the power to regulate has just been handed over to the CRTC.

I have a lot of respect for Ms. Dabrusin. She repeated what the Minister said in question period, that such is not the government's intention and I want to believe it. If that is the case, the government would not have had to come to that decision, because now we are not talking about the same thing at all. It is no longer a bill intended to submit the major digital players to the same regulations as conventional broadcasters. A big hole has been opened up, with no guidelines, by giving the entire power to the CRTC, which is out of our control. Actually, as soon as we have anything to say against that organization, we are told that we have to listen to it and let it do its work, because it's independent.

Basically, our work is to make sure that the bill imposes a tight framework to protect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That should also be the raison d'être of every member of the House of Commons.

Some might wonder whether this is an opposition attempt to prevent the bill from being passed. That is not the case at all. The opinions we have heard this week have come from experts. Ms. Harder named some of them, and I don't want to quote their comments again, but they include Michael Geist, an emeritus law professor at the University of Ottawa. Some might wonder whether that professor is going overboard when it comes to the bill, but no. I am sorry to disappoint you, but he is very well recognized in his area. He is so well recognized that, as I dug into the registry of grant programs supporting research and professors in their work, I found that the Liberal government had paid that professor several hundred thousand dollars. I am not saying that he received money to which he had no right. On the contrary, he received it because of his expertise in the area. In 2020, or to be more precise, on April 1, August 15, February 8, and September 1, he received more than one hundred thousand dollars for his work. He is therefore a credible expert who is showing us a warning light when he states clearly that we have before us “the most anti-Internet government in Canadian history”. I am not an expert in the area, but I can say that the warning light is yellow and may even be about to turn red. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to put a foot on the brake and examine the situation.

We can add what Mr. Menzies said. He is a former commissioner of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, whose reputation in the area cannot be questioned.

I would also like to draw the attention of all committee members and to the people listening to us that Daniel Bernhard, the Executive Director of Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, who has come to talk to us on several occasions, has been sending warning signals since we started. Just look at page 3 of the report that the organization submitted to the committee. Before we even started to propose amendments, the organization was already shedding light on the risk posed by eliminating subsection 4.1, which the bill was proposing to add to the Broadcasting Act. By eliminating it, we have ripped away an essential element of protection from internet users all over the country.

Let us not even mention the host of experts, university professors and political analysts who have been waving red flags, not yellow ones, since the beginning of the week, telling us that, by agreeing to eliminate this section, we have just dug ourselves a hole.

With all due respect to my colleagues, I consider that Ms. Harder's request is perfectly legitimate. There's nothing partisan about it. It asks the Minister of Justice, himself a member of the Liberal Party, to submit a new Charter statement to follow the one, which he himself wrote, stating that the bill we are currently studying is supposed to provide protection for the users.

I venture to think that our committee, whose members have been working together from the outset, will have the wisdom to say that it has made a mistake. If theMinister is operating in good faith and, as he states, the consequences of eliminating that section are not those that he wants, let's look at our decision again. It will not prevent things from moving forward, because I don't think we will be passing Bill C-10 in a week. The Liberal government will soon have been in place for six years. During that time, it has prorogued Parliament. The committee has done everything it can to make sure that things roll along. We have wasted not one minute in the legislative process. Let me emphasize that all members of the committee have worked to move this bill forward.

I hope that the Minister will stop his empty rhetoric, in suggesting that we may have said things in the past when we have not. Right from the start, the minister told us that the GAFAs were going to be included in the bill, which was completely false. Today, by trying to correct a mistake, he has made another one by asking the committee to eliminate subsection 4.1.

I repeat, if we want things to roll along nicely, let's just pass this motion. Then, first, we will be able to ask the Minister of Justice to provide us with an updated Charter statement and, second, we can listen to what the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice have to tell us. Then we will be able to resume our work with a view to passing the bill on the Broadcasting Act, so that the major players in the digital world are subject to the same regulatory framework as the broadcasters we like to call traditional.

Ms. Harder, thank you for your expertise and your work. I hope that the message you are sending us will allow the committee to make a wise decision, the right decision.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Chair, I understand that this committee is doing, I believe, its best to get through this legislation quickly and to move it to a point that it can be voted on in the House of Commons. I believe, however, that there are some things that need to be considered before getting to that point.

As I've outlined previously, clause 3, or proposed section 4.1, was removed from the legislation last week. When that took place, the nature of this bill changed.

There is a charter statement that was provided by the justice department under the name of the justice minister. That charter statement determines whether or not this piece of legislation, Bill C-10, would be in agreement with or within the purview of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That statement is now null and void, because a significant portion of the bill was removed last week. That being the case, I believe this committee needs to seek another statement with respect to the charter and whether the charter rights of Canadians are in fact being respected within the new outline provided within this bill.

I would draw the committee's attention to a few opinions or viewpoints that have been offered by experts. Most notably, former CRTC commissioner Peter Menzies said that this legislation “doesn't just infringe on free expression; it constitutes a full-blown assault upon it and, through it, the foundations of democracy.”

Mr. Chair, that is an incredibly damning statement in regard to this piece of legislation as it stands now, because that clause was removed last week. That being the case, I believe this committee needs to take the responsibility of seeking another charter statement.

The argument has been made by some members at this table—and by other members of the governing party when this has been raised in the House of Commons during question period—that Canadians shouldn't worry; that there would never be an imposition on their freedom and what they post on social media.

At the end of the day, however, if it's not there, it's not there. In other words, if the protection isn't granted, then there's no protection. It's that simple. If the protection is not outlined in this legislation, then there is no protection for Canadians.

We're talking about a regular component of their daily lives. We're talking about a video they post of their cat, about a video they post of their kids, about a conversation they're having with a friend on a social media platform. This is a new form of public square, and based on the charter, our right to freedom of expression should not be imposed upon.

I would argue, and many other experts have argued, that they are being imposed upon. That being the case, I believe we need to seek a new charter statement based on this legislation as it stands now.

I want to move a motion for this committee's consideration. If I may, I would like to read it into the record.

It reads:

That, given that the deletion of section 4.1, clause 3 of Bill C-10, would extend the application of the Broadcasting Act to programs uploaded by users of social media services, which in turn could violate paragraph 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

and given that the current “Charter Statement” required under section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act with respect to the potential effects of Bill C-10 directly states that “users of social media who upload programs for sharing with other users and are not affiliated with the service provider will not be subject to regulation” as part of its argument that Bill C-10 respects section 2(b) of the Charter, the committee:

(a) request that the Minister of Justice produce an updated “Charter Statement” under section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act with respect to the potential effects of Bill C-10, as amended to date, on the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

(b) invite the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice to appear before the committee to discuss the implications of Bill C-10, as amended to date, for users of social media services; and

(c) suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10, notwithstanding the Committee's decision of March 26, 2021, until it has received the updated “Charter Statement” requested under paragraph (a) and has heard from the ministers invited under paragraph (b).

Mr. Chair, that is the end of my motion. I would reiterate how vitally important it is that this committee composed of legislators do its work responsibly and seek this statement from the justice minister.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, the original intent of this legislation was to modernize the Broadcasting Act. However, by removing this clause 3 of Bill C-10—the proposed new section 4.1 of the act—there's a significant difference in what this is now, and I would argue that it potentially impedes upon the freedoms of Canadians that are granted under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Social media platforms are the new public square. That's where people engage in conversation.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The removal of proposed section 4.1 from Bill C-10 fundamentally changes the legislation and dissolves the ground on which the charter statement stood to justify charter compliance. Therefore, the original charter statement should be considered null and void if this committee wishes to do due diligence. Therefore, I would propose to you that we need a new charter statement from the justice minister, based on the transformational edit that was done on Friday.

Mr. Chair, I believe this is extremely important, because it's about protecting Canadians and their freedoms.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome back, everybody.

This is meeting number 28 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 16, the committee resumes its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

We are doing this, of course, virtually—

Canadian Heritage

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in what has been characterized as a full-blow assault on freedom of expression, the Liberals amended Bill C-10 to give the government the power to control the social media content of everyday Canadians to ensure that it matched “the government's vision”. This is nothing short of Orwellian.

Why is it that when it comes to freedom of expression, the government's approach is that it can be damned?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-10 limits the freedom of speech of the Canadian people. Many immigrants and refugees come here to enjoy the freedom and liberty that they did not have the luxury of back home. This bill gives power to a big government institution that can use it to silence and oppress marginalized groups online.

Why will the Liberal government not stay out of the lives of consenting Canadians and let people live free from the hands of big government?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my office has heard from many New Brunswickers who are very concerned about the Liberal government's plan to censor Internet content. Bill C-10 will have a chilling effect on local content creation, something that is increasingly important in rural communities, where residents use social media to share news and their stories.

Will the minister do the right thing and abandon this Orwellian plan?

Bill C-10

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in what countries do the governments control what people post on the Internet and what they can see, and punish content that does not match “the government's vision”? They are China, Russia and soon to be Canada, because that is precisely what the Liberal government's Bill C-10 would do. Comments about matching the government's vision are not those of a Chinese communist official, but of the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Former CRTC commissioner, Peter Menzies, has characterized this bill as a full-blown assault on freedom of expression and the foundations of democracy. It is no wonder the Prime Minister has expressed admiration for China's perfect dictatorship. This bill is Orwellian, it is undemocratic, it is un-Canadian and it must be stopped.

[Benoit Chartier]

The results will be the same in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. The issue is national, not provincial.

As mentioned earlier, the government must provide legislation right away. It could introduce a mammoth bill that would encompass Bill C-10, the anti-smear bill, and the bill against Facebook and Google to help Canadian newspapers. Whatever happens, it needs to happen as soon as possible.

In terms of the media, the equivalent of the Australian legislation that was passed this winter needs to be implemented in Canada. I am speaking on behalf of 100 weeklies in Quebec, but I also include all the newspapers associated with News Media Canada, of which Hebdos Quebec is a part. It includes all the weeklies and community newspapers across Canada. They are in every riding. All of the members of Parliament here on the Standing Committee on Finance have a special relationship with the newspapers in their ridings: they know the editors and the reporters, and the reporters know the members of Parliament, their press secretaries and political staffers.

Newspapers across Canada are under great strain right now, and the COVID-19 pandemic is not helping.

We cannot wait a few years, or even six months. Legislation must be introduced by the end of this parliamentary session in Ottawa, before the summer recess, so that there is some hope for the summer, and before an election is called. If an election is called, the process will take even longer, because we will have to wait to find out whether there will be a majority or minority government, which ministers will form the new cabinet, and so on. I think the Minister of Canadian Heritage needs to speed up the process and introduce legislation as soon as possible.

[Benoit Chartier]

Yes, that's our concern.

We would like to see the priority given to the bill to support the media. In our opinion, it is even more urgent than Bill C-10 and the bill against hateful content online. It is a matter of survival. Not just the weekly newspapers are in trouble; every newspaper in Canada, from the smallest to the largest, is in a state of crisis.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Great.

We have less than two months before the summer recess. At the moment, work on Bill C-10, introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage to amend the Broadcasting Act, is not very advanced. In addition, the minister wants to propose a bill against hateful content online. And that's not counting the bill on the web giants that he promised you this spring. That's a lot of work to do in less than two months.

Furthermore, we know that an election will be called this summer. Are you concerned that the bill meant to support you will not be introduced until after the election, unfortunately?

Oral Questions

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, the member for Lethbridge said that the Department of Justice was against an amendment that was brought forward in the heritage committee on Bill C-10.

This is factually incorrect. It is a former employee of the justice department. I am convinced my hon. colleague did not intend to mislead the House and Canadians and I would like to offer her the opportunity to set the record straight.

Canadian Heritage

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the date of that quote because the justice department itself has said otherwise.

We are seeing the current government mimic behaviour that is consistent with a basic dictatorship. It is wrong.

With their transformational edit that they just made to Bill C-10, the Liberals are trying to give themselves the power to control what Canadians can read online, what they post on social media and the videos that they watch on YouTube. Again, it is wrong. Why is the government doing this?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled as to who is trying to deceive whom really. I have in front of me a press release from the Canadian Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which says, regarding Bill C-10, that these “characterizations [that this bill would somehow attempt to infringe on free speech] are both factually incorrect and dangerously misleading. They represent neither the text nor the purpose of Bill C-10.”

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the heritage minister consistently tries to mislead Canadians by convincing them that Bill C-10 applies only to large online streaming companies. He even takes quotes from members of Parliament and experts and uses them out of context in order to try to prove his point. It is incredibly deceptive, sneaky, crafty and wrong.

The fact is that last week the Liberals changed their own legislation, Bill C-10, by removing the one section that would have protected ordinary Canadians from online government censorship. Why?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I could point to SOCAN, the Canadian Independent Music Association and the Professional Music Publishers’ Association. They have all supported the amendments we proposed to Bill C-10. In fact, they have said that the characterization that this bill would affect freedom of expression is factually incorrect and dangerously misleading.

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

Mr. Speaker, I refer the minister to comments from the Canadian research chair in Internet law. He said the minister's amendments to Bill C-10 “speak to potential new regulation on the free speech of Canadians”, and most notably on political speech. The full force of the federal government can now be directed at political speech that the minister and the Prime Minister simply do not like.

Why is the Liberal government the most anti-Internet government in Canadian history?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, who just a few months ago said that Bill C-10 does not go far enough. He wanted social media networks to be regulated, but he was not the only one. The member for Lakeland said that we had to do something to “protect youth and victims of abuse”, and the member for Calgary Skyview said that these companies profit off sexual exploitation and racism.

We are acting as we have promised, and we will continue to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, the amendments the government has passed on Bill C-10 have been called a full-blown assault on free expression. In November, the Prime Minister said he would always defend freedom of expression, but now he is trying to regulate political speech that he does not like.

Why is the government attacking Canadians' free speech rights yet again?

Port of Montreal Operations Act, 2021

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Unfortunately, I believe that there are similarities between the situation in the airline sector and the current strike. I also see similarities between this bill and Bill C-10. I absolutely agree with my colleague from Quebec. The current government finds it difficult to respect Canadians' rights, both the rights of individuals on the Internet and the rights of workers.

Canadian Heritage

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it is the member opposite who is trying to mislead Canadians. We have said from the beginning, when we introduced Bill C-10, that user-generated content would be excluded, but that online platforms that act as broadcasters would be included in the legislation. This is exactly what the amendments that have been debated in committee try do, and that is what we will do.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite is very confused, because Bill C-10 is about the Broadcasting Act that has nothing to do with online harms, which is another bill that will be introduced. I am confused because the Conservative Party of Canada has asked us a number of times to intervene so we can prevent online child pornography, which is exactly what we want to do.

Are the Conservatives saying they are opposed to us trying to act on that?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is misleading the House. Amendments are being proposed that change this legislation from what it was in the fall.

The current government has shown an ever-increasing disregard for the rights and freedoms of Canadians. Under Bill C-10, the Liberals are now wanting to amend the Broadcasting Act to allow for government censorship of video content on social media. According to the minister, it is all about restricting content that “undermines Canada's social cohesion”, but what does that even mean? Soon they will create the ministry of truth, which just sounds like a weird call, let us be honest.

Why is the Prime Minister trampling on the rights and freedoms of Canadians and why is the minister choosing to mislead Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, there was quite a turn of events at the heritage committee on Friday during its study of Bill C-10, the broadcasting bill. Quite unexpectedly and without warning, the Liberals took out a major part of the bill, thereby enabling the CRTC to regulate social networks with no clear direction on how that power will be used.

We all know the Liberals do not like criticism, but why do they want to attack freedoms on social media?

Telecommunications

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

Mr. Speaker, in what began as a mediocre attempt at legislation to level the playing field between Internet streaming giants and traditional Canadian broadcasters, the Minister of Canadian Heritage assured us that Bill C-10 was not some draconian tool of the state to limit Canadian freedom of expression on the Internet. He actually promised that his legislation was not interested in such things as when his great-uncle posts pictures of his cats.

In the original bill, there were exemptions to protect the freedoms of Canadians posting their online content, yet just the other day the minister ordered the section removed. The minister muses about granting himself the power to remove Internet content that he deems objectionable, and now he is granting authority to the CRTC to control what Canadians post online.

Conservatives will continue to fight for the freedoms of all Canadians, even for the minister's great-uncle's right to continue posting pictures of his cats, whether the minister actually likes them or not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ladies and gentlemen, I think that brings us to a conclusion.

We will see you at the next meeting, of course, on April 30, this coming Friday, at the same time.

As I mentioned before, we were unable to get extra hours for Friday, so we will be meeting in our normal two-hour block. Following that, on May 3, we have two meetings scheduled on Bill C-10. If we finish with Bill C-10, we can discuss at that point. We'll see how we're doing on April 30. I think April 30 will give us a far better indication of how we're going to do for May 3.

In any case, I will say thank you to our officials from the department.

Thank you to everybody participating virtually here and abroad.

Thanks, everyone.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I'd just like to draw a parallel.

We are in the process of reforming the Broadcasting Act because of an imbalance in the market. At the moment, major Canadian broadcasting undertakings are being treated unfairly. That's why we are reforming the act by means of bill C-10. However, there are some much smaller players in that same market. They are even more deeply affected than the major undertakings, and will be affected even more unless we take immediate action to support them, now and for years to come.

It's not at all a bad amendment. It deserves support.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Shields.

To clarify, what is on the table through this amendment is an extension, with some changes, of what we call mandatory distribution in the conventional system.

Right now the CRTC has the ability to require cable and satellite companies to carry certain TV channels, such as APTN, CPAC or your provincial legislative channel. The CRTC has the ability to impose terms and conditions on that, requiring Canadian cable and satellite companies to, in some instances, not only carry APTN but also actually pay a per subscriber fee to APTN, for example.

The committee heard from certain witnesses who felt that it was very important, as Bill C-10 moves forward, that the CRTC have a lever, as it has in the current system, to require online undertakings to carry certain channels.

The amendment that you have before you would allow the CRTC—and yes, it would be the CRTC that would make this kind of order—but it could allow, for example, such services as the Amazon channels or Apple or something like that, to carry APTN, for example, as part of their lineup. The difference—and this is where the debate has been focusing—is whether the CRTC should have the ability to require terms and conditions for that contractual arrangement.

The amendment before you proposes that the CRTC not be granted that power, but rather that the parties be required to negotiate in good faith and that the CRTC be equipped to facilitate those negotiations when appropriate, and if ever you had a party not negotiate in good faith, the CRTC would have the ability to levy administrative monetary penalties against the party acting in bad faith.

The reason for this is that the context and the marketplace are quite different between the conventional system and the new system. In the online world, there is less of an issue of shelf space. In many circumstances right now, in the commercial arrangement between services like Amazon channels or Apple, they'll come to a revenue-sharing agreement.

The goal here is to require those services to potentially carry certain Canadian services and require them to negotiate in good faith to come to a reasonable revenue-sharing agreement, which typically these days looks like being approximately fifty-fifty, in most cases.

I hope that helps to clarify.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

The answer would be no, amendment BQ-18 as drafted only covers French programming. It adds a new order-making power for the CRTC.

I would point the committee to new subsection 9.1(1), paragraph (a) of the Broadcasting Act, which already in Bill C-10 has provided the commission with the ability to make orders with respect to

the proportion of programs to be broadcast that shall be Canadian programs and the proportion of time that shall be devoted to the broadcasting of Canadian programs;

Then it continues in paragraph (b) with “the presentation of programs for selection by the public”, etc.

Bill C-10 had already provided the CRTC with the ability to make orders with respect to Canadian programs, which would include English, French, third language and indigenous language programs. In some respects, amendment BQ-18, which includes a new proposed paragraph (a.1), is putting a special emphasis on the importance of the CRTC having special order-making power with respect to French language.

You are absolutely correct that amendment PV-20 is broader, in that it speaks to both official languages. My question with that would be for Mr. Manly, in the sense of the intention or spirit of the amendment. Was it specifically a concern rooted in French language? If so, amendment BQ-18 may already have covered you off. Is the intention to be broader?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I was going to ask this question before, but with the health break, it's fine. This is a first for this particular session on Bill C-10, but I would like to ask the department a question, if I may.

Just so we're all clear, there has been some discussion about amendments BQ-18 and PV-20 and the remarkable similarities between them.

I think, Mr. Ripley, you may be prepared for this.

In amendment BQ-18, it seems to me at first blush that what we are looking at is a distinct way of describing the presence of French language as one of the official languages. Amendment PV-20 covers both languages.

In amendment BQ-18, is it the case that, when adopted, the English aspect would be covered as well—meaning that you've only identified that part, but does it follow logic that the rest would be covered under this particular bill, in the department's interpretation?

Mr. Ripley.

[Lyne Bessette, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think Mr. Champoux's amendment is a valid one. We feel it's wise to include this measure in Bill C-10 rather than in the order. So we'll be supporting this amendment.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

My view is that the spirit of them is the same. As the committee is aware, in the conventional world, licences had to be renewed at a maximum of seven years.

Bill C-10 as tabled did not have a cap on the length of orders and conditions of service, and I am aware that the committee heard from stakeholders who expressed concern about that.

As Mr. Olsen highlighted, the government recognizes that there are certain very important elements that will be done through orders. If you look at the kinds of things that are listed in proposed section 9.1, we talk about presentation of Canadian programming and certain things along those lines, and it will be important that those things have an opportunity to be reviewed on a periodic basis and that stakeholders have an ability to provide input on that.

If you also look, there are more administrative things. I would point out to you, for example, the carriage of emergency messages. The spirit of the government's amendment that Ms. Dabrusin alluded to gives the CRTC some flexibility to, again, tease out the issues that stakeholders want to engage on and let those orders that are more administrative in nature not be subject to a process whereby it will be more burdensome for both the CRTC but also the stakeholder community that would be expected to engage on those processes. The spirit was to tease out those things where there is strong interest in them being reviewed but acknowledge that there are going to be orders that are more administrative in nature.

The amendment before the committee right now would subject all orders to having to be renewed every seven years, regardless of their administrative nature or not.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Housefather.

As far as I'm aware, when we look at comparator countries, liberal democracies, the answer to that would be no. Those countries that are, like Canada, moving forward with broadcasting regulation that seeks to include streaming activities within its scope.... When you look at the EU, for example, there is a recognition in those jurisdictions as well that the business model between a conventional broadcaster that traditionally has to hold a licence and the business model of streaming services is different.

Bill C-10 seeks to ensure a level playing field, a more fair system and have these players contribute, but Bill C-10 was very intentional about not extending a licensing model to Internet-based companies.

[Thomas Owen Ripley, Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning everybody.

If I understand the amendment correctly, perhaps I'd comment on two elements of it.

The first element relates to reintroducing the idea that there could be conditions of licence that take the form of contributing to the policy objectives of the act. This is similar to a Green Party amendment that we spoke about on Friday.

To perhaps recap, Bill C-10 seeks to move away from a regime whereby the expenditure contributions that broadcasting entities are required to make are contained within their licence, which is their actual authorization to operate.

Instead, as I think the committee is aware, Bill C-10 creates new order-making powers for the CRTC in clause 9.1, and new regulation-making powers. Those order-making and regulation-making powers are meant to substitute for the old conditions of licence.

If you look at the wording of clause 9.1, for example—the order-making powers—you will see that they are able to apply to a category or a class of undertaking, but they're also able to apply to an individual undertaking if the need requires. Just as in the old world when you had a condition of licence and maybe you needed a unique condition of licence specific to one company, the CRTC still has that power at clause 9.1.

The concern would be that if the committee reintroduces the idea of conditions of service, it muddies the waters about the type of instrument that should be used to impose conditions on companies. Moving forward, not only would a company potentially be subject to regulation and relevant orders, but it could also be subject to additional requirements specific to their conditions of licence.

We heard from Mr. Manly on Friday that one of his concerns related to the idea of enforcement. How do you know that companies are actually meeting the requirements of their licence? This generally waits until the renewal of the licence. Bill C-10 outlines a different vision whereby, as we outlined, companies would be subject to an administrative monetary penalty where they're not in compliance. The idea behind that is the CRTC takes a much more active, regular enforcement stand vis-à-vis broadcasters.

The idea behind Bill C-10 is that broadcasters shouldn't have to wait until the renewal of their licence to be able to go to the CRTC and say that a company is not compliant. Rather, Bill C-10 outlines a perspective that you should be able to go to the commission and say that a broadcaster is not meeting their requirements and the CRTC would be able to do an investigation on that right away.

The second piece relates to the registration requirements. Perhaps I would just indicate on this one that Bill C-10 took the stance that registration is not intended to be permission to operate in Canada.

Once again, Bill C-10 starts to regulate various online undertakings—various Internet-based companies—and the government was very clear that it didn't want to set the CRTC up as a gatekeeper before a company could launch its business online. The CRTC would have the ability to say yes or no. That stance goes against the idea of an open and free Internet. On the registration regime contemplated by Bill C-10, I would remind the committee that at paragraph 10(1)(i), the CRTC can make regulations respecting the registration of broadcasting undertakings in Canada. That was intended to essentially facilitate them knowing the contact information and the way to get in touch with these companies. It was not intended to be substituted for a permission to operate in Canada.

My understanding, based on what Mr. Champoux outlined, is that, if the idea is to suspend or revoke a registration or something like that, it seems to be setting the CRTC up much more for a gatekeeper role with a permission to operate. That would have implications for a free and open Internet and the ability for online undertakings to offer their services without first having to go and seek permission from the CRTC.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Folks, welcome back. We are still on clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10.

Most of you now must know the rules, of course. For those of you who are listening outside and for whom this is your first time joining us, welcome. This is Canadian democracy at its best. We go clause by clause through the bill. We've had some amendments thus far, and we're continuing.

I'll get to that in just a moment, but just as a reminder to everybody about the way we do this, if you hear us talking about letters and numbers, those are for the particular amendments put forward by each group with us at the committee. In other words, if you hear us say, “PV-1”, that would be a Parti Vert—Green Party—amendment. We have CPC ones, which would be from the Conservative members on the committee; LIB would be from the Liberal members, BQ from the Bloc Québécois, and NDP amendments come from the New Democrats. Finally, G amendments, as in G-1 or G-2, would be amendments from the government.

Are there any questions before we start? Are there any issues? I'm going to start this one fairly quickly, since I think we know most of the machinations that happen.

I'll get to our guests from the department later, but I will say thank you again for joining us.

I want to say all the best to everyone. I hope you have a safe week, no matter where you are.

Let's get back to the business at hand. We will go back to clause-by-clause study.

(On clause 6)

We are currently at—and this is a newer version of what we had before—amendment BQ-15(N), so we go to the new page and BQ-15(N).

I am going to Mr. Champoux.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for that question, Mr. Champoux.

We've made two comments on that point.

First, if an undertaking fails to meet its obligation to contribute to the system, the CRTC currently has authority to revoke its licence. However, we know perfectly well that, in the current circumstances, the mere possibility of revoking a licence isn't a very balanced way of taking action against undertakings that fail to comply with the act. That's why Bill C-10 would grant the CRTC authority to assess administrative monetary penalties. The CRTC could therefore impose such penalties if an undertaking failed to discharge its obligations.

As regards the registration system, Bill C-10 would grant the CRTC regulatory authority to ensure that undertakings register with it. That's provided for under proposed paragraph 10(1)(i), if I'm not mistaken. It's provided that the CRTC would have that power for the reasons you mentioned.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What Bill C-10 seeks to do is a shift. As the committee is aware, right now the majority of services are subject to licences where there are conditions baked into those licences. As part of permission to operate a TVA channel or a CTV channel, those services are required to contribute to the cultural policy objectives of the act.

What Bill C-10 does is it moves away from those cultural policy contributions being part of the actual licence fee, the technical permission to operate and use a spectrum or to operate your cable or satellite service. What it does is it equips the CRTC to issue orders and regulations that will prescribe those contributions.

The intention there is so that online undertakings and conventional services are being treated in the same way, in the sense that they're subject to the same kind of instrument in terms of the things that outline those obligations.

What that means in practice is that the licence moving forward would simply be nothing more than the authorization to run that service over a particular band of spectrum or whatnot. It's for that reason that Bill C-10 proposes moving away from the seven-year term. The seven-year term used to be important because it was an opportunity for the CRTC to revisit the contributions that a service might have to make supporting Canadian program or French-language programming or showcasing Canadian content, but that's no longer the case. The government's view is that it doesn't make sense to force the CRTC to revisit a licence every seven years because it's not going to be in question whether CTV Toronto can continue to operate and use that band of spectrum. If ever there does need to be changes in terms of spectrum allocation and the authorization to operate, the CRTC has the ability to revoke a licence or look at a licence or amend a licence if it needs to.

I hope that helps clarify.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe there may be a bit of a disconnect then in terms of Ms. Ien's statements and G-7.

G-7 is intended to clarify that policy direction that can be issued by the Governor in Council to the CRTC. It would include giving direction of general application with respect to orders issued under 9.1 or regulations issued under 11.1.

There seems to be some confusion among stakeholders following the tabling of Bill C-10, whether it would be appropriate for the government to give an indication about the way that those powers should be used. G-7, Mr. Chair, is intended to clarify the scope, as long as it still remains at a level of general application. We're not talking about interfering in specific decisions. Rather, the expectation is that the CRTC would ensure certain kinds of discoverability or certain kinds of contributions from certain types of players, and that would be appropriate.

I apologize if I've missed something, Mr. Chair, but that is my understanding of what's intended by G-7.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Once again, we're doing clause-by-clause on Bill C-10. I won't get into the details about all this. If you've been following along, you know how this works. We're going to go right to new clause 4.1.

The first one up is G-7, put forward by Ms. Dabrusin.

Ms. Dabrusin, are you with us?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your question, Mrs. Bessette.

As the committee knows, Bill C-10 would add this paragraph to the act by creating a new class of broadcasting undertakings: online undertakings. Many undertakings are thus concerned here. Since the definition of online undertaking includes undertakings that provide audio and audiovisual services, if the provision is adopted, it will therefore embrace a large number of businesses.

In recognizing that Bill C-10 is enlarging the responsibilities, enlarging the scope of the act and the responsibilities of the CRTC, this provision of the bill was included to signal that the default stance of the CRTC should not be to regulate every little online undertaking that's in the business of offering audio or audiovisual services to Canadians, but rather that the goal here is to capture those services that are in a position to make a material contribution to the policy objectives of the act.

In the current conventional world there's a finite number of services that are offered either over the air or on cable or satellite, so there was a very closed environment. We're very mindful that in Bill C-10 what we're doing is enlarging the CRTC's responsibility to include Internet undertakings and the government's view on that is that there should be a judgment call made about when those services are subject to the regulatory requirements that come with Bill C-10. That's why this provision is included then in Bill C-10.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Yes, Mr. Shields, it would be left up to the CRTC to determine, whether it's equivalent manner or equitable manner, what that means in practice.

That said, there is a difference between “equivalent” and “equitable” in the sense that “equivalent” really means like for like. One of the challenges that Bill C-10 seeks to address is the greater diversity of broadcasting services that we all subscribe to now. One of the challenges the CRTC will have moving forward is that it has to think about our traditional TV channels, like Global or CTV or TVA, and now it has to think about online sports streaming services or online third-language broadcasting services.

Bill C-10 seeks to establish a framework whereby we want all those services to contribute to the policy objectives of the act, but it starts from a premise that how they do so may not look exactly the same. Depending on the nature of the service, the CRTC could say that this service may need to spend a certain amount of money each year on Canadian programming. For this other service, given the nature of the service, maybe it's more appropriate that it contribute to cultural production funds like the Canada Media Fund.

If the term “equivalent manner” is used, it suggests that, notwithstanding that a sports steaming service looks very different from, say, TVA or CTV, they should contribute in exactly the same way. My view is that “equitable” manner seeks to send the message that they should make a contribution that is of equal importance in terms of contributing to cultural policy objectives, but understanding how they go about making that contribution may look different at the end of the day.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Right now, as Bill C-10 currently stands—and as the committee is aware—it excludes social media services from the ambit of the act, unless there's a situation of an affiliation contract or a mandatary relationship in place.

CPC-5, if it was adopted—if I understand correctly the spirit of the amendment—would impose certain limitations on that to the effect that if a social media service crossed a certain threshold in terms of the users of the service, the subscribers in Canada, etc., then suddenly it would get pulled into the ambit of the act and would be subject to the act like any other broadcasters. In other words, the social media exclusion would not apply to them.

If I understand correctly from the debate that's currently taking place, as Ms. Dabrusin has signalled, the government intends to suggest the repeal of proposed section 4.1 altogether, meaning that there would no longer be any exclusion for social media services at all.

Just maybe for the benefit of the committee, in our previous sessions the committee upheld the exclusion for individual users of social media companies. In other words, when you or I upload something to YouTube or some other sharing service, we will not be considered broadcasters for the purposes of the act. In other words, the CRTC couldn't call us before them, and we couldn't be subject to CRTC hearings and whatnot.

However, if the exclusion here is removed and 4.1 is struck down, the programming we upload onto YouTube, the programming we place on that service, would be subject to regulation moving forward but would be the responsibility of YouTube or whatever the sharing service is. That programming that is uploaded, then, could be subject to things like discoverability requirements or certain obligations like that.

Again, if the way forward ultimately is to maintain the exclusion for individual users but to strike down the exclusion for social media companies, it means that all the programming that is on those services would be subject to the act, regardless of whether it's put there by an affiliate or a mandatary of the company.

I hope that helps clarify.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 26 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 16, the committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, as you see before us. We're also being webcast for those watching us from.... I was going to say around the country, but I suppose you could say from around the world.

That being said, very quickly I want to go over some of the rules that we've put down so far, for those of you who are observing this committee.

We are going to go through clause by clause. Each amendment will be signified by letters and numbers. For example, PV is Parti vert. PV-1 would be the first of the Green Party's amendments. We have amendments from LIB, from the Liberal members on the committee. CPC is from the Conservative members. The Bloc Québécois' will be BQ. NDP is the New Democrats. The final category would be G, which would be amendments coming forward from the government.

Before we pick up with that, there are just a couple of rules. Remember, please no taking any photos of this for distribution. That's for this particular meeting and for all of the meetings, really.

To clarify something on the votes, folks, when we vote on an amendment or a clause, I will ask for it to carry. If I hear silence then it carries. If I hear a “no” I will go to a recorded vote. If I hear a “no” and then someone says “on division” then I will carry it on division signifying that someone is not in support of it, but we'll go ahead without a recorded vote. If you want it to be negatived on division, just say “negatived on division”, or “no, on division”.

I hope that's clear. It was last time, I just thought I'd repeat that for everyone's benefit.

Let's get to scheduling for just a moment. As you know, we passed a motion to see if we can seek out extra hours or meetings for Bill C-10. You've already received the notice. We'll proceed and go ahead and try to find the space where we can. We found an evening of May 3 as a placeholder.

Just so you know, we attempted today to go for three hours, but that was not possible. We know that the Senate is also sitting. We also attempted for next Friday to do three hours. That too was unsuccessful. We were only able to obtain two hours, because multimedia services weren't able to cover it. So far we just have the extra meeting on May 3. I think you have received a notice for that. Nevertheless, we can talk about that later, if you wish.

I think it's time for Bill C-10. We'll go to clause-by-clause. We'll pick up where we left off.

(On clause 2)

We're on NDP-8.

Ms. McPherson, it's your amendment. Would you like the floor?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, I'm sorry. I confused the three and a half hours with the three. That's on me. You have my apologies.

I have a proposal from one o'clock to four o'clock. Do I see any dissension among the ranks? No.

How about we try for one o'clock to four o'clock, and if it doesn't work, I'll email an alternative. It's one o'clock to four o'clock eastern time—I should clarify that always—for this coming Friday to resume clause-by-clause on Bill C-10.

We'll see you on Friday, hopefully at one o'clock eastern.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay. Here is the English version of BQ-11. It is that Bill C-10, in clause 2, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 4 the following:

(q) online undertakings must clearly promote and recommend Canadian programming, in both official languages as well as Indigenous languages, and ensure that any means of control of the programming generates results allowing its discovery; and

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I would just like to say that proposed subparagraph 3(1)(q)(ii) is meant to reflect paragraph 5(2)(a)(1) in subclause 4(1) of Bill C-10, which says that the CRTC must be fair and equitable in regulating as between broadcasting undertakings.

So I think that it's altogether consistent to place it in that location as well.

[Thomas Owen Ripley, Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the question.

As the committee is aware, one of the objectives of Bill C-10 is to clarify and enlarge the definition of “broadcasting” to clearly include online undertakings. This clarification around programming under their control has been included to clarify that or to recognize the fact that in some instances now, moving forward, you will have online undertakings that are distributing content generated by other users.

From the government's perspective, striking out the limitation with respect to programming under their control would mean that those undertakings, when they are distributing the content of others, would be responsible for that content even though they may not have played any role necessarily in the editorial control of it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome back, everyone.

This is meeting number 25 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Pursuant to the order of reference of February 16, the committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10, which we started on Friday and will continue today in a two-hour format.

As a note, as you know, we had a motion passed a few weeks ago in regard to seeking out extra time, if possible, for the consideration of Bill C-10. In terms of advance notice for this coming Friday—if we have to carry this over to Friday—I'll be scheduling a three-hour meeting once again.

All right. We'll do the same timing as last time. Of course, we're still in a hybrid format. I forgot to mention this the last time, by the way, but screenshots, taking photos of your screen, are not permitted. I know that you may already know this, but I just thought I'd add that.

Also, we've been good so far, but please don't speak until I recognize you by name. It's not because I want to feel intoxicated with all the power of being a chair; rather, it's to allow our committee Hansard the opportunity to make things all right in their world. As I said before, it can sometimes be confusing enough in person, so you can imagine it in this hybrid format. I shouldn't even say “hybrid”, because we're all online, with the exception of staff, so I guess we're going completely virtual.

I want to say just one other thing. We made a slight change last time in the voting on how we proceed on carrying—or not—each individual clause or amendment. To recap how this works, I will ask if it carries. I'll say, “Does the amendment carry?” If I'm met with silence, then it will carry. If you want to support it or oppose it, but you don't want to go to a recorded vote, you have two options. You can say “on division” or “carried on division”, or you can say “negatived on division”. If you say that, if you say “negatived on division” or “carried on division”, and someone else says “no” or “yes”, I will automatically go to a recorded vote.

Thank you, Mr. Housefather. I think you helped us out there last time.

I think that's a fairly good system. We've used it only once. In case you don't want to go to a recorded vote and you want to move on, you now have the option of—remember—“carried on division” or “negatived on division”. Thank you.

For the folks who are watching this from outside our virtual room here with those of us on the webcast, I'm going to do one explanatory thing. When we do the clauses, within the clauses most everyone has submitted possible amendments for consideration. Whether they're ruled in order or not, that's something else. We're going to go in order from number one up to the end of the amendments that are coming in. We have amendments by six different groups. We have amendments by “PV”. You have PV-1 from the Parti vert, which is the Green Party. We also have LIB-1 or LIB-2, and these are amendments by the Liberal members on the committee. “CPC” represents the Conservative Party members on this committee. “BQ” represents the Bloc Québécois member on the committee. NDP-1 or NDP-2 are amendments by the NDP member on the committee. The final category is G, and yes, we do get to do government amendments. We have a few of them here. They will be G-1, G-2 and so on.

(On clause 2)

That being said, let's get going. When we last left off, we were at NDP-7. Is everybody ready to go on that? We were dealing with the subamendment by Mr. Housefather.

To pick this up again, Mr. Housefather, can I call on you to start?

[Philippe Méla]

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, Monsieur Housefather, you are right. The process would be to deal with the first subamendment that's on the floor right now to be able to propose a new subamendment from possibly Mr. Champoux.

Now, for Ms. McPherson, indeed she could move her amendment, basically saying “that Bill C-10 in clause 2 be amended by adding after line 33 on page 3 the following”, and it would be just proposed paragraph 3(1)(f.1). We would remove the proposed paragraph 3(1)(f) part, if that's agreeable to the mover.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I basically wanted to go back once again to this question. I understand that Bill C-10 would add a section that is relatively similar and adds greater context, but that section will not disappear if we amend the law to return the section amended by Ms. McPherson.

I'm trying to understand why that would be an issue. Can the department clarify whether, by amending this, we don't remove the other section that was also added to Bill C-10?

Perhaps Ms. Tsui could do that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, what Bill C-10 would add to the act concerns me less than what this amendment would remove, in other words, the importance of making use of Canadian talent and artists, and offering the public information and analysis concerning Canada and other countries.

Basically, I can't see what the proposed amendment would add to the bill. I think the act's current wording does a good job of addressing this.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I would point out to the committee is that the term “undertaking” isn't defined. Indeed, “broadcasting undertaking” is a defined term in the act, and that captures distribution undertakings like cable and satellite companies and online undertakings pursuant to Bill C-10, and programming undertakings, which are how we think of TV channels.

Again, here the concern is, as Mr. Olsen outlined, that right now the way the system works is that the CRTC can authorize cable and satellite companies like Rogers, Bell or Videotron to carry services that aren't Canadian—CNN, Fox, and so on—and they're part of your cable or satellite lineup.

The concern is that if the focus is only on online undertakings, there is a risk that there might be a suggestion that Parliament is trying to indicate to the CRTC that it should no longer authorize the distribution of undertakings except for online undertakings. That's the potential mischief we see here.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Louis.

What I would say is that, as I highlighted at the outset, we have already included under subclause 5(2) an indication that the CRTC should avoid regulating enterprises, businesses, organizations when they not do contribute in a material manner.

That was precisely, I think, to speak to the spirit of what I understand Mr. Rayes' amendment to be, which is that there isn't a reason to subject, for example, educational institutions to being considered a broadcaster. The way Bill C-10 currently goes about this is by giving the discretion to the CRTC to work through when certain types of organizations should not be subject to being considered broadcasters for the purposes of the act.

Indeed, I query whether the list is as complete as the committee would want it to be in order to be future-proofed or whether these questions are better left up to being worked out through regulatory proceedings that can evolve as time goes on.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, Ms. McPherson. It's a good one, in the sense that, as the committee knows, there are elements of Bill C-10 that give the CRTC powers to impose discoverability requirements on online undertakings. Certainly we understand that in those contexts, the ways that recommender algorithms are working are very relevant to the CRTC's work.

It's not a question of saying yes, they're within the scope of the act, and the CRTC would be able to ask for information from online undertakings such as Netflix or Crave about the way their algorithms are prioritizing or servicing Canadian content as part of those processes. The implication in this particular context is where the term “programming control” is used elsewhere in the act. For example, proposed paragraph 10(1)(c) says:

standards for programs over which a person carrying on a broadcasting undertaking has programming control

I think there's another regulatory power that also references it, so my previous comments were speaking to the potential implication of this—that again the committee would be extending the scope of those powers in potentially requiring companies that are simply in the business of retransmitting or distributing content made by others to suddenly be responsible for the standards or the content of that content.

[Drew Olsen]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to do that. Ms. Dabrusin, thank you for the question.

The first thing I see here is that there's a notion of including retransmission in this. Retransmission is cable companies retransmitting broadcast programs. For example, CTV broadcasts over the air, and then Rogers, Shaw or Videotron retransmits that to consumers, but they don't have any control over the programming that is in the CTV signal.

This definition appears to me to include the retransmission element, which would then give the Shaws, Rogers and Videotrons of the world responsibility, or deem them to be responsible, over the programming. They have the same issue now that we had in the last amendment with proposed paragraph 3(1)(h), and even the new proposed paragraph 3(1)(g) would apply to them, in terms of putting a burden on them for programming being of high standard and their being responsible for the programming. That's the first thing I've noticed.

Obviously, the new words there are also “recommendation or prioritization of programs or programming services”, which don't appear in the current proposed definition in Bill C-10. That would change it, and I am not really sure how that would apply to the retransmission world and I'm not sure how an over-the-air broadcaster does recommendations.

I think that's meant to apply just to online, but I'm not sure how that would apply in the traditional broadcasting space.

[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.

Canadian Heritage

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary 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?

[Dr. Michael Geist]

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.

[Jérôme Payette]

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?

[Jérôme Payette]

Our members represent the musical works, meaning the songs that you hear on YouTube. They're directly affected by this. It's a major issue.

We don't understand why the musical works wouldn't be subject to the Broadcasting Act, while Spotify would be, simply because of technological process. In our view, this is completely incomprehensible. That's why subsection 2(2.1) and section 4.1 of Bill C-10 should be removed.

I'd like to address the technical aspect. We were told that it was hard to differentiate between professional and amateur content. This is completely false.

Our industry has been working with metadata, such as the international standard recording code, or ISRC, and international standard musical work code, or ISWC, for decades. YouTube already makes this distinction. It recommends music and makes playlists. This is the most widely used service. For the future of our industry, these works must be subject to the Broadcasting Act, just like other works.

[Jérôme Payette]

Yes, but our proposal is clear: remove subsection 2(2.1) and section 4.1 of Bill C-10 regarding social media.

We feel that there's a desire to protect social media. We feel that we need to protect our culture and Canadians. Bill C-10 really doesn't focus enough on social media. It focuses on the process of putting content online to make that content stand out. The important thing is the content, not how it's put online. For example, music that ends up on Spotify goes through a distributor. Music that goes on YouTube is put online by a record company, by an artist. Since the content is uploaded directly to the platform, the record company isn't accountable and the content isn't regulated.

Spotify carried out a pilot project, but didn't follow up on it, to allow record companies to upload their music directly to the service. If Bill C-10 were passed, the content put online would no longer be regulated. This leaves a gaping hole in the bill that allows companies to swoop in and avoid the enforcement of the legislation altogether.

Social media is fundamental to the future of our music. YouTube is the most prominent platform right now and it isn't subject to the legislation. TikTok and Triller are great places to discover music. Young people form their musical tastes for decades on these platforms. The comments that I heard in my conversations with officials were really disappointing. The officials made technical arguments, which don't hold water.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

To the Professional Music Publishers' Association, you're right on about YouTube. It is not regulated in Bill C-10, and everybody is using YouTube. We are going to have an issue. As you pointed out, correctly, this should be regulated and it's not.

Is there an amendment or something that you would like to bring forward later? As you know, we all, even as MPs, use YouTube. It not being regulated is an issue with Bill C-10.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to begin by thanking the witnesses for being with us today. It's always very interesting to hear what they have to say.

Mr. Payette, thank you for your opening remarks. I don't want to make a pun or a lame connection to your organization, but it was music to my ears.

I'd like to ask you a very simple question, one you could probably answer at length. Could you tell us the importance of Bill C-10 for the future of francophone music?

[Alex Freedman]

It's a definition of what we do. It's a recognition that we play a critical role in terms of promoting multilingualism and a variety of different aspects of the Broadcasting Act. There are a number of important goals set out in C-10 that we support wholeheartedly, such as the inclusion of indigenous broadcasters. Again, we're really one of the only places where indigenous languages are heard in these communities. We're one of the only places where they have a chance to get on the air.

We are not recognized within the Broadcasting Act. We see the Yale report come through with nothing but a scant mention of the role of community broadcasters.

The fact that we're there puts us in a position to have conversations with the CRTC about making sure we get funding for these roles and making sure we have a place at the table. That's what is really critical.

[Jérôme Payette]

Our members administer musical works that are used in video games, but they are excluded from Bill C-10, as I understand it. So that's not something we wanted to highlight today.

[Jérôme Payette, Executive Director, Professional Music Publishers' Association]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss this bill, which will be crucial to the future of our culture.

The Professional Music Publishers' Association, or PMPA, represents music publishers in Quebec and French-speaking Canada. Our members control 830 publishing houses with approximately 400,000 musical works.

As partners of songwriters and composers, music publishers support the creation of musical works, and promote and administer them. Publishers are involved in everything from paper scores to online music services to concerts, video games and audiovisual products.

I'd like to mention that our association is a member of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, or CDCE, and supports its proposed amendments to Bill C-10.

I'm testifying at the end of the process, and many of the topics that are important to us have already been discussed with you. So I will keep that in mind as I speak.

The bill needs to be amended to meet cultural objectives, and it must be passed quickly.

Canada's broadcasting legislation has been pursuing much the same objective for nearly 100 years, namely, that citizens have access to our content to preserve our identity and culture.

To avoid global cultural standardization, we must think globally and act locally. Canada must protect the diversity of its cultural expressions, especially francophone diversity. To take our place in the world, we have to have our own identity and a flourishing culture.

In the past, Canada has taken bold steps, such as the introduction of radio quotas, and these measures have been copied around the world. I invite you to continue this tradition, whose objectives are as important as ever. We need you to work together to ensure that a bill that supports our culture is passed quickly.

We must level the playing field and not deregulate.

The current legislative and regulatory system exists because market forces can't guarantee the survival of Canadian culture, particularly francophone culture. This is largely a demographic problem, in addition to the fact that we're just north of the country that exports the most culture. This reality hasn't changed because new technologies have emerged; on the contrary, it's gotten worse.

Our cultural industries are fragile; they have emerged through a series of measures, including the Broadcasting Act. If the legislative environment is no longer favourable to us, our cultural industries could disappear or no longer reach Canadians.

The current situation is unfair to conventional broadcasters, that's true. However, regulatory relief would not allow them to recover the advertising revenues and listeners they have lost to online broadcasters. The level of regulation imposed on conventional broadcasters has nothing to do with the changing habits of Canadians.

Foreign companies must be encouraged to contribute to our culture and identity, as conventional broadcasters do. We have to level up. Not doing so would be tantamount to deregulating, which would be tragic for our culture.

We need to be visionary and not exclude social media from the act.

I listened carefully to the testimony of the Minister and the officials who appeared before you on March 8, and I'm not at all reassured. To avoid becoming obsolete as soon as it is passed, the act must apply to all companies that broadcast professional cultural content, without exception.

YouTube is the most popular online music service in Canada, and I'm talking about YouTube, not YouTube Music, which should be distinguished. Under the current provisions of Bill C-10, Spotify and QUB musique would be regulated for the broadcast of a song, while YouTube would not be regulated for the broadcast of the same song, which would be totally unfair.

The term “user-generated content” is imprecise, and Bill C-10 attempts to define a risky uploading process. The content is important, not the process of putting it online. The act must be neutral with respect to technological processes.

Under the wording of Bill C-10, a song or video that is posted online by industry professionals or self-produced professional artists would be exempt from the act. Contrary to what Mr. Ripley told you, distinguishing professional cultural content from amateur video is not difficult. YouTube already distinguishes professional music content from its entire repertoire using metadata.

I would like to point out that the means of broadcasting will continue to evolve, as will the business models, and that people will continue to listen to music and watch videos. The fundamental question is, will people still take in our culture? You have to make sure the answer is yes.

In conclusion, we need all of you to work together to amend and pass a new Bill C-10 that, by levelling the playing field, will establish fair obligations for all companies operating in Canada. This will allow us to avoid destroying the cultural sector, particularly the music sector. Our culture needs you.

Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Scott Hutton]

Mr. Champoux, these are questions we are constantly asking ourselves. I think the message our chair is trying to send you is that we are lagging behind legislative changes that may occur.

The radio and music industry in Canada, be it English or French, is in trouble. We've decided to proceed with our study, as we have with many of our other key issues. The day before yesterday, we published a notice of consultation on indigenous broadcasting. We're also looking at the renewal of CBC/Radio–Canada's licences, but we can't really talk about that. These are all important issues that we need to continue to work on.

We need to make sure that the framework we're working on right now respects the boundaries we have now. It's clear that your decisions related to the legislative changes proposed in Bill C-10 are going to have a great deal of influence on the next steps in our work. However, we owe it to ourselves to move forward and modernize these environments by making structural changes. When we saw the effects of the pandemic, it was impossible to ignore them. Our work plan had to move forward.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This will be quick.

Mr. Scott, the call for comments that the CRTC issued on the commercial radio policy framework ends on Monday. But this committee is in the process of conducting a review of the Broadcasting Act.

Is it not your impression that the CRTC's study on commercial radio practices is a little premature and, before beginning such a study, you should have waited until after the parliamentary process with Bill C-10?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

I know I am running out of time, but I want to thank you for your time today. I look forward to hearing back about how the consultations go, assuming Bill C-10 goes forward.

Mr. Chair, I will pass it back to you.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today. It has been very interesting to hear your responses. Of course, we all have a great deal of interest in the work you're doing and in the implications of Bill C-10 on your work.

As everyone knows, Bill C-10, if passed, would require online businesses, both foreign and Canadian, to contribute financially to the Canadian broadcasting system to support creators and producers of Canadian content.

What are some of the ways you think companies will try to get around their future spending or royalty obligations, and what do you think you can do to prevent that from happening?

[Ian Scott]

At the moment, we do not have the tools we need. However, I feel that Bill C-10 will give them to us.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I would like to bring up another matter.

At their recent appearance before the committee, the Minister and the officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage stated that, according to Bill C-10, social media will be regulated. However, other players in the field expressed their concern, because they find that social media are actually excluded from Bill C-10. I am thinking specifically about the organization called the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.

If the bill is passed in its current form, do you feel that the CRTC will be able to regulate social media and impose conditions on them?

[Scott Hutton]

Bill C-10 is intended to improve the existing act on a number of fronts.

As our chairperson mentioned earlier, the task of the CRTC is to implement the measures intended in the major political outlines. Accordingly, we have different approaches for French content and English content and very specific measures as to Canadian content and French-language content. We have even added to them in recent years, because the market was concerned about the matter.

I do not feel the CRTC will retreat or give in to pressure in that regard. The current legislation gives French-language content a predominant place in the country.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I feel like I have six minutes in which to run a marathon. We could talk to each other about so many things.

I confess that I am very concerned about the lack of teeth in Bill C-10 in terms of protecting original French-language content and Canadian content. I am concerned to see that it is in the departmental directives rather than in the act.

Mr. Scott, do you prefer to have a legislative framework that is better defined, a little stricter, and that makes the playing field clearer for you, or do you prefer to have more latitude in interpreting the sections and the spirit, the intent, of the act?

In this case, I am thinking particularly about how language content is apportioned.

[Rachelle Frenette, General Counsel and Deputy Executive Director, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]

Good afternoon.

Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes.

I can just tell you that we are relying on the note from the Department of Justice, which has studied Bill C-10 and concluded that the bill is constitutional.

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

Some broadcasting experts have told us that they have doubts as to the constitutionality of Bill C-10.

How do you respond to that? Do you think they are right to be concerned?

[Ian Scott]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting us to appear before your committee.

We welcome the opportunity to contribute to the committee’s study of Bill C-10. We have been following with interest the debates in the House of Commons. I should warn you, however, that there are number of matters before the Commission and we may not be able to provide detailed responses to all of your questions at this time.

The CRTC is an independent regulatory agency. Our role is to implement the legislation that Parliament adopts and to ensure that the policy objectives set for the Canadian broadcasting system are achieved.

We recognize that some parliamentarians have expressed concerns that Bill C-10 proposes to give the CRTC significant latitude with regard to its implementation; some, indeed, may think it is too much latitude.

While we understand such concerns, I would note that the current Broadcasting Act, which we've been implementing since 1991, provides the CRTC with a great deal of flexibility to determine exactly how to achieve Parliament's policy objective.

That flexibility has empowered us to adapt to change and to apply different requirements to traditional television and radio services, depending on the nature of a broadcaster's service and the linguistic market in which it operates.

Our regulatory frameworks have evolved in light of changing circumstances to ensure the production and promotion of French- and English-language content by and for indigenous peoples, and content that showcases Canada's diversity.

I would like to point out that the Broadcasting Act specifies that the broadcasting system should take into account the needs and interests of Canada's diversity. It was left to the CRTC, however, as an independent regulator, to develop the necessary frameworks to achieve that policy objective, as well as others that Parliament has set out in the act.

In 2019, television broadcasters, as well as cable and satellite TV providers, contributed $2.9 billion to content creation, which included $736 million on news programming in both official languages. This was the result of requirements that the CRTC has set.

Also as a result of our regulations, the large French-language ownership groups must spend at least 75% of their Canadian programming expenditures on original French-language content. In addition, we have set benchmarks for the number of hours of news and local programming that TV stations must air each week in both official language markets, and we have licensed UNIS, which reflects and serves francophones outside of Quebec.

Radio also plays a key role in reflecting and connecting communities. In 2019, there were over 700 commercial radio stations authorized to broadcast in Canada, offering a vast diversity of content and music. These stations contributed $46 million to the development and promotion of Canadian artists.

Our regulatory frameworks have led to the licensing of APTN, the first national Indigenous broadcaster in the world, and OMNI Regional, which provides multi-ethnic programming in 20 different languages. In addition to OMNI, Canadians can subscribe to more than 110 speciality and pay channels offering programming in a variety of languages other than English and French. They can also listen to numerous Indigenous and multi-ethnic radio stations. As the definition of diversity changed, we granted a licence to OUTtv, one of the first channels dedicated to airing content for the LGBTQ2+ community.

We made these decisions because we recognized their important contributions to public policy objectives.

The Broadcasting Act is now 30 years old. Although its drafters had the foresight to make it technology neutral, they could not foresee how modern technology would change the delivery of audio and audiovisual content. The CRTC has been monitoring the evolution of the Internet since its earliest days.

We have held comprehensive proceedings under the current Act to consider the regulatory approach that should be taken regarding online audio and audiovisual content. Each time, we concluded that online content, and its distribution, was complementary to the traditional system. We therefore exempted online broadcasters from the requirement to hold a licence.

A lot has changed in recent years. As more Canadians gained access to high-speed Internet services, they also gained access to a growing number of online libraries of domestic and foreign content. That explosion of choice was to the benefit of audiences and creators. It helped bring Canadian productions and artists to national and international audiences.

The Broadcasting Act, and the regulations we have implemented to achieve its policy objectives, have fostered a dynamic and diverse broadcasting system. The time has come, however, to adapt to today’s digital environment and to ensure we can continue to adapt in the future.

At the government’s request, we studied what effect this environment may have on the production, distribution and promotion of Canadian content in the coming years.

Our 2018 report found that Canadians will rely increasingly on the Internet to discover and consume music, entertainment, news and other information in the coming years.

We therefore recommended in the report that future policy approaches should focus on the production and promotion of high-quality content made by Canadians that can be discovered by audiences in Canada and abroad, ensure that all players benefitting from the Canadian broadcasting system participate in an appropriate and equitable manner, and be sufficiently nimble to enable the regulator to adapt rapidly to changes in technology and consumer demand.

We made similar recommendations to the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel.

All of this brings us to Bill C-10. We welcomed the tabling of the bill since, in our view, it does three very important things. One, it builds on the existing Broadcasting Act to clarify the CRTC's jurisdiction regarding online broadcasters. Two, it proposes provisions that specifically address our ability to obtain data from online broadcasters to better monitor their evolution. Three, it proposes to modernize the CRTC's enforcement powers.

Equally important, Bill C-10 proposes to foster a more inclusive broadcasting system and more diversity in content. Once the legislation, with the will of Parliament, has received royal assent and the government has issued its policy direction, we will hold public hearings to develop a new regulatory framework, and there will be an opportunity for Canadians and all interested parties to provide their input and be heard.

Our goal, as always, will be to develop as complete a public record as possible and to make evidence-based decisions in the public interest. We are proud that for over 50 years Parliament has entrusted the CRTC with the task of establishing regulatory frameworks to achieve the policy outcomes it has set out for the broadcasting system. We look forward to continuing to evolve in the 21st century and to ensuring that all players in the system, including online broadcasters, contribute in the most appropriate way.

Thank you. We'll be happy to answer your questions and to offer our expertise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thanks, everybody.

We will now move to our special guests of the day as we consider clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10. We're still with witnesses. This will be our last day of meetings with witnesses before we start the actual clause-by-clause.

I would like to welcome very special guests, an entity that is no stranger to this committee or others, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

I would like to welcome Ian Scott, chairperson and chief executive officer; Scott Hutton, chief of consumer, research and communications; Scott Shortliffe, executive director of broadcasting. Rachelle Frenette is general counsel and deputy executive director.

Mr. Scott, I believe you requested 10 minutes, so I need to know who is starting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome, everybody, to meeting number 19 of the House of Common Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 16, 2021, the committee continues its consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

I just want to give a quick reminder to everyone that it is forbidden to take screenshots and then to share them out to the general public or to any of our guests. I will mention that again in the second hour, but seeing our guests are from CRTC, they probably already know that.

We have a slew of hands up, as we say. Let's go to the order I see on the screen.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We did have the minister join us earlier on as we were examining Bill C-10, and I was concerned, as I know many people were, when he told us that Facebook and YouTube were not exempt from Bill C-10.

I'm just going to give my last two and a half minutes, if I could, to Friends of Canadian Broadcasting. Could you talk about what you think of the answer of the Minister of Canadian Heritage that Facebook and YouTube are not exempt from Bill C-10?

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank Mr. Champoux for giving me his time. I also thank our witnesses.

Ms. St-Onge, we know that French is in serious decline, that our artists and crews are in an even more precarious situation, as you mentioned at the beginning of your statement, and that artists are the raw material of everything we are discussing right now.

I'd like you to further elaborate on the discoverability of French-language content in Bill C-10.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Sparrow, perhaps you could comment on my next question as well.

Ms. St-Onge, I'd also like to hear your comments.

I know that your union, Mr. Sparrow, has worked a lot on diversity and inclusion and on how to make sure we have better representation of Black actors and indigenous actors in the field. What are the opportunities within Bill C-10 to better support that inclusion and those opportunities? Do you have any ideas in that respect?

Ms. St-Onge, I'd also like to know if you have any thoughts on this.

[Raj Shoan, General Counsel, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists]

Thanks, David.

We think it's absolutely crucial to maintain the principle of “maximum [but not] less than predominant use, of Canadian creative and other resources”. In our view, the language presently contained in Bill C-10 is simply too weak. In the long term, it will only result in the degradation of truly Canadian content in the system.

Our proposed language—which we understand is also supported by the Writers Guild of Canada, the Directors Guild of Canada and the Canadian Media Producers Association—ensures that Canadian programming in the system will make maximum but not less than predominant use of Canadian creative and other resources.

For everything that's not Canadian, the regulator can discuss a lighter standard, but it's important that Bill C-10 hold a hard line with respect to the Canadian content produced by traditional or online undertakings. That standard should be the same as it has been for the last 30 years, which is maximum but not less than predominant use. That's the standard we hold to.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to start with Mr. Thomson. Thank you for your two amendments.

Do you have any faith in the CRTC? Let's start there. Because we're heavily regulated—and we've heard that throughout this whole Bill C-10 debate—are you comfortable with the CRTC taking on more work?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome back, everyone.

This meeting is on Bill C-10. The new format seems to be going well.

We just finished our first round, and we're on to our second round now, where the time has slightly changed. We now switch to five minutes, and we're going to start with Mr. Waugh.

Mr. Waugh, you have five minutes, please.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for joining us this morning.

I'd like to start with a few questions for our colleagues with Unifor.

You spoke about paragraph 3(1)(a) and the wording that you are proposing. As we know, Bill C-10 removes the first objective of the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in paragraph 3(1)(a)—“the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians”—and you've put forward a modification that “the Canadian broadcasting system should maximize ownership and control by Canadians”.

Can you comment further on why you think it's so important to have that change to the act? I will go to ACTRA afterwards and get some clarification from them on the same point, so they can prepare now.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for joining us today to help our committee.

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

When the minister appeared before us, in answer to one of my questions, he implied that social media were included in the bill. However, I listened to your remarks today, and when I look at subclause 4(1) the bill is supposed to add to the act, I see that it would not apply to users generating and receiving programs through an online company that provides a social media service. Companies such as YouTube, Facebook and TikTok are some examples of [Technical difficulty—Editor] that enable users to upload content.

Do you have comments or information you would like to add to explain your opinion on this part of Bill C-10 that would lead to the Broadcasting Act not applying to social media services?

[Katha Fortier, Assistant to the National President, Unifor]

Thank you very much.

Good morning. My name is Katha Fortier, assistant to the Unifor national president. I bring regrets from Jerry Dias. He had an urgent personal matter today. With me is our media director, Howard Law. We have 11,000 members in the media sector, including broadcasting and TV production. We thank you so much for the invitation today.

The Broadcasting Act is at the heart of our national mandate for cultural sovereignty. That's something we never stop having to protect and advance, whether it's in trade negotiations or in reform of the Broadcasting Act. For decades the Broadcasting Act has been a pillar of our cultural sovereignty. The goal is to strike the right balance between Canadian content and our openness to the world.

We've weathered this incredible challenge to our cultural sovereignty over the decades. Sometimes these changes have been driven by continental free traders doing the bidding of Hollywood, or by the disruption of new technology. When television arrived in our homes after the war, it didn't destroy radio, because we adapted the Broadcasting Act. Cable came along, and we adapted again. Satellite TV was supposed to be a Death Star that was going to zap the Canadian media industry, but we didn't let it. Each time, legislators and regulators kept their eye on the ball. We maintained that balance between our sovereignty and our openness to global culture, and we did it in a bipartisan way. Some of the greatest champions of the Broadcasting Act reform were Marcel Masse and Flora MacDonald.

Yes, the Internet is the most powerful communications technology yet. AI may be the next one. Then there may be another. We must keep adapting [Technical difficulty—Editor] our cultural sovereignty. Surrender is not an option.

Unfortunately, for the last 10 years the federal government and the CRTC have kept their hands in their pockets watching our cultural protections unravel. Now we are doing something about it. We support the amendments put forward by Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, and we especially want to make sure that Canadian ownership rules are reinstated in section 3. Those rules were ignored by the CRTC for 10 years. It tolerated Netflix setting up shop in Canada under the digital exemption and operating, growing and dominating as a cultural juggernaut. We propose replacing paragraph 3(1)(a) with the following: “the Canadian broadcasting system should maximize ownership and control by Canadians”.

We've been following the criticism of the bill. Some of it is hostility to regulation or hostility to cultural sovereignty, but some of the criticism of the bill is fair. There are loopholes to be closed and policy questions to be answered. We are pleased that this committee has asked the minister to answer some of those questions by tabling a draft cabinet directive to the CRTC.

As I said, the bill itself must say that foreign media companies will not be able to buy up domestic media companies, whether conventional or online. Cabinet or the bill should also direct that news broadcasting remain 100% Canadian-owned. Above all, cabinet or the bill must empower the CRTC to dedicate a stream of industry funding for local TV news with strict conditions to tie in to a head count of journalists and media workers. That's missing from the draft directive that has been tabled. Experts and industry leaders appearing before you have already driven this point home.

News is a priority cultural good in our broadcasting world. Journalism is essential to democracy. We saw how true that statement was on January 6 south of the border. We can't afford to be smug about Canadian democracy. Bill C-10 is a generational opportunity to address the underfunding of television news journalism. We can't miss it.

The last thing to say is what Bill C-10 doesn't do. To be fair, [Technical difficulty—Editor] said it would. It does nothing to stem the drain of advertising revenue from all of our media industries, including radio and television, by Google and Facebook. This Parliament has to act on that, and soon. Netflix is just the “N” in FAANG. Bill C-10 must be just the beginning in our defence of our sovereignty.

Thank you very much. Howard and I would be very happy to answer any questions.

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

Mr. Chair, honourable committee members, it is a pleasure to be with you today.

You already know that Friends of Canadian Broadcasting is a Canada-wide non-partisan group dedicated to defending Canadian culture on the air and online.

Here are the choices before you as Friends sees them.

One, should streaming companies like Netflix be required to finance original Canadian content in exchange for the right to make billions here?

Two, should newer broadcasting formats, including user-generated content, be regulated, not just with respect to the content but also to the distribution platforms themselves?

Three, how can we ensure a future for Canadian stories and talent, when the industry is increasingly dominated by American behemoths? Facebook, YouTube, Netflix, and now the Ministry of Heritage, all give the same answer to these questions: “Don't worry. Just trust us. Everything will be fine.”

Netflix wants lower obligations than its Canadian competitors, and this bill would, in fact, allow it to remain entirely unregulated, as it is today. Facebook and YouTube say that users are solely responsible for user-generated content. This bill seemingly agrees, exempting social media, not just for the content but for any regulation of their distribution infrastructure as well. What of the need for thriving Canadian media, telling local Canadian stories? Well, Bill C-10 removes Canadian ownership as a policy objective and waters down key provisions supporting Canadian talent. Further, it does nothing to reinforce the CBC.

Meanwhile, Canadian media continue to bleed. Bell Media has laid off more than 400 people this year, by my counting anyway. Huffington Post shut down its Canadian and Quebec operations this month, and the proposed acquisition of Shaw by Rogers poses a real risk of further closures.

The question before you is really quite simple: Will you pass the law that Facebook, YouTube and Netflix want, or are you on Canada's side? If you're on Canada's side, then you cannot trust the department to fix all of the problems it has created. You must fix the bill yourselves, and the ambiguity around whether Netflix and company should contribute less than Canadian broadcasters, or not at all. Just write it into the bill, if for no other reason than to put the parliamentary secretary at ease. As you know, her riding is home to Canada's major production facilities. For her constituents, lost investment or underinvestment is not just a problem of GDP but actually income taken from their pockets.

You must be more involved further because the minister and the department don't appear to properly understand the reality they are tasked with regulating. Case in point, during his last committee appearance Minister Guilbeault said that YouTube and the like should not be subject to the Broadcasting Act, because government has no place regulating your uncle's cat videos. Minister Guilbeault, have you been on YouTube in the last 10 years?

YouTube is full of professional creators with major production budgets, millions of followers, and hundreds of millions of views. In fact, speaking of cats, how about Grumpy Cat, who has more than 12 million followers on social media, has appeared in Cheerios commercials, and has been profiled on all of the major U.S. networks. The U.K. publication Express estimates that Grumpy Cat, or its owners rather, earned nearly $100 million from these cat videos. That's more than major Hollywood stars.

At the same time, the minister and Mr. Ripley said that Facebook and YouTube were not exempted from the bill, but that they would be regulated only once they behaved as broadcasters. That is a very misleading statement. Social media platforms, especially YouTube, are broadcasters under the legislation. If they were not, it would not be necessary to give them an exemption.

Furthermore, the promise of additional legislation to combat illegal content online is a complete distraction. What about broadcasting standards, the fair allocation of political advertising space, discoverability rules, or requirements to have French user interfaces? Exempting social media from the act will make it impossible for the CRTC to address these culturally important issues.

In closing, your task is simple: Ensure a future for Canadian culture. Don't trust the department to just make it all okay after the fact. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and as it stands right now, the bill before you is Facebook's bill. Netflix's CEO told The Canadian Press he loved Bill C-10. YouTube must also be thrilled. Will you pass Silicon Valley's bill, or will you pass a bill that serves Canada's interests?

It's up to you to make the right choice, and I'm hoping you will.

Thank you.

[Pascale St-Onge, President, Fédération nationale des communications et de la culture]

Good morning, Mr. Chair, and members of Parliament.

First, thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak about Bill C-10. My colleague, Sophie Prégent, president of the Union des artistes, or UDA, can't join us today because she's working.

I want to introduce my colleague, Julien Laflamme, from the research department of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or CSN. He'll be joining me in answering your questions and providing insight.

The Fédération nationale des communications et de la culture, or FNCC, represents approximately 6,000 members grouped into 80 unions. Almost two-thirds of our members operate under the Broadcasting Act. They work for public and private radio, television and digital broadcasters. The federation also works closely with cultural unions, including the UDA, the Quebec Musicians' Guild and the Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec, to name a few. Together, our organizations bring together over 25,000 media, arts and culture workers.

Last week, the FNCC and its partners published a new and very troubling report on the situation of self-employed workers in the cultural sector. In short, the precarious situation that artists, creators and craftspeople in the cultural sector have faced for many decades, combined with the shutdown or increased complexity of activities resulting from the pandemic, has left our members in psychological and financial distress. Of course, the living arts have been particularly affected by the health measures and closures. However, the entire cultural sector has been severely shaken.

I must point out that the average annual income of self-employed cultural workers doesn't exceed the low-income cutoff for a single person in Quebec. In 2017, this cutoff was $24,220. In 2019, none of the cultural activity areas reached this cutoff, not even the film and video industry. This precarious financial situation and the weak social safety net available to self-employed workers make them very vulnerable during crises and slumps. This can't continue.

As a result, we're asking you to ensure that your proposed amendments to Bill C-10 will improve the living conditions of our cultural workers. This should be a priority. We've analyzed the bill in light of the current reality on the ground and we're proposing some significant improvements.

First, the appeal of deregulation and a race to the bottom to help integrate the digital giants is an illusion. In reality, our media and audiovisual ecosystem has been able to thrive because we've protected it from the hegemony of Hollywood and other wealthier and more powerful foreign competitors.

If we want to continue to stand out, not only for our Canadian productions but also for our social fabric, values and diversity, we must ensure that the modernization of our legislation will continue to protect our cultural sovereignty and enable our content to shine.

We believe that, to improve the social and economic living conditions of our artists, creators and craftspeople, we must ensure that the Broadcasting Act has more teeth, particularly with regard to the protection of French. Many jobs depend on this directly, along with the funding of our productions.

Given that the decline of the French language is a hot topic of concern in Canada, clearly the Broadcasting Act is an important tool to promote our language. For us, the changes to the requirement to use Canadian artists and workers are unacceptable, since they will result in fewer contract opportunities and job prospects.

If the digital giants must spend money on productions in Canada, they should comply with our definitions of original Canadian and French-language productions. The same logic applies to the protection of Canadian ownership of broadcasting undertakings. We should limit our focus to acknowledging the existence of foreign-owned digital companies in the broadcasting landscape. In our view, the existing text in the current legislation can continue to apply.

We believe that social media shouldn't be automatically excluded from the new legislation. Instead, it should be specified that the activities of users are excluded. However, the commercial activities of these companies should be included in the legislation, and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, should have the power to regulate these activities.

Lastly, the CRTC must have adequate and suitable powers and resources to implement and enforce regulations and requirements, including fines based on company revenues. The licensing or authorization processes, along with the accountability of companies, must be transparent and conducive to public participation.

The regulatory free pass given to the web giants over the past few decades has significantly weakened our media culture and its production capacity. Many job losses among Canadian publishers and broadcasters have been documented, along with downward pressure on working conditions.

Maintaining quality—

[Jay Thomson, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Communication Systems Alliance]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I am Jay Thomson, CEO of the Canadian Communication Systems Alliance, or CCSA.

CCSA represents about 100 independent communications companies across the country that provide bundled TV, Internet and telephone services to Canadians mostly living in smaller communities in rural areas. Our members include, for example, Cooptel in the Estrie region of Quebec, HuronTel in southwestern Ontario, and Milk River Cable Club in southern Alberta.

CCSA was formed in the early 1990s, around the same time that the current Broadcasting Act came into force. Like the act back then, our members at the time did not contemplate the growth in size and influence of the foreign digital giants. But also like the act back then, our members did not contemplate the massive consolidation that would take place in the Canadian broadcasting industry. Neither the act nor our members contemplated that just three domestic companies—Bell, Rogers and Quebecor—would come to dominate Canada's communications marketplace and that, through ownership of most of Canada's TV services and Canada's largest BDUs, Internet and wireless providers, those three companies would become Canada's own vertically integrated domestic giants.

In fact, those domestic giants have since become so big and influential that the CRTC recognized that it had a problem, namely that the giants now had both the incentive and the ability to engage in anti-competitive behaviour that could harm other broadcasters and Canadian consumers. To address that problem, the CRTC has established various safeguards that preclude the domestic giants from favouring themselves in ways that would increase costs and reduce choice for TV consumers.

Those consumer safeguards include a code that ensures you don't have to subscribe to the giants' unpopular TV channels to get their popular ones. The safeguards also include provisions in the digital media exemption order that ensure you can subscribe to your Internet provider of choice—and not just the giants' Internet services—to access the giants' online services like Sportsnet NOW and TSN Direct.

In its current form, Bill C-10 puts those consumer safeguards at risk. When we first reviewed the bill, our concern was that, in focusing on the foreign digital giants, it ignored the growth in size and influence of our domestic giants. We've come to realize, however, that the bill does the exact opposite. Instead of ignoring our domestic giants, it actually embraces them, but not all to the good. Specifically, our concern is that, as written, the bill will enable those giants to favour themselves in ways that will serve to increase costs and reduce choice in our broadcasting system. It will enable them to do exactly what the CRTC warned they would do if left unchecked.

Now much has been said in these hearings about how the bill will level the playing field. That's true, but the field it will level is the one that the [Technical difficulty—Editor] field of the giants. It will tilt even further in the giants' favour the other fields in the system, where smaller and independent players go up against those giants.

Bill C-10 and the draft direction contemplate imposing regulatory obligations on Netflix and others and relaxing existing obligations for Canadian broadcasters. Notably, it's the domestic giants that seem to have focused the most on supporting such regulatory relief. It would be easy to assume that the relief they seek relates solely to their CanCon spending and exhibition obligation. But make no mistake: They will also aggressively pursue relief from the consumer safeguards the CRTC has imposed on them.

This isn't speculation. The giants are already using the courts to challenge the CRTC's jurisdiction to establish and enforce those safeguards. If left as is, Bill C-10 will embolden the giants in their effort to escape the CRTC's consumer safeguards. To prevent [Technical difficulty—Editor] consequences and to protect consumer choice and affordability, particularly in smaller and rural communities, the bill needs to confirm the CRTC's jurisdiction to establish and enforce its safeguards against the giants, including those contained in the digital media exemption order. We've provided suggested language in our written submission.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[Alain Strati, Assistant General Counsel, BCE Inc.]

Now let's talk about news and information. Canadians rely on broadcasters for their news, but the stations themselves are struggling. Local television has been unprofitable every year since 2013. This puts immense pressure on our ability to continue to deliver local news.

Bill C-10 recognizes the importance of local news. However, it fails to specifically provide financial support to local news. This oversight must be rectified. Otherwise, we risk losing voices and stories that enhance our Canadian democracy.

As a result, we're proposing an amendment to the bill that would ensure direct financial support for the production of news programming funded by both over-the-top and domestic distributors.

In conclusion, we support Bill C-10 because it lays the groundwork for a broadcasting system that treats all players fairly and equitably, and moves us towards a sustainable broadcasting system.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. A complete list of our proposed amendments was included in our written submission to the committee.

We look forward to answering your questions.

[Jonathan Daniels, Vice-President, Regulatory Law, BCE Inc.]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable committee members. My name is Jonathan Daniels and I am the vice-president of regulatory law at BCE Inc. With me today virtually is my colleague Alain Strati, assistant general counsel, with whom I'll share my time in this opening statement.

As you may know, Bell operates a variety of broadcasting services across Canada—television, radio and online—in English, such as CTV, and in French, such as the recently launched Noovo network. We are also a distributor of Canadian programming through Fibe TV and satellite TV. We provide critical news and information services, ensuring Canadian voices are represented and heard. We also support Canadian talent with contributions to the Canada Media Fund, FACTOR and Musicaction, among others, and through our own Canadian production.

We support Bill C-10 and urge its swift passage into law. It is long overdue.

By now it should be clear that Canadian broadcasters are struggling. Foreign over-the-top providers are thriving in the Canadian market. Over the last four years, they grew their Canadian revenues by over $2.4 billion, while at the same time Canadian broadcasters experienced a drop in revenue of over $1.3 billion. Here's another jaw-dropping statistic. The three largest OTT service providers—Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+, the latter of which just launched a little over a year ago—already have more Canadian subscribers, between the three of them, than all of Canada's television distributors combined.

Local television and radio are taking the brunt of the impact from foreign competition. In 2019, 70% of our country's private local television stations and 40% of private radio stations had a negative profit. The pandemic has, without a doubt, aggravated the situation.

Despite all this, we continue to operate, but we do so in a regulatory environment that is outdated and that imposes massive obligations on Canadian licensees while completely exempting foreign OTT providers.

As a much-needed first step, Bill C-10 would correct the structural imbalance by ensuring that OTT providers financially support Canadian programming. OTT has been granted a free pass for over 10 years, and OTT providers have not contributed to Canadian content programming, while taking away subscription and advertising revenue dollars from Canadian broadcasters. In contrast, Bell Media and Bell TV spend close to $1 billion annually on Canadian programming, through either direct expenditures or contributions to funds like the CMF.

However, it is not enough to require OTT to fund Canadian content. As the impact of OTT providers continues to grow and broadcast revenues shrink, the ability of domestic broadcasters to support Canadian content has weakened considerably. We must reduce the regulatory burden on domestic players. This can be achieved at the same time as growing the total expenditures on Canadian content by making OTT providers contribute their fair share.

Alain.

[David Sparrow, National President and Performer, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, vice-chairs, committee members and staff.

My name is David Sparrow. I'm a Canadian performer and the national president of ACTRA, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists. Joining me today are Marie Kelly, ACTRA's national executive director; and Raj Shoan, ACTRA's general counsel.

On behalf of our 27,000-plus professional performer members, we are pleased to appear today before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to share our thoughts as part of the committee's study of Bill C-10.

We have been following the progress of this bill. Like other industry stakeholders, we want to ensure a strong and vibrant industry for Canadian content, which is why we are pleased to see that the proposed legislation will require online undertakings, including foreign services, to contribute to the production and discoverability of Canadian programs.

We do, however, have concerns about some of the other proposed changes in the bill and the impact they will have on our industry and, by extension, Canadian performers.

I'll pass it over to Marie Kelly, our national executive director.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Hello, everybody, and welcome back.

We are, of course, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We're now studying Bill C-10 in detail, with clause-by-clause to follow. We have a couple more meetings with witnesses.

We have a good list of witnesses today, and I want to thank them for coming.

For the sake of transparency, colleagues, you will notice that we had Shaw Communications originally invited. Unfortunately they weren't able to make it, so we filled in that empty slot. We now have six groups of witnesses. They'll get five minutes each.

Today we have a new format. We're going to go the full two hours with all of our witnesses, instead of breaking it up into three in the first hour and three in the second hour. There will be a health break in between. If I forget it, please remind me that I've forgotten it. Nevertheless, let's get straight to our witnesses.

We have the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, ACTRA, represented by David Sparrow, national president and performer; Marie Kelly, executive director; and Raj Shoan, general counsel. We also have BCE Inc., represented by Jonathan Daniels, vice-president, regulatory law; and Alain Strati, assistant general counsel. We have, from the Canadian Communication Systems Alliance, Jay Thomson, chief executive officer.

From the Fédération nationale des communications et de la culture, we have Pascale St-Onge, president; and Julien Laflamme, coordinator, research and women's services, Confédération des syndicats nationaux. Also, from Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, we have Daniel Bernhard, executive director. Finally, last but by no means least, from Unifor, we have.... I'm not sure whether Mr. Dias was able to join us, but we have Jerry Dias, national president; Howard Law, director of media and national representative; and Katha Fortier, assistant to the national president.

Before we get into this, I see that Mr. Manly, from the Green Party, has his hand raised.

Mr. Manly, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have, I think, a fairly quick question for Mr. Péladeau.

I'm hearing over and over again people talking about the difficulties that Canadian broadcasters face, in part because of regulation, and then also because of new streaming content, for example, coming on and not being subject to the same regulation. I tend to agree with your point that easing regulation on traditional broadcasters would be a better approach.

Would you describe the approach of Bill C-10, which, for lack of any real, thoughtful analysis of the situation, simply calls streamers “broadcasters”, as a lazy approach to solving the problem?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's my turn to thank all the witnesses for being here with us today.

My first question is for Ms. Guay, of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.

Ms. Guay, this week, at the ADISQ meetings, the minister began by talking about Bill C-10 and the Broadcasting Act as a piece of cultural legislation.

Yesterday, we learned about the direction that the minister intends to send to this CRTC when the bill is adopted. What was your reaction yesterday when you learned about this letter and this direction?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses who took the time to be here with us this afternoon.

My first question is for you, Mr. Péladeau.

In your conclusion, you said that you had serious reservations about the CRTC’s ability to enforce the new regulations in Bill C-10. You maintain that Parliament should at the outset have begun by reducing the regulatory burden on traditional distribution undertakings to restore a balance between them and the web giants before giving any consideration to regulating online players.

Where would you have liked to see more regulatory flexibility? Can you give us more information?

[Pierre Karl Péladeau, President and Chief Executive Officer, Quebecor Media Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of Parliament.

My name is Pierre-Karl Péladeau, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Quebecor Media. With me is Peggy Tabet, Vice President, Public and Regulatory Affairs of Quebecor Media.

Bill C-10 is a long-awaited overhaul of the Broadcasting Act. Since the act was last updated in1991, 30 years ago, the broadcasting landscape has changed dramatically and irreversibly with the appearance of foreign online streaming services such as Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon, whose market capitalization totals several hundred billion dollars. We're talking about $1.5 trillion for Amazon and $357 billion for Disney+. To put these amounts in perspective, the figure for Quebecor Media is $8 billion.

In 2020, 68% of French-speaking Canadians were subscribed to an online streaming service. One out of two were subscribed to Netflix.Globalized competition from web giants such as Facebook and Google has destabilized our broadcasting system and, more than ever, traditional domestic players such as TVA and Videotron are facing unjustifiable and unsustainable inequities

When Bill C-10 was tabled, the Department of Canadian Heritage’s presentation document promised, and I quote, to “address regulatory asymmetries” and “provide flexibility and predictability”. However, it is clear that the consequences resulting from the bill in its current form go against these objectives.

For traditional broadcasters, those that showcase our Quebec and francophone culture, and the resulting economic benefits, the bill imposes new regulatory restrictions that will not redress the unfair conditions they have been coping with for years and will only pull them even deeper into the financial abyss and a Kafkaesque universe of regulation. From 2010 to 2019, the profits before interest and taxes of Canada’s main private over-the-air television broadcasters plunged by a combined total of $223 million. By 2020, the decrease was even more drastic, totalling $336 million.

The original and legitimate intention of the legislator to regulate television broadcasting had, as a corollary, the granting of a licence and the holding of a privilege. Today, and for many years now, technology has made it possible to broadcast without borders and without a licence. Trying to regulate what cannot be regulated is unrealistic. That's why the bill should provide traditional players with the regulatory flexibility they need and lighten their administrative and financial burden by removing unnecessary requirements. Quebecor believes that to modernize the Broadcasting Act and make it fair for Canadian businesses, regulation should be eased when market forces are operating effectively, and regulated only when necessary.

We cannot leave unmentioned a point that is notably absent from this bill: a refocused mandate for CBC/Radio-Canada. Recently, the CRTC held public hearings on the renewal of CBC/Radio-Canada’s licences. One after the other, more than 70 industry stakeholders said the public broadcaster has gone off the rails. Add to that all the complaints filed with the CRTC on this issue and the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting petition against the new Tandem branded content service, which was signed by more than 16,000 people

CBC/Radio-Canada’s unbridled pursuit of ratings, its commercial ambitions and its insatiable thirst for revenue are undeniably undermining the future and the sustainability of private broadcasters and the diversity of content. Each player in the system must play its role. For this to happen, it is more important than ever that Parliament overhaul the public broadcaster’s mandate.

Today, after a 30-year wait, the government is proposing to regulate foreign players instead of deregulating domestic broadcasters. We have serious reservations about the CRTC’s ability to enforce these new regulations and restrict the behaviour of foreign online services. If this new act is not to be totally ineffectual, Parliament must urgently amend its laws to allow the creation of a flexible ecosystem with fair regulations and taxation in order to keep our businesses viable and our culture strong

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Wendy Noss, President, Motion Picture Association-Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.

I appreciate the offer to provide you with a shared perspective of the global studios represented by the Motion Picture Association in Canada. These include Walt Disney, ViacomCBS/Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Netflix, NBCUniversal/Universal Pictures and Warner Brothers.

All are major investors in Canada's creative economy through the production of television and streaming series, feature films, world-class post-production, visual effects and animation projects, employing over 94,000 Canadians a year and supporting over 23,000 Canadian businesses.

Here with me today, albeit virtually, is John Lewis, who leads the IATSE in Canada. The IATSE is the largest union representing Canadian entertainment workers, costume and set designers, editors, cinematographers, visual effects artists and virtually all of the crew.

We both thought it would be useful to highlight that our major studios, and this major labour organization, are aligned on why modern cultural policy must take into account opportunity for all Canadians who create film, television and streaming entertainment in Canada, and the importance of foreign investment to Canada’s creative sector.

MPA members have for many years been partners and investors in Canada’s creative community, and today they offer Canadian consumers diverse choices online, including the global entertainment on Netflix; the much-loved Disney brands on Disney+; the all-reality show hits of NBCUniversal's Hayu; the ad-supported Pluto TV service from ViacomCBS and their new Paramount+ service; and the most popular Japanese anime streaming service in the francophonie, Sony's Wakanim.

It is with that broad perspective that we recognize a lot of good thinking went into the complex issues at the heart of Bill C-10. We want to commend the government for recognizing that a flexible approach is the logical way to create a modern broadcasting policy, given the rapidly and constantly changing dynamics in the marketplace.

Global streaming services bring opportunities for Canadian creators, contribute to economic growth and offer appealing entertainment for Canadian consumers. Allowing the CRTC to tailor conditions of service flexibly, based on how best each of these services can or should contribute to Canada, is a modern, sensible approach.

To fully modernize broadcasting policy, we recommend three criteria be added to the factors that the CRTC must consider in future decision-making prescribed in section 5 of the act.

Specifically, Parliament should require the CRTC to do the following: first, encourage competition and innovation; second, ensure that the regulation of online undertakings promotes choice and affordability for Canadian consumers; and third, recognize that competition and the growing choice of programming made available online contributes to broadcasting policy objectives.

By adding these criteria, the legislation will move beyond perpetuating decades-old broadcasting policy, and create more choice for consumers and more opportunity for Canadian creators and film workers.

Some argue that Bill C-10 should simply impose the same like-for-like obligations on online undertakings as Canadian broadcasters. This argument implies that nothing has changed in decades, from a time when the Broadcasting Act was designed to limit consumer choice. This approach ignores the many policy benefits that broadcasters have long enjoyed. It doesn’t take into account the very different business models of streaming services, their content offerings, and it doesn't recognize the unique benefits that global studios bring to Canada through investment in production.

While some are asking you to amend the bill to reduce flexibility, we believe the right way to serve Canada's creators, workers and consumers is to develop a policy framework that embraces change and helps Canada benefit from it.

Online undertakings create global entertainment, and reflect a wide range of viewpoints and experiences. This content is made in Canada with Canadian creativity. It is part of a global content marketplace that has led to foreign investment in production in Canada of over $4.8 billion annually. Almost 90% of the growth in production investment in Canada over the last five years, and more than half of all production in Canada, comes from global studio investments fuelled by these new undertakings.

Talented Canadians, who want to stay in Canada, develop their skills, work at the top of their craft and help create stories that resonate with audiences around the world, need this policy to be flexible and adaptive. Viewers, who want the best stories from Canada and around the world, need this policy to be forward-looking and consumer-friendly.

A modern approach that promotes investment, competition and innovation over protectionism will make for a bigger creative marketplace in Canada, more talent development opportunities for Canadian creators, more jobs for Canadian workers and benefits for Canadian consumers.

Thank you for allowing us to share this perspective. I'd be pleased to answer any questions.

[Nathalie Guay, Executive Director, Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions]

Thank you, Mr. Skolnik.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Nathalie Guay and I'm the Executive Director of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.

You've received our seven main proposals for the improvement of Bill C-10. I'll go over them quickly and I'd be happy to hear any comments or questions you may have.

First of all, distribution services provided by online companies need to be included, as was mentioned earlier today, and social media need to be included unambiguously. We understand that the intent is to include social media, and the role they play, in organizing professional content, but we find that the exclusions in Bill C-10 are causing confusion. Our approach would included them from the outset, so that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, can fully exercise its new powers to collect information from these companies, and determine whether they should to be required to contribute to our ecosystems and how they should do so.

Second, the system ought to be under Canadian control, for our cultural sovereignty, our identity and our social cohesion. The CRTC direction that has generated so much discussion does not apply to undertakings that don't need a licence. The system can be essentially Canadian, in spite of the presence of a number of foreign undertakings.

Third, the act must continue to promote Canadian talent. The wording of paragraph 3(1)(f) under subclause 2(3) of the bill, could mean that Canadian broadcasting undertakings would no longer have any obligation to use Canadian talent, whereas the current wording already allows for factoring in the nature of the undertaking.

Fourth, we think that opportunities for reference to the Governor in Council should be broadened. Bill C-10 assigns many powers to the CRTC. We need to strike a better balance by allowing civil society organizations to have recourse to review a CRTC decision.

Fifth, more robust provisions are required to ensure that original French-language content is created rather than simply translated content or content subtitled in French. For proper service to the cultural diversity, original French-language programming from francophone minorities is needed, as well as programming in indigenous languages.

Sixth, orders should be applicable for a maximum period of time and be subject to amendment, to allow broadcasters and producers to plan their programming and their productions more effectively, and also to ensure that the conditions are reviewed and that all intervenors can have input concerning a service.

Seventh, a move towards the lowest common denominator should be avoided. The wording in paragraph 5(2)(a.1) under subclause 4(1) of the bill, for example, opens the door to undertakings being able to compare themselves to others more easily with a view to obtaining less restrictive conditions. It may be more logical and beneficial to adapt spending requirements to specific undertakings rather than regulate what might appear to look like a minimum applicable to all. We would also like to have a public hearing process for issuing orders.

Two other modifications might also be made. The CRTC should continue to rule on the percentage of programs in various genres; otherwise, programs of national interest, children's programming, dramatic programming and documentaries are likely to be neglected at the expense of less expensive programs like sports and reality shows.

The CRTC must also be able to oversee contractual practices between independent producers and programming undertakings, including the music sector. That proposal from the Yale report should be included, given the size of some of the players that will be subject to CRTC orders and regulations.

Thank you.

[Bill Skolnik, Co-Chair, Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to the committee for inviting us here this afternoon. My name is Bill Skolnik. I'm co-chair of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, CDCE. We are a coalition of 43 organizations representing more than 200,000 creators, performers and professionals in trade associations, music and screen production, publishers, unions and collectives.

For more than 20 years, our members have been working together to protect and promote Canada's diverse cultural expressions. My colleague Nathalie Guay and I have been CSO delegates at several UNESCO assemblies on this topic. This crucial protection and promotion requires the exercise of cultural sovereignty. The review of the Broadcasting Act is an essential part of the tool kit that can return some balance to our ecosystem. It is worth noting that the maintenance of cultural diversity was deliberately included in the terms of reference for the Yale commission.

Recently, it was reported that one in four people working in this sector lost their jobs in 2020 due to the pandemic. Meanwhile, companies providing access to cultural expressions online have made substantial profits. Netflix's revenues increased by more than 22% during 2020. It was a great year for Spotify too. They saw their total subscriptions rise by 27%.

The CDCE applauded the tabling of Bill C-10 on November 3, 2020, and welcomed the agreement of all parliamentarians to move the bill forward at an accelerated pace. To us, this represented agreement on the urgency to act.

Many of the people who have appeared before you have referred to our proposals to improve the bill. We have gone to the heart of the matter to ensure that the Broadcasting Act truly allows Canada to maintain cultural sovereignty. The changes that we ask you to contemplate are the result of an unprecedented consensus created by our multi-faceted and eclectic membership. We will respond to the draft policy direction with the same objectives. The Broadcasting Act is not just for regulation; it's cultural policy, and it has to remain cultural policy.

I will now turn the floor over to Nathalie, who will present these proposals to you.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome back.

Welcome to the second round of today's meeting. We are discussing Bill C-10.

We will go ahead with testimony. We are running tight on time. I'm hoping to get two rounds in. I may ask for permission to cut down a little bit on the time in the second round. Please bear with me. We will get to that a bit later.

In the meantime, I want to introduce our guests. From the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, we have Nathalie Guay, executive director, and Bill Skolnik, co-chair. From the Motion Picture Association-Canada, we have Wendy Noss, president. From the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, we have John Morgan Lewis. Finally, from Quebecor Media, we have Pierre Karl Péladeau, president and chief executive officer, and Peggy Tabet, vice-president of public and regulatory affairs.

We will start with the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.

Mr. Skolnik, you have five minutes, please.

[Lyne Bessette, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to put the same question to the Independent Broadcasters Group.

Do you agree that the act must be modernized immediately?

If Bill C-10 were passed, what effect would that have on the broadcasters you represent?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

I come from Edmonton Strathcona, and we have a massive francophone population. I have deep concerns about what is going to be happening to make sure the official-language minorities are protected, their language rights.

I'm going to ask a few questions of the Independent Broadcast Group.

You were probably watching on Monday when we had the minister join us. I did ask the minister if Bill C-10 would guarantee that Canadian broadcasters could not be bought by foreign companies.

How do you feel about that? Why do we need to see a provision in the bill to protect our Canadian broadcasters? Could you discuss that a little, Mr. Perreault or Mr. Fortune?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

You support Bill C-10, but you have many reservations. We've had a chance to discuss it amongst ourselves.

Do you think we can go ahead with this bill if no amendments are made to it, or should we cancel it all and restart the process at another time?

How important do you think it is to make amendments?

[Luc Perreault]

No, that's not the case. The CRTC has adopted a measure called the Exemption order for digital media broadcasting undertakings.

This enables it to refrain from regulating online services. It has the power to do so, but it has chosen to exempt those services.

The CRTC thus had, and still has, the power to regulate those services. However, all the powers it currently has in its toolbox in order to regulate online distribution services would be withdrawn from it under Bill C-10.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

You said in your presentation earlier that the CRTC has the authority under the present act to supervise online distribution services but that power will be withdrawn under Bill C-10. I'd like you to clarify your thinking on that subject because I thought the situation was the reverse.

[Carol Ann Pilon]

We entirely agree on that subject. We propose two principles to guarantee that protection. The first actually concerns the official language minority communities, both anglophone in Quebec and francophone outside Quebec.

We also propose that a provision be added to section 3 precisely to ensure that content is created by and for the official language minority communities and to guarantee access thereto. We use words such as "ensure" and "guarantee," which are clear, precise and firmly imperative.

Linguistic duality has frequently been interpreted very broadly in decisions concerning our communities and in consultations with the CRTC, as I said earlier.

Some might claim that linguistic duality can be secured by providing francophone content in Quebec and anglophone content in the rest of Canada.

The only place where the official language minority communities are named in the present act and in Bill C-10 is in CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate.

I'll go even further. When CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate was last renewed, a condition was added, providing that a certain percentage of the broadcaster's spending be earmarked for productions outside Quebec. As a result of the way that condition was interpreted, the corporation, in its reports to the CRTC, included English-language productions dubbed in French in that category in order to meet its obligations.

Failure to be precise and to put accurate names on things can result in all kinds of interpretations. This is what we want to avoid. We want the bill's provisions to state clearly that the official language minority communities have value and that they acknowledge they are a part of the Canadian identity and of the broadcasting system.

[Kevin Desjardins]

Yes, I think absolutely.... We would say that we don't see Bill C-10 as an opportunity to find new rules and regulations to impose on our domestic private broadcasters. As I say, we feel there is an abundance of obligations and requirements—reporting requirements—that are already there. There is certainly a long list of these that apply to private broadcasters already. I don't think we see anything within the bill that is going to create those obligations and requirements on the online streamers.

I don't think this is a time for us to look at it as an opportunity to extract more value from the private broadcasters, especially at a time when, as I said at the outset, our business is really being challenged on all sides of our value chain. We are sharing the audience with these international players who have walked in unfettered into the market.

Obviously, for us, if anything we would hope that there would be an ability to create a lighter regulatory framework for Canada's private broadcasters and not find a number of new obligations and rules for them.

[Joel Fortune, Legal Counsel, Independent Broadcasters Group]

IBG recently completed a study that demonstrates some of the problems with Canada's existing broadcasting system. Between 2015 and 2019, some Canadians cut the cord and the base of Canadian subscribers fell by about 6.5%. IBG's study finds that over this same time period, the revenue of non-mandatory, Canadian independent television discretionary services fell faster, by 20%. Meanwhile, the revenue of the large, vertically integrated discretionary services actually rose. The collective per-subscriber wholesale rate for these services increased by more than 20% over this same time period. This is more than twice the rate of inflation.

These differences suggest strongly that the market power of Canada’s large, vertically integrated BDUs is distorting the Canadian market. This kind of discrepancy in revenue is not sustainable. It is undermining diversity in the Canadian system. We believe that the CRTC’s rules in this area need attention, but at least the CRTC has the authority to do what is required. Under Bill C-10, they won’t in an online environment.

In an online environment, it's imperative that the CRTC have clear jurisdiction to ensure the fair treatment of all players, including in the ever-changing use of algorithms and in the fair use of data. We are not alone in our concerns. The Canadian Communication Systems Alliance, CCSA, represents independent cable and IPTV companies. They're on one side of the independent broadcasting coin in Canada and we are on the other.

In its submission to you, the CCSA underlines the importance to this committee’s work of the market power of Canada’s own media giants. We support the CCSA’s comments, which echo our own, and the changes the CCSA is proposing in addition to our own. CCSA suggests an amendment to proposed paragraph 9.1(1)(f) to add a reference to contracts between broadcasting undertakings.

CCSA also proposes that the CRTC’s authority to protect against undue preference and disadvantage in the distribution environment be brought into the bill. Both changes respond to the reality of the consolidated broadcasting industry in Canada.

Lastly, I will follow up on some other points of discussion we have been following in this committee. On the question of Canadian ownership, of course Bill C-10 should include Canadian ownership of all types of services as a policy objective. It should be updated, not removed as a policy. On the question of the role of Canadian broadcasters, we've heard words of support for Canadian broadcasters and the important role we play as the bedrock of the system, but the bill omits the most important issue for most broadcasters: fair access to the means of distribution.

Thank you for the chance to appear. We’d be happy to answer your questions.

[Luc Perreault, Strategic Advisor, Independent Broadcasters Group]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to complete our presentation.

I am a strategic advisor with the Stingray Group, which is a member of the Independent Broadcasters Group, the IBG. I am here with Joel Fortune, legal counsel to the IBG.

The group supports Bill C-10 but requests that it be amended before it is adopted. The bill gives the CRTC the necessary authority to supervise online programming services, such as Netflix, that offer individual programs to subscribers. The bill confers significant powers on the CRTC but withdraws the power to supervise online distribution services at the very moment the major cable companies in Canada are preparing to offer Internet distribution services in conjunction with their established cable services.

This lack of supervision also affects global platforms such as Netflix, Amazon and Apple TV, which also offer distribution platforms that include applications and services provided by other businesses. Many of those, such as Pluto TV, also offer services including programming guides and linear content.

The CRTC currently has the power to ensure that Canadian services are fairly treated in this online environment. Bill C-10 eliminates that authority. The few changes that we have proposed will solve this problem.

Why is this regulatory authority so important?

As independent broadcasters, we know how essential it is to have fair access to distribution platforms. I will leave it to my colleague Joel Fortune to explain why the future of independent broadcasters and independent distributors depends on those amendments.

[Kevin Desjardins, President, Canadian Association of Broadcasters]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to return today on this important piece of legislation that I am pleased to be able to address.

My name is Kevin Desjardins and I'm the president of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.

The CAB is the national voice of Canada’s private broadcasters, representing the vast majority of private radio and television operators in communities large and small and in both official languages.

For nearly a hundred years, Canadian private broadcasters have been a part of the cultural and economic fabric of the nation. They have provided a platform for Canadian stories, invested in Canadian talent, employed Canadian workers, reflected Canadian diversity, paid Canadian taxes, entertained Canadian audiences and informed Canadian citizens.

The legislation we are here to study comes at a critical moment for our sector. Over the past decade, the competitive landscape for Canada’s broadcasters has fundamentally changed. Unregulated digital competitors have moved into the Canadian market without hindrance or oversight. They have fragmented audiences, driven down revenues and driven up programming costs. In short, they have turned traditional broadcasting business models on their heads.

The advertising marketplace has changed radically, with online platforms now consuming half of those advertising dollars. In fact, private, conventional TV stations posted a negative margin of 7% in 2018-19, which was the seventh consecutive year of losses. That was before COVID-19.

Similarly, nearly as many Canadian viewers are watching Internet streaming services as are watching television through cable or satellite providers. In addition to decreasing audiences and subscriptions, these new over-the-top entrants have fundamentally changed consumer behaviour.

These structural challenges require structural solutions. Broadcasters are doing their part by investing in new content and technologies and following audiences onto new platforms. However, they remain hindered by unsustainable and inequitable regulatory obligations. This is why we welcome Bill C-10.

The Broadcasting Act is 30 years old and it still presumes a reality for the sector that has long since become a remnant of history. It assumes that there are limited ways for content to reach Canadians, as was the case when Canadians could only watch or listen to programs over the public airwaves. Because licences to operate broadcasting channels over those airwaves were scarce, they were highly valuable. Broadcasters’ regulatory obligations, especially with respect to Canadian content, were proportionally high.

Today, because audiences have a multitude of content platform options, the value of traditional broadcasting licences is much less than it once was. Nevertheless, regulatory obligations have remained as onerous as ever and in some cases have become more burdensome. This has left Canadian broadcasters as some of the most heavily regulated businesses in Canada, attempting to compete in one of the most profoundly disrupted industries in the world.

These trends have created an existential crisis. A study published last year estimated that television and radio broadcasters stood to lose more than $1 billion in revenues between 2020 and 2022.

Canada’s private broadcasters are not interested in turning back the clock. They are optimistic about the future. They want to continue evolving with Canadians, providing cultural and economic value to the nation. However, they cannot continue to shoulder their significant obligations alone.

Bringing digital broadcasters into the regulatory system is a necessary first step, which Bill C-10 gets right. It is not enough to simply apply a parallel regime to extract additional dollars from digital giants. We need to rebalance obligations and create a modern, agile and sustainable regulatory framework that will allow Canadian broadcasters to adapt to the new realities.

These changes are particularly vital for sustaining one of the most important public services that our domestic broadcasting industry continues to provide, which is local news.

Canadian private broadcasters remain especially proud to be the primary source of news and information in communities across the country. In an era of misinformation and global pandemics, it is critical that we identify ways to continue to support local news voices that reflect the realities of their communities and reflect a fair and accurate vision of Canada back to Canadians. We know that the digital giants will have little interest in delivering the evening news from Lethbridge, Saskatoon, Peterborough or Quebec City.

Ultimately, Bill C-10 needs to support local news and help us find ways to ensure that these critical Canadian stories are funded across the country in markets large and small.

[Carol Ann Pilon, Executive Director, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada]

First of all, I want to thank the committee for having me once again.

Since I've previously made a presentation that was entered into the public record, I will simply summarize it briefly and highlight what we feel are its essential points.

In our initial presentation, the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, or APFC, outlined three fundamental principles.

First, it is absolutely necessary to put a stop to the current unfair treatment exempting online businesses from any obligation to support the creation and broadcasting of Canadian content.

Second, it is essential that the act include provisions designed to give the entire Canadian broadcasting system a clear mission to reflect the situation of the official language minority communities, the OLMCs, and to encourage the creation of programs produced by their members.

Third, it is undeniably important that the act include meaningful provisions designed to strengthen the position of original French-language programming within the Canadian broadcasting system.

We have attached to our brief specific proposed amendments to the wording of sections of the act and amendments giving effect to those proposals.

The culture is a strong concept that embodies the aforementioned principles. By that I mean the culture that promotes our development, enhances our identity and gives expression to our language. This same great principle of diversity of cultural expression should constitute the foundation of the Canadian broadcasting system and be the essential feature of its orientations.

Since our first appearance, Minister Joly has tabled a white paper that could eventually lead to a review of the Official Languages Act. Some claim this potential review may be enough to ensure that the objectives of our second principle are achieved.

Although this reform acknowledges that it is important to support the creation and broadcasting of francophone content and to improve access thereto, that objective must be included in the relevant legislation, the Broadcasting Act, so that it is set forth in express terms in the regulations made by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, and stated in the clearest possible terms so that it applies to the broadcasting system as a whole.

Experience has shown that the Official Languages Act has thus far failed to compel the CRTC to introduce measures that have an actual impact in responding to the needs of the OLMCs. The figures speak for themselves since francophone minority production amounts to 4% of total production, even though we represent 14% of Canada's francophone population.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage suggested during his appearance that, under the present wording of the act, the CRTC was able to provide adequate support for original Canadian French-language content on the broadcasting system.

I must emphasize that this production is mostly from Quebec and that it has not necessarily achieved the same success elsewhere in Canada. This phenomenon is not solely attributable to the CRTC's decisions but also stems largely from Quebec's cultural policy, which, for many years now, has encouraged the creation of French-language cultural products. Minority francophones do not enjoy equivalent support, which is why the act must ensure that original French-language programs can be created, produced, presented and discoverable all across the country.

In your discussions with Canadian broadcasters, many have sought significant relief from their present obligations. If such relief is granted, we fear that millions more dollars from online businesses will in fact be used to substitute for proper funding.

In other words, we are afraid the entire exercise may be only a zero-some game in which licence-holding broadcasters' contributions to the financing of Canadian content are reduced by an amount equivalent to contributions from digital businesses.

The Canadian Heritage minister and representatives clearly stated that this was not the intent of the bill, but nothing in the text of the act so indicates or guarantees. This concerns and troubles us, even more so given the emphasis placed on flexibility in the Directions to the CRTC issued yesterday.

This is why we believe it must be stated in the preamble to the act or in the Directions to the CRTC that the objective is to increase the total resources available to finance the creation and production of high-quality Canadian content and to ensure that it is disseminated and promoted.

In conclusion, I would like to say that we welcome Bill C-10 and encourage the government to adopt it as soon as possible. This major bill is inclusive and an exceptional opportunity to give a voice to all Canadians across the country.

Thank you for your attention. I will be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome, everyone, to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 16, we are now studying Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

I'd like to remind everyone that we are still in a hybrid format. We are all online, by the looks of things, with the exception of me. I would remind all of you that you are not allowed to take pictures or snaps of the screen for distribution. Thank you so much.

Now, this is the part where I normally say welcome to the committee, but today, I have to say welcome back. As you know, we were waylaid in the last meeting we had, so we're holding this over because we missed out the last time.

So here we are and we start again with our first three witnesses as we did last time. From the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, we have Carol Ann Pilon, who is the executive director. From the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, we have Kevin Desjardins, who is the president. From the Independent Broadcasters Group, we have Joel Fortune, who is the legal counsel, and Monsieur Luc Perreault, strategic adviser. Thank you so much again.

As you know, we do the five-minute introductions, as before, except that this time we'll actually get to questions.

We're going to start off with Madame Pilon.

Ms. Pilon, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

As I said, Bill C-10 does not exclude Facebook and YouTube. This is a false assumption that you're making. They're simply not....

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

One of my concerns is that we are in a potential election situation. Bill C-10 may be one of the only bills that is passed in this Parliament. How are we going to make sure that problematic content....You talk about bringing forward other legislation, but we may not have that opportunity. The Broadcasting Act deals with political advertising. It deals with Canadian content financing, emergency alerts....

Why are Facebook and YouTube exempt from those standards?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, again, to the minister.

I appreciate your willingness to look at amendments. It's very important to move this bill forward. We have a number of amendments that we will continue to share with you.

We need to take advantage of the opportunity to have the minister with us. I am going to ask you a question I've already posed previously, because I want to hear from you directly.

When Bill C-10 was put in place, it had been designed to explicitly exempt Facebook and YouTube from user-generated content from the Broadcasting Act. Did you instruct the department to put this into the bill or was it the department's idea?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

We must be careful; the legislator cannot act on behalf of the regulator, just as the regulator cannot take the place of the legislator. In our ecosystem, we all have functions and roles to play. One of the innovations in Bill C-10 is to increase the ability of the government to give direction to the CRTC. It is possible to do so now, but it is not easy. With this amendment, we are giving ourselves more flexibility.

Imagine what would happen if the legislator, in this case the committee that meets for a few hours a week, tried to hold public hearings to define regulatory elements. It would never happen. France, Britain and Australia have a regulatory body that enforces their broadcasting legislation. I don't know of any country that operates differently. I don't think we invented the model. If anything, we may have been among the first to use it, a long time ago.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Yes, that's a really important point. I've said it earlier, we are a minority government. The reality of minority government in the British parliamentary system is that they don't tend to last very long. I think we do have a shot at being able to adopt this bill and it's not me saying it. A number of organizations you've met have said that this was a groundbreaking bill. Someone called it historic.

Let's work together and get this adopted as soon as possible. I'm not saying we have to cut corners or shortchange anything, but let's work together to try to get this done. If we do that, I think we'll all be able to go home and say we've helped Canadian artists; we've helped Canadian culture come into the next century.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I really appreciate that, and I do hear what you said before about how the history of regulations and the history of CRTC actions has protected many things that we're concerned about today. But of course this is the one chance that legislators have to actually direct the regulator and I think we need to be cognizant of it.

Mr. Minister, we've heard from a wide variety of groups and one thing that I think we've heard relatively universally is how important it is to put these changes into effect as soon as possible. Whether or not they want amendments to the bill, most groups still say they want this bill to come into effect quickly.

Do you have any words to encourage the committee on timeline?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather, for your intervention and your questions.

We don't get to revise a bill like the broadcasting bill every other day of the week—it's been 30 years. If we're doing it now let's try to make it the best possible bill that it can be and resolve as many issues as possible. So of course I would be happy to contemplate changes that would improve it even more.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My questions will be about Bill C-10, but before that, I want to tell the minister I really appreciated his presentation. I would like to ask him to think about the proposed cuts at Radio Canada International that are about to come up. I hope the minister is looking at that. I think those cuts are problematic.

I can't wait to see the minister when he comes forward with regulations related to removal of illegal content from online platforms.

I listened to Mr. Rayes and Monsieur Champoux.

I, too, am concerned about the lack of precision, in the proposed text, about original French content. I was very pleased to hear the minister say that he would give careful consideration to any amendments that might be proposed by the committee.

Also, I am concerned about the issue of content for official language minority communities.

One of the things, Mr. Minister, that we heard before the committee was a concern from francophone groups outside Quebec and English-speaking groups in Quebec that almost all the French content in Canada today comes from Quebec, almost all the English content comes from outside Quebec, and very little French content is produced outside Quebec and very little English content now in Quebec.

Would you, Mr. Minister, be accepting of some amendments to the bill that we may put forward that would deal with the preoccupations of the official-language minority communities?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Where to start? CBC does not have a monopoly. There are plenty of other broadcasters across the country, both on radio and on television. I think what CBC is doing in terms of moving some content online is what a number of broadcasters are doing.

We could be talking about Bell Media. We could be talking about Quebecor. This is because more and more users.... I know for a fact that my kids don't listen to the radio as I do and certainly don't read newspapers—paper copies—like I do. That's not how they get their information. I think what the CBC is doing is a reflection of what pretty much everybody in the market is doing.

What we're trying to do with Bill C-10 is to ensure that Canadian broadcasters, Canadian producers of culture and artists get their fair share out of this transformation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Dabrusin, thank you very much for that. You are correct. The last two questions—or the last two questioners—and certainly the last 10 minutes have been somewhat far afield about some of the issues that we have addressed, and they were in the first round as well.

I normally like to give my colleagues the time they deserve within their allotted time, and I tend to give them a lot of freedom. As you know, for example, in estimates, we can talk about pretty much anything in the presence of the minister as long as it pertains to the department.

However, that being said, I would like to remind my colleagues that this certainly is about Bill C-10. Some of this has been tangential to the point where I get it, but some of the other stuff has been, as Ms. Dabrusin pointed out, far afield.

Can we please bring it back, whether it be at the core of Bill C-10 or tangentially at Bill C-10, for the sake of the legislation we are studying?

Mr. Waugh, you have about two minutes to conclude.

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

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

We've had a pretty wide-ranging conversation until now, but this seems far afield from Bill C-10 at this point. I was wondering if we could bring it back to a conversation about the modernization of the Broadcasting Act.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I've been clear from the beginning. Bill C-10 won't fix everything when it comes to looking at broadcasting generally defined. It doesn't address issues related to the CBC.

We are a minority government. We took those elements of the Yale report that we felt were the most crucial to implement. As I've said before, there are a number of other recommendations coming out of the Yale report that we would like to move forward with. We just can't do everything at once. If I presented the House and this committee with a bill that encompassed everything under the sun, I sincerely doubt we would ever be able to get the bill through.

I do think we can get Bill C-10 adopted. It won't solve everything, but it will solve an important part of the equation. My government believes in the Canadian broadcaster. We have made significant investments in the Canadian broadcaster, and I want to ensure a healthy future for our Canadian broadcaster.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I was under the impression that we were going to talk about Bill C-10 today, so most of the information I have with me is on issues relating to Bill C-10.

You may recall that our government made a record-level investment into the CBC in the previous mandate, after years of cutbacks under the Harper government.

I do not have that information offhand; I'm sure we could provide it to you.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I think you misunderstand the role of a regulator. Personally, I have never intervened with the CRTC, but I have intervened with many Quebec and federal energy regulators.

A regulator does not make its decisions according to the number of companies that lobby it for deregulation or for better regulation. That is not how a regulator works, not the Régie de l'énergie du Québec, not the Canada Energy Regulator, not the CRTC. Rather, it considers all of the positions submitted to it, in light of the law that governs its work.

In addition, through Bill C-10, the government is giving itself greater ability to give direction to the CRTC.

In light of all this, this is how the CRTC and all regulatory agencies make decisions.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

As Jean-Stéphen and Owen explained earlier on, we are keeping most of the infrastructure of the actual broadcasting legislation and regulation.

What we're doing with C-10, and I think why the bill has been saluted by so many, is we're keeping what's working and we're adding this whole other layer of elements where Canadian regulations will be able to be applied to online giants, like Spotify, Netflix, Amazon Prime and Apple Music.

To correct something Mr. Rayes said earlier, he said that we've been waiting for five years. Actually, we haven't. My predecessor commissioned a group of people who went across the country and received almost 2,000 position papers from different organizations. That concluded in the Yale report, which was tabled in early 2020. We then took that and started working on the bill, which was introduced a year later in the middle of the greatest pandemic we've seen in 100 years.

I don't think we've actually been losing a lot of time on this. We have acted very promptly to make this happen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks also to the Minister and his colleagues for joining us.

Allow me to correct some of the Minister's comments, or at least to describe them as I see them.

The Minister does not want this bill to become a partisan issue and he wants us to recognize its urgency. I would like to inform him that the committee unanimously agreed to fast-track consideration of this bill, despite the perfectly legitimate privilege that members of Parliament have to express their views in the House of Commons and to ask questions about the bill. I remind him that the Liberal government took five years to introduce this bill. It also prorogued Parliament, which set back consideration of important bills such as this one on broadcasting. We are in full agreement on the principle. If it is not too much to ask, I would like the minister to be a little circumspect at the moment, rather than trying to lecture to us as he is doing now.

With that said, yes, he is right: we actually did receive a notice buried in a document, several pages long, containing exactly the same information that had been given to us: that the calculation had been done using scenarios. I would like to tell the Minister that his Deputy Minister, Ms. Laurendeau, took the time at that same meeting to say that it would be important to provide explanations when the document was submitted, because it was supposedly complex. So I feel that there has been some confusion. I will grant him that we certainly received the information, but nothing was very precise. Once more, we are going to have to wait for the guidelines from the CRTC.

I would like to return to this bill; it is so important but it does not consider a number of factors. As the Minister himself said in his presentation, the bill nowhere deals with hate speech or revenue-sharing. Social media are not included in the bill. Despite the urgency and the consultations by the CRTC, nothing has yet been done to review the role that CBC/Radio-Canada has to play. Therefore, many questions arise.

When the Minister of Official Languages tabled her working document, her supposed white paper, she spoke to us about the importance of French and the importance that the government sees in promoting and defending it. She said that French would have a major role in broadcasting, and a lot of hard work was going to be done.

However, when we look at Bill C-10, that deals mostly with the digital players, we realize that the only measure designed to enhance the place of French, to promote it and to ensure French-language content, is to remove the words “as resources become available” at the end of paragraph 3(1)(k) of the act. It now simply reads that “a range of broadcasting services in French and in English shall be progressively extended to all Canadians”.

It seems to me that the bill provides for nothing substantial in this regard. However, the Minister told us that, for her, French is important and that she was going to make sure that it would be a factor in all departments. Now here we are studying this bill that we have been waiting for for more than 30 years. According to the Minister and his senior officials, the bill is historic. But it contains only one single item that deals with protecting French.

How do you respond to all the organizations that are concerned about the place of French in Acadia, in Quebec and in the French-speaking communities outside Quebec? I am not talking about quotas; don't try to tell me that there are quotas.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I am joining you from Montreal, on the traditional territory of the Mohawk and the other Haudenosaunee peoples.

Mr. Chair, members of the Committee, it’s a pleasure for me to appear before you today regarding the study of Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

I would also like to acknowledge that today is International Women's Day.

I’d like to thank the members of the committee for the preliminary work you have been doing for some time now.

I’m delighted that this bill has finally passed second reading in the House of Commons. The delays that some Conservative members have caused were a concern for me, but we got there, and we can continue to move forward. Let us please remember that this is not a partisan bill. It is a bill that focuses on culture; it is a bill for Canadians, and it deserves to move forward.

I hope that all the members here and their caucuses recognize the urgency of modernizing the Broadcasting Act so that it can better serve the interests of Canadians in the digital world.

Today it's impossible to overlook the legislative imbalance that favours digital platforms to the detriment of Canadian broadcasters and creative industries. This reform responds to a pressing need. It is crucial to ensuring the vitality of Canadian businesses now and for decades to come. This is why our government will continue to work constructively and collaboratively so that Canadians can benefit from the most effective legislative tool possible, as soon as possible.

From the outset, the cultural and creative sectors have provided input into the modernization of the current legislation. They've expressed their support for this reform and this favourable movement is trending across the country, particularly in Quebec.

Moreover, since the tabling of the bill, this important discussion has continued in the public space and before your committee. It has given rise to several proposed amendments that we will examine with all the attention they deserve. We are, of course, open to improvements that would maximize the benefits of the amended Act for Canadians.

I know that you have received substantial input from several key contributors, and I look forward to seeing the results of the committee’s work in this regard.

I am well aware that the study of the bill must be carried out with care, for two reasons. First of all, because it introduces methods that are completely new in Canada for implementing a regulatory framework adapted to our current reality. Second, because this is an important issue. Many players in the creative and cultural industries are calling for this update to the Broadcasting Act and are counting on this new tool to continue to develop their work on digital platforms.

Let us remember that the current broadcasting system has served Canadians well for decades. It has fostered the emergence of strong national creative and cultural industries. It has supported the delivery of original content that reflects our identity and our values. Bill C-10 aims to preserve that legacy. However, it also aims to include many new players and new activities. It must therefore take an approach designed to include online broadcasters and ensure their equitable contribution.

With this bill, we want to make the diversity of Canadian voices resonate more clearly: francophone and anglophone voices, the voices of minority communities, Indigenous voices; and the voices of all communities across the country, including ethnocultural communities, racialized communities, and others that are too often underrepresented on the screen and elsewhere.

I want to make it clear that this bill is not intended to change the regulatory structure in broadcasting. Rather, it is intended to update the objectives of the legislation and the tools of the CRTC. It therefore preserves the autonomy conferred on the CRTC to implement the appropriate regulations and achieve the objectives of the Act. This autonomy is all the more important as the broadcasting system begins to incorporate new players with different business models, and as the system continues to evolve.

This bill does not address the regulation of online hate nor the equitable compensation of journalists by the web giants, as these are not strictly broadcasting issues; however, I intend to introduce two more bills on these issues in the near future. In due course, I will be pleased to appear before your committee regarding these other bills, always in the spirit of constructive co-operation.

I will be pleased to provide you with the Order in Council that we intend to issue following the passage of the bill. Please note, however, that this Order in Council was drafted prior to the introduction of the bill. It may therefore be redrafted as a result of amendments to Bill C-10 between now and Royal Assent.

As well, in the interest of transparency and as required by law, the Order will undergo a period of public consultation to invite feedback from Canadians.

I invite you to use the Order in Council as background material for your study, but to focus your efforts on the bill itself. Because that is the legislation that will be with us for several decades and will ensure the sustainability of the broadcasting sector. Over the years, governments will come and go, and will issue various Orders in Council to the CRTC as they respond to changing circumstances.

Finally, I would like to clarify the following situation. When I appeared on November 5, 2020, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska asked me what calculations the department had used to determine that the additional investments in Canadian content through digital television broadcasts would amount to $830 million. On December 11, 2020, the department provided the clerk of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage with the answers to the questions asked at the meetings of October 30 and November 5, 2020, including the one dealing with the calculation of the $830 million. At my last appearance before the committee—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome back, everyone, as we reconvene once again.

We're discussing Bill C-10.

I want to thank our guests at this time, but before I do that, we have another guest I'd like to mention. Mr. Jaime Battiste is joining us from Sydney—Victoria. I forgot to mention you last time; my apologies. His beautiful riding is what I like to call the gateway to the island of Newfoundland.

I also want to say thank you to the minister, the Honourable Monsieur Guilbeault, who is joining us at this hour. Also, we have the deputy minister, Madam Laurendeau. Returning with us also we have Mr. Piché and Mr. Ripley to help us in our testimony.

Let's start with the minister.

Mr. Guilbeault, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

To be clear, the actual foreign ownership limitations have never been written into the act. This regulatory instrument that I spoke about has always existed to specify, for example, the actual percentages of foreign ownership that are allowed. It's complicated. If you go and look at it, you'll see there are certain percentages specified for direct control, indirect control, etc.

One of our goals with Bill C-10 moving forward is to ensure that our broadcasters are better able to compete. A big concern of ours is that right now—and I think the committee has heard witnesses speak on this—they're under huge stress and huge pressure. I alluded to some of the statistics in my opening remarks, with regard to the declines we are seeing. As you know, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters has commissioned a report talking about the closures they foresee in the near future.

One of our goals is to actually ensure that moving forward we can continue to have Canadian broadcasters, because they are really an important part of the system.

We have certainly heard loud and clear that some stakeholders are worried about the act moving away from a statement about wanting to protect and foster Canadian ownership of broadcasters. We've heard that. As I said, the intention behind our changing that was just to recognize that the Canadian broadcasting system is no longer closed from that global marketplace. Certainly the intention of the policy moving forward is to support Canadian broadcasters.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions are for Mr. Piché and Mr. Ripley.

In Bill C-10, the proposed paragraphs 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(h) talk about programming control.

Online broadcasters often hide behind complex algorithms for the programming they offer to their users. Are those undertakings considered responsible for their algorithms and their programming? In this situation, do you not feel that we should define who controls the programming a little better?

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

Thank you. I appreciate your breaking it down a little bit more. Given that we will be seeing the draft shortly, it's helpful to understand the process.

The other question I had was about the changes made to increase representation under Bill C-10. Would you be able to help me better understand how this bill would change things to increase diversity, if we're talking specifically about indigenous people, racialized communities and people with disabilities?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

For policy direction to be issued to the CRTC, it takes a decision by the Governor in Council on an order in council. That's the actual mechanism by which it comes to be, which means that the minister will have to take forward a proposal to his cabinet colleagues to be endorsed for that OIC to be issued.

If Bill C-10 is passed, as I alluded to in my previous response, we do foresee instituting a gazetting process, whereby there will be an opportunity for comments. We see it playing out as follows. Once Bill C-10 gets royal assent, I think the minister's intention is to issue that policy direction as quickly as possible. There will be a Canada gazetting process that he has to follow before that comes to be, again providing an opportunity for everybody to provide input if they so wish. The minister then will have to take forward that order in council package to cabinet to be endorsed, and then the order in council is ultimately issued, which then binds the CRTC moving forward.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

As we know, the committee has requested a draft of the policy direction, which will give you a sense of how the minister intends to propose to the Governor in Council to communicate those objectives to the CRTC. That is the first thing. That will give you a line of sight into it.

We are proposing a more modern regulatory framework to guide the issuance of policy directions moving forward. If you look at Bill C-10, you can see that one of the changes we're proposing to make is actually that the issuance of a policy direction would be subject to a normal Canada Gazette gazetting process, whereby everybody will have an opportunity to make representations to government, for example, before that policy direction is issued. We see, moving forward, that we should actually institute a more modern regulatory approach to this that is transparent in terms of the government saying “our intention is to issue this kind of direction and we'd like reaction and stakeholder feedback”.

Once that direction is issued, it's indeed up to the CRTC to go through its normal regulatory processes, all of which provide opportunities for stakeholders to participate and make representation. That doesn't happen behind closed doors. That is an extension of the way the CRTC has operated for the last few decades in terms of stakeholders being able to go and make their case.

As we know, notwithstanding that we think that independence is important, there continues to be that ability for the government, if it feels that the CRTC is going in a direction that is not consistent with public policy objectives, to issue that policy direction that must be of general application. That's really important, because that stops this government from intervening, say, and targeting a specific media company or specific licensing decision or something like that. The government's role in this instance is to articulate broad policy objectives of general application.

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

With regard to the issues that still need to be decided and determined based on regulation, why is it not important for parliamentary oversight, and a discussion, at least, at this committee, about those issues—those issues that aren't covered in C-10 but will be covered by regulation?

Why wouldn't we discuss that here as parliamentarians, as representatives of the people?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question will be for Mr. Piché.

I feel like I'm hearing—and I'm wondering if you can clarify for me—that Bill C-10 doesn't completely encapsulate all the changes that need to be made to make the playing field in this new media landscape fair.

Is that a fair statement of where we're at?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

That would be wonderful.

Mr. Ripley, I have another question for you, if I may.

Bill C-10 explicitly and completely exempts Facebook, YouTube, Pornhub and other services dealing in user-generated content from the Broadcasting Act. Were you instructed by Minister Guilbeault or his staff to do this, or how did that come to happen? How was it that Facebook and YouTube were excluded from Bill C-10?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

The challenge we face with the current wording is that it says the system shall be owned and controlled by Canadians. The tension, obviously, comes from the fact that that is just not true anymore. The whole impetus for Bill C-10 was to bring streaming services—Netflix, Crave and Spotify —into and include them in the broadcasting system. The reality is that many of those services are not Canadian owned and controlled. That is why we reformulated that policy objective to talk about having all of them make an appropriate contribution as the foundation of the system moving forward.

In terms of your question as to whether that means that Canadian broadcasters could be sold off, the answer is no. Right now there is a directive to the CRTC that provides restrictions on foreign ownership with respect to licensed entities. The reality is that our over-the-air broadcasters and our cable and satellite companies cannot be put under foreign ownership and control as long as that direction remains in place.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

The current Bill C-10 removes the option of going to the Governor in Council.

Given the discussion we are having at the moment, do you not feel that we would be justified in putting that option back?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

As you may know, community broadcasting is already recognized as one of the pillars of the broadcasting system. You have public broadcasting, private broadcasting and community broadcasting, so it's a very important element of the system and one that the government certainly recognizes.

I highlight, for example, that we are working with community broadcasters, in the context of the local journalism initiative, to provide support for journalists working in underserved and remote areas.

We have certainly heard from community broadcasters that they feel Bill C-10 should go further in the sense of recognizing the contributions that they make to the system.

It's a complex question, partly because the support for community broadcasters is also tied up in terms of how cable and satellite companies support the system. Cable and satellite companies—cable in particular—often work very closely with community broadcasters to provide service to their communities.

It is certainly a question that is on our radar and one that we're looking at. We certainly recognize the important contributions that Canadian broadcasters make.

[Thomas Owen Ripley, Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you, Mr. Piché.

Thank you for the opportunity today to address the committee and discuss Bill C-10 and how it modernizes the Broadcasting Act.

Before diving into the details of the proposed legislation, I would like to briefly tell you about the Broadcasting Act and the current regulatory framework. It is important to understand the current system, because it is the foundation on which Bill C-10 is built.

The bill aims to modernize our legislation for the digital age; but it also aims to preserve and strengthen key elements of our system that have served us well for many decades. These include our independent communications regulator, our Canadian broadcasters, support for Canadian music and storytelling, and the objective of ensuring that diverse voices, including those of Indigenous peoples, are heard across Canada.

The Broadcasting Act is a key piece of legislation for the sector. It defines broadcasting, outlines policy objectives that serve as guiding principles for developing specific regulations, and sets out the mandate and powers of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC. The CRTC’s independence from government is important.

The CRTC makes rules and regulations that govern the media sector. The sector is obviously central in supporting freedom of expression and fostering cultural expression. In a democracy like Canada, it’s important that there be a healthy distance between the government of the day and the media sector. Countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom and France all rely on an independent regulator to oversee the media sector.

The CRTC also has the expertise and experience to make technical regulatory decisions, while balancing many policy considerations. This independence and expertise have served Canadians well.

Ultimately, Bill C-10 preserves an oversight role for the CRTC and for the government. The CRTC has the mandate to oversee the system on a day-to-day basis, while the government's mandate is to ensure that the CRTC operates as it should.

One way that the CRTC has supported Canadian culture is by ensuring that broadcasters support the creation and presentation of Canadian content. Currently, as a condition of licence, TV programming services are required to spend a percentage of their revenues on Canadian content each year. Cable and satellite companies are required to contribute a percentage of their revenues to production funds and local programming to support the development and production of Canadian content. Commercial radio broadcasters and satellite radio carriers contribute a portion of their annual revenues to support Canadian content development initiatives. These contributions totalled $3.34 billion in 2019.

However, digital disruption and competition from online broadcasters threatens this support. Increasing competition is leading to diminishing revenues, with traditional broadcasting revenues declining by 1.4% from 2018 to 2019. Ultimately, this will lead to less funding for Canadian music and programming.

Compared to 2019, recently released aggregate returns data from the CRTC show a 7% decline in broadcasting revenues for large ownership groups in 2020. Aggregate returns include the largest broadcasters and vertically integrated companies but exclude the smaller companies, and as they represent the majority of industry revenues, they are expected to reflect overall industry trends for 2020.

Streaming services obviously aren't new to Canada and have operated in parallel to the traditional broadcasting system for many years now. Their operation in Canada has been facilitated by a regulatory instrument, the digital media exemption order, which exempts online broadcasters from having to seek a licence to operate in Canada, as well as the obligations placed on traditional broadcasters, such as supporting Canadian content.

The DMEO has essentially allowed foreign online broadcasters to operate in Canada outside of the traditional closed system. The DMEO was originally issued in 1999 to promote the growth of the nascent online broadcasting sector. Since then, the sector has greatly increased in size and commercial viability.

For example, in 2011, only 10% of Canadians subscribed to Netflix. By 2020, this had increased to 67% of Canadians. Online broadcasters are now thriving and no longer need to be shielded from regulation. They are well positioned to make an important and meaningful contribution to supporting Canadian music and storytelling. Bill C-10 aims to bring them into the regulatory framework, so that all broadcasters operate on a level playing field.

There's no denying that the digital age has brought many benefits. More services provide more choice for Canadians and more opportunities for creators and producers. Bill C-10 isn't about denying these benefits, but rather about carving out a space for Canadian voices.

To facilitate the inclusion of online broadcasting in the regulatory framework, Bill C-10 adds a new category of broadcasting undertaking to the Act: online broadcasters. This change will ensure that the CRTC can require services such as Crave, Netflix, Amazon Prime, QUB Musique and Spotify to contribute to Canadian stories and music.

Canadian Heritage estimates that, by 2023, the inclusion of online broadcasters could lead to contributions of $830 million annually to Canadian content. This is not a target, and ultimately the final figure will depend on how the CRTC decides to implement the new regulatory framework. Nevertheless, this estimate illustrates the significant and tangible results that Bill C-10 seeks to achieve for Canadian creators.

Some of the discussion regarding Bill C-10 has focused on the Bill’s treatment of social media platforms. These platforms will be subject to regulation, but only in so far as they display content commissioned by the platform itself, or its affiliates.

However, the users of social media platforms and content posted by these users will not be regulated. Social media is an important form of expression for many Canadians, and, as Mr. Piché noted, a separate proposal is being developed to address the impacts of harmful content posted to social media.

To account for the inclusion of online broadcasters, we need a renewed approach to regulation. Bill C-10 shifts away from relying on the rigid system of licensing to a more flexible conditions of service model. This model will allow the CRTC to seek financial contributions from all players and to impose other conditions, such as discoverability requirements, programming standards and information reporting requirements.

The CRTC will hold public processes seeking input from stakeholders and Canadians in order to inform its regulatory choices. Once it has gathered this information, the CRTC will be able to tailor conditions of service to specific broadcasters. We want to avoid an overly rigid approach that results in an undue regulatory burden on broadcasting services and increased costs for Canadians.

Lastly, the broadcasting policy objectives are being updated to ensure that the broadcasting system serves the needs and interests of all Canadians in their diversity. This means ensuring that Canadian voices, including indigenous creators, official language minority communities, racialized and ethnocultural communities, LGBTQ2+ communities and persons with disabilities, are present in the media we consume. That's why Bill C-10 includes stronger support for diverse Canadian content and its creators.

However, Bill C-10 does not include quotas or targets for supporting certain varieties of content such as French-language content. Quotas and targets risk becoming de facto maximums. The CRTC is better placed as the independent and expert regulator to make decisions on how to best support all types of content and to have it evolve over time.

After Bill C-10 receives royal assent, the minister intends to propose to the Governor in Council to issue a policy direction to the CRTC on how the new regulatory tools granted in the bill should be used. Seven priorities are sketched out in the technical briefing presentation.

We know that the committee has requested a draft copy of the policy direction to better understand concretely how these priorities would be communicated to the CRTC and we are working to fulfill this request.

While an important step, we know that Bill C-10 doesn't address all of the issues in the broadcasting sector, such as the future role of CBC/Radio-Canada and the governance structure of the CRTC.

Bill C-10 is intended as a first step on the most pressing policy issues. It makes critical changes that will ensure that Canada's broadcasting system is fair and that it will sustain Canadian music and storytelling into the future. We also have an opportunity to make the system more accessible as well as more inclusive by supporting creators and producers who historically have been marginalized. This bill provides a much-needed update to Canada's Broadcasting Act.

We would now welcome your questions on the bill.

[Jean-Stéphen Piché, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. It's a pleasure to be in committee once again.

I want to take this opportunity to wish you all a happy International Women's Day.

We're talking to you from the national capital region's ancestral territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

As you said, Mr. Chair, I am accompanied by Thomas Owen Ripley and Kathy Tsui. They are both experts in the area of broadcasting and have made major contributions to the development of bills and digital projects.

Mr. Chair and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting us here today to help you with your study of Bill C-10. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for the work it has been doing on the bill and for having undertaken to commence its work so expeditiously.

Bill C-10 makes important amendments to the Broadcasting Act that will benefit artists, broadcasters, and Canadians.

It is expected to result in more opportunities for Canadian producers, directors, writers, actors, and musicians to create high quality music and audiovisual content and to reach Canadian audiences.

It will establish a fair and flexible regulatory framework where comparable broadcasting services are subject to similar regulatory requirements.

It will make Canadian music and stories more available through a variety of services, and it will create a more diverse and inclusive broadcasting system that is reflective of Canadian society.

This bill renews the Broadcasting Act for the digital age. The changes that it makes are well overdue. It is one of four initiatives currently under way at Canadian Heritage that will modernize our federal communications legislative framework for the online world.

We're also developing a proposal to address online harms such as hate speech, violent and extremist content, terrorist propaganda, child sexual exploitation and non-consensual distribution of sexually explicit images.

We're working with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to amend the Copyright Act.

Then there is the matter of ensuring that Canadian news services are fairly compensated for the use of their material by online services. This work, too, is currently ongoing at Canadian Heritage.

Together, these initiatives will establish rules that will make the online world a more equitable, inclusive and safe place while also ensuring that it remains a fertile ground for innovation and freedom of expression.

Bill C-10, which is focused on broadcasting, is the first piece of this puzzle.

I will now turn things over to Owen Ripley, who will outline the need for Bill C-10 and its primary objectives.

Owen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I call this meeting to order. This is meeting number 18 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 16, 2021, the committee will commence consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

As a reminder, today's meeting is in a hybrid format—virtual and in person—pursuant to the order of January 25, 2021, from the House. The webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee and will be available on the House of Commons website.

As a final note, screenshots or taking photos of your screen are not permitted. Since we are dealing exclusively with the department today, I don't suppose we'll have that problem. They probably know the rules better than we do.

We have, in our first hour, officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage.

We're going to be taking a brief intermission, for technical reasons, to hook up with Minister Guilbeault, who will join us in the second hour.

Right now, we have Jean-Stéphen Piché, senior assistant deputy minister of cultural affairs. We have Thomas Owen Ripley, director general of broadcasting, copyright and creative marketplace branch. We have Kathy Tsui, manager of industrial and social policy, in the broadcasting, copyright and creative marketplace branch.

We're starting out with a 15-minute statement.

Mr. Piché, you have the floor for 15 minutes.

I'll let you decide if you want to hand it to someone else.

Monsieur Piché, the floor is yours.

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

I would like to continue because it is important for the decision that we will have to make.

I hear very clearly what Ms. McPherson is saying with regard to what is happening in Australia and I think that we all share that concern. However, this request is in connection with Bill C-10. But, as we all know, the Minister of Canadian Heritage unfortunately did not see fit to include social media and how to share and distribute the revenue, preferring to do so in a future bill

Given the number of meetings we have, we are feeling a lot of pressure to move quickly with this bill. We want to hear from a number of witnesses and our schedules are full. I think it is good to hear from the Facebook officials. However, I am wondering whether it would be more appropriate to do so when we are debating social media, once the minister has introduced a bill that deals with them. I doubt whether he will do that in the short term, but we hope he will because it is a major issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

The motion put forward by you and Mr. Housefather.... I've seen some of the wording that has been proposed. Because this is not germane to Bill C-10, you need a 48-hour requirement to do that particular motion. It is not committee business, and it has to be germane to Bill C-10 to do that.

However, your first motion dealing with Facebook, which was submitted some time ago, on February 19, that one we can debate.

What I propose is this. If you wish to put forward the new motion that you and Mr. Housefather worked on, I would need unanimous consent to proceed.

Which avenue do you wish to choose?

[Stéphane Cardin]

Along with the other members of the Motion Picture Association–Canada, we've proposed amendments to subsection 5(2), in Bill C-10, essentially to ensure that the CRTC considers competition, innovation and affordability in its broadcasting decisions, and that regulation should be efficient and proportionate to its purpose.

[Stéphane Cardin]

We support the framework proposed in Bill C-10 as introduced last November 3, but I'm also telling you that we want to do more here in Quebec.

[Marci Ien, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Cardin, thank you so much.

Finally, Ms. Dinsmore and Ms. Wheeler, looking through that lens at the importance of news, which you spoke about, what do you see as the short-term and long-term repercussions of enacting Bill C-10?

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

That's perfect.

I have one last question for you.

The Yale report raised a lot of expectations for Bill C-10. The government has decided to go ahead and not act on it. So it ignores the major social networks like Facebook and Google, which have access to many sources of revenue.

Can you explain your situation regarding your subscription revenues? How does it compare to other competitors or companies with different financial frameworks?

[Stéphane Cardin]

I think the main difficulty is simply related to the definition of “Canadian production”.

Let's take the example of the movie Jusqu'au déclin, which was shot in Lantier, in the Laurentians, and was written and directed by a Quebecker, with an all-Quebec film crew and whose entire cast from Quebec. A project like that does not qualify as a Canadian production, since Netflix financed it entirely.

So it's not only about the percentage, but also about what the percentage would be based on. Specifically, the items that were supposed to accompany Bill C-10, which we are awaiting and which the government has indicated as the policy directive or direction to the CRTC, could contain a revision of the parameters that qualify content as “Canadian”.

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

Okay. Let me continue with this topic.

Netflix announced that it has invested $2.5 billion in Canada since 2017. If you do the math as a percentage of revenues, I think that would be more than 30%.

You seem to be pointing out that the way the government or the CRTC does the math doesn't do justice to the investments your company is making in Canada. Why is that?

Is the business model different? Since it's a new business model, should Bill C-10 take that into account?

Is it a misunderstanding on the part of [technical difficulties] the reality of conventional broadcasters compared to digital broadcasters?

[Susan Wheeler]

We have five recommendations to improve Bill C-10 and the government's policy direction to the CRTC that will follow the legislation.

First, include a provision that will ensure regulatory fairness between Canadian companies and foreign streaming services. Bill C-10 should direct the CRTC to impose comparable obligations on all media players drawing revenues from the Canadian broadcasting system. It is critical that Canadian domestic broadcasting companies do not have more onerous obligations than U.S.-based tech giants.

Second, dismantle the regulatory silos. Whereas U.S. streaming services are viewed as single entities despite their roles in both content creation and distribution, Rogers' broadcasting and distribution arms are not. Each is subject to a different set of regulatory obligations that prohibit us from evolving our business models and provide no incentive to invest in content creation. Rogers would like the act to give the CRTC the flexibility to regulate our broadcasting and distribution divisions as a single entity. This could take the form of conditions of service, as has been suggested by the CRTC in its “Harnessing Change” report.

Third, make local news and information a priority in the act. The act should allow Canadian broadcasters to prioritize the production of news programming over all other programming.

Fourth, eliminate part II licence fees from the Broadcasting Act. These fees are not directly tied to broadcasting and are not levied on foreign streaming services. The current bill proposes to keep these fees for Canadian broadcasters while letting the U.S. streamers off the hook. We think that is simply unfair.

Fifth, provide stronger protections to combat online content theft. If steps are not taken to address illegal online streaming, the objectives and debate around Bill C-10 will be moot, as the Canadian content ecosystem will fail.

Detailed amendments to implement these recommendations will be available in our written submission to the committee.

We thank you for your time and look forward to your questions.

[Pam Dinsmore, Vice-President, Regulatory Cable, Rogers Communications Inc.]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thanks for inviting us here to discuss Bill C-10. My name is Pam Dinsmore. I am vice-president, regulatory cable, and with me is Susan Wheeler, vice-president, B2B distribution and regulatory, for Rogers Sports and Media.

At Rogers, we are committed to leading our industry in broadcasting innovation, as well as in celebrating and amplifying Canada's culture and identity. We provide platforms for a diversity of voices and deliver rich local content that engages Canadians across the country. Through our 54 radio stations, seven local Citytv stations, five OMNI-branded multicultural and third-language TV stations, and our OMNI Regional service, we entertain and inform citizens from Medicine Hat to Waterloo, Gander to Victoria.

Across our cable footprint in Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland, we have 30 community TV channels that provide Canadians with coverage of local events and community issues in both official languages. Through these local outlets and our Sportsnet-branded channels, our celebration of community and sport brings Canadians together, transcending gender, age and ethnicity.

We welcome Bill C-10's proposed reforms and urge all parties to work towards a swift passage of the bill, notwithstanding any amendments that might need to be made. We also believe more needs to be done, and quickly, to address the immense disruption happening in Canada's media ecosystem that has put Canada's private broadcasters at a distinct structural disadvantage. This is especially true when it comes to producing national and local news programming, which plays an increasingly important role in democracies as newsrooms shrink and disinformation proliferates across multiple platforms.

Above all, we would like to leave you with an understanding of how profoundly our business model has shifted since the current Broadcasting Act was introduced 30 years ago. The Internet has, over the past decade, turned the economics of broadcasting upside down. Foreign digital competitors operating without oversight or regulation have undercut revenues, splintered audiences and driven up our operating costs. The legislative and regulatory frameworks governing broadcasting in Canada have not kept pace with these changes. In fact, they have disadvantaged Canadian broadcasting companies that compete with foreign streaming services, which have no regulatory obligations.

To address [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[Stéphane Cardin, Director, Public Policy, Netflix]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

Last September marked Netflix's 10th anniversary in Canada. We're grateful that over the last decade around seven million Canadians have welcomed us into their homes.

We filmed our first series in Canada in 2012, and our activity has grown ever since. In 2017, we signed an agreement with the government to establish Netflix Canada under the Investment Canada Act, which enabled us to hire Canadians directly. In return, Netflix made substantial commitments, including to invest a minimum of $500 million over five years in production activity across the country. Canada is one of our top production countries globally, and since 2017 we have in fact invested more than $2.5 billion here.

This includes our original series and films, as well as collaborations with independent producers and broadcasters in English and French. We also continue to acquire series and films, most recently Le guide de la famille parfaite.

Netflix also contributes to the vitality and competitiveness of Canada's audiovisual industry through long-term leases for stages, collaborations with leading animation and VFX studios, and the hundreds of vendors we work with across the country.

Earlier this month, we shared great news about our plan to open an office and hire a dedicated content executive in Canada. Netflix is excited to expand our connections with the Canadian creative community and to continue strengthening our local work and partnerships.

Our track record over the past decade is clear. Netflix is committed to Canada, and our message to you is equally clear. We will continue to bring Canadian stories to the world.

We understand that policy-makers must consider the nature of contributions from all players in Canada's entertainment ecosystem. To the extent that Bill C-10 aims to create a flexible framework that will enable the CRTC to tailor conditions of service applied to online undertakings and to recognize the different ways that online services contribute, we think such an approach makes sense.

However, simply imposing the regulatory obligations of licensed Canadian broadcasters onto online entertainment services would not be an appropriate approach to ensuring contributions from this otherwise vibrant sector. Services like Netflix do not perform the same roles as traditional broadcasters, nor do we have the same content strategies.

We look forward to discussing these issues at public hearings before the CRTC at the appropriate time. For now, we note our concern with an approach that would impose a uniform 30% Canadian programming expenditure requirement to the Canadian revenues of online video entertainment services.

Such an approach would not create a level playing field, nor would it be fair and equitable. Netflix seeks no regulatory benefits. Nor do we offer news or live sports programming—the categories that enable Canadian broadcast groups to meet the majority of their spending obligations.

Canadian consumers have more entertainment options than ever. An overly burdensome regulatory framework could result in reduced choice for Canadians. As new global services are launched, some may decide not to enter the Canadian market at all, while others may avoid regulation by providing their content through a Canadian intermediary instead of setting up here.

The government has stated its ambition to create a world-class communications sector for Canada and highlighted the importance of enabling and promoting Canadian culture, contributing to economic growth, and safeguarding the interests of Canadian consumers.

In order to achieve that ambition and build a well-balanced, forward-looking and resilient model, let's acknowledge the contributions of each participant in the system and enable them to play to their strengths for the benefit of Canadian stories, workers and consumers.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thanks, everyone, for joining us again on our second round. This is our analysis of Bill C-10 before we proceed with clause-by-clause.

I'd like to introduce our guests at this time. From the Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec, we have Amélie Hinse, director general, accompanied by Catherine Edwards. From Netflix, we have Stéphane Cardin, director of public policy. From Rogers Communications, we have Pam Dinsmore, vice-president of regulatory cable, and Susan Wheeler, vice-president of regulatory media.

As we've mentioned, you get up to five minutes. I'm going to be a little strict, because I'd like to get a couple of rounds in. Following that, we get into the questions.

Let's start with the federation. You have up to five minutes.

I believe, Ms. Hinse, you're starting.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here. I'll do my best to get to everyone, so I'll keep things quick.

I want to address first Madame Côté from SOCAN.

We all know that the future of music is streaming. It's just too convenient for listeners, and it's too profitable for some to ever think that anything is going back. Real-world earnings on recorded materials have dropped, and you gave us the numbers as to how significantly they have dropped.

Right now, all that's left for a lot of these artists is live performances and licensing of their music to commercials, movies and TV, plus the streaming. We all know that live performances are gone right now. Every stage in the world is dark, so, really, the share of revenue that has been lost is overwhelming for creators in that field.

Most of the discussions are about the platforms. The platforms will continue to change. They're changing, and they'll continue changing, so the legislation we have has to able to support these changes and into whatever is next.

I know that the foreign Internet broadcasters are increasing their revenue through subscriptions and through advertising, but the fraction of the royalties these creators are making is not even trickling down to the artists—we're talking fractions of a cent—and we all know this.

What is in Bill C-10, or what else can we do to strengthen Bill C-10, to support those creators who seem to get less and less of the pie as it's divvied up?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today and giving us their time.

I'd like to start with Mr. Lavallée and Mrs. Côté, from SOCAN.

Mr. Lavallée and Mrs. Côté, your recommendations for amendments to Bill C-10 highlight the transparency of data from web giants, which could provide access to certain consumer information. Could you shed some light on that and provide some clarification?

[Geneviève Côté]

In closing, there is another element of Bill C-10 that seems to us to require clarification, maybe even a correction, and that is the possible exclusion of certain social media activities from the application of the Broadcasting Act. Social media are enabling platforms used for music discovery. In all their iterations, digital media recommend content and generate “programmed” viewing. Platforms manage the user uploaded content and the access to it.

As other organizations have mentioned to this committee, notably the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, we believe the Canadian creative ecosystem would benefit more from Parliament, rather than excluding these services from the scope of the act, giving the power to the CRTC to determine how to better regulate social media under the Broadcasting Act.

In our opinion, the Canadian legislator should not focus on who uploads the content that Canadians turn to, but should rather target those whose line of business it is to recommend that content and monetize access to it, so that in the end, these giants share with content creators, the value they get from the use of their creation, of our Canadian music.

[Martin Lavallée, Senior Legal Counsel, Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada]

SOCAN deals primarily with copyright issues as well, so we pay particular attention to any modification to the Copyright Act that would affect the rights of our members or play a disruptive role in our negotiations with users. Therefore, the proposed amendments that Bill C-10 introduces into the Copyright Act in respect of ephemeral recordings, which would add online undertakings to this exception, are simply unacceptable and go contrary to the intent of this bill.

An ephemeral recording is a copy of a program made by a TV broadcaster, for example, to permit them to broadcast the same program at the same time of day in different time zones. This is called time shifting. The proposed amendment wants to extend this exception to online undertakings, which, in our experience, should not be the case. In the digital realm, you can always choose what you see at the time of your choosing, so doing this broadens the scope of what is generally understood and applicable as of now. Neither online undertakings nor TV broadcasters have, to our knowledge, used this exception or even raised it in a negotiation.

As we saw when a plethora of exceptions were introduced in the act back in 2012, these exceptions triggered what we predicted: legislation by litigation. We've spent a significant amount of money and time to defend any overreaching interpretation of these exceptions. At the same time, technical giants resisted our effort to have them pay fair value, since they were claiming that such and such exception could be interpreted in their favour.

History must not repeat itself today in this very bill that aims at providing a means from which money will flow to creators. The proposed amendment to the Copyright Act is anything but status quo. In order to truly be status quo, the ephemeral exception absolutely needs to remain as is—limited to radio and TV—or clearly specify that those provisions do not include online undertakings.

[Geneviève Côté, Chief Quebec Affairs and Visual Arts Officer, Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada]

Good afternoon. We are before you today on behalf of SOCAN. We represent the rights to musical works of our 160,000 members, songwriters, music composers and music publishers. In short, we grant licenses, and collect the rights arising therefrom, notably from traditional broadcasters—radio and television—and digital audio and audio-visual platforms, for the use of music as part of their business.

Because of this, we see the two perspectives of the economic value of music, the value for rights holders and the value for music listeners. It seemed important to us to come and testify before you to make a few points of clarification.

From the outset, like many players in the music ecosystem, we welcome Bill C-10. We believe that subjecting digital platforms to the same legislative and regulatory conditions as those applicable to all Canadian broadcasters will end the distinction that the music industry has been decrying for years.

When we compared distributions made to Canadian music rights holders with what was distributed to foreign writers in regard to uses in media, we came to a devastating conclusion. In digital media, royalties paid to Canadian creators were three times lower than those related to uses in traditional media. The average percentage for traditional was 33.9% over the past six years—

[Troy Reeb, Executive Vice-President, Broadcast Networks, Corus Entertainment Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to the committee members.

My name is Troy Reeb. I serve as executive vice-president of broadcast networks for Corus Entertainment.

On behalf of our 3,500 employees across the country, I want to thank you for inviting us to discuss Bill C-10, which we are urging Parliament to pass without delay.

Before getting into the bill, I want to provide a brief overview of our company. We're very proud to be Canada's leading pure play media and content company. We have Corus Studios, a leading producer and distributor of Canadian lifestyle programming; Nelvana, a premier animation studio; Kids Can Press, Canada's largest independent children's book publisher.

Lastly, Toon Boom, our Montreal-based division, creates software for international studios.

All told, our Canadian-made content is exported to 160 countries around the world, but our bread and butter remains broadcasting here in Canada. We operate 15 Global TV stations, 39 radio stations and 33 specialty channels, in both English and French, such as YTV, Séries Plus and Food Network Canada. We are the proud home of Global News, one of Canada's largest news organizations, delivering thousands of hours of local, regional and national stories every year.

To emphasize this, Corus is a pure play media business. We have no cable or telecom assets to subsidize us. We are an independent, publicly traded company competing in a trillion-dollar global entertainment sector. We think we've assembled the vision, the team and the expertise to build an international media powerhouse right here in Canada, but even the best people and ideas cannot overcome badly outdated regulation, and that's why your work today is so important.

You've already heard from many stakeholders about Bill C-10, and no doubt each of them has an interest in the Canadian broadcast system, but we have to remember that what the Broadcasting Act is really about is the rules for broadcasters operating in Canada. This act enables a web of regulations, policies, conditions and codes that touch every level of our operations. They dictate how much we have to spend on certain kinds of shows, when those shows can go to air, the types of songs we can play on our radio stations, the number of commercials we can sell to advertisers and from whom we can buy our programs. I could go on and on.

Most of these rules were designed for an industry that doesn't even exist anymore, one where licensed broadcasters enjoyed privileged access to Canadian audiences. That is no longer the case. We're doing everything we can to adapt and compete, but in far too many cases, the old broadcasting rules make it impossible to do so. After more than 10 years of escalating unregulated foreign competition, five years of rolling policy consultations, and one devastating pandemic, we simply cannot wait any longer.

Bill C-10 is not perfect, but it gets one big thing right: It will finally bring foreign digital broadcasters into the regulatory fold and start to level the playing field for Canadian media. For us, this is reason enough to support it.

Let me be clear. New players should not have to play by the old rules. The level of regulation currently applied to Canadian broadcasters is simply untenable in a world of open competition. Going forward, all players—foreign and domestic, digital and traditional—must have a more flexible, less onerous set of obligations than Canadian broadcasters have now. All players should be able to contribute to the system in ways that make sense for their audiences and their business.

Here at Corus, news is a prime example. We're very proud of our work at Global News, and we're uniquely able to provide news through local stations across Canada that foreign streamers will not and cannot replicate, but local news is a very challenging and expensive business. While it's still highly popular on all platforms, it is entirely dependent on ad revenues that have been increasingly siphoned away by foreign Internet giants.

For many years now, we have offset our losses in news by providing internal cross-subsidies from more profitable entertainment programming, but now our ability to do that is also fading fast. Foreign digital broadcasters are siphoning away those profitable audiences with no obligations in return to support Canadian content or communities. If this continues, we will soon face some very difficult decisions, as other Canadian broadcasters already have.

Going forward, news should not represent just one of our many obligations but should be recognized as our primary public service contribution. Giving us more flexibility to compete in other parts of our business will provide us a more sustainable way to cross-subsidize news in the future.

Now, as I've said, this bill is not perfect. In our written submission, we will propose amendments to improve it.

We're also strongly urging this committee not to amend the bill to empower the CRTC to regulate private dealings between broadcasters and producers. That kind of amendment would further benefit producers who are now enjoying record profits at the expense of Canadian broadcasters, who are seeing record declines. The CRTC already rejected this “terms of trade” approach six years ago, and there is no compelling policy reason to reverse course now.

In closing, Canadian broadcast policy has always depended on strong private broadcasters. We want to continue creating Canadian jobs and serving Canadian communities, but we simply can't do that when faced with a regulatory environment that allows foreign players to scoop profits out of the country while leaving us as Canadians with all the obligations.

By prioritizing equity between foreign and domestic players and signalling that obligations should be suitable for individual circumstances, we believe Bill C-10 can help us begin the difficult work of building a fairer and more sustainable broadcasting system, and we urge you to move it forward.

Thank you.

[Richard Stursberg, President, Aljess, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for inviting me. It's a great pleasure to be here.

My name is Richard Stursberg. I am the author, with Stephen Armstrong, of The Tangled Garden: A Canadian Cultural Manifesto for the Digital Age. We were honoured to have our book shortlisted last year for the Donner Prize, which is given for the best book on public policy written by a Canadian. The book deals with many of the issues that are before you with Bill C-10.

I have worked in the broadcasting business for many years. I was the head of English services at the CBC, chairman of the Canadian Television Fund, executive director of Telefilm Canada, president of Shaw Direct, and CEO of the Canadian Cable Television Association. I am now retired and represent nobody but myself.

In the more distant past, I was the assistant deputy minister for culture and broadcasting. In 1990, I was one of the architects of the current Broadcasting Act, so it is a pleasure to have a chance to talk to you today about the new act.

I start from a simple premise. The reason we have a Broadcasting Act, along with the associate regulations of the CRTC, the tax credits and the Canadian Media Fund, is to support Canadian culture. We spend all this money and energy to ensure that Canadians can see themselves and their stories on television. The objectives of the system are cultural, not industrial or economic.

In approaching Bill C-10 today, I believe that the fundamental principles governing future broadcasting policy must be support for Canadian culture and equity of treatment. The latter point requires that the obligations imposed on Canadian broadcasters such as CTV and Global must be borne by foreign broadcasters such as Netflix and Amazon. By the same token, whatever advantages are enjoyed by Canadian broadcasters must be extended to the foreign ones operating in our country.

Today I would like to talk about the four key supports for Canadian television: Canadian ownership, the spending requirement, the system of subsidies and the definition of Canadian content.

First, under the present act, broadcasting companies operating in Canada must be owned and controlled by Canadians. There has been much talk about whether Bill C-10 eliminates this requirement. The legal issue is largely academic, since the requirement was ceded a decade ago. Over the last 10 years, foreign broadcasters like Netflix and Amazon have been offering TV programs to Canadians without any need to be Canadian-owned. There is no chance in the future that they will be forced to become Canadian-owned.

In the interest of equity, you may want to consider putting Canadian and foreign broadcasting on the same footing by amending Bill C-10 to make sure the Canadian ownership requirements are gone. Not to do so would be to disadvantage Canadian broadcasters in their own market.

SecondC-10, Canadian broadcasters have to spend a certain percentage of their gross revenues making and commissioning Canadian TV shows. Bill rightly extends this requirement to the foreign broadcasters and leaves it to the CRTC to determine the appropriate level. If the commission leaves it at 30% for CTV and Global, as it is now, it should be 30% for Netflix. If it is set at 20% for Netflix, it should be the same for Canadian broadcasters. Equity is key. You may want to make sure that the equity principle is clearly incorporated in Bill C-10.

Third, the system of subsidies for the production of Canadian shows is expensive and complicated. It consists of the Canadian Media Fund, federal and provincial tax credits, and Telefilm Canada. Last year, they collectively cost Canadian taxpayers over $1.2 billion. Those subsidies are only available for Canadian shows, defined as those made by Canadian-owned production companies and employing Canadians in key creative positions. If we require foreign broadcasters to spend 20% to 30% of their gross revenues commissioning Canadian shows, they should have access to the subsidy. Again, the principle of equity should prevail.

The subsidy system itself is fiendishly complicated and expensive to administer. The long-standing joke has been that Canadian producers are not experts in making shows but in navigating the system. There has been some talk of collapsing Telefilm Canada and the Canadian Media Fund into one organization to address the problem. That is not the best approach. It would be much better to wind up Telefilm Canada and the Canadian Media Fund and transfer their financial resources to an enhanced tax credit. This would create a system that would be dramatically simpler, more predictable, better attuned to changes in the market and much less expensive to administer. The Tangled Garden estimates that this approach would save $60 million per year in administrative costs.

You might want to consider amending Bill C-10 to make this change.

Fourth, and finally, all of these arrangements hinge on the definition of what constitutes “Canadian content”. For decades, Canadian content has been defined on the basis of a 10-point scale, where points are assigned to the creative talent involved in making the show. The problem is that as long as Canadians are employed, the show could be culturally completely foreign. It could be set in another country, featuring foreign characters and involving a foreign story. This has happened very often in the past. Toronto may be made to stand in for Chicago, while American characters struggle with losing their health insurance.

There has always been great pressure on Canadian producers to disguise the Canadian character of their shows so they can be sold in the States, making them more profitable and easier to finance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome back, everyone.

This is our study of Bill C-10, now at the committee stage after succeeding through a second reading vote. Here we are with the study.

I'd like to point out one thing. During the question and answer session, please point out to whom you're directing your question. It will make things flow a lot easier.

To our guests, if you want to weigh in on a certain topic that's being asked about, you can use the “raise hand” function, if you wish, or wave your hand. The chair, meaning me, will not interrupt to provide you the opportunity. You will have to get the attention of the person asking the question.

Right now we're going to start with our five-minute opening statements.

We have with us Mr. Richard Stursberg. We have, from Corus Entertainment, Troy Reeb. We also have, from the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, Geneviève Côté and Martin Lavallée.

We're going to start with Mr. Stursberg, for up to five minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

These four minutes will go by in a flash with Senator Joyal, our guests his evening, and our witnesses.

Mr. Joyal, I'd like to return to the issue of demographic decline. Could you tell us more about this?

Before handing over to you, however, I'd like to make a brief comment about your proposals on bill C-10, the francophonie and discoverability.

I'd like to remind my colleagues and the people listening to us that the government took Canada to UNESCO and provided funding for cultural diversity in 2018. It was when my colleague Ms. Joly was in Paris that we addressed digital issues. I know that these discussions have been progressing for three years now. You might even speak about it to our colleague, Minister of Canadian heritage Mr. Guilbeault. There were in fact many international discussions and you are right to say that that is the right direction to take.

Nevertheless, there is an extremely major challenge in terms of francization and immigration. Would you agree that if we focused solely on language of work without doing anything about francization and immigration, and without encouraging immigration corridors within and outside Quebec, the demographic weight of French would decrease in North America?

What's missing is the francization process and the immigration corridors.

You spoke about teachers, but are there other things to mention?

[Serge Joyal]

No. They clearly are not.

Canada needs to take an initiative in concert with the government of Quebec, as it did in 2005 when it negotiated the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. Canada, together with Quebec and the other member countries of the francophonie and the European Union, must negotiate a new treaty to enhance the discoverability of French works on the platforms.

Canada did it in 2005. Why would it not? Why would bill C-10 not make it a government obligation? I read the bill and I'm still waiting for "a bigger splash".

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

There's one minute left, senator.

You mentioned one very important aspect, which is the discoverability of francophone content on the major platforms of the web giants. During this pandemic, we've been able to see just how central they are to our lives.

According to you, are the measures provided for in bill C-10 adequate for the time being?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to go back to Mr. Wente, if I could.

This committee has heard from a number of different organizations, including members from the APTN, who spoke about their concerns with Bill C-10. I also think that Bill C-10 needs to be stronger.

I'm curious as to whether you could point out what exactly you like about this bill. You spoke of the importance of storytelling and broadcasting legislation that ensures our stories reflect the diverse stories and voices of our country. How do you think this bill will ensure that first nations, Métis and Inuit stories are heard?

[Gabriel Pelletier]

The Copyright Act has a similar mechanism. We are aware that reviews of that kind are difficult and complex.

The world is changing so quickly. Bill C-10 is already playing catch-up. It is really urgent to act. That has been said over and over again. So it is a good idea to review—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm excited that we got to round two.

I'm excited to chat with Ms. Creighton again. I had a great visit with her. As for Jesse Wente, I'm a huge fan, so I'm a little star-struck right now. Please don't be offended.

My first question is for Ms. Creighton.

I've been reading through the Broadcasting Act at 20 different meetings or more, I guess, with different groups. I've been collating all the suggested amendments to the Broadcasting Act in Bill C-10 and trying to understand it. Of course, our objective, as so many have said, is to make sure that our stories are told and that Canadians can access those stories. We obviously need to make improvements in terms of which Canadians are telling those stories. We want to make sure that all Canadians are.

My fear, of course, is that I wonder if what we've done here with Bill C-10 is to slightly regulate the online streamers, while keeping our fairly strict regulations on traditional broadcast media—the BDUs. I wonder if that isn't in fact really the beginning of the end as we transition away from this technology. Is traditional media in this country dead or dying?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I don't have very much time left. Maybe on my second round, I'll come back to touch on this further, but, Mr. Wente, I have a quick question.

Do you feel, in the development of Bill C-10, there was adequate consultation with first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'll ask some questions about the content industry, and how it's been affected by COVID-19. There are, obviously, encouraging signs in my home province of Alberta, as production comes back with health and safety protocols in place.

What impacts has COVID-19 had on the production industry? What does that mean for our consideration of Bill C-10?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all our witnesses for being here today. It's an important conversation, as we try very hard to make sure Bill C-10, as legislation, is as strong as it possibly can be.

It's lovely to see you, Ms. Creighton. As somebody who is also in the Prairies and dealing with the deep freeze to the balmy weather, I hope I also can manage that swift change.

You referred to a number of recent shows in your remarks, such as Schitt's Creek, which of course we all love, as an “unprecedented success” in showcasing Canadian stories and talent to the world through shows made in Canada by producers, broadcasters and the CMF. I'm wondering what in the current system contributed to that success, and how Bill C-10 is responsive to that. Otherwise put, how can we make sure that Bill C-10 builds on what we've done properly, with this unprecedented success, and that we don't unintentionally hinder that success?

[Gabriel Pelletier]

We feel that Bill C-10 opens the door too wide and gives too much flexibility to foreign platforms in particular. The current version of the act has an objective of using Canadian talent predominantly. We would like that to be included in the bill.

By giving too much flexibility to the foreign platforms, we are afraid that they will not use our local talent, that they will have fewer obligations in that regard, and they will make do with a simple financial contribution. The important thing for us is to have our creators, actors, writers and producers working. Basically, we want Canadian talent to be used. We want to see that put back into the amended version of the act.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Ien, I'm sorry for interrupting you. I didn't mean to be rude.

First, my thanks to all the witnesses for joining us today.

My questions are mainly for the representatives from the Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec. I will let my colleagues from all parties ask all the other witnesses questions, and I'm sure they will.

Mr. Pelletier and Ms. Cyr, I had the opportunity to speak with you before this meeting. You shared with me many of your concerns about Bill C-10. I think everyone agrees that we need a bill, and we all want it to be the best possible, but there are a number of shortcomings. You pointed out two in particular, and we talked about them at our meeting.

You presented some extremely worrisome data on Canadian creative resources, both francophone—I assume they are also from Quebec—and anglophone. They show a decline year after year. I would like to hear your comments on that.

I would also like you to address the whole issue of the French language. Just last Friday, the Minister of Official Languages announced, in the reform document she tabled, that she wanted the broadcasting sector to take into account the concern about the decline of the French language. However, the bill seems to make no mention of the need to protect French-language content. It seems that the two departments have not spoken to each other, and here we are discussing Bill C-10.

Have I understood your concerns properly? Is my analysis of the situation correct? If so, what would you recommend?

[Jesse Wente, Executive Director, Indigenous Screen Office]

Thank you so much.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Indigenous Screen Office and the first nations, Métis and Inuit storytellers we serve.

As I'm sure you all know, the Indigenous Screen Office was announced by this government in 2017, after years of advocacy for such an agency to exist. We serve first nations, Inuit and Métis storytellers within the Canadian screen sector, and seek greater opportunity and greater measures of self-determination for our communities within the screen storytelling industry.

As a long-sought and only newly created organization, for us the opening of the broadcasting and telecommunications act presents our first opportunity to advocate for legislative change that could affect our communities and our storytellers. We are pleased to see that our comments are represented within Bill C-10. The changes in language and elimination of qualifiers around the need for first nations, Métis and Inuit programming and broadcasting to be represented within the Canadian broadcast sector are welcome and long overdue. We believe the stories of first nations, Métis and Inuit are as central to the Canadian story as those of French and English, and as such should be treated the same way within this legislation.

As this bill ensures the creation of Canadian broadcasting and the dissemination of Canadian content, it should also ensure support for first nations, Métis and Inuit content and broadcast initiatives. We ask that the language within the law be specific. “Indigenous” is a catch-all term. While it is one that we use to describe the totality of our communities, we feel that this law should specifically define indigenous to mean first nations, Inuit and Métis.

We also want to ensure that the bill provides the space not just for first nations, Métis and Inuit content but also for broadcast undertakings. This bill should, as much as possible, protect itself from future technological advancements and allow for the possibility of new broadcasting technologies to emerge, and for these to be potentially utilized by indigenous storytellers and broadcasters.

In addition to these key points, I would really like to ask today that you consider the true nature of this legislation. Having listened today, I am confident that you have heard much about the need to modernize this law to better reflect the broadcasting and telecommunications environment of today.

I'm confident that you have heard much about the evolution of broadcasting and transmission technologies, and how this legislation must capture that modern state of broadcasting, inclusive of technologies that have emerged since the last time this legislation was amended. I'm confident that you've heard about the importance of onboarding massive foreign media networks into this legislation to better reflect the modes of consumption and creation that Canadian audiences and storytellers are currently engaged in. I'm confident that you've heard the need to have these networks meaningfully contribute to our sector here. I'm confident that you've heard about the need for better data collection and aggregation so that our sector may more easily and rapidly adapt to the evolving broadcasting and telecommunications environment.

These are all important things, and I know that you will be considering all of them. The ISO supports the way this bill approaches the definition of broadcasting and its meaning today.

What I would like to leave you with is this. As much as this legislation is about all of those things, its central purpose has always been, and remains, storytelling. As much as this bill addresses the changes in storytelling—its creation and transmission and consumption—the true revolution in storytelling is not about technology or broadcast systems or Internet-based streaming services. The revolution in storytelling is not about new forms of storytelling or new platforms for storytelling. The revolution in storytelling that this bill must ultimately address is not about the what or the where or the when of the storytelling. It is the who. Who is telling the stories we will watch, no matter where or how or when we will watch them?

It is the who. For too long, the who of Canadian storytelling has been too limited. As a result, the Canadian story and the stories Canadians tell each other have been incomplete. They have been incomplete to our shared detriment. These gaps in storytelling have contributed to gaps in policy, gaps in equality, gaps in understanding and indeed gaps in humanity.

The bill must ensure the stories that are broadcast, the stories that it is meant to ensure, don't just take place in a modern broadcasting and telecommunications regulatory framework, but that these stories come from what has always been the modern Canada—a multinational place with a deep history still largely unexplored and a rich and diverse future that will be created through right relations between communities and a sharing of our stories.

I ask that you pass this bill so that our stories may flourish and so that they may dance together.

Meegwetch for this opportunity.

[Valerie Creighton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Media Fund]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the members of the committee.

I'm Valerie Creighton. As the chair mentioned, Nathalie Clermont, our vice-president of programs and business development, is also on the line.

Your work on Bill C-10 is absolutely critical. It will shape the rules of the road for broadcasting in Canada, as well as how TV, film and digital media content is made, who sees it and whose stories are told.

Canada's television and digital media production industry has grown every year for the past 10 years. It creates thousands of jobs from coast to coast to coast, in cities and in towns—181,000 jobs in 2019 alone. Heartland, filmed in southern Alberta, generated 4,500 jobs and $460 million in economic activity over 10 seasons.

The content industry attracts investment in Canada by streamers, foreign production companies and foreign broadcasters. Jusqu'au déclin, or The Decline, a Quebec-led French-language feature commissioned by Netflix, has been seen by 21 million people.

Our industry showcases Canadian stories and talent to the world and we are on top of our game in that regard. Radio-Canada's C'est comme ça que je t'aime was the first and only television project invited to screen at the 2019 Berlin film festival. Diggstown, a Black-led Halifax production, was recently purchased by Fox for U.S. distribution. CTV's Transplant recently sold to NBC and was hailed by The New York Times as the best drama on television. As well, of course, Schitt's Creek won nine Emmys and recently received five Golden Globe nominations. This is unprecedented success, and these shows were made in Canada by producers, broadcasters and the CMF.

CMF is the largest screen content fund in the country. We provide approximately $350 million to independent producers and digital media companies annually. Our revenue comes from two main sources: 43% from the federal government, and 52% in contributions from the broadcast distribution undertakings, the BDUs, in a regulated percentage of revenues only from cable, satellite and direct-to-home subscriptions. When the CMF was created 10 years ago, the model was one-third government funding and two-thirds BDU. Today, the BDU contributions are declining as Canadians cut their cable cords or don't subscribe at all. As a result, the CMF's revenue from the BDUs declines every year.

In discussions around Bill C-10, it has been said that streamers like Netflix should contribute to the CMF like Canadian broadcasters do. However, to be clear, broadcasters do not contribute to the CMF. It's the BDUs such as Shaw, Rogers, Bell and Videotron that contribute, and their broadcaster assets are the ones that benefit. For example, this year Videotron contributed $22.3 million to the CMF. Its broadcast asset, TVA, triggered $25.2 million in CMF funding towards the financing structures of their projects.

Every dollar the CMF invests in production leverages four dollars, so this is not the time to lose that economic impact or stifle the creative growth of this industry.

How does all of this affect Bill C-10? In our view, it's in every way possible. We need modernized legislation, regulation and a modernized CMF to deliver programs in today's environment. Our system has become archaic. The orderly marketplace is a thing of the past, but the creative and economic potential for Canadian content has never been greater. Bill C-10 is a critical step to unlock change.

The CMF supports Bill C-10, but the bill and the CRTC direction requires clear language that prioritizes growth in direct investment in Canadian content production in English and French, Canadian ownership of intellectual property, a platform-agnostic approach to domestic and international content distribution, and indigenous content and content from under-represented groups, as proposed by the Indigenous Screen Office and the Racial Equity Media Collective.

We need to bring to this work a mindset of expansion, not contraction, for our stories, our creators and our industry to leverage the investment to date. With the right legislative language, we can achieve the phenomenal levels of success available to us in this new future.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

[Gabriel Pelletier]

Second, we need to reinforce the purpose with respect to original French-language content. If the text of the Broadcasting Act is not strengthened in this regard, major online companies, such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+, will be able to continue to present content dubbed or subtitled in French, with little or no original French-language content.

Ten days ago, Netflix's co-chief executive officer stated that his company has spent more than $2.5 billion in Canada since 2017. With that amount, Netflix has produced only one film and five shows in French. Their combined budgets account for only about 0.3% of the $2.5 billion. Clearly, the production of original French-language Canadian content is not a priority for either Netflix or other foreign companies whose track record is worse.

Programming overall is not much better, as Netflix has less than a dozen Canadian series or films in French. Requirements therefore must be imposed on these online undertakings so that Canadians can see original French-language content. This is not a matter of imposing quotas in the act, but rather of developing appropriate objectives to ensure that original French-language content represents a significant proportion of Canadian programming.

These are two of our recommendations, which overlap with those of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. As one of its founding members, we support the coalition. Canadians' increased use of online services during the pandemic reminds us of the urgency to act to correct the inequities afflicting our broadcasting system. We therefore urge members of the committee and the government to move Bill C-10 forward quickly so that it can be passed as soon as possible.

Thank you for your attention, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. We are available to answer any questions you may have.

[Mylène Cyr, Executive Director, Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Pelletier.

Members of the committee, it's a pleasure to meet with you.

We support Bill C-10, which confirms that online broadcasting is covered under the Broadcasting Act and sets out how the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) should regulate online undertakings. That being said, Bill C-10 needs to be improved to ensure that essential aspects of the current Broadcasting Act are not eliminated and that certain shortcomings are addressed. Given the limited time available to us today, we would like to make only two recommendations on matters that are particularly close to our hearts.

First, the requirement to make predominant use of Canadian creative resources must be maintained. Already, over the past 10 years, the foreign location and service production in Canada has grown from 30% to 52% of total production, while independent production of programs recognized as Canadian has decreased from 48% to 35% of total production. The foreign location and service production was 78% U.S.-based, with production almost exclusively in English.

We do not want any new version of the Broadcasting Act to endorse foreign location and service production as a substitute for truly Canadian production. This is why we do want the act to make predominant use of Canadian creative resources. By retaining the text of the current act, the CRTC could continue to tailor this requirement to online undertakings according to their nature, as the wording of the act already provides the CRTC with this possibility by stating: “unless the nature of the service provided by the undertaking... renders that use impracticable.”

The floor is yours again, Mr. Pelletier.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome back, everyone—that was a nice, quick transition, wasn't it?—as we make our way through testimony once again. Of course, we are talking about Bill C-10, which passed second reading in the House and is here at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

We're into our second hour now. We are going to hear from the Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec, Gabriel Pelletier, president, and Mylène Cyr, executive director. We also have, no stranger to this committee, from the Canada Media Fund, with Valerie Creighton, who is the president and chief executive officer, and Nathalie Clermont, vice-president, programs and business development. Finally we have from the Indigenous Screen Office, Jesse Wente, who is the executive director.

Thank you so much, everyone, for joining us. We'll give you five minutes. I have a little bit of flexibility, but not a lot given the time. We're going to start, of course, with the Association des réalisateurs.

Mr. Pelletier, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Damon D'Oliveira]

What I would say is that as a racialized producer primarily the content that I have made has been specific to Black and queer communities. I feel that this is a great moment, and the CMPA strongly supports a fully inclusive broadcasting sector that reflects the diversity of Canada, especially equity-seeking and sovereignty-seeking communities, including indigenous peoples and Black and racialized peoples, people with disabilities, across a broad spectrum.

This would reach across the country. This would reach to Alberta, as well. I do feel that if we are able to control our content, control our IP.... What I have been able to do as a producer in Canada is that I have taken the revenues that my company has earned and I have put that into additional content, so I am now working with a much broader spectrum of people. My development slate over the last five years since doing The Book of Negroes has grown considerably, and I feel that if that ability or the ability to control our underlying IP is taken away, it will reduce our capacity to do so.

If we get the support through Bill C-10 to retain control of our underlying work, we can generate a lot more content in this country and feed all of the growing domestic and international streaming platforms.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to share my time with the great Black journalist we have on our team, Ms. Ien.

I will devote my questions to the CMPA.

As somebody who used to practise as a general counsel, I know how important intellectual property is. I think it would shock the consciousness of Canadians if they understood the types of deals that Netflix was actually asking Canadian creative forces to make, which are basically buyouts, where you get paid a set amount of money up front. They may retain you for two years as an employee on the show, then get rid of you no matter how successful the show is and do the show entirely with a creative team outside of Canada.

In terms of amendments to Bill C-10, in 2004 the United Kingdom created a terms of trade that gave independent producers control over secondary rights of their content. I understand that it had both economic and creative benefits. Can you speak to what the U.K.'s example was and what amendments we should make to Bill C-10 to reflect what the U.K. actually did?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Is it in Bill C-10? Do you believe Bill C-10 as a piece of legislation can do that?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

It's an excellent comment. I appreciate that, because if there isn't a way to discover it....

Is this legislation strong enough to challenge the global services? Look at what Australia is dealing with at the moment. Can we, under Bill C-10, be strong enough to challenge the global services?

[Erin Haskett]

Especially for us as Canadian producers and as it's proposed in Bill C-10, if there's a requirement around Canadian content, we ultimately will have a voice on those streaming services—whatever streaming service it may be. There's a different kind of resource available to us with that. Ultimately if you're looking at any of those particular streaming services, you'll be able to find Canadian content.

I'm just going to throw it to Reynolds or Damon, in case there's anything they wanted to add to that.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

How does that get to my children and grandchildren, so they would find that? They're not watching CBC. They're not watching cable. They're going directly to global services to get what they want.

I don't watch much on cable either anymore. I don't watch mainline news show anymore. I get mine from social media. How does Bill C-10 help get yours to the platforms?

[Erin Haskett]

Thank you for your question.

I think this is a real opportunity for us, especially as we have new storytellers and new points of view coming to the table. We've essentially had a group of gatekeepers in this country who have only allowed a certain kind of story and that has to serve a certain kind of audience.

There's a lot of flexibility for us, particularly with the independent production sector. It's really important that we strengthen that to be able to focus on the diversity of regions, voices, sizes of company and kinds of producers. The opportunities with Bill C-10, especially with the recommendations we're making today around owning Canadian content and including codes of practice, would really strengthen our domestic industry as a whole.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Quickly, this is for the Canadian Media Producers Association. I may be the only one in my family who has cable anymore. My adult children and adult grandchildren don't. On Bill C-10, you talk about the advantage of global streaming services. As I discuss this with my children and grandchildren, they have no idea what Bill C-10 is or what it can do. They just want to go find whatever it is they want to watch.

When you look at Bill C-10 and talk about the advantage of global streaming services, how can this bill work to your advantage? Where do you see we're going with Bill C-10 in helping do what you want to get done?

I'll start with Ms. Haskett.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

We are seeing that even just local media in itself is not able to have a voice. We're losing our local media, particularly when we look at a disadvantaged group of journalists who are already in that situation.

I'm going to ask the Racial Equity Media Collective a question now. When Bill C-10 was being developed there was very little consultation with the BIPOC community organizations in music, film and TV. They weren't consulted in the research and the drafting of the bill.

Can you talk a little bit about how and why community consultations are a key portion of moving forward on racial equity? I'll pass that to Ms. Barsoum.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today and sharing this very important conversation with us as we look at Bill C-10.

I will start, if I may, with Ms. Stewart. I want to dig in a little bit about why it is so important that we address the failure to gather race-based data, and why it's so important that these voices of BIPOC people are elevated, and why this bill has an important role to play.

I'm from Edmonton Strathcona, one of the ridings in Edmonton that actually has the very sad story of having many racial incidents over the past several months, with many of them against Black Muslim women.

Could you talk a little about what it would mean to have more Black journalists telling stories? Had more of the content creators been from the BIPOC community, how would that help in terms of combatting some of the increases in racism and white supremacy that we are seeing in our communities, in Edmonton Strathcona, in particular?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I wonder whether you are seeing only the tip of the iceberg. I would imagine that victims of intimidation or discrimination may be reluctant to file a complaint or to follow up, for fear of being subjected to further such behaviour as a result of their complaint.

In a regulatory proposal such as Bill C-10, do you think it would be appropriate to add mechanisms to ensure that such complaints are addressed?

It is not just a matter of asking that the legislation ensure representativeness; it must also include an obligation to set up mechanisms that address unfairness, intimidation and discrimination once and for all.

[Lyne Bessette, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to all the witnesses for joining us today.

My first question is for the representatives from the Canadian Media Producers Association (CMPA).

Bill C-10 seeks to somewhat level the playing field between the major content distribution companies and our independent Canadian producers.

Ms. Haskett and gentlemen, can you tell us more about the reality and challenges of the small producers you represent?

[Reynolds Mastin]

I'm going to turn it over to Damon to give a concrete example of what happens when a producer is able to meaningfully hold on to their IP, but first, just to speak to the specific solution we're proposing, what we would propose is an amendment to Bill C-10 that would empower the CRTC to require codes of practice between independent producers on the one hand and foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters on the other hand.

We do not prescribe anything in this proposed amendment in terms of what those codes of practice would look like. We believe that's best worked out by the industry players themselves, with the CRTC being the final authority to make sure that this actually happens.

Damon, can you speak a bit about the power, essentially, of driving growth for your company and the industry when you're able to hold onto your IP?

[Amar Wala]

For years our communities have felt under-represented within the Canadian broadcast landscape. For decades our stories and attempts to address the issue of systemic racism in the industry have been met with skepticism and outright denial.

BIPOC creators continue to be underfunded, and BIPOC audiences continue to be undervalued. This is a chance for us to heal these wounds.

Bill C-10 is a generational opportunity. We believe the measures we propose will provide lasting and meaningful change for BIPOC creators in Canada's music, TV, film and digital sectors and ensure that we do not lose another generation of storytellers.

More important, with investment in BIPOC creators, the landscape of Canadian media will flourish, enriched with content that equitably reflects this country.

Thank you very much for your time.

[Amar Wala, Co-Founder and Producer, Racial Equity Media Collective]

The REMC is pleased with many of the proposed changes introduced in Bill C-10, in particular, that the act names racialized communities in several instances. Highlighting their voices must be reflected in our broadcast landscape. We must point out, however, that while these words are welcome, similar language has existed in the Broadcasting Act for over 30 years.

The act has included the clear objective of supporting “the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society”. This language, while powerful, has been insufficient and has led to little measurable change. The REMC believes that the current language in the new bill, while improved, must go further.

If the bill's stated equity goals are to be successful, they must be measurable, monitored and enforceable. Otherwise, history will repeat itself.

We understand that the bill is tackling huge issues facing our industry, but anti-racism cannot take a back seat. It must remain a primary focus.

The REMC offers the following three key recommendations that we believe will move the act and Governor in Council directives from aspirational to accountable.

[Reynolds Mastin, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Media Producers Association]

However, as the Internet altered how audiences access content, streaming services have become some of the most influential corporations on the planet.

As buyers of our members' content, this has given them an outsized advantage in negotiations. A “successful streaming deal” for producers today means they get a payment up front, they surrender global IP rights and, if they're lucky, they become an employee on their own show, while forgoing future revenues that would arise if the show becomes a hit, or if it is replicated in other markets.

The result is a vacuuming sound that is getting louder by the day. The sound of Canadian IP and the revenues it generates being sucked out of Canada by foreign web giants.

What is the solution? It's codes of practice. Essentially, codes of practice, or as they are commonly referred to “terms of trade”, are template structures for negotiations. You can think of codes of practice as agreed-upon rules of the road, a set of baseline conditions under which future individual negotiations can take place in good faith.

Codes of practice would enable Canada's independent producers to negotiate deals where they are able to hold on to at least some of the IP rights in a project they have developed, and in doing so, have the potential for a reliable source of revenue that can be used to invest in future projects, develop a slate of new Canadian shows and ultimately build strong Canadian companies.

To further underscore the importance of Canadian IP, we are also requesting that ownership of Canadian programs by Canadians be included as a policy objective of the Broadcasting Act.

In closing, we applaud the government for the introduction of Bill C-10, and we believe it is a key milestone for Canada's digital economy.

I look forward to answering your questions, along with my colleagues, two prominent independent producers who can provide real-world perspectives on these very important issues.

[Damon D'Oliveira, Partner, Conquering Lion Pictures Inc., Canadian Media Producers Association]

That future will, in no small part, be determined by the fate of Bill C-10, and the tools it would confer on the CRTC to regulate foreign web giants.

The Internet has fundamentally transformed the way in which content reaches Canadian audiences, and streaming services have revolutionized the way in which film and TV content is shared. However, in the process, the control and benefits associated with that content, the content produced by our members, has shifted. Global streaming platforms are not just aggregating unprecedented catalogues of content, they're amassing enormous control, leverage, economic power and cultural influence.

The fuel that drives the growth and success of the media production sector is intellectual property, or IP for short. Intellectual properties are the ideas, the characters, the voices and ultimately the stories that anchor film and television content. IP is also the leverage that producers have, when negotiating with those who can connect the producers' content to audiences.

For a producer, it takes significant vision, financial investment and a time commitment, usually measured in years, to develop a concept into a viable piece of IP. This is a risk that producers willingly take on. It is our job.

[Erin Haskett, President and Executive Producer, Lark Productions, Canadian Media Producers Association]

Hello, Mr. Chair, and committee members.

My name is Erin Haskett. I'm the chair of the Canadian Media Producers Association and president of Lark Productions. Lark is a Vancouver-based production company behind such shows as Fortunate Son, Family Law and Motive.

With me today is Damon D'Oliveira. Damon is the vice-chair of the CMPA board of directors and co-founder of Conquering Lion Pictures, which produced the mini-series Book of Negroes. I'm also joined by Reynolds Mastin, president and CEO of the CMPA.

I want to thank you for inviting us to appear today to contribute to this committee's study of Bill C-10, and especially to thank all members of the committee for the spirit of constructive collaboration that you have brought to the study of this bill.

The CMPA supports the passage of Bill C-10, but we are here to talk about two changes that should be made to ensure a strong and vibrant industry for Canadian content: one, empowering the CRTC to ensure fair deals between streaming services or broadcasters with independent producers through codes of practice; and two, ensuring that Canadians continue to own Canadian content.

The CMPA represents hundreds of Canadian independent production companies engaged in the development, production and distribution of English-language content for the screen.

Have a favourite Canadian TV show? Our members likely produced it.

We work on behalf of those members to ensure a bright future for Canada's media production sector.

[Nadia Stewart]

As we mentioned then, there has not been research on Canadian newsroom demographics since the mid-2000s. This should serve as a testament to how much this industry has been held accountable when it comes to racial equity. The only statistics I can point to today are from a decade ago, and they're abysmal. Among news managers of media outlets in the greater Toronto area, researchers from Ryerson University found only 4.8% of media leaders identified as visible minorities.

Racialized journalists were also under-represented among columnists, photographers, hosts and even experts. This is the same problem that has existed since the Canadian Association of Black Journalists, CABJ for short, was first founded in 1996. One of the organization's founding members, Hamlin Grange, said, “The sad fact is that though our skin colour makes us highly visible among journalists, we are all but invisible in Canadian newsrooms.” What was true then is still true today.

After the calls to action were released last January, the response we received came largely from other journalists and independent digital start-ups, the kinds of forward-thinking media companies advancing the conversation around diversity, equity and inclusion in media, but from establishment media—CBC, Corus Entertainment, CTV and others—there was no response, not one. There was nothing from the major players in print journalism either. In fact, we would not hear anything from the mainstream media until June 2020. That is when suddenly the industry woke up, unable to continue ignoring anti-Black racism in the wake of George Floyd's murder. Suddenly our organization was engaged in conversations with media companies across the industry about what change really looks like.

In case you missed it, Black journalists have been speaking for decades, sharing the painful truths of what life has been like for them in this industry, the covert and overt racism, the mountain of microaggressions and the unacceptable use of the N-word in newsrooms by their own co-workers. Even though these stories have surfaced, even though our organization and others are speaking, there remains a deep concern that, unless more meaningful measures are taken, nothing will truly change. This is an industry with a long history of lip service but little oversight to hold it accountable. What is desperately needed here is accountability, which brings us to our thoughts about Bill C-10.

We note that there is amended language calling for updated policies within the Broadcasting Act that ensure the system serves the needs and interests of all Canadians, including Canadians from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds. Our concern is that this language won't change anything, because the language does not explicitly protect Black content or Black content creators. Furthermore, it does not appear as though there are any clear consequences for broadcasters and media companies who do not create or make available programming to Black Canadians. We feel there is a need for more specificity.

This is extremely important. How and why should Black Canadians trust that a body—that's the CRTC—which does not truly reflect all of Canada, will hold accountable companies who fail to do the same?

We are willing to engage with members of this committee and the CRTC to talk about what could be effective.

Here are some examples for you: This might look like policies ensuring Black-owned media outlets are supported and protected in the midst of a changing industry. Additional financial contributions to the Canadian broadcasting system could also be used to support Black media entrepreneurs through new or existing programs. It could mean policies upheld by the CRTC clearly incorporating criteria and consequences related to diversity in issuing and renewing licences. Finally, it could mean a commitment to ensuring licensees have equitable representation in positions of leadership, a commitment that goes beyond gender parity to racial parity, something even this country's political parties have failed to achieve.

According to Statistics Canada, this country's Black population has doubled in size from just over half a million in 1996 to nearly 1.2 million in 2016. It is high time that growth be truly reflected in Canadian media.

The CABJ is doing its part in spite of the deep systemic barriers that still exist in this industry and in this country. Imagine what could be possible if those barriers were removed and replaced with an equitable, accessible system that did not limit the potential of Black journalists and content creators? Our hope is that Bill C-10 is a step in that direction.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome back everyone to our ongoing study of Bill C-10.

Just by way of a quick announcement, if anyone encounters an issue with simultaneous interpretation, please flag it immediately to the chair. If you cannot listen to the conversation in the language of your choice, either English or French, please let us know by waving as soon as you can so that way we can fix it as soon as possible. Keep in mind that we have to have interpretation in order to proceed.

Speaking of which, we have everybody online with the exception of Mr. Rayes. Right now we're having some technical difficulties with his connection. We'll get to that a little bit later. We're working with IT at the moment.

In the meantime, I want to welcome our guests today. From the Canadian Association of Black Journalists, we have Nadia Stewart, journalist and executive director. From the Canadian Media Producers Association, we have Reynolds Mastin, president and CEO; Erin Haskett, president and executive producer for Lark Productions; and Damon D'Oliveira, partner with Conquering Lion Pictures Incorporated. In our third group, from the Racial Equity Media Collective, we have Sherien Barsoum, co-founder, and Amar Wala, director and producer.

Guests, we give each of you five minutes to do your presentation. I'll let you hand it back and forth if you wish, but we're going to start with five minutes for Madam Nadia Stewart, Canadian Association of Black Journalists.

Ms. Stewart, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I thank you for that.

Okay, folks, that brings us to the end of our witness testimony. Let me outline once again. We have about 20 minutes left until voting time, so here's what I'm proposing. With that timing, it will be around 2:30 eastern time when we conclude the vote.

I suggested earlier that we come back for committee business, only to outline what I was thinking about the timing of this study of Bill C-10 and the date proposed for when we can start clause-by-clause. I have a date in mind right now, but given that we're already inviting people back, I suspect that date may be moved.

It's just a discussion, but if you feel that time.... I know you were anticipating a vote today, and I know you're probably anticipating that this will be cancelled. I didn't communicate that we would be doing committee business, so I respect that. I would like to have a committee business meeting, but if you don't and I get a critical mass of MPs who don't want to go, that's fine. I can communicate via email what I was thinking about the timing.

Are there any comments from that?

Mr. Champoux, you may go ahead.

[Joel Fortune, Legal Counsel, Independent Broadcast Group]

Under the existing Broadcasting Act, the CRTC has the authority to oversee all aspects of the broadcasting industry, and the CRTC's powers are technologically neutral. Bill C-10 will change this. The CRTC's authority to oversee companies that use the Internet to distribute programming services will be stripped away.

What does this mean in practical terms? First, Canada's cable satellite and IPTV distributors are all moving to Internet-based distribution. Once these established distributors move to the Internet, the foundation for the existing CRTC rules will be gone. This includes the foundation for rules that ensure Canadians have access to Canadian services and the rules that protect consumers, such as those that require advance notice of service changes.

Second, new global web giants are entering the Canadian market with their own distribution platforms. This includes making apps and services available through services like Amazon's Fire TV Stick and Apple TV, and also on set-top boxes like Roku and other Android devices.

Canadian programming services are already in a battle for visibility and fair access on all these platforms and others. No one knows what the future holds, but the Internet is not immune to consolidation and market abuses. Some elements of the emerging Internet of 20 years ago are now dominated by a few web giants. Governments around the world are awake to the potential harms this can cause, but Bill C-10 is not.

The CRTC needs the basic authority to oversee how Canadian services are treated and to make sure we have fair access to our own market, including on Internet platforms.

IBG has proposed simple changes to Bill C-10 to preserve the CRTC's authority over Internet distribution: first, to ensure that Canadian services are visible to consumers; second, if necessary, to require designated Canadian services to be offered on Internet platforms; third, to make regulations regarding the distribution of programming services, regardless of the technology used; and fourth, to resolve disputes between different types of broadcasting undertakings.

The act must also include related policy objectives for Internet distribution, which we propose.

Lastly, Bill C-10 removes the objective of Canadians' having any ownership interest in our own broadcasting system. We have proposed updated language that safeguards this objective while recognizing the importance of diverse and independent media ownership.

We have tabled our proposed amendments with the committee.

Incidentally, if the committee is concerned regarding how consumers are treated by Internet distributors, you may also wish to look at new paragraph 9.1(1)(f), introduced in clause 7 of Bill C-10, to make sure that it does not exclude the Internet, which it currently does.

Thank you for the opportunity to make these remarks. We greatly appreciate the committee's invitation to appear before you today.

[Luc Perreault, Strategic Advisor, Independent Broadcast Group]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Luc Perreault, and I am a strategic adviser at the Stingray Group, a member of the Independent Broadcast Group, or IBG.

Joining me is Joel Fortune, legal counsel at IBG.

Our group represents 12 independent broadcasting undertakings, which are not affiliated with any of Canada's big cable companies or satellite-television distributors.

Our membership is made up of radio and television broadcasters who are also active throughout the digital media sphere. We provide Canadians with wide-ranging content, from local news, music, weather forecasts and alerts to documentaries, magazine programs, lifestyle programming, dramatic series and sports.

We provide that content in English, French, indigenous languages and 25 third languages spoken in Canada today.

In many ways, independent broadcasters represent Canada's diversity. Collectively, they are major employers in the media sector. We estimate that 40% of all employees in the broadcasting sector work for independent broadcasters. That is equivalent to thousands of jobs and, according to a 2019 study, more than $2.5 billion in direct and indirect economic activity.

Bill C-10 would update the Broadcasting Act to take into account the realities of the Internet. It's critical to get this right. However, the bill has a glaring gap because it fails to regulate Internet-based distribution. Mr. Fortune will now speak to that.

[Kevin Desjardins, President, Canadian Association of Broadcasters]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear before you today on this important piece of legislation.

My name is Kevin Desjardins. I'm the president of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. The CAB is the national voice of Canada's private broadcasters, representing the vast majority of Canadian private radio and television operators from coast to coast to coast, in both official languages, in communities large and small.

For nearly 100 years, Canadian private broadcasters have been a part of the cultural and economic fabric of the nation. They have provided a platform for Canadian stories, invested in Canadian talent, employed Canadian workers, reflected Canadian diversity, paid Canadian taxes, entertained Canadian audiences and informed the Canadian citizenry. They remain especially proud to be the primary source of news and information in communities across the country.

The legislation we are here to study comes at a critical moment for our sector. Over the past decade, the competitive landscape for Canada's broadcasters has fundamentally changed. Unregulated digital competitors have moved into the Canadian market without hindrance and without oversight. They have fragmented audiences, driven down revenues and driven up programming costs. In short, they have turned traditional broadcasting business models on their head.

Canadian broadcasters are now threatened on both ends of their value chain. The advertising marketplace has changed radically, with online platforms now consuming half of those advertising dollars. In fact, private conventional TV stations posted a negative margin of 7% in 2018-19, the seventh consecutive year of losses, and that was before COVID-19. Similarly, nearly as many Canadian viewers are watching Internet streaming services as watch television through cable and satellite providers. In addition to decreasing audiences and subscriptions, these new over-the-top entrants have fundamentally changed consumer behaviour.

These structural changes require structural solutions. Broadcasters are doing their part, investing in new content and new technologies, following audiences onto new platforms, but they remain hindered by unsustainable and inequitable regulatory obligations. This is why the sector welcomed the introduction of Bill C-10.

The Broadcasting Act is 30 years old, and it shows. The act presumes there are limited ways for content to reach Canadian audiences. This presumption arose at a time when Canadians could only watch or listen to programs over the public airwaves. Because licences to operate broadcasting channels over those airwaves were scarce, they were valuable. Broadcasters' regulatory obligations, especially with respect to Canadian content, were proportionally high.

Today, because audiences have a multitude of content platform options, traditional broadcasting licences are no longer worth what they once were. Nevertheless, regulatory obligations have remained as onerous as ever, and in some cases have become heavier. This has left Canadian broadcasters as some of the most heavily regulated businesses in Canada, attempting to compete in one of the most profoundly disrupted industries in the world.

Together, these trends have created an existential crisis. A study published by Communic@tions Management Inc. last summer estimates that local TV and radio broadcasters stood to lose more than $1 billion in revenues between 2020 and 2022. This situation is simply untenable.

Canada's private broadcasters are not interested in turning back the clock. They are optimistic about the future, they want to continue evolving with Canadians and they remain committed to providing cultural and economic value to the nation. However, they can no longer shoulder the same significant obligations they always have, and they can no longer do it alone. This is why the changes that Bill C-10 will enact are so critical and why we need to move forward expeditiously.

Bringing digital broadcasters into the regulatory system is a necessary first step, which Bill C-10 gets right, but it is not enough to simply apply a parallel regime to extract additional dollars from digital giants. We need to rebalance obligations and create a modern, agile and sustainable regulatory framework that will allow Canadian broadcasters to adapt to the marketplace for decades to come.

These changes are particularly vital for sustaining one of the most important services that our domestic broadcasting industry continues to provide: local news. In an era of misinformation and global pandemics, it is critical that we identify the ways to continue to support local news voices that reflect the reality of the communities in which they live and reflect a fair and accurate vision of Canada back to Canadians.

We must start by empowering local news providers to do what they do best. We know, certainly, that digital giants will have little interest in delivering the evening news in Lethbridge, Saskatoon, Peterborough or Quebec City.

We know that the bill as presented is not perfect. I know that in the coming meetings you will hear from other broadcasters with varying footprints in the Canadian industry, and they will express a range of views. However, I'd like to leave the committee with two key principles on which private broadcasters agree.

[Carol Ann Pilon, Executive Director, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada]

Good afternoon.

I am here on behalf of the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, or APFC, which, as you know, represents independent French-speaking producers working in francophone minority communities across Canada.

Our members contribute to the economic well-being, cultural vitality and survival of their communities by promoting a diversity of francophone voices across the country.

The APFC has made its position clear to all of the appropriate authorities regarding the principles that should guide the current review of the Broadcasting Act.

We appreciate this opportunity to do so yet again.

The first principle is to end the preferential treatment for online companies exempting them from the obligation to support the creation and dissemination of Canadian content. Bill C-10 would put an end to that fundamental unfairness. We welcome and wholeheartedly support this change.

The second principle is especially important: to include clear provisions in the objectives of Canada's broadcasting policy that would mandate the Canadian broadcasting system as a whole to reflect the situation of official language minority communities, or OLMCs, and encourage OLMC-produced programs. Currently, only the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is required under the act to reflect the situation of OLMCs and their unique needs. No such objective applies to the system as a whole.

As a result, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, imposed specific conditions of licence on the public broadcaster regarding the share of independent programming expenditures that must be allocated to OLMC producers. Other than vague expectations that were not met and an incentive that proved equally ineffective, the CRTC did not impose similar requirements on private broadcasting undertakings.

This underscores the importance of including a clear provision in section 3 giving the CRTC the ability to implement concrete and effective measures aimed at enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities.

This also shows that the Official Languages Act alone is not enough to ensure that the regulations governing Canada's broadcasting system meet the overall objectives of the broadcasting policy. Experience has shown that the CRTC often makes decisions that undermine the interests and vitality of OLMCs.

It is paramount that the Broadcasting Act mention the objectives relating to OLMCs if those objectives are to become a reality. On that point, representatives of both English and French OLMCs agree across the board.

We have attached our proposed amendments to that end. They pertain to sections 3 and 5.

The third principle is to incorporate meaningful provisions in the act to strengthen the foothold of original French-language programming in the Canadian broadcasting system.

Although members of OLMCs are minorities in their respective provinces and territories, francophones as a whole are a minority in Canada, and especially in North America. They become even more vulnerable when their ability to express themselves hinges on market forces alone. For that reason, we are proposing amendments to sections 3 and 11, which are also attached.

Furthermore, as an association that represents independent producers, we urge lawmakers to include a provision, in sections 9 and 10, that would give the CRTC the power to regulate commercial relations between independent producers and broadcasting undertakings. The independent production sector, for the most part, is made up of small and medium-size undertakings; when left to fend for themselves, they have no leverage against large broadcasting groups and international online undertakings, which control access to broadcasting and enjoy annual revenues in the billions. It is imperative that the CRTC have the ability to rebalance and regulate such an uneven distribution of power.

Other aspects of Bill C-10 certainly raise questions and concerns within the community of Canadian cultural content creators and producers, but we have chosen to focus on the issues we feel are most significant, given what we are and who we represent.

That said, the APFC is a member of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which the committee will be hearing from later this afternoon. The APFC supports the principles and objectives endorsed by the coalition.

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions you have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you for joining us. We still have a few members missing, but there is a reason for that.

I just want to say welcome to our guests. We are now officially into the study of Bill C-10.

Let me just start by saying that we are expecting—and you may have been alerted already—a vote to commence in the House. Albeit it's only one vote, it takes a long time.

If the bells go, that gives us 30 minutes of bells and then later on the voting. As you know, we still vote virtually. We don't have the app up and running, so we have to do a voice count virtually. That takes in excess of 45 minutes.

What I'm going to do is this. We're going to proceed. When the bells happen, it's pretty much going to—if I may be so bold to say—wipe out a substantial amount of your testimony. Therefore, what I'm going to say to you is that if the bells go as we expect and the meeting is called to a halt, I'm going to tentatively reschedule the entire meeting for March 12, rather than proceed and give you only a few minutes. Actually, you wouldn't have any minutes.

I want to hear from you, though. You are valued witnesses, suggested by our members, and I would be deeply regretful if we didn't hear from you before we launched into clause-by-clause for Bill C-10. I apologize for this. It is a part of democracy that is very necessary, but sometimes when a vote happens in the House, it conflicts with what we want to do here at the committee.

That being said, I also want to say to my colleagues that, if that happens, I would like to reconvene this meeting for just committee business immediately following the vote. As soon as we get online and as soon as you get into our virtual room, we can have a committee business meeting for just members and designated staff.

Again, I apologize to our witnesses. It's more than likely to happen.

In the meantime, we still have work to do. We haven't been sidelined officially as of yet.

I want to thank our guests for being here. From the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, we have Carol Ann Pilon, executive director. From the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, we have Kevin Desjardins, president. As well, from the Independent Broadcast Group, we have Joel Fortune, legal counsel; and Luc Perreault, strategic adviser.

That being said, we're going to start with Madam Pilon.

The way we normally start this is that you have five minutes to do your opening remarks. I am a little bit flexible on your five minutes, but I don't mean to be rude if I cut you off towards the end.

Nevertheless, Madam Pilon, you have five minutes, please.

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?