Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 5th, 2021

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

Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

We now go to the Union des artistes.

Ms. Prégent, you have five minutes.

[Sophie Prégent, President, Union des Artistes]

If I may, I will first introduce the Union des artistes. Then I will hand it over to Pascale St-Onge, who will speak about the Fédération nationale des communications et de la culture.

I might even venture to say that the Union des artistes is an old union in Canada, being in existence since 1937. Its authority is recognized by our governments.

We represent actors, but also singers, dancers and presenters. So there are four categories, as well as sub-categories, which represent comedians, stilt walkers and puppeteers—in short, all those beautiful creators who convey our culture on our stages and in our media.

I have long wondered how to approach the principle of identity, which I wanted to talk to you about today. In the end, I decided not to write anything down and to proceed a little more organically, because I felt it was the best way to explain it.

The Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act govern our television and radio system. They therefore regulate music, television series, drama and news, among others. This is extraordinary.

Ms. St-Onge, would you like to introduce the Fédération nationale before I continue?

[Pascale St-Onge, President of Fédération nationale des communications et de la culture, Union des Artistes]

I will do it when you are finished. What you say is very interesting.

[Sophie Prégent]

All right.

Let’s admit that these media are the most popular. You know as well as I do that television enters our homes and radio enters our cars and houses. They belong to us and look like us. They convey our values. They reflect who we are and make us evolve together. In short, radio or television serve as mirrors for us. The laws governing these two media should acknowledge the values of identity and recognition.

In our current system, the digital age is increasingly taking over the way we consume TV and radio content. Naturally, the mirroring phenomenon is therefore slowly diminishing. Concern is thus prompting us to ask ourselves whether it will diminish to such an extent that one day we will no longer be able to recognize and see ourselves in it. That would be profoundly dramatic. From the moment we know who we are, we can necessarily look at the other person better and accept their difference. If time permits, I will have examples to present to you later.

In short, laws serve to recognize certain principles and values. It is on this premise that the bill could be improved. There are certain fundamental concepts that we believe should be defended more strongly.

I give the floor to Ms. St-Onge.

[Pascale St-Onge]

Thank you, Ms. Prégent.

The Fédération nationale des communications et de la culture represents—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm sorry but I have to interrupt, Ms. St-Onge. There's a quality issue with your microphone. It seems the audio we're getting isn't being picked up by the microphone on your headset.

Can you unplug it and plug it back in?

[Pascale St-Onge]

All right.

Is it better this way?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm afraid we have the same problem. Unfortunately, with translation it's very difficult. They're telling me it's impossible.

At the bottom of the screen you will see that there's an arrow next to the microphone button.

[Pascale St-Onge]

Yes, and when I click on it, I'm connected with the headset that was sent to me by the government. I'm using your equipment, and I did the technical test yesterday and everything seemed fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm sorry, Madame, but at this stage it seems translation cannot understand what you're saying at all because it sounds quite distant. I'm obviously not saying what you're doing there is wrong. It's just that we can't pick it up.

We have about a minute and 20 seconds left. I'm going to give the floor back to Ms. Prégent for now, Madame St-Onge. I sincerely apologize for that. If you wish, you can call IT to clarify, because we do have a round of questioning coming up.

Madame Prégent, we will go back to you, please.

[Sophie Prégent]

We could go straight to questions while Ms. St-Onge’s technical problem is being solved, but I will finish my speech first.

The fundamental elements that we want to work on first and foremost are, among others, Canadian ownership and, of course, the French language and our people—that is, the workers, artists and artisans, whom we would like to see better protected and more involved in the projects that are done here in Canada.

Second, the CRTC must be given the resources and powers it needs to implement a more effective system. We must ensure that companies are accountable and guarantee the traceability of content. Finally, we need to look at the powers of the Governor in Council.

On the other hand, in an ideal world, we would get into the habit of revising laws. When we realize that there are loopholes, we have to be able to react quickly. Currently, I feel that we, in Canada, are trying to be proactive with regard to digital technology, which has not always been an easy concept to integrate.

In the future, it would therefore be important to achieve a certain lightness, even though I know that it is difficult to achieve this in legislation. In any case, if all this were provided for, it would already be easier.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

We'll work on the situation with Madame St-Onge. You have our apologies.

Mr. Rayes, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

Is this also the case for your organization?

[Daniel Bernhard]

Of course, Mr. Rayes. Thank you for your question.

The exclusion of social media from the bill implies two things that worry me.

First of all, it concerns the responsibility for the content disseminated. The Broadcasting Act says that each broadcaster is responsible for the content it broadcasts. If the act does not apply to social media, they will not be responsible for the content they broadcast, which we know is sometimes illegal.

On Friday, Mr. Chan told you about the efforts his company had made to address the situation, but it is clear that what he said was not entirely true. We have seen several examples where Facebook executives have made a conscious decision to allow illegal content to circulate on that platform. So it’s very important to have the power to fix the situation.

Second, there is the issue of liability for the discoverability of content, including French content, and other CRTC rules, such as election advertising standards. There are other things in the act that must apply to social media. It is very important to include them in the bill.

[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?

[Daniel Bernhard]

Yes, we recognize that the system has changed and that it was necessary to include foreign broadcasters, because it is impossible to build a wall between us and the rest of the world.

However, there is also a need to promote Canadian ownership and accountability in Canada. It is very important that foreign broadcasting and social media companies have officials here in Canada to be accountable to the CRTC, the government, the courts and Parliament for their behaviour.

Canadian representation is important, just as it is important to encourage Canadian ownership. It is crucially important to ensure the survival of local news media, which are currently in crisis.

It is not a good idea to invite foreign companies to buy our broadcasters and close them down. So we think it’s very important to encourage Canadian ownership.

[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?

[Daniel Bernhard]

Yes, I agree.

To improve the situation, without correcting it completely, we suggest changing the definition of broadcasting in the Interpretation Act. It is the act that is used by the agencies and the government to interpret the Income Tax Act. This could improve the current situation where foreign companies enjoy a commercial advantage over their Canadian competitors. Indeed, their products should not be tax deductible, but they are.

This advantage means that a few billion dollars are not sent to the government. This gives the advantage to Canadian companies that buy their advertising from abroad. This causes problems.

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

Excellent.

I would now like to congratulate the other organization for the working paper it submitted, which contains a number of recommendations. The document is 27 pages long, and very well written.

On page 2, I see that Union des artistes and the other representatives are calling for the Act to have more teeth, in order to protect the French language. They also point out that Canadian artists and workers should be used. In your opinion, some of the proposed amendments to section 3 of the Act are unacceptable because they would lead to significant setbacks in this area.

I would like to hear what Ms. Prégent and Ms. St-Onge have to say about those two points.

[Sophie Prégent]

Thank you.

Mr. Laflamme can add something if need be.

That is actually one of our requests. The worst thing that could happen right now, probably, is a step backwards. As you know, the language barrier can be seen on the job. We feel it's extremely important to protect all the workers we represent, creators, writers and performers alike. If foreign money comes here, it seems that it will be difficult for us at that point to preserve those jobs and that identity. So the Act needs to have some teeth added.

It's a shame that Ms. St-Onge can't talk to you about it, but perhaps Mr. Laflamme can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Actually, I'm sorry, but I have to move on to our next questioner. We're already past six minutes.

[Sophie Prégent]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

You can work in your answer as we come to it, Monsieur Laflamme.

Now we go to Ms. Dabrusin, I believe, for six minutes.

[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.