Evidence of meeting #33 for Canadian Heritage in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was justice.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Nathalie Drouin  Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Aimée Belmore

1 p.m.

Liberal

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.

1 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank, first of all, the Minister of Canadian Heritage for appearing here today as instructed. I want to thank the justice committee also, but we did have on Monday, May 10, as you know, from the Liberal side, Mr. Housefather's motion, and I subamended it, that we would get the Minister of Justice to also attend.

Thank you to the officials of Justice, but all 11 of us agreed in a unanimous motion that the Minister of Justicewould also appear in this committee.

I'm not going to take up further time, I'm just going to flag it now, but for second hour we certainly would like to discuss this because it was a unanimous motion by all parties. We all agreed that we would get the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice to come before we do the panel.

We have welcomed the Minister of Canadian Heritage here today. Maybe he wants to extend his stay for a few minutes because of my interjection. I want to hear what he has to say, we all want to hear what he has to say, but we are disappointed that the Minister of Justice, as you said, turned down our request, and it was a unanimous motion.

I want us to think about this, and how in the second hour we are going to deal with this.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Thank you, Mr. Waugh, for the input.

I will receive direction at that point from the committee if it chooses to provide me the direction regarding that situation you just pointed out with the Minister of Justice.

In the meantime, we have the minister for one hour. I'm going to let him begin now with his comments.

Again, Mr. Minister, welcome back. You have up to 10 minutes.

1:05 p.m.

Laurier—Sainte-Marie Québec

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault LiberalMinister 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.

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Thank you, Minister.

As you know, now we go to our questions.

We're going to start off with our members from the Conservative party.

I believe, Mr. Rayes, you are going first.

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being with us. I also thank the officials and legal experts who are here to answer our various questions for being here.

As my colleague Mr. Waugh pointed out, we are extremely disappointed that the Minister of Justice is not here, despite the committee's unanimous request that he testify. I think we'll talk about that later, to avoid wasting the time we have with the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

First of all, I have a very simple question for you, Minister, and I hope to have a short answer: are you for or against net neutrality?

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

I am for it.

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

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.

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

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...

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Minister, you are not answering my question. Net neutrality, that was my first question. Secondly, I asked you why section 4.1 was proposed in the bill in the first place, when you introduced it. I would just like an answer to that question.

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

But you did talk about net neutrality, in a long preamble...

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

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.

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Chair, I will certainly answer the question, but the member gave a long preamble on the issue of net neutrality, so...

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

On a point of order, Mr. Chair. I believe it is my right to ask questions and get answers.

My question is simple. I would like the minister to explain to me why section 4.1 was proposed in the bill in the first place. It is simple. That is the only question. Let's forget the preamble and everything else.

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

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.

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Thank you.

By deleting the section in question, you have at the same time removed protection for users who upload content to various social networking platforms.

Can you name just one other democratic country that regulates user content on social networks through a broadcasting act?

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

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...

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Minister, let me stop you there.

In proposed section 4.1, there were two sentences written in black and white that dealt with user content. You deleted that.

I repeat my question: name one country in the world that, in terms of broadcasting, regulates user-generated content on social networks. Of all the democratic countries on the planet, can you name one?

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

I'm going to have to keep giving you the same answer, Mr. Rayes. The premise of your question is about content moderation. I would ask you to indicate...

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Minister, I'm asking you a question. Name one single country.

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Folks, I'm afraid our six minutes are up.

Thank you, Mr. Rayes.

I have a quick reminder to everyone. I understand in the midst of a feverish pitch that we have our arguments. I understand in the back and forth we may talk over each other. To a great degree, that's inevitable. The only thing I ask is please do not raise your voice when you do that, because we have interpreters whose ears are close to your microphones and it's damaging for them. I appreciate if you would please keep that in mind.

Let's go to Mr. Housefather for six minutes, please.

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses.

I was very pleased at the last meeting that I was able to bring forward this motion that was amended by Mr. Waugh, that was adopted by the committee, to have an amended charter statement to address the concerns that people had about section 2(b) of the charter and the removal of proposed section 4.1 from the bill.

I'm going to tailor my questions to that issue. I'm also pleased, by the way, that our government has brought in this question of charter statements so that legal information is provided to parliamentarians and the public as we analyze the bill on the potential impact on their rights. I do want to say that that is from the Liberal government.

All my questions are going to be to Maître Drouin.

Maître Drouin, it's a great pleasure to see you here today.

First, I'm going to have some short questions and then some longer ones, so on the short ones perhaps you could stay short.

Maître Drouin, would it be true to say that charter statements are non-political documents drafted by career civil servants in the Department of Justice?

1:20 p.m.

Nathalie Drouin Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable member.

Yes, you're right. They are not political statements. They identify provisions of a bill that may potentially affect charter rights. They are drafted in plain language, and they speak to how you perform your work, but also to support public debate on proposed bills.

It is a minister's responsibility. I just want to say that the minister approved the charter statement.

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Of course, but he doesn't draft it to begin with.

Let me then come back to the question of the charter statement that you provided, and the amended charter statement.

The amended charter statement says that there are no additional concerns or considerations that have been raised with respect to section 2(b) freedom of expression of the charter that have been brought about by changes or amendments to the bill.

Is that correct?

1:25 p.m.

Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice

Nathalie Drouin

Yes, that is correct. The supplementary explanatory document is in line with the same approach as the statements about the charter. Because the objectives of the bill, which Minister Guilbeault correctly outlined earlier, remain unchanged, it was concluded that the charter guarantees, in this case freedom of expression, were not infringed upon here.