Evidence of meeting #40 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Mr. Rayes, I'm going to ask you to stop for a moment. I don't want to lead you down the wrong path. If your hope is to bring back 9.4 and to seek consent to do that, you'd have to do that before we go any further.
If you want to resurrect 9.4, I'm going to ask Mr. Méla what the proper procedure is.
Mr. Méla, please.
Legislative Clerk
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rayes, the problem is that the amendment with the reference number ending in 3725 applies after line 2 of page 8, but the committee has already considered line 19 on page 8 through amendment CPC‑9.1, which you put forward, and amendment PV‑21.1, put forward by Mr. Manly. The amendments must be moved in the order in which the provisions in question appear in the bill. In order to go backwards, you would need unanimous consent from the committee, and you would have to seek it now since your next amendments also concern line 19.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Méla.
As you know, my French is not good enough to explain it the way he did. I want you to be of that understanding, so even though you have proceeded, I'm going to allow it, if you wish to do that. I don't want to lead you astray.
Go ahead, sir, if you wish.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you for being so kind, Mr. Chair. I certainly appreciate it.
To ensure the committee does things in the proper order, as Mr. Méla explained, I am seeking unanimous consent from the committee to discuss amendment CPC‑9.4. If I don't get it, I will come back to amendment CPC‑9.2 when I am allowed to do so.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you very much for your patience, everyone.
Again, the last three numbers are 725. It is CPC-9.4. Mr. Rayes is asking to go back and do that amendment. He's seeking unanimous consent to go back and do that. I'm repeating myself only because I want everyone to fully understand what he's asking for.
It is out of order. We should have dealt with it before, but in order to return to that, we need unanimous consent.
Does Mr. Rayes have unanimous consent?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Sorry, sir, you do not.
That's CPC-9.4, which you can now take out of your package.
We will now go to CPC-9.2, reference number 583.
Monsieur Rayes, once again, sir, you have the floor.
Thank you for your patience.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not surprised by the outcome. As has been explained so well, we have to proceed in order.
Setting amendment CPC‑9.4 aside, I am coming back to amendment CPC‑9.4. I will read it and, then, explain it. The amendment states that Bill C‑10, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 8 the following:
9.2 (1) This Act does not apply in respect of online undertakings that have fewer than 500,000 subscribers in Canada or receive less than $80 million per year in advertising, subscription, usage or membership revenues in Canada from the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet. (2) Every two years after the day on which subsection (1) comes into force, the Commission must, with the approval of the Governor in Council, review the subscriber and revenue thresholds and may make regulations to increase them as required. …
The amendment addresses the disagreement the committee is having over users who are not professional broadcasters in the digital space. We are in serious disagreement regarding the power to be given to the CRTC to regulate not only users, but also the content they post.
The committee heard from experts on both sides, so I will not rehash the great debate. Ensuring the bill sets out parameters for the CRTC is the lesser of two evils. That way, local artists with fewer than 500,000 YouTube subscribers will not be regulated by the CRTC and can continue to showcase their craft to people all over the world without leaving their homes. These artists who work for themselves online are not asking for any government help, and they do not comprehend why the government is interfering in these platforms.
Despite what some may think, some artists are outside the so‑called conventional system, the one we all know and support when we go to concert halls and buy tickets for performances. When the artists in question create content, we want to make sure they are not subject to Bill C‑10.
That is the purpose of amendment CPC‑9.2. I look forward to hearing the views of my fellow members, in both my party and the other parties, as well as the experts with us today.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Rayes.
For clarification, to our clerk, Aimée, there is nobody in the room right now. Is that correct? Is everybody on Zoom?
Okay, I just wanted to make sure. That way, I can go with the list I see on Zoom.
That brings me to Ms. McPherson.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank Mr. Rayes for his amendment.
Can you tell me a little bit about how you came up with that $500,000 and the $80 million per year in the first part? Also, could you comment on the last sentence of the second part where it says “and may make regulations to increase them as required”? Is there a reason it is “increase” not “increase or decrease” them as required?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I heard there was a question in there. I too have a question.
Ms. McPherson, who was your question directed to?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Before that, there are two things. There's that question, if you recall, and also you read the text, but you missed number 3, which is on the second page of this particular amendment. Were you including that as well or not including that?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I'm sorry, Ms. McPherson. No, I was referring to Mr. Rayes on his amendment.
I'm looking at number 3. Can you answer both of those?
Thank you, Mr. Rayes. You have the floor.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You're absolutely right, I haven't read proposed paragraph 9.2(3). I'm going to do that right now to make sure that everyone is on the same wavelength. Thank you for setting me straight. Proposed paragraph 9.2(3) reads as follows:
(3) The Minister must prepare a report on the Commission’s review under subsection (2) and submit the report to the standing committee of each House of Parliament that normally considers matters relating to broadcasting.
The clarification is very important, because the minister is asked to report to us.
If I may, Mr. Chair, I would now like to respond to Ms. McPherson's question.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. McPherson, the question is quite relevant. Why would you set the threshold at 500,000 subscribers, not 750,000 or 200,000? We had to decide on a number, based on some expertise. What you have in this amendment that I tabled this morning is the threshold recommended not by Conservatives, but by Konrad von Finckenstein, the former chairman of the CRTC, and Peter Menzies, the former commissioner of the CRTC. They say it's the threshold necessary to be treated on par with services like Netflix and Amazon Prime, and it also helps protect the websites of Canadians who publish content. They see this threshold as avoiding excluding large broadcasters from the bill, while providing minimal protection for users who post content on social networks.
A decision certainly has to be made sometime. Anyone with 525,000 followers would fall into a zone between the two. There is a provision in proposed paragraph 9.2(2) that these thresholds can change as needed along the way, every two years, if I'm not mistaken.
We see this as a quite interesting way to protect all Canadians who publish content, because it will not be regulated by the CRTC.
I also want to point out that Australia, which the Prime Minister often likes to cite as the leading model for online regulation, has proposed a threshold of $100 million in revenue and 1 million subscribers, so double what we are proposing. I think it's interesting to note that our request is not over the top. It's a way of presenting something that we think is a perfectly acceptable compromise, especially since the suggestion comes from former senior CRTC executives who know the rules of the game, who know how things work, and who are aware of the reality.
In giving you this information, I don't know if I've answered your question correctly, Ms. McPherson. While I am not an expert on the subject, I have tried to do the best I can.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Rayes, you answered one of the two questions very well, I'd like to just point out, but the other one is on clause 2, where it says “regulations to increase them as required”. Why does it only have “increase”? Why does it not have “increase or decrease” as required?
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Your request, Ms. McPherson, is quite relevant. You can make it a subamendment, if you wish.
We wrote it that way because to us, it could only go up. To us, that was a fact.
There are more and more Canadians publishing content online. If they have 500,000 subscribers as of today, one can imagine that their subscriber base will only grow after that, not shrink. That's the way it was presented. We never thought for a second that it would go down. Everyone is increasing their number of subscribers, and therefore the number of people who follow their publications. It's rare that someone's number of subscribers decreases over time, especially in the case of an artist.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Chair, I find this amendment interesting for two reasons. One is that it seems to very much mirror an amendment that had been voted down by this committee previously. In addition, it is again trying to carve out contributions toward our cultural production funds.
In light of what Ms. Harder said in her local press, I believe that a lot of what the Conservatives are seeking to do right now is, in fact, reduce our cultural production funds as a whole. Part of the reason I feel this way is this quote, which stood out to me:
That arts fund actually goes toward a very niche group of artists that are stuck in the early 1990s because they haven’t managed to be competitive on new platforms. So they are very reliant on government grants in order to continue to exist. And, quite frankly, they are producing material that Canadians just don’t want.
I apologize—