Canadian Heritage Committee on June 9th, 2021

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Rayes, go ahead.

You have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll attempt to answer the question, but first I'll respond to Ms. McPherson's first comment.

Yes, we all have schedules. I have no problem with us doing other meetings. You even put forward a motion on that, which was adopted. The chair had the opportunity to add one.

The problem is the notice. If we had had notice this morning that this meeting was going to be held, we could have taken a minimum amount of material with us when we left home. Then the notice would have been reasonable.

Let me be clear: I have no problem with the fact that we're holding this meeting. It's how it was organized that I have a problem with. I think it shows a total lack of respect for our work as parliamentarians, for our personal lives and for the lives of all the staff who support us and help us to do our work well.

That said, I'm closing the loop. I'm going to get over my emotions and come back to work with a smile, because I don't like being angry.

Ms. McPherson, in response to your question, I have to say that I have indeed met with several organizations, like the one I mentioned at our last meeting. We've been working on this amendment for a long time. We even proposed something similar at the very beginning.

Did all the stakeholders we met with agree on the thresholds? The answer is no. Did all of them want thresholds? Actually, some did and some didn't. There were differing opinions among organizations representing cultural groups in Quebec and Canada.

To draft the amendment that I put forward on behalf of my party, we looked to the thresholds that Australia had established. The ones we're proposing are even lower. All countries point to Australia as an example. Even Minister Guilbeault does. The thresholds in our amendment are the ones proposed by two former senior CRTC officials who are following the bill very closely.

Those are the thresholds, plain and simple. I don't see that this in any way prevents the CRTC from regulating the big players like Netflix and Spotify. The major broadcasters aren't covered by this exemption, because they all have revenues and subscriber numbers that exceed the thresholds we've included in the amendment. However, the amendment does protect our artists who aren't part of the traditional structure, who make their living from social networks and want to continue to do so.

We talk a lot about self‑employed artists, but I would add that it may also include small organizations or academics who post content on social media and who have a lot of followers. The purpose of the amendment is to exclude them from CRTC regulation. It's as simple as that, and there's no hidden agenda.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I just want to know if you could share some of those names. The question was whether you could share the names of some of the Quebec organizations that you have some support from—just the names of them would be great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Sorry, are you questioning Mr. Rayes again? Okay.

We soon have to go on to Ms. Rempel Garner. She's been waiting patiently.

Mr. Rayes.

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

Great.

Actually, I did a little search through all my notes after our last meeting. I would have been happy to give you the names of the organizations, but my notes are at my apartment. Given the short notice we were given, I don't have any papers with me, and I'm going by memory. So it's impossible for me to consult my notes to list the organizations that agree with the thresholds we're proposing, those that partially agree and those that are against.

Unfortunately, I can't do justice to your question, despite its relevance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, we'll go to Ms. Rempel Garner.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair, and also for welcoming me to the heritage committee.

I've been following the procedure of this bill through various stages for some time now and I am concerned about the broadness of scope and the serious concerns that many well-placed advisers have brought up. I could speak to that at length. I will start by speaking to the amendment that my colleague brought forward.

On this bill, I just don't understand why the government and members on this committee aren't supportive of putting some restrictions and limitations on who this impacts. Again, some of the amendments that have been defeated at this committee would, I think, take away some of the fears of Canadians who are rightly asking questions about what this means for them.

Some of us have served longer than others here in the House and in Parliament, so I'll just speak to my experience. When I started my public service, social media was really still in its infancy in terms of its transformation of how we consume information, but today, the reality is that traditional broadcasting and traditional ways of creating Canadian content have been disrupted, much like Uber disrupted the taxi industry.

As parliamentarians, I think we have a responsibility to ask ourselves if putting in place certain government regulations benefits the country and creators as that disruption comes through, or if it's actually hindering the emergence of new voices, new content and Canadians actually engaging in cultural activities.

I do think this amendment that my colleague has put forward actually would benefit many Canadians and I want to explain why.

My colleague Ms. McPherson raised the issue of consulting with Quebec cultural influencers. I can name one off the top off my head: Cynthia Dulude. She has over 600,000 YouTube subscribers. I'm sure she has been able to monetize her account. This is a voice that wouldn't necessarily be eligible for the current structure of proceeding that we have. Rather than supporting her, this bill would allow the CRTC in many ways to essentially deem her to be a broadcaster. That's why I think amendments like this are beneficial to enshrining the rights of women especially, who have been typically excluded from the way we've done things in Canada for a long period of time.

When you look at the progression of legislation and regulations over the years, I fully support the strides that were taken to ensure that Canadian culture, content and heritage were promoted, but this bill doesn't work with the disruption that has been created in the industry. It just seeks to enshrine an old way of doing things, and in doing so, it marginalizes Canadian voices when we're looking at where the football is going to be10 or 20 years from now.

In a lot of ways, the way that social media has disrupted the development of Canadian content has really democratized the creation of content. It's a really exciting thing. There are voices that never had a platform before that now do have a platform and don't have to go through gatekeepers. I think that's a very positive thing for Canada, not a negative thing for Canada.

I understand why the gatekeepers want to gatekeep. I understand why the gatekeepers, the incumbent telco companies, those who have a stake in making money off grants and contributions without really promoting the advancement of heritage activities, want to protect the status quo, because they profit off it. Why can't we do both?

The amendments that my colleagues have been suggesting would allow us to support influencers, support those who have found platforms on social media, and protect them but also allow the current way of doing things to exist.

I guess, maybe, this is a different a way of looking at things. I'm glad we're having this debate, but I don't think that government should exist to regulate away disruptive influences in the marketplace that actually benefit Canadians.

We often see this. When I was vice-chair of the industry committee, I made some pretty bold statements about how we need to potentially look at disrupting the way that Internet is provide in Canada in order to address rural broadband issues, even access within urban centres.

You see those incumbents that benefit from the monopolistic structure that government protects. They are going to push back at that because their profit models are dependant on it. Again, I almost feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone here because we have the left arguing for the propping up of a monopolistic structure that doesn't benefit the people in any way, shape or form. I think it just benefits large companies that, arguably, I'm not sure have done the best job of promoting Canadian content and culture.

We have the opportunity here in Parliament to rethink how government interacts with content creators. Instead, we get this bill that seeks to enshrine the status quo. I don't know why we couldn't be looking at taking the best of the status quo, like supporting.... Ms. McPherson brought up the issue of Quebec content creators. I don't understand why we can't be looking at regulations and laws that support those content creators but at the same time acknowledging that disruption has occurred and ensuring that we're protecting those new voices and those new ways of doing things. I really think that's what is at the heart of the amendment that has been put forward today.

There was an assertion made that there was no research done on this particular amendment. I know that to be false. There have been white papers drafted around the world. I'm thinking of one. I can't remember the reference off the top of my head because, much like my colleague, Alain, I'm jumping into this meeting at the last minute, but it's important for me to be here on behalf of my constituents. I know that there was a white paper done out of Australia that did look at certain threshold limits based on the disruption that had occurred in their national market and a desire to protect those voices.

The account that I mentioned out of Quebec.... They're not a broadcaster; they're creating videos and giving a voice that is unique to their lens and their perspective on certain issues. For the government to try to come in and use a.... Frankly, we could have a whole other discussion about the CRTC's being an outdated institution that is desperately in need of reform. However, this amendment would actually limit the scope of what that outdated institution could do to the benefit of intersectional voices that all of a sudden have a platform in Canada.

I really think that if we don't put amendments like this in place, we're going to look back 10 years from now.... I think that Canadians will look back at this debate by parliamentarians and these types of amendments, and the parliamentarian who don't support these amendments and say, “Why were they supporting the old way of doing things? Why weren't they supporting my voice? Why did they regulate speech?”

Why should the CRTC have a say over individual YouTube accounts? Why wouldn't you put clarity to this? If the government is true when it says there is no intention to regulate individual social media accounts, why wouldn't we put those safeguards in there?

This isn't the Criminal Code. This is policy that influences how business will be undertaken, and it's the right to freedom of speech.

I'm going to reference another example that I've been deeply uncomfortable with: the subsidies for print media in Canada. I believe it's very important for our country to have a strong journalistic culture that holds all of us to account, regardless of political stripe. However, when the government puts in place a fund to support media and then it picks the recipients of funds, there's a direct linkage there. A direct bias is created and you no longer have independence in journalism. That's wrong. We can sit here and vociferously disagree on policy and politics, but we should be agreeing that we need independence of media. There needs to be a separation—a clear delineation—between media, the speech of Canadians and government.

There has been a lot of discussion about how the government should regulate hate speech. That's another thorny area because there is a lot of hate, even today. As a parliamentarian, I have received a lot of hate in the last 24 hours for statements I've made that I strongly believe in. That doesn't mean I should be taking away the right of people to make those statements, unless they fall under existing Criminal Code provisions related to libel or hate speech. We already have the Criminal Code for this.

If you port that concept over to Bill C-10,, why would the regulator be seeking to limit the activities of individual voices and Canadians? That's why I think Bill C-10 is a flawed piece of legislation. I don't support it in general, but at least the amendments that my colleagues are putting forward seek to separate this concept out.

Honestly, the point I want to make at this committee on behalf of my constituents is that you have this nexus right now where historically over time our country and the government have sought ways to promote Canadian content. However, we've had such a disruption in how that content is produced and consumed that porting the old style of supporting content creation onto a disrupted model is opening the door for government abuses on freedom of speech.

That's why it is so important for us to pass these amendments. There needs to be more structure. There needs to be more clarity. Even for user accounts that.... Consider the Quebec account that I mentioned earlier. I am sure she has a good business from that. I'm sure she is making money off of it. Good for her. That's awesome; that's fantastic. Why would the government seek to limit her voice?

These amendments give clarity and certainty for an emerging area of business that most Canadians are just waking up to. For us, it's about understanding that putting “influencer” on a CV is a thing. Influencing is a thing. People make money off of it. It's a new way of advertising. Yet, I feel like we are sitting here as legislators looking at this with a lens that is 30 years old. That's a huge problem.

I understand that there might be some really rote, basic politics. There might be a polarization here to score quick political wins one way or the other. However, I encourage colleagues on this call, from the bottom of my heart, to look past that and ask, what's in the best interest of this country? We should be seeking to support Canadian content creation, definitely ensuring that we are supporting French-language content creation as well. It should be all content creation, including marginalized voices that typically have not had platforms because of the gatekeepers. We should be seeking to do that while ensuring that we are acknowledging the fact that the structure of how we create content has fundamentally changed.

The amendment at hand that my colleague proposed puts clear limitations on and structure around intent. If the government's intent is X, Y or Z, this amendment makes sense, as did the one that was defeated in this committee. I was so disappointed. I honestly thought that the government was going to put this debate to bed by proposing the amendment that was defeated earlier that was in the media. I was shocked. My colleagues on here who have known me for a while, from all political stripes, know that it takes a lot to shock me. I was actually shocked.

Again, there are winners and losers with Bill C-10, and why would we be doing that? Why would we be picking winners and losers? Why would we be picking voices?

What I worry about is that groups who seek to promote the status quo have a very well-funded lobby. I know they have been in front of many of you. They seek meetings. They seek to spin their position.

The people who are emerging in this market disruption—the voices such as the account I mentioned—don't have a lobby. They don't have a well-funded group that's coming in and talking about how they're going to influence votes in our ridings. That is why I'm here at the heritage committee today. I'm trying to cut beyond the political bluster to try and honestly, from a place of reason, say, “Look to 10 years from now. Look 10 years from now and understand that if we put this legislation in place without some definitions...”.

. They're not coming in and talking about the polling based on the popularity of a spun question within our ridings. They're just doing their thing. They're new content creators. They don't have that lobby, but that doesn't mean we don't have an obligation to protect them.

The amendments that are being put forward here are designed to protect those people. They are people who haven't had a voice in our previous iterations of cultural content creation, and they don't have a voice with these big lobby groups right now either. Why wouldn't we be protecting them? Why wouldn't we add this in? It makes so much sense.

I really think we should go back to the drawing board. I get that parties are set in here. However, if we don't get this right, now, I really think we have opened up Canadian influencers to a chill on freedom of speech. I think that is absolutely possible. We have not done our jobs as legislators here to tell the regulator what they can and can't do. We haven't done the systemic reform of the regulator that's necessary. That's a problem as well. We also haven't.... We are trying to impose the regulatory structure of a system that was put in place before cellphones existed on to a disrupted system of how we create content. That is why these amendments are being put forward.

I would just say this to colleagues: If you don't like the amendments, if you don't like the set thresholds of subscribers or the advertising thresholds, then propose a subamendment. Bring forward other research. But this bill, as it is right now, is bunk. It needs to be fixed. It can't pass without this happening.

What I'm hearing, from watching the media coverage of this, is that there is a desire among all parties to ensure that Canadian content is created, is funded, is supported, particularly French-language content creation, which needs to be shared across the country.

I think there's a shared desire here.... I also hope that there's a shared understanding that we shouldn't be rushing to put in place systems that could inadvertently put a chill on our freedom of speech.

I'll put it this way, and I've said this to people: For those of you who were in Parliament under Prime Minister Stephen Harper and vociferously railed against him, if you would be uncomfortable with Stephen Harper having the power to regulate individual social media content, then you should also be deeply uncomfortable with Justin Trudeau being able to do that. No person, no government, should have the right to regulate freedom of speech in the way that this does.

At the same time, we should also be understanding that regular content creators have a right to proceed through this disruption. Canada went through a very sort of unsettled period of time—three to four years—when Uber disrupted the market.

There was a lot of back and forth, admittedly at the municipal level, about what bylaws should be put in place to regulate Uber and how taxi drivers were affected through that disruption, but at no time during that debate were higher-level issues like freedom of speech threatened. That's really what we have here with this bill.

I implore my colleagues here to really think about passing smart amendments. Again, if there's a problem with the amendment, propose a subamendment rather than just dismissing it outright.

I understand that people like Michael Geist and the former CRTC commissioner might be irritants to the government right now, but I know these people. They're not partisans by any stretch. These are informed people who have been working in the space for a long period of time and genuinely care about the flaws in this legislation, because they're coming from a place of academic understanding that this is flawed, deeply flawed, to the point where it is detrimental to the country. They're not doing this from a place of partisanship or politicking; they are genuinely concerned. We have a job as legislators to listen to those concerns in this period of time.

I know that my colleague Mr. Arnold wants to get on. This rant has been brewing for some time for me. It is so crucial that we get this right.

I would put this on the record. Colleagues, I'm sure many of you watched the American Senate committee hearings, over a couple of years ago now, when Mark Zuckerberg appeared before a Senate committee and the questions that he was asked were so pedantic. You could see him trying to explain to legislators what an email was. I'm being slightly facetious, but not that much.

I just feel as though we are here right now and the debate that we're having is so mired in a lack of understanding of this space, as opposed to really thinking about what the role of government is in the broader discussion of the disruption that has happened in media, in how we consume information and how we create information. I implore you that rather than just importing a regulatory structure that is 40 years old onto a beautiful new way of doing things, in a way that could put a serious chill on it, that silences voices of Canadians who have finally found a platform—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Sorry, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Mr. Champoux, go ahead on your point of order.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

You know I hate interrupting people, Mr. Chair, but I feel like the speech is getting a bit repetitive. We've heard it at several meetings already. I especially feel like we're getting a bit off track from the amendment that's before us now. I just wanted to ask that we focus on the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

Ms. Rempel Garner, for the most part, I feel that you've been veering into the debate on this particular amendment; there's no doubt it. I love it when we all stay on the level playing field. Once in a while, I allow colleagues to meander through the bleachers; however, I need you to come back to the playing field if you want to talk about this particular amendment.

Thank you so much, Madam. You have the floor.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Champoux, I had said I was wrapping up, but now I feel like I need to explain a few more things, unfortunately. If you had given me another 10 seconds, I would have closed. I was on the grand finale, but perhaps now I will take a few more minutes to discuss the motion at hand.

Again, to colleagues who are looking at the amendment, it reads:

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.

This is smart because it actually puts in place form and substance in a bill where these did not exist before. This amendment talks about what the materiality principle is in relation to the regulator, and that has not been described anywhere else in this law. Again, there are bodies of knowledge and work that have been undertaken, I think, to support that as a starting point.

What I like about the structure of this amendment is that it says, here's a starting point, but on a biannual basis there's a requirement for the commission to review whether or not that's adequate in terms of how Canadian content creators are actually growing. It has this built-in review process, and that's why it's elegant.

I know that some colleagues have asked—I believe it was Ms. McPherson—how he came up with this threshold. I believe that my colleague came up with it based on white papers that have been produced around the world. He has also built in this mechanism here to say that we will have a review process to ensure that it is adequate over a period of time.

I'm not going to propose a subamendment, but if I were to change it, I think that review process should also take into consideration the impact that the current incumbents and current system have. Why should we just give them a free pass here too? Why shouldn't we be talking about their actual views? The elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about is how many views CBC News actually gets on any evening, or how many views CTV News gets on an actual evening, yet we are moving heck and high water, Chair, to protect them.

Perhaps that's something the committee could discuss as well. How are we putting checks and balances on the incumbents that would benefit from our maintaining the status quo? I do think that the review process that's built in here is elegant—it's nice—and it recognizes that this is an emerging field of regulation.

The need for a review process that's built into the amendment acknowledges that Bill C-10 is coming in almost ham-fisted, this very “bull in a china shop” approach to ramming through regulatory process that doesn't really reflect the reality of new content creation.

Again, I know that my colleagues are going to propose other amendments to try to do what we've been talking about, which is recognize that we shouldn't be putting a chill on freedom of speech and shouldn't be unduly burdening a new source of economic revenue for Canadians, but this is an excellent amendment.

I hope that my colleagues approach our amendments, not from that blind partisan perspective but more from the perspective of getting this right on behalf of Canadians—Canadian women, indigenous voices, Black voices, persons of colour and members of the LGBTQ+ community, who traditionally haven't had voices and now have voices and platforms. Put amendments in place to protect them, and be clear on what the role of the regulator is.

To my colleague, Mr. Rayes: good work, excellent, well done. You have served your constituents well.

I implore my colleagues on this committee to really think about this so that when we are looking back in 10 years time to these committee hearings, which will undoubtedly be referenced in numerous challenges, we're on the right side of history and the right side of the disruption that happened.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

I forgot to mention this at the beginning. Welcome to the committee, Ms. Rempel Garner. I think this is the first time in this Parliament that you've been on this committee. I go from one rookie for the committee to another.

Mr. Arnold has an astonishingly beautiful riding in British Columbia. I say that with a great deal of bias in his favour.

Mr. Arnold, you have the floor.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to see you again. We certainly had some splendid times on that fisheries committee, or FOPO, and it was interesting to hear another member mention today that the FOPO committee had to be cancelled because of the proceedings here.

I sit on that committee, and indeed the meeting was cancelled just minutes before the meeting was to start, but no explanation was given, so I had to come to this committee to find out the reason that my regular committee had been cancelled.

I want to speak to this amendment that's been proposed and how it puts limits and parameters around who will be affected by this. This is certainly needed. We've seen in the past how legislation that was rushed through caused unintended consequences, and I want to refer to unintended consequences that my constituents have been calling me about just recently.

They can't buy home insurance. They can't find home insurance. Why? It's because the Cannabis Act, Bill C-45—

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

One moment, please.

Yes, Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.

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

I've been okay with their walking around the warehouse and all the rest as you let then do, but I think when we're talking about [Technical difficulty—Editor] we have wandered far out and beyond. Perhaps he can bring it back to the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Arnold, as wide swinging as the arc may be for your comparison, perhaps we could swing back to the amendment in question.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I certainly will, Mr. Chair but I believe—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Arnold, the floor is yours.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly will bring it back, but I cannot do that properly without mentioning the full circle of how we got to this. I referred to the Cannabis Act because in that act the limitation of four plants per household was the limit that was put on individuals and households through that legislation. I have constituents, a couple, who both have medicinal marijuana grow permits. They are both permitted to grow it. The two of them have the two licences, but because they grow more than four plants in their home, they have been denied home insurance.

I have another constituent who now can't get a mortgage because he can't get home insurance, all because of legislation that was rushed through without—

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

—parameters and without limits.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

One moment, Mr. Arnold. I'm going to have to ask you to stop for a moment.

Mr. Sidhu, you have a point of order.