Canadian Heritage Committee on June 9th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome back, everyone. This is clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10.

I just want to point out to everybody in this room that I know the bells are ringing and that I'll be seeking unanimous consent in just a few moments.

Okay, I know I said some time ago that I would try to give you as ample notice as I could about a meeting, and when I seek out meetings, I will do just that. I will be cognizant of the time. I'll be cognizant of your situation.

The whips amongst our parties—again, I am not specifically pointing out any particular whip of any recognized party, and there are four groups in question—decided that they would put this meeting together. I received notice shortly before you did.

Now, because we passed a motion on March 26 that states that we will seek out meetings—and it didn't say anything about notice—we must have this meeting as of right now.

That being said, I'm going to say this publicly. I'm going to say this in front of you, my colleagues. I'm going to say this while we're in session. As chair, I have the floor, so I'm going to say it.

This is a message for the benefit of my colleagues, the staff, the analysts, the clerks, the interpreters, the technical staff, and everyone involved. I ask you to please consider the fact that these people have families, that these people live in rural areas like me. We are not emergency workers. We're not paramedics. We're not firefighters. We're not on call like that. These are planned meetings—normally.

So, to the four represented whips at this meeting—and I know you're on this call—please consider this when we do this again. I'm asking this not just as a chair but as a human being. Thank you.

That being said, do I have unanimous consent to continue?

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

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome, everyone, to clause-by-clause on Bill C-10. This is the resumption of the meeting. Welcome back.

We are going to pick up where we left off the last time, if you want to get out your song sheets once more.

Some hands are up.

Mr. Shields, do you want to move a motion? Go ahead; you have the floor.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

No. We were in the middle of our conversation and had to quit. My hand was up and I just wanted to continue as we were, on amendment CPC-9.2. When will you get to it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Rayes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to say a quick word before we get into amendment CPC‑9.2. My purpose isn't to delay the process, but to express my real displeasure with what's happening right now. Some might suggest that this is so because of all that has happened in the last few days, but I want to emphasize that we are all human beings. We work in Parliament, but we also have families. The employees who work with us and try to do their jobs in a professional manner also have personal lives.

Last Monday, you told us that the next meeting would be on Friday. It's now Wednesday, so the House starts at 2:00 p.m. It's my responsibility, it's part of my role as a parliamentarian in a hybrid Parliament. At an hour's notice, I received the notice of this meeting. I didn't have access to my documents because I'd left them at my apartment. These documents help me do my job. Our work requires us all to do a lot of research.

I think it shows contempt for the work of members of Parliament to give us one hour's notice on such an important issue. We don't have much time, and a gag order has been imposed on us, which has never happened in the last 20 years. Parliament isn't supposed to interfere with committee work; committee work is supposed to be independent.

From what I understand, even you, Mr. Chair, were not aware of this. The decision to hold a surprise meeting was made by various whips. This has implications for all of us.

Tonight, after my day at the House, I had planned to pick up my daughter in Montreal. I haven't seen her in three weeks. Now the whole process is being delayed. I'm changing my entire schedule. Some people will say that it's no big deal and that they have the right to say what they want about politicians. But politicians have personal lives too. We usually have meetings scheduled and work to do.

It's true that in some cases, procedures are deliberately slowed down. In other committees, the Liberals are professionals at this. We've done that in some cases, but always in the proper manner of committee procedure and by the means available to us when we are dissatisfied or have a message to communicate.

Currently, this meeting requires the presence of staff, interpreters and the committee clerk, among others. In addition, other committee meetings have had to be cancelled. Some of my colleagues are frustrated because they had work to do in these other committee meetings. The scheduled meetings of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans were cancelled at the last minute to free up that time slot for this meeting, which the Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québécois whips arranged among themselves without even notifying our committee chair, according to the information I received. This is unacceptable.

I find this work incredible in the context of the study of this bill which, as we have been denouncing for so long, attacks the very foundations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This has nothing to do with an attack on culture, even though some would have us believe that it does.

In short, I wanted to take three minutes to share this with you. You all know I'm in shape and working out. Using my GPS, I've calculated all the trips I've had to make back and forth between the House, where I am on duty, and this committee room, to fulfill all my responsibilities.

The situation we're in is unbelievable. It's the last straw at the end of the parliamentary session. This isn't the first time a similiar situation has occurred, by the way.

Is there any way to make some kind of statement to support your work as chair, to have decorum and to ensure that parliamentarians from all parties can work in partnership and collegiality? We all want to be in a good mood, to be able to laugh together and try to lighten the mood, but the current situation remains inconceivable.

I, for one, am frustrated today because I will have to call my daughter to tell her that I won't be in Montreal until almost 11:00 p.m. tonight. After that, I'll have to drive another two and a half hours to my riding, which will affect my day tomorrow. Also, I just received notice that we have another meeting tomorrow. All of this is on top of the rest of my schedule.

I wanted to point out that we're human beings, too, even though we're politicians, even though people think they have the right to attack us as much as they want and to say whatever they want about us. We have to take the hits one after the other. I find it unfortunate that the whips have agreed on our work without even informing us.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm assuming you moved CPC-9.2.

I only say that, Mr. Rayes, because CPC-9.2 is in your name, but did I hear correctly that Mr. Shields is going to?

Mr. Shields, I'll put the floor to you.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Yes. We're reintroducing the clause we were at—amendment 2—that we were in the middle of debating last time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

That's 9.2?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Correct. Go ahead, sir. The floor is yours.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you.

One of the things we were talking about that came up from the people from the department was the monetary number, the millions, or the number of people, and who this would include. In that conversation, the CBC came up, from the department staff. As we well know, as the CBC has digitalized significantly. They've also moved into stories that they write per clients' requests and they want to enlarge that.

This particular legislation, without those marks in it, could include the CBC and their digitalization service, which is really interesting. It could include political parties as well when we get into this type of thing, without putting some limits, barriers or ceilings around it. I think that is what we're attempting to do in this particular amendment: to go to where we need to be and what the intent is.

What we have heard about the intent of the authors of the bill was that by having a wide open net.... It's like when you trawl on the ocean. You catch a lot of fish in those big trawlers. They kill a lot of fish and do a lot of damage because they catch a lot of things other than the intended species they're looking to fish.

I think this legislation in itself—as we hear from the department officials when they bring out the digitization of CBC and you understand how broad a net this is—is not really where you want to go, unless you're looking to have the CBC in this, if you're looking to have it in this as they digitalize to make money from stories that they are writing for particular clients, for political parties.

You have to think about this in the sense of what you're attempting to do. On the nature of we've talked about, you've talked about it and many others have: the big techs, the big companies, the Facebooks, the Googles, all of those you've talked about. In thinking about that, this big dragnet of a trawling line could catch a lot of things in it that could be very detrimental to a lot of parts of our society, our country, our creators and our cultures.

Going back to the departmental officials, I think it was Mr. Riley who brought up the possibility of CBC and what they've explored, so I'd like to go back to Mr. Riley and have him again discuss how he views this dragnet operation without some ceilings in it, as is suggested in this particular motion.

I would like it if the department could respond, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes. I think it's Mr. Ripley who you want to respond to that?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Yes, Mr. Ripley.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay. I'll bring in my point later on.

Go ahead, Mr. Ripley.

[Thomas Owen Ripley, Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the question, Mr. Shields.

The point I was trying to make during our last meeting was that Bill C-10, as tabled, does not have thresholds in the legislation, in terms of determining whether an online undertaking should be regulated by the CRTC and should be required to contribute. The test, as articulated in the bill as it was tabled, was a determination of the CRTC's part with regard to whether that online undertaking is well positioned to make a material contribution to the policy objectives.

One reason it was done in that way was to recognize that there is a very wide diversity of online business models out there. It is difficult to be categorical with where that material contribution threshold kicks in. The reason I referenced CBC/Radio-Canada was to give an example of how, as the committee knows, CBC's conventional services are licensed and overseen by the CRTC right now, just like TVA or CTV. The expectation is certainly that the CRTC would have jurisdiction over its online undertakings of TOU.TV and CBC Gem, just as the CRTC will have jurisdiction over Bell Canada's equivalent Crave TV service, Club illico, and those types of services.

The point I was trying to make was that based on the data we have, the threshold that's being put forward in this amendment may be so high as to exclude CBC/Radio-Canada's online undertakings, for example. The position of the government would be that CBC/Radio-Canada is very well positioned to make a contribution to achieving the policy objectives of the act. That was the point I was trying to make, Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I appreciate your explanation of that.

It is very concerning when we talk about the lack of thresholds. I think the reality of this amendment is that it tries to put in thresholds to actually give the CRTC some direction in the legislation rather than having it spend a lot of time in areas that may not be what was intended. That's what thresholds will do when they're provided in legislation.

Sure, if in the future they are found to be too high or too low, it's already been mentioned that in certain periods of time you review things and say they could be changed. As Mr. Rayes has said, maybe upwards is more likely. It is something that gives it a mark to go by. It's something that I think provides to boards and commissions—and I think they appreciate it—some direction rather than just a void and starting from nothing.

The real advantage of this piece of legislation is that it provides clarity in the public. It's in legislation. It's transparent so that the CRTC, as it follows this up, will be given much more clarity with regard to how to begin its work if this legislation is passed.

With that point stated, Mr. Chair, I thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay.

Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

I just want to say a few things.

First of all, I do appreciate Mr. Rayes's frustration about having to be here. We all have places we need to be. We all have very busy lives. It is always hard when our schedules change on a dime. I know we all have incredibly packed schedules.

I do want to just point out that this is very important work we're doing. In fact, it has not been everybody's priority to do this work in this committee over the past several weeks. We have seen a lot of time wasted by certain members of this committee not letting us get to that work.

That's not really what I want to talk about right here.

In terms of amendment CPC-9.2—and perhaps it would be best for Rayes or Mr. Shields to respond—did you, when you were putting together these thresholds—and of course, I asked some questions about these thresholds earlier—ask any stakeholders in the Quebec cultural sector? If so, could you tell us which ones you spoke to about CPC-9.2 and their support for that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. McPherson, before I go to Mr. Rayes...I'm assuming you meant Mr. Rayes, not Mr. Shield.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Well, Mr. Shields was the one who was speaking about it today, so I wanted to see—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

That's true.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'll leave it up to them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, first things first: Ms. Rempel Garner is next, but with your permission, can I go to whom the question was asked? I see Mr. Rayes' hand up.