Evidence of meeting #42 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.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
I have one more question for Mr. Olsen, if I may, Mr. Chair.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
In conventional broadcasting, you'll hear an ad run by the radio station or TV station saying that if you have issues with the station, you can submit it to the CRTC in Ottawa.
How would that work on social media? I have the ad. I know when their licence is coming up because, well in advance, the station does a 30-second ad. There are no ads here. Will there be ads on social media?
Explain this process to me because on conventional TV, they do a pretty good job, when their licence is coming up, of directing you to the CRTC if you have issues.
12:50 p.m.
Senior Director, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for the question, Mr. Waugh.
Those commercials you refer to are part of the licence renewal process. They are an obligation that the CRTC imposes on licencees to make public the notion that the licence is being renewed and that people can make comments on the conditions of licence.
The situation in Bill C-10 is that the proposal is to move away from a conditions of licence model and towards a conditions of service model. The clause that this committee is currently debating—clause 7 of the bill, which would include proposed section 9.1—does give the CRTC the powers to make orders with respect to conditions of service that would need to be put on. The CRTC would, under the sort of umbrella, or the chapeau if you like, of proposed section 9.1, have the ability to make requirements related to CRTC proceedings, such as advertisements of various CRTC proceedings, if it chose to.
That, of course, also depends on what this committee and this Parliament ultimately decide to do on whether conditions of service will have a seven-year maximum duration or whether those will be subject to different periods of review.
Bill C-10 does give the CRTC the power to require, at any time that significant conditions of service are being looked at by the commission, that messages be broadcast by licencees to that effect.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Mr. Olsen, that is the concern I have with the seven-year service, as you know. Every conventional TV and radio station in this country starts advertising—
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I kind of let it go for a while because we were talking about legal opinions in the broader context, but now we're talking about conditions of licence. I believe that the amendment we're looking at is about independent legal opinions for basically all decisions from the CRTC. I'm paraphrasing it, but there you go.
If the questions and the conversation can focus on that amendment, that would be good.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Mr. Waugh, I'm assuming that your arch, as wide-swinging as it can be, at some point will come back to the centre. You still have the floor, sir.
Go ahead.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Thank you, Mr. Simms.
Thank you to MP Dabrusin for the reminder. I appreciate that very much.
Thank you, Mr. Olsen. You've put more questions in my mind now than ever with your comments, but I will just leave it at that. I just hope that people in this country go to the Canada Gazette because I never did in 45 years of broadcasting. I hope that everybody in this country realizes that the CRTC does exist and the Canada Gazette will be its mouthpiece. I just thought I would say that.
I really like this amendment by Mr. Rayes, as you know. I think we have to.... All parliamentarians agree that the independent legal opinions are very important in this. That's all I'll say.
Thank you very much, Mr. Olsen and Mr. Ripley, for your time here this morning.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I actually want to discuss the broadcasting participation fund again with Mr. Ripley. It does relate, Ms. Dabrusin, to this concept. I hate to think that maybe I'm offending some sensibilities about keeping to point.
I don't suggest for one second that you have such things memorized or have access to them right now, but I'm wondering if we, as parliamentarians, have access to a breakdown of what the budget is, for example, of that broadcasting participation fund.
12:55 p.m.
Director General, Broadcasting, Copyright and Creative Marketplace Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Aitchison, you are right that I don't have that figure at the tips of my fingers.
What I can say is the fund has had a multi-million dollar budget over the course of its time, in the course of its existence. To date, it has been funded sporadically by what are called “tangible benefit decisions”. When the CRTC approves certain transactions, one company buying another, they divert or require some of the proceeds from that transaction to go towards supporting public interest objectives. That is how the broadcasting participation fund has been funded to date.
The challenge is that there's really no sustainable funding source in place. Actually, its coffers are getting low. Again, one of the reasons the government included this power in proposed section 11.1 was to ensure the CRTC has a lever it can use, other than tangible benefits from transactions to support things like the broadcasting participation fund.
They have supported a number of different intervenors in broadcast proceedings over the years. They do publish an annual report that I think is available on their website. We can certainly get you the link to that if it's of interest.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Thank you.
It really would be. I'm actually very interested. I suspect it's going to grow deeper based on what we're doing—big government, bigger programs to help people fight big government. Anyhow, if you could send a link to that information that would be really helpful.
I'm glad I entertained Ms. Dabrusin there with my final comments.
That's good for me. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing that comment and questioning.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Mr. Chair, I have a point of clarification for those on the committee and those listening.
You're referring to a clock and you're referring to timing. Could you clarify what would occur when that clock runs to zero?
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
When it runs to zero, we proceed directly to clause-by-clause consideration, and there will be instructions with it as we go along, as you know. Based on what we received from the House, which the majority of the members voted on, we have our instructions.
We'll have five hours of debate, and then we go straight into clause by clause.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the time.
As far as CPC-9.5 is concerned, I think we've discussed it at length. I'll still maybe have another question at the end of my comments, but I believe that would just really slow down the process.
From the beginning, we've heard from stakeholders and we've heard from experts that in updating Canada's Broadcasting Act it's necessary to include digital platforms. We can't spend more time doing this. These digital platforms that act as broadcasters have to be subject to the same legislative and regulatory conditions that apply to traditional Canadian broadcasters.
Every day things get slowed down, our artists are losing income by not having a level playing field. I know this from personal experience. I've sat here and I've listened and I've heard members from the other side now start to attack some of the organizations for the lobbying, ACTRA or SOCAN or others. These are the same organizations that many of us belong to or have belonged to, and so do I. They make up the arts industry and the cultural industry in our country, and we have an obligation to support them. Making art takes years of dedication, and that requires support.
We get more of what we support and we get less of what we don't. We need to move forward in a quick way, and most of us on this committee have done that. My concerns are that some members are taking the side of these big tech companies opposed to our arts community, especially during a pandemic when they're struggling, every stage in the world is dark and people couldn't perform, and they're relying on that passive income for the writing they're doing, for the performances, the things they're putting on Spotify and YouTube, and all they're asking for is a level playing field.
When one of the members in an article in the Lethbridge Herald, I believe, referred to these artists who rely “on government grants in order to continue to exist” and who “are producing material that Canadians just don't want”, those are our neighbours. Those are our Canadian artists. We deserve to move as quickly as possible to level this playing field and give them a chance to make a living.
1 p.m.
Conservative
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
One moment, please. I have two points of order. I have Mr. Waugh first and then Mr. Rayes
Go ahead, Mr. Waugh.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Nowhere is he talking about the amendment that we're bringing forward. I got called on it about five minutes ago. I can see that the member is not talking about what we have in front of us.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I'm generous to an exponential degree; however, Mr. Louis, with the wide arc you're swinging, I'm assuming that you're coming back to the point of the amendment. You first started out by talking about CPC-9.5.
In the meantime, I also have Mr. Rayes with a point of order.
Is it on the same topic, Mr. Rayes?
