Evidence of meeting #35 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
No, we're good, Madam Chair. We're good.
I don't think I need to explain this amendment beyond what's already been explained. It's identical to the previous amendment but puts the threshold at $50 million. I suspect that my friends across the way are just waiting for that right price point before they support it.
Conservative
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
This is the same amendment but with $50 million in terms of annual revenue.
I move amendment CPC-1.03. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
[Technical difficulty—Editor] just for the record, please.
This amendment does contain the word “annual” [Technical difficulty—Editor] or is it not? I know you—
The Clerk Ms. Tina Miller
It's the clerk speaking, Madam Chair. Mr. Housefather has his hand raised.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Very good. Thank you.
Clerk, if you don't mind, if you would push back your chair a little bit I could see you. I can't right now. I'm so sorry.
Thank you, Madam Clerk.
Go ahead, Anthony.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
I have a question for the officials. I remember that last year, when Facebook was here, I asked Facebook to disclose their Canadian revenues. Because it was bundled with North American revenues, they said they didn't know their Canadian revenues.
If indeed such an amendment were adopted, requiring us to go by the revenues of these companies, do we have a means of requiring foreign streamers to disclose to us what their Canadian revenues are if they choose to bundle them with foreign revenues?
Thomas Owen Ripley Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you for the question, Mr. Housefather. To some extent it's similar to what Mr. Julian had asked before the break.
The CRTC does have information-gathering powers for entities that are subject to the act. I think a potential conflict that could arise is a company arguing that it falls under this exemption that is being proposed, and thus is not subject to any information-gathering powers by the commission. Therefore, that could give rise to a dispute between the commission and a company from whom they were seeking to gather information.
For the benefit of the committee, I would remind the committee that the CRTC does have the power to exempt entities from regulatory obligations, in proposed subsection 9(4) of the bill, and subject those to certain conditions. Therefore, that mechanism achieves a similar purpose to this. There is no financial threshold in that provision, I acknowledge, but it is clear that the entity nonetheless remains subject to the jurisdiction of the CRTC and information-gathering powers, for example
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I'd like to come back to Mr. Ripley on this.
Just so we understand, when these loopholes develop, have there been circumstances where the CRTC has gone, for example, into states where there is not the same respect for the rule of law? If there is an online service provider, of course, that says it's exempt because it doesn't raise the revenues that are foreseen in this amendment, I am not sure what powers the CRTC would have to enforce this direction.
It seems to me that it is a massive loophole that, if you're not a particularly honest entrepreneur, you could exploit. It undermines the whole principle of the bill. What kinds of powers would the CRTC have in circumstances like that?
Liberal
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you for the question, Mr. Julian. In the instance you describe, the primary tool of the CRTC would likely be to go and have its order turned into a court order. It has that ability to go to court and have a decision it's made or a contravention basically become a court order. Then it becomes a case, depending on the jurisdiction in question, of extraterritorial issues around the application of Canadian law.
That is the primary mechanism it would have available to it in order to seek to enforce its decision on a company that's arguing that they are not subject to Canadian jurisdiction because they are based in another country, for example.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
It does.
Thank you very much, Mr. Ripley.
My comment is this: If you have a bad player, essentially what this loophole would do is give them an opportunity to exempt themselves from provisions of the act. Now at the same time, I think perhaps over years and with the expenditure of a lot of resources, there may be ways in certain cases to have them correspond to the letter of this loophole. It just seems to be better not to create the loophole in the first place and create that uneven playing field.
If we all support the principle that the web giants have to provide for that level playing field, I don't understand why we would create a loophole that actually does the opposite, so I'll be voting against this amendment.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
I understand somebody else's hand is up on the floor.
Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a question for officials as a follow-up to the line of questioning.
Does the CRTC not have the—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
If you question the officials, it's through the chair. Thank you.
Go ahead.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I thought I did say that at the beginning.
Madam Chair, thank you. Through you, does the CRTC not have the power to compel financial statements from any company that's operating this service in Canada?
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage
Indeed, one of the changes the bill proposes is making sure the CRTC does have information-gathering powers so that it could go to a service operating in whole or in part in Canada and ask for certain information from them, such as their Canadian revenues.
I had understood Mr. Julian's question to be what happens if that company basically refuses to play ball, so to speak, with the CRTC, claiming they weren't subject to its jurisdiction. That was how I understood Mr. Julian's question.
However, you are right. Yes, the CRTC does have those powers to ask for this kind of information.
