Evidence of meeting #36 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 shall.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
In fact, what I wanted to say is that, if we adopt NDP-8, we will not be able to vote on BQ-11, if I am not mistaken.
Legislative Clerk
The lines of the bill are not in conflict, but you have to make a choice as to the wording that would follow.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I would like to ask for some clarification from staff as to whether this amendment would have unintended consequences.
As a former community broadcaster, I'm concerned that this is putting a lot of constraints and rules on community broadcasters. We want to support them and we want to make sure that they're doing their job effectively.
Are there any unintended consequences that we should be aware of and concerned about before we look at this amendment?
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you, Chair.
As I understand the objective of the amendment, it is to provide some texture, essentially, to the programming of community media. There are a number of places where the committee has amended the act to make reference to community media and the unique role they play in the system, so this further elaborates on the kind of programming that they would be expected to deliver.
I would note that, indeed, the list as drafted appears to be drafted in a prescriptive way, in the sense that this is saying that these are the kinds of things that community programming should be; therefore, one could expect, as the CRTC moves through its decisions with respect to community media, that it will look at this list, and you could expect it to impose these kinds of obligations on community media, or there would be an expectation that they distribute this kind of programming.
As drafted, this is prescriptive in the sense that it seems to be a fairly exhaustive, prescriptive list. I note that Mr. Julian spoke about this being a request from the community media sector, but it will play out through those decisions of the CRTC.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Are there any further questions? No.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Because PV-3 is identical, we will move to BQ-11.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Madam Chair, I think the amendment I wanted to propose is along exactly the same lines as the one Mr. Julian has just tabled. The two amendments are very similar, apart from a few turns of phrase. So I will not table this amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
You're withdrawing this amendment. Thank you, Martin.
Now we go to PV-4.
Ms. May, you have the floor.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is pretty self-explanatory. It's to add a new subsection to ensure that resources that would be required under subsection 3 are made available to people who require them. That would certainly be consistent with the intent of the act, but the amendment asks the CRTC to ensure fairness and equity in the system and to ensure, particularly for people with disabilities or indigenous people, that there are resources to be able to live up to the opportunities that are going to be created under this act.
Thank you.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
While there's noble intention here, the amendment could effectively require an undefined amount of public funding, an expenditure of public funding. With respect, it's an insufficient proposal that would not further the goals it seeks to achieve, so, unfortunately, we have to oppose.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I would like to respond briefly to Mr. Bittle.
The CRTC itself, which has created these conditions, has in the past used cable service user fees or licensing requirements in order to fund contributions to community channels. That's what we were hoping for, and that's why we have community television and programming as much as we do. The CRTC has this capacity; it has these powers, and we're asking the CRTC to make sure that, where there are opportunities.... It's a trite statement from old common law, but an opportunity that cannot be used is not an opportunity.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Ms. May.
If there's no further discussion.... I don't see anyone with their hand up.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This amendment proposes to follow through on what we've heard from many parliamentarians, including the minister and many content creators, which is that platforms are in and users are out. This would seek to remove exemptions from proposed section 4.1 and 4.2 to ensure that this act does not apply with respect to users.
While I have the floor, in the event that I don't get a chance to share, should this not have the support of the committee, a later amendment—I believe it's PV-4.2—seeks to say, “Okay, maybe just those that are indirectly generating revenue...at least those users would not be covered by the act”. I believe that is identical to, perhaps, CPC-9.
I won't get a chance to speak to it, but that's another offering, in the event that this initial proposal doesn't have the support. The interest here is that platforms are in and users are out.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you.
It's been rather interesting, because around this table, we have some members who would say that user-generated content is not captured by this bill and there's no chance of that ever being the case.
We have the minister touting that same line, but then we have Mr. Ian Scott, the chair of the CRTC, which is responsible for enacting this piece of legislation. He has said that, indeed, user-generated content actually can be captured by this bill, should the CRTC wish to do so.
It leaves a lot of discretion with the CRTC, so I can appreciate my colleague Mr. Morrice's desire to clarify that and to ensure that user-generated content is excluded from this bill. This is something we heard from witnesses over and over again during our time here.
I will take this opportunity to remind the committee of an exchange I had with Mr. Ian Scott. I asked him about the regulation of user content and whether or not it was captured in the bill. I'll quote myself. I said:
Bill C-11 does, in fact, leave user-generated content open to being regulated by the CRTC. I recognize that there have been arguments against this. However, Dr. Michael Geist has said, “The indisputable reality is that the net result of those provisions—
This is mainly the clause that we are discussing now. It's clause 4.
—is that user generated content is covered by the bill.”
Jeanette Patell from YouTube Canada has said...“the draft law's wording gives the broadcast regulator”—in other words, you—“scope to oversee everyday videos posted for other users to watch.”
Scott Benzie from Digital First Canada has said...“while the government says the legislation will not cover digital first creators, ‘the bill clearly captures them.’”
That was my exchange. I went on to say:
All these individuals are individual users generating content. It would appear that the bill does or could, in fact, capture them. Is that correct?
That was my question to Mr. Ian Scott, the CRTC chair. His response was:
As constructed, there is a provision that would allow us to do it as required....
Let me read that into the record again. Mr. Ian Scott, to my question as to whether or not user-generated content is captured, said, “As constructed, there is a provision that would allow us to do it as required”. In other words, he will make the decision whether or not he wishes to capture user-generated content and to what extent.
The looks of obstinance.
It is incumbent upon us, then, if the minister truly does not wish to capture any user-generated content within this legislation and if he truly wishes only to go after large streaming platforms or companies, to make sure that is cleaned up. Let's make sure that this bill, in fact, excludes all possible user-generated content. Let's make sure that Ian Scott is mistaken.
However, as of right now, as the chair of the CRTC, I take him at his word. He is, after all, the individual who is responsible for making sure this legislation comes into force, that it is applied across the board and that there are repercussions for not following this piece of legislation. If he is saying that user-generated content is in, that is cause for concern for all of us.
Further to that, I could draw your attention to Spotify. I could draw your attention to YouTube. I could draw your attention to Scott Benzie. I could draw your attention to Mr. Peter Menzies, who is a former CRTC commissioner. I could draw your attention to TikTok Canada. I could draw your attention to Matthew Hatfield from Open Media and Morghan Fortier from Skyship Entertainment. I could draw your attention to J.J. McCullough and Dr. Michael Geist, who has been mentioned. I could draw your attention to Ms. Roy, who is Aunty Skates. The list goes on and on.
All of these individuals or organizations have made comments at this committee with regard to user-generated content, and they have confirmed that it is, in fact, captured by this bill.
The Internet Society, interestingly enough, is composed of a group of four main individuals, two of whom are former CRTC commissioners. I would say they have a fairly authoritative voice on the topic.
I know that the Liberal members across from me think they're the authority, but personally, I and, I believe, many other Canadians would rather give that authority to individuals who have actually sat in a position where they've had to implement legislation through the CRTC because of their positions.
Those individuals said that under this bill, “Parliament could declare email to be broadcasting” and subject to regulation. They wrote, “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”
In the brief they sent to the committee, they went on to say the following:
C-11 is based on the tragic illusion that all [radio] and audio-visual content on the Internet is a program, and that any person who transmits a program on the Internet is a broadcaster rather than a communicator.
They go on in their brief to say that it “fails to differentiate between a podcast produced in a residential basement and a major release motion picture...on Netflix”. They then go on in their brief to say that “it is neither possible nor beneficial” to use the Broadcasting Act to regulate the Internet: “Internet streaming services are simply not broadcasting.”
As mentioned, two of the four board members on the Internet Society are former CRTC commissioners. They go on to say that, “The tiny Canadian broadcasting system—tiny [i]n the scheme of things— [takes] on the world of the Internet by the mere trick of redefining 'broadcasting'”.
In other words, what they are saying is that under this piece of legislation, an antiquated piece, an antiquated document, the Broadcasting Act, is being used to regulate something new, and within that parameter....
I'm sorry, Chair. The members across the way are having a conversation. It's rather loud and rather distracting. Could you just bring that under control?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Yes. Could I ask those persons who are disturbing Ms. Thomas in her thinking and speaking to please lower their voices?
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
On a point of order, Madam Chair, it's getting a little tiring, the act that Ms. Thomas—