Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 6th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you. I'm good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We know that CBC is subject to the other aspects of the bill. The issue of whether or not we want to give the cabinet future control over CBC is a very valid one. As I mentioned before, that's why I will be voting against the passage of clause 28, though the next amendment coming up does help to address my concerns and the concerns felt by many people who saw, under 10 years of the Conservatives, how the CBC was gutted, absolutely gutted.

We've gone through and improved this bill substantially. We saw an NDP amendment that would give a two-person part-time operation the ability to access C-18—the little guys, as Conservatives like to champion. In fact, that's exactly what Alberta and Saskatchewan community newspapers asked for, and Conservatives voted against enlarging the mandate so that those little guys in communities right across Alberta and Saskatchewan could actually access funding from big tech.

I'm very confused by the Conservative strategy on this. They're attacking CBC, which is what they did when they were in government, so no surprise, but they have also been voting against amendments that broaden the criteria so that a two-person part-time operation, even if they were owner-proprietors, could actually access funding. Conservatives voted against.

It's incomprehensible to me how Conservatives are approaching this bill. They said they were opposed, and they essentially have been contradicting themselves all the way along. I fail to understand their intense refusal to really put in place the kind of funding that people want to see for CBC—that sound financial foundation. The reality is, in addition to the NDP amendments that have given access to the little guys, C-18 should not be excluded for a public broadcaster like CBC, which has also suffered from the lack of advertising that has been hoovered up by big tech.

To my mind, again, I will be voting against this amendment. I certainly will be supporting the following amendment, but if neither of those amendments pass, I'll be looking for deletion, and I hope we get a majority of the committee to delete clause 28.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Waugh.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll be quick because I was at Bell Media for 40 years. We cut more than CBC, Mr. Julian. When Harper was in government, they cut 10% of the budget from CBC. I can tell you right now, Bell Media cut a hell of a lot more than 10%. I was part of a newsroom that at one time probably had 500 people in Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw and Yorkton. We'd be lucky to have 100 now, so don't give me this about Harper cutting 10% out of a $1 billion budget that CBC had for 10 years, because I can tell you that Bell and Global cut a hell of a lot more in those 10 years from 2010 to 2020.

What I'm saying with this bill, and I'll wrap it up in a second, is that if this does go through and CBC gets the majority of the money from C-18, you will see more cuts out of Bell and you will see more cuts out of Global. You will see more cuts out of all media but CBC.

To say that Canadians want CBC is a misstatement. Their ratings television-wise are 1%. Ms. Hepfner worked at CHCH Hamilton. How many cuts did they have in the last 10 years? A lot. More than 10%, absolutely. An independent station like that probably lost 40% of their people in the last 10 years.

All I'm saying here is let's level the playing field. If this goes and CBC is allowed to get access.... We on this side also believe tech should pay, tech being Google and Facebook, but I'm really upset that CBC is going to get the lion's share because, if you want to see media go down the drain in this country, allow CBC to get the majority of the money that we're going to see from tech in C-18.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Waugh.

I shall then go to the vote on this, unless there's another hand up.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you. Now we go to amendment G-3.

Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I won't get into it too much. We had a lengthy debate on the last one.

I really just want to clarify. We didn't bring it up, but the Australian public broadcaster was included in the Australian model, and I think all of the parties here ran on the Australian model.

This amendment clarifies the eligibility of CBC and provincial public broadcasters. This is purely to clarify the eligibility and remove any further requirements the Governor in Council may have with respect to the eligibility of CBC, which addresses some of the concerns brought up by Mr. Julian in one of his previous interventions.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Is there any other discussion on this?

Mr. Waugh, go ahead.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To the officials, I guess TVO would be considered a provincial broadcaster?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

There would be Télé-Québec, TVO, Knowledge Network and TFO as well, so you have a handful across three provinces.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Why would the federal government want to protect provincial broadcasters?

I'll give you an example. In our province of Saskatchewan, we sold Saskatchewan television network. We ended up selling it to Rogers.

Is there any reason why we're protecting provincial broadcasters in a federal bill?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mr. Waugh, for the question.

The starting point for the government is that the public broadcasters should be included, as we just discussed in the previous debate, though we wanted to recognize that provincial broadcasters are a matter of provincial jurisdiction and that's why at clause 28 and further on in the bill a mechanism is provided whereby a provincial minister can actually write to the federal minister and request that there be certain conditions put on the provincial broadcasters if they want to.

That was simply to respect provincial jurisdiction and the fact that these are creatures of the provinces, so we wanted to make sure there was some mechanism whereby, at the end of the day, the provincial will could be respected in the framework.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

This is my last question: Could provinces—and we're seeing this in certain jurisdictions, namely Alberta and Saskatchewan—then buy a radio station or a TV station, turn it into a public broadcaster and be eligible for this?

I say that because for my province—and we have The Saskatchewan First Act—and also for Alberta, with what's going on there, this would be a loophole, I would say, whereby they could now simply buy some TV stations or buy media outlets and have their own conglomerate.

Could that happen under Bill C-18?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, MP Waugh.

The concept of a public broadcaster recognizes that in Canada, both at the federal level and in some provinces, there have been intentional policy decisions to create broadcasters with a public media mandate, a public interest mandate.

The position of the government is that they should be included to the extent that they are distributing news content. Certainly we've had the opportunity to speak to the provinces implicated. In some instances, those public broadcasters that I mentioned aren't really in the business of news, but to the extent that they are in the business of news, to the extent that they meet the eligibility criteria of clause 27—because you still have to meet the eligibility criteria of clause 27—they could be eligible.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

They are already broadcasting legislative business on channels throughout the country. Are they eligible?

For instance, Saskatchewan legislature has a channel through Shaw. I think it's channel 118 in my city of Saskatoon. Are they all eligible then to get funding out of Bill C-18? They go all day when it sits. They televise everything from the legislature.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

The broadcast of legislative proceedings would not meet the definition of “news content”, because it has to be “reports on, investigates or explains current issues or events of public interest.” There has to be a degree of analysis or reporting on it, not simply the broadcast of live proceedings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Waugh.

Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

For further clarity, I have a quick question to the officials.

I'm curious as to the logic of subjecting only provincial public broadcasters to any additional requirements that would be set out for eligibility, but excluding the federal broadcaster, CBC, from the same requirement. In my mind, both are public broadcasters. It seems, then, that both should be subject to the same terms within this legislation.

I realize that you have commented on this to some extent, but for greater clarity, could you please make that distinction as to why only provincial broadcasters would be targeted and not federal broadcasters?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question.

I might redirect your question to the parliamentary secretary, should he wish to speak to some of the amendments further on. It's not really my place to speak to that.

With the exclusion of CBC/Radio-Canada here, I believe what's being put on the table is a more clear understanding of what condition they would be subject to if they were to participate in the regime. However, it's not really my place to speak to that amendment at this point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Ripley, I will allow Mr. Bittle to respond to that question.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I thought my point was clear: CBC offers an essential service, and the government is doing what it can to protect that and to ensure they are eligible under this legislation.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I have a question for the officials.

I support this amendment, “designation of a provincial public broadcaster”, that cabinet has some ability to parse through the provincial broadcasters.... That's particularly in light of what we've seen coming out of Alberta with the UCP government using taxpayers' funding to put out a pseudo perversion of journalism. They put things out to attack folks who have been raising environmental concerns about UCP policy. They have been doing all kinds of attack jobs using public funds.

This is the important thing, Madam Chair. These are public funds that the UCP is using against its own citizens. It's a public broadcaster, if you like. Again, we saw the Doug Ford government in Ontario using public funds to go after the citizens of Ontario.

My question to the officials quite simply is this: In a case where the UCP public broadcaster tries to come in—obviously if they are willing to use taxpayers' funds to fund this trash that they put out—

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I have certainly commented before on Peter Julian's continual hate on the Conservatives, but now he's starting to malign people. I think that's inappropriate at this committee.