Foreign Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2026

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Those are strategic case-by-case decisions as opposed to a blanket or universal decision.

[Kati Csaba]

Absolutely.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

A blanket or universal requirement to do that could limit our ability to be strategic, country by country, or even to engage a third country if we felt that it had a better relationship with the host country. We may want to engage it, as opposed to doing it ourselves, to find a more successful route. Am I correct?

[Kati Csaba]

Yes, you are correct.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

We do that regularly.

With respect to transnational repression, I'm pleased that you are looking into this and perhaps expanding the scope. We may try to come up with an amendment. Why hasn't the government come up with legislation that might do that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

We need a brief response.

[Robert Brookfield]

As a humble functionary, I don't think it's my position to suggest what the government or Parliament should or should not have done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

We will go next to MP Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe.

You have two and a half minutes.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

I would have liked to put Mr. Oliphant's question to Mr. Oliphant. How wonderful. We live in a strange world, sometimes.

With regard to the part of the Broadcasting Act affected by Bill C‑219, the English version is identical to that of Bill C‑281, which was introduced during the last Parliament. However, the French version of the part of Bill C‑219 on the Broadcasting Act is slightly different.

Have you noticed that difference? Do you see any discrepancies that could potentially impact legal interpretation?

[Charlene Budnisky, Senior Director, Communication Legislative and Regulatory Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you for the question.

That's something we could look into. We always like to have a complete and accurate translation. Thank you for raising the point. It will allow us to discuss it.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

If necessary, you would recommend that we make adjustments to ensure it remains true to the spirit of what was drafted. Very well. We'll do that when we get to the clause-by-clause review. I think there will be consensus.

For your information, in Bills C‑219 and C‑281, the English version of the section on the Broadcasting Act is the same, but the French version is not. It's easy enough for you to check.

[Robert Brookfield]

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there are issues with the English version as well.

If we correct the French version, we should also do so for the English one. They should be consistent.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

That’s another excellent answer.

Let’s stay with the Broadcasting Act. After all, there are concerns about freedom of expression and Canada’s international obligations.

How do these measures fit within the existing legal framework, particularly with regard to freedom of expression and fundamental rights?

[Charlene Budnisky]

That's a very good question.

If you don't mind, I will explain in English.

Also, if possible, I'd like to back up a bit on that to give a little more context.

Freedom of expression is a very important point, and it links back to the whole discussion about the concept of vulnerability to significant influence, which is extremely ambiguous. It doesn't really give clear guidance to the commission. This could ultimately impact freedom of expression by having a chilling effect in which Canadian broadcasters avoid and limit certain non-Canadian programming or effectively do not enter into commercial relationships with broadcasters or other associated businesses, even if there is no idea of any sort of influence, to avoid a compliance risk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

We will go next to MP James Bezan.

You have five minutes.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you.

I'll continue on this path to get to more of those concerns.

I'm a freedom guy. That's why I brought forward this bill; we're standing up for freedom for everybody around the world. Of course, freedom of expression is something we were concerned about in discussions we had internally when we were bringing this forward.

I think we're being fairly specific: When the House or the Senate makes a recommendation around a certain country carrying out an atrocity or a genocide, we call it out as such. Look at how long it took us to get RT, Russia Today, off the air. These things should happen more quickly. If we decide to sanction a broadcasting entity because it is a propaganda machine for a corrupt regime that is committing gross human rights violations, should we not then automatically, through that process, have them taken off our airwaves?

Isn't that really what this says quite clearly, rather than muddying the waters around freedom of expression?

[Charlene Budnisky]

That's a really good question in the sense that we have to understand what the regulatory powers are of the CRTC, as well as the non-Canadian programming services that I think we're talking about when we're discussing the aim of the bill to prevent the proliferation of propaganda in the Canadian broadcasting system.

If you would allow me, I'll talk first about the regulatory aspects and then about what it looks like to identify non-Canadian programming services.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

It's a short period of time. Let's pretend it's question period.

[Charlene Budnisky]

Sure, I'll do it very quickly. That's fair enough.

The bill would directly impact only licensed broadcasters. These are Canadian-owned and controlled broadcasters. The bill does not impact the CRTC's authorization process for non-Canadian services or online broadcasters, as these are not licensed broadcasters.

The CRTC has the authority to add or remove non-Canadian services to or from an approved list called the “list of non-Canadian programming services and stations authorized for distribution”. These are not licences. This is just the authority to distribute in Canada.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Tell me how it works, then, with RT. It was broadcasting on the air using Canadian cable companies. Did it have to get a licence to do that?

[Charlene Budnisky]

No, it didn't have to get a licence to do that. It would be carried through the authorized distribution list.

Here is another—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

How, then, was the directive issued for cable and satellite companies to take it off the air?

[Charlene Budnisky]

The CRTC would have a hearing as part of its due process to decide whether a station or a channel like RT TV should be carried as part of the authorized distribution list. It can add or remove channels to or from that list.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

When we look at Communist China, we've already recognized what it has done to the Uyghurs as genocide.

Are you saying that to be carried on Canadian airwaves, CCTV, or China Central Television, doesn't need a licence, and it's the carriers that have made that decision?

[Charlene Budnisky]

The licensed Canadian broadcasters are the ones that can pick up programming services from the authorized distribution list for distribution in Canada.

There is one very important point to add as well, which is that even if they are excluded from the authorized distribution list—like CCTV or CGTN—the reality is that if the programming service is available online or through a website, Canadians could still access that content.