Foreign Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2026

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

We specifically left that out.

To go back to issues around privacy concerns, this week is Iran Accountability Week, and we are shining the spotlight on a number of prisoners of conscience and human rights defenders—we're going to do both—in Iran. Some of them have connections to Canada, and some do not.

As we go down this path, we are fighting for people who are recognized as standing up for the “Woman Life Freedom” movement and who are standing up against the regime and being arrested. Before the war broke out, 50,000 were arrested on the streets of Tehran.

Where there are Canadian connections—maybe they have dual citizenship or they are permanent residents—how does that impact our making sure there is transparency? Families want to let the sunlight in, but how do we make sure that's happening without bringing up the concerns of privacy?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

I'll ask for a very brief response.

[Angelica Liao-Moroz]

Thank you.

Perhaps I can start and then turn to my colleague regarding consular—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

No, we won't be able to do that. You'll have to finish, please.

[Angelica Liao-Moroz]

My colleague has already spoken to the consular considerations for Canadians, so maybe I'll focus on the other aspects.

We talked about unintended consequences. Let's say we have the consent of an individual or their family, and they want us to go public or raise it with the host government. That is definitely one consideration. It's one of three top considerations when we think about how to go about securing their release and defending them.

The second consideration is that human rights are universal, so they apply to all. I think that's a concept understood by all.

The last principle is that we do not endanger them further. It comes down to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

I'm sorry, but we'll have to stop there.

Next is Mr. Guilbeault.

You have five minutes.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses.

I would like to return to the issue of the Broadcasting Act, and focus on two elements in particular.

Ms. Budnisky, you began to explain this to us earlier, and I would like you to expand on that. You are welcome to do so in English.

Obviously, the CRTC has power over conventional broadcasters, but not over online media. I would like to hear your thoughts on this, since much of the propaganda—which we could seek to stop through the kind of provisions contained in this bill—is increasingly taking place in online media and on social media. The CRTC’s powers would therefore be exceedingly narrow if we were trying to curb that, assuming that is the intended goal.

[Charlene Budnisky]

Yes, absolutely. You explained it well. The CRTC’s powers are limited in that they only apply to conventional broadcasters, as you said.

Yes, that's absolutely correct. It applies only to traditional broadcasters. These are Canadian-owned and controlled broadcasters.

As I said before, they are not online broadcasters. They are not non-Canadian programming services that the CRTC controls or licenses. Only through the authorized list of non-Canadian services for distribution would those sorts of programming decisions be made, and then the programming would be picked up by Canadian traditional broadcasters.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thus, if we wanted to set up a system to try to restrain or limit the ability of certain countries to spread such propaganda—as my colleague from the Conservative Party mentioned earlier—we would need a completely different system that specifically targets social media, online media and platforms.

[Charlene Budnisky]

Yes, that's right. We would indeed need to make several types of amendments to this bill, or perhaps have a completely different law, to encompass everything you've proposed.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chair, my throat is bothering me. I've asked the questions I wanted to ask. If any Liberals want to take my speaking time, I'll stop there.

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

That's fine. I'll take it, Mr. Guilbeault.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Go ahead.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I didn't know Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe had crossed the floor.

I offered it to my Liberal colleagues, Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Monsieur Oliphant will share your time.

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

Following up on the good parts of this bill, of which I think there are several, and the difficult parts of this bill, would it be easier for us to write a new bill? Otherwise, in your mind, is this bill fixable with the understanding that we have common goals to uphold human rights in the world, to show Canada's defence of human rights in the world and to be practical help to human rights defenders? This is what we want to do.

My concern is that there are parts of this bill that could hinder that work as opposed to helping it, and I'm wondering whether we can fix it, how we would fix it and whether there are things we're not thinking about and are not in the bill that you have had on your wish list for government to do.

This is your chance to tell parliamentarians if there is something you think we're missing that would aid in that work, whether it's on transnational repression, human rights defenders or prisoners of conscience, should we go that limited way, or how we navigate a difficult world with some despotic regimes that don't share our values on human rights.

Are there measures you would recommend that we consider?

[Robert Brookfield]

Perhaps I can start, and my colleagues can add if they have more.

As I tried to make clear in my opening statement, there are two key elements of this bill that we think are very valuable. As my colleagues have said, we think the idea of doing human rights reporting would be very useful under the constraints we've set forth. As I've mentioned, the elements of this bill that expand the trigger to include more transnational repression, which would allow our sanctions regime to be fit for purpose, would be very helpful.

There are other elements of it, as I elaborated in my opening comments, that are procedurally challenging and would impede our work. If those could be removed, that would be helpful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you. Unfortunately, we'll have to keep going.

Mr. Chong, you have five minutes.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to ask Ms. Budnisky about the Broadcasting Act changes in the bill.

I agree with you that this doesn't address the issue of RT and other authoritarian state-controlled broadcasters such as CGTN because they're not licensed; they are on the “list of non-Canadian programming services and stations authorized for distribution”.

That point is taken, but wouldn't you agree that one way to amend the act would be to use section 7 of the Broadcasting Act? It gives the minister the power to issue directives so that an amendment is introduced or something is done that effectively issues a new broadcast policy of general application in which authoritarian state-controlled broadcasters are not on the “list of non-Canadian programming services and stations authorized for distribution”.

Wouldn't you agree that this is the way to go about doing this?

[Charlene Budnisky]

Let me back up. I want to talk about RT TV and what happened in that case.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

I know what happened. They issued a directive under section 15. They basically nudged the CRTC, which held a hearing and concluded that RT should be pulled off the airwaves.

I think we need to be a bit more categorical about authoritarian state-controlled broadcasters, and not just RT. CGTN should have been pulled at the same time. That's why I'm suggesting section 7, or some derivative thereof, and proceeding in that fashion. The intent of the drafters of the bill was to get authoritarian state-controlled broadcasters off our airwaves.

I would disagree with you on one thing: It's not the same as the Internet, because long-standing Supreme Court rulings have said that the broadcast system, as regulated by the CRTC, is a public entity. It is owned by the Government of Canada, and we are under no obligation to allow authoritarian state-controlled broadcasters to use publicly owned airwaves, which is what they are.

That's very different and distinct from the Internet, the publication of books or newspapers, or the distribution of materials. These are public airwaves. They're owned by the public and they're owned by the Government of Canada. In my view, the Government of Canada is well within its rights to determine what goes on those airwaves and what doesn't. That's why we have a whole Canadian content policy that's been in place for decades. We don't do that to newspapers or other private forms of media. That's a distinction I would make.

[Charlene Budnisky]

With respect to section 7, we'd be issuing a policy direction, and that would continue ad infinitum until it was repealed or brought back in any way, shape or form.

Yes, I suppose there could be a section 7 order issued, but it's really a very direct and maybe even a heavy approach to dealing with removing a non-Canadian programming service from the airwaves.

Section 15 is not as permanent. It is less directive. It does have its value in the case of RT TV. You said yourself it was removed almost immediately once that was issued.

There are different ways to do things. The desired approach would be something a little less directive in this case.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

When the directive under section 15 was issued, I did not expect any results other than what transpired after the hearing. To be frank, when the minister for Canadian heritage issues a directive like that, it's pretty clear what the CRTC is expected to do. That's just my commentary on that.

There's a distinction there. Publicly owned airwaves are licensed, and we have long determined editorial or content direction, Canadian content rules being the most famous of those. Free speech and free expression rights are protected generally, but throughout the civil domain of our society, I think that's a separate and distinct issue.

We appreciate your feedback on it. You've pointed out an important change that needs to be made to the bill if we are to get authoritarian state-controlled broadcasters off our airwaves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.