Evidence of meeting #40 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 45th 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
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
This would go to the legislative clerk. It's that the short title of “Special Economic Measures Act” has been changed now to the “Global Sanctions and Special Economic Measures Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law No. 2)”.
You're saying that it's not the short title that has changed in any of the other pieces of legislation. That is why you're saying that clause 21 is now no longer relevant.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I have a question, because that's a legislative issue.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ahmed Hussen
We'll do a brief suspension to allow the legislative clerks to look into this. We have to vote anyway.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Our main concern, so you know, is that clause 11 has now been changed. What do we do with terminology then after?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ahmed Hussen
We are resuming the meeting.
I'm asking for agreement among members to set aside clause 21 and clause 22.
Is it agreed?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ahmed Hussen
(Clauses 21 and 22 allowed to stand)
We will consider clause 21 and clause 22 on Tuesday at 5:30. The clerk has agreed to ask for extra resources for that day.
(On clause 23)
We're on CPC-6.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON
Mr. Chair, I move CPC-6, and I'd like to speak to it briefly.
The first point to make is that airwaves are publicly owned. I believe that comes from a very old decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which ruled that—
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt Mr. Chong, but interpretation is currently not being provided in French. I can hear the member speaking in English, not in French.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ahmed Hussen
We are resuming the meeting.
We were discussing CPC-6.
Go ahead, Mr. Chong.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for emphasizing the importance of both official languages.
Mr. Chair, I want to speak to why I'm moving this amendment.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, back in the 1930s, very clearly ruled in their decision that the spectrum licensed in Canada is public property and is owned by the Government of Canada. It's considered a public property.
The reason I point this out is that, while we all support freedom of expression here, the government is under no obligation to provide public space to authoritarian state broadcasters. For example, the Government of Canada is under no obligation to provide facilities for rent by Russia Today to host events. The same thing goes for public property, like the spectrum that the CRTC licenses. This is why the Government of Canada issued a directive in March 2022, under section 15 of the Broadcasting Act, in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It directed the CRTC to study whether Russia Today should remain on the list of broadcasters of non-Canadian programming services and stations authorized for distribution.
The purpose of this amendment is to make the government's broadcast policy one that is of even more general application. This amendment doesn't single out any particular state-controlled broadcaster, such as Russia Today.
Rather, it adds, under section 7 of the Broadcasting Act:
The Governor in Council must, by order under subsection (1), issue to the Commission a direction that state-controlled broadcasters from foreign states that have committed grave breaches of international peace and security, transnational repression, gross and systemic human rights violations or acts of significant corruption, not be on the List of non-Canadian programming services and stations authorized for distribution.
It's consistent with the direction the government issued under section 15 four years ago. It would make that direction of even more general application and would likely capture authoritarian state-controlled broadcasters like CGTN.
The reason this is important is that, among many of our allies—the United Kingdom, for example—both Russia Today and CGTN have been pulled off the airwaves. That's not the case here. Russia Today is no longer broadcasting as a result of the section 15 direction from four years ago, but CGTN continues to broadcast. The challenge is that it has aired forced confessions on its broadcast. It is also editorially controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.
That is the purpose of this amendment. I hope members of the committee will support it. It also fixes the existing drafting problem.
Liberal
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
We have a few concerns about this.
I would say that my first concern is that it is somewhat outside my expertise, as a member of the committee, to be dealing with this because it's not been our [Inaudible—Editor]. However, it also seems to push the scope of the bill and the intent of the author. We think it could be ruled out of order because it would open an unrelated provision of the Broadcasting Act, which deals with the power of the Governor in Council to issue directions under general application on broad policy matters, and this is not within the original scope of the bill.
We have some other problems with clause 23 even as it's written, in that it requires the CRTC to do a number of things that are outside its expertise and its mandate, including an evaluation process with respect to the integrity of someone on the list. We don't issue licences to broadcasters that are foreign; we put them on the list of broadcasters that can be added to a licensed broadcaster. We think that this is not the best place to do it. It's becoming an omnibus bill. We think that the amendment itself is not within the scope of the bill as it's been presented. Even if it were, we would be concerned about it giving authorities that it may not be within the power of the CRTC to do.
Given that, I would like to turn to officials from Canadian Heritage to make sure I'm not wrong.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
Could we get the legislative clerk to tell us whether the amendment I moved is in order?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ahmed Hussen
Upon the advice of the legislative clerk, I'm told that the amendment is in order.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ahmed Hussen
I'll turn back to Mr. Oliphant's request for the officials to comment.
Charlene Budnisky Senior Director, Communication Legislative and Regulatory Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage
Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on this amendment that would be proposed to the Broadcasting Act.
You're absolutely right. Section 7 of the Broadcasting Act does, in fact, allow the Governor in Council to issue binding policy directions to the CRTC “of general application on broad policy matters” related to “broadcasting policy” or “regulatory policy” objectives. Accepting this amendment would place the CRTC in a position of assessing complex matters such as war crimes, human rights abuses and corruption, which fall outside the expertise of a broadcasting regulator.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I accept the chair's ruling that it's in order, but I would say that it is outside the expertise of the CRTC—and its mandate—to do that. It would put the CRTC, as an independent agency, in a position of doing something it cannot do. I also worry that it gives cabinet—even though I know people there—a power of censorship that I think is not something we would be moving toward in this country. We want to find ways to ensure that the CRTC acts when there is any odious activity, or to be supportive of that, but I would still be very careful on a censorship issue.